Wow..yes follow another country's lead.... ok, I'm in..let's use China for crime and punishment
http://www.china.org.cn/government/opinions/2008-08/27/content_16341947.htm
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/death-penalty-for-a-bad-loan-crime-punishment-and-politics-in-china/255762/#
Okay now spinning the wheel of countries to follow how about Kenya for Motor Vehicle Codes. I've been to Mombasa and I would have bet they didn't have traffic laws but I guess this is a good start.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVaG1DOj2M

Show us the actual relevance of making alien cultures an equivalent to ours? We prevent a lot of crimes with reasonable laws......noone likes all of them....but when you take societies that are in a state of serious flux....like China and Kenya....there is no equivalency . There is however a simile relative to the words.

That's my point. Whenever the "good idea fairy" taps someone on the head and the good old let's follow________lead and do________ idea comes up. There should be a "good idea fairy" spray..for $19.00 plus separate handling and processing fees of course. Using a broad brush to say "let's do this because they do it" isn't on my good idea list unless you're going to vett the country using a gazillion comparables (I just added both of those words to my spell check dictionary). If you can't vett the demography correctly then what equation can you use? But! and a big But (insert rim shot) if you use the country as the example to follow, then I'll stick to my China Mombasa, Kenya rule of thought. Really nice beaches and as of around March of 05 I would have bet there was "0" traffic laws.

China and Kenya are alien cultures to us.....Australia and New Zealand are cultures that mirror ours. That is what I am talking about. All of them have nice beaches. Watch out for the sharks and jellyfish.

..just can't buy into the "mirror" analogy. I'll buy into they're democratic and civilized for the most part. But you (or I) could never make a list of any significance that would jibe enough to compare or use the ..."hey it works for____" so why don't we do it...of course I semi-kid about China. I wouldn't want that bill they send the family for the executions...sheeesh the noive of those people..charging..really?

That must be why the all want to live here!

So, a country (geographically removed) with a smaller population that has
similar demographics successfully responds to an atrocity in a way that has
produced results - but we should try to emulate their program?

Why not?

It's the results that matter, right?

I'm all about the results that matter. Again "go China" for their crime and punishments. The nut-tard in NY would not be an issue. Thanks NL.

"Again "go China" for their crime and punishments. "
- the normally cogent Leave RI

If we're to take this seriously, and emulate worth models, I would prefer methods from a country where people actually care to live. New Zealand is nice, nearby
Papua New Guinea is a festering hell-hole.

I don't believe that anyone in my position advocates lowering our standards.

We can be better - who wants to be the next Yugoslavia?

Logical fallacy - appeal to consequences

Austrailia banned guns at a cost of 700.000.000 dollars just for the buyback. That doesnt cover the cost of doing the buyback and disposing of the weapons.If you did the same thing in the United States and the program was equally succsesful they would be removing 40,000,000 guns off the streets. (Reuter and Mouzos 2003). If the United States payed the same for guns that Australia did the cost would be 43,076,923,076. just to do the buyback. If you look at the stats in Australia and you take the information pro-gun sites and then from the anti-gun sites then split that down the middle (because bothsides have an agenda) it would appear that gun deaths are down but overall homicides remain about the same. These numbers rise and fall year to year due to the want to kill or need to kill that the people in this country feel. (its not like there is a quota).

Some that have posted on the patch have concerns where the cost of putting a police officer in each school would come from. The price of putting an officer in each and every school would be about 15.00 to each and every person in the United States per year to help keep our children safe while they are in school. Seeing how spending 700,000,000 to buyback guns in Australia didnt do much to lower the number of homicides it appears that spending the 700,000,000 addressing the why these people want to kill would be a better way to spend the money. People dont kill other people for no reason unless they have mental issues. Dont you think that if we were going to spend $43,076,923,076 that meney would be better spen on the reason these killings are happening which is mental health?

"Seeing how spending 700,000,000 to buyback guns in Australia didnt do much to lower the number of homicides..."

- Ken who can't do math

Excerpt from Australian Institute of Criminology:

The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded.

Therefore, not only did the absolute number decrease, but the RATE of incidence
also declined, which is an actuarial measure of risk.

http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

"If the United States payed the same for guns that Australia did the cost would be 43,076,923,076. just to do the buyback."

- Ken, the expert on economics

Okay, so it's expensive. We've spent more on less ambitious programs with less scope and bearing on public safety. Are you saying we should NOT try because it would cost too much?

The entire point of the buy back is to remove the most deadly weapons, implicated in all the mass shootings from general circulation. In short, battlefield weapons
belong on the battlefield, not your neighbor's garage.

Concerning countries that have enacted stringent gun control "...it would appear that gun deaths are down but overall homicides remain about the same." - Ken

Cite your source. As shown by the Australian Institute of Criminology that's wrong.
Total homicides are down, homicide with a gun is rare and the rate of killing is down.

It would appear that (even with stringent reporting criteria) things are safer with fewer guns in the general population.

It has certainly made mass killings a non-existent threat to General welfare, there.

"The price of putting an officer in each and every school would be about 15.00 to each and every person in the United States per year to help keep our children safe while they are in school. " - Ken the public safety expert

I would be VERY interested to hear who will be applying for these positions, and at what rate of pay. If you're serious about this (which I doubt) have a look at the requirements for training an officer to carry a loaded weapon in a school.

I'm all for it, under certain conditions, where the risks are real - generally threats of gang violence spilling into the hallways - but ALL the schools?

Who is going to do this? You're talking about the same people who have been
howling that "Government is the Enemy" and attempting to cut funding for every
public service that doesn't serve them directly - they're going to chip in?

Perhaps I would take this seriously if the NRA called for a tax on every round of ammunition and annual surcharges to defray the costs. Defending the second amendment is worth that, right?

How about we let teachers and students deal with the task at hand - and empower
law enforcement to get ahead of the curve, for once by cutting off the endless
flow of ever more potent weapons?

"People dont kill other people for no reason unless they have mental issues."

No argument there. I would extend that reasoning to include anyone that WANTs
an arsenal in their basement should be screened for paranoia, at a minimum.

" Dont you think that if we were going to spend $43,076,923,076 that meney would be better spen on the reason these killings are happening which is mental health?"

We're broke, last I checked. Even if we can somehow manage to screen, evaluated and compel those most likely to commit these crimes into care -
that reduces the raw number of deadly weapons on our streets by ZERO.

"People point to three sets of causes when talking about events such as the Newtown, Conn., shootings. First, the psychology of the killer; second, the environment of violence in our popular culture; and, third, easy access to guns. Any one of these might explain a single shooting. We should be trying to understand is not one single event but why we have so many of them. The number of deaths by firearms in the United States was 32,000 last year. Around 11,000 were gun homicides. So what explains this difference? If psychology is the main cause, we should have 12 times as many psychologically disturbed people. But we don’t. The United States could do better, but we take mental disorders seriously and invest more in this area than do many peer countries. With 5 percent of the world’s population, the United States has 50 percent of the guns.'

- Fareed Zakaria

Naome, How come everytime you are faced with facts that dont suport your way of thinking you resort to name calling again. Again Im sorry if I insulted any 4th graders with my post about you on the other thread. If you didnt know the ban on weapons in Australia happened in 1996. By your statement "The number of murder victims fluctuated slightly from 1993 to 2007, whereas manslaughter remained relatively stable.
The number of murder victims peaked in 1999, at 344; the number of manslaughter victims peaked in 2002, at 48.
The 253 murder and 29 manslaughter victims recorded in 2007 were the lowest annual number yet recorded. " For 11yrs after the ban it didnt change the murder or manslaughter VICTIMS total . Thats 11 yrs! The good news is that in 2007 they had the lowest number of murders and manslaughters yet recorded. That means in the year 2007 they had the lowest numbersof murders and manslaughters and that number hasnt been that low since . Not sure how my math skills affect those numbers as you are the one that posted them.

Naome, You do see that the number we would have to pay for a simular buyback would be 43 Billion dollars right. Wernt you on a different thread asking where we would get the money to pay for having a police officer in each of our schools ? That would have only cost 15 dollars per year per person in the United States of America. My ciphering skills mighten not be all thart good thar Ms Naome but 43 Billion sounds like an awfull lot of money to spend to do something that your numbers show didnt help.

"For 11yrs after the ban it didnt change the murder or manslaughter VICTIMS total."

Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population*

In 1995, 339 Australians were murdered - By 2002 that dropped to 303
2010 recorder 260 Australians murdered. Each year that's less.

In that same period, Australian population increased from 18.1 million people
to 22.3 million people. In brief, the total number of homicides fell as the number
of residents grew.

There were fewer murders, and a reduced risk to the population as well.

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3101.0

Ken, I know math is hard.

Maybe you should get someone with a calculator to help you.
Find a nice, comfy chair, get some hot chocolate and a couple crayons.

You could be there awhile...

Ok Naome read this slowly so it my sink in this time. You wrote this so it might sound familiar. "- Ken, the expert on economics

Okay, so it's expensive. We've spent more on less ambitious programs with less scope and bearing on public safety. Are you saying we should NOT try because it would cost too much?" Then in another post just 24 minutes later that you wrote "
We're broke, last I checked" Which is it. Dont you read what you write or does this stuff come out before you think? The numbers I used to come up with the 15 dollar per officer was simply by taking the average pay that a street police officer makes. Then I used the average school year of 180 days and broke that down into weeks of school which comes to 36. Multiply 36 times the average weekly pay of an officer, multiply that by the total number of schools in the United States devide that by the population and it comes to about 13.50 per person. I used 15 dollars to be on the safe side. Oh and the people doing this service would be of the same quality and go through the same training as anyother police officer. You do trust the police dont you?

I used your numbers! It doesnt suprise me any more what you say. First you dont want poilce in schools because of the cost. Then because it would somehow cause the children to think we live in a police state. Then you you said that if there is a ban on guns that the guns we didnt turn in would be of no use against the tanks and armed troops they will send to make sure we are unarmed. You say you arnt for a total ban on guns then you say the new laws that are to come are only the beginning. Let me see if I get this straight now. First ban guns. Next seeing you have told me and others to STFU I guess freedom of speach will be gone. You have posted links to a guys wife being murdered and implied that he was responsible for that even though the police never charged him , so innocent till proven guilty is gone. Now there will be tanks and troups searching our houses and invading our privacy. What is next? Will you burn our books? Atleast all the books except Mien Kamph ? Do you speak with a German accent and maybe have a little mustash? What is your real agenda here. Is it to just argue or just to ban guns or what. I cant follow your points.

Naome, I know you wont address this but here goes anyway. If the gun ban worked why didnt the Murder and manslaughter rate drop to zero the day after the gun ban?????

"Naome, I know you wont address this but here goes anyway. If the gun ban worked why didnt the Murder and manslaughter rate drop to zero the day after the gun ban?????"

Are you suggesting that if a solution isn't perfect, it should not be implemented?
Does every seed planted, sprout?

Your grasp of statistics is appalling.

" That means in the year 2007 they had the lowest numbersof murders and manslaughters and that number hasnt been that low since ."

Um - no.

The quotation is from a given period, (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007).
This came from the Australian Institute of Criminology, they record things.

The department that reads tea leaves and predicts the future must be in another
building, I suppose.

Are you reading any of this stuff? It seems as if you might be skimming...

I suppose there's a "Gun Murder for Dummies" book, but I can't find it.

"Naome, How come everytime you are faced with facts that dont suport your way of thinking you resort to name calling again." - Ken, who is confused

I'm exasperated by idiocy, that's all. Having children in your house will leave you a great deal less patient in dealing with childish adults. "Yes it is!" "No, it isn't."

You are NOT following the leads shown, (or you would see the same charts)
You are NOT current in the discussion, (or you would have seen my recommendation that the DHS budget be shifted to bolster the ATF)
You are NOT realistic in the math required to find additional trained security officers for schools (which has not been sufficient to stop determined killers)
as you presume the number of staff required will be static,

You are NOT grasping the obvious, in an attempt to win some kind of internal battle over the mentally ill - this is about GUN violence.

Honestly, it's like being pestered by a child that won't do their homework.

You're advocating for more of the same that got us here in the first place.
It's the legacy of your generation; you took a bright future handed you by your
forebears and wasted it.

Lead, follow or get out of the way, Gramps.

Lets get real here. The anti-gun people dont care about how many die. The nuber of people that die is just a way to push for a ban on guns because they dont have any use for them and cant see why anyone else would. If it was a life issue they would be going after something that kills many more people per year then guns do. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking. My math might be bad but I think that is a little more that those killed by guns. I also read that the cost to health care is somewhere around 90 Billion dollars a year. Why is it that they dont want to ban cigarettes ? Why cant these people come out from behind their "guns kill " platform and just admit why they want to ban guns? Im not a pro-gun nut like I have been called by people that dont even know if I own a gun or not. Ive been told that I have enough guns to supply an army, again by people that dont even know if I have a gun or not. My whole deal is and always has been the mental health care in this country and how it need to be fixed.

