Gun control discussions in the wake of the Newtown, CT deaths

[Todash]

I will say one mildly political thing. A (very conservative) friend of mine posted a quote from a missionary friend of his that read, in part, "People do not want to solve the problem, they just want to use a specific problem for their own political agenda." He was implying that gun control advocates don't care about mass killings. And I have seen equally inflammatory, emotional comments from those who believe we need more control.

These types of statements just about break my heart. No one, with the exception of a statistically insignificant few who are truly evil, wants to see this kind of thing happen. NO ONE. It doesn't matter if you firmly believe all gun ownership is wrong, have a collection of 50 guns and go shooting every weekend, or are somewhere in between. Can we please, please start by understanding that most of us know this was a horrible, awful thing and are sickened by it?

[Moderator]

I've started a thread here for anyone who wishes to express their opinions about the pros and cons of what should be done to minimize the possibility of more incidents in the future such as the recent mass shootings in Colorado, Oregon and Connecticut.

[Moderator]

Sorry, Todash, I'd thought my starter post had come in before yours so that it wouldn't show you as the thread starter. I don't think there's a way to override it.

[Bev Vincent]

I think the first step is to ban assault rifles and other automatic / semi-automatic weapons.

[fljoe0]

I don't see any reason that regular citizens should have assault weapons and would be supportive of legislation banning them but I do understand why the NRA takes the stands it does (I don't agree with it though but I understand). It's because of what I call "chip away" legislation. The NRA is afraid of giving up any ground because as soon as they do, then calls for legislation for further restrictions start, and on and on. I think you can compare he abortion issue to this (I am very pro-choice by the way) where pro life groups oppose any legislation like parental notification etc that may sound reasonable. They know that if they give in on one issue they have lost some ground and the pro-life groups will start on the next issue with the ultimate goal of a total abortion ban.

But, it is time for an assault weapon ban. And probably more importantly, it is time to try to figure out a system to deal with the mentally disturbed. We have nothing except jail after a crime has been committed. This gets really tricky because you don't want people to just be able to commit people on a whim but we have to figure out a solution. Scott can probably back me up here - my friends that work in prisons say that a good chunk of the inmate population are totally nuts. Our jails have become our mental health facilities.

[Becks19]

I think the first step is to ban assault rifles and other automatic / semi-automatic weapons.

Bev, I absolutely agree!! Who would need a semi automatic weapon? It is definitely not your average homeowner. The only people who should have access to these types of weapons are swat and military.

[Moderator]

@fljoe And many of them end up in prisons because their support system has been lost due to budget cuts. When those people are cut from the system, they no longer have case workers to follow up with them and make sure they're taking their medications and to step in earlier when they do so that they don't run afoul of the law and/or hurt someone or themselves. This is one of my issues with the short-sightedness of where budget cuts are made because they only defer the consequences and put strains in different areas, e.g. the police, fire, and medical personnel who have to deal with the mentally ill when they decomp. It looks great for the politicians who can claim they are now saving the taxpayers money but do they ever make public how much it costs them on the other end?

[~Ally~]

And probably more importantly, it is time to try to figure out a system to deal with the mentally disturbed. We have nothing except jail after a crime has been committed. This gets really tricky because you don't want people to just be able to commit people on a whim but we have to figure out a solution. Scott can probably back me up here - my friends that work in prisons say that a good chunk of the inmate population are totally nuts. Our jails have become our mental health facilities.

Your sentiments made me think of this piece I read this morning.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fgawker.com%2F59688 18%2Fi-am-adam-lanzas-mother)

[fushingfeef]

It makes you wonder, they closed many of the old government-run sanitariums, but now we have mass shootings. Of course many of the old "looney bins" were true hells-on-earth for those people stuck in them with no hope of getting out (ever read "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?) But you are right, I think we just traded those for prisons now.

If you know you have an unstable member of the family, does anyone think it's a good idea to keep guns around? The family of the shooter is responsible to some degree in this case.

Let's compare gun ownership to the privelege of driving a car. We have all kinds of laws in place to make sure that people know what they are doing before they drive a car (driver's license testing, etc), and all kinds of traffic laws on top of that, speeding enforcement, car safety laws, etc. Does it stop all people from driving poorly? Of course not, but can you imagine how many fatalities there would be if we didn't have all those checks in place? That's where I think we at least need as a starting point--some sanity here. But the gun lobbyists act like we're trying to take their guns away from them as soon as anyone talks about any kinds of new gun laws. They need to re-think their positions and be realistic.

And yes, there's no need for anyone to own an assault rifle--we're not allowed to own bombs, after all. Why isn't an assault rifle termed a "weapon of mass destruction"? After all, that's what it is. And to those of you who say you need it to protect yourself from the government, the moment you talk about taking up arms against US soldiers, guess what? You are un-American traitors--you better leave the country while you can.

[cat in a bag]

I normally stay out of political discussions, so first I just want to say that it is difficult for me to put my thoughts down.

We are a gun owning household. My husband has several. Most of them are for hunting, I've talked about him being a hunter before. He has a couple that belonged to his grandfather, and they never get used. We have 2 handguns. I have recently learned how to handle one of them, because he is gone so much at night. He has always wanted me to learn, but I resisted. I could never imagine any situation where I might need to know how to use one. But my opinion on that has changed in recent months, my faith in the goodness of people has wavered. So I am now comfortable and knowledgeable enough to protect myself and my children if, heaven forbid, the need ever arose.

They are all legal, registered weapons. We take the precautions necessary to keep our children safe, and they have each seen, not only what a gun will do to a paper target, but also what a gun will do to a living creature. They have all been along on hunting trips and have seen what happens when you point and shoot at a living thing. They are locked in a gun cabinet in our bedroom and no one goes down there unsupervised. But, we have been rethinking even that...and as soon as we are financially able, we will be buying a gun safe. We do have a small one for the handguns, but the rifles are on clear view, the gun cabinet is glass fronted. So we will be taking one step further and making sure that they are even more secure than they are now.

I am torn between wanting to support what my husband believes in so very strongly, that it is his right to own them, and wanting to never, ever have to watch an event like Friday's unfold on the news again. Or like what happened in the mall earlier last week, or Aurora, or any of these terrible incidents. I know we are responsible owners, and would never do anything to hurt another human being with one of them, short of protecting ourselves and our children, but you don't know about the person next to you. How do you make sure the people who wish to do harm do not get their hands on a gun without also punishing the good, law abiding citizens? And here in Wyoming, the gun laws are pretty lenient. Anyone can carry without a concealed permit, although there are places, like schools where you cannot. Yes, there are background checks run when a purchase is made, but it takes 5 minutes, and you walk out with your gun.

3 weeks ago, there was an incident at a Casper, Wyoming college, which is about 100 miles from us. A young man, who was also diagnosed as being autistic, killed his father's girlfriend with a compound bow, and then went to the college, where his father was an instructor and walked into his classroom and shot him with the bow, then stabbed him and then killed himself. His motive? He blamed his father for having him and "making" him autistic. People who want to cause harm always find a way.

Whatever happens, whatever changes are made, I hope that good, law abiding citizens will not be punished for the actions of some who are not. But that is the problem...making that distinction. You just never know what the person next to you is thinking or will do.

I apologize for the long post. I feel like I rambled without really saying anything. (Told ya...I'm no good at this stuff) Somehow, things need to change...but I think the very first thing is to reinforce in all of our kids respect and compassion for their fellow man. Without that, nothing is ever going to get any better, with or without guns.

[Todash]

Thanks, Ms. Mod. I'll just christen this thread by saying that while I do understand why people want to own guns and would not support disarming the populace, one of the things that bothers me about people who do not want more gun control is that they don't seem to have any alternate suggestions. Do I think more gun control will fix everything? Nope. Not everything. But here are some interesting facts:


The US is THE most violent affluent nation in the world. There is no reason that we should have more killings per capita than Europe or the UK, but we do. By a fat margin. (We actually have twice the homicide rate of Iraq. Now ain't that something?)
The US also owns more guns per capita than any other nation, about nine guns for every 10 people. (Obviously not that many are armed; many gun owners have multiple weapons.)
In the US, the highest rates of gun ownership are to be found in the South, then the Midwest, then the West, then the Northeast. Specifically in the US, higher gun ownership correlates strongly with higher homicide rates, about a 3:1 ratio between high gun ownership and low gun ownership. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/table/t3/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.g ov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1447364%2Ftable%2Ft3%2F))
Though there are weapons of death in pretty much every US household (knives, pencils, pantyhose) and guns in far fewer, guns are by far the weapon of choice in in homicides. I don't know how many *attempted* murders there are, though, since guns are the most deadly weapons we have commonly available. But I'd rather be stabbed than shot anyway, based on the chance of survival. (Interesting comparison: on Friday, in China, a man performed a mass assault on a school and stabbed 22 people. The primary difference: none of them died.)

Now. All that being said, it's also fair to note the following:


Stricter gun laws, in and of themselves, do not necessarily guarantee a lower homicide rate. You have to take societal considerations into account. (Case in point: Washington, D.C.) It's ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL that any laws enacted be thoroughly thought through, researched, and implemented as part of an overall plan to reduce violence.
About two-thirds of the deaths by gun in the US are suicides; unfortunately I'm less convinced that those would significantly decline if our gun ownership laws were stricter as it's pretty easy to kill yourself if you're really determined. Still, while that's sad, one person dying is better than 28, and suicide-by-pills is less likely to be successful than suicide-by-gun.
Gun violence and gun ownership are actually declining in the US, though tragically, mass shootings are at historical highs.

So here's what I'm thinking needs to happen.


Stricter, federal-level controls on gun ownership. For some reason a lot of my gun-toting friends are posting about how awesome Israel's gun culture is (they have a fairly low homicide rate). I didn't know much about it, so I checked it out. Some gun advocates seem to think er'body in Israel be toting firearms, but the truth is: Gun ownership in Israel is fairly low--way low compared to the US. Minimum age to own a gun unless you've served in the military: 27. Stringent background checks. You must requalify every three years. You must have a reason for wanting it. There are limits on how many one person can have. AWESOME. Yes. Let's do that.
A REAL solution to treating the severely mentally ill. If you haven't read "I am Adam Lanza's Mother," (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost .com%2F2012%2F12%2F16%2Fi-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html) you need to. Go read it. And then ask yourself what the heck is a parent of a child like that supposed to do in our current system? This needs to be part of the overall conversation about health care in this country. Let's be real: "Christopher" (her son) is never going to be a non-dangerous member of society unless some sort of medical miracle happens. Someday he's going to hurt someone badly, maybe even kill someone, unless he is kept from doing so. And in our current culture, there's not a thing we can do about it.
A change in how the media handles these crimes. I think part of the reason these are escalating is that there is a measure of fame that goes along with committing a crime such as this. I'd like to see a few things.


- NO comparison to ANY OTHER mass shooting when reporting one. Just the facts. No "second deadliest after Virginia Tech."


- No mentioning of the shooter's name. Let people dig it up on Google or whatever, but just refer to him/her as "the perpetrator" in the major news outlets.


- Make the reporting as devoid of emotion as is possible. These guys already generally know they'll be hated (if they're that mentally aware). They either cherish that or don't know/care. Take away the glory.

[Todash]

Sorry, Todash, I'd thought my starter post had come in before yours so that it wouldn't show you as the thread starter. I don't think there's a way to override it.

LOL ... Like I wouldn't start this thread? You silly.

[PatInTheHat]

(Told ya...I'm no good at this stuff)
Terribly sorry then, your completely dead wrong:wink2:.

[Shasta]

If you know you have an unstable member of the family, does anyone think it's a good idea to keep guns around? The family of the shooter is responsible to some degree in this case.



I am all for gun control. There is zero reason for automatic weapons. I am also buying myself a handgun for Christmas.

But this question really makes me think. Should I not have a handgun because my sister-in-law is bipolar? I mean, she lives 3,000 miles away but she may come to visit.

Should I not have a handgun because my husband has suffered from depression that is not at all debilitating but has caused some issues.

If I have a child that has Asperger's, should I get rid of my handgun?

My dad is an alcoholic. Should I not buy a handgun because he comes to my house?

It's not that people who have metally unstable people in their lives should not have guns - they should just be smart about it.

My step-father has about 8,000 guns. Every single one is in a safe that only he and his safety deposit box have a code to. I couldn't get in there if I tried. He also doesn't announce to everyone that he has guns, like Nancy Lanza did.

And the kid in Portland who shot up the mall? He stole his gun. If that gun had been locked up or if he didn't know it existed, that wouldn't have happened.

I am all for gun control. I think in this day and age it it neccessary. But people also have GOT to be smarter.

Here is story after story about kids shooting themselves with their parent's guns:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57397169/boy-3-fatally-shoots-self-in-car-at-gas-station/

http://kfor.com/2012/12/16/toddler-shoots-self-inside-troopers-home/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/linkin-leatham-miracle-baby-dies-shooting-father-gun_n_1893741.html

These are all recently. COME ON!! There is no reason for things like this to happen. I understand accidents. I get it. But this happens time and time again.

I rant all of the time that Americans have an "It's not gonna happen to me attitude." It's annoying because things DO happen and they happen all of the time. You can pass a background check and still be a total idiot.

As a public we need to ban guns that make it so much easier to kill people but we ALSO need to stop demonizing guns and start a conversation about gun safety. People are afraid that if they admit they are okay with guns they will be demonized as well. Look at poor GNTLGNT!! If we stop demonizing all gun owners and start teaching people how to deal with guns safely, we can get the best of all worlds.

[Shasta]

3 weeks ago, there was an incident at a Casper, Wyoming college, which is about 100 miles from us. A young man, who was also diagnosed as being autistic, killed his father's girlfriend with a compound bow, and then went to the college, where his father was an instructor and walked into his classroom and shot him with the bow, then stabbed him and then killed himself. His motive? He blamed his father for having him and "making" him autistic. People who want to cause harm always find a way.



I agree wtih everything you say, but I only partially agree with this. It's a heck of a lot easier for a group of people in a setting like a mall or a school to take out someone with a bow (or a knife) than it is to take out someone with a gun.

(And it creeped me out how much this story reminded me of the book "We Need to Talk About Kevin.")

[~Ally~]

Terribly sorry then, your completely dead wrong:wink2:.

Agreed.

It was a good post Cat, I enjoyed reading it. You should never feel embarrassed about stating your beliefs. :smile2:

[Todash]

I normally stay out of political discussions, so first I just want to say that it is difficult for me to put my thoughts down.
I think you did a lovely job. It's a difficult issue; to pretend otherwise is to mark oneself as unreasonable.

[Moderator]

I questioned that gun ownership is on the decline in the US especially with all the news reports of increased sales following events such as this or any rumor that stricter legislation regarding gun controls would be enacted. According to a 2011 Gallup poll (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallup.com%2Fp oll%2F150353%2Fself-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx), self-reported gun ownership is the highest since 1993 and is up 41% from over a year ago. And as another article (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk %2Fcommentisfree%2F2012%2Fjul%2F25%2Fgun-ownership-us-data) pointed out, since there is no national database on who owns guns, polls and self-reporting (which may or may not be accurate) are the only way to even guess. What can be tracked is the number of background checks requested which has risen every year since 2005 and nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010.

[Todash]

I questioned that gun ownership is on the decline in the US especially with all the news reports of increased sales following events such as this or any rumor that stricter legislation regarding gun controls would be enacted. According to a 2011 Gallup poll (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gallup.com%2Fp oll%2F150353%2Fself-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx), self-reported gun ownership is the highest since 1993 and is up 41% from over a year ago. And as another article (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.guardian.co.uk %2Fcommentisfree%2F2012%2Fjul%2F25%2Fgun-ownership-us-data) pointed out, since there is no national database on who owns guns, polls and self-reporting (which may or may not be accurate) are the only way to even guess. What can be tracked is the number of background checks requested which has risen every year since 2005 and nearly doubled from 2000 to 2010.
Oh, hmm. We really need to track that better!

[atomicinchworm]

We need to talk about mental health. People don't do evil things because they are evil, typically; they do evil things because their brain chemistry is broken. The mental healthcare support in the US is a joke.

I do believe in gun control, but these weapons were nothing special (a couple of handguns and a rifle) and had been legally aquired by his mother. One wonders if he would have bothered getting them if they had not been so easy to get at home?

This is a terrible tragedy. I wonder though if people will just sit, talking, and kicking their heels in (like they do every time this happens) without actually changing a damned thing?

[Todash]

Good points, Shasta! I think maybe not so much the instability of any family member should be a deciding factor, but if you have an unstable person living in your house, it's probably a good idea to really think about whether you should keep guns at home. But yes, we should stop demonizing responsible gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners will never commit a crime.

Still, it's worth thinking about the fact that many people who become criminals never purchased their guns with such an outcome in mind. In the midst of a very heated argument, when no one is thinking clearly, that is a dangerous time to have a gun within easy reach. Or after a devastating job loss. Anything like that. I imagine most people who kill a spouse, family member, friend, or even acquaintance would take it back if they could.

[cat in a bag]

I agree wtih everything you say, but I only partially agree with this. It's a heck of a lot easier for a group of people in a setting like a mall or a school to take out someone with a bow (or a knife) than it is to take out someone with a gun.


Absolutely! I agree. The young man's father, even after being shot with the bow, had enough strength to struggle with his son and yell at his students to get out of the classroom. Otherwise, there might have been more people dead in that incident as well. It was during that struggle that the son stabbed him. But it gave the kids in that classroom time to get out and get the police called. I'm just saying, if someone wants to hurt someone else, they don't need to have a gun to do it.

Thanks, Pat and everyone for your kind words about my earlier post. I know it's a very touchy issue, and I appreciate that my view can be respected as well.

[Todash]

It makes you wonder, they closed many of the old government-run sanitariums, but now we have mass shootings. Of course many of the old "looney bins" were true hells-on-earth for those people stuck in them with no hope of getting out (ever read "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"?) But you are right, I think we just traded those for prisons now.

If you know you have an unstable member of the family, does anyone think it's a good idea to keep guns around? The family of the shooter is responsible to some degree in this case.I definitely agree if the person is a member of your household. I wasn't sure in this case, but then this morning I read a comment from a previous babysitter where the mother had told him "Don't turn your back on Adam even to go to the bathroom." And she thought it was a good idea to have a gun collection accessible to her known mentally unstable son? Seriously???


Let's compare gun ownership to the privilege of driving a car. We have all kinds of laws in place to make sure that people know what they are doing before they drive a car (driver's license testing, etc), and all kinds of traffic laws on top of that, speeding enforcement, car safety laws, etc. Does it stop all people from driving poorly? Of course not, but can you imagine how many fatalities there would be if we didn't have all those checks in place?

This is something a FB friend-of-a-friend posted this weekend. I thought it was worth quoting here.



I'm in favor of stricter gun control. It seems to me that with freedom comes responsibility. There are oodles of things in America that we are "free" to do--provided we meet certain criteria and show ourselves competent to do those things. I could open me a burger joint tomorrow--if i met health codes and safety regulations and OSHA--and God knows what else--because what I serve is going to affect the public's health. No one minds that much but if my neighbor gets fired and loses his house and he's suddenly buying Uzis and barrels of ammunition, I'm restricting his rights by saying no man, a gun's probably not good for you or the public just now???? That's a serious disconnect when I can be told how and when I can sell burgers and fries but going to the army surplus and ramboing out is just okey dokey!

[Todash]

Still, it's worth thinking about the fact that many people who become criminals never purchased their guns with such an outcome in mind. In the midst of a very heated argument, when no one is thinking clearly, that is a dangerous time to have a gun within easy reach. Or after a devastating job loss. Anything like that. I imagine most people who kill a spouse, family member, friend, or even acquaintance would take it back if they could.To be clear, I am not at all suggesting a police/nanny state in which people should be prevented from owning guns overall because of what might happen. I'm saying this is something each person should think about before purchasing a weapon. Female murder victims, for example, are killed by their boyfriends or husbands 33% of the time; I imagine the vast majority of those murders were committed in the heat of the moment and that the gun was not purchased for that reason.

[fushingfeef]

Personally, I would not keep a gun in a house if my spouse had a history of depression. Guns offer a permanent outcome to a temporary feeling. If I knew I had a relative visiting who was unstable, I would lock those up.

I should point out that this issue is very close to me, as my 13-year-old brother committed suicide with one of my father's pistols, and he had a history of hyperactivity and probably had other behavioral issues that were not commonly diagnosed back in 1988. I grew up owning guns and hunting with my father. But I see the enormous risks of guns as well.

[GNTLGNT]

...Bravo Tina!...you did well, and thank you for having the courage of your convictions...I will vehemently disagree with anyone who demands a wholesale ban on semi-automatic weapons...AND there is an awful lot of misunderstanding of what constitutes an "assault" weapon...plus, unless it's illegally modified-there ARE no "automatic" weapons outside the armed forces or law enforcement...as far as assault weapons, they make LOOK like a military grade firearm, but are not-do I personally want to own one?..no, but I think you should be allowed to have the opportunity IF there is a legitimate need/use...hell, there's a BB gun out there right NOW that looks just like an M-16...yeah, that's asking for trouble...but am I going to relinquish my Colt 1911 just because it's "semi-automatic"?...that's a big HELL NO!...as I've said elsewhere, more stringent background checks, education and yes, mental health screenings ARE needed...we simply DO NOT need to go into panic mode and try to infringe on those of us who ARE intelligent and responsible gun-owners...I find that offensive.....even as I continue to agonize over the deaths that have resulted from the incomprehensible evil unleashed by the twisted souls responsible for the death of innocence-no matter their ages...there is NO easy fix to this, but as a self-professed "gun nut"...I do pray for RATIONAL handling of the matter as we try to find our way forward as a nation....

[Shasta]

Still, it's worth thinking about the fact that many people who become criminals never purchased their guns with such an outcome in mind. In the midst of a very heated argument, when no one is thinking clearly, that is a dangerous time to have a gun within easy reach. Or after a devastating job loss. Anything like that. I imagine most people who kill a spouse, family member, friend, or even acquaintance would take it back if they could.

Oh I'm sure. Which is why I believe all guns should be kept in a safe, whether or not you are the only person there or not. I think having to take the time to open a safe can be enough to cool someone down.

And I know gun advocates who say that the time it takes to open a safe could be the difference between life and death. But I took a gun safety class and the instructor says people who are victim of violent crimes and do own guns aren't often able to get to their guns in time to do anything about it anyway.

A safe may not completely stop crime but it may help lower it.

[Shasta]

Personally, I would not keep a gun in a house if my spouse had a history of depression. Guns offer a permanent outcome to a temporary feeling. If I knew I had a relative visiting who was unstable, I would lock those up.

Well, that's up to you. If my husband wanted to kill me or himself he could have done it 800 times by now, and I'm sure will have 800 x 800 the opportunities in the future.


I should point out that this issue is very close to me, as my 13-year-old brother committed suicide with one of my father's pistols, and he had a history of hyperactivity and probably had other behavioral issues that were not commonly diagnosed back in 1988. I grew up owning guns and hunting with my father. But I see the enormous risks of guns as well.

I'm sorry about your brother. I am. But if your father had the gun in a safe that only he had access to that wouldn't have happened. But if your brother was determined he may have found another way.

Guns are risky. And if the general public treated them as such we'd probably be much better off. That's all I'm saying.

[~Ally~]

I should point out that this issue is very close to me, as my 13-year-old brother committed suicide with one of my father's pistols,

Sorry about your brother Bob, such a tragic waste of a young life.

[atomicinchworm]

My biggest issue with guns is while it is easy to deflect a knife strike mid-blow if you change your mind, you can't take back a bullet.

I won't ever have guns in the house. I have a lot of problems with depression and mood disturbances. Sometimes, though not as often as when I was a teenager, I think much bleaker thoughts. I know that they will change, but during a low it doesn't seem like anything will snap me out of it.

Guns are best kept out of homes when there are people who have mental illness within them. They just make it too easy.

[GNTLGNT]

Personally, I would not keep a gun in a house if my spouse had a history of depression. Guns offer a permanent outcome to a temporary feeling. If I knew I had a relative visiting who was unstable, I would lock those up.

I should point out that this issue is very close to me, as my 13-year-old brother committed suicide with one of my father's pistols, and he had a history of hyperactivity and probably had other behavioral issues that were not commonly diagnosed back in 1988. I grew up owning guns and hunting with my father. But I see the enormous risks of guns as well.

...my wife lost her sister in the same manner...she was bi-polar and was at a low point in the cycle-had stopped taking her meds, and took the permanent "solution"...I feel the pain even now, as I know you do...and yes, there's risk there-as in everything...

