Happy Valley get over yourself, about if everyone was packing we would all be
safer. Let's take the Trolley Square deal, who was packing and stopped or
greatly reduced that situation. A Man packing a gun. Ok, so he was a cop, but if
others would have been packing I am sure they would have protected themselves
like the constituion says they can. I believe that if one of these
people planned to take out others might think twice if they thought someone on
the other end would have been packing a gun and was willing to shoot back. I am not saying that school teachers should have a gun in their desks. I
am just saying a person with a gun walking around firing bullets at everyone and
everything, might not feel so great if all the sudden bullets starting come back
at him. I know when I lived in Arizona you just assumed everyone was
packing, because the law said they could. I am not saying it prevented crime,
but it sure has made for alot less victims.
Guns are designed only or killing. Time for the control within the Second
Amendment. Gun shows first.
I maintain that we as society need to look at what motivates these actions.
They are learned somewhere, and as one who spent the most part of my life in the
profession of arms, police officer, soldier, security, I can attest that the
mere possession of a gun does not motivate to these actions. Where did they
learn that mass killing will solve their issues? Not in Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts,
CYO, 4H, Boys & Girls Clubs, or a church/synagogue. The issue is not the
guns used, but the motivation and how we need to engage before it gets this far.
Serving others, being more engaged with others than yourself will go far. Let's have this discussion, but just making more gun laws
isn't the answer.
Let me shed some light on the so-called "Assault Weapons" ban. It was
ineffective and really didn't ban anything of consequence. If you will
notice that today's AR-15 doesn't have a bayonet lug; a result of that
ban. AR-15s with a bayonet lug were no longer allowed to be manufactured, or
"banned". Take the bayonet lug off, and presto, no more assault rifle.
Did that make any difference? No, but it made some people feel better. How
about pistol grips? Just modify it so the pistol grip becomes a thumb hole for
a larger stock, and presto, no more assault rifle. Meaningless, feel-good,
worthless legislation. It doesn't address the problem, that being the
wrong people get access to guns. In Oregon, he stole the rifle before going to
the mall. In Connecticut, he murdered to get the gun. Columbine, they used a
straw-purchaser, all illegal acts to get access to guns. So, lets look at what
motivates people to mass murder?
What if Lanza would have made some Mark Hoffman style pipe bombs and tossed them
into classrooms as he walked past? What would the carnage have been then?
Where would be anti-gun crowd be then? Clamoring to ban nails?The
bottom line is, and the writer alluded to it. Values, morals, ethics, the
difference between right and wrong can't be taught in schools because
someone will be offended.Guns are not the problem, access to guns
are not the problem (China and their knives proves that). Banning large capacity
magazines is not a cure all. Remember the so called "assault weapon"
ban was in place when Colombine happened. Didn't help.Behavior
is the problem and unfortunately with some people, you can't legislate how
they may act. They have their agency to do whatever they want to do, good or
bad.Until I squeeze the trigger, my pistol is no better than a
paperweight, so it's not the problem. If I ever do have to squeeze the
trigger, there will be a really good reason to do so (unless I'm target
I find it quite heartless and hypocritical when I see and hear the radical left
ranting about gun banning just a week after this nightmare. A gun-less America
is all about left wing ideology and many on the left are bent on using this
tragedy to achieve their goal. Where is the empathy and sympathy? The families
who lost their kids to this evil act are going through impossible grief at this
time and maybe those who 'truly' care can just stop the politics for a
moment and just support the families in some way. Just a thought. As
far as gun banning - this is predictable from the left. Left wing ideology has
it's ugly roots in Communism and that is how these people think. No
changing them...not now and not ever. I am a member of the NRA and I plan on
getting a concealed permit ASAP. To me an 'armed America' is the
answer to avoiding more tragedy from evil killers who don't value human
life. I believe our founders had the same thinking when they created the second
amendment. I will side with our constitution and our founders.