"Lets get real here. The anti-gun people dont care about how many die."

I sense an attempt to change the subject coming...wait for it, wa-i-t for it..."

"If it was a life issue they would be going after something that kills many more people per year then guns do. Each year, an estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million live with a serious illness caused by smoking."

Bingo. You fail at America, Ken.
Do you have an instruction set for breathing, swallowing, etc?

It's like discussing architecture, with a brick.

"Why cant these people come out from behind their "guns kill " platform ...?"

You're the one who went to Sandy Hook.
You tell me.

Naome again you cant come up with an answer so you resort to shirting the question. You said guns kill people and that is their only purpose. I told you that I have had guns for about 40 yrs fired thousands of round and never even come close to killing anyone. In fact Ive never fired a shot in the direction of another human being. To that your best come back was to call me grandpa. I said to you that it would cost 43 billion to do a buyback and you said "'Okay, so it's expensive. We've spent more on less ambitious programs with less scope and bearing on public safety. Are you saying we should NOT try because it would cost too much?" 24 minutes later you say "We're broke, last I checked." What???? Pick one. I say that you wont address a question that I put directly to you and your reply is "I'm exasperated by idiocy, that's all. Having children in your house will leave you a great deal less patient in dealing with childish adults" My children have never driven me to drink as you have said yours have and my children have no effect on my ability to deal with the infantile things that you have been saying.

Naome, It s not changing the subject it is asking a question. Again I guess it is a question that you dont want to answer so you just deflect it. Answer this question for once. If it is life that you care about why wouldnt you go after the biggest killer? Is this to tough of a question for you or is it really just because you hate guns and have no use for them ?

Naome, You said "You are NOT grasping the obvious, in an attempt to win some kind of internal battle over the mentally ill - this is about GUN violence." It seems that Im not the one having a problem grasping the obvious. It isnt gun violence that we want to stop it is Violence period. Your the one that only cares about gun violence or more accurately guns.

Naome you said in response to putting police officers in schools, I'm all for it, under certain conditions, where the risks are real - generally threats of gang violence spilling into the hallways - but ALL the schools? Guess what the gang threat in Sandy Hook is pretty much non-existent. All schools have a need for this type of service. Even if the officer isnt in position to stop someone from getting in the school he would be there to address the problem far sooner that anyone away from the school would be.

Who is going to do this? You're talking about the same people who have been
howling that "Government is the Enemy" and attempting to cut funding for every
public service that doesn't serve them directly - they're going to chip in?

Perhaps I would take this seriously if the NRA called for a tax on every round of ammunition and annual surcharges to defray the costs. Defending the second amendment is worth that, right

Naome I asked you "I know you wont address this but here goes anyway. If the gun ban worked why didnt the Murder and manslaughter rate drop to zero the day after the gun ban?????" Again you prove me right. If you dont have a decent answer you call people names or ask a question instead of answering the one posed to you. I will answer your question though. Your question in response to mine was " Are you suggesting that if a solution isn't perfect, it should not be implemented?
Does every seed planted, sprout?" Im suggesting that if a solution to a problem isnt the solution you are looking for that you look for another solution..

You said it,

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf

The Seminal document, if you're so inclined...

Could you tell us where you got this from? "The net result, from 1996-2006 Australia's homicide rate dropped by almost half." This is an Australian govt website and it seems to say that is untrue. http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html In 1996 the rate looks to be around 320 or so and in 2006 it looks around 275. Hardly half. It's also worth noting the rate peaked in 1999 which was after the ban, correct? Maybe you confused homicide rate with the homicide rate involving firearms? Also note that the homicide rate had been in decline since 1969, well before the ban.

Look at victimization rates in Australia. Sexual assault is much, much higher for example. Almost 3x as high. In 2011 in Australia the rate was 76 per 100,000. I could only find the US in 2010 but the rate for us was 27.3. In 2003, the last year I could find stats for both it was 91.9 to 32.2.

exactly john, it is a common sense issue. i think first we need correct information. i also think banning all guns is foolishness. we banned drugs, did that work? if you ban "assault weapons", then i assume you mean anything that fires more than one shot? will criminals and psychopaths turn in their weapons? i do agree that some additional rules need to be put in place such as stricter screening for mental illness at a federal level and plugging up the gun show loophole. that wont stop someone who is bent on destruction from acting out though. the one thing that these mass shootings have in common, besides the gun, is mental illness. the gun didnt go there and shoot people, a person did. common sense is exactly what we need.

Rate = incidents per 100,000 people.

If the number of homicides stays the same, and the population doubles, the rate goes down. From NationMaster.com:

"Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."

Unless the criminal code is uniform, you're not comparing apples to apples.
Bar fights, even those not resulting in injury are reported as assault.

The Australian tolerance for violence has gone down, and reporting is up.
Similar differences appear in studies of UK police data.

In the key indicators that can be measured, as has been covered before,
We have 5 times the population of Britain and Wales.

Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146

Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)

- Juan Cole 14JAN11

In Australia, even fewer at 30.

Most telling - when was the last mass-murder in Australia or the UK?

If everyone is so worried about protecting children, why do you refer to the killing of unborn fetuses as "a woman's right".

The unfettered selling of guns and ammo is their actual goal. To hellll with the repercussions.

Why is the second amendment the only amendment to the Constitution that does not have regulation? For example, you can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. You can't disparage someone's reputation(libel and slander). It is ironic that the "Constitutionalists" who advocate no limits on the second amendment fail to mention this fact.

It is more ironic that we have an actual expert in Constitutional law in the White House,
but these same experts have been second guessing his every move since day 1.

Scratch the surface of the most shrill gun-rights arguments and you'll find them cowering behind a 2nd amendment buttress - afraid of an America that doesn't
look much like them. They're frightened, and their guns provide comfort to them.

They scare the bejabbers out of me.

The same people volunteering to strap up and patrol my kids school are the same
ones I don't want near my kids - the "Bang-Bang!" crazies.

These are people don't know the first thing about force application, they've got this idea that the only answer in every situation is deadly force and more firepower.

There is a fundamental disconnect between those that would claim their first Amendment rights trump the kids' chance at Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It probably falls along the lines of who has kids at home.

What are you talking about? There is a boat load of regulations on guns.

Sure just another taxpayer. The 2nd amendment is reglated to death with over 20,000 laws on the books. If you do not like the amendment there is a process to remove or change it by the people. Congress does not have that power it is left to the individual states.

Start a group to do that, no-one stopping you. I will follow it if it is changed.

Just another taxpayer, What ??? This is news to me. I alway thought that there were laws that regulate who can buy guns and the kind of guns they are alowed to buy. I thought there was a law that convicted felons and those with mental illness couldnt by law buy weapons or ammunition.Seems like that law didnt work in NY. If you check into it there are volumes of laws regulating arms. The old laws havent stop people from getting weapons why would new one do it now ?

John. Would you please define semi-automatic weapons. Thanks

please define high powered also. john, the reason i cant side with you is because if you ban semi auto your talking about taking 3/4 of all guns to the incinerator. 40% of all guns in this country are semi auto pistols. i would be very fearful for my family if all i had for defense was a bolt action rifle and the criminal had a tech9.

Jon these so called assault rifles are not assault rifles by the true definition. Nor are they more powerful than other rifles. Most States you cannot hunt deer with them because one shot from them will not take a deer down causing the animal to be able to run away and possibly dying somewhere the hunter will never find. This is the reason they are banned from hunting in most states for large game.

I know of no way, nor does the government that they could ban all these weapons and get them out of the hands of legal gun owners. Let's face it criminals are banned from having them and they still have them. Most States I know of forbid a convicted felon from owning any weapon.

There are 87 million legal owners in the US give or take a million or 2. It equates to over 300 million weapons in their possession. Not counting law enforcement or military. Why do people think with that many weapons there is not an enormous rise in killing then? Because it is rare for an honest citizen to use them in a criminal act as they follow the law and should not be penalized because an extremely low percentage of people do not when compared to the legal people above.

Neither can the government or any law enforcement agency can be 24 hours on guard duty on the street or at your house to stop criminals. It is that simple. Even in a small town the police are still minutes away from a criminal act that may last seconds.

Your not being vague John. What you said simply was false. You said the homicide rate was halved which is not true at all. Correct?

"Your not being vague John. What you said simply was false. You said the homicide rate was halved which is not true at all. Correct?"

- Ted Geisel

"Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers."

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7B0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7Dfacts11.pdf The Seminal document, if you're so inclined...

"594,300 (3.4%) were victims of at least one threatened assault, including face-to-face and non face-to-face threatened assaults"
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features32010-11

Part of the problem detecting what you mean is the lack of precision in the terminology pro-guncontrol advocates like yourself use. You don't seem to address some specific questions, and it makes it seem like you don't really know what you are saying you want to ban.
High powered - to a gun owner means the cartridge is a powerful one. Typically the most powerful are...... hunting rifles. Ban those high powered rifles?It seems like high powered to you is the .223 round in the AR-15 - not so much. High capacity? You mean like a 13 shot tubular magazine found in the Winchesters of the 1890s? Ban those?Assault rifles? That's a cosmetic description of a rifle that isn't made of wood and has a folding stock, maybe a pistol grip, and a magazine that takes 5 or 10 or 30 rounds. It's not more powerful - it just has a look. And it can be use for hunting. And self defense. So the words you use to talk about what you want to ban both encompass more than I think you mean to, and are so imprecise that what you think is obvious to you is not at all clear to others. And in the end what goes unresponded to is why this discussion seems to be in response to obvious case where the laws wouldn't have stopped a thing. Of course in this case new laws protecting us from the mentally illl might have. In this case law abiding citizen did own a gun. She was illegally murdered by someone who tried to buy a gun and could not.

" Of course in this case new laws protecting us from the mentally illl might have. In this case law abiding citizen did own a gun. She was illegally murdered by someone who tried to buy a gun and could not."

- Sailri

That literally brought home the point about guns posing a public health risk,
even when secured by a responsible, registered, trained owner.

Illegal gun use starts as legal gun use.

Isn't it obvious?

Yes Naome - obviously additional legislation has no hope of working 100%. You're right.
Yes - current legislation also doesn't work.
Yes - Talking about more legislation is irrelevant if you wan't anything other than a 100% prohibition and confiscation.
Yes - Few talking about more legislation to ban bring this up - they aren't being specify or truthful - they say they want one thing but won't be specific in the only way to get it.
Yes - those who "want the debate" don't want the debate about the 2nd Amendment - they want laws that work around the 2nd Amendment.
Yes - if we actually HAD the debate about the 2nd Amendment (thereby expressing our 1st Amendment rights) - we would have the opportunity to reaffirm if it was a good Amendment (change in your words) or not. And the opportunity to "clarify" it. And I truly think that we actually would reaffirm and confirm the existing Amendment as written.

(Concerning the 2nd amendment) " And I truly think that we actually would reaffirm and confirm the existing Amendment as written." - sailri

After a room full of 6 year old white kids was slaughtered? This was the Fukushima
reactor of American gun rights, and big changes are coming.

I anticipate a mandatory buyback of anything that even smells like a Bushmaster.
I expect an outright ban on the sale of weapons that fire rounds like the FN 5.7

I further expect a serious recalibration of the ATF to a front line agency instead of the red-headed bastard step child of DHS.

Do I expect the Army National guard to knock on doors looking for gun?
No.

Do I anticipate jail time for anyone caught with a high-capacity magazine for a semi-automatic weapon? Sure, once they release marijuana dealers.

It's a "turn and face" pivot toward a demonstrated threat.
It's long overdue.

This article merely lays out the facts with the links to the actual numbers from agencies who keep track without bias on those agencies parts. It should be notes that the UN who wants gun control in the US has numbers that directly conflict with their agenda of anti-gun resolutions nd treaties they want to enforce on the US. Evidently they do not believe their own studies results.

So John, what would you consider an appropriate firearm for self defense when facing 4 armed intruders? And believe me that scenario does happen, a lot.

"Not hunting weapons or ones used for self defense." you contradict yourself....

John, is this what you're referring to:

A semi-automatic, or self-loading, firearm is a weapon that performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing—assuming cartridges remain in the weapon's feed device or magazine. Typically, this includes extracting and ejecting the spent cartridge case from the weapon's firing chamber, re-cocking the firing mechanism, and loading a new cartridge into the firing chamber.

If so, most likely 90 - 95% of the handguns and rifles law abiding folks own fall into this category.

So, where do we go from here, ban all weapons except black powder right?

You do know hat the weapon used in CT was not banned under the law you site? It has no military application parts which that law clearly defined and manufacturers were and are very careful to avoid. It did ban certain magizines, (they are not clips by the way).

What about weapons used for sport or just plain hobbies same as Bow an arrows. Also most killing done in the US are from .22 cal. if I remember right at close range. I enjoy shooting for fun and to keep up accuracy as I do not hunt anymore.