[Todash]

Well, that's up to you. If my husband wanted to kill me or himself he could have done it 800 times by now, and I'm sure will have 800 x 800 the opportunities in the future.I don't think (although I could be wrong) that anyone is suggesting that a family member's history of mental illness should prevent a person from owning a gun. Or even that all mentally ill people should be kept from owning a gun. After all, all mental illness is not equal. But it's just like you said, people never think it could happen to them.

I think education would be extremely helpful in this area. It worked for seat belts. It can work for this. People should be made aware of the risk of owning a gun if they have a mentally unstable person living in their homes. People should be made aware of how very dangerous an unattended gun is around children, even children who have never before shown any interest. You would think we would already be aware, but not enough, I don't think.

I'm sorry about your brother. I am. But if your father had the gun in a safe that only he had access to that wouldn't have happened. But if your brother was determined he may have found another way.

Guns are risky. And if the general public treated them as such we'd probably be much better off. That's all I'm saying.The interesting thing about suicide is that in general (there are always exceptions), it's a passing intent. People don't usually keep trying and trying and trying until they succeed. The urge often passes, sometimes never to return. Gun safes are great ideas, IMO.

I'll just say one more thing about mental illness. I have a schizophrenic niece (not the same as any of the other nieces I have mentioned here, but another one from my unending supply). I happened to witness her first break with reality, and it was one of the scariest things I'd ever seen. Her hallucinations were completely benevolent, but still, it was terrifying to realize that she was in a completely different room than the rest of us even though we were there together. To sorta-kinda know that someone can snap like that and to be thoroughly convinced of it are two very different things.

[Todash]

Personally, I would not keep a gun in a house if my spouse had a history of depression. Guns offer a permanent outcome to a temporary feeling. If I knew I had a relative visiting who was unstable, I would lock those up.

I should point out that this issue is very close to me, as my 13-year-old brother committed suicide with one of my father's pistols, and he had a history of hyperactivity and probably had other behavioral issues that were not commonly diagnosed back in 1988. I grew up owning guns and hunting with my father. But I see the enormous risks of guns as well.

I'm sorry, Bob, as I'm sure we all are. That's really awful and must have been one of the most painful experiences of your life.

[Shasta]

I'll just say one more thing about mental illness. I have a schizophrenic niece (not the same as any of the other nieces I have mentioned here, but another one from my unending supply). I happened to witness her first break with reality, and it was one of the scariest things I'd ever seen. Her hallucinations were completely benevolent, but still, it was terrifying to realize that she was in a completely different room than the rest of us even though we were there together. To sorta-kinda know that someone can snap like that and to be thoroughly convinced of it are two very different things.

I agree completely. I was the only in my family (well, my husband's family) who could take it when his sister had a break down and had to be involuntarily committed. I was the one who went to the hospital with her, had to visit every day, had to be there on her long road to recovery. I know how scary and awful it is. And it was out of nowhere. But the fact is, she wouldn't have my safe code. NO ONE would. And if we opened the dialogue about how to safely protect our guns we are going to do much better as a whole.

One of the big reasons I am an advocate for gun safes is my step-father. Like I said, unless he had one out for hunting I never even saw it. But my father kept a loaded gun under his mattress and not only did I play with it as a kid, someone stole it. We have no idea who to this day. We are incredibly lucky that something didn't happen. It could have very easily turned out differently. If my father had a safe and didn't show his gun to the world I think it would have been much better. All parents should have a very active education in what can happen with guns, gun owners or not.

And I point out again, the kid who shot two people in Portland. NO ONE - I repeat, no one - as of now had any idea that he was troubled. So you can't judge just on who's classified as metally ill or not. People can snap. But if your gun is locked up you are the only one who can get to it. Yes, maybe you will snap, but there's a much greater chance that you won't.

And as for suicides, a person can often hang themselves or jump off a building as quickly as they can shoot themselves. My cousin's father hung himself and no one told the world to ban rope. (Do not get me wrong. I am absolutely not making light of suicide. It's an awful, awful thing and I feel devastated for the families that it happens to, including my own.)

Anyway, I'm repeating myself now. So unless I have something new to add that's the last I'm going to say on this.

I really hope that people understand that people can be an advocate for gun control and still be okay with guns. I think if we can do that we will be able to move forward as a nation.

[Todash]

Okay okay. One more thing: this thread gives me hope that this discussion could potentially happen at a national level, remain reasonable, and have a good outcome. Okay that's it. That's all I got. I'm going to do the work that I have largely ignored for half the day. :blush:

[atomicinchworm]

I'll just say one more thing about mental illness. I have a schizophrenic niece (not the same as any of the other nieces I have mentioned here, but another one from my unending supply). I happened to witness her first break with reality, and it was one of the scariest things I'd ever seen. Her hallucinations were completely benevolent, but still, it was terrifying to realize that she was in a completely different room than the rest of us even though we were there together. To sorta-kinda know that someone can snap like that and to be thoroughly convinced of it are two very different things.

I remember this, I was pre-teen I think. It was so unreal. When she fell asleep, she was normal, if tired, and she woke up in an hallucination. Schizophrenia scares the bajeezus out of me.

Mental illness runs prettily heavily in our family, and is a lot of the reason why I will never have kids.

[guido tkp]

thought about this alot, even before all this, don't know the answer...but i have to agree with GNTLGNT: if there is an answer in looking at gun ownership, we need to take a deep breath and it needs to be well thought out...

we need to make sure it is crafted in such a manner that will it actually achieve a measurable goal/outcome, and whatever direction that may take...it really should not inflict an overly undue burden on otherwise law abiding citizens: the type of checks and balances gntlgnt mentions have always been on my list, if he, as an avid gun owner, can live with that, it sounds like a great place to start...

my brother-in-law drives a truck for a living, every two years he has to get certified for cdl/hazmat: it's a royal p-i-t-a...but, if we can make a citizen re-certify every two years just to make a living driving (or...flipping a hambrger !), why not make that so for people who wish to own high powered weapons: if you really want the big stuff...prove to all you are capable, mentally and physically, to maintain a proper aesthetic...everyone else, your average handgun owners, hunters using the normal range of stuff, collectors...for the most part, leave it alone or leave it to the states...

it doesn't matter to me if it was a gun, a knife...a bow and arrow or a tonka toy: we need to put aside our unreasoned fears: the overwhelming gun owning population will never use their weapons in any manner illegal...we need to make sure we are not blaming the responsible...if new laws/regulation are needed...create laws only that make people resposnsible...not ones that take away established freedoms

as for the nra...i'm not a fan: if they spent as much time defending all americans rights to individual freedom as they do that one single one...i'd be a happier camper: freedom is freedom after all...

but when you try and parse it out and act as if one bit of freedom is more important than any/all others...they come up way short on the defenders of freedom scale.

nonetheless, they are not incorrect, just as was pointed out by someone earlier: there always lurks 'THE SLIPPERY SLOPE"...whenever possible, it needs to be avoided...govt overregulation is not an answer to anything...too bad the nra has never seen fit to believe that for all americans all the time

it's real nice, cozy and safe to say let's ban assault weapons...but even a half-way trained person can massacre just as many, just as quickly with a handgun...unfortunately, given the situation that occured in conn., such a ban might not have changed a thing: he was already partially trained in gun usage...a lack of overwhelming firepower may not have made a bit of difference...

and the 'bad' guy ?? no matter what we do, even if at that moment it seems so rational...he will always continue to do what bad guys have done: no law will ever change that...

i think the big elephants in this room are not gun control but how we, as a society, treat the mentally unhealthy, how we apply laws once a legal item is used illegally an dour everpresent culture that glorifies, in too many ways and forms, violence...those, more than anything, if reacted to and treated properly, may have a far greater affect than banning anything

[JellybeanJay]

Your sentiments made me think of this piece I read this morning.

http://gawker.com/5968818/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother

I have to start off by saying, Ally, my response to this post is in no way, shape or form directed at you, my response is directed at this article only :smile2:

I have to say I really dislike this article. IMO and experience not all mentally ill people are evil and not all evil people are mentally ill. I really, honestly believe that the term mental illness is the new scape goat so that people don't have to be accountable for their actions. I have heard reports that this shooter (I won't say or type his name) had Asperger's/personality disorder/oppositional defiant disorder but that doesn't mean that he was prone to violence. This article is written to make us feel for the shooter and that he is a victim too. I, for one, cannot do that. What disgusts me the most about this article is that the writer mentions Newtown, Columbine and Virginia Tech but not once is one of the victims acknowledged.

[kingricefan]

My heart goes out to all of our members who's lives have been touch by some type of gun-related tradgedy. I feel for you all. That said, there is absolutely no reason for anyone to own a semi-automatic, uzi or rapid fire gun. What's the point? They're not for hunting. That's the only reason, to me, why anyone would need a gun, other than self-defense. I know I'll take some heat for this, that's fine. It's my belief, you can agree or disagree with it. You have your beliefs, I have mine. Guns terrify me. Don't care if there locked up, hidden, whatever, they terrify me. I've had too many encounters with them when I was a kid, I'll not get into that part of my past. Why did this killer's mother have to have this type of gun in her home? Why? Seriously? Why? I just don't get it. Plus, she knew that he was unstable, hence the warning to the babysitter and also telling other people that she was losing control of her son, so why would she have guns in the home? We now have 20 beautiful, innocent children and 6 wonderful adults dead. Gone. Think about that. Just gone. 20 children who will never see another sunset, never play with the toys their loved ones bought for them for Christmas, never grow up and have children of their own. Yes, I agree that if you want a gun for protection, you should have one, but not a 'machine gun' type. There's no point to them other than to cause as much destruction as possible. This killer has accomplished this, in such a horrible, horrible way. When is our country going to wake up? How many more have to die like this? Just in the last week we have a armed killer enter a mall in Portland and kill people, then while I'm watching my bluray of The Dark Night Rises and halfway thru I realized that people were killed at a premier of this movie in Denver, then a day or two later we have this tradgedy in Connecticut. I am so heart-sick right now. I feel like I did when 9/11 happened. I don't know what to do. I don't know how to deal with what I am feeling right now. Don't worry, I'm not going to do anything rash, I am just heartsick that as a society we have come to this point. This is the 37th time this type of thing has happened since 2007. How many people have to die? How many lives need to be torn apart by senseless violence? How many children need to perish. How many CHILDREN!!?? How have we become so numb to this thing? People at work are already complaining about the news coverage, that they're 'tired of hearing about it already'! It's already an inconvience to them because they can't watch their favorite tv show because the stations are doing a 'special report'. How can we be so uncaring? Innocent people have died! I just don't get it..............

[Tery]

As a gun-owner I believe that we can find a solution. But part of that solution is, IMO, banning assault weapons for anyone NOT military or law enforcement. Look, the only thing those are made to do is kill people. That's all. And, brother, if you need one to hunt you are a crap hunter and shouldn't own any gun - go work on your archery. Also ban high-capacity magazines - except for at shooting ranges where they must remain under strict supervision. If you need 30 bullets to get a deer, again, re-think your hunting capabilities.

Another thing we don't need is stupid bumper-sticker maxims like "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Really? Well a person pulls the trigger on a gun, Sparky. Any solution has to deal with the people. Close the gun show loophole: NO background checks, NO waiting period... NO way! We must register to drive, to vote, to get married.... but not to own a gun. Change that. Require registration and a license to own a gun. Require gun safety courses. No whining about how it makes it harder to get a gun if we do that - THAT is the POINT! How is it we can regulate freaking lawn darts but not guns?

And I don't want to hear from the damned NRA on this. They are nothing but a schill for the gun manufacturers. This paranoia they've been whipping up ever since Obama was elected has - coincidentally (hah!) - brought more money into the coffers of their sponsors. Imagine that! They don't represent their membership because the majority of them want more gun control laws (http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/12/16/nra-gun-owners-poll-most-favor-sensible-restrictions/). Nope, they are there for the gun and ammo makers, to increase their sales. So, enough of Mr. Wayne LaPierre.

Listen, sensible controls on guns and ammo does not equate to taking everybody's guns away. That's utter nonsense. But we need to have more control. EVERY country that has stricter gun control laws has less gun deaths. That is a fact. And many still allow gun ownership - Switzerland, for example. So can we stop with the hair-on-fire paranoia, please? STOP and think, everyone. Please.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/262695_521105004574485_2104486212_n.jpg

[Jojo87]

I am not a American native but hope it's OK to write here anyway because these school shooting and
other public shooting have became an a issue for Finland too. 5 years ago when Pekka Eric Auvinen walk into
the high school with a gun and killed 9 people including himself, was a shock for my country. Nobody could ever
image something like this would happen in a small country as Finland. It was a lot talk about how to keep
gun safe from wrong people and should we get stricter gun law. But I don't think much was done since years after
that Matti Saari walk into the university where he study and shot 11 people including himself to death. I still think
we haven't get any good gun law here and gun goes to wrong people. The last big shooting was 2009 when a
man killed several people in a Mall in Vantaa. The gun man killed himself too.

My dad have couple of guns and he keep them behind locked door. Nobody of us have any business to those
guns except my dad. He have a weapon permit and use to go to range with some of his friends every now and then.
I've never liked guns and hopefully someday this shooting calm down or we get better control over guns.

I am so sorry to hear about your older brother Fush. Yes unfortunately the guns mostly goes to people who
have a mental issues and that's very sad because then outsiders have to suffer too sometimes.
Sorry to hear about your wife's sister too Scott.

[Becks19]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/justice/connecticut-dicks-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

This is a step in the right direction. I pray it is a permanent move and not just a temporary appeasement.

[Becks19]

To all of you who have lost a loved one or friend to suicide; I can understand and empathize. A guy that I dated in high school hung himself. He had gotten a DUI and was so distraught over how upset his parents were, that this was the route he took. A very permanent solution to a temporary problem.

[Todash]

I have to start off by saying, Ally, my response to this post is in no way, shape or form directed at you, my response is directed at this article only :smile2:

I have to say I really dislike this article. IMO and experience not all mentally ill people are evil and not all evil people are mentally ill. I really, honestly believe that the term mental illness is the new scape goat so that people don't have to be accountable for their actions. I have heard reports that this shooter (I won't say or type his name) had Asperger's/personality disorder/oppositional defiant disorder but that doesn't mean that he was prone to violence. This article is written to make us feel for the shooter and that he is a victim too. I, for one, cannot do that. What disgusts me the most about this article is that the writer mentions Newtown, Columbine and Virginia Tech but not once is one of the victims acknowledged.I see what you are saying, but actually, legally, it's very difficult to prove "not guilty by reason of insanity." I believe (and I am SOOOO not a lawyer, so this could be off) that you have to prove that you were unaware/not in control of your actions or that you literally didn't believe they were in any way wrong at the time. Meaning, any concealment or planning or hiding the results after the fact (and these sprees are generally planned way in advance) goes a long way toward making it pretty much impossible for your lawyer to get that verdict for you--not that it matters much in these cases, since typically these guys take the chicken exit at the end of their sprees. (I actually saw a comment somewhere saying the death penalty would be effective in preventing these types of crimes. Sometimes I read things on the internet that are just so beyond stupid that I have to hope that the person who said it never passes on their genetic material.)

Being mentally ill is not an excuse, but think about it. Can you imagine someone with a fully functioning brain doing this type of mass killing? I can't. I can imagine someone sane (but evil) doing it for profit. Or to attain a specific goal related to gaining power. But ... this "go out in a blaze of glory" crap? That's a sick brain doing that. Does it excuse their actions? Heck no. Mental illness is not necessarily a get out of jail free card; as long as you are aware, you ARE legally responsible. But that's cold comfort to the dead and their families, and as I mentioned, it's typically a moot point as the shooter rarely survives the episode.

I think the cause is probably a perfect storm. Mental illness + difficult circumstances + access to weapons + the idea.

As to the mother who wrote that, it wasn't intended to be a full analysis of these situations. It was a view into the types of people who may do those things, and it offers a valuable perspective. She wasn't excusing. She was explaining--and pointing out the need for help. Understanding the actions does not excuse them, but we will never stop them until we understand them.

[clownshooter]

"As a gun-owner I believe that we can find a solution. But part of that solution is, IMO, banning assault weapons for anyone NOT military or law enforcement. Look, the only thing those are made to do is kill people. That's all. And, brother, if you need one to hunt you are a crap hunter and shouldn't own any gun - go work on your archery. Also ban high-capacity magazines - except for at shooting ranges where they must remain under strict supervision. If you need 30 bullets to get a deer, again, re-think your hunting capabilities."

I always can find something to agree with you Tery, and much of your post is good common sense. I also appreciate the fact that you stand behind your convictions. What I put above in quotes is not a direct debate with you Unfortunately the "made only for killing people" statement however has become an axiom for those who do not like weapons that look like military weapons. Some of this is regional because use of these rifles is commonplace in some parts of the country (like where I live) and in other parts of the country they are rarely used and therefore myths about them abound.
I'm not debating here, I'm simply going to dispel some common myths about these rifles.

First the last time I researched an "assault weapon" as such, according to the Department of Defense (DOD), an assault weapon must be select fire capable (to switch between fully automatic fire and semi-automatic fire). Civilian versions are semi-automatic only. The military doesn't use the designation "assault weapon". It has been used more lately but the term was coined by the press along with other terms such as "Saturday night special."

Second, the myth that the only purpose these rifles are used for is killing people is incorrect.
a. These rifles are widely used in "3 gun matches or competitions" whereby the participant utilizes 3 firearms, a rifle, a shotgun, and a pistol to engage paper targets while moving from shooting station to shooting station. The whole course of fire (referred to as a stage) is timed and misses are a time penalty. Reloading a firearm (which is usually required during each stage) requires time so less reloading equates to less of a total time. Therefore contestants use higher capacity magazines to minimize reloading times. One stage of shooting can easily be 50 - 60 shots. There are other competitions where these rifles are used.
b. These rifles are also used in the long range shooting matches at Camp Perry, (Ohio) and in the service rifle matches where BTW some of the Olympic shooting team members have been chosen.
c. These rifles are indeed used for hunting (and again that's regional) and a couple of manufacturers offer them in a hunting version with typical camoflauge patterns like thse found on hunting clothes. These rifles are offered in at least 10 calibers I can recall off the top of my head, many of which are designed specifically for hunting. There are also several magazine manufacturers who offer low capacity magazines (i.e. 5 shot) for hunting purposes and to satisfy the requirement in some states that limit the magazine to 5 rounds.

I have also seen it written that these rifles are inaccurate, this description is usually used in conjunction with the "made only for killing people statement" (not referencing Tery) that some politicians have used. I have found that these rifles are inherently accurate which makes them even more suitable for hunting. If they weren't accurate they would not be so popular for shooting competitions.
I have used mine for hunting and I use a reduced capacity magazine (5 rounds) because I consider myself an ethical hunter and generally speaking one is only going to get one or two shots anyway regardless of magazine capacity.

I'm glad you mentioned the NRA because I have a comment or two about that. I don't know what many people envision an NRA member to be like, but the membership is made up of many diverse people including liberals and conservatives, blue collar and white collar, and men and women who's commonality is they enjoy the shooting sports. Most members are normal everyday people like you or I. Not all the members necessarily agree with everything the leadership does and there is an electoral process to change the leadership. Unfortunately, the vision I get when people describe NRA members recently is that they are mostly white, right wing tea party members, made up of the wealthier 10% of the population. That is not to say that there aren't members who may fit that description but what's the difference between stereotyping all NRA members based on a few and stereotyping all blacks, or hispanics, or homosexuals based upon a few?

I wrote that because I read a post on another forum that included a link to a blog where the blog had compiled some statements posted in comments sections of various news agency websites. Now I understand people are raw and hurting over this tragedy, but some of the statements were pretty extreme. Some called for the murder of the president of the NRA. Another poster wrote that the poster would like to take an NRA member and shoot him in the nuts so he will know what it feels like to be shot. There were many others, but my point is think about it.
Innocent people were slain, and the answer is to go out and kill or maim more people?
I think compromise is possible, but compromise only works when both sides participate.
Sorry for the long post. I kind of threw this together off the cuff so to speak so if I am in error regarding my facts, it was due to my haste.

[JellybeanJay]

I see what you are saying, but actually, legally, it's very difficult to prove "not guilty by reason of insanity." I believe (and I am SOOOO not a lawyer, so this could be off) that you have to prove that you were unaware/not in control of your actions or that you literally didn't believe they were in any way wrong at the time. Meaning, any concealment or planning or hiding the results after the fact (and these sprees are generally planned way in advance) goes a long way toward making it pretty much impossible for your lawyer to get that verdict for you--not that it matters much in these cases, since typically these guys take the chicken exit at the end of their sprees. (I actually saw a comment somewhere saying the death penalty would be effective in preventing these types of crimes. Sometimes I read things on the internet that are just so beyond stupid that I have to hope that the person who said it never passes on their genetic material.)

Being mentally ill is not an excuse, but think about it. Can you imagine someone with a fully functioning brain doing this type of mass killing? I can't. I can imagine someone sane (but evil) doing it for profit. Or to attain a specific goal related to gaining power. But ... this "go out in a blaze of glory" crap? That's a sick brain doing that. Does it excuse their actions? Heck no. Mental illness is not necessarily a get out of jail free card; as long as you are aware, you ARE legally responsible. But that's cold comfort to the dead and their families, and as I mentioned, it's typically a moot point as the shooter rarely survives the episode.

I think the cause is probably a perfect storm. Mental illness + difficult circumstances + access to weapons + the idea.

As to the mother who wrote that, it wasn't intended to be a full analysis of these situations. It was a view into the types of people who may do those things, and it offers a valuable perspective. She wasn't excusing. She was explaining--and pointing out the need for help. Understanding the actions does not excuse them, but we will never stop them until we understand them.

I get it Todash, I really do. My heart is breaking for the victims and I really think that is where everyone's focus should be right now. We are hearing a lot of tirades about gun control, safety in the schools and assistance with mental illness, yes, these are all things that should be discussed in time, right now the focus should be on providing support and empathy to the families of the fallen.

Mental illness has affected my extended family in ways that I just can't explain, even with that said I can't let my sympathy for the struggles in the shooter's life overshadow my sorrow for the families affected. I am not in any way saying that any of you are so please don't think that.

I am having a really hard time explaining what I mean. Please don't take any of my comments the wrong way :down:

[PatInTheHat]

If my heavy Chevy, which hasn't moved a mile in I don't remember how long, has to be registered & insured for the tags that announce for all the world to know as being my financial responsibility (and moral if ya think about it, and for not too long neither), don't matter a whiff if it's me behind the wheel or not, not to mention taxed yearly just for owning it (your state may differ, mines mostly Republican, you know, the no tax *SN:laugh:RT* party...why yes, yes I do believe they often call them "fees", butt we're honest about here in The Mighty BlueGrass:rolleyes:), regardless of whether or not I ever drive it on the public streets, then.......:eyebrow:?

[Todash]

I'm glad you mentioned the NRA because I have a comment or two about that. I don't know what many people envision an NRA member to be like, but the membership is made up of many diverse people including liberals and conservatives, blue collar and white collar, and men and women who's commonality is they enjoy the shooting sports. Most members are normal everyday people like you or I. Not all the members necessarily agree with everything the leadership does and there is an electoral process to change the leadership. Unfortunately, the vision I get when people describe NRA members recently is that they are mostly white, right wing tea party members, made up of the wealthier 10% of the population. That is not to say that there aren't members who may fit that description but what's the difference between stereotyping all NRA members based on a few and stereotyping all blacks, or hispanics, or homosexuals based upon a few? I tend to think of NRA members as radical because of two things. One, their leadership, which you already mentioned. And two, the only members I know of personally are also radical. Like "OMG Obama/liberals are going to take all our guns" radical. They spread panic and ignorant misinformation and seem to resist every effort to reasonably control the regulation of guns. So ... what I'm saying is they are very, very visible. Maybe the reasonable NRA members just don't say much publicly? :dunno:


I wrote that because I read a post on another forum that included a link to a blog where the blog had compiled some statements posted in comments sections of various news agency websites. Now I understand people are raw and hurting over this tragedy, but some of the statements were pretty extreme. Some called for the murder of the president of the NRA. Another poster wrote that the poster would like to take an NRA member and shoot him in the nuts so he will know what it feels like to be shot. There were many others, but my point is think about it.
Innocent people were slain, and the answer is to go out and kill or maim more people? Well, that's pretty awful. There are plenty of idiots to spread over all belief systems, tragically. And it's just so danged easy to be stupid on the internet without repercussion.

[Todash]

I get it Todash, I really do. My heart is breaking for the victims and I really think that is where everyone's focus should be right now. We are hearing a lot of tirades about gun control, safety in the schools and assistance with mental illness, yes, these are all things that should be discussed in time, right now the focus should be on providing support and empathy to the families of the fallen.