After the Jovan Belcher incidient, Bob Costas (on the Dan Patrick Show) summed
it up best... "Grandma should have a gun to protect herself and hunters
should have guns, but, your average person should not be as well armed as the
military or police."
KC Mormon you couldn't have described the argument made by the democrats at
this time more wrong. "Anti gun people say if we just ban Assault weapons
we would not have school shootings. " Absolutley no one has said that..let
me repeat..no one has said that. What is being said is that the recent mass
killings have two characteristics 1) crazy people..usually young people, and 2)
weapons that are designed to be mass killing weapons (semi automatic and high
volume clips). As to the gun equation of this problem what is being
said (and not necesssarily by people who are "anti gun") is that the
described weapons were designed for military use and high volume killing and
have no other use and therefore no business being in the hands of the common
citizenry. The world is brief, random, indifferent and cruel..so
banning assault weapons won't stop evil..that's just the world, but it
may mitigate the numbers killed, and what society allows free access to
it's military weapons anyway?
So according to conservative thinking, if everyone was required to be
packin' we would all be a lot safer.Got it. Now just to avoid
flawed logic like that and those who think more guns equals a safer society.Awe the longing for the 50's and now the 1850's frontier gun
What good does regulation do? Just to cite one exampe, the Trolley Square
shooter got his gun out of a trunk in parking lot. Criminals will always find a
way to get guns. The laws only restrict citizens who follow the
laws, and act responsibly, and ironically enough, are the type of people who
SHOULD be gun owners.Personally I favor open carry. How much less
likely will these incidents happen if theres a chance other people are also
packing.Dont forget: one of the heros in the Trolley saga was an off
duty cop who just happened to be carrying his concealed weapon.
Update to my post on school shooting during and after the weapons ban. As I have
looked into each one more I found the numbers are actually different. There were
actually MORE school shootings DURING the ban than after there were 28 from
1996-2004 and 48 from 2004-2012 the difference is that the source was counting
things like the Gabby Gifferd shooting and the Aurora movie shooting as school
shooting. They listed 4 shootings after the ban that were in fact not school
shootings while they did not list any such shooting during the ban as a school
shooting. The number of people killed also is misleading during the ban was 52
after the ban 98. This looks like a huge jump. Yet a closer look shows some
interesting facts. Thirty of those came two hours after the first two people
were killed at VT. Had the school taken action two hours earlier the number
would have gone down by 30. Twenty are from Sandy Hook. Just hose two bring the
post-ban ban to 48 less than during the ban. Others are things like adult on
Craig ClarkYou are missing a BIG part of the reason for the Second
Amendment. By 1768 the British were actually trying to find any way they could
to keep guns away from the Americans. This went on through 1777. And no not
every person was required to sever. Many in fact did not. Just to prove this
point look at how hard it is to enter the Sons and Daughters of the American
Revolution. All you must do is provide a family tree that shows that you have an
ancestor that either fought for or paid taxes to support the Patriot cause. By
your count of Militia that should be very easy yet it is in fact very hard
because not even the majority supported the cause.Again as I pointed out you had
two form of military you had Colonial Army (Washington's men) and then the
Militia. A good example of this is the Battle of Cowpens (known to most as the
major battle from the movie the Patriot) it used both Colonial Army and Militia
using the known weakness of the Militia against the British.
Craig ClarkBoulder, COThe roots of a “militia” as
referenced in the 2nd Amendment============ Agreed!The Modern "Militia"s is equal to a State's National
Guard.Subject directly to State and Local Leaders, trained and
well regulated via monthly drills and 2 week annual deployments -- local
folks living normal, working noraml jobs, living normal lives, called up
only during emergencies, to defend and protect, both National and in
OUR our backyards and neighborhoods.True Minute Men.These pro-gun 2nd amendment folks are mostly a disconnected independant
individuals (think lone-wolf terrorists or sleeper cells) of redneck thugs with
guns, and need to be carfeully watched and kept in check.They can
keep their hunting rifles, ect.But no where near protected as far as
Constitutional Militias rights are concerned.