The guns you talk about are not meant to kill as many people as possible, the military ones you couold say that maybe. A Marine will tell you when he is confronted by someone he will fire until that person is down and no longer a threat. There is no such thing as wounding someone with a shot to the leg or such as you see on TV. This is the reason law officers are trained to hit center mass of the perp ie the torso center of the chest.

Remember california when the cops had to go to a gun store and get weapons that the perps were using an had gotten illegally. finally taken out by a trained sniper. You never know what weapon a criminal will have. Therefor I want something as good or better to protect myself and family it is only logical wouldnt you say?.

John, I told you the gun nuts would come out against your article. These people do not believe in using common sense in trying to address the problem of citizens having access to weapons that can carry a clip/magazine that can shoot hundreds of rounds per minutes.

Oh no offence but please read that assualt ban law, this is the section explaining what was banned.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c103:1:./temp/~c103erftKd:e643897:

It is not what you think it was it seems. It also by every study done on the 10 years it was enforced it accomplished absolutly nothing in the way of criminal behavior or gun violence, nor will it again. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books in this Country, federal and State. Enforce thoses first before wasting paper on yet more laws that criminals do not follow. Laws keep people honest. Criminals do not obey them at all, that is why they are called criminal. The guns used in CT were not legal because he stole them from his mother he did not own them. Would it have made a difference if he stole them from a gun store or neighbor the night before. No it would not.

Would it have made a difference if his mental state had been taken care of before hand. Absolutly. The causality is the problem, it was not the inanimate object but the person who decided to use it in a criminal manner. If he had done it with a bomb like Oklahoma city would the mass death had been any different and what would you ban in that case?

should read "Laws keep honest people honest with the threat of penalties"

The bottom line is don't let mental deficients get access to our firearms.
No more knee jerk laws are needed.

"...for self defense when facing 4 armed intruders? And believe me that scenario does happen, a lot."

- local yocal

The police call those "drug deals". How many home invasions, last year?
I would LOVE to see your source material on this NRA wet dream, LY.

""Laws keep honest people honest with the threat of penalties"
- no regr allia b

That, and provide recourse to the public when infractions occur.
The drunk driving laws do precisely that - we can't stop them, but we can
lock them up. It's not such a cognitive leap that even you can't make it across...

john, your common sense has been bamboozled. look here and you will see the same gun with two different skins: http://blog.hsoi.com/2009/09/23/sr-22-side-effect/ Had you not already known they were the same, you probably would have said the top one was ok but the bottom one should be banned. they are exactly the same, just different eye candy. the ar15 you show is the combat model we all know from the vietnam war. it is a .223 semi auto. one of the quickest rising hunting rifles is the .223. it looks nothing like the picture you showed but like my example, they are the exact same. and FYI, the .223 is the smallest width production bullet on the market. why didnt you attack a 7mm, or .308 or .50cal??? its because you dont know the difference between them and are hung up on what it looks like not what it does.

If you feel so strongly about this go home.

"If you feel so strongly about this go home."

- Thomas Rayner

Meaning what, exactly?

"john, your common sense has been bamboozled."

- mad hatter

What, because the Bushmaster is made to look menacing?
God, you gun-nuts are childish.

Naome,I mean if you don't like it here in the good ol USA go back to the country he came from period...........

Do not forget....from 1 homicide to 2 homicides is a 100% increase....the basic statistical threshold in UK is extremely low ....any increase is going to have a greater proportionality view than the similar increase here or elsewhere.

mike
sorry for the lateness..covering a shift in Newport I owed someone. I agree about in your reference to statistical quotes. If I put one leg in a fire in the other on a block of ice my "average" is...yes that's right.

"According to the website "Gun Control-Just Facts" the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban."

- bristolyte

You've confused the total number of homicides with the rate per 100,000 people
which is the actuarial measure of risk. This illustrates my objection to using the most conservative or conspiratorial sources (eg- Gun Control-Just Facts) sloppy math, undefined terms. That's not science.

You toss out an improvised, crude thought grenade and the opposition is forced to scurry around for refutation when your source is bogus. It's a cheap diversion.

Anyway - the math:
There are more people in the UK today, than in 1968. There are unfortunately more murders. The population grew faster than the number of murders.

Divide the number of any reported offense by the total population and multiply by
100,000 to get the standard measure, Rate per 100,000 people.
(Note that in 1998, the reporting rules became strict - OLD rules/NEW rules.)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/historical-crime-data/

"The real problem is not the guns."
Right - we should ignore the instrument of lethality in these shootings.
Bra-vo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jul/14/crime-statistics-england-wales

It escapes these Constitutional law experts that "amendment" implies change.

^This. The second amendment was created over 200 years ago when it was relevant to the time and the climate of the US. Now we have 100 times the number of people not to mention a completely different situation than that of centuries ago. Its just not entirely relevant anymore.

SHS - Thanks for the link. I"ll check it out. Check out the WSJ article. More info one gets more informed he/she is. Nothing wrong with that is there? Enjoy!
Lu

..SHS
so you also think that they're MAXIMUM penalty of 3 mos to three years is okay too for the firearms violation(s) in NZ ?? See I just don't buy into any of the "if_____ does it we should too" You could go on forever about how "we" should do what "they" do and conversely you would have to accept that theory/analogy about everything we do right or wrong should be based on another country's method. Again if NY State had given this nut-tard the needle of niceness back in 1980 when he killed his own grandmother, there would be 2 FF celebrating New Years..what country can we pick to remedy that? Any kind of gun, bow and arrow, slingshot this guy had would be moot..they let him do it again.

"Any kind of gun, bow and arrow, slingshot this guy had would be moot..they let him do it again."

- Leave RI

Setting aside how Spengler managed to avoid capital punishment, do you honestly believe a snivelling Gramma-murdering coward like him could have killed three
with a slingshot?

Even money says he was so cranked up he couldn't draw a bow, let alone
shoot it through the front window of a Fire engine. Let's get real, here.

He used a gun,
Lanza used a gun..
Holmes used a gun...

Perhaps there's a trend, there?

If it helps, here's the link.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0

This article has been debunked, repeatedly.

Debunked:

Number of Murders, United States, 2009: 15,241
Number of Murders by Firearms, US, 2009: 9,146 (60%)

Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)
Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2008* 39 (SIX PERCENT)
(equivalent to 195 US murders)

Six percent is less than 60%, right?
39 is less than 9146, right?

(* OW * Math is hard. *My aching head*)

Number of mass shootings in the UK since Dunblane?
Number of mass shootings in Australia since Port Arthur?

When did we decide to become a third-world, tin pot shooting gallery.
We can do better.

Taking an op-ed piece from a NewsCorp feed might not be entirely accurate...

My point exactly. The only thing these gun banning laws does is take away the guns from people who wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place

"The only thing these gun banning laws does is take away the guns from people who wouldn't have committed the crime in the first place."

How can you tell who will and won't use their guns "correctly"?
Do they get a stamp? Something like a library card?

Let's start by enforcing the laws on the books and muzzling the NRA.

Strictly an opinion piece with stats that seems to mean nothing from a coherent argument point of view. Not to mention WSJ has become a staging ground for Murdocks and Ailes assaults on the American progressive movement. Do not put too much credence in this article.....it is kind of like wearing a sweater that has no arms and lots of holes....keeps parts of you warm but in the long run you freeze

This article is a steaming load of male bovine excreta.

It's published by a NewsCorp mouthpiece. (The print arm of Fox News.)
It's not science.

You a Marine, ralph?

" Anyway, lets create a mock scenario whereby a perp enters my house with a semi auto handgun to do me or my family harm." That's out of the NRA pamphlet, right?

How often do homeowners actually repel intruders?
Nancy Lanza was preparing for just this scenario.

This fantasy world you've populated has spilled over into elementary schools.
It's not just about your fever dreams, anymore.

In actuality Ralph you left out the most important 5 items in your scenario. 1. When the perp enters your home he has his pistol in his hand most likely, and pointed where? 2. You have to keep one or both of your rifles within reach at all times. 3. You have to bring it to bear on the perp. 4. He has already started firing at you. 5. Whoever gets the first, and second accurate shot off is most likely the winner. Same thing applies if we just insert "weapon" that you have to get too, say a semi-auto pistol. He comes in and has the drop on you. In the scenario you posed, just like Powerball, you most likely end up a loser. But forgetting the scenario you painted and I have many friends that paint that same picture and most of them are not so called NRA nut cakes, until I start asking them more realistic points such as the 5 above. Conversation about the topic usually ends right there.

What we need is modification of some of the privacy rules we now live by so that the mentally deficient can be pointed out and get them some help. Nobody wants to really touch that point.

Personally I do not believe an assault type weapon is unless it have a switch to put it on Auto.

I like April too

@former Ports residents- Ah yes yes.......you must proceed cautiously. Bounderies are always a plus. Pillow cases with holes cut in them can be a scary thing. My brutha.

SHS
okay I'm now unstuck..not really but again that isn't the issue. Most states have safety classes/exams and already here felons and domestic violence banned.
I don't disagree with vetting the buyer/owner.
Now look at NZ penalty part of the law and it's maximum is 3 mos to 3 yrs.
Comparing another country's "anything" to change our "anything" is flawed at the conception- - unless - - we can use that philosophy across the board..then I'm sticking with China and it's crime and punishment. They don't let people go to do it again...plus I like their #17 combo.

ralph..
I understand their concept on vetting the owner for craziness and crimes. What I think the on sight visit does is (and this is totally a guess since I don't care what NZ does) show that the buyer owner is committed AND give the seller an "out" by the buyer refusing the visit so that they can be denied the sale. I think what you're saying about the NZ plan is using our constitution with the way they do stuff..is that your issue with the SHS message?

I will cry foul due to a invasion of privacy for sure. Even the ACLU has come down on the side of gun owners on that one.

That is what scares the bejesus out of citizens who own legal weapons. Almost every Country in history that did that in the end confiscated them and then committed genocide on their own people least we forget.

" Almost every Country in history that did that in the end confiscated them and then committed genocide on their own people least we forget."

- no regr allia b

This is the classic gun-nut safe room, and a logical fallacy.
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc (Because of this, the following...)

Face it Jack, when the UN marches down the street to enforce Agenda 21
with a tank, mind you, you'll turn over your weapons to the nice man in the
blue hat. This ridiculous "Red Dawn" fantasy implies that you're doing the rest of us a favor by harboring a threat to domestic tranquility.

Your second amendment rights don't trump the lives of 20 dead kids.

well, I don't understand why people would cry foul due to "invasion of privacy". People must have a license to drive, this would be a license to own a gun. And you mention that currently the government has a record of gun owners already, YOU are the one suggesting the possibility of banning of firearms - I am not suggesting that at all. Why do you even bring that up? it will NEVER happen in this country. Let's concentrate on how to put more regulation/education up front, before someone can own a gun. let's make it a licenced thing, with more review/vetting of the person BEFORE they can own one.

SHS; Driving a vehicle is a privilage. Owning a gun is a right, thats the difference.

" liberals rarely read history books and always say its different this time..."

- mad hatter

Right - YOU read books. That's a good one.
Genocide happened for lots of reasons, complicity of the majority in the violence against a minority being the chief means to get there.

Decent people stood by while their innocent neighbors were slaughtered.

We're not on the sidelines, any longer.

I would be VERY interested to hear your Native American take on having armed
white guys as neighbors. That would make interesting reading.

I love fiction.

"People may not like it but that fact is there is evil in this world but some say the ownership of guns is evil however if it is then it is the lessor of 2 evils to keep the totally evil in check."

So, to stop evil we must use evil...?
To stop drunk drivers from killing, we must all be drunk drivers?

To stop rapists - ?
To stop terrorists - ?

NL, The answers to your questions posed here are the clear and simple manifestation of the flaw in your entire point of view.

"To stop drunk drivers from killing, we must" ?
Lock up the driver; Rehab the driver; Counsel the driver; etc.

"To stop rapists - ?"
Lock up the rapist; Castrate the rapist; etc.

"To stop terrorists - ?"
Lock up the terrorist; Execute the terrorist; etc.

So to stop murderer, your solution is to take away one possible type of weapon from every citizen in the country? You stop crime by stoping the criminal.

That isn't what you said in your article John. Read what you wrote. "The net result, from 1996-2006 Australia's homicide rate dropped by almost half. And it's also important to note that non-firearm homicides did not increase. ". The homicide rate did not drop in half. That is a lie. In 1999 the homicide rate peaked. 1999 is after the ban. There were more homicides after the ban in 99 than before. I sent you a link from the Australian government. If they are wrong about the numbers than how is some politician in Oregon right?

"Circumstantial evidence"... don't you think you should have something a bit stronger to make a decision like this?

John, you do realize that the homicide rate and homicide rate involving firearms are two different things, right? You wrote homicide rate in the article, correct? What you said is not true, correct? The quote you cited above is homicide rate involving firearms.