Mental illness has affected my extended family in ways that I just can't explain, even with that said I can't let my sympathy for the struggles in the shooter's life overshadow my sorrow for the families affected. I am not in any way saying that any of you are so please don't think that.

I am having a really hard time explaining what I mean. Please don't take any of my comments the wrong way :down:
Aw ... I don't think badly of you at all. I just worry that if we wait too long, this will just slip into the background until it happens again. Hopefully the actual families involved are not engaged in this discussion AT ALL, because they definitely do not need that right now. They should be shielded. I just think it's a good time for everyone else not directly affected to recognize and begin to truly address the problem. I surely do understand those who want respect for the victims; it's just that I think the greatest respect we can pay them is to do our best to make sure we don't have to nationally grieve this way again.

Similar motivations, just a slight differing of opinions in how to best approach it. It's okay. We good. :smile2:

[Becks19]

I surely do understand those who want respect for the victims; it's just that I think the greatest respect we can pay them is to do our best to make sure we don't have to nationally grieve this way again.


Todash, It speaks volumes that the families took time from their grieving to do this. May their voices be heard.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-school-shooting-group/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

[Mojo*mofo]

I'm not a gun person. They scare me. They are a tool designed to do one thing- kill. I've fired them, but I don't like them.

That said, I understand the reasoning behind owning a gun. It is one's right to protect their family. Fine. But does one need an assault rifle to do that? No. That seems extreme to me.

Another thing that disturbs me are Open Carry laws. I sincerely don't understand why anyone feels the need to run to the grocery store with a pistol in their pants. It happens on a weekly basis here that someone comes into the store, and we get customers running up saying so and so has a gun. It freaks people out, me included. I don't feel safer knowing that some random guy is walking around with a weapon that can kill me, and I have no way of stopping that from happening.

What I would like to see are strict renewal processes for gun owners. I say this because the people that go on killing sprees are people that are frequently using legally obtained weapons. Seniors have to retake their driving tests here every four years (I think)- so why can't gun owners be required to take mental health tests every four years for relicensing? Fail the test, and you have a year to get your stuff together, or face losing the privilege of owning a firearm for good.

In the case of the CT shootings, the weapons were his mothers'. My understanding is that she worked very hard to raise her sons, and to provide Adam with the care he needed. Of course she had no way of knowing that he would kill her and then kill 26 other people. But she did know that he suffered from a form of autism that frequently includes a lack of empathy and social awkwardness. It seems foolhardy, and a little selfish, that she would keep so many weapons around that he obviously knew how to access. I am not saying that because of her son's condition, she loses the right to own weapons. What I am saying is that she should have taken extra precautions.

[PatInTheHat]

If my heavy Chevy....

Yeah this says it a lot better duddnit, and hmmm, nope I can't see any reason why there should be any problems, well yeah okay, one's that actually make any real actual sense to any reasonably rational, and maybe even a little sensible thinking human being, butt...
http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/522562_4148151102918_1325121477_n-480x648.jpg
...best be gettin' somewhere near close to somethin' in this line of thinkin', or set my ol' Chevy & me free goddamn it:glare:!

[PatInTheHat]

Oh yeah, and if you have a house, or even just property, your in every way responsible for it too, but then there was that house sitting witch, witch sitting house, whatever sittin' on whatever incident, and I can only suppose we've wisely set that as our benchmark precedent on dangerous assault houses:y:.

[Evil Queen]

I am a gun owner but I'm not a member of the NRA. My parents and neighbors are and we all own guns, mostly for hunting. My husband and I both agree there is no reason a regular citizen should own a semi automatic weapon, you can't hunt with those kinds of weapons. I think those should be reserved for military purposes only. I don't see the reasoning of why people want to own one of those. :(

[Mary19]

I can't say I've read every post here, the conversation is much too long for me today. I will say that I feel, gun laws aside..a huge problem we have is media attention! I know it's important to talk about but every show, paper, magazine etc. has news like this front and center. This kind of attention gives this kind of tragedy so much of a Hollywood feel! We need to stop this, I believe people who are already on the edge eat up the possibility of so much fame. We are over informed with every thing horrible that goes on in the world. We as a society are at fault somewhat..don't give them the kind of attention they crave!!

[Chuggs]

Tera, I agree with some of what you are saying. The problem is, there are some out there who trully do want to "take all out guns away." To deny that is silly.

[Chuggs]

Another thing that disturbs me are Open Carry laws. I sincerely don't understand why anyone feels the need to run to the grocery store with a pistol in their pants.

I agree that it freaks people out, but I understand open carry. There are things in my part of the world called roberies and rapes and beatings. Some of these things happening in very public areas (like walmart). If you are carrying in the open, these things can be stopped, or kept from happening all together. That being said, I own a gun, but have never carried it. I just try to stay aware and keep myself and my family out of dangerous situations.

[Chuggs]

God bless the victims and their families, and God bless us all. I pray that God will lead us to the answer we seak, and that not one of our law makers will be led astray...or any of us, for that matter.

And just so everyone knows, I'm a gun owner, and I respect everyone on this boards opinions, and I love you all as fellow humans. Sometimes humans dissagree on things, but that's ok. Hopefully, an answer is out there to be had, and hopefully, the blood of innocents will not be spilled again.

God please be with and protect us all. Amen.

[GNTLGNT]

They are a tool designed to do one thing- kill.


...I don't kill with mine, I punch paper...however, if my I or my family were threatened-then youdambetcha I'm aiming for center mass and pulling the trigger...end of story, and the same with the perp...

[Todash]

Yeah this says it a lot better duddnit, and hmmm, nope I can't see any reason why there should be any problems, well yeah okay, one's that actually make any real actual sense to any reasonably rational, and maybe even a little sensible thinking human being, butt...
...best be gettin' somewhere near close to somethin' in this line of thinkin', or set my ol' Chevy & me free goddamn it:glare:!

I really love this graphic. It's so sensible. And it doesn't say a THING about "taking all the guns."

[Todash]

Tera, I agree with some of what you are saying. The problem is, there are some out there who trully do want to "take all out guns away." To deny that is silly.
Of course there are! Just like there are people who think there should be zero controls on guns. Name a position and you will find a champion for it. (Google "flat earthers" for an interesting diversion.) But to "take all the guns away," you would have to get a majority of the populace to feel that way (and that is not a widely supported position within the US), get a law drafted and passed through the House and Senate, get the President to sign it, and get every court in the land to somehow look the other way by not declaring said law unconstitutional.

[Todash]

...I don't kill with mine, I punch paper...however, if my I or my family were threatened-then youdambetcha I'm aiming for center mass and pulling the trigger...end of story, and the same with the perp...
I don't have a problem with this. Not sure I could do it myself, but I do believe it is justified.

[PatInTheHat]

Tera, I agree with some of what you are saying. The problem is, there are some out there who trully do want to "take all out guns away." To deny that is silly.

And the key word for such non reality based thinkers is in fact "Silly", though I'm thinkin' the term, "Ridiculous Freakin' Folly", would be much more apropos.
And all but a relative handful of honkin' at the moon silly gooses, know it...H-O-N-K, that spells, D'oh:wink2:!

[Mojo*mofo]

I agree that it freaks people out, but I understand open carry. There are things in my part of the world called roberies and rapes and beatings. Some of these things happening in very public areas (like walmart). If you are carrying in the open, these things can be stopped, or kept from happening all together. That being said, I own a gun, but have never carried it. I just try to stay aware and keep myself and my family out of dangerous situations.

Fort Hood- armed personnel did not prevent a dozen deaths, and these were people that were adequately trained. George Zimmerman's overzealous reaction to seeing Trayvon Martin walking in a "non-black" neighborhood at night. There are literally hundreds of incidences where OC has resulted in the accidental discharge of a weapon, although rarely resulting in injury or death.

This isn't aimed at you Chuggs, but anyone who thinks OC is a grand idea. I want some factual evidence that OC reduces crime. And then we can talk about how OC has actually resulted in needless deaths because of someone getting scared in the heat of the moment.

[JellybeanJay]

Gun control may help the issue but then again it may not....

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, the explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others and there was not one firearm used, everything that was used to make the bomb is very easily accessible.

So my I guess my point is that if someone is set on causing chaos, destruction and loss of life they are going to do it whether they use a firearm or not.

[Moderator]

Gun control may help the issue but then again it may not....

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, the explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others and there was not one firearm used, everything that was used to make the bomb is very easily accessible.

So my I guess my point is that if someone is set on causing chaos, destruction and loss of life they are going to do it whether they use a firearm or not.

That's true, but it's more difficult to pull together making a bomb than getting a gun. Accepting that doing nothing about it because they'll find a way if they're bent on it is not an option and never has been IMO. Except for the military and law enforcement personnel, having the types of rifles and ammunition that are being considered for more stringent controls is a want, not a need.

[JellybeanJay]

I didn't mean to imply that doing nothing was an option and if it came across that way I apologize, I am just attempting to express frustration at how easy it is for someone to do something like this.

I am really not familiar with the gun regulations in the states but as far as I know I think it is harder to get a gun and people have to jump through more hoops up here in Canada. I might be wrong but I think at one point we had a long gun registry but that is the extent of my knowledge.

I think I am out of my element in this thread. I will show myself out now. :down:

[Shasta]

Has anyone heard this new story out about the Portland shooting?

There's a guy saying he had a gun, he went to shoot the gunman but didn't because there was a person behind the gunman. But the gunman saw him and was so afraid of getting shot that.....well, he went and shot himself.

Can someone please explain that to me?

http://www.athenstalks.com/shooting-portland-mall-2-killed

Unfortunately I can no longer find the site (the gun site) that explains that the shooter stopped shooting people because he so feared for his life that he went and committed suicide.

Ha! Wait. I found it:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

[Moderator]

I didn't mean to imply that doing nothing was an option and if it came across that way I apologize, I am just attempting to express frustration at how easy it is for someone to do something like this.

I am really not familiar with the gun regulations in the states but as far as I know I think it is harder to get a gun and people have to jump through more hoops up here in Canada. I might be wrong but I think at one point we had a long gun registry but that is the extent of my knowledge.

I think I am out of my element in this thread. I will show myself out now. :down:

No need to do that and if I made you feel unwelcome, I apologize as well. It's partly my frustration at hearing that sort of thinking being used as a justification to not have any gun controls after each and every tragedy. And then the next time there's another one, it comes up all over again and nothing is done...again...and again...and more innocent people die. :down:

[~Ally~]

I find actions like this worrying: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/192548/11-year-old-in-utah-brings-gun-to-school-for-self-defense-after-newtown/ (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deathandtaxesm ag.com%2F192548%2F11-year-old-in-utah-brings-gun-to-school-for-self-defense-after-newtown%2F)

So the kid apparently takes a gun to school to protect himself, yet threatens to shoot classmates if they tell on him! His parents deny giving him the gun for protection, if that's true then why was it just lying around where he had access to it anyway? Insane.

[Todash]

Gun control may help the issue but then again it may not....

Look at the Oklahoma City bombing, the explosion killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others and there was not one firearm used, everything that was used to make the bomb is very easily accessible.

So my I guess my point is that if someone is set on causing chaos, destruction and loss of life they are going to do it whether they use a firearm or not.
Yes. This is true. Guns just make it way, way, way easier. And more guns = more violence. Those are the stats. It's just how it is.

Take mass killings, for example: the Oklahoma bombing required collaboration, a certain amount of know-how, quite a bit of work, and was risky for the perpetrators. There's a reason it stands on its own in our history. On the other hand, it's pretty easy for a lone person to get his hands on some guns and ammo, make a plan that doesn't involve a single other person, carry it out, and take the chicken exit at the end. McVeigh was a terrorist who committed his acts for political reasons. Most homicides are committed by friends, family, and acquaintances in the heat of the moment, and mass shootings are usually the work of someone who is disturbed and committing the acts for purely emotional reasons.

Shootings are instant, deadly, and cannot generally be stopped by law enforcement, nor are they often stopped by bystanders. Coordinated bomb plantings have a much higher chance of being intercepted before anyone is hurt.

I'm not saying there isn't a valid argument for allowing people to own guns. I'm just saying that "anything can be a weapon" isn't it. There's a reason that the armed forces, law enforcement, and National Guard are issued guns rather than knives, ropes, or small bombs as primary weapons. It's the same reason people use guns to hunt and for self-defense: they are marvelously, death-dealingly effective. If they weren't, no one would care if guns were outlawed (not that that's a reasonable likelihood; I'm just saying). Because after all, anything can be a weapon.

[Todash]

No need to do that and if I made you feel unwelcome, I apologize as well. It's partly my frustration at hearing that sort of thinking being used as a justification to not have any gun controls after each and every tragedy. And then the next time there's another one, it comes up all over again and nothing is done...again...and again...and more innocent people die. :down:

Same here. I mean, you ARE right, JellybeanJay. Gun control won't fix everything. You could take away every gun in the world and people would still kill each other. The point is, can we reduce the number of victims of violence? I think so. I'm not naive enough to think we can stop it altogether, but isn't making it less of a problem a reasonable, worthwhile goal?

I am in the same boat as Ms. Mod. I see this argument so often, and it drives me a little nuts because you can't have it both ways. Either it's important to be able to own a gun BECAUSE they are so effective at aiding self-defense, hunting, etc., OR it doesn't matter if you outlaw guns because anything can be used as a weapon. Like I said, there are valid, strong arguments for allowing gun ownership. I just don't happen to think the "anything can be used as a weapon" is a particularly convincing one.

[Moderator]

Has anyone heard this new story out about the Portland shooting?

There's a guy saying he had a gun, he went to shoot the gunman but didn't because there was a person behind the gunman. But the gunman saw him and was so afraid of getting shot that.....well, he went and shot himself.

Can someone please explain that to me?

http://www.athenstalks.com/shooting-portland-mall-2-killed (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.athenstalks.co m%2Fshooting-portland-mall-2-killed)

Unfortunately I can no longer find the site (the gun site) that explains that the shooter stopped shooting people because he so feared for his life that he went and committed suicide.

Ha! Wait. I found it:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easybakegunclu b.com%2Fblog%2F1968%2FConcealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html)

Personally, I think that's bullsh!t. And reading the article, the guy ran away and shot himself in another area of the mall, not while he was still in the presence of the other person who had a gun. Even when it's a suicide by cop, IMO they do this still thinking that they're the ones in control. In other words, it wouldn't be about being afraid he was going to be shot, it would be I'm going out on my terms. Of course that's just total speculation on my part just as it is of the person who wrote the article cited that it was because he knew someone else had a gun.

[Todash]

Has anyone heard this new story out about the Portland shooting?

There's a guy saying he had a gun, he went to shoot the gunman but didn't because there was a person behind the gunman. But the gunman saw him and was so afraid of getting shot that.....well, he went and shot himself.

Can someone please explain that to me?

http://www.athenstalks.com/shooting-portland-mall-2-killed (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.athenstalks.co m%2Fshooting-portland-mall-2-killed)

Unfortunately I can no longer find the site (the gun site) that explains that the shooter stopped shooting people because he so feared for his life that he went and committed suicide.

Ha! Wait. I found it:

http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.easybakegunclu b.com%2Fblog%2F1968%2FConcealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html)

This actually makes complete sense to me. He was planning to off himself anyway, but it probably never crossed his mind that anyone might even consider fighting back. The way it played out in his mind, I imagine, is that he would blaze through the mall gunning people down, then commit suicide at the end of his spree. It was never, ever, ever in the plan to be taken out by someone else. So seeing that that was a possibility, he probably decided that it was better to prematurely end his spree as planned rather than become a victim himself and give up his power.

I'm actually really disturbed that I have this level of understanding of the shooter's thoughts and motives, but I'm pretty sure I'm on target. :sad:

[~Ally~]

It's partly my frustration at hearing that sort of thinking being used as a justification to not have any gun controls after each and every tragedy. And then the next time there's another one, it comes up all over again and nothing is done...again...and again...and more innocent people die. :down:

I found this quote from John Oliver very interesting:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/425615_10151180976846275_7660547_n.jpg

It certainly made me think and I'm not even American!

[johnjohn2069]

I live in CT and this has ripped my heart out of my chest, I pray for the victims of this evil act, I pray for the families of the victims, for the town of Newtown it will take a very long time to come out from this shadow.

I have 22 years in the Army and I am very famliar with this rifle. The AR-15 is a M-16 and they are both made to kill humans PERIOD!!! The military ammo for this weapon tumbles apon striking the target which causes all kinds of internal damage. There is no need for this weapon to be in the hands of your "average joe". there is no need for a 30 round mag, If you are dumb enough to hunt with this rifle and you need 30 rounds to take down game.... then maybe you shouldn't even be hunting to begin with.

Could this shooting been provented??? Who knows.... but I think schools need to take a long hard look at security.... And i know with the way money is tight they can't put armed guards in all the schools in the US. But who really wants that for your kids???

schools may want to look at who they already have teaching in their system and find the Ex-Vet or Ex-law enforment , Training these teachers to carry and shoot and have them armed when they are in school.

One weapon in the hands of teacher on friday could have prevented or minimized the killing that went on.

Hell the piece of **** gunman off'd himself at the 1st sight of police, most of these low life's that do this type of thing have no balls what so ever (thats why they do it in the 1st place) but if confronted they would have a much hard time carring out their plan.

I know many feel that guns is not the answer to guns but at least it will even the playing field

could one gun in the hands of a well trainied teacher stopped this..... Most likey no

But i would be willing bet that there would'nt be 26 funerals to attend

[Todash]

Personally, I think that's bullsh!t. And reading the article, the guy ran away and shot himself in another area of the mall, not while he was still in the presence of the other person who had a gun. Even when it's a suicide by cop, IMO they do this still thinking that they're the ones in control. In other words, it wouldn't be about being afraid he was going to be shot, it would be I'm going out on my terms. Of course that's just total speculation on my part just as it is of the person who wrote the article cited that it was because he knew someone else had a gun.I dunno, Ms. Mod ... I don't think concealed carry is such a hot idea, but I think the guy's story has a pretty good chance of being true. People do commit suicide by cop, but I don't think that was ever this guy's plan. Remember, we are not talking about someone who is being totally sensible and logical here.

[Shasta]

Personally, I think that's bullsh!t. And reading the article, the guy ran away and shot himself in another area of the mall, not while he was still in the presence of the other person who had a gun. Even when it's a suicide by cop, IMO they do this still thinking that they're the ones in control. In other words, it wouldn't be about being afraid he was going to be shot, it would be I'm going out on my terms. Of course that's just total speculation on my part just as it is of the person who wrote the article cited that it was because he knew someone else had a gun.

Yeah, I think the whole thing is pretty nuts. I honestly think that the gun propaganda people are trying to head off the "see, guns don't prevent things like this from happening" arguments in any way they can. The story just doesn't make and sense!

[JellybeanJay]

No need to do that and if I made you feel unwelcome, I apologize as well. It's partly my frustration at hearing that sort of thinking being used as a justification to not have any gun controls after each and every tragedy. And then the next time there's another one, it comes up all over again and nothing is done...again...and again...and more innocent people die. :down:

You could NEVER make me feel unwelcome! I just honestly don't know enough to put together an intelligent train of thought :smile2:

[atomicinchworm]

With the OK City bombing, something did come out of that. That kind of fertilizer and a lot of potential bomb components are regulated.

Todash was on a watch list, for example, for buying potassium permanganate. Which is an explosive component, or an excellent anti-bacterial for fish. If I went and bought ten guns, it wouldn't raise any flags. That's a problem to me.

I think it is silly to demand all guns be destroyed; guns are way too prevalent in our culture. I don't think it is unreasonable to require guns to be as heavily licensed and for the owner to show competence as a car. And maybe taxing them to hell. I'd be ok with that as well.


Speaking of Trayvon Martin, have you heard of that other teen in Florida who was shot and killed? He was unarmed and killed because he was in a car playing loud music. The guy who shot him got in an argument with the teens over the volume of the music, said he saw a gun, and shot into the car. Jordan Davis was 17. The kids thought the gun was fake at first. They were in actuality unarmed; there was no gun in the car.

Is this **** ok? Did an argument over bloody music at a gas station demand that kind of force? Or did a racist man with a gun on him, see a bunch of black kids and made the assumption that they were going to harm him? (You can't tell me if the kids were white he would have had the same reaction.)

I'll be ok with conceal and carry if you can guarantee this stuff won't happen.

[Shasta]

This actually makes complete sense to me. He was planning to off himself anyway, but it probably never crossed his mind that anyone might even consider fighting back. The way it played out in his mind, I imagine, is that he would blaze through the mall gunning people down, then commit suicide at the end of his spree. It was never, ever, ever in the plan to be taken out by someone else. So seeing that that was a possibility, he probably decided that it was better to prematurely end his spree as planned rather than become a victim himself and give up his power.

I'm actually really disturbed that I have this level of understanding of the shooter's thoughts and motives, but I'm pretty sure I'm on target. :sad:

Oh yes. I see where they are coming from. I just don't believe this is what happened. The guy said he stood there and watched the gun jam. It seems like if he was that close and knew there was a gun issue he really should have done something about it. I'm not judging - I'm sure I would have frozen. I've also taken the gun classes that say don't shoot until you know what's behind the person or thing you're shooting. But if he was so trained and so calm then the story just doesn't ring true. At least to me. And the only witnesses he has are when he pulled out his gun and when he went to hide in the store. It just doesn't make sense.

And I can't see in the four minutes the entire thing happened that a guy who was willing to kill people and obviously wanting to die would have the forethought to think, "Hm. This guy has a gun. I certianly don't want to get killed by someone else. Let me walk away from him with my back turned and hide in a stairwell so I can take myself out." I just can't buy it.

But of course, this is all just my speculation.

[mjs9153]

Good idea for this thread,so far it is reasoned and respectful,which is what we need to do here..making reasoned,dispassionate,thoughtful suggestions on this problem and solutions..and Cat you have no reason to apologize for a long response,that was taken well,all your points. The time has to be at hand for making changes in how we respond to this problem,because doing nothing and just going along,till the next incident happens,ain't getting it done.I was never an advocate for gun control,believing in the right of citizens to keep and bear arms..this is the tipping point for me personally.If we don't address this now,when will we..little ones,babies really,are being killed..I can't in any good conscience justify anyone keeping an assault weapon at their home.Single shot rifles,six shot revolvers,and shotguns are sufficient to home defense,sport, and hunting,IMO..maybe that is simplistic,but it seems we have to start somewhere to craft a reasoned response.President Obama is speaking on the issue now,and it seems he is taking point and is determined to start getting a handle on this.I didn't vote for him,but he is the President,and has my respect as he weighs and tackles this issue..Chuggs,don't go showing yourself out,this has been a good discourse and your points are as valid and thoughtful as anyone's,and this is an issue for the world as well as the US..continue to debate,to post opinions,that is important for everyone to do so we can analyze all thoughts and get to a reasonable denouement on this complex issue..:smile2:

[Becks19]

So seeing that that was a possibility, he probably decided that it was better to prematurely end his spree as planned rather than become a victim himself and give up his power.


Absolutely, he wanted to have a cowardly and quick death, rather than feel the pain of being shot by someone else. Although that is what he'd planned for others. Twisted, sick and sad.

[Todash]

With the OK City bombing, something did come out of that. That kind of fertilizer and a lot of potential bomb components are regulated.

Todash was on a watch list, for example, for buying potassium permanganate. Which is an explosive component, or an excellent anti-bacterial for fish. If I went and bought ten guns, it wouldn't raise any flags. That's a problem to me.

Okay, I would just like to point out that we bought that for completely non-violent reasons. Just in case anyone is wondering. And we never blew anything up that I know of. :laugh:

[Todash]

schools may want to look at who they already have teaching in their system and find the Ex-Vet or Ex-law enforment , Training these teachers to carry and shoot and have them armed when they are in school.
I get what you're saying, and if someone had happened to take the shooter out I wouldn't be crying, but the day we decide arming teachers is the answer would be the last day I would send my kids (if I had any) to a public school. Or probably even a private one.

[Shasta]

I get what you're saying, and if someone had happened to take the shooter out I wouldn't be crying, but the day we decide arming teachers is the answer would be the last day I would send my kids (if I had any) to a public school. Or probably even a private one.

We all know I'm fairly okay with guns but I am 100% with you on this. Home school it would be.

[Becks19]

I get what you're saying, and if someone had happened to take the shooter out I wouldn't be crying, but the day we decide arming teachers is the answer would be the last day I would send my kids (if I had any) to a public school. Or probably even a private one.