The roots of a “militia” as referenced in the 2nd Amendment are in
colonial history beginning with the arrival of the first English colonists in
the New World. Being an ocean away from England, both the colonies and the
British Crown understood that the only military protection the colonies must
rely on would be what they could provide for themselves. All able-bodied men
were required to serve in the militia or their respective colonies and to supply
their own firearm. So national defense was quite literally dependent on an armed
populace providing the justification for enactment of the 2nd Amendment which we
still have today although national defense is now provided for through our Armed
Forces.Today, most Americans don’t even know why the phrase
“well-regulated militia” is in the 2nd Amendment. Some of the more
fanatical gun rights advocates probably wish that it wasn’t.
atl34True the words well regulated are in the Second Amendment however
were do they fall? What do they mean in the amendment? Here are the words in
proper order"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."Notice that the Militia is well regulated not the guns? So
what is meant by the Militia? In the Revolution there were two military units
fighting for the US. The first was the Continental Army. They received their
arms from the Congress. The second was the Militia or what we call today the
Minute Men. They were just average every day citizens who worked in their field
or shops then fought when needed using their own guns. They had seen a problem
with them they were un trained and often turned and ran after the first shots
were fired. So they wanted a well REGULATED militia or well TRAINED Militia. Now
That does not mean that we can not have any gun laws. Some are needed such as
missile launchers. However you must put "well regulated" in the right
Lets put some interesting FACTS to this debate. Anti gun people say if we just
ban Assault weapons we would not have school shootings. Well we had a ban from
1994-2004 so lets look at some numbers. I will use 1996-2004 (8 years the ban
was lifted part way through 2004) and 2004-2012 (also 8 years) for an apples to
apples comparison. In the 8 years during the ban we had 28 school shootings ion
the US including Columbine. In the 8 years after the ban we have had 30 School
shootings in the US including Sandy Hook. That adds up to only a 2 school
shooting difference between the ban years and post ban years. Clearly the ban
did not make a difference in preventing the shootings from happening. One thing
I did notice in looking into this is that the earliest shootings were in fact
with higher caliber rifles such as 30-6, then even during the ban years they
moved more to the lower caliber assault weapons (.223 not much more than a suped
up .22). We can talk about limiting mag. size but we must be honest first about
one vote,"The best solution is to repeal the Second
Amendment."______________________________I understand the
sentiment but it's an overreaction. The first ten Amendments collectively
constitute what we call the Bill of Rights. They were a Federalist concession to
Jefferson and his fellow Republicans to build a strong consensus for ratifying
the Constitution. To repeal any of them sets a precedent for the other. Today,
the right to bear arms; tomorrow, freedom of speech, freedom of the press,
freedom of religion, etc. No one wants to open that Pandora's box.The answer isn't to repeal the 2nd Amendment. The answer is to apply it
more intelligently for our times.
That old saw, "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a
ridiculous NRA talking point thought up by some paid gun industry public opinion
consultantt. It is a classic distraction designed to focus blame for the
destruction away from those who are clearly complicit in pushing for destructive
gun policies. I would hope that people can think through this deception to
focus more on destructive technolgy that is leading to mass murder and mayhem in
this country. People with guns kill people, and the modern assault weapon makes
them all too good at that.The 2nd amendment is obsolete. Technology
has made it obsolete.
In 1994, Congress passed and President Bill Clinton signed the Federal Assault
Weapons Ban. The law prohibited individuals from possessing assault weapons,
like the AR-15 rifle allegedly used by Holmes. It is a civilian semi-automatic
version of the military M-16 and was a "semiautomatic assault weapon"
under this law. But in 2004, this law expired and was not renewed. President
George W. Bush opposed extension of the law, and the Republican-controlled
Congress agreed. Since then, efforts in Congress to reinstate the law have been
unsuccessful and have not even come for a vote.At the very least,
gun manufacturers should be held civilly liable for the injuries and deaths that
foreseeably result from their products. Traditional principles of products
liability should be applied to assault weapons. Beginning around 2000, there was
a rise in the number of lawsuits against gun manufacturers. However, in 2005,
Bush signed a law that shields gun makers from being sued.The
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is also commonly referred to as the
"Gun Protection Act." The law dismissed all current claims against gun
manufacturers in both federal and state courts and pre-empted future claims.