Anyone want to lay odds on how many boomsticks 'troopah' can find?

What's the over/under on there being guns troopah has forgotten, laying around.
Submitted for evidence as item 1 of millions...

ok troopah
besides your caps lock or shift being broken (I assume it is or get your money back from your high school) the 2nd Amendment (yes I can spell the whole word) has nothing to do with John Florez (note caps on a proper name) opinion here. Believe me I am all for citizens owning guns, however, I am also against people who type and expound like less than GED graduates about their position.

They already are, dumbass. That's the point. Regular people have recognized the threat as a clear and present danger.

You can't really be this stupid, can you?

Hey Joe, is your comment that "politicians better watch their backs" a prediction or a threat?

Read the Criminal code, first.

Threatened assaults counted for violent crimes, almost 600,000 times.
The Australians have a very low tolerance for violence and put teeth in enforcement.

""594,300 (3.4%) were victims of at least one threatened assault, including face-to-face and non face-to-face threatened assaults"
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4530.0Main+Features32010-11

This wouldn't even generate a police report across the road from Tiverton.

Sure; the average untrained, out of shape, belligerent paranoid with a pistol stashed under the driver's seat or shot gun under the bed will mount an organized resistance to the full weight of US law enforcement. That works out so well, every time. It's as if the gun makes you invincible, even to logic.

The beef is with the insistence on individual rights, with no mention of your
responsibilities. Google Randy Weaver and James Allen Beck.

While you're populating a fantasy world with "armed resistance to tyranny"
you're fellow gun owners are shooting up movie theaters.

Enough, already.

All of any kind of assault gun control is going forward.....I would advocate a registry for those weapons that have no hunting utility.

It proves nothing.....Australia is a country in flux.....They have immigration problems and indigenous cultures that are given second class status.....hence an underclass that is violent and prone to criminality.....nowhere in your 'data' is any reference to criminal actions that are gun based vice non gun based. So ....what are you really saying...other than blowing smoke?

This article has been debunked, repeatedly (see above).

Further, then NCPA is another Conservative outlet for what amounts to propaganda - yet another mouthpiece for the Koch brothers, and their compatriots.

"NCPA's revenues for the fiscal year ending 9/30/09 were $4,222,403 against expenses of $7,569,793; for the fiscal year ending 9/30/08 they were revenues of $4,102,806 against expenses of $4,898,261.

October 2009, the organizations's web site reported that for 2008 its funding breakdown was 39% from foundations, 39% from individuals and 22% from corporations.

In 1992, the New York Times reported that the NCPA was partially funded by the insurance industry.

According to an article in The Guardian newspaper, in 2008 the NCPA received USD 75,000 from ExxonMobil.

Global warming, health insurance, worker's rights, gun control all challenged in
one tidy little office. This is your unimpeachable source?

www.guidestar.com
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/weekinreview/ideas-trends-the-philosophical-fight-over-what-insurance-should-be.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/01/exxon-mobil-climate-change-sceptics-funding

According to Greenpeace, the NCPA received at least USD 570,000 from Koch Industries in the eleven-year period ending in 2008.[16]

"Politics Sheriff of NK if you keep up with these facts..."

Look up the difference between facts and fabrications, Joe.
It's like saying a GED means you graduated from High School.

"...the liberals will have nothing left but insults."

What's insulting is the swill you continue to spread as if it were a banquet.
You're insulting our intelligence, on a regular basis. You think we won't check?

"Australia is an island and doesn't have the illegal immigrant problems we have."

Right - there's come by boat. Ours walk.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/taxpayers-wear-burden-of-60000-illegal-immigrants/story-fn7x8me2-1226200621996

"They were never having the gang problems we had prior to the buy back according to their statistics." What gang problem are you so concerned about,
in Tiverton, RI? You seem particularly worried about this. Why is that?

"This articular is feel good "Hyperbole"
I couldn't have said it better, myself.

"as Naome Lixass puts it."
My, aren't we clever.

My, aren't we clever

Joe...you have so much to say....yet....all that comes out of your words is nothingness.

When it gets personal....yes ...one wants retribution.....the idea here is to create a climate where people do not reach (because they have a more difficult access to mass killing weapons) for the Bushmaster and use other means. An armed society is a society that uses its' arms as a first option....not a last option. No logic to arming everyone. Flawed logic and a ticket to more mayhem.

"So many change their minds after they are victims of horrific crimes."

You can't back that up - can you.

"If only I had the means to stop it is the question they most frequently ask ."

Really - can you provide a 'for instance'?

"Protecting ones self and family is a right our constitution provides with good measure."

What family - you don't have any children.

Let's not pretend this is about some sense of civic duty.
If you're in trouble, harassed by meth dealers, that's one thing.

If you're preparing for armageddon as a result of civil unrest, you might be
surprised to find your fellow preppers carrying a fan and a bucket...

When the SHTF a prepper will be throwing the switch.

But not with a firearm, Joe. Common sense interpretation of the 2nd Amendment's meaning (what 'militia' do you belong to?) has clearly been twisted and deformed by the Supreme Court to serve the political ideology of the right. This is a disgrace to our democracy but can be rectified through legislation or Constitutional Amendment, as well as by a differently composed Court.

BTW, are you licensed to carry a firearm in public. I'd like to know so I can avoid interacting with you. On the other hand, if you carry, would you be just as willing to protect me if my life were threatened as you would your own or that of your family? Just curious...

If I am going hunting I carry a riffle . It is unloaded and secured .Carrying a hand gun requires a permit. I don't have a permit. I don't need a permit to own a hand gun for home protection.
RI hand gun laws
Permit to Purchase No**
Registration of Firearms No
Licensing of Owners No
Permit to Carry Yes

"Personal responsibility and keeping firearms away from the mentally ill are good things but taking guns away completely is not the answer in my opinion."

Agreed.

Let's be clear about something - I'm only concerned about the presence of
semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons, the hoarding of ordnance and
the ease with which individuals may buy at gun shows.

As has been shown above, there are some grave misconceptions about what constitutes a preventable threat, and remedies to prevent them.

There is also a pervasive concern among many that feel the necessity of a firearm, out of proportion to a genuine risk assessment.

It's impossible to convince someone who thinks they are the exception that they're
contributing to the problem they intend to solve. Nancy Lanza amassed a weapons
cache to prepare for social unrest and catastrophe.

It's sad that she became one of the frequent statistics of gun violence, killed by
a family member. It's tragic that her guns were used to slaughter children.
It's a National disgrace that we haven't enacted a meaningful ban since Columbine.

Arguing with the American Taliban is pointless, they're genuinely fearful that the
World is about to end - they just can't see themselves fulfilling the prophecy.

There is no place for stockpiles of weapons in a civilized country.
Do we want to be our best, or emulate Somalia?

The problem is where to draw the line - at home? On the street? In a theater?

Your comment indicates that you suffer, at a minimum, from poor judgment and, at a maximum, from paranoia. Losing power in Providence justifies possessing a weapon? Really? Are you referring to Providence in general, or just the East Side? Even so, do I detect some ethnic prejudice there, or perhaps outright racism? Just wondering and realize you won't answer honestly if in the affirmative.

In my judgment, possessing a firearm because you don't believe the government's emergency response to hurricanes was adequate is a sign of non-functioning logical ability and a poor reasoning process, if not a symptom of mental illness itself.

Ted isn't exaggerating about the isolation caused by flooding.
That produced some justifiable fears among people that believe they would be looted by their neighbors (another topic, entirely).

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36085345/ns/weather/t/homes-dreams-wiped-out-ne-floods/#.UN2oM6zXtrU

There were portions of Vermont cut off for weeks after Hurricane Irene.
http://vielmetti.typepad.com/vacuum/2011/08/2011-vermont-flood-maps-irene.html

It's my belief that a constant diet of fear-mongering from Fox news amplifies
a sense that things are bad, and getting worse, particularly among the elderly.

Note the allusion to civil unrest in Providence spilling over into nearby communities.
The fact that this was precipitated by flooding - which left people isolated such that they could only be reached by boat is not examined for irony.

There is this simmering notion that things are about to go from bad to worse, and they're trying to be responsible for their own safety.

What they don't grasp is that their preparations include deadly weapons that are being used on the neighbors they hope to protect from outside forces.

They're scared - they just don't recognize the source of a more pervasive threat.
(IT'S THEM)

Portent, come on now, I never said anything about race. Providence is a very population dense area. There are limited resources to go around. I think the real question is why do you assume that race factors into someones safety? You brought that up, not me.

Why is it on here if you express your opinion on here it's met by someone calling you names or questioning your sanity based on the fact that they read two paragraphs you've written. Go ahead and say what you'd like, I feel it reflects more on you than me.

Naome, you're right, we don't need automatic weapons. And I'm not against background checks at gun shows. What Kevin said below is also important though. Too many times on here I read about people being arrested over and over again with no punishment or little punishment. Look at the guy that is on the front of the patch page now. Arrested 15 times for everything from Domestic to Felony Assault. Another year of probation or 15 days in jail isn't going to teach him. We don't enforce the laws we have, nor do we have the capacity too.

The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't break the law. The exceptions are people like Adam Lanza. I think we would be better severed at focusing on reducing those exceptions than on focusing on the majority of gun owners who obey the law.

“I do not want to trust my life to the government or rely on it for my protection or for my families [sic] protection.”

Ted – Who do you think sets the safety standards that protect you on the job? Who sets the building codes that make your house safe to protect you? Who makes the rules for the roads you drive and the public transportation you use?

Tamori, If you read what I wrote I was referring to situations where the government had become ineffectual.

I'm well aware that you and I elect the people who make the laws and regulations but thank you.

Well Ted you have now become a victim of the typical race card throw by so many on the left and anti-gun movement. Not a single wordyou said refers to anything remotly racial I agree.

To NL who said. "Let's be clear about something - I'm only concerned about the presence of semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons." Where in the world have you heard of legal automatic weapons being used in a crime? They have been banned since 1934!! You going to write another law banning them because 2 laws for the same thing work whn one law does not? Talk about illogical.

" We don't enforce the laws we have, nor do we have the capacity too."

Laws don't prevent criminal activity, they provide the public with a means to punish
those that break laws, when apprehended. It would appear that the current reporting requirments for gun sales are lax.

The Federal agency responsible is at the bottom of the totem pole, for funding.
It's my belief that we have plenty of means and capacity, but the focus of our
law enforcement is on "black swan" threats that are devastating, but rare.
(Eg - 9/11)

"The overwhelming majority of gun owners don't break the law. The exceptions are people like Adam Lanza. I think we would be better severed at focusing on reducing those exceptions than on focusing on the majority of gun owners who obey the law."

That can be accomplished by putting teeth into the regulations, and tightening them to require minimum acceptable standards for handling, as in driver's licensing.

As of today, an individual selling a weapon to another individual faces little in the way of civil or criminal penalty if the weapon sold is used to commit a felony.

It's a "get out of jail free" card that absolves the seller of any meaningful
responsibility in the sale of a lethal weapon. It's not as if they're inclined to turn away a sale because the customer across the counter "seems a little off".

There is no Federal waiting period, and that needs to change, yesterday.

http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/

Shaddap, Jack.

Grown-ups are talking.

Naome, I agree with you. Laws don't prevent crime, they provide us with a means to punish. If you shoot someone today you'll be punished. If you shoot someone with an assault weapons ban you'll still be punished.

I won't assume you don't own a firearm but if you've ever purchased one you've filled out form 4473. If you've been to a gun show you've filled out form 4473. The government already knows what you have, when you bought it and from who. The only exception is a private sale which are the minority. I agree, they should have to fill out the same form.

That our government forced dealers to sell to straw buyers for mexican cartels and did not have a problem with that but now they seem to have a problem with the same guns being sold to law abiding citizens has a certain about of irony.

No regr allia b, fully automatic firearms are legal. They are covered under the National Firearms Act and you have to pay a $200 dollar tax stamp. It also has to have been made before 1986. They are also very, very expensive and are also very highly regulated.

"That our government forced dealers to sell to straw buyers for mexican cartels and did not have a problem with that but now they seem to have a problem with the same guns being sold to law abiding citizens has a certain about of irony."

Ted, that's a diversion and you know it. We can do better.

"The only exception is a private sale which are the minority. I agree, they should have to fill out the same form." If Michael Bloomberg's investigation is to be believed (I have my doubts) this minority is 40% - as in nearly HALF of all sales.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/25/michael-bloomberg/mayor-michael-bloomberg-says-40-percent-guns-are-s/

The Bloomberg Investigation

In 2009, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, founder of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns group, stirred controversy and stimulated the gun show debate when NYC hired private investigators to target gun shows in Ohio, Nevada and Tennessee.

According to a report released by Bloomberg’s office, 22 of 33 private sellers sold guns to undercover investigators who informed them that they probably could not pass a background check, while 16 of 17 licensed sellers allowed straw purchases by the undercover investigators, a process through which a person prohibited from purchasing a firearm recruits someone to purchase the gun for them."