They say the shooter broke a window to gain entry to the school. What about glass that cannot be broken? If that kind of glass were in place on that day, would the shooter have gotten in so quickly?? The entire entrance to our elementary school is made of glass, including the door to the office. They just built it this year and the windows are from about the ground up and very wide. I used to think they were pretty, now, I wonder how safe they are??

[JellybeanJay]

I get what you're saying, and if someone had happened to take the shooter out I wouldn't be crying, but the day we decide arming teachers is the answer would be the last day I would send my kids (if I had any) to a public school. Or probably even a private one.


Ok this is a subject I can weigh in on. I don't think that our teachers should be armed because the casualty count could have been way higher and weapons don't belong in schools. I was quite disappointed to find out that my son's school has not practiced a lock down drill yet this year and anyone that wanted to could just walk into that school and no one would be the wiser. I do believe that teachers need to be provided with the skills and the knowledge of how to keep their students safe.

My husband is an RCMP officer and he also trains other RCMP officers on school shootings and does "active shooter" scenarios with the officers. I have asked him to do up a business case regarding offering a similar training to the schools and present it to the school board in our community. The training would obviously be different and tailored to their needs. Not sure how this will be received because most if not all of the training is done in house.

[Spideyman]

They say the shooter broke a window to gain entry to the school. What about glass that cannot be broken? If that kind of glass were in place on that day, would the shooter have gotten in so quickly?? The entire entrance to our elementary school is made of glass, including the door to the office. They just built it this year and the windows are from about the ground up and very wide. I used to think they were pretty, now, I wonder how safe they are??


Many of the schools in my area have been re done in hurricane proof door and windows. Not bullet proof, but a possible slow down to entry. Also, many of the new designs are windowless. Not scenic for the children, but maybe safer.

[~Ally~]

I get what you're saying, and if someone had happened to take the shooter out I wouldn't be crying, but the day we decide arming teachers is the answer would be the last day I would send my kids (if I had any) to a public school. Or probably even a private one.

I've read a lot of comments on the internet where people say they should arm teachers or the reception staff. Who's to say that one of those armed members of staff may not suddenly snap and shoot their work colleagues/pupils? It happens in other work environments and could easily happen in a school. There's no place for guns in schools, ever. But I come from a country where guns aren't accepted as a way of life, and I'm thankful for that.

Rather than view it as living in a nanny state, I appreciate that we aren't raised around guns and they aren't easily available. It may sound silly but when I hear a loud bang here it doesn't bother me, because I know that's all it is. Whenever I've heard that sound in the USA it has always put me on edge because I'm unsure if it's simply a bang or a gun being fired. I appreciate living in a country where that subconscious fear isn't always inside me.

[Shasta]

I just read that gun deaths are said to outpace auto deaths by 2015. Great.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

[JellybeanJay]

Many of the schools in my area have been re done in hurricane proof door and windows. Not bullet proof, but a possible slow down to entry. Also, many of the new designs are windowless. Not scenic for the children, but maybe safer.

Our school have metal roll down shades on the outside of the windows that can be activated with one central button or a button in each classroom. These are helpful but are usually engaged after an incident has already started.

[Becks19]

http://www.stephenking.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Spideyman http://www.stephenking.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/showthread.php?p=557764#post557764)
Many of the schools in my area have been re done in hurricane proof door and windows. Not bullet proof, but a possible slow down to entry. Also, many of the new designs are windowless. Not scenic for the children, but maybe safer.



Our school have metal roll down shades on the outside of the windows that can be activated with one central button or a button in each classroom. These are helpful but are usually engaged after an incident has already started.

Our school system has neither of these things. Rather than arm teachers, maybe we should be designing our schools to be safer.

[cat in a bag]

They say the shooter broke a window to gain entry to the school. What about glass that cannot be broken? If that kind of glass were in place on that day, would the shooter have gotten in so quickly?? The entire entrance to our elementary school is made of glass, including the door to the office. They just built it this year and the windows are from about the ground up and very wide. I used to think they were pretty, now, I wonder how safe they are??

I've been wondering that about ours too. The little foyer where you are buzzed in at looks down the hallway, but to the right is a huge window into the office. That's how the office ladies see who is there, is through that window...how hard would it be to break through that, and gain access. I've also been paying a lot of attention to the kids' classrooms...Ty's has an exterior door that they could use in an emergency, but not Ali's and Evan's.

The doors have still been wide open first thing in the morning, but they are not unlocking them for parents at pick up time now. I've had to be buzzed in every day this week at pick up time. Which is fine by me, it has helped alleviate some of the anxiety I've had about taking the kids to school and leaving them there. But I do worry about all of the glass in the inner set of doors and the big window to the office.

[staropeace]

I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.

[Becks19]

I've been wondering that about ours too. The little foyer where you are buzzed in at looks down the hallway, but to the right is a huge window into the office. That's how the office ladies see who is there, is through that window...how hard would it be to break through that, and gain access. I've also been paying a lot of attention to the kids' classrooms...Ty's has an exterior door that they could use in an emergency, but not Ali's and Evan's.

The doors have still been wide open first thing in the morning, but they are not unlocking them for parents at pick up time now. I've had to be buzzed in every day this week at pick up time. Which is fine by me, it has helped alleviate some of the anxiety I've had about taking the kids to school and leaving them there. But I do worry about all of the glass in the inner set of doors and the big window to the office.

Well on top of it being all glass...Our front doors aren't locked, you are buzzed in from the lobby. Really not safe enough. As you enter the lobby, there's a glass door on the left that is the office, you are also standing in front of two glass double doors that enter the actual school. I would feel so much better if it were glass that was unbreakable/bullet proof. I think all schools need to be constructed that way..... and maybe it would prevent an event like this one.

[mjs9153]

I read on wiki about Switzerland's gun laws,which is interesting..rather than an army,they have a militia of males,aged in general twenty to thirty years of age,though they stay in as officers until age thirty four.It is accepted as part of being a male there to do service in that capacity,which includes military training,and keeping their weapons at home.The article said it is not an uncommon sight to see members enroute with their weapons to training facilities on trains,busses,etc..their personal carry appears more stringent than some states in the US though,and it seems that country does not have such incidents,or rarely..not espousing their position,just found it interesting.

[Chuggs]

Fort Hood- armed personnel did not prevent a dozen deaths, and these were people that were adequately trained. George Zimmerman's overzealous reaction to seeing Trayvon Martin walking in a "non-black" neighborhood at night. There are literally hundreds of incidences where OC has resulted in the accidental discharge of a weapon, although rarely resulting in injury or death.

This isn't aimed at you Chuggs, but anyone who thinks OC is a grand idea. I want some factual evidence that OC reduces crime. And then we can talk about how OC has actually resulted in needless deaths because of someone getting scared in the heat of the moment.

I could relate different situations that I've heard about, even recently, where someone who had a gun saved lives. However, the one I choose to tell is from someone I used to work for. He was a teenager then, I think, but in a vehicle with his mom and dad. A would be car-jacker (God knows what else) tried to force my co-worker's father from his vehicle--the rest of the family still inside the vehicle mind you--but was unsuccessful because my co-workers father greated the man with a gun. The man fled.

Now I know that bad things happen, even when someone has a gun or a knife or whatever as protection, but there are just as many success stories as there are failed ones.

What I want is a world where no one feels the need for protection, because non is needed.

[Chuggs]

That's true, but it's more difficult to pull together making a bomb than getting a gun. Accepting that doing nothing about it because they'll find a way if they're bent on it is not an option and never has been IMO. Except for the military and law enforcement personnel, having the types of rifles and ammunition that are being considered for more stringent controls is a want, not a need.

Ms. Mod, I'm not taking a side on this, just pointing out that people can and do get guns illegally, guns of all types. and a bomb is easy enough to make...people around blow themselves up all of the time trying to make drugs...
And I'll also point out that there is many a person who would argue with you guns being a want and not a need.

Just sayin'

[JellybeanJay]

I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.

I cannot imagine that either Staro, I think that is why I have a hard time understanding.

[JellybeanJay]

[QUOTE=staropeace;557796]I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.[/]

I should clarify my last post, when I say hard time understanding what I mean is a hard time understanding the difference in laws between Canada and the US and a hard time understanding how firearms are so easy to get (Walmart) for example, I don't even think firearms are for sale in my local Walmart/Bass Pro Shop ect.

[Moderator]

Ms. Mod, I'm not taking a side on this, just pointing out that people can and do get guns illegally, guns of all types. and a bomb is easy enough to make...people around blow themselves up all of the time trying to make drugs...
And I'll also point out that there is many a person who would argue with you guns being a want and not a need.

Just sayin'

I've said I believe the second amendment should be upheld and I'm not advocating for a complete ban on guns. What I do believe is a want and not a need is the types of assault weapons and clips that are being discussed right now to be controlled in the future or by reenacting the ban that had been allowed to lapse in 2004. They can argue all they like but they won't convince me. Who other than military and law enforcement needs those? Just sayin'

[Moderator]

[QUOTE=staropeace;557796]I cannot imagine living in a country where folks can own handguns and assorted arms. It is bad enough here where guns are hard to get. It is a hugh crime here to carry a gun. I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If they are impossible to own then that will cut down shooting death and accidental deaths when children find them in the home. We do not have many accidental deaths like that in Canada.[/]

I should clarify my last post, when I say hard time understanding what I mean is a hard time understanding the difference in laws between Canada and the US and a hard time understanding how firearms are so easy to get (Walmart) for example, I don't even think firearms are for sale in my local Walmart/Bass Pro Shop ect.

And that's one piece of what the majority of gun control advocates want stricter controls about, not banning guns altogether.

[JellybeanJay]

I've said I believe the second amendment should be upheld and I'm not advocating for a complete ban on guns. What I do believe is a want and not a need is the types of assault weapons and clips that are being discussed right now to be controlled in the future or by reenacting the ban that had been allowed to lapse in 2004. They can argue all they like but they won't convince me. Who other than military and law enforcement needs those? Just sayin'

That's exactly what I am trying to wrap my brain around, why does a regular John Q Public need an assault rifle? The gun that was primarily used in Newtown was the same make and model that my hubby used on his tour of duty in Afghanistan. I really don't get it.

[GNTLGNT]

I do not really believe that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

...but somehow they always seem to get them....:down:

[guido tkp]

some nice ideas about school security...but ask yourself this...will your congressman vote to fund that...especially if it means increasing taxes...which, considering the sad shape of nearly all public school budgets, it most likely would....

[CareBear]

I am from CT (not Newtown), so this tragedy hits home for me. :down: I don't believe gun laws will do anything to prevent violence and hate. Timothy McVeigh used fertiziler in his bomb that killed over 100 people in Oklahome City. Criminals don't obey laws, that's why the are criminals.

[mjs9153]

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=IA.70774624833&pid=15.1 Just look at the faces of these sweet kids..really look. You cannot tell me anyone really NEEDS these types of weapons,unless it is police and military..not minimalizing the adults either..but GD it,enough is enough of these tragedies..

[Tery]

Well, I'm pleased to see that we are staying reasonable and respectful here. :smile2:

clownshooter, I do know that folks use these kind of weapons for competition, which is why I mentioned that the large ammo magazines should be available at shooting ranges. But they should stay there. Perhaps the weapons themselves should be treated that way :dunno: For purposes of further discussion I am going by the definition of an assault weapon that is used in Connecticut: “any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semi-automatic, or burst fire at the options of the user.” This article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/12/the_gun_glossary_definitions_of_firearm_lingo_and_ types_of_weapons.html) is quite informative on the topic.

I did see one comment here that made me facepalm: arming teachers is the stupidest thing I've heard in the wake of this incident. Are you freaking kidding me?! A teacher friend of mine put it like this:

I think the idea of arming teachers is idiotic as well. How do you keep that loaded gun out of the hands of the kids? If all classrooms have guns, then how many schools will be broken into so that some criminal can be armed?I work in the inner city. The reality of thieves breaking into places is real. One of the schools in our area has been broken into 5 times in the last 9 months. Imagine if there had been guns in the building?



On top of that, teachers -- who are recently on the list of "moochers" according to Tea Baggers -- have enough on their plates. They have years of college to get a certificate. Then they have a whole raft of duties and responsibilities in the classroom and out. And now they should train to be, essentially, a police officer? Please!!

Regarding the NRA... I was careful to note that the leadership and the organization is the problem, not the members. I linked to information showing that the members actually support tougher regulations. The problem is that it went from an organization dedicated to hunting and target shooting to become a political one, lobbying and taking money from manufacturers. That is wrong.

I did an article on the UK's laws as compared to our own and how much it makes a difference in the statistics. Here's one thing I discovered:

The rate of civilian firearm possession in the UK is 6.7 per 100 population. Annual deaths resulting from firearms in the UK in 2009 was 138: the UK is ranked 29th in that category (http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime) while the U.S. is ranked number one with 688 times more murders! The number of handgun homicides in the UK currently averages 2.5 per year. Think about that for a minute: in the UK an average of 2-3 people are murdered by handguns every year. We surpass that every day.

This was my conclusion:

Do we have to be as strict as the UK to bring gun deaths under control in our country? No, of course not. That would be impossible for several reasons, not least of which is that it would be unconstitutional. But we can apply sensible, reasonable laws to enable the tracing of guns and ammunition. We can ban assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. We can make gun shows require background checks — this is the 21st century and everyone has a computer now. It’s not difficult to do a quick check. We can ban anyone on the no-fly list from buying firearms. We can agree that something must be done and do it. Before more children pay with their lives.

[Moderator]

...but somehow they always seem to get them....:down:

That's true, Scott, and I don't think anyone is naive enough to think it won't still happen even with stricter gun control laws but at least that would make it a lot harder for them to get legally than it currently is (e.g. from the gun shows and internet sites that don't do background checks) and possibly keep them out of the hands of more criminals than have them now.

[fredthe3rd]

Just read in a newspaper that one of the ideas being put out there to solve the problem is people being limited to buying one gun a month. I don't see how that makes any difference....

[GNTLGNT]

That's true, Scott, and I don't think anyone is naive enough to think it won't still happen even with stricter gun control laws but at least that would make it a lot harder for them to get legally than it currently is (e.g. from the gun shows and internet sites that don't do background checks) and possibly keep them out of the hands of more criminals than have them now.

...I concur...

[PatInTheHat]

Nice, well, that is if you love the small of unbridled anything to turn a buck capitalism in the morning...
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/19/newtown-shooting-tragedy-scam-artists/?ncid=webmail2
... they all ain't even buried, talk about some havin' some stones:glare:...I just happen to have a very special tool made just for those, got it from the animal husbandry collection in the ol' Roebuck catalog so far back in the day, I'm sure PETA would disapprove:y:

[Mojo*mofo]

I could relate different situations that I've heard about, even recently, where someone who had a gun saved lives. However, the one I choose to tell is from someone I used to work for. He was a teenager then, I think, but in a vehicle with his mom and dad. A would be car-jacker (God knows what else) tried to force my co-worker's father from his vehicle--the rest of the family still inside the vehicle mind you--but was unsuccessful because my co-workers father greated the man with a gun. The man fled.

Now I know that bad things happen, even when someone has a gun or a knife or whatever as protection, but there are just as many success stories as there are failed ones.

What I want is a world where no one feels the need for protection, because non is needed.


I'm very glad your co-worker was able to protect himself. I understand that not everyone who carries, concealed or not, goes around brandishing it and abusing the power it gives them. However, there does come a point where we have to objectively look and decide if it's worth it. Since May of 2007, 499 people have been killed by folks with a CC permit, 14 of those law enforcement. That's obviously not a gun deaths total, nor does it include open carry- that 499 deaths caused by people who, for the most part, were not saving someone, or protecting someone, but decided to kill.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm


As for your final statement, I think that's a Christmas miracle we could all get behind. :smile2:

[exzel]

I am a realist. I fully expect the misguided focus on gun control, after this tragedy, to achieve tighter gun control legislation. I expect there to be a ban on the so-called “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines. Personally I don’t see this as a bad thing, but I fear it will lead to unintentional (intentional to some) loss of many second amendment rights. There are reports that Senator Diane Feinstein is moving to ban all Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, Pistol Grips, and eliminating any “grandfathering.” and banning sales of “weapons in possession”. “Pistol Grips” is a very ambiguous term. All it would take is one judge to decide for himself/herself a radical definition of what “Pistol Grips” on hunting rifles and shotguns means, and something like the radical 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold it, making just about everything illegal. Of course I would believe Feinstein and the like to say “Oh that was not our intent (wink wink).” And yes, it could be overturned by the Supreme Court, but how long would the process take? Below is a graphic. Figure 1 is what most reasonable people would consider to be the intent of the law involving the term “Pistol Grip”. But figure 2 is what just about every hunting rifle and shotgun manufactured these days looks like, and it is considered to have a “Pistol Grip.” Figure 3 is not considered to be a “Pistol Grip,” and are only manufactured in miniscule levels. If rifles and shotguns shown in figure 2 are outlawed because the have a “Pistol Grip,” it would effectively make just about every rifle and shotgun manufactured in the US illegal to purchase or resell.

16577

Unfortunately evil and the mentally ill, focused on causing carnage, will find a way and means. They always do. Whether that be with guns, automobiles, fire, fertilizer bombs or box-cutters.

One in four Americans own guns, so a couple of residential break-in’s will get one the means of obtaining them. Sadly, there is little being discussed to truly tackle effective means of protecting our children in school settings, such as additional armed police/security being “gun ready,” more secure and restricted access to schools including “man traps,” arming and training teachers and administrators, cutting down on violence in the media, more focus on parenting, bolstering kids' social skills, and most importantly Improving mental health care.

But all we are currently hearing about is gun control. In my opinion it is more an agenda by the liberal/progressive element to ban as many guns as possible, capitalizing highly charges emotions from this tragedy, than finding real solutions to real problems.

I do hope real meaningful discussion’s take place. Sadly though, looking at the way the media is currently handling the gun issue... I really doubt it.

[Moderator]

But all we are currently hearing about is gun control. In my opinion it is more an agenda by the liberal/progressive element to ban as many guns as possible, capitalizing highly charges emotions from this tragedy, than finding real solutions to real problems.

I do hope real meaningful discussion’s take place. Sadly though, looking at the way the media is currently handling the gun issue... I really doubt it.

Then you haven't been listening to everything. For example, in this Huffington Post report (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/obama-gun-violence-task-force_n_2331238.html), the Biden committee, in addition to gun control ideas, has been charged with the following:

The Biden-led task force will also explore ways to improve mental health resources and address ways to create a culture that doesn't promote violence. The departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, along with outside groups and lawmakers, will all be part of the process.

[exzel]

You are correct Ms. Mod, I may not be reading or listening to everything. But I have been reading and listening to a lot. And thank you for than HuffPo article on Biden’s committee. It represents what I’m talking about. An article about curbing violence, 21 paragraphs long with 897 words, only has 1 paragraph with 21 words talking about mental health. The rest pretty much is centered on guns.

[Moderator]

You are correct Ms. Mod, I may not be reading or listening to everything. But I have been reading and listening to a lot. And thank you for than HuffPo article on Biden’s committee. It represents what I’m talking about. An article about curbing violence, 21 paragraphs long with 897 words, only has 1 paragraph with 21 words talking about mental health. The rest pretty much is centered on guns.

That would be the Huffington Post's issue not what the Biden committee is being asked to do.

[exzel]

That would be the Huffington Post's issue not what the Biden committee is being asked to do.

Correct again Ms. Mod. But it does represent an agenda and the focus of what is being presented to the general public from the majority of the media. I do hope Biden’s committee looks at all issues in earnest, not just focus the majority of their efforts on gun control. But I fear it will just turn out to be... let’s get gun control done right away, and the focus on the rest (IF EVER) later.

[Moderator]

Correct again Ms. Mod. But it does represent an agenda and the focus of what is being presented to the general public from the majority of the media. I do hope Biden’s committee looks at all issues in earnest, not just focus the majority of their efforts on gun control. But I fear it will just turn out to be... let’s get gun control done right away, and the focus on the rest (IF EVER) later.

Kind of like what's been happening with gun control for years in spite of incident after incident of innocent people being gunned down and people talking about there needing to be something done? :tongue: I absolutely agree with you that it's a package deal and the message I'm hearing from the President is he understands that, too. The problem will be keeping the lobbyists out of the picture so that the dialogue on all aspects doesn't get swept under the rug yet again before policies and legislation are put in place to make a difference.

[exzel]

Kind of like what's been happening with gun control for years in spite of incident after incident of innocent people being gunned down and people talking about there needing to be something done? :tongue: I absolutely agree with you that it's a package deal and the message I'm hearing from the President is he understands that, too. The problem will be keeping the lobbyists out of the picture so that the dialogue on all aspects doesn't get swept under the rug yet again before policies and legislation is put in place to make a difference.

But there was no give and take on prior gun control measure in recent years, NOTHING GOT DONE… no give and take, no this now - something later. They (both D's and R's) let the 10 year Federal Assault Weapons Ban lapse. There just was no political muster to get things done. But now there is momentum. And gun advocates rightfully believe if they give on something in hopes of something else happening, they will just be whistling in the wind. And lets face it, there is the proverbial slippery slope. Once you get the public to formally demonize something, it only begins the downhill slide. Look at smoking in public places as a prime example.

I fear Biden’s committee will be akin to Amnesty under Reagan and Tax Increases under Bush the Elder. Give Amnesty now (HAPPENS) and we will secure the border and go after employers later (DOESN’T HAPPEN), or tax increases now (HAPPENS) and cut spending later (DOESN’T HAPPEN). Anyone want to bet it will be… get gun control now (WILL HAPPEN) and security measures and mental health improvements later (DOESN’T HAPPEN)? I hope I’m wrong, but I doubt it.

[PatInTheHat]

From the Tuesday press conference,...
"...Mr. Carney said the president hoped to go beyond gun regulation. “He wants to expand the conversation beyond those specific areas of legislation to look at other ways we can address this problem,” he said.

While he did not talk in specifics, Mr. Carney mentioned mental health, education and “perhaps” cultural issues that may contribute to mass killings. He embraced a call by David Axelrod, the president’s strategist in the recent election, to rethink violent video games that glorify killing.

“Every expert on this issue would, I think, agree with that, that there are cultural issues that contribute to the broader problem of gun violence,” he said. “One of the reasons why the president wants to expand the net beyond consideration of gun laws is because he recognizes that” and believes “that we need to look broadly at all of the potential contributors to the scourge of gun violence in this country.” "

Of course that's code for, 'Best be quick an gitch yer shootin' iron Pa, them thar furrin' hellycopters is a'comin,' gonna be takesin' away are sobriegnty!'...well okay, to a certain more, shall we say, gullible, portion of our national viewing & listening audience, but in reality that really ain't too awfully histrionic:wink2:.
I mean hell, this particular flava o' gullible has not only got a definite marketable demo$Cha$Ching$graphic, it's got its own zip codes for Sam Colt's sake, and I just happen to live in one 'em:glare:

[Todash]

I am from CT (not Newtown), so this tragedy hits home for me. :down: I don't believe gun laws will do anything to prevent violence and hate. Timothy McVeigh used fertiziler in his bomb that killed over 100 people in Oklahome City. Criminals don't obey laws, that's why the are criminals.

But it's not usually career criminals, or even terrorists, that do these kinds of things. I agree that someone intent on causing a lot of damage to a school MIGHT choose to use a bomb, but I rather doubt it. Why? Because it's not personal enough. They're not making a big enough statement. Not going out in a blaze of glory, a hero to themselves. HOWEVER. Even if they did ... the chances that they would successfully pull it off are less.

You can't prevent every tragedy. But if you look at our rate of gun ownership (especially of certain types of guns), how easy it is to buy a gun, how we treat the mentally ill, and our rate of gun violence, and compare all that with other affluent countries, it seems pretty clear that we can do better than we are today. So much violence is preventable because it is either not planned or is being planned by someone whose judgment is clouded by mental illness and other factors.

If someone is truly determined to hurt another person, a gun won't make much difference other than making it easier. You cannot take the evil out of a person, and if someone is full-time evil, that person is going to cause damage. But most people who kill other people are just ... like the rest of us. Part-time evil. It's not necessary to stop them completely. It's only necessary to stop them long enough so that they can rethink their actions or to allow the victim time to get somewhere safe. The rage a killer feels, or the depression a suicidal person feels, is often temporary. It's only the bullet that makes it permanent.