Mountanman: "they can not comprehend the obvious connections between secular
progressivism, moral relativism and these murdering dictators."--that
because there are none
The best solution is to repeal the Second Amendment.
The difference in an assault rifle and a hunting rifle are obvious.If there are no differences then gun enthusiast that have been paying 2 to 5
times as much for an assault rife over a Reminton 700 series are pretty unaware.
If "they both fire bullets" is your argument then nobody is reading the
billions of pages written in books and magazines about the nuances of different
guns.If gun enthusiasts are that gullible then I say pull the plug
and don't allow them ANY guns until they know the difference between an
assault rifle and a hunting weapon. Hint, one makes one precise shot and the
other is more about volume of killing and ruggedness in battle. Have need of
killing an entire herd of buffalo?If you need 30 rounds to kill a
deer then maybe hunting just isn't your thing huh?
How many of you have read the story of the 1927 mass murder in a school wherein
the murderer used explosives? He intended to kills 100s, and had his elaborately
contrived scheme worked would have done so. He also planned ahead, killed a
family member before causing the school explosion and was just as cold blooded,
and even more effective than the Connecticut shooter. This was in Bath, a small
town, and there is a story circulating about the horror of that tragic event.
People of the Dakr Ages were constantly doing away with each other,
amazingly, since they didn't have anything like modern day weapons. I think
the answer lies in greater family cohesiveness, better resources for families
who have members who don't cope with life, and focusing on entertainment
that isn't so violent, self-centered and immoral. I'm fairly certain
that everyone of us knows someone who is on the edge of commiting a violent act,
and we don't know quite what to do.
Firearm death rates in the United States vary by state. The five states with the
highest firearmdeath rates are Louisiana, Alaska, Nevada, Mississippi and
Alabama. The states with the lowestrates include Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York.Utah (19) has a higher
firearm death rate than CA (20) due to a significantly higher suicide rate (#10
in the nation). As a parent of 3 (now adult) boys, I made sure we didn't
have guns in the house while they were growing up. I learned in teen parenting
classes that when young men get emotionally upset it triggers physical
activity--"don't give your sons the keys to the car" when they are
upset, while in young women emotional upset triggers verbal activity. Firearms
are the most commonly used method of suicide among males. Suicide is the third
leading cause of death among persons aged 15-24 years.re:LDS
LiberalSources? for info about the medications the Conn. assailant and
others were on? Medical records are usually private and not released to the
Anti - blah blah, It would be ironic, but nobody is going to assassinate that
French guy at the NRA with a gun.
The founding fathers were "secular progressives" mountainman. Otherwise
we would be bowing to a king and the Church of England. “There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can
double the reward on my head!” ― John Hancock
Nice try, but there is no practical use for an assault weapon except to kill
people, and we're not going to rein in the gun culture without reining in
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "CHS 85" since you claim to
know so much about guns, explain the difference between a semi-automatic hunting
rifle and an assault rifle.============= As a veteran
(since I know you, Mountaman, Mike Richards and all your AM radio heros never
did serve our counrty either) -- I was taught to kill with anything
I could get my hands on -- bare if that's all I had to work with.I went and say the Hobbit las weekend -- When Gandalf gives Bilbo
a sword to arm himself, he warns him of the temptation to rely on it too often.
“True courage," he tells Bilbo, "is about knowing not when
to take a life, but when to spare one.”I fear the untrained
and inexperienced cowards who will shoot first, and ask questions later.
CHS 85 both Mntman and redshirt have never served their country, but believe
they know more about weapons and killing then people like yourself. They know
only what the radio tells them of history and war and it tends to be slanted to
the right and righteous.lost in DC said:Happy Valley
Heretic,are 49.2% and 43.7% majorities yet? Your comment has no
credibility.Since I made no comment with whatever those percentages
are I guess credibility would mean you didn't read my comment?