If it's 40% I wouldn't say "loophole" I would say "Open door".

Well Naome, as I'm sure you would point out if the shoe were on the other foot, Bloomberg is a very tainted source to be citing. He paid investigators to go to a gun show and get results. I have no problems with private sales going through background checks though. And they should fill out the forms just like I do. Like you said yourself, 40% probably isn't close to the actual number. Especially here in RI.

It's not a diversion, it's the truth. It happened. The only reason we are having this discussion is because of one incident in CT. I merely pointing out another incident which goes the other way.

"It's not a diversion, it's the truth. It happened." It's a clear diversion, introducing a controversial talking point from the Conservative Entertainment complex.

If you're implying that we can't trust the government as justification for the status
quo, you're not seriously discussing the issue.

Furthermore, the ATF gun-walking program did not introduce any of the weapons used in the mass-shootings since Columbine, so let us confine our remarks
to those used in these cases. Agreed?

The fact that Bloomberg paid his staff to buy weapons, which they did without any apparent difficulty smells like entrapment, but the sellers did little to discourage
these sales. It certainly illustrates the problem, if not the scope.

I don't think a sample this size can be extrapolated over the entire Nation.

I do think Bloomberg's investigation sold newspapers, as it was germane to the concerns of New Yorkers and it showed why so many guns were still on NYC streets with serious regulation restricting local access.

"The only reason we are having this discussion is because of one incident in CT."

We're discussing this because there hasn't been any meaningful change to America's growing gun problem since Columbine. That's a National disgrace.

We dishonor the victims if we sit idly by and let it happen again.
(Like we did last time, and the time before that, and...)

Enough, already.

Kevin - as much as you hate that phrase - you paired it with "caught with an illegal gun or unregistered fire arm". You know that wouldn't have prevented anything, right? Can you say it out loud? He's dead. Do you think the consequences for getting caught with a firearm would have had an effect? Even though there are grave consequences for shooting someone - and he did do that?
So to restate and reword some of the things you said - existing laws aren't a problem / lack of consequences is a problem/ consequences for the possession should be greater / can't kill all those kids with rocks......
I read that as you saying exactly the opposite. He shouldn't have been able to have a gun. There were severe consequences for what he did but he did it anyway. And laws that would have prohibited his access didn't work but...... but what? A bad person couldn't have killed those kids without a gun (or a bomb I guess) - but the only way to have prevented this was to completely restrict his and his mother's ability to have a gun. And if there wasn't a tinge of mental illness involved here - the illegal and unregistered comments you made would be doubly-irrelevant because he could have bought them himself.

Yep....and a great dose of corporate greed to boot. Frothy vile combo that ends up causing more mayhem and disaster than simple thought.

"Gun rights paranoia" sounds like gun owners being paranoid about people wanting to restrict the rights they have - did you mean that?
And by linked to religious belief - do you mean those who have strong religious beliefs do or don't believe in gun rights?
Because the way it looks is that you mean you equate owning a gun/protecting oneself with belief in God? or A God?

"This than a NL diatribes with little truthful information and an exercise in futility to be a reasonable debate on the issue. Just harping back and forth like congress and coming up with no solution. (Because there isn’t one)."

Your command of the English language is staggering, really. More impressive is your ability to complete obscure any topic, when forced to write your own text.

So, where to begin?
" So far all your arguments to take away the 2nd amendment, none have even been close to being legitimate." Where did I call for an outright repeal?

"Again you do not believe the FBI and CIA who keep track of all gun violence when listing anti-gun stats from blogs that never mention the actual numbers..."

You said it. Read it again - slowly. Get an adult to help you with the big words.

"You do not know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic speaks volumes." The fact of the matter is that anyone with access to Google
knows. The sad fact is that you're arguing arcana and terminology in order
to duck the issue. Guns go bang. They shoot bullets. Bullets go through people.

Still with me?

"How you will disarm 87 Million people is question you should answer."
You mean, like the Australian gun buy back program I've mentioned -
every day - for two weeks?

"Just harping back and forth like congress and coming up with no solution. (Because there isn’t one)." Right, that's the American way -
"It's too hard, we shouldn't try."

I have found that a 'reasonable debate' with gun guys always ends up with them denying any kind of fault with unfettered gun ownership and no ability to see beyond their gunoil soaked hands. Any real objective logic is a toxin to their narrow minded intellectual base.

Very little has been said of the root cause of mental illness causing or at least what has been behind these recent shooting. How are you going to stop that NL?"

Actually, that's pretty much the ONLY diversion gun-rights apologists have presented here, since this atrocity brought the nature of the threat home.

The fact that a clueless, tin-horn, know it all with the sense God gave a donut
is still clanging on about this neatly illustrates how deranged we've become...
I want my country back from knuckledragging cretins like you, Jack Baillargeron.

Guns are lethal. Few of the people with them in their possession have more than rudimentary training or even a passing familiarity with the damage they do.

Worst of all, most of you couldn't even defend yourselves with a gun, if needs be.
If the "bad guy" has gun drawn on you, you're already too late.

If you don't think 20 dead white kids in an elementary school changed everything,
you're even less intelligent than I imagined. Mouthy, ill-informed and ready to presume every crackpot theory you read is true, without even the most remote curiosity about the motives of your sources - sure. Intelligent? Not so much.

Those kids were killed with a gun.

Why do you gun supporters refuse to axknowledge that every amendment to the Constitution has limits placed on it by one, the Second Amendment? Why shouldn't there be limits for this amendment as well? Ted or Jack care to respond?

Just another taxpayer, I'll respond.

Since you obviously haven't been keeping up that has been causing you some confusion. Go back and read. I've agreed with Naome several times. There shouldn't be fully automatic weapons. I said that, right Naome? There should be restrictions on personal transfers, I said that right? The gun show loophole should be closed. Mental ill should be restricted from owning firearms. There are plenty of things we can do better.

It sounds like the real problem is that you need to pay more attention.

"I've agreed with Naome several times."

True enough. This thread is long, and it's difficult to come in halfway.
You may be forced to repeat yourself, if you want to remain in play.

It's imperfect, but it's still a REALLY good opinion page.

You've got plenty to contribute, Ted - don't get discouraged.

PS or stopping you legally from repealing it as is my right as much as yours. The end this disscusion is pointless now and has gone off the rails in my opinion to nothing more than arguing numbers rather than solutions.

"The end this disscusion is pointless now and has gone off the rails in my opinion."

Like that matters.

"NL; I do not fault you for wanting to repeal the 2nd amendment. That is your right under the Constitution and there is a process for it."

I never called for that, you're presuming I want anything more than enforcement.
I think you should be permitted to retain your weapons so long as your part of a well-regulated militia.

The first task for any prospective member should be viewing the crime scene
photos from Sandy Hook, followed by a required tour of duty in a Trauma center.

After a full month working a morgue detail and attending the funerals of those shot by personal weapons, you may begin your public service.

Those currently enrolled would be cleaning the walls, floor and ceiling of
Ms. Soto's first grade classroom, you insufferable ass.

No but Congress can place limits on the purchasing of semi-automatic and automatic weapons. Congress can also force states to perform background checks(many states do not cooperate with the federal authorities.) Congress can pass laws on how gun shows operate. Congress can also outlaw the sale of ammo clips that fire hundreds of bullets per minute. This all can be done without repeal of the Second Amendment.

legalize pot

"John Wayne Gacey, Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVey, and Ted Bundy didn't use guns to commit mass murder."

Nor did they fire weapons in public. Can we kindly stay on topic?
This is about GUN violence.

" I would like to see assault weapons banned, and more than lip service paid to mental health as a national priority, but, honestly, is there really a way out of this maze?" Perhaps if we start by enforcing the laws that are on the books...

Jay: I'm not surprised that Southerners -- or at least this Southerner -- sport a more refined understanding of the violence that has become a nearly ineliminable part of American culture. Add to the predisposition toward violence, egocentric self-understanding, rudeness, under-education, false piety and arrogance, and you have quite a toxic mix that fuels the myriad bad behaviors you cite as constitutive of life in America. If more Americans had the desire and/or the means to travel overseas (especially but not only Western Europe) to learn about and experience other cultures, a marked improvement in our civility and appreciation of nonviolence methods of coexistence and conflict resolution would undoubtedly follow.

"Add to the predisposition toward violence, egocentric self-understanding, rudeness, under-education, false piety and arrogance, and you have quite a toxic mix that fuels the myriad bad behaviors you cite as constitutive of life in America."

Few of which you'll find on display, South of the Mason-Dixon line.

It bears mentioning that only mass shooting to take place in a former Confederate state took place at Virginia Tech. The shooter had his FIRST contact with guns
when he purchased his weapon (legally) after the mandatory waiting period.

One month later, he opened fire at Virginia tech.

"...and realize you won't answer honestly if in the affirmative." You're words say otherwise Portent. You clearly state you won't believe me either way. Your mind is made up.

You never answered my question. How does race make you more or less safe?

Never once in my original post did I mention race. You brought it up. Prove otherwise, please.

You still won't answer my question. How does race make you more or less safe?

It's not no harm done.

Correlation isn't causation.

What is the point you are trying to make? That I'm less safe in Providence because of the race of the people that live there?

I know about the automatic weapons ted; My point ws when was the last time anyone heard of an automatic being used by anyone to commi a crime. None I can think of except back in the 30's when they banned them. Far as I know they also must be deactivated by collectors except when using them for demonstration etc. and as you say are very restricted to very very few people with very strict controls.

For NL to say they need to be banned when they allready are shows thelack of knowledge of the law. Probably because it is never mentioned by anti-gun stes because at least they know the difference most of them. Then NL says white kids, which has nothing to do with anything and I believe some were not white which matters even less.

Nor will she disscuss anything or give an actual answer to anything asked. She does not mention nor give a her solution to the children and babies killed in Oklahoma with out a single gun involved by Mcveigh. Last time I looked bombs are banned.

Still waiting for how she is going to disarm America from semi-auto weapons. Last Assault weapon I fired was in the military it had 3 settings, safe, semi and what we called rock&roll or automatic, and those are banned also for the average citizen.

There are 20,000 laws on the books across this Country, many not enforced. New paper tigers accomplish nothing but more feel good about it and that is all in myt opinion.

They don't have to be deactivated at all. They are NOT banned. If you are interested in purchasing an automatic weapon the ATF has all the info here along with links to the forms you need to fill out. http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#legally-acquire-nfa

I do get it. That was the point I was making in my original post when you brought race into the picture.

Perhaps you should define your terms?

The fact that these shootings did not happen in a crowded room full of innocent
people is what makes them different. Since Columbine, something new has emerged - and where it happened may be a factor.

I'm not entirely clear what the point of this might be.
Perhaps you could make that plain?

It starts to be a scary time and place when the brain-washed populous starts advocating for the limitation of our civil rights. "There is nothing wrong with describing Conservatism as protecting the Constitution, protecting all things that limit government. Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained." ~ Ron Paul

" Government is the enemy of liberty. Government should be very restrained."
- A Taxpayer

The rights of gun owners should not? All rights, no responsibilities -
the ethics of a toddler. That must be AWEsome.

I left a lengthy response just a few minutes ago. Its "pending approval".

Ted,

Sorry but I can't spend all day on this website looking for one of your numerous posts. Your use of this "I already answered that question" is an old dodge used primarily by politicians who don't want to answer a specific question. So, why don't you reiterate your view(s) on how the 2nd Amendment should have limits? I look forward to your response.

So you have time to accuse people of things but not time to follow up... interesting.

"Ted Geisel
12:03 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
Just another taxpayer, I'll respond.

Since you obviously haven't been keeping up that has been causing you some confusion. Go back and read. I've agreed with Naome several times. There shouldn't be fully automatic weapons. I said that, right Naome? There should be restrictions on personal transfers, I said that right? The gun show loophole should be closed. Mental ill should be restricted from owning firearms. There are plenty of things we can do better.

It sounds like the real problem is that you need to pay more attention."

"Naome Lixes
12:08 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012

"I've agreed with Naome several times."

True enough. This thread is long, and it's difficult to come in halfway.
You may be forced to repeat yourself, if you want to remain in play.

It's imperfect, but it's still a REALLY good opinion page.

You've got plenty to contribute, Ted - don't get discouraged."

"...owning a gun is mostly a right-wing, fear-driven act more than a right." So now we are stereotyping?

Guns cross the spectrum of politics. Bill Clinton owned guns.

" SAM DONALDSON Debate over public issues can be an intense and tough thing. Everyone knows that. But the debate over gun control has suddenly turned very mean and very personal. We resume our interview with President Clinton. By the way, do you own a gun today? You used to, I know.