[guido tkp]

someone must be watching/reading only news posts from the NRA or Faux News: every news outlet i've seen has talked ad nausem about all these aspects of this issue...

but, as i and others have stated earlier...all that will cost $$$$$

so, at the very least...can we put a yearly gun tax on all gun owners, guns and ammo sales...much like the sin taxes we wage against drinkers and smokers...and make the perpetrators of these crimes pay for all of it in advance...

after all...every one of these incidences has resulted from a normal, non-criminal going batsh!t and killing...not from al capones great-nephew picking where unc left off....

a good hefty tax big enough to pay to remodel all the schools everywhere...pay for all the extra policemen...pay for all the mentla health programs demanded by these egregiancies

[kingricefan]

someone must be watching/reading only news posts from the NRA or Faux News: every news outlet i've seen has talked ad nausem about all these aspects of this issue...

but, as i and others have stated earlier...all that will cost $$$$$

so, at the very least...can we put a yearly gun tax on all gun owners, guns and ammo sales...much like the sin taxes we wage against drinkers and smokers...and make the perpetrators of these crimes pay for all of it in advance...

after all...every one of these incidences has resulted from a normal, non-criminal going batsh!t and killing...not from al capones great-nephew picking where unc left off....

a good hefty tax big enough to pay to remodel all the schools everywhere...pay for all the extra policemen...pay for all the mentla health programs demanded by these egregiancies

I don't own a gun so I don't know about this aspect of it but if I own a car I have to buy car tabs every year for it in order for it to be legal to drive. Those funds are supposed to go towards road improvements and education. Why don't we do the same for gun owners and have THAT money go towards what you suggested in your post? After all, it's the guns that are causing the damaged so why not make the gun owners responsible?

[exzel]

someone must be watching/reading only news posts from the NRA or Faux News:

Its comments like that that supports my viewpoint that there will be no meaningful dialogue on the matter, and little will get done. I might be wrong, but I thought I was respectful in my postings, showed willingness to compromise, provided poignant concerns from the other side's point of view, and offered hope… and this is what I get. Unfortunately disrespect only leads to sides drawing lines in the sand. I doubt you would be interested, but the vast majority of the news I’ve listened to, or watched, on the matter was from NPR and MSNBC. I am not a member, nor do I listen to the NRA. I do not own an assault rifle, nor ever plan on obtaining one. I do not have a Carry and Conceal permit, and as such never carry a firearm on my presence. But I am a firm believer in second amendment rights, have had several death threats made against me, and believe if we are to have a real meaningful discussion on guns, it should include how many lives are actually saved by those who have guns and use them for protection... and how many lives have been sacrificed because of strict gun control laws.

I also would favor a tax on guns and ammunition sales to go directly to helping defray security measures at schools and mental health clinics.

I would be more than happy to discuss my points of view. But how about we keep personal attacks and disrespect out of it, shall we?

:mad:

[Todash]

I mean hell, this particular flava o' gullible has not only got a definite marketable demo$Cha$Ching$graphic, it's got its own zip codes for Sam Colt's sake, and I just happen to live in one 'em:glare:

I feel ya, bro. I really do. Like, REALLY.

[guido tkp]

unfortunately, my dear exzel...while i would love to agree whole-heartedly with you at my supposed malignation...the first thing you posted was a disrespectful, derogative view of what you percieve to be a liberal/progressive agenda...all while lambasting the media

talking points, anyone...hmmmm, i thought the election was over, but nay...there are still hearts and minds to win...and what better canard to toss to the unsuspecting masses, yearning for a free exchange of thought and ideas, than the old bugaboos of the secret, evil empire of progressive liberal media elites, right ?

yes, well...let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all

i, too, watch/listen to npr/pbs/bbc quite a bit...and every one of them has reported extensively about mental health issues with each and every one of these incidents...so, exZEL...how could you possibly have missed that ?

look...i'm not trying to be a MONSTER or anything, but...sheesh...don't get all butthurt when you start out fanning flames and get caught with the smoking match...besides, if we can take you at your word...and if you'd actually read any of mine...you'd see we are not that far apart...in fact, far closer than, say, obama and boehner and the fiscal cliffs of doom

but, true...exzel, we must all do as the late rodney king implored and just all get along here...of which i have every intention

so, shall we kiss and make up, zel ?

[Tery]

Ya know, I really get tired of my opinions being "an agenda" while the Right-Wing talking points are "truth." Pretty darn biased. :glare:

[GNTLGNT]

....allow me to make a small attempt to lighten the mood a bit...and this from a "gun nut"...

http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gun_control_girl.jpg

[Todash]

Ya know, I really get tired of my opinions being "an agenda" while the Right-Wing talking points are "truth." Pretty darn biased. :glare:

Well, suck it up, buttercup. That's just how it is. :rofl:

[Todash]

Its comments like that that supports my viewpoint that there will be no meaningful dialogue on the matter, and little will get done.

There are always people on either side of any issue who at times let their passion override their thinking capacity/speech filter. That doesn't prevent intelligent dialog or resolution; it just makes the job more difficult.

[exzel]

unfortunately, my dear exzel...while i would love to agree whole-heartedly with you at my supposed malignation...the first thing you posted was a disrespectful, derogative view of what you percieve to be a liberal/progressive agenda...all while lambasting the media

talking points, anyone...hmmmm, i thought the election was over, but nay...there are still hearts and minds to win...and what better canard to toss to the unsuspecting masses, yearning for a free exchange of thought and ideas, than the old bugaboos of the secret, evil empire of progressive liberal media elites, right ?

yes, well...let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all

i, too, watch/listen to npr/pbs/bbc quite a bit...and every one of them has reported extensively about mental health issues with each and every one of these incidents...so, exZEL...how could you possibly have missed that ?

look...i'm not trying to be a MONSTER or anything, but...sheesh...don't get all butthurt when you start out fanning flames and get caught with the smoking match...besides, if we can take you at your word...and if you'd actually read any of mine...you'd see we are not that far apart...in fact, far closer than, say, obama and boehner and the fiscal cliffs of doom

but, true...exzel, we must all do as the late rodney king implored and just all get along here...of which i have every intention

so, shall we kiss and make up, zel ?

There is a big difference between lambasting a political party and an individual member at SKMB. I don’t take issue with the disrespectful and derogative comments thrown at republicans, conservatives or such. And when it comes to liberals/progressive ideology, I give as good as I get. I understand our ideolgies are on opposite ends of the spectrum, and hold firm to our beliefs, and believe at times consider each other’s group is a bit bonkers. Hopefully though, compromise comes of it at the political level.

And I actually got a kick out of “there are still hearts and minds to win...and what better canard to toss to the unsuspecting masses, yearning for a free exchange of thought and ideas, than the old bugaboos of the secret, evil empire of progressive liberal media elites, right?” You have a better flair for words than me.

But when we go after one another here at SKMB, we make it personal. Do you really want to make it personal?

I did hear some take about mental health on NPR, but it was vastly overshadowed by gun control talk. I even chuckled the other day that one NPR presenter actually took the line, with supporting data, that as we look at the most effective methods of combating this type of carnage aimed at our schoolchildren, gun control only came in fourth as and effective measure (with arming and training teachers and administrators as fifth). I thought to myself, this person won’t be working at NPR very long LOL.

And sure we can make up, but as for kissing… well I don’t think you’re quite my type. :wink2:

[exzel]

Ya know, I really get tired of my opinions being "an agenda" while the Right-Wing talking points are "truth." Pretty darn biased. :glare:

Did I go after you personally? And yes, the Right-Wing has its "agenda" also. And I believe we both think our respective sides represent the "truth." But ultimately I think the "truth" lays somewhere in-between.

[Neesy]

....allow me to make a small attempt to lighten the mood a bit...and this from a "gun nut"...

http://becausemerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/gun_control_girl.jpg
She needs to have a strong male standing behind her to hold her shoulders so she doesn't fall over from the recoil. Seriously - this is what we did in 1980 in Cornwallis, Nova Scotia in basic training. We actually had a "brother platoon" that went out to the range with us. OMG - am I that old now? It's hard to believe that was 32 years ago.
p.s. thanks for the humour!
How about sub machine guns (or SMGs as we called them back then)? Are these banned? I did not want to get into this whole Colorado shooting discussion and I have been avoiding it until now but really what is next? Will a gunman go into a maternity ward and start shooting up the newborns? I think when they put in the American Constitution that part about the "right to bear arms" never in their wildest imagination could they picture what is happening these days.

[guido tkp]

hey...i resemble that...guess that's why they call me ol' one eye :wink2:

[PatInTheHat]

How about sub machine guns (or SMGs as we called them back then)? Are these banned?
Nah, not really, and I mean really, really nothing is, really just depends on how much and how many rigamaroles and hoops you want to jump through, paper work paper work paper work, and more paper work is what I'm guessin'.
That and pay the big boy (and girl) toy tax stamps, oh, and fork over some serious artillery purchasing power beans, and just maybe you too can be the proud owner of such deadly yard art, as mortars, grenade launchers, tanks....
But the general populace, fired up by the whole of a mostly gun ignorant media, would just as soon freak out over what used to be considered nothing more than an undesirable varmint rifle, at least around these here parts til I suppose just here in recent years.
That .223 caliber, it ain't never been nothin' to us but a varmint gun, and at least at one time it was justa wee little too expensive for this kinda hill country, a little too much overkill for these days even, 'cept maybe for coyotes.
It's better for wide open country is the opinion I always understood, and at one time, and not all that long ago, you could barely have traded a .223 for a can of name brand chili beans, less ya threw in a couple boxes of bullets, not around here...but now I'd just bet that sure has changed.
But hey now, here's a fun fun fun for the whole machine gun lovin' family kinda place, and we've got it rightchere in The Mighty BlueGrass, y'all think every neighborhood needs one of these, it's killer:rolleyes:.....
" Rifles, pistols, shotguns, cannons… Whatcha got? We got a 350-yard Outdoor Range, plus other secret ranges we’re not even supposed to talk about."
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/
And if your past the bullet proof window shoppin' stage, this Knob Creek event is a pretty big deal where to rub some elbows, lotta winky:wink2:winky goin' on...America, whatta country!
http://www.knobcreekrange.com/events...hine-gun-shoot

[kingricefan]

So, the head of the NRA wants to put armed police in schools? Sorry, this is not the answer! Adding more guns to an already gunned-out society? Antiquated thinking! Nothing (in the report that I just read) said anything about a ban on assault weapons. Nothing. I don't care about any of the other types of guns that are out there, but there needs to be a ban on these types of weapons. Period. What good is a handgun when you're faced with an assault rifle? People have posted on here that the majority of NRA members want to have a ban on assault weapons and yet their leader comes out a week after a horrible massacre of innocent children with this statement? How out of touch is he? He also takes NO questions from anyone after making his speech. Two protesters who shouted out at him from the audience were briskly removed from said premises. His 'solution' is to add more fuel to the fire. What a load of crap!!! Jesus God, why must our children grow up surrounded by an arsenal of weapons in their schools??? This type of (non) thinking is why these massacres continue to happen. Our fore fathers didn't have an assault weapon in mind when the constitution was written! I bet he'd change his mind real fast if one of his kids gets murdered by someone using an assault weapon. Again, this is my opinion, humble (or outrageous) as it may be, it may not be yours, so be respectful, as I am being with those who don't share my life view.

[guido tkp]

...and...you expected anything different from wayne lapierre???????????????????????

mayhap you've never heard this guy talk :wink2:

i'm still not sold, despite all the reaslistic viewpoints offered, on the idea that a ban will achieve what we want: a safer america

bans have never really worked..ask anyone who lived during prohibituion...ask that mormon congressman who's very religion bans the use of alcohol....ask willie nelson

there's been, essentially, bans on adults having sex and or sexual contact with kids...and yet we have the cathoilic church...jerry sandusky...and a billion other stories...bans will not solve a thing: it's a placebo

i just think we need to think smarter than trying something that probably won't work and will, inevitably, be highly divisive amongst the type of crowd that has spent the last 4-5 years saying the black guy in the white house only wants to take their guns...let's get armed to the teeth for the upcoming war !!

we'd be falling right into thier scenario of doom and destruction....

our silent friend corbin had oft pointed out his illustious new group, the oath keepers...or some such...and they were going around the country, just a few years ago...contacting 'patriots' who were willing to fight our govt when that time came: and everybody wants to jump down that rabbit hole like it's nothing

it'd be nice to think that the overwhelming majority of gun owners would side with the smart and intelligent...but they haven't so far: they all still belong to the nra...and it hasn't changed it's tune once in a millenia...have you hear of nra members leaving en masse since lapierres speech ????

i haven't...not a peep......

just sayin'

[Moderator]

And there has been yet another situation in which more people have lost their lives when firefighters were ambushed and shot, two fatally, in New York on Monday. The gunman was using a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle--the same kind used at the Sandy Hook shooting site. And again, this is most likely a situation where guns came into the hands of someone who was mentally unstable with the result that innocent people lost their lives. How many times must this happen before something is done?!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-firefighter-shooting/index.html

[doowopgirl]

I normally stay out of political discussions, so first I just want to say that it is difficult for me to put my thoughts down.

We are a gun owning household. My husband has several. Most of them are for hunting, I've talked about him being a hunter before. He has a couple that belonged to his grandfather, and they never get used. We have 2 handguns. I have recently learned how to handle one of them, because he is gone so much at night. He has always wanted me to learn, but I resisted. I could never imagine any situation where I might need to know how to use one. But my opinion on that has changed in recent months, my faith in the goodness of people has wavered. So I am now comfortable and knowledgeable enough to protect myself and my children if, heaven forbid, the need ever arose.

They are all legal, registered weapons. We take the precautions necessary to keep our children safe, and they have each seen, not only what a gun will do to a paper target, but also what a gun will do to a living creature. They have all been along on hunting trips and have seen what happens when you point and shoot at a living thing. They are locked in a gun cabinet in our bedroom and no one goes down there unsupervised. But, we have been rethinking even that...and as soon as we are financially able, we will be buying a gun safe. We do have a small one for the handguns, but the rifles are on clear view, the gun cabinet is glass fronted. So we will be taking one step further and making sure that they are even more secure than they are now.

I am torn between wanting to support what my husband believes in so very strongly, that it is his right to own them, and wanting to never, ever have to watch an event like Friday's unfold on the news again. Or like what happened in the mall earlier last week, or Aurora, or any of these terrible incidents. I know we are responsible owners, and would never do anything to hurt another human being with one of them, short of protecting ourselves and our children, but you don't know about the person next to you. How do you make sure the people who wish to do harm do not get their hands on a gun without also punishing the good, law abiding citizens? And here in Wyoming, the gun laws are pretty lenient. Anyone can carry without a concealed permit, although there are places, like schools where you cannot. Yes, there are background checks run when a purchase is made, but it takes 5 minutes, and you walk out with your gun.

3 weeks ago, there was an incident at a Casper, Wyoming college, which is about 100 miles from us. A young man, who was also diagnosed as being autistic, killed his father's girlfriend with a compound bow, and then went to the college, where his father was an instructor and walked into his classroom and shot him with the bow, then stabbed him and then killed himself. His motive? He blamed his father for having him and "making" him autistic. People who want to cause harm always find a way.

Whatever happens, whatever changes are made, I hope that good, law abiding citizens will not be punished for the actions of some who are not. But that is the problem...making that distinction. You just never know what the person next to you is thinking or will do.

I apologize for the long post. I feel like I rambled without really saying anything. (Told ya...I'm no good at this stuff) Somehow, things need to change...but I think the very first thing is to reinforce in all of our kids respect and compassion for their fellow man. Without that, nothing is ever going to get any better, with or without guns.
Couldn't agree more. While hunters and home protection really don't need assault rifles, there is no law that could have changed these awful events. Until people learn compassion and respect, then atrocities will continue.

[~Ally~]

And there has been yet another situation in which more people have lost their lives when firefighters were ambushed and shot, two fatally, in New York on Monday.

I read yesterday that the Westboro_Baptist_Church are planning on picketing the funerals of the firefighters. This group make me sick! A counter-protest is already being organised to try and discourage their actions, but the families of these people shouldn't have to see any protesters at their loved ones funerals. They were also going to protest the funeral of Sandy Hook's prinicipal; Dawn Hochsprung, but were scared away by a group of motorcyclists.

I don't understand why this group are tolerated by the American government, and not recognised as a hate group, but maybe with all the recent signatures on the White House Petition site demanding they are viewed this way that will soon change. Here's a link if anybody wants to sign it. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitions.whiteho use.gov%2Fpetition%2Flegally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group%2FDYf3pH2d)

Ooh, and I can't believe people are demanding Piers Morgan should be deported from America all because he spoke his mind--and sense--regarding the gun control debate. So much for freedom of speech, eh? Very immature behaviour, almost like a child throwing it's toys out of the pram because they don't always have/get their own way...and these "people" own guns?? Quite a frightening thought really.

[Liselle]

I personally don't think anything will change until sections of Americans get it out of their heads that it is not their god given right to own a gun. Constitutions can be changed no matter how unpopular that may be. America has to ask itself why do these mixed up kids choose to shoot people rather than stab people. Because guns are close to hand (most households have at least one gun, I have seen pics of whole families holding rifles etc and surplus placed on the floor). If the gun was not so easy to get hold of then this would not happen on the scale it does. It is far harder to stab someone (up close and personal) than shoot someone (further away and remote). And yes I have heard of bomb plots to blow up schools but they are few and far between because it is harder to do than just grabbing the family arms wear and heading off.

[guido tkp]

imho, westboro and their members are a hate group...they are also about as anti-american a group as one would hope not to find anywhere in america...

unfortunately...they do not exist within a vaccuum...there are too, too many...ahem... 'citizens' who have that amount of hate in their hearts of that magnitude and equal amounts of low-level stupidity to go along with it

like...ummmmm........wayne lapierre

all, rightly or wrongly, constitutionally protected

[Damaris]

I have to say, the civility in this thread - despite obviously opposing opinions - is very heartening. We need a lovey sort of emoticon, but I guess this one will do. :y:

Many polls show that the majority of Americans support further gun control, so I think the question will be what kind and to what extent. Like most others, I don't see the need for 30-round clips/magazines or true assault weapons but, as Guido pointed out, bans often have little effect. I think the increased registration, fees, etc. are good ideas, and I would add that in many areas both open and concealed carry courses could use better/more extensive training for applicants.

But I also see a lot of confusion and misinformation being shared (not necessarily on here, or on purpose). For one thing, the vast majority of hunting rifles, and several shotgun models, are semi-automatic and have been for nearly a century. Automatics - like machine guns - have been heavily regulated since the 1930s; the AR-15 and similar weapons used in these recent shootings were not automatics. Also, the AR-15 may look military-grade, but it is machined differently and fires generally .223 cartridges, the same as used in many other small-game rifles. It's sort of like a Ford Escort powertrain with a Mustang body. And while the U.S. clearly leads gun-related deaths in the developed world, homicide rates in general show much greater similarity. Overall, we still rank higher than Europe and Oceania, but not by a great deal - 4.2 against 3.5 per 100,000 people (UN (http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf)). Homicides were down 16% between 2006 and 2010, and for the U.S. and Canada collectively, homicides are down 40% since 1995. (And before anyone claims that Canada is carrying us, individual numbers from the UN show homicides in both countries decreasing at the same rate. [UN (http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=UNODC&f=tableCode%3A1#UNODC)]). If Wiki can be believed, the number of those killed in school shootings is also down, even including Newtown (not enough, clearly, but any progress is still progress). During these periods of decrease, there were also tens of millions of new gun purchases. In 2010, just over 600 people were killed by accidental gun discharges and, perhaps most telling, though the U.S. had 13,000 murders there were over 38,000 suicides (FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl01.xls); CDC (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK1_2010.pdf)). Pertinent gun/accessory control will likely help with all those numbers, but I think the big picture of firearm use is less bleak than often painted. I also think that, when suicides outnumber murders by almost 3-to-1, mental health is a much bigger concern than often acknowledged.

[GNTLGNT]

And there has been yet another situation in which more people have lost their lives when firefighters were ambushed and shot, two fatally, in New York on Monday. The gunman was using a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle--the same kind used at the Sandy Hook shooting site. And again, this is most likely a situation where guns came into the hands of someone who was mentally unstable with the result that innocent people lost their lives. How many times must this happen before something is done?!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-firefighter-shooting/index.html

...AND the dude was an ex-con...so he HAD to have gotten his weaponry on the black market...I can't fathom him not being red flagged in the databases...

[GNTLGNT]

I read yesterday that the Westboro_Baptist_Church are planning on picketing the funerals of the firefighters. This group make me sick! A counter-protest is already being organised to try and discourage their actions, but the families of these people shouldn't have to see any protesters at their loved ones funerals. They were also going to protest the funeral of Sandy Hook's prinicipal; Dawn Hochsprung, but were scared away by a group of motorcyclists.

I don't understand why this group are tolerated by the American government, and not recognised as a hate group, but maybe with all the recent signatures on the White House Petition site demanding they are viewed this way that will soon change. Here's a link if anybody wants to sign it. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitions.whiteho use.gov%2Fpetition%2Flegally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group%2FDYf3pH2d)

Ooh, and I can't believe people are demanding Piers Morgan should be deported from America all because he spoke his mind--and sense--regarding the gun control debate. So much for freedom of speech, eh? Very immature behaviour, almost like a child throwing it's toys out of the pram because they don't always have/get their own way...and these "people" own guns?? Quite a frightening thought really.

...probably because of this line Ally...


'we want less guns, not more'.

...to my mind-it's the TYPE of weapon or size of clip...not a wholesale banishing of "all" guns...again, rational discourse and decisions is all I ask...

[Todash]

I read yesterday that the Westboro_Baptist_Church are planning on picketing the funerals of the firefighters. This group make me sick! A counter-protest is already being organised to try and discourage their actions, but the families of these people shouldn't have to see any protesters at their loved ones funerals. They were also going to protest the funeral of Sandy Hook's prinicipal; Dawn Hochsprung, but were scared away by a group of motorcyclists.

I don't understand why this group are tolerated by the American government, and not recognised as a hate group, but maybe with all the recent signatures on the White House Petition site demanding they are viewed this way that will soon change. Here's a link if anybody wants to sign it. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/legally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group/DYf3pH2d (http://www.stephenking.com/forums/redirector.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpetitions.whiteho use.gov%2Fpetition%2Flegally-recognize-westboro-baptist-church-hate-group%2FDYf3pH2d)I'm not sure what people are wanting from that petition. The FBI keeps a list of hate groups but does not publish it, and even if a hate group is recognized by the FBI, I think all that really means is that any threat or advocacy of force by such a group is investigated by the FBI. The activities of the WBC, as odious and repulsive as they are, have never culminated in violence, as far as I know. Nor do they appear to be advocating violence. Most of what is called "hate speech" is protected in the US unless it is defamatory, incitement to riot, or "fighting words." (I lifted all that from Wikipedia, by the way. I didn't just happen to know it.)


Ooh, and I can't believe people are demanding Piers Morgan should be deported from America all because he spoke his mind--and sense--regarding the gun control debate. So much for freedom of speech, eh? Very immature behaviour, almost like a child throwing it's toys out of the pram because they don't always have/get their own way...and these "people" own guns?? Quite a frightening thought really.Isn't this two sides of the same coin? If we don't believe in freedom of speech for those we personally find most repulsive, how can we be said to believe in it at all, really? Every country, even the most repressive, allows speech in support of the majority opinion or official government positions. The WBC is a group nearly universally disliked by everyone except themselves, though they are very careful to never even appear to incite violence (they are lawyered up for a reason); as such, its existence is an excellent litmus test as to whether a society truly supports freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is so incredibly important, and yet, if it were put up to a majority vote, it would be made null and void by people in general who do not want to have to tolerate those they don't agree with. That doesn't sting until you suddenly find yourself on the unpopular side.

[clownshooter]

Why hasn't anyone picketed the WBC? Now there's a thought! As far as Piers Morgan is concerned I view him as the bizarro Bill O'Rielly! He is rude and employs the same tactics as Bill O'Rielly as in trying to dominate the conversation and constantly interrupting. FWIW I don't like either of them. Maybe we can get a twofer. :umm:

It's a personal thing; I have no patience for rude people, even those who may espouse a similar point of view as me.

"We need to seek wise leaders who will seek common ground among Americans instead of dividing us further for political gain. As citizens, we must embrace those who embrace ideas, thoughtfulness, civility and kindness to others no matter what their political beliefs."
James McGreevey

[atomicinchworm]

I strongly dislike WBC; I think a majority of Americans do. Dislike is the wrong sentiment. I can't actually say exactly how strongly I dislike their opinions and their tactics.

However, unless they are actually citing violence, not magical cloud violence (as in gays/soldiers/small children/everybody is going to hell), but actual physical violence, they aren't technically a hate group. They aren't saying kill gays; they are saying that god hates them, and they are going to hell.