To "CHS 85" since you claim to know so much about guns, explain the
difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and an assault rifle.Since there are not any significant difference, explain why banning assault
rifles will do any good. Japan did that, and now they have to control swords
and knives.Conservatives know that Progressives and their ilk know
how to fire weapons. Che, Mao, Fidel, Lennin, and the others that have believed
in the utopia where government makes everything all better always end up firing
@MountanmanYour broad-brush assumptions are pretty funny. You think I don't know the difference between an assault rifle and any
other sort of gun. The rifle I used in Iraq to defend myself was an automatic
assault weapon. You don't think I understand the difference between that
and a semi-automatic hunting rifle, a bolt-action shotgun, etc? It is quite
insulting that you think only conservatives know how to fire a weapon. You are very selective in your murdering dictators. Perhaps you should
take a college-level European History class and learn about the Crusades (all
nine of them), as well as the Thirty Year War, the French Wars of Religion, etc.
I'm not saying one is worse than the other - war is war and it is a
horrible experience, as I can personally attest. I just don't understand
why people believe that more religion will bring a cease to all murdering.
World history shows quite different results.
MountanmanHayden, IDTo a liberal, any gun is an assault rifle. ============= No - I'm a veteran.I know full well
what an assault weapon is, I've been tried and certified how to use
them.In fact, I own several myself.I keep them not to
threaten my Country, my Government or other citizens like you do, but rather to
defend and protect them -- Lately, it seems most likely from
unstable vigilante sorts - those enemies foreign and domwestic - who keep
threatening it the most.I would hope you never fall into that
Lost in DC said "...why should we bother answering your question."I'm thinking the better question is "Why shouldn't you
answer my question?". And the answer is because there is only one answer
and that is that guns are too easily accessible to the wrong people. How about
we just include that subject in the conversation about how to stop the mass
killings (or any gun related killings). That's all I'm asking.
Let's just talk about it. I don't think anybody is talking about
taking away everyone's gun. If they are they are as foolish as the
one's who think we should not even talk about this issue.
To a liberal, any gun is an assault rifle. If you want to really confuse them,
ask them how it was possible for Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mao ste Tung to
murder millions of UNARMED citizens of their own country? They will just give
you a blank stare because they can not comprehend the obvious connections
between secular progressivism, moral relativism and these murdering dictators.
Blaming guns for the violence some people commit is the equivalent of blaming
spoons for causing obesity or that matches causes arson. Human's who see no
difference between good and evil causes these senseless acts, not guns! In most
cases, guns are used to STOP the perpetrators of evil.
To "LDS Liberal" actually that is not moral relativism in your quote.
It is a statement that you will be judged based on the knowledge you had. The
"heathen" referred to in your quote does not apply here, as the nation
has a judeo-christian base to its laws. It is like children growing up. The
younger and less they know the less is expected. This is NOT moral
relativism.If the church believed in Moral Relativism, why is it
that they have spoken out against it so often?D Todd Christopherson
speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in May 2009.Dallin H. Oaks speaking out against Moral Relativism (shades of gray) in
October 1992 in an article titled "Religious Values and Public Policy".
He repeated this message again in February 2011 in an article titled "People
of Faith Should Defend Freedom of Religion". He again repeated the message
about the evils of shades of grey (Moral relativism) in a CES fireside in
September 2011 titled "Truth and Tolerance".There are more
articles like those, if you just search for them on the LDS web site.
ECR,you throw out the arguments put forth by others because you don't
like them - why should we bother answering your question.Happy
Valley Heretic,are 49.2% and 43.7% majorities yet? Your comment has no
credibility.LDS Lib,There is no mandatory separation of church
and state in the constitution. The constitution proscribes laws concerning the
establishment of religion, for or against. The main author of religious liberty
laws, Thomas Jefferson, wrote them to ensure conscience could not be silenced,
contrary to the current popular opinion. Remember 4th Nephi and
Mormon and what the people had rejected - that is more applicable to our
situation than your Joseph Smith quote.