BILL CLINTON Yes. But I don’t have them here in the White House. I have owned— when I was a boy I had a .22— when I was 12— and then I had a shotgun and I’ve owned a handgun or two that had been given to me. But I have never kept them in a residence where my daughter slept. "

Here is Hillary on the 2nd Amendment. "I believe in the Second Amendment. People have a right to bear arms. But I also believe that we can common-sensically approach this, and backed off a national licensing registration plan.
Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas , Jan 15, 2008"

Student of Alinsky I see. When your position fails to hold up to scrutiny, resort to personal attacks.

Same in Chicago where handguns were banned complety if I remember right.

How many school shootings in Washington, DC in this period?
How much crack cocaine at the crux of these shootings?

While the rate did worsen, it didn't average 73% higher.
The homicide rate in 1975 was 32.8 per 100,000.

The first year of the ban saw a drop to 26.8 per 100,00.
At the peak of the carnage, the homicide rate reached 80.6/100,000 and tapered each year after. It was horrific, but not 75% more horrific as indicated.

80.6 - 32.8 = 47.8 (that's bad, but not 75)

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

Shall we compare apples to apples, for once, Or shall we endure more NK antics?

"Meanwhile, periodic ATF reports have documented that firearms, flowing in from elsewhere in the country, remain available on D.C. streets - exactly what the ban was designed to prevent."

This sort of points to the problem with current gun control laws - enforcement is regionally variable, guns are portable and there are more than can be tracked.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/18/effectiveness_of_dc_gun_ban_still_a_mystery/?page=full

Claiming that one action causes all the follow is a logical fallacy,
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - it's Also known as the "rooster syndrome".

I know math is hard, but logic should not be for someone so sharp.

Cherry picking is bad, right Jack?

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

"Let's start by looking at factors that are sometimes assumed to be associated with gun violence but statistically are not....

"We found no statistical association between gun deaths and mental illness or stress levels. We also found no association between gun violence and the proportion of neurotic personalities."

"So what are the factors that are associated with firearm deaths at the state level?
Poverty is one. The correlation between death by gun and poverty at the state level is .59. An economy dominated by working class jobs is another. Having a high percentage of working class jobs is closely associated with firearm deaths (.55). And, not surprisingly, firearm-related deaths are positively correlated with the rates of high school students that carry weapons on school property (.54)."

That sounds like Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC to me?

"Get bent, Junior"

Typical.

Yep.

I can just hear it now from the neighbors -

"Phil's got on his good mocassins to carry the camera up to the roof... call the FD!"
I wonder if there's a Balalaika and Kazoo orchestra remix??

an original Rodgers and Hammerstein with choreography by Paula Abdul..from the screenplay "Friggin Crazy Guy on the Roof"..

So, what exactly is your point, Joe? That the gun nuts are like fanatics in general who, once proven wrong, redouble their efforts? Great example of the rational citizenry of our democracy!

I dunno, Ted can be tetchy without being out of touch.

In an anonymous forum, we can be pretty much who we choose.
I don't hear him making many excuses, or prattling.

I don't agree with much of what Ted says, but he is at least civil about it.

Think of it this way, if you're chiming in here, during daylight hours, on a weekday -
you're probably not at work. That implies the poster works a different shift than
9-5, is home with kids, unemployed or retired.

It might help to get a feel for who you're talking to from the timestamp.

I never said I agreed with everything Naome or you said. Its okay to disagree with people. I am not using anyone on here. I don't control their actions. I do disagree with you and naome on somethings. That alone doesn't make us enemies. You lecture me about my attitude and then talk about tin foil hats. Isn't that a tiny bit ironic to you?

" While gun buyback programs may be nice, they will not produce the numbers to equal what has gone on in other countries. "

The Australians bought back more than 650,000 newly prohibited weapons.
We can cover that, scouring Craigslist in one weekend.

" Criminals and the nut cases who are pulling off the 1% of the really sick crimes today won't participate in this stuff. They will continue to have the guns. "

You're afraid. I understand. We should arm the populace to prevent this overwhelming threat - from 1% of the criminals and nut cases.

" Again, those doing the crimes are already breaking the law - they have no respect for the law, why should they suddenly follow it now."

* SIGH * This, again?

If you could be bothered to consider any previous post you would see this tired, limp-dick excuse has been served up cold, repeatedly. Then again, I suppose YOUR submissions are the most important...

Laws don't prevent criminal activity, they provide the public with a means to punish
those that break laws, when apprehended. It would appear that the current reporting requirments for gun sales are lax.

" Laws don't necessarily apply to prior owners. But, even if they did, the vast majority of people will not turn them in because they do not trust the government anymore." Right. When the UN gets its marching orders to enforce Agenda 21
* with a tank * you'll tell the heavily armored man in the blue hat to "Make my day."

Oh, please.

"Does the government want to engage in another "civil war" with their residents? Pitting neighbor against neighbor is what that will lead to. Do we want that? I think not."

The ones with guns are already shooting at their neighbors. You don't see that as a pervasive, diffuse threat to the general welfare?

" You also state that crime did drop in the countries that had these buyback programs. " Crimes with guns, particularly homicides certainly did.

" There is also data that shows that crime went to ZERO when everyone was wearing a gun." Bull-shirt. Cite your source, gas-bag. SOMETHING stinks.

"The deterrent is there and no person will go into a movie house or a school or other public venue if they know they will run into a gun."

In actual fact, attendance at theaters, shopping centers and churches
is down thanks the the chilling effect of randomn gun violence.

Bravo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAEA1KzDynI

"Also, the title of your article is also flawed - People kill people, not guns!"

* Urk *

I suppose you think THAT is a truism, even original?

While I would argue that while guns may not kill people, one hell of a lot of people are dying in their presence. Guns may not kill people, but one hell of a lot of people are dying while idiots argue over empty phrases, semantics, and NRA sound bites.

I’ll grant you that people kill people, but guns make it a wholesale operation.

Stench writes, "The majority of people who own guns will not turn them in because they are grandfathered. Laws don't necessarily apply to prior owners. But, even if they did, the vast majority of people will not turn them in because they do not trust the government anymore" According to this logic everyone who owns a gun does so, because the federal government is going to take its citizenry captive? You are really out of touch. Keep listening to Fox News and Rush, they will continue to feed your paranoia.

I wonder what the trend in sales looked like just prior to the 2008 election.
They spiked after the last, go -'round.

You might be close to the bone on this one...
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Guns-sales-on-the-rise-after-Obama-s-re-election-4065602.php

Dearest Joe.....this conversation is supposed to be about the regulation of assault weapons and inordinately large magazines. No one here wants to ban all weapons....just the ludicrous ones that have no bearing on our society ...other than to kill with impunity. Keep on topic

"Thankfully the majority understand we are a safer nation thanks to the 2nd. Amendment." The majority of what?

I don't see anything well regulated about hand gun ownership in America.
It looks more like pork chop day at the Piranha tank...

Since when did we start letting morons dictate public policy?

Naome....to generalize the moron question.....Red States

What an incredibly imbecilic and illogical claim, to wit: "Thankfully the majority understand we are a safer nation thanks to the 2nd. Amendment." In the alternate reality of psycho-world, facts, evidence and truth are adjudicated by a majority vote of the simple-minded, huh? Well, if that's the case, there will be no further need for scientific research, colleges and universities or indeed, any kind of cerebral functioning that involves much neural activity above that of a well-developed micro-organism. Come to think of it, the only truth suggested by your cockamamie statement is that, if it correctly describes the majority's understanding, then sane and objective observers can only conclude that the safety of the rest of the nation is at great peril from the reasoning and educational deficiencies of that majority.

Your unimpeachable, unbiased source is Ammoland?

Thank you for illustrating the problem, so eloquently.
$200 on a semi-auto is chump change - tax the freakin' gunpowder.

More brainless diatribe from b kcaj / Richard Joslin

Feel free to provide your supporting argument, if you can.

If you're uncomfortable with my analysis, let's start from figures that CAN be confirmed - like how many guns are registered in the US in a given year , and how many gun murders were committed in a given year.

Sandy Hook was the Fukushima reactor of American gun rights, nothing will ever
be the same after the meltdown.

Cut and paste from Ammoland?

Really? You're not even out of your PJs, are you?
You're an embarrassment to Tiverton, Joe and that bar is set LOW.

Yes Richard

Your source is the JAWA report?

"...speaking of muzzling the NRA...how about one on portent n' naomi
geeez!!!" Right, your 2nd Amendment rights trump the 1st Amendment.

Let me paraphrase, if you're standing in the blood of children, defending YOUR
Gun rights, you're a Fascist. Last time I checked, we fought you bastards and won.

We'll do it again.

Hey, troopah, you have zero understanding of the1st Amendment, never mind the 2nd. And your deleted comment displays a foul, vile and perverse brain at work -- and that's being charitable. Why don't you try to exercise that brain productively by offering some substantive comments and responses, rather than ineffective, childlike, ad hominem attacks worthy of a school bully?

Naome you had no concern for my first Amendment rights when you told me I shoulden't be posting on the Half Moon Bay Patch in Calf. Troopah is right you are a Hypocrite.

"Naome you had no concern for my first Amendment rights when you told me I shoulden't be posting on the Half Moon Bay Patch in Calf."

- Robert E

I was merely pointing out the apparent confusion you had between your proximity to Half Moon or Narragansett Bay. It's an honest mistake that someone who can't read a map could easily make.

I thought we had multiple Patches for each region, you know - so we were
talking to our neighbors and all...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I believe your free to be Robert E where you like, and I'm free to point out the incongruities in your submissions; geographic, hagiographic (St. Ronald, Rev Rush Brother Beck, et. al.) or reprographic.

I'm sure your new friends in California must be glad to have your insight into their
local matters, being so relevant and all...

;>

Naome you decieded to stalk me on the Half Moon Bay Patch and stir up trouble the only problem was when you pointed out that I was from Rhode Island nobody cared so yo let it drop. I post on the Bay area Patches all the time I have family there so I do have an intrest in the local matters.

This is a Logical fallacy, Post Hoc ergo propter hoc.

A preceded B, therefore A caused B, and therefore assumes cause and effect for two events just because they are temporally related.

Are you actually reading these submissions? I did - from the article:

"Two caveats: State figures track gun sales, not ownership. They treat a family's first gun purchase the same as a collector's twelfth. Second, gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked."

You make it sound as if there are more people with guns, when there are not.
You make the inference that the presence of more guns made all the difference,
where that is not shown.

"Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime."

For that, I feel it appropriate to blame Obama.

"The FBI said firearms were used in two-thirds of the nation's murders last year, and in two out of every five robberies and in one out of five aggravated assaults."
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/sirens/2012/oct/29/americas-violent-crime-rate-keeps-falling/

I'm having a little trouble glossing over a "success" when -

"gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,800...(yet) Firearm-related deaths fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800." It would appear that the percentage of fatal gunshots rose, in that account.

That's more than Mexico's annual total - in just one state.

You might be "a taxpayer," but you are clearly not a careful reader. The article you cite, headlined 'California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall,' also states that 'Most of the drop in firearm-related injuries and deaths can be explained by a well-documented, nationwide drop in violent crime'...and 'gun sales in California peaked in the early 1990s, as violent crime also peaked.'

About Saul Alinsky, you also don't know beans. He was -- in contrast to gun nuts -- an exponent of nonviolence with a fierce distrust of the power establishment. On the latter score, you should find him a sympathetic figure, rather than a nemesis. Below is a snippet, in his own words, from the Wikipedia article about him:

On 'whether he ever considered joining the Communist Party:
...I've never joined any organization—not even the ones I've organized myself. I prize my own independence too much. And philosophically, I could never accept any rigid dogma or ideology, whether it's Christianity or Marxism. One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're right.' If you don't have that, if you think you've got an inside track to absolute truth, you become doctrinaire, humorless and intellectually constipated. The greatest crimes in history have been perpetrated by such religious and political and racial fanatics, from the persecutions of the Inquisition on down to Communist purges and Nazi genocide.' QED.

"...and now you delete/censor my remarks..."

That's the mods, they do a tremendous job for nearly zero thanks.
I've run afoul of the TOS, once (or thrice) myself.

You're just foul.

"who is the real fascist here? "
- troopah

That would be you, genius.

"...speaking of charity how much did you donate to one this year?"
-troopah

Who's speaking of charity? PS - Making change in the collection plate ain't charity.

"...like Joe says "the truth hurts"
- troopah

If you're throwing your lot in with Joe Sousa, you've illustrated the problem.

SPAM

"Let them become a victim and they are born again."

You're afraid. I understand.

" Imagine watching your wife raped and you can't stop it ."

You don't have a wife. Is this how you spend your free time?
Imagining rape?

"They walked in your house and had their way as you stand helpless ."
You know, a locksmith can do wonders.

". If only I was smart enough to own a gun . "
Just like you, Uncle Joe! Do I get my own "Wolverines" tattoo?

"Be prepared to defend yourself and family."
We'll do that by keeping you out of our schools, for starters.

Spare us the fear-mongering.

You said it.

ANYbody can get a gun.
You don't suppose that's the problem we've been harping on for two weeks?