They are disgusting and terrible, and I wish the media would stop giving them attention. They make their money off of suing people who take a swing at them, or municipalities that refuse their right to picket peacefully. If you literally stop feeding the troll, they will go away.

I do feel ultimately that while the gun control thing is getting a ton of attention, and most people feel that sane reasonable control is a good idea (hell, my dad, ultra-conservative, military 20 years, had guns while I was growing up, supports sane regulations like licensing and practical exams), the mental health component is going to be over looked.

And this will just happen again. People always want to patch the symptom and not spend the money and time looking for the cause.

[exzel]

May I ask what Stephen King's opinion on gun ownership might be?

[Moderator]

May I ask what Stephen King's opinion on gun ownership might be?

Without asking him for his official public position (knowing full well that it could--and probably would--be used elsewhere,) I don't want to post anything here. I will see if he is willing to give me a quote that can be posted.

[exzel]

Without asking him for his official public position (knowing full well that it could--and probably would--be used elsewhere,) I don't want to post anything here. I will see if he is willing to give me a quote that can be posted.

“No” would be an acceptable answer from SK (even though he doesn’t seem to have any difficulty in getting into a very public political foray, legal gun ownership should be considered quite personal IMO). But I understand Ms. Mod, as it is a very politically charged topic right now and anything could and will be utilized by opposing sides. As (from my point of view) in Senator Diane Feinstein’s bill that she will introduce in January which goes far beyond reinstating the Federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 that lapsed. I don’t own anything that would fall under the Ban of 1994, and therefore I don’t think it lawful that I should expect a visit from police, including being photographed and fingerprinted, because of what I might own which was always considered legal to own.

It’s sad… as I believe most gun owners and second amendment supporters would agree to the reinstatement of the AWB, but when someone like Feinstein (or LaPierre to be fair) takes things to extremes, it only ends up being a fight that just puts us on both sides even more farther apart.

Isn’t it also ironic that David Gregory proved LaPierre’s point that even if there are “bans” in effect, the criminals (like David Gregory just might be, because the clip he used was considered illegal in DC where the segment was filmed, and there was no mention that it was exempt for some reason under the law) will still find ways of getting them.

[AnnaClaire]

I think that some type of gun control is necessary. It is really hard for me to understand why we are allowing the asault rifles ect. I think we might have to require gun owners to get liability insurance if they want to own a gun. Fewer people would own a gun if they had to pay liability insurance like a deadly car accident or drunk driving..ect. My employer forced me to move to Florida last year and we really have a problem--I dont think anyone with kids should have guns either--there's to many accidents kids accidently shooting themselfs and stuff.

[Moderator]

I was thinking just this morning of how ironic it is that the paranoia about gun control meaning that all guns and ammunition would be banned so there is a rush on the gun stores to purchase them and the culture of fear we have developed to new heights in this country, i.e. that because so many "criminals" and other people are "out there" who have guns and might hurt us that we "have" to have guns to protect us, have in themselves become a self-fulfilling prophecy of more and more guns being in the hands of people who probably shouldn't for one reason or another have them and are doing so legally. Seems to me the only ones who are benefiting from the lack of regulation are the manufacturers and people selling guns and ammo so there's no incentive from that direction to have reasonable conversations about how to improve the system. And the system--or lack of a cohesive one to deal with this on all fronts--obviously isn't working to protect people and the idea that everyone needs to be armed to protect themselves instead of dealing with it rationally is absolutely ridiculous.

[meri lee]

I just want to say this. I was just as horrified by the events in Newtown, CN. I still believe that if some of those teachers and esp. the principal had been armed, most of those little ones could have been saved. If an intruder came to my door, and we live on a country road, I would protect myself and my family with a firearm of choice, aim first, ask questions later.

[Moderator]

Or, they could have still been shot and killed. Just having a gun does not ensure that you will not be shot by someone else who has one as has been proven over and over again. The idea of having firearms in schools rather than finding ways to control guns, and that does not mean totally banning all of them BTW, is beyond comprehension to me. JMO

[PatInTheHat]

Step right up, see Little Egypt, she can't walk, she can't talk, butt only because she got shot in the head by a stray smokin' projectile...
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1058863.1335764785!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/gallery_635/bramhall-world-shooting-gallery.jpg
...only one thin dime, the price of some bullets :oo:..yeah, not very catchy is it, needs more *POP*, duddnit?
This P(issed off).S(ucker).A(lert). brought to you buy The N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation, where our motto is:
ALWAYS PROUD TO BE LOUD:y::grr::y:!

[Moderator]

May I ask what Stephen King's opinion on gun ownership might be?

Haven't forgotten this. Have spoken with Steve and he is in the process of writing an op-ed type piece about gun control so didn't have a short answer to pass along yet. I'm thinking when that piece comes out might be a good time for me to take another vacation and have the Board shut down. :wink2:

[Spideyman]

Haven't forgotten this. Have spoken with Steve and he is in the process of writing an op-ed type piece about gun control so didn't have a short answer to pass along yet. I'm thinking when that piece comes out might be a good time for me to take another vacation and have the Board shut down. :wink2:

Oh, we do remember his last one!!!!!:oh: Calming vibes for when it does appear.

[Shasta]

I'm thinking when that piece comes out might be a good time for me to take another vacation and have the Board shut down. :wink2:

That made me laugh so hard I actually cried.

[exzel]

Haven't forgotten this. Have spoken with Steve and he is in the process of writing an op-ed type piece about gun control so didn't have a short answer to pass along yet. I'm thinking when that piece comes out might be a good time for me to take another vacation and have the Board shut down. :wink2:

Thanks for the update. Will his piece be nonfiction, fiction or romance? :wink2: Just don’t vacation in Chicago. They have probably the most strict gun laws in the country there, yet comprise over 5% of deaths in America caused by firearms. Go figure!

And I haven’t heard much meaningful discussion on the gun issue relating to how many lives are actually saved by those who have guns and use them for protection. Or how many lives have been sacrificed because of strict gun control laws.

I have read reports that about 1/6th of people who use guns in defense believe that they saved an innocent life by doing so. If that’s true, and with a very conservative underestimate on the number of times people use guns in self-defense, we could be looking at over 13,000 lives saved each year by armed citizens. Deaths attributed to guns runs under 10,000 I believe. If we use other estimates of 1,000,000 incidents where citizens use guns to protect themselves each year, we could be talking over 165,000 lives saved.

I keep hearing about President Obama using "executive orders" to enact stricter gun laws in the event our elected officials in congress take their good old time, or don't legislate to his liking. I hope this isn't the case as I thought he was elected president, who is subject to the laws of the land... and not elected dictator.

[Moderator]

Repeat after me, gun control laws do not mean banning ALL guns.

Have guns saved some people's lives? Probably, but they've sacrificed a lot more.

[GNTLGNT]

Repeat after me, gun control laws do not mean banning ALL guns.

Have guns saved some people's lives? Probably, but they've sacrificed a lot more.

...no argument, and AGAIN-let me re-iterate, I think control of assualt weapons, extended clips et al and more in-depth screenings are necessary, I believe that taxing ammo to ridiculous lengths is knee-jerk and only penalizes those of us who responsibly own and "operate" firearms...plus, even with being a a Life Member of the NRA, I have to agree with Pat, they are way too strident at this juncture to advance a cognizant agenda...I firmly believe in the underlying beliefs , and always will-but they are being as goofy as some of the so-called "gun grabbers"....

[guido tkp]

i'd agree wholeheartedly about the taxation issue...but we already do that sort of thing to others...extra taxes on certain items...so gun owners should not feel singled out and oppressed by such maneuvers, methinks, since i'm sure they, like almost everybody else, has voted in a few 'sin' taxes through the years

i'd hate, though, if that is a route that is taken, to see taxes be levied too high...last thing we need is to further engender a black market

any monies raised should be earmarked solely to further enhance responsible gun ownership...not to harass law abiding citizens

[exzel]

Repeat after me, gun control laws do not mean banning ALL guns.
Hyperbole? And of course not... Did I ever say they would?

But, as I have read, there is a push to limit magazines to 10 rounds. And I believe the majority of semi-auto handguns would fall outside of that limit. Citizens own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines.

Do they issue magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to the police in order to commit murder? No! So if those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we want to prohibit them for law enforcement and security also? The 10 round “high capacity” limitation appears only to be a cloak to disarm the majority of the already law-abiding citizens.


Have guns saved some people's lives? Probably, but they've sacrificed a lot more.
What leads you to believe that?

[Moderator]

From http://abcnews.go.com/US/giffords-kelly-gun-violence-2nd-anniversary-tucson-shooting/story?id=18145328


Giffords, 42, and Kelly, 48, are both gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but Kelly had strong words for the National Rifle Association after the group suggested the only way to stop gun violence is to have a "good guy with a gun."

There was a good guy with a gun, Kelly said, the day Jared Loughner shot Giffords and 18 other people, six fatally, at her "Congress on Your Corner" event.
"[A man came out] of the store next door and nearly shot the man who took down Jared Loughner," Kelly said. "The one who eventually wrestled [Loughner] to the ground was almost killed himself by a good guy with a gun, so I don't really buy that argument."

[exzel]

And if one of our sons or daughters was at this birthday party… How would we feel?

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/college-student-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.
“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.

[Moderator]

Outraged that guns were there at all. But unless the gunmen were felons, they're still protected under the second amendment as having the legal right to possess them regardless of who's holding them or the type of firearm they are.

[exzel]

Call me crazy… but breaking and entering, masked, armed, and taking hostages would make any reasonable person consider them to felons, or worse... and not protected by the second amendment.

[Shasta]

Call me crazy… but breaking and entering, masked, armed, and taking hostages would make any reasonable person consider them to felons, or worse... and not protected by the second amendment.

Only if they had been caught and convicted before.

[Moderator]

Until they are convicted felons, they are still protected. If they were not at the time of the incident, they could potentially have been legally able to purchase guns and ammunition and in some situations could have done so without any sort of background check. THAT is part of what gun controls are about.

The verbage you have consistently been using in your posts has been discussing not limiting the type of guns or ammunition that are available for anyone to purchase. I have on more than one occasion attempted to put forth that gun control laws are not about taking away second amendment rights to own a gun. They are instead about any one or a number of measures such as limiting the type of guns that can be purchased, having background checks for every single purchase and removing loopholes for doing so, making sure that mentally ill persons whose mental illness could affect their use of guns in such a way as to harm others are not able to purchase them, etc. In other words to make it possible for responsible gun owners to continue to have them while protecting the safety of others.

[Shasta]

Until they are convicted felons, they are still protected. If they were not at the time of the incident, they could potentially have been legally able to purchase guns and ammunition and in some situations could have done so without any sort of background check. THAT is part of what gun controls are about.



And I just heard on NPR last night that many, many states are not updating their felon registries. And that being a felon and trying to buy a gun is a crime yet while many felons try, there are very few who are actually prosecuted for this.

[exzel]

The verbage you have consistently been using in your posts has been discussing not limiting the type of guns or ammunition that are available for anyone to purchase. I have on more than one occasion attempted to put forth that gun control laws are not about taking away second amendment rights to own a gun. They are instead about any one or a number of measures such as limiting the type of guns that can be purchased, having background checks for every single purchase and removing loopholes for doing so, making sure that mentally ill persons whose mental illness could affect their use of guns in such a way as to harm others are not able to purchase them, etc. In other words to make it possible for responsible gun owners to continue to have them while protecting the safety of others.


Then I must not have been clear in my posts. I thought I previously discussed that I would be in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban. I also don’t recall anywhere being against background checks to purchase firearms. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

And to quote from Men in Black: “And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.” :wink2:

What I am against is the overreach of gun control legislation, such as a 10 round magazine limit would impose and make the majority of currently owned handguns illegal, or a complete ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons, and other extreme measures.

[MrsSmeej]

In the wake of Sandy Hook, where 20 children died,
Nation in a state of shock; Barack Obama cried.
(He was not the only one who's eyes had sprung a leak
I know that I wept non-stop for the entire week.)

We all swore we'd make a change to stop these killing sprees.
Think that anything will ever happen? Honey, please.
While the Newtown parents buried daughters and their sons,
People, in the thousands, ran right out to purchase guns.

Weapons sales went through the roof and bullets sold out quick.
Proof, to me, the culture that we live in's pretty sick.
NRA sounds rational when people are afraid.
How far has my own position on this issue strayed?

I've begun to think that arming teachers makes good sense.
Maybe build a moat, or else electrify a fence.
We now have so many guns we can't uncross the line.
There's a gun for everyone... I wonder who has mine.

[onlyewe]

I am not making light of the gun violence in this country; however, the rhetoric needs to come down a notch. It has become a war of soundbites even as the violence escalates. As my grandmother used to say, Common sense is is not common.
On that note, Chris Rock's take on Gun Control:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II

And here is his most recent comment on Gun Control:

Chris Rock has a suggestion for reducing gun violence: Limit gun ownership to people with mortgages.

"Every mass killer lives with his mother," said Rock. "It's never people who have their own place."

His suggestion would address the issue of personal history, Rock noted, "because every mortgage already comes with a real background check."

It would also have a pre-deterrent effect on potential perpetrators.

"If you go to jail for 30 years," said Rock, "you'd still have to pay that mortgage."

Rock made his suggestion at a TV critics panel for "Totally Biased," the W. Kamau Bell late-night talk show that Rock executive-produces.

Rock had a standup routine years ago in which he suggested guns should be given out free, but bullets should cost $5,000.

[Moderator]

Then I must not have been clear in my posts. I thought I previously discussed that I would be in favor of reinstating the assault weapons ban. I also don’t recall anywhere being against background checks to purchase firearms. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

And to quote from Men in Black: “And to be honest, I'd appreciate it if you eased up off my back about it.” :wink2:

What I am against is the overreach of gun control legislation, such as a 10 round magazine limit would impose and make the majority of currently owned handguns illegal, or a complete ban on the sale of semi-automatic weapons, and other extreme measures.

Should I have broken that into two paragraphs so that you would not construe it to mean anything more about you than what I said in the first sentence? Trust me, I'm showing considerable restraint already. :eyebrow:

When the industry (and that pertains to any industry) does not self-regulate itself, and let's be honest about the fact that as long as so many people are making money hand over fist it will not happen, the only recourse that is left is legislation. Had the NRA, manufacturers, and gun sellers done more to help diminish the chances of the numerous mass murders of innocent victims from happening, I might (and that's a huge might) have some sympathy for them. They have, however, been allowed pretty much carte blanche to sell weapons and ammunition that go far beyond what most people need in order to defend themselves or for hunting purposes. They further their ends by perpetuating a culture that instead of finding reasonable ways of dealing with conflicts, mental illness, and ways to prevent situations from escalating to physical violence is told that it must arm itself against "them." And then they hide behind the second amendment and rail against the government How dare the government take away our rights?! Indeed! And what about the rights of those of us who do not want a world where we are fed the preposterous notion that we must arm ourselves in order to live in safety because nothing else can be done? Or to give up trying to find reasonable solutions because the issues are "too complex?" Talk about your dumbing down of America. :glare:

[GNTLGNT]

so gun owners should not feel singled out and oppressed by such maneuvers,

...I understand "sin tax" and the like...and re-reread what I said-"ridiculous" taxes...50% tax on ammo is outlandish in my opinion...that's all I'm saying...

[exzel]

Should I have broken that into two paragraphs so that you would not construe it to mean anything more about you than what I said in the first sentence? Trust me, I'm showing considerable restraint already. :eyebrow:

When the industry (and that pertains to any industry) does not self-regulate itself, and let's be honest about the fact that as long as so many people are making money hand over fist it will not happen, the only recourse that is left is legislation. Had the NRA, manufacturers, and gun sellers done more to help diminish the chances of the numerous mass murders of innocent victims from happening, I might (and that's a huge might) have some sympathy for them. They have, however, been allowed pretty much carte blanche to sell weapons and ammunition that go far beyond what most people need in order to defend themselves or for hunting purposes. They further their ends by perpetuating a culture that instead of finding reasonable ways of dealing with conflicts, mental illness, and ways to prevent situations from escalating to physical violence is told that it must arm itself against "them." And then they hide behind the second amendment and rail against the government How dare the government take away our rights?! Indeed! And what about the rights of those of us who do not want a world where we are fed the preposterous notion that we must arm ourselves in order to live in safety because nothing else can be done? Or to give up trying to find reasonable solutions because the issues are "too complex?" Talk about your dumbing down of America. :glare:


I realize gun control is a very toxic issue right now.

Approximately 62 million American’s own guns. In the past couple of years I can recall 3 people horribly abusing the “Right” we all experience under the second amendment (and I don’t believe the last one was legally allowed to own guns). And it is “RIGHT” under our constitution (an inalienable human right according to our constitution, as essential to the life of liberty as the right to free speech). Also, at the heart of every one of those 3 attacks there appears to have been problematic social and/or psychological issues. Why then not focus on the cause rather than the tool they used to commit the act? Guns are only tools, and it’s how they are used that’s the problem. Yes we keep hearing “all matters” will be taken into consideration about the topic at hand, but let’s be honest… the vast majority of the discussion has only been on gun control. The worst mass killings in US history have involved bombs and fire, but I suppose the actual number of deaths means less than the method of their deaths. Bottom line, the number of killings by guns is miniscule, compared to the number of firearms in the hands of our citizens. Can you say the same for alcohol or automobile deaths?

How many deaths are caused annually by alcohol abuse, by automobiles? Far far more than by guns. Do we demand limiting alcohol to 1%... where you would need vast quantities to get a buzz, or putting limiting devises on cars so they can’t go over 35 MPH? Doing so wouldn’t restrict the ability, or so-called “right,” to purchase alcohol or drive automobiles. Or are we okay with them because trying to find solutions to the issues are "too complex?"


Mark Levin, probably one of the best constitutional lawyers IMO, had an excellent piece on what is really happening (picking out the best sections):


No discussion on the news programs about an imperial president exercising an authority he does not have under our constitution. Nothing. No discussion about all the lives saved and all the people protected as a result of the Second Amendment. Nothing. They continue to perpetuate the lie, the big lie that somehow, some new regulation, some new government fiat would have prevented what happened in Newtown, Connecticut. And then they pretend that they're for law enforcement. They pretend that they're hard on crime when they're not.

We have evidence over one decade after another of how the very same people pushing for gun control against law-abiding American citizens support radical left-wing judges who are soft on criminals, support weakened sentencing rules, decriminalizing this and that. Since when was Obama strong on fighting crime? Since when has Obama supported law enforcement? But here he is, you know, 'we have to stop gun violence.' No, we have to stop violent criminals.


Anyway, so they may do by executive fiat -- I'm trying to read between the lines -- a national gun database. Now, why would we need a national gun database? Well, listen, we need to know who has the weapons, at all times, and how many weapons they have and what weapons they have. How come? Why? The guy that killed all those people in Newtown, Connecticut, we know who he was and we know who had the weapons, his mother. So what does this national database have to do with anything? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, okay, but we need one anyway, right? To prevent what exactly? To prevent what?http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/11/levin_i_can_barely_contain_my_fury_at_what_is_goin g_on_in_this_country.html

[Moderator]

Dealing with the mental health issues is absolutely a factor but although the saying guns don't kill people may be partially true, it is people with guns who are killing people. And it is still only one part of the entire issue. The current discussions on gun control are not focusing on just the guns but the entire picture. And there will still be guns available for people to have to defend themselves but there should absolutely at least be restrictions, if not outright bans, IMO on the types of guns and ammunition that enable shooters to so easily wound or kill victims in the numbers that have been occurring.

[Moderator]

Personally, I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion about the second amendment by only allowing the types of weapons that were available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Muskets for anyone who wants a gun and even add the bayonet if you want. :wink2:

[exzel]

Personally, I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion about the second amendment by only allowing the types of weapons that were available when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Muskets for anyone who wants a gun and even add the bayonet if you want. :wink2:

LOL... Sounds good in comedy I guess. But rifled muskets were the AR-15 of the time. Far more accurate than most other guns of the period.

I am always amused by the "founding fathers never could have imagined that” argument, used by the sorts like Stweart in respect to the Second Amendment. Say we applied that same logic to the First Amendment. Would not the only protected speech be that of public, written, or a typeset printing nature? And therefore wouldn't television, radio, internet, phone, ebooks, texting and such other innovations developed through our subsequent history be subject to an arbitrary annual permitting process... where you demonstrate competence and a need before you pay for the privilege to speak?

[Moderator]

At least merely the act of speaking or writing doesn't kill anyone. People armed with guns do and those armed with guns that have the capability to rapidly fire ammunition kill even more in a very short amount of time. Removing those from easy access does not violate the second amendment as it does not ban guns altogether.

[fushingfeef]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.

[Moderator]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.

Exactly!

[exzel]

At least merely the act of speaking or writing doesn't kill anyone. People armed with guns do and those armed with guns that have the capability to rapidly fire ammunition kill even more in a very short amount of time. Removing those from easy access does not violate the second amendment as it does not ban guns altogether.

Haven’t journalists made incorrect statements and released national security information which have cost lives? And didn’t they use the First Amendment as their defense in doing so, and to continue doing so? How about religion? Haven’t religious wars resulted in millions of deaths? Should we ban the right to worship as one chooses because of it?

As I have noted previously, I would agree with some levels of expanded gun control, but I question the honesty of the debate process when Joe Biden notes the White House was studying what President Obama could do through executive orders… an unconstitutional executive power grab.

[Moderator]

Haven’t journalists made incorrect statements and released national security information which have cost lives? And didn’t they use the First Amendment as their defense in doing so, and to continue doing so? How about religion? Haven’t religious wars resulted in millions of deaths? Should we ban the right to worship as one chooses because of it?

As I have noted previously, I would agree with some levels of expanded gun control, but I question the honesty of the debate process when Joe Biden notes the White House was studying what President Obama could do through executive orders… an unconstitutional executive power grab.


The speech, in and of itself did not cause it to happen. Paraphrasing the gun rights motto, Words don't kill people, people kill people.

[exzel]

Obviously a line has to be drawn somewhere, and is being drawn. After all we don't let private citizens have missles, etc., and those are "arms". So there just needs to be an agreement as to what degree of arms we are allowed--and we're not going to find that specific degree of language anywhere in the constitution. Unless someone out there really thinks private citizens should all be allowed to have missles and weapons of mass destruction, I think we need to stop looking at gun regulation as being solely a constitutional rights issue, and think about what's best for the everyday quality of life for normal citizens who don't see the need to arm themselves to the teeth.



Ask yourself a question. You’re shopping in a mall with your wife and daughters. Thousands of people are around you. Suddenly there’s a bomb blast and shots begin ringing out. Terrorists, or a psychotic 20 year old, have begun killing people... and you, your wife and kids are huddled behind a fountain. You’re all being quiet, but can hear the approaching steps of the gunmen as they shoot the wounded and helpless. Your wife has her arms wrapped around your crying kids… and you can reach out and pick up one of three things:
A) A cell phone
B) A single shot manually loaded pistol
C) A semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round capacity magazine (one of the most common type of current legal handguns, but the type this debate and the gun control advocates are pushing to make illegal… beyond the assault weapons ban).

If you picked A or B, then good for you for sticking to your convictions. But somehow I think if we were all being honest here, it would be C.

I guess what makes me most upset about the issue at hand is the attitude that the second amendment is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, the lack of honesty about what is being considered. and discussion on how many times when guns have saved lives.

[Shasta]

I realize gun control is a very toxic issue right now.

Approximately 62 million American’s own guns. In the past couple of years I can recall 3 people horribly abusing the “Right” we all experience under the second amendment (and I don’t believe the last one was legally allowed to own guns). And it is “RIGHT” under our constitution (an inalienable human right according to our constitution, as essential to the life of liberty as the right to free speech). Also, at the heart of every one of those 3 attacks there appears to have been problematic social and/or psychological issues. Why then not focus on the cause rather than the tool they used to commit the act? Guns are only tools, and it’s how they are used that’s the problem. Yes we keep hearing “all matters” will be taken into consideration about the topic at hand, but let’s be honest… the vast majority of the discussion has only been on gun control. The worst mass killings in US history have involved bombs and fire, but I suppose the actual number of deaths means less than the method of their deaths. Bottom line, the number of killings by guns is miniscule, compared to the number of firearms in the hands of our citizens. Can you say the same for alcohol or automobile deaths?

How many deaths are caused annually by alcohol abuse, by automobiles? Far far more than by guns. Do we demand limiting alcohol to 1%... where you would need vast quantities to get a buzz, or putting limiting devises on cars so they can’t go over 35 MPH? Doing so wouldn’t restrict the ability, or so-called “right,” to purchase alcohol or drive automobiles. Or are we okay with them because trying to find solutions to the issues are "too complex?"