Bifftacular:The alcohol analogy is inappropriate, because no one
consumes alcohol for the purpose of committing mass murder, alcohol is not the
direct agent used to kill another person, and alcohol is not designed for the
sole purpose of killing other people, as are assault rifles. Apples and
oranges. There are lots of things that are dangerous and should be regulated
(alcohol, explosives, nuclear material, pathogens, airplanes, cars, etc.), but
there is nothing quite like an assault rifle (unless you include military
weapons) when it comes to a single-minded purpose and design to kill.
That is a nice half truth. While gun violence is down, they have mass murders
committed with swords and knives.See "Sword rampage: Japanese
man chops off realtor’s arm" at RT.See also
"86-year-old ex-cop found dead in house after killing woman with sword"
at Japan today.Look up the "Osaka school massacre" where a
man killed 8 people with a knife.See "Japan knife killings:
Alleged killer Tomohiro Kato's plans published on internet" in UK
Telegraph.There are many other stories like that coming out of
Japan.Yes it cuts down on people getting shot, but now Japan
regulates swords, and is starting to make more regulations covering knives.
Japan shows that you regulate or create laws to stop people from killing. All
you do is end up with more tools/weapons to control and regulate.Even blaming computer games and TV is insane. There was shootings prior to
the invention of TV, the internet, and FPS games. That is nothing more than a
false cry to push a political adgenda.
@Mountanman"As long as we have a society dominated by the secular
progressives, the moral relativism cultures, we will continue to have these
tragedies."============= Ultra-Religious Societies
spawn regimes like the Taliban and Iran and pass laws based on Sharia Laws.Is that what you want? For that reason and that reason only, I for one
am GLAD there is a madatory seperation of Church and State.FYI -
Mountaman, I'm still don't know what "religion" you are basing
your morality on, but I know LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught about moral
relativism.The Heathen can not be judged using the same scale or
measure as the Christian -- Christ will judge based on the time, the place and
the circumstance one lives and whatever light or knowledge one receives --
therefore, it's ALL relative.BTW - It guys like you, that I
fear the most -- not my Country.
Bifftacular it's harder to get an Alcoholic drink than a gun, does that
make you feel safer?How many drunk drivers ran over 20 kids in a
tight group 2 or three times each?Apple to oranges but that's
Are you aware that on twitter sites. anti-gun democrats are calling for killing
the president of the NRA with a gun???? They want to take the guns away from
everybody who produces and keep them for themselves and use them on us.
@Mountanman"As long as we have a society dominated by the secular
progressives, the moral relativism cultures, we will continue to have these
tragedies."Swing and a miss, as bad as gun violence is in the US
we're actually at 20 year lows for it despite the rise in secularism. Plus,
if this were the case, why is it that Canada, Germany, Sweden, France, Spain,
the UK, Japan... why are all those socialist, and in I think all cases
more-secular, nations have way lower gun crime rates than the US? Why are the
southern states worse than the northeast, midwest, and west, if religion is a
deterrant?Note: I don't think religion causes people to be more
violent or secularism causing people to be less violent, I think there are other
more important factors at play there... but your premise is not supported by the
"Please know, guns do not kill people; people kill people."Says someone who then blames violent movies/video games. "the incessant
violence that our children are watching at younger and younger ages "A lunatic in China went into a school that same day and stabbed 22
children with a knife. The good news from that sad story is that unlike in
Newtown, nobody died. Guns are manufactured for one purpose, to injure or kill.
I'll buy the idea that people kill people... but guns make it a heck of a
lot easier. Since the right to life is something that is supposed to be
inalienable, I would think we would take reasonable steps to help preserve that.
After all the Second Amendment itself specifically has the words
"well-regulated" in it.