Welcome to the party.

Right - you know a Jew, who's not your doctor.

Cool story, Brah.

I can't tell if the topic changed to foreign policy...
troopah is now a fan of Japan Foreign Policy Observer? JFPO?

When did the schmucks start running this country?

Name ONE book of Torah or Jewish holy day.
One more goyishe kolboynick lecturing on something else he hasn't read.

Oy, gevalt.

Naome I have read your posts and have come to the conclusion that you're an ass

@ Former Ports resident

Your conclusion means a great deal to me,
in direct proportion to your contribution to the topic.

Naome = Ass

Joe-You post all this nonsense about drug lords and street gangs taking over Tiverton, but show no proof that there's any type of that activity here in town. If you're so obsessed with street gangs and drug dealers, here's some advice: Apply to become a Providence police officer-they're hiring soon, or move back to the address in Cranston where you once resided-plenty of drug dealers and gang members in that neighborhood.

BOSTON, April 7 /PRNewswire/ -- Complaints were unsealed charging a total of eleven Fall River area men with various federal and state firearms and narcotics offenses as a result of multiple investigations throughout the City, under the Project Safe Neighborhoods federal gun program. The complaints resulted from federal, state and local authorities' efforts to reduce violence in the Fall River area by identifying felons in possession of firearms and ammunition, and gang members involved in violent crimes and drug dealing in the Fall River area.
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1rIQM)

Fall River, MA has one more problem to wrestle with. Unfortunately, the city has to deal with the infestation of gangs. Parents should rush to inform their children about the dangers of gangs because gang activities are occurring in the middle and high schools of Fall River.

Reader should know that Joe also likes to sleep with a loaded handgun on his pillow.

It's a cheap tactic - you cut and paste something that you have not researched
(if you read it) and expect to tie up your opposition for hours in refutation.

It's a blanket statement with exactly zero correlation to the issue at hand.

At the very least, you're lazy. At the very worst, inept.
You're doing your own cause a disservice.

Like I said, schmuck.

Considering every point in that blog has been debunked or refuted above...
did you actually read it? If you're a genuine skeptic, you'll check - right?

If it sounds right to you, but you don't check - that's confirmation bias.
The article itself is one of the broadest examples of cherry picking on the topic.

It LOOKs like science - but it's not.
To the gullible, they appear the same.

Do your own heavy lifting, cite the seminal documents and print your analysis.

Otherwise, you're acting as yet another aggregator from the Conservative Entertainment Complex, and there are plenty of those already.

Do your own heavy lifting.
Spare us the reprints.

Saul Alinsky was an American radical that no-one had ever heard of before
Newt Gingrich (who employed the tactics from Alinsky's rules for Radicals)
put him up on a perch as some sort of Marxist boogeyman.

The inference, of course, is that if we don't agree with your view of America,
we're socialists. That, again. That's just chickenshit.

Worse yet, if we don't repent, we're thumbing through Mao's little red book.

SO, stuff this up your Fascist tailpipe - this is about gun violence.
I know, it's hard to believe that guns generate violence.

If that particular nifty feature hasn't been explained to you,
feel free to visit any trauma center on a full moon.

You're dead wrong, Mr. Smartypants troopah. Please consult my comments (multiple ones for several articles) related to recent fatal accidents in the area in which distracted driving appears to have been involved:

http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/police-close-mt-hope-bridge-after-fatal-crash
http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/police-say-distracted-driving-caused-fatal-on-mt-hope-bridge
http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/police-close-mt-hope-bridge-after-fatal-crash
http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/head-injuries-ruled-cause-of-death-in-fatal-bridge-crash
and
http://portsmouth.patch.com/articles/head-on-collision-leaves-one-critically-injured

"troopah" said:

"i ain;t abliged to tend to nobody but for those i care about,,, jokes on you ...i'd walk by you too"

Please "troopah", tell the readers you did not mean what you said, and you're not really that cold hearted.

troopah: Would you also have walked by panicked victims in the Twin Towers on 9/11 if you were in a position to save their lives but disagreed with their views on anything, especially gun possession?

Hey right back, troopah:

RULE 1: (from my book for intelligent discourse and effective blogging): If you can't respond substantively to a reasoned comment, don't waste your and everyone else's time.

Nothing violent at all about this Alinsky prescription. Interesting that you left out the last sentence: "(This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)" Ridicule, get it? An entirely 'nonviolent' tactic. Where does he exhort shooting people, even in 'self-defense'?

If we're just going to have the same baseless suppositions and refutations,
what's the point of keeping the thread open?

What about the children in Newtown "troopah"? Would you have walked by them? They were not gun huggers.

they were not irrational 2nd amendment haters either.

troopah: So your empathetic humanity has deteriorated that much since your noble choice following 9/11? BTW, this is not a personal attack but an attempt to decipher why you believe you should be entitled to possess a lethal weapon when you are, if not mentally unstable, at least heartless. This is essentially a philosophical question, as well as a psychological conundrum.

troopah: "you do not have moral clarity about the constitution... " I would trust my historical understanding of the original intent underlying the meaning of the 2nd Amendment when it was drafted, as well as my philosophical comprehension, including of associated moral issues, with respect to the current relevance of the Amendment more than yours, most of the warped gun lovers on this thread, or especially that of the politically-motivated Supreme Court justices who have mistakenly torn asunder its original intent, with lethal social and cultural consequences four our hapless, violent nation.

As for "texting while you drive," apparently this crazy accusation has become a mindless, coverall putdown that you throw around again and again like an obsessive-compulsive. You obviously didn't read my comments on fatal, distracted driving behavior in the area that I cited for you, stoopah. Try stopping that kind of violence -- which poses a threat to all of us on the road -- with a gun!

Growing.... i wasnt trowing a race card. I was actually wondering why someone would say "white kids" over and over. I am a second amendment suporter but to make my point i wouldnt have mentioned the victims race or creed.

Tired: Where's the empirical evidence to substantiate your claim that "crime has been used by Progressive Democrats as a form of social control"? By definition, crime is evidence of a lack of social control, not proof of its efficacy. If your causal claim held water, anarchy would be the optimal state for maximizing Democratic votes.

"...Poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of vote."... "If all income groups had voted evenly [in 2008], Obama would have beaten McCain 55.2 percent to 42.7 percent, a net gain of 5.3 points relative to what actually happened. So no, poor government program beneficiaries don’t 'all vote' or turn out in 'massive numbers'”. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/17/rush-limbaugh-says-welfare-recipients-turn-out-to-vote-in-force-they-really-dont/]

reason: If you're not being wickedly sarcastic and actually endorse this Nugent diatribe, then you need to change your screen name to something more appropriate. His opening salvo, "I believe that a person's moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves" evidences a crimped and febrile moral understanding, as well as only a passing acquaintance with the English language.

So for Nugent, the primary (perhaps only?) moral principle concerns the right to self-defense, seemingly defined strictly as involving gun use. But the interesting moral questions regarding self-defense concern what constitutes a legitimate threat to one's life, the alternative actions available, and the circumstances of the particular situation (e.g., what and who started the chain of events leading to such a need, i.e., the moral justification for the use of deadly force), among others.

What his comments do not answer is the question of what other moral issues, if any, he considers important, and what moral principles should be relied upon for addressing them. Morality deals with a vast array of questions and issues concerning right and wrong, as well as good and bad behavior. Most people live their lives in that kind of world, not one of fear and hatred. But the most rabid and obsessive gun owners, like Nugent, seem to have veins flowing with the life-blood of those harmful and dangerous emotions.

Ted was far less into guns and defending our rights when he decided not to fight in VietNam. He is no hero he is a draft dodger has been who avoided service to his country by reporting to the draft board with a load of crap in his pants .that is the kind off guy that Joejay Sousa likes.

And such a pointedly selfish mind it is

The best part was when he said ..I don't like repeat offenders..I like dead offenders"
I wasn't familiar with the two stories of the mother who was car jacked and killed and the lady who was beaten to death with a whiskey bottle..both by parolees..but a lot of that sheep and parachute in was like listening to Charley Browns' teacher.

Your 'question' is irrelevant for this thread.....a ban on assault weapons and mega cartridges. A more dynamic equivalency would be a restriction on cars (a machine of utility as is a gun) that have too much horsepower and have no use on hiways ...other than the race track....and fuel that is highly powerful yet too poisonous for the land if left in the hands of irresponsible people.

First, this thread is not about banning all guns. It is about finding a way to ban mega ammo clips and semi-automatic weapons that contain and fire hundreds of rounds per minute. I believe most posters who support finding a way to accomplish this goal have no problem with citizens owning a handgun for protection or a rifle/shotgun to hunt with.

Hey Vinnie one more thing. I mentioned the one incident in which a vehicle was used because 168 men, women and children (most of the children were in day care) because that was the first that came to mind. Then again no shots were fired and no gun was used so their lives dont matter. Can you tell us about any single gun related killing that took so many innocent lives?

Cocaine has no functional use other than illegal pleasure. Guns do have a function in our society. The issues have to be of equal balance.

Your argument really doesn't hold up. By your reasoning, you could say our country should not have laws against murder and rape because people still commit them. I think you need to come up with a better analogy.

I'll be the first to admit it. I want a ban on guns because I don't like guns. Here's the reason I don't like them: They are dangerous weapons. They kill. When they are in the hands of a violent person, or even an angry person, or a scared person, they kill. Statistically speaking, the more guns there are, the more rounds will be fired, and the more likely it is that an accident (or even intentional) killing will occur. The more guns that are kept in the home, the more likely it is those guns will end up on the street. If you reduce the number of guns from the equation, then you also reduce the probability of such incidents occurring.

There is no such thing as a "good guy with a gun." This phrase creates the false impression that there are infallible good guys out there. There are not. There is only, "guy with a gun." And "guy with a gun" has a temper, has fear, and makes mistakes. Take the gun away from "guy with a gun," and all of a sudden those mistakes aren't so bad.

Unlike many of the gun owners on this forum, I've seen the result of such accidents. One particular accident that I'm thinking of resulted in grey matter strewn all over a polo shirt. Tighter restrictions on gun ownership and safety would certainly have prevented that one, and probably many more like it.

And I drive the speed limit and someone else does not.......I love shooting...but...I see certain weapons as way beyond sport and hunting. You cannot....there is an intellectual and emotional selfishness that makes your philosophy the problem.

Anon I applaud your honesty when it comes to your hate for guns. Now reread your post and replace cars in place of guns. Cars kill more people a year then guns do. Is it because you own or use a car that you wouldnt push as hard to ban cars ? Banning cars would be much easier to do and enforce. I bet you know more people killed by cars then you do that were killed by guns. To say that there are no good guys with guns is just rediculous. You must not want to leave your house because in reality there are good guys with guns everywhere.

I would be satisfied if guns were controlled similarly to the way cars and driving are: registration of vehicle/gun with the state, licensing of driver/user with the state, required safety courses, bi-yearly re-assessment of the user's fitness to use, laws requiring (expensive and effective) safety mechanisms to prevent and reduce death and injury, police monitoring, and taxation on ownership/use.

The law recognizes that cars are dangerous. This is why car and driver regulations are so prevalent. So yes, I'd be OK if guns were regulated in a similar manner.

And I never said I hated guns. I said I dislike them.

Anon. Cars kill 3 times more people a year then guns do. There are aproximately the same number of cars as there are guns in the U.S. You say that you would be happy if guns had the same laws as cars do. I must be missing something here.Cars kill 3 times more people then guns do and it seems that there are tighter rules to own and drive a car than there are to own and use guns. Lets be honest if not with others atleast with ourselves. The real reason anti-gun people want to ban or at very least regulate further guns, over cars or cigarettes is because banning guns would have no effect on them where as cars and cigarettes would.Cars kill 3 times as many as guns and cigarettes kill 40 times as many. How does this make sense ?

@ Ken, "Car death" analogy is a fail. I'm willing to bet that you could count on one hand how many times a motor vehicle was used as a murder weapon. Before you say drunk drivers, drunk drivers do NOT get behind the wheel INTENDING on killing someone. We are talking about MURDER not Manslaughter. BIG Difference.

Vinnie ---- DEAD IS DEAD. If I get behind the wheel of a car and Im drunk and kill your mother, wife daughter or son. They will be dead. They dont come back to life because I was drunk and killed them with a car. People have been charged with murder after killing someone while drunk driving. Maybe that is a law that should be looked at. How many times would you say you should be allowed to kill someone while drunk driving before it should be called murder. Maybe only after it's someone you know. I can also think of one time when 168 men,women and yes children were killed when someone used a vehicle as a weapon. Also you dont have to intend to kill someone for it to be murder. If you commit a crime and someone is killed in the course of you committing this crime you can be charged with their MURDER

Why does it matter if there are more car deaths? I don't understand how that plays into your analogy. Here's how it works:

Regardless of how many are killed each year, tight regulation on cars/driving reduces the number of car-related deaths each year. The requirement for airbags, for example, has saved many lives.