Mark Levin, probably one of the best constitutional lawyers IMO, had an excellent piece on what is really happening (picking out the best sections):



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/01/11/levin_i_can_barely_contain_my_fury_at_what_is_goin g_on_in_this_country.html



Are you being serious here? You can only think of THREE?

You need to read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

And this one. Because I'm guessing when you say three you are only talking about publicized mass shootings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html

Oh, and you mentioned car deaths? For the second time I am going to post this little beauty of an article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

[Shasta]

C) A semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round capacity magazine (one of the most common type of current legal handguns, but the type this debate and the gun control advocates are pushing to make illegal… beyond the assault weapons ban).



As Marsha has already stated, this would be great in a perfect world but often doesn't work.

[Todash]

I guess what makes me most upset about the issue at hand is the attitude that the second amendment is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, the lack of honesty about what is being considered. and discussion on how many times when guns have saved lives.All rights have limits. We have freedom of speech, but that does not extend to making threats of violence, being slanderous or libelous, or using words to create a dangerous situation (i.e., shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater or "Bomb!" in an airport).

What makes those limits? The rights of other people. We need to define those boundaries for the Second Amendment; it's as simple as that. OF COURSE there are going to be people who think the limits should be extreme. There are also those people who think the limits should be nonexistent. The mere existence of those people, and the volume at which they speak, does not really signify anything in and of itself.

In your argument, you appeal to emotion (the mall shooter scenario). But the facts are--statistics show--that a heavily armed society is a dangerous society, overall. Yes, guns have saved lives. But not nearly so many as the lack of guns does.

However. It is not my intent to suggest that the Second Amendment be heavily restricted, as much as I would love to live in a society where I don't have to worry about all these gun owners, a small percentage of whom seem to not be very rational, who could be around me every second of every day. (Yes, some non-gun owners are irrational too, but what are they going to do if they get really mad, disable me with papercuts and run me over with their Mini Coopers?)

Limits are rational. Limits are sane. And rights are only yours to the extent that they do not impede another's. My right to know that I am sending my child to a house with a resident who is currently in possession of a handgun which may or may not be properly secured is, yes, more important than your right to be secretly armed. The people's right to know that that gun you bought three years ago is still in your possession and that you are still mentally and physically capable of using it properly is more important than your right to sell that gun or give it away to whomever you want. Our right to know that you have had the proper training and were determined capable of correctly using a gun in the first place is more important than your right to absolute medical privacy. Why is that? Because of the sheer number of people who are killed, accidentally and intentionally, by guns in this country every year.

You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:

You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.

Per the Constitution of the United States, it is indeed your right to bear arms. But every single right in the Constitution and its amendments must be viewed through the filter of the Preamble and thus must not materially impact the rights of the remaining citizenry to justice, domestic tranquility, general welfare, and all the other blessings of liberty.

[atomicinchworm]

I actually hate the argument for guns that mention cars or alcohol. Cars have many uses in our society, and frankly the same could be argued for alcohol. Alcohol deaths via cars are down actually, because of strict law enforcement and harsh sentences for drunk driving.

Guns have one purpose, and were developed for one purpose, to kill better.

That is it.

In many places, you can't hunt with more than a four or so round clip. It is illegal to do so. Why would you need more than that to protect your home? Most of the time a warning shot will do.

As to your situation, exzel, based on my current experience with guns, I would choose the cell phone. Basic gun handling training is not the same as combat training. While people do save other people with Conceal and Carry, most of the time they don't. You shoot and miss, or, god forbid, you shoot and hit an innocent bystander. It's why you hear about cops in shoot outs unloading clips and clips of ammo and missing the bad guy. Why would I, untrained and unfamiliar, want to risk making the situation worse?

The people who want rounds and round of ammo I think, have this fantasy in their heads of saving the day or being the protector. Do you know what is also a good deterrent for people wanting to break into your home? Having a large dog and advertising the fact. I would say that having a big dog is much more effective in general, because it prevents the event from even happening at all. Besides, statistically, your kid is more likely to shoot themselves in the head with a gun in the home than be killed by even an untrained and unsocialized and intact large dog. /shrug. I've got to admit, I'm more comfortable with having a big dog than having a gun in the home.

[exzel]

Are you being serious here? You can only think of THREE?

You need to read this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

And this one. Because I'm guessing when you say three you are only talking about publicized mass shootings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/guns-deaths-sandy-hook-shooting_n_2325706.html

Oh, and you mentioned car deaths? For the second time I am going to post this little beauty of an article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

Thanks for the links. I try to read as much as I can on the subject... from both sides.

We already know the HuffPo has an agenda, akin to me posting stories from the NRA, methinks. Deaths by violent acts involving guns hovers right around 10,000 in the US, not 30,000. And as I previously noted, one can extrapolate (since we seemingly don’t wish as a nation for some unknown reason to report statistics on lives saved) that guns save more lives than cost in lives

And why not hold up Chicago as a model for strict gun control? It’s one of the, if not the most, strictest areas in the country when it comes to gun laws. They should be a shining example of its effectiveness, right? Unfortunately their population amounts to less than 1% of the US population, yet comprises over 5% of deaths caused by gun violence. Darn statistics!

So Bloomberg predicts deaths by firearms outpacing deaths by firearms by 2015? I doubt it, especially with higher federal mileage requirements, where the most feasible way to achieve it would be to make cars lighter and unsafe. Unless perhaps they are factoring in stricter gun laws, then I would agree gun deaths would rise dramatically. :wink2: Regardless, does that mean since deaths by automobiles currently outpace guns, you would favor putting restrictions now on how fast cars could go right now… to say 35 MPH? And interesting to note though that the drop in (non-suicidal & non-accident) gun deaths from the article attributes it to less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated, and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms. Nothing to do with stricter gun control laws.

And right now firearm deaths fall in as number 7 in the list of preventable causes of death in the nation. Just wondering, wouldn’t our efforts better be served concerning ourselves with 1 through 6 at the current time?
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/blog/images/Preventable_causes_of_death.png


(please note: my goal in this here is simply to put things out there that most probably won’t hear about from our regular agenda driven news sources about the gun topic, so hopefully people can make their own informed judgement… and of course not to allow our rights under the constitution to be trampled on and ignored by a select few in power).

[exzel]

You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:

You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.



You want guns? That's fine. I want some assurance that:
1. You have some valid reason for wanting it. Self-protection, collecting, it's part of your job, hunting, target shooting ... something.
2. You don't buy more guns than are reasonable for one person/family to own. Illegal guns were generally legal at one time. They got into the black market somehow.
3. You don't have health issues that would make it dangerous for you to own a gun.
4. You didn't get to walk in somewhere right after you lost your job and are furious with your former coworkers and walk out with a gun.
5. Every gun you have is registered, just like a car would be.
6. You have had the proper training, just like you have to have to drive a car.
7. Every transfer of a weapon is accompanied by title, just as with a car.
8. Every few years you have to re-certify that you are capable of using your guns, just as with driving.
9. You do not own weaponry sufficient to conduct a small-scale war.


Let’s say I agree with that. Would you then agree with me that we limit the sale of alcohol, and that I want assurances that you cannot purchase alcohol if:

You’ve ever had a DUI.
You’ve ever had a domestic dispute involving police where alcohol was involved.
You’ve never been drunk in public.
You’ve never consumed alcohol to excess.

[hossenpepper]

We don't need gun control, we need stupidity control.

Make it a requirement to have over a 125 IQ to purchase/own a gun of any kind.

That would eliminate most members of the NRA and about 95% of the population.

[exzel]

In many places, you can't hunt with more than a four or so round clip. It is illegal to do so. Why would you need more than that to protect your home? Most of the time a warning shot will do.
A warning shot? Shoot to mame? Then you should not be shooting at all as your life would not be in danger.


As to your situation, exzel, based on my current experience with guns, I would choose the cell phone. [/quote[
Then I commend you. But what is the aveage response time from the police, and what is the average length of time for killings?

[quote]Basic gun handling training is not the same as combat training. While people do save other people with Conceal and Carry, most of the time they don't. You shoot and miss, or, god forbid, you shoot and hit an innocent bystander. It's why you hear about cops in shoot outs unloading clips and clips of ammo and missing the bad guy. Why would I, untrained and unfamiliar, want to risk making the situation worse?
I haven't read many instances of that, but I could be wrong. And I belive the distance where you would use a gun in self defense is very small, making the chances of missing minimal. And in your example about cops, wouldn't that make for an argument for the use of high capacity magazines for self defense purposes?


The people who want rounds and round of ammo I think, have this fantasy in their heads of saving the day or being the protector. Do you know what is also a good deterrent for people wanting to break into your home? Having a large dog and advertising the fact. I would say that having a big dog is much more effective in general, because it prevents the event from even happening at all. Besides, statistically, your kid is more likely to shoot themselves in the head with a gun in the home than be killed by even an untrained and unsocialized and intact large dog. /shrug. I've got to admit, I'm more comfortable with having a big dog than having a gun in the home.
Perhaps, but we can't all have, nor would we be comfortable with large untrained and unsocialized dogs, especially around children. Personally, I'm more comfortable with a gun.

Again, we seem to forget it a "right" under our constitution.

[Moderator]

Let's keep this in context then:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even when the Supreme Court upheld the rights of individuals to possess firearms in 2008 and 2010, though, it listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote this:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

[exzel]

Let's keep this in context then:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Even when the Supreme Court upheld the rights of individuals to possess firearms in 2008 and 2010, though, it listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In the ruling, Justice Scalia wrote this:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Very good post Ms. Mod. I’m more familiar with the 2008 decision of District of Columbia vs Heller than the 2010 ruling of (McDonald vs Chicago I presume).

I agree with boundaries. It’s taking things too far, either way, that bothers me. And I also agree that if one is unwilling to be called upon in a time of need and execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; they aren’t afforded the right under the constitution.

[atomicinchworm]

I would never personally have an untrained or unsocialized dog; I was simply looking at the three things that statistically indicates a dog has potential to be a killer (ie intact, untrained and unsocialized).

It is absolutely fact that significantly more kids shoot themselves in the head than get killed by dogs. I think 27 people were killed by dogs last year and I believe it was close to a thousand people accidentally shot and killed themselves. Which is the statistically the more deadly thing? The object you can control or the animal that can think and react for itself?

The statistics are pretty clear. I won't have a gun, but I will have a big dog. But to each his own.

/shrug

[Shasta]

Thanks for the links. I try to read as much as I can on the subject... from both sides.

We already know the HuffPo has an agenda, akin to me posting stories from the NRA, methinks. Deaths by violent acts involving guns hovers right around 10,000 in the US, not 30,000. And as I previously noted, one can extrapolate (since we seemingly don’t wish as a nation for some unknown reason to report statistics on lives saved) that guns save more lives than cost in lives

And why not hold up Chicago as a model for strict gun control? It’s one of the, if not the most, strictest areas in the country when it comes to gun laws. They should be a shining example of its effectiveness, right? Unfortunately their population amounts to less than 1% of the US population, yet comprises over 5% of deaths caused by gun violence. Darn statistics!

So Bloomberg predicts deaths by firearms outpacing deaths by firearms by 2015? I doubt it, especially with higher federal mileage requirements, where the most feasible way to achieve it would be to make cars lighter and unsafe. Unless perhaps they are factoring in stricter gun laws, then I would agree gun deaths would rise dramatically. :wink2: Regardless, does that mean since deaths by automobiles currently outpace guns, you would favor putting restrictions now on how fast cars could go right now… to say 35 MPH? And interesting to note though that the drop in (non-suicidal & non-accident) gun deaths from the article attributes it to less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated, and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms. Nothing to do with stricter gun control laws.

And right now firearm deaths fall in as number 7 in the list of preventable causes of death in the nation. Just wondering, wouldn’t our efforts better be served concerning ourselves with 1 through 6 at the current time?
http://www.healthaliciousness.com/blog/images/Preventable_causes_of_death.png


(please note: my goal in this here is simply to put things out there that most probably won’t hear about from our regular agenda driven news sources about the gun topic, so hopefully people can make their own informed judgement… and of course not to allow our rights under the constitution to be trampled on and ignored by a select few in power).

I agree with you - I like to know all sides as well. But the fact is, sides or not, there is something very wrong in this county. I don't think anyone at all is saying that gun control is going to solve it all. And I want to make myself VERY clear - I am not a gun owner but I intended to be. I ended up changing my mind (thanks to many people on this board, including Todash and many other people) but I have no issue with guns. I do have 100% issue with the fact that anyone can walk in and get a gun at gun show and that people can buy a huge amount of rounds. These are things that are so easy to change and don't infrigne on anyone.

I have also said many times that we need to work on gun owner education in this country. In CA, which doesn't have lax gun laws by any means, you have to take a test. Well let me tell you, a five year old could probably pass that test. If we move our culture into one of education we'd likely be better off.

And Chicago - yes. There are a lot of gun murders. But how easy is it for a criminal to go to a gun show in another state bring the guns into Chicago? Too easy I would guess.

And gun deaths being preventable - why shouldn't we focus on ALL preventable deaths?

[atomicinchworm]

On the whole, I was speaking hypothetically.

[Todash]

Thanks for the links. I try to read as much as I can on the subject from both sides.

We already know the HuffPo has an agenda, akin to me posting stories from the NRA, methinks. Deaths by violent acts involving guns hovers right around 10,000 in the US, not 30,000. Actually, suicides + homicides = about 30,000. Suicide is indeed a violent death, probably more preventable than even homicides, if our laws were formulated well.
And as I previously noted, one can extrapolate (since we seemingly don't wish as a nation for some unknown reason to report statistics on lives saved) that guns save more lives than cost in lives No. I don't think so. You might wish to believe that guns save more lives than they cost. You also seem to believe there is a conspiracy to hide their awesomeness. But think about this logically: it's simple and easy to count dead people. I suppose you might in some cases not know whether the wound was self-inflicted, but you can determine fairly easily that someone is dead, and that the dead person got that way via bullet. Counting the live leftovers is a lot trickier. Small city council meeting with 20 in attendance, someone busts in with a gun and says "you're all going to die," and the cop that was sitting their shoots him immediately? I think it's fair to say that up to 20 lives were saved by that police officer. A shooter in a mall takes out five people before getting plugged by an armed security guard or someone with a concealed carry permit, and that mall happened to have 4000 people in it that day ... Did the guard/armed citizen save 3995 people? Of course not, and there's really no good way to estimate how many were saved. It's not a conspiracy; it's just ... math is hard. Fuzzy math is really hard.


And why not hold up Chicago as a model for strict gun control? It's one of the, if not the most, strictest areas in the country when it comes to gun laws. They should be a shining example of its effectiveness, right? Unfortunately their population amounts to less than 1% of the US population, yet comprises over 5% of deaths caused by gun violence. Darn statistics!Agreed, unfortunately BY THEMSELVES stricter gun laws will not reduce violence in all areas. Gun violence correlates not only with gun ownership but also with poverty and mental health issues, much of which could be alleviated by social support. It's not as simple an issue as some gun control advocates make it out to be; you are completely right about that.


And interesting to note though that the drop in (non-suicidal & non-accident) gun deaths from the article attributes it to less violence from drug trafficking, more people incarcerated, and more police crackdowns on illegal firearms. Nothing to do with stricter gun control laws.Don't accidental and suicide deaths count? I think they count.


And right now firearm deaths fall in as number 7 in the list of preventable causes of death in the nation. Just wondering, wouldn't our efforts better be served concerning ourselves with 1 through 6 at the current time?Those other things all get plenty of press, legal attention, and education effort. And also, I personally feel that I have a certain amount of control over every other cause (with perhaps the exception of toxins ... I do wish we would get more serious about that). But if you decide to shoot me, the general state of my health won't help me one bit.

[Todash]

Let's say I agree with that. Would you then agree with me that we limit the sale of alcohol, and that I want assurances that you cannot purchase alcohol if:

You've ever had a DUI.
You've ever had a domestic dispute involving police where alcohol was involved.
You've never been drunk in public.
You've never consumed alcohol to excess.



DUI - Yes, I'm right there with you.
Domestic dispute - Eh ... depends on your role in the dispute, really. But I would say repeat offenses would qualify for that restriction.
Drunk in public - No, that's just a misdemeanor/nuisance. Annoying but on its own not truly harmful.
Consumed alcohol to excess - Nope, that's between you and your liver, and most people exceed their limit unintentionally from time to time. (But if you want to call me when you get drunk and need a ride home, I'll come pick you up, and I promise, no lecture.)

Hey, this is not related, but I gotta ask, how are you putting apostrophes in? I'm asking because you are using an extended character one, and quoting you doesn't work very well. I have to keep replacing the ones you use with the standard you get from using the key to the right of the semicolon. I mean, I can quote you, but if I try to do a preview, everything in my message window vanishes. (You can't use extended chars very well with this MB software.) Might I ask a favor? Could you just use the ' and " keys and not whatever other characters you're using? Thanks.

[exzel]

You’ve got to give Ms. Mod kudos in this matter… and the members. Though passions are evident, she and the members have managed to help keep this rather toxic topic relegated to one of thoughtful and informative debate and opinions, void of hate, anger, finger-pointing and disrespect. I for one, appreciate her and the members who chose to participate (and where the faint hearted fear to tread. :wink2:)

[exzel]

DUI - Yes, I'm right there with you.
Domestic dispute - Eh ... depends on your role in the dispute, really. But I would say repeat offenses would qualify for that restriction.
Drunk in public - No, that's just a misdemeanor/nuisance. Annoying but on its own not truly harmful.
Consumed alcohol to excess - Nope, that's between you and your liver, and most people exceed their limit unintentionally from time to time. (But if you want to call me when you get drunk and need a ride home, I'll come pick you up, and I promise, no lecture.)
But the last two prohibit you from thinking rationally, which is where one unfortunately thinks they can do things they are not capable of doing... and where they have a higher tendency to hurt other, or worse. And isn't that what it's all about in stricter gun legislation... stopping the potential problem.



Hey, this is not related, but I gotta ask, how are you putting apostrophes in? I'm asking because you are using an extended character one, and quoting you doesn't work very well. I have to keep replacing the ones you use with the standard you get from using the key to the right of the semicolon. I mean, I can quote you, but if I try to do a preview, everything in my message window vanishes. (You can't use extended chars very well with this MB software.) Might I ask a favor? Could you just use the ' and " keys and not whatever other characters you're using? Thanks.
Quoting me never does anyone any good. :laugh: And you're not the first person to have to clean up my mess.

I am using the ' and " keys, but often on my longer posts I do in in MSWord first (rather than directly to the MB, so I can take my time, change things around... and thank god for spellcheck at times. Then I copy it to the MB. I didn't realize it casued problems. I never had an issue with it. Going forward, if I do use word, I'll try to remember to copy it to Notepad first, then copy it to the MB from there. Hopefully it will help. See I can be reasonable at... times. :wink2:

[fushingfeef]

Ask yourself a question. You’re shopping in a mall with your wife and daughters. Thousands of people are around you. Suddenly there’s a bomb blast and shots begin ringing out. Terrorists, or a psychotic 20 year old, have begun killing people... and you, your wife and kids are huddled behind a fountain. You’re all being quiet, but can hear the approaching steps of the gunmen as they shoot the wounded and helpless. Your wife has her arms wrapped around your crying kids… and you can reach out and pick up one of three things:
A) A cell phone
B) A single shot manually loaded pistol
C) A semi-automatic handgun with a 16 round capacity magazine (one of the most common type of current legal handguns, but the type this debate and the gun control advocates are pushing to make illegal… beyond the assault weapons ban).

If you picked A or B, then good for you for sticking to your convictions. But somehow I think if we were all being honest here, it would be C.

I guess what makes me most upset about the issue at hand is the attitude that the second amendment is viewed as a privilege rather than a right, the lack of honesty about what is being considered. and discussion on how many times when guns have saved lives.

This is one of those typical pro-gun fantasy scenarios. They always seem to envision these scenarios where they have lots of time to take out their weapon and dispense some frontier justice.

Here's how violent crime really happens 99.99% of the time: You're walking down the street minding your business and suddenly someone's beating the crap out of you. They take your money, and your gun if you have one, and you're left unconscious on the sidewalk.

This isn't some Death Wish movie where you have lots of time to figure out what's going on and time to take out your handy gun.

Also, here's what's far more likely to happen to people who have a gun in their possession, and the statistics bear this out:
1. They shoot themselves, either deliberately or accidentally.
2. They shoot someone they know, either deliberately or accidentally.

Anyway, to get back to your question, answers to your one highly charged fantasy scenario don't mean anything about what's best for all situations, do they? Heck, my life would be a lot safer if I wore kevlar clothing and safety goggles and drove a tank on my morning commute, that doesn't mean everyone should do it! Why go to the mall at all, on any day, there might be a mass shooting there!

[exzel]

Also, here's what's far more likely to happen to people who have a gun in their possession, and the statistics bear this out:
1. They shoot themselves, either deliberately or accidentally.
2. They shoot someone they know, either deliberately or accidentally.


Well I don’t know about all of that, and I would think it is mostly opinion… unless you can provide those stastics you speak about. But what I do know is law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year – or about 6,850 times a day.

[Todash]

But the last two prohibit you from thinking rationally, which is where one unfortunately thinks they can do things they are not capable of doing... and where they have a higher tendency to hurt other, or worse. And isn't that what it's all about in stricter gun legislation... stopping the potential problem.
Ah, but you see, here's the thing: drunk driving and the like is declining. Gun deaths are increasing. Regardless, this is irrelevant. It's like the smoking/obesity/etc. thing you brought up earlier: classic misdirection. We aren't talking about any of those things. We are talking about gun violence.

[Tery]

Oh, I love it when someone says that someone else has "an agenda" because they conflict with their beliefs. HuffPo's only agenda is getting eyes on their website so that doesn't fly.

Now, as to the number of annual deaths due to guns - it IS 30,000. I wrote an article on it and did my research, TYVM.

I have made my views known. I own guns - yes, plural: we just bought a pest control rifle - but I support restrictions on ownership. Nobody needs a military weapon like an AK. Nobody needs 30-round magazines. And I'm sick to death of the freaking paranoid fantasies of gun nuts who think they need an arsenal to "protect themselves from the gubmint." Those fantasies are stupid. And rewriting history to make themselves feel better about owning 50 guns is the pinnacle of self-absorbtion. And their dicks don't get any bigger, either.

Listen, if it is a wee bit more of an effort to legally purchase a gun I. Don't. Care. It's worth that small inconvenience to me to make this country safer. Safer. IOW, less guns - as every unbiased survey proves. Why is it that the people who shout loudest about their "freedoms" and "liberty" don't give a rat's patoot about MINE? Selfish, self-centered asshats.

Jon Stewart got this one right, about the gun nuts being so obsessed with a fantasy dystopian future that they ignore the dystopian present:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-8-2013/scapegoat-hunter

[GNTLGNT]

We don't need gun control, we need stupidity control.

Make it a requirement to have over a 125 IQ to purchase/own a gun of any kind.

That would eliminate most members of the NRA and about 95% of the population.

...I'm glad you qualified that with "most"...I'm a Life Member of the NRA, and last tested-my IQ was well over 160.....

[GNTLGNT]

This is one of those typical pro-gun fantasy scenarios.

...nope, gotta disagree there Bob...as gun-"nut"...my pro-gun fantasy involves Heather Locklear and a "concealed" firearm...just sayin'...

[Todash]

...nope, gotta disagree there Bob...as gun-"nut"...my pro-gun fantasy involves Heather Locklear and a "concealed" firearm...just sayin'...

What has been seen ... :eek2:

[exzel]

For those who like to bandy about the term “gun nut”… could you please provide and explanation for it?

[Todash]

Well I don't know about all of that, and I would think it is mostly opinion... unless you can provide those stastics you speak about. But what I do know is law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year - or about 6,850 times a day.

I've seen that statistic ... but IIRC, the study from which it was derived has received criticism for its methodologies. For example, the study reported that "guns were used many times more often for self-defense in burglaries than there were reported incidents of burglaries of premises whose occupants were awake and armed with firearms." While that might mean a lot of burglaries went unreported, it, along with other factors, casts fairly significant doubt on the reliability of that study's findings.

Of course, as with "number of people saved by guns," accurate self-defense figures are difficult to come by, largely because they rely on self-reporting. Any study that depends mainly on self-reporting must reasonably be assumed to have a larger margin of error than studies that base their findings on objective observation of facts. That doesn't mean people don't successfully defend themselves with weapons; of course they do. It simply means it would be much more difficult to determine true numbers, and much easier to make those numbers say what you want them to say. But the cold, hard facts are that high rates of gun ownership correlate strongly to high rates of violence, gun violence specifically.