This is a problem that goes far beyond any simplistic discussion of either gun
control or mental health.It needs to be tackled very seriously while
examining all aspects of it. It's society, mental health, culture,
weaponry, and a perhaps a hundred other interrelated factors all rolled together
into one incredibly complex casserole. But this America. And if
any nation can solve it, we can.We just need to find the will to
work together to do it. And that will require ALL of us to put aside
preconceived notions -- no matter how sacred they may seem to us.
I am weirdly pretty neutral on the gun debate. I own a dozen guns but I also
have some sympathy for the assault weapon ban argument. With that said, I
can't listen to anyone too seriously that isn't at least consistent in
their argument. Ban assault weapons because they kill people? Okay, great. Are
you also just as - or even more serious about banning alcohol too? Drunk driving
killed nearly 10,000 people last year along in the U.S - many, many of those
completely innocent children. That's A LOT of Sandy Hooks EVERY SINGLE
YEAR. Where's the outrage over that? Please... someone who is anti-gun but
pro alcohol use enlighten us.
You'll be happy to know that folks who want gun control readily agree that
guns do not kill people--people kill people. By the same token, please know
that "gun control" has nothing to do with controlling guns--it's
about controlling people. We are in favor of guns being left by themselves to
be what they are. We simply want to restrict the ability of people--whom we
agree are the cause of the problem--to aquire the instruments of death that are
needed to committ mass murder.
One of the stupidest statements I have ever heard (and I hear it every time
someone massacres lots of innocent people) is "Guns don't kill people.
People kill people."Actually, it should be "Guns don't
kill people. People with guns kill people."And for the record,
guns sometimes do kill people. How often does a gun being cleaned go off and
kill the owner? How often do kids find a loaded gun, and it accidentally kills
one of them? Too often. So don't give me that nonsense about guns not
killing people.Gun deaths in the U.S. are so much higher than in
those countries where strict gun laws prevail that we don't need to ask
stupid questions about how we can prevent many of these tragedies. We will never
prevent all of them, and our violent culture certainly needs to be reformed, but
it is obvious that stricter gun laws are necessary. At a minimum, ban assault
rifles. That's a no-brainer. And if you don't think so, well, as I
said, it's a no-brainer.
Guns don't kill people but they make it simple. As killing devices, they
are effective and easy to operate. So easy, in fact, that a child can work it.
So easy that you hardly have to think about it. Just hold it in your hand, aim,
and with a single movement of your finger you send a piece of lead flying
through the air at 1200 feet per second or faster to tear through flesh,
arteries, and organs before you can blink your eye.After the bullet
exits the muzzle, there is no calling it back.
Lost in DC - I would say that none of us should give equal status to statements
from the Bible and those promoted by the NRA. The Bible has just a little more
credibility, to me anyway.And by the way, would you like to stake a
stab at answering my question from my earlier message? Would anyone?
To Mountanman: Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland are all far more secular and
progressive than the U.S. The U.S. is a theocracy compared to those three.
Curmudgeon, ECR,the statement "Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you" is trite and getting old and certainly doesn't belong in
this discussion. just because you do not like a statement does not
make irrelevant or untrue. LDS Lib,the DN publised an article
by John Fund yesterday refuting your comment about mass killings erupting in the
last 20 years. "In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was
1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of
@ CHS. The difference between Baghdad, Benghazi, K. Korea and Tehran is not
religion, its just the size and kind of the weapons, i.e. WMDs. Your example of
Rio De Janeiro is a perfect example of leftist, secular progressive culture, not
religion. Religion has NOTHING to do with gun violence. Switzerland, Sweden,
Finland and Israel are among the highest citizen gun ownership countries, yet
very low if any gun violence. The difference, again, is secular progressive, and
moral relevance cultures that have infested much of America. I lived for two
years in a small country in SE Asia where private gun ownership is banned! Only
the crooks had guns and trust me, they used them frequently against an unarmed
victim citizenship. History is full of nations were citizens were disarmed only
to allow dictator (the only ones who had guns) to murder millions of defenseless
citizens without moral conscience. Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jung Il. Mao tse Tung
and Joseph Stalin to name a few of the more recent ones. Guns in American
citizen's hands is our best defense against dictatorship.