The same can be said for guns. Regardless of whether cars kill more people than guns, stricter regulation on guns will reduce the number of gun-related deaths each year.

Plus, you're the one who suggested guns and cars should be treated similarly because they both cause deaths. I said that I agree. But now you are arguing against your own suggestion because I pointed out that cars actually are tightly regulated, and it seems that you would not enjoy that type of regulation on guns. Is that an accurate assessment?

@ Ken, Maybe you should open a dictionary and look up the word murder. Comparing a motor vehicle to a gun is just ignorant, irrational and beetle-headed. WOW you can site ONE time multiple people were MURDERED with a motor vehicle . That is no COMPARISON to a firearm. The only way your argument works is by making death a black and white issue, it's not that cut & dry. By your logic anyone that has ever died from cancer is the same as anyone that has died from a gun shot.. "Dead is Dead" How ignorant are you.

Aron, Not at all accurate !!!!!! Im not argueing against myself at all. You are the one that said you would be happy if guns were regulated the way cars and driving are . Not me. I made the analogy that there are about the same number of cars as there are guns yet 3 times the deaths from cars. I have never said that there shouldnt be changes in the gun laws but I am totally against banning them. My stand from the beginning is that we need to treat the mental health of the people of this country rather than banning guns which will have very little effect.If someone has the urge to kill they will kill. A gun might be the tool they chose to use to accomplish this but if they cant get a gun they will find a different tool. Anti-gun people cant tell you truthfully if it is the guns they hate or the loss of life that they cause. If it is the loss of life that they cause that bothers them then why do they spend their time and energy going after guns when there are other things that take many times the amount of lives that guns do? I know what the reason is I just want them to admit it. When I talked to some of the people in Sandy Hook they were all pissed that Lanza used a gun to kill. No question about that. Most of the people I spoke with thought that if he would have gotten the mental health care he needed he wouldnt have killed in the first place.

We need to change the way people think about mental health care and make it no different than going to your primary doctor. Mental health care doest mean electric shock therapy or having a labotomy it could be as simple as counciling. There isnt a person on this planet that couldnt use some guidence sometimes. My wife has kids on her school bus that are 10 yrs old that threaten to kill her and others . I dont think its too early to look into some help for them. Why do we wait till there is a tragedy and then say. Gee this person should have gotten some help?

Ok Anon you didnt say you hate guns but you did say "I'll be the first to admit it. I want a ban on guns because I don't like guns" Not a lot of difference.

Vinnie B you are just like every other close minded person that cant see past your hatred for guns. If you dont have an intelligent thing to say you resort to name calling. You said "By your logic anyone that has ever died from cancer is the same as anyone that has died from a gun shot.. "Dead is Dead" How ignorant are you". Im the innorant one???? I was holding my dads hand as he took his last breath. He died of cancer from smoking. Guess what, he was just as dead as someone that was shot and killed by a gun. The difference is that he smoked the cigarettes that killed him. the only difference between that and putting a gun to his head is that the gun would have killed him quicker but he is still dead. You may be right that I may be ignorant, irrational and oh yea beetle-headed whatever that is. I thought the reason for you anti-gun people wanting to ban guns was to save lives. I guess somehow in your mind the life that you save from being shot is more important then the life that you could save from cancer or the life you could save from a car wreck. Thank you very much for enlightening me. I can now see very clearly who the ignorant one is.

It's a very big difference. I try not to hold hatred toward anything or anyone.

Also, I think your statistic that cars kill 3 times as many as guns is inaccurate. Can you please find a citation? According to Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

You asked this: Anti-gun people cant tell you truthfully if it is the guns they hate or the loss of life that they cause. If it is the loss of life that they cause that bothers them then why do they spend their time and energy going after guns when there are other things that take many times the amount of lives that guns do?

It is because it's not a matter of either-or. It's not that pro gun control people "either" dislike guns "or" dislike death. Rather, it's that pro gun control people dislike killing and violence via guns. Are there other things that kill people? Sure. As you've pointed out, cars kill people. But usually death by car occurs without intent. It's not nearly as offensive to our society. The same cannot be said for guns - killing with a gun is usually an affirmative act.

@ Ken, who said i was against guns? I own a few guns. You know what else, if my guns are ever stolen or found in someone elses hands and used to commit a crime you have my permission to lock me up for life or fry me. What i am against is ridiculous analogies. I go above and beyond what the law requires me to do to keep my guns safe and out of the hands of some demented psycho. As it stands right now, in many states a legal gun owner can leave their firearm on their sofa, go out to eat with their family all the while their house is being robbed and the gun ends up in the wrong hands and killing a bunch of people. THEN, that gun owner just goes right back to the gun store and is allowed to buy another gun!!!! LEGALLY!!!!!!!! For the same scenario to play out until the end of time! There are countless Legal gun owners that when they bring their gun home they immediately grant access to THEIR registered firearm to their wives and teenage children.. And why shouldn't they? It's not like there are legal consequences for doing so. It's ridiculous and out of control and the Firearm laws in this country need to be stiffened as well as the laws for illegal gun trafficking and sales. OBVIOUSLY not all legal gun owners can be trusted with their firearms. And one good apple spoils the bunch, the way it should be when pertaining to firearms.

Your posts make you sound like an angry and offensive person. The type of person who is not always in control of his actions. The thought of guns in the hands of people like you is exactly why those people you label as "libtards" want tighter gun control. Someone like you was the cause of the "accident" in my post above.

Well since I 've never had to use a gun on anyone in my 52 years, I guess you have egg on your face. If you don't like guns don't own one.

Anon you answered the question with this "Rather, it's that pro gun control people dislike killing and violence via guns." It not the death its the gun to pro gun control people. The people killed by a means other than guns are still dead. Why ouldnt you go after something that kills more people than guns do? Because they dont involve guns. "usually death by car occurs without intent. It's not nearly as offensive to our society" Believe me if someone you love is killed by a drunk, or careless driver it will be offensive to you. They will be dead just as long , and you will grieve just as much as if a gun was used. By the United States Census in 2009 Fatalities per 100,000 resident population. was 11.1 While NVSS reports in 2009 Fatalities per 100,000 resident population. was 3.7

Vinnie I cant follow you at all. You couldnt have read everything I have writen. I am all for stronger gun laws but Im totally against a gun ban. I know that cigarettes and cars will never be banned just to save lives. That would inconvience too many people. I used cigarettes and cars to prove a point that the only reason anti-gun people would rather ban guns then cigarettes and cars is because they have a use for them (and they cant see how anyone else would)yet have no use for guns.If there were a push to ban lets just say cars, even though they are involved just as much as guns are in many more deaths anti-gun people wouldnt stand for it because thay have a use for their car. My issue again is the mental health of the people doing these killing and not the weapon they use.

Joe, I realize you will not be attending any MENSA meetings in the near future but please enlighten readers by explaining your definition of "libtard"?

Ken, who do you think you are to tell me what I will find offensive and what I will grieve about? One person I loved was killed in a gun incident. Another was killed in a car crash. Of course I grieve for both. But the gun incident was FAR worse, far less understandable, and far more difficult to comprehend because it was an intentional killing. To this day I cannot comprehend it. But I can comprehend the car crash because it was accidental.

Your car argument is moot. People do not use cars to kill people (except in the extremely rare example that you brought up). People do use guns to kill people. This isn't about regulating the activity that causes the most deaths. It's about regulating the thing that causes the most intentional deaths.

Additionally, cars are regulated to the hilt, and such regulation reduces the number of deaths and makes driving safer. Why gun owners would oppose similar regulation to make guns and gun ownership safer is beyond me, especially if such regulation could decrease the number of gun-related deaths like the car regulation has.

Anon , I really didnt want to go here but you brought it here. You wrote "But the gun incident was FAR worse, far less understandable, and far more difficult to comprehend because it was an intentional killing" If the same person killed your loved one but used his car to do it, would that have been more understandable, would it be easier to comprehend because it was still an intentional killing ? Oh and before you get back on your high horse, dont for a second think that you are the only person to have lost a loved one to a gun or a car or both. Its not the weapon used. Its the person doing it. Again we need better health care in this country. You dont need to be a drooling idiot to need some sort of help. Some people can use just a little guidance before things get out of hand.. Im sure some people could use more help than others but quality help has to be available and the stigma about people that seek help needs to change. Sorry for your losses but you are not alone when it comes to losses.

Poor Joe...just because we want to help make life better for all...including you my friend.......I guess in your warped me firster doctrine....we are bad folk.

I guess you and Joe Stalin would have a hoot over a vodka and a shoot

Joe,
As the parent of a child with mental retardation, I find your use of "libtard" totally off the mark. Please refrain from using it.

Bwahaha I wouldn't "suppose" anything Nugent craves..now I do "suppose" he's playing the guitar in Wango Tango..crank it up!

Joe, those of us who know the truth about you find your comments very hypocritical. You know the truth and you know that many of us know the truth. People in glass houses or house with holes in the walls should be quiet.

Regardless of whether you signed away your personal rights, ALL of us civilians have the right to dismantle the constitution. If you served in the Marines to defend the Constitution, you might want to do some additional research to understand the Constitution's role: the constitution serves the people, not the other way around. Even Thomas Jefferson suggested that the Constitution should be thrown out and re-written every 20 years so that it stays current with the needs of the people. TJ was very concerned of the power that the dead would have over the living.

And yes - if it would result net saving of lives, or result in even one life saved, which I believe it would, then I would support disarming all of America's law abiding, responsible gun owners.

Also, I think that your concern about the need to defend against tyrannical government is hogwash. I've seen this argument before and frankly it's ridiculous to think that the U.S. government will become tyrannic. Even if it did, it is equally ridiculous to think that an armed militia of civilians would be effective against the military.

And the ability to argue about the constitution does honor to those who defended it. If we weren't able to argue about the constitution, then those people who sacrificed their lives defending it over the years would have done so in vain.

So I think you have it backwards, Mr. Demers. EVERYONE has the right to dismantle the constitution, specifically BECAUSE of those who sacrificed their lives defending it.

Anon you say "And yes - if it would result net saving of lives, or result in even one life saved, which I believe it would, then I would support disarming all of America's law abiding, responsible gun owners"
Does this only apply to guns or does it also apply to something you may own? Just banning cars would save 30,000 lives a year. Much easier to enforce and atleast 3 times the lives saved. I wont even get into how many lives would be save banning cigarettes. Why shouldnt we ban something that you have a use for?

It's thrilling to have (yet another) expert on Constitutional law in our midst.

You know who else is an expert on our Constitution, working up a gun control law?
The President of these United States of America.

"Did you sign away your personal rights and swear to defend the US constitution? I think not. YOU HAVENT EARNED the right to dismantle the US constitution that so many sacrificed their life for over the years; non of has have."

Dearest Jarhead,
RTFM.

I'd be OK with banning (or at least vastly reducing the number of) cars, as long as we could replace it with an effective public transportation system. Especially if such public transportation system would be safer.

"You know who else is an expert on our Constitution, working up a gun control law?
The President of these United States of America."
Naome you are confused again it is the job of the Judicial Branch to interpret the Constitution not the Executive Branch. It's called separation of powers. It must be so frustrating for you to be wrong all the time.
. .

Well - Obama did actually teach Constitutional Law at U Chicago, which is an awesome law school. I imagine he's pretty knowledgeable and might actually be an expert in ConLaw.

I also believe you couldn't find your ass with both hands, a flashlight and a map.

Let's not forget that.

same to you Ken

Tank tops for everybody!

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2012/11/14/16/enhanced-buzz-19503-1352927314-11.jpg

People are willing to do almost anything for the right to wear no sleeves right GenuisJoe.

Naome Lixes finally posted her/his/it's pic.

Tank tops for everybody!...
Stop it!..my computer just threw up in its own screen.

"Naome Lixes finally posted her/his/it's pic."

I have just as much hair, but not all in the same places.
I would have to shave my back, to look THAT good.

Bare Arms. Fire Armes and Accessories
Email: store@barearmsllc.net
Great prices

Smith & Wesson 5 Round...
Smith & Wesson 5 Round 500 S&W Magnum w/4 Barrel & Stainless Finish
Classic !

Bond Arms Cowboy Defender 45...
Bond Arms Cowboy Defender 45 Long Colt/410 Gauge Derringer w/3 Barrel
Gambler

CZ USA 8 + 1 Round 40 Smith &...
CZ USA 8 + 1 Round 40 Smith & Wesson Single/Double Action Pistol w/Black Finish
Modern

It appears that Misses Joe has her flapjacks tucked into her pajama bottoms so as to not risk indecent exposure. She must look great on the Harley.

Bushmaster 30 + 1 Round 223...
Bushmaster 30 + 1 Round 223 Remington Pistol w/Matte Black Finish
Naome Lickass favorite.

That is great Joe you also saw yourself and TCC brain drain controlling town politics. How did that work out for you.