[fushingfeef]

A University of Pennsylvania study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those not carrying. When victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html)

A Harvard study in 2007 found that US states with higher levels of gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/)

But on the other hand, those are "liberal" universities, so they can't be trusted right?

[GNTLGNT]

For those who like to bandy about the term “gun nut”… could you please provide and explanation for it?

...well, I don't "bandy it about", but it's what the so-called anti-gun crowd calls those of us who might have-shall we say-an overwhelming passion for our stance as gun owners...

[fushingfeef]

I don't use the term but I would think it's meant as "gun enthusiast". I call myself a Stephen King nut in the same way.

[exzel]

This is one of those typical pro-gun fantasy scenarios. They always seem to envision these scenarios where they have lots of time to take out their weapon and dispense some frontier justice.

Anyway, to get back to your question, answers to your one highly charged fantasy scenario don't mean anything about what's best for all situations, do they? Heck, my life would be a lot safer if I wore kevlar clothing and safety goggles and drove a tank on my morning commute, that doesn't mean everyone should do it! Why go to the mall at all, on any day, there might be a mass shooting there!


And I'm sick to death of the freaking paranoid fantasies of gun nuts who think they need an arsenal to "protect themselves from the gubmint." Those fantasies are stupid. And rewriting history to make themselves feel better about owning 50 guns is the pinnacle of self-absorbtion. And their dicks don't get any bigger, either.

Jon Stewart got this one right, about the gun nuts being so obsessed with a fantasy dystopian future that they ignore the dystopian present:

Interesting. We shouldn’t be exercising our constitutional rights because we concern ourselves over the possibilities of mass shootings, but we should be enacting tougher gun legislation for law-abiding citizens because of it?

[Todash]

For those who like to bandy about the term "gun nut" ... could you please provide and explanation for it?

I don't think the term is particularly conducive to a healthy discussion, but I can't say I never think it. And when I do, here are some reasons why (usually it's more than just one of these):


The person in question does not seem to be concerned with any other forms of liberty, but harps on his right to own guns.
The person in question seems convinced he is in imminent danger of having all his guns taken away.
The person in question has an arsenal buried in his yard. (I am not joking about this; I worked with someone like this once. Before he revealed this to me, he kinda gave off a jittery vibe that made me nervous. After he revealed this to me, I stayed the hell away from him whenever possible.)
The person in question seems to lack the ability to think critically on the subject of guns and gun ownership.
The person in question seems to think that he has a right to own any number of guns with no restrictions.

I don't think a gun owner, or even a gun enthusiast, automatically classifies as a gun nut. I don't even think a gun collector is necessarily a gun nut. I know many people who own guns, and only a few would I classify as "nuts."

[atomicinchworm]

People who are completely unwilling to accept or see that maybe some form of control or registration or regulations would be beneficial are gun nuts.

People completely unwilling to look at actual statistics and throw around red herring scenarios are gun nuts.

People who are afraid that the guvmint is going to leave them defenseless by taking away large clips or assault rifles are gun nuts.

People who want to take suicides and accidents out of the deaths by gun equation are gun nuts. Do those deaths not matter? I say they matter. Can suicidal people die via other means? Sure, but a lot of the times those fail and they never try again. Suicide is a passing intent and feeling. A good friend of mine's mother shot herself in the head a couple of years ago. Who is to say that if she did not have a gun handy that it would not have happened? Sure, she could have tried another method to suicide, but chances are good she would have been found in the middle of it since she lived with her boyfriend at the time.

I'm not looking to stop all gun violence ever. That's impossible. But I think practical training, a written test, licensing, registration, and clip size limits would be reasonable. Maybe insurance on the gun. You have to do all of that with a car, why should a gun be any different?

[fushingfeef]

Interesting. We shouldn’t be exercising our constitutional rights because we concern ourselves over the possibilities of mass shootings, but we should be enacting tougher gun legislation for law-abiding citizens because of it?

That's how all laws and rules are for the most part, unfair to good people. We wouldn't need very many laws if everyone was honest and nice and unselfish. This happens at our workplace a lot: one person screws up and the rest of us have to suffer for it because tougher rules are put in place.

Anyway, let's what level of firearms laws are acceptable based on what is stated as our constitutional right, as a "well-regulated militia"? I'm assuming they wrote "well-regulated" for a reason. In other words, for our right to bear arms to make any sense,there has to be sensible regulation. That's all I'm talking about. Part of sensibility is the common good--do the benefits of unfettered ownership of machine guns by the untested public outweigh the liabilities? Based on death by handguns statisitics compared to other countries, I'd say no, the benefits do not outweigh the liabilities. That's the real elephant in the room: why does our country have so many more gun deaths than other countries, even in countries where gun ownership is relatively high?

[exzel]

A University of Pennsylvania study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times more likely to be shot and 4.2 times more likely to be killed than those not carrying. When victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html)

A Harvard study in 2007 found that US states with higher levels of gun ownership had higher rates of firearm suicide and overall suicide ( http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-ownership-and-use/)

But on the other hand, those are "liberal" universities, so they can't be trusted right?

Thanks for the links… good reads (even if they are from liberal universities :wink2:).

Interesting read on the chances of getting shot. But I wonder how the “study” would have turned out if didn’t use statistics from Philadelphia, a city that has such tough guns laws that I can’t even carry my tazer without having a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) permit. According to just yesterday… “Among America's largest cities, Philadelphia's homicide rate is the worst. Guns are the weapons of choice, with more than 80% of homicides committed with a firearm, according to the most recent police statistics.” And because the study was obtained from Philadelphia, I question the sampling because of the gun laws there… was the sample used with only people legally allowed to carry guns in Philadelphia?

I find this quote from your article telling… “While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.”

And 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. Sadly I believe that statistic would only increase if a gun was not available. Simply making guns less available is not the answer to the problem of suicide, because it only eliminates one method and not the cause of the despair that leads someone to commit such an awful act.

[exzel]

That's the real elephant in the room: why does our country have so many more gun deaths than other countries, even in countries where gun ownership is relatively high?

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

[Moderator]

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

Which also does not address the other extenuating circumstances that create that situation, i.e. poverty, drugs, the health system not addressing mental health issues in part because funding is continually being removed from budgets that would help serve the mentally ill, overcrowded prisons that release criminals before their full sentence was served, not acknowledging that many of those convicted were there because the government/our society refuses to take a realistic look at legalizing drugs such as marijuana and once released have even fewer options, etc. etc. Having more guns available does nothing to stop any of those examples. Instead of more guns, how about doing something about making our society better for everyone so they wouldn't end up as criminals?

[Todash]

I'd say because our "justice" system is too lax and allows too many criminals to walk the streets.

I don't think so. We have the highest rates of incarceration in the developed world.

Really, in general, high gun ownership correlates to high gun deaths. Sometimes people cite Israel as an exception, but I think that if you look at current data, gun ownership in Israel isn't all that high (and it is much more tightly controlled than here).

But what we do lack that other societies have that probably would help is much more social support. Poverty correlates strongly, STRONGLY, to gun deaths.


And 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. Sadly I believe that statistic would only increase if a gun was not available. Simply making guns less available is not the answer to the problem of suicide, because it only eliminates one method and not the cause of the despair that leads someone to commit such an awful act. I would love for that percentage to increase. You know why? Because less than a quarter of those using that method succeed. Guns, on the other hand, are very successful, such that more than half of all completed suicides are done by firearm. Women attempt suicide three times more often than men, but four times more men than women die by their own hand. Why? The method they used. Men overwhelmingly choose guns. Women overwhelmingly choose pills.

[fushingfeef]

I find this quote from your article telling… “While it may be that the type of people who carry firearms are simply more likely to get shot, it may be that guns give a sense of empowerment that causes carriers to overreact in tense situations, or encourages them to visit neighbourhoods they probably shouldn't, Branas speculates.”

Or it could be they bought the guns in the first place because they were already in danger and wanted to feel safer. Now, correlation does not prove causation so I can't claim those stats prove that all gun ownership is a bad thing. But I think we can safely say that since guns are a tool that make it easier to kill quickly, situations where guns are present are more likely to result in deaths than situations where there are no guns. (Of course, situations in which there are box cutters, razors and broken glass are more likely to result in deaths than situations without them too.)

I'm not calling for the elimination of all guns, but better regulation as to the types we allow in the hands of untested individuals--whether that's a mental health test or a gun safety test or both, is another thing that needs hashed out. Again, we already do this for drivers licenses at the state level.

As for Philly, how about some gun death stats from a place where personal gun ownership is known to be very high, like Texas? Any studies done there?

[hossenpepper]

Some people never get over making things go boom. Some do. I would suspect the former typically become "gun nuts".

I own a few guns, but rarely shoot them. Why? Because destruction isn't "neat" to me. It is to some. Cool, it's a right and a free country. But, that doesn't make it less childish or not create an environment that leads to harm for others. If indulging your need to satiate your paranoia and love of destructive things subsequently helping to create a whole societal structure that leads to things like these mass shootings doesn't bother you, then so be it. Just realize your politics doesn't make that not the real truth of the matter.

Aggressive society = aggressive people.
Rampant individualism in the name of freedom = arrogance and gluttony of self appointed import.
Pretty simple.

[exzel]

Which also does not address the other extenuating circumstances that create that situation, i.e. poverty, drugs, the health system not addressing mental health issues in part because funding is continually being removed from budgets that would help serve the mentally ill, overcrowded prisons that release criminals before their full sentence was served, not acknowledging that many of those convicted were there because the government/our society refuses to take a realistic look at legalizing drugs such as marijuana and once released have even fewer options, etc. etc. Having more guns available does nothing to stop any of those examples. Instead of more guns, how about doing something about making our society better for everyone so they wouldn't end up as criminals?

I should have said allows too many “violent” criminals to walk the street.

And more money? How many tens of trillions of dollars have we already pumped into the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and such? Costly, tragic mistakes! Actually, the 1996 welfare reform act under Bill Clinton did wonders, which ended harmful and self-defeating handout programs, and caused recipients to take steps toward self-improvement and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately our executive branch has now taken steps to erode many of those requirements, and subsequently has helped increase the levels of people in poverty. We also need to realize that far too many among us are happy to be leaches on society… sad but true. And I do agree that we need to look at, and refine, the process that surrounds some non-violent current illegal matters.

[Todash]

Or it could be they bought the guns in the first place because they were already in danger and wanted to feel safer. Now, correlation does not prove causation so I can't claim those stats prove that all gun ownership is a bad thing. But I think we can safely say that since guns are a tool that make it easier to kill quickly, situations where guns are present are more likely to result in deaths than situations where there are no guns. (Of course, situations in which there are box cutters, razors and broken glass are more likely to result in deaths than situations without them too.)

I'm not calling for the elimination of all guns, but better regulation as to the types we allow in the hands of untested individuals--whether that's a mental health test or a gun safety test or both, is another thing that needs hashed out. Again, we already do this for drivers licenses at the state level.

As for Philly, how about some gun death stats from a place where personal gun ownership is known to be very high, like Texas? Any studies done there?Yes. Regionally, gun deaths (and deaths overall) correlate positively with gun ownership. At the state level, they correlate negatively with stricter gun laws.

[Moderator]

I should have said allows too many “violent” criminals to walk the street.

And more money? How many tens of trillions of dollars have we already pumped into the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and such? Costly, tragic mistakes! Actually, the 1996 welfare reform act under Bill Clinton did wonders, which ended harmful and self-defeating handout programs, and caused recipients to take steps toward self-improvement and self-sufficiency. Unfortunately our executive branch has now taken steps to erode many of those requirements, and subsequently has helped increase the levels of people in poverty. We also need to realize that far too many among us are happy to be leaches on society… sad but true. And I do agree that we need to look at, and refine, the process that surrounds some non-violent current illegal matters.

I may be incorrect, but it sounds like you are referring to the claim that the Obama administration was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits. That claim is not correct in spite of the spin many GOP politicians have tried to put on it earning them the Pants On Fire rating for their distortion of the facts. From PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/):


The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.


And from that same piece:



Since 1996, welfare has been administered through block grants to states. The grant program, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, limits how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are successfully moving people into the workforce.

A memo (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html) from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

What does that mean?

"If you can do a better job connecting people to work, we would consider waiving certain parts of the performance measures and use alternate measures," is how Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, translated the memo’s point. (The center supports the plan.)

[Moderator]

And P.S. I did not say that throwing money at programs was the answer to the problems. That was your assumption.

[exzel]

I may be incorrect, but it sounds like you are referring to the claim that the Obama administration was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits. That claim is not correct in spite of the spin many GOP politicians have tried to put on it earning them the Pants On Fire rating for their distortion of the facts. From PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/28/rick-santorum/Santorum-Romney-claim-Obama-ending-welfare-work/):


The claim is a drastic distortion of what the Obama administration said it intends to do. By granting waivers to states, HHS is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. The waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law. And there have been no comments by the Obama administration indicating such a dramatic shift in policy.


And from that same piece:



Since 1996, welfare has been administered through block grants to states. The grant program, called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, or TANF, limits how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually go to work. It also includes stringent reporting requirements for states to show they are successfully moving people into the workforce.

A memo (http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html) from George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

What does that mean?

"If you can do a better job connecting people to work, we would consider waiving certain parts of the performance measures and use alternate measures," is how Liz Schott, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, translated the memo’s point. (The center supports the plan.)


You are correct Ms. Mod in that I was referring to a President Obama executive order, as it pertains to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, but I think you read too much into what I wrote. I wrote “now taken steps to erode many of those requirements.” I didn’t say he “was removing the work requirement from welfare benefits.”

I don’t believe “eroding” should garner a “Pants On Fire” rating.

And according to Lawrence Mead, one of the experts whose research paved the way for the "workfare" law passed in 1996: “If the revision wouldn't single-handedly cripple the work requirement, it "has opened the door to changes in welfare reform that could destroy it from within." Eroding might be quite generous.

One has to ask, If the Obama administration believes in work requirements, why then write something so broad in the language that it encourages states to lift them all if they choose?

Would you not agree that now the federal government will now accept "personal journaling," "smoking cessation," "weight loss promotion" and "helping a friend or relative with household tasks and errands" as acceptable substitutions for the work requirements by states?

SIGN ME UP BABY!

Call me crazy but I would consider that eroding the work requirement as laid out in 1996 bill. I believe Americans have little objecting to government aid for those unable to help themselves… such as children, the elderly and the disabled. But I believe most resent subsidizing able-bodied adults, without expecting something in return. The old work requirement respects the sacrifices of those of us who pay the taxes to fund this welfare program. The new requirements don’t.

[Moderator]

I don't want to get too much off topic here because its primary focus is on gun control issues not the underlying factors, but do feel a response to your comments is necessary. The changes did not eliminate work requirements, nor was it an across-the-board change. It put it back on the states*, if they could prove they had alternative programs that would continue moving welfare recipients toward employment as I'd already quoted in my previous post:

the department wanted to give states more flexibility in meeting those requirements. The memo notifies states "of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority ... to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."


*and BTW aren't many conservative (in particular) politicians constantly hammering at giving the states rights to make decisions locally about programs rather than on the federal level. Here's a case where the feds are trying to accommodate local initiatives and are still being blasted for it.

For the record, I absolutely agree that whenever possible and there is no physical/mental reason preventing someone from employment, that should be the ultimate goal. There needs to be welfare reform that encourages that without penalizing recipients when they attempt to do so to the point that they are in worse shape by getting off welfare than remaining on it. Being gainfully employed and having a good work ethic benefits everyone.

[Dana Jean]

My sister is a third grade teacher. I GUARANTEE you, she should not have a gun, even if she was trained. She is the most uncoordinated person I have ever met. Just picturing my sister armed, gripping a gun with the two-handed grip and shooting someone makes me laugh. And I'm not making light of this situation, just my sister. No joe or jane on the street needs any automatic weapon, ever. I don't like handguns either. Hunting rifles/shotguns -- I'll give you those but I still don't like them.

And yes, anything can be a weapon in the hands of the wrong person. People do kill people and guns make that so much easier.

When our forefathers were giving us the right to bear arms, they were talking about muskets. Fire once, stop, put powder in it, drop a ball in, tamp it down and fire again. I will allow these because every single mass shooting that has happened, if they had to go through all of that to keep reloading, they would have been taken down and beat into a bloody pulp before they got to tamp once. So, for those of you who scream you have a right to bear arms, you have the right to bear a musket. Because that's what our forefathers said and everyone loves throwing that around. That's what they were talking about. So let it be written, so let it be done.



I just want to say this. I was just as horrified by the events in Newtown, CN. I still believe that if some of those teachers and esp. the principal had been armed, most of those little ones could have been saved. If an intruder came to my door, and we live on a country road, I would protect myself and my family with a firearm of choice, aim first, ask questions later.

[hossenpepper]

One has to ask, If the Obama administration believes in work requirements, why then write something so broad in the language that it encourages states to lift them all if they choose?

Ummm... You realize you contradicted pretty much every right wing stance you have ever made here on SKMB? Now you're mad because Obama isn't mandating enough at the federal level?

What a card you are! :rofl:

[Todash]

*and BTW aren't many conservative (in particular) politicians constantly hammering at giving the states rights to make decisions locally about programs rather than on the federal level. Here's a case where the feds are trying to accommodate local initiatives and are still being blasted for it.I believe the appropriate phrase is "can't win for losing." :biggrin2:

This is clearly a win for states' rights. And yet, I have not heard any conservative say one good thing about it. If Romney had been elected and had done the same thing, Republicans everywhere would be giving him a standing ovation. WE THE PEOPLE, as a whole, do not have one single millimeter of wiggle room to complain about the bipartisanship of government entities.

And now, I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion-that's-heading-nowhere.

[guido tkp]

"..i'm a life-long member of the NRA..." (w/a huge wink and a smile...)
most people don't know this, but, when he was christened...the gnt had a carbine in one hand and an NRA card in the other....when the doctor slapped his bottom, he slapped an .45 on his hips, too...his first pampies where camo....his crib toys included a carousel with lions, tigers and bears...and a rifle w/a laser scope...his kindegarten class was at Charlton Heston Elementary...his first word wasn't 'mama' but mauser...he loved chuck conners until he found about his ulterior motives, and realized he had the wrong chuck...his first halloween he was wyatt earp...he didn't have a tricycle...but a tank w/ a missile launcher that threw lawn darts...when santa told him he shouldn't have a .22 rifle 'cause he'd shoot his eye out, the gnt smiled and said: 'it won't be my eye, sucka !'

sorry, gntlgnt...too much saki, i guess...

loved your post tery... :y:

[Todash]

And yes, anything can be a weapon in the hands of the wrong person. People do kill people and guns make that so much easier.
TESTIFY! This argument--guns don't kill people; people kill people; anything can be used as a weapon--is completely invalidated by the fact that the people using it are using it to argue for the wide availability of guns. Please. PLEASE. Don't insult my intelligence. There may be excellent arguments for widespread gun ownership, but this isn't one of them.

Because if anything can be used as an effective weapon, then by all means, defend your home with a shop vac.

You cannot reasonably argue that you have a right to defend yourself and that guns are the way to do it and at the same time argue that there's no point in further restricting gun ownership since anything can be used as a weapon. It is an illogical, nonsensical argument.

[exzel]

And now, I return you to your regularly scheduled discussion-that's-heading-nowhere.

Hey, it’s a good story! It’s got a plot, story arc, sidebars, background, characters, adversaries, rising action and many situations. We will just have to wait on the climax/ending, and to find out who the heroes are, and who wins and loses. But the falling action and denouement could get quite interesting. :tongue:

[exzel]

Ummm... You realize you contradicted pretty much every right wing stance you have ever made here on SKMB? Now you're mad because Obama isn't mandating enough at the federal level?

What a card you are! :rofl:

Not quite. If the states use their own funds to fund their own welfare, then have at it and so as you wish, I say. Free cheese for all! But not so with federal funds.

Perhaps I’m not a pure Conservative, just mainly Conservative. Do people who consider themselves Liberals, believe in everything Liberal?

[Todash]

"..i'm a life-long member of the NRA..." (w/a huge wink and a smile...)
most people don't know this, but, when he was christened...the gnt had a carbine in one hand and an NRA card in the other....when the doctor slapped his bottom, he slapped an .45 on his hips, too...his first pampies where camo....his crib toys included a carousel with lions, tigers and bears...and a rifle w/a laser scope...his kindegarten class was at Charlton Heston Elementary...his first word wasn't 'mama' but mauser...he loved chuck conners until he found about his ulterior motives, and realized he had the wrong chuck...his first halloween he was wyatt earp...he didn't have a tricycle...but a tank w/ a missile launcher that threw lawn darts...when santa told him he shouldn't have a .22 rifle 'cause he'd shoot his eye out, the gnt smiled and said: 'it won't be my eye, sucka !'

sorry, gntlgnt...too much saki, i guess...

loved your post tery... :y:LOL ... You might want to stick with just water for the next hour or so.

[Todash]

Not quite. If the states use their own funds to fund their own welfare, then have at it and so as you wish, I say. Free cheese for all! But not so with federal funds.

Perhaps I'm not a pure Conservative, just mainly Conservative. Do people who consider themselves Liberals, believe in everything Liberal?

So you want the Federal government to defund welfare programs so that the burden falls on the states? What would that accomplish? I don't get it. :umm: (Feel free to start another thread on the subject if you don't want to derail this one. I promise I'll stop in.)

[exzel]

[QUOTE=guido tkp;560823]"..i'm a life-long member of the NRA..." (w/a huge wink and a smile...)
most people don't know this, but, when he was christened...the gnt had a carbine in one hand and an NRA card in the other....when the doctor slapped his bottom, he slapped an .45 on his hips, too...his first pampies where camo....his crib toys included a carousel with lions, tigers and bears...and a rifle w/a laser scope...his kindegarten class was at Charlton Heston Elementary...his first word wasn't 'mama' but mauser...he loved chuck conners until he found about his ulterior motives, and realized he had the wrong chuck...his first halloween he was wyatt earp...he didn't have a tricycle...but a tank w/ a missile launcher that threw lawn darts...when santa told him he shouldn't have a .22 rifle 'cause he'd shoot his eye out, the gnt smiled and said: 'it won't be my eye, sucka !'
QUOTE]

You aren’t perchance the Motor City Madman in real life, are you? :laugh:

[guido tkp]

i was gonna say something to excels' demonizations of obama on that...ahem...states rights issue he suddenly isn't in favor of...

but the mod beat me to it: excellent, ms mod ...i bow to your superior intelligence

i'm begining to think that whomever it was that posted the chris rock bit hit the nail on the head...at $5000 a bullet...problem solved

i'm warming up to the idea of only muskets and single shot, reloadable weapons every day: as any enthusiast knows, while they might've been more accurate back-in-the-day...they are nowhere near as accurate as current technologies...

it'll put the 'sport' back into hunting !!

who'd be against that, right ...certainly not the deer !

in fact...i'm thinking of starting up a new company to sell faux coonskin caps !

...call 'em Booneskin Caps : Be Kith 'n kin With Dan'l B...A Better Part Of History !

[guido tkp]

nah...i just get these stray thoughts...

i really should just let them go...but, for some reason...they call to me...seductively

if i were lost at sea...they'd be my mermaids....

when i was piloting the titanic ?? i know that guy yelled 'iceberg, dead ahead !'

but i swear what i heard was 'pretty maidens giving hea..." oh...never mind

[Haunted]

Haven't forgotten this. Have spoken with Steve and he is in the process of writing an op-ed type piece about gun control so didn't have a short answer to pass along yet. I'm thinking when that piece comes out might be a good time for me to take another vacation and have the Board shut down. :wink2:

:rofl: YOU GO GIRL!! Run for your life!!:rofl:

[exzel]

So you want the Federal government to defund welfare programs so that the burden falls on the states? What would that accomplish? I don't get it. :umm: (Feel free to start another thread on the subject if you don't want to derail this one. I promise I'll stop in.)

I don’t get where the conflict is in my answer.

Primarily, President Obama administration's method of governance by executive order is troubling to say the least. I guess the power-hungry administration… who seemingly never met a legal restriction they couldn’t waterboard until it got them what they wanted is troubling to conservatives as it is a usurpation of legislative power by the executive branch.

[Moderator]

Not taking the bait on that one. This thread is about gun control. If you want to start a separate thread, I'm sure you'd get plenty of responses.

[exzel]

Anyone seen this video?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pItiypwjHx4

I guess many of Hollywood’s convictions only emerge once the coffers are filled.

[Todash]

This has been lots of fun, but I am having trouble following all of the moving parts that don't seem to connect to anything else. TTFN.