I say allow the sale of assault type weapons to Military, Police, or veterans of
both.We've had the proper training.Keep them out of the
hands of the general public.I grow tired of people sighting
Switzerland as an example.Switzeerland has a 100% Military enlistemnet
requirement.so, if you want an assault weapon - join the
Military.And get the proper training.Oh ya, and one other
thing -- it's FREE.
How about some resources for our abysmally underfunded public mental-health
Mental illness has been with us for 6,000 years.Guns have been around for
1,000 years.Mass shootings (schools, malls, going postal, ect.)
erupted 20 years ago.SSRI medications were indroduced 20 years ago.Coincedence?Read the FDA warning labels on the box.We've been warned.
@MountanmanAren't some of the most dangerous places in the
world dominated by religious fanatics rather than secular progressives? You
cite Chicago, Detroit, and New York. Perhaps they are dominated by "secular
progressives," but I'll counter with Baghdad, Kabul, and Rio De
Janeiro, which are cities hardly dominated by "secular progressives."
A gun in your hand may well be your best protection, but to blame a
lack of religion for crime is just foolhardy.
@ Screwdriver. As long as we have a society dominated by the secular
progressives, the moral relativism cultures, we will continue to have these
tragedies. Excellent examples of this are the evolution of the cultures we see
everyday on the news in Chicago, Detroit and New York. As long as we have these
cultures, a gun in my hand is much better than a cop on the phone for me and my
How can an ordinary citizen defend himself against an assault-carrying criminal
if assault weapons are banned? The police? They arrived quickly at the Sandy
Hook school but not in time. Criminals will always carry assault weapons
whether they are banned or not.What has the banning of illicit drugs
done to prevent their use? Zip.Why aren't we banning alcohol?
It kills, too.
Jan, the simplicity of your argument is one of reasons the discussion of how to
prevent mass murders is so hard to have, and that is the discussion now... the
prevention of mass murders. Someone as deranged as this person has problems far
more serious and complicated than self alienation. I would say also that
violence in games, tv, and movies has a tendency to de-sensitise an individual
to violence (an issue directly related to guns) rather than lead them to self
alienation. Shooting someone over and over in a game and having them just pop
again the next time you turn the computer on is a very different outcome than
developing a dislike for the character. If the discussion is about
preventing mass murders..you as a gun enthusiast have to explain and defend a
weapon whos sole purpose is mass murder. Semi automatic high capacity guns have
only one purpose and that is to kill many many people very quickly without the
need for re-loading and giving your victims access to you.Lastly you
have to defend policies that allow the deranged unencumbered access to such a
The author makes a legitimate point that our culture contributes to the gun
violence that we have witnessed in mass killings over these past several years.
But the statement that "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"
is getting old and certainly doesn't belong in this discussion. I think those who will fall on their sword (or their rifle) before they allow
any gun laws to change should at least answer this simple question: Why is that
last year, the United States, with 330M residents had 9120 gun related deaths
and Germany, with 55M residents had 148 gun related deaths. One reason, it
seems, is that there are approximately 10 times as many guns owned by private
citizens in the US as in Germany. Of course the US is 6 times larger than
Germany. So what is the rest of the answer? I'd like to know. Can
I don't feel sorry for gun enthusiasts at all. You all failed to set a
responsible tone in this country regarding guns and instead fanned the flames of
discontent, rebellion and glory of killing with assault rifles.You
deserve all the regulation you get in the near future.
The author makes some good points about family breakdown, media violence, and
isolation via electronic devices, but the comment that guns don't kill
people is altogether trite and unpersuasive in light of the Newtown tragedy,
which follows on so many similar incidents. Without a gun, the shooter would
not have been able to slaughter so many innocents. I mourn for the victims and
their families, and for the gun advocates who are deluded into thinking that
free access to automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles is any kind of
solution. Somehow I doubt that the framers of the Second Amendment would have
condoned such access if they could witness its consequences in today's