text:
Poll: Does Thursday's Minneapolis Shooting Show a Need for More Gun Restrictions?
With five dead after a workplace shooting in the Bryn Mawr neighborhood, we're wondering how Twin City area residents feel about gun ownership vs. public-safety concerns.
Editor's note: This is an update of a poll that first appeared this summer, after the Aurora, CO, movie theater shooting.
The massacre at Columbine High School. The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. The violence at Virginia Tech. The rampage at a theater in Aurora, CO.
And now, the Twin Cities area has a tragedy of its own: The Thursday afternoon deaths of five people, including the shooter—apparently a man who had just lost his job at the firm where the violence took place.
Incidents of gun violence often dominate the news, and after every such incident, the debate begins anew: Should federal and state governments make it more difficult for people to get their hands on guns?
The issue tends to divide Americans right down the middle; in April 2010, Pew Research found more Americans placing greater importance on protecting the rights of gun owners (49 percent) than on restricting gun ownership (45 percent).
That poll, of course, was conducted before this latest tragedy. So we're wondering whether this incident will have an impact on the issue in the Twin Cities region. Please let us know how you feel by voting in our poll, and describing the reason for your opinion in the comments below.
And as always, please keep the debate respectful.
Micheal Foley
3:35 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
There's a public hearing on Monday in Hudson about whether to amend the city code to allow for indoor shooting ranges: http://hudson-wi.patch.com/articles/poll-should-gun-ownership-restrictions-be-tightened
The proposed new gun shop and indoor range would be built inside a former movie theater: http://hudson-wi.patch.com/articles/gun-shop-indoor-shooting-range-could-move-into-vacant-theater-space
Terry Elliott
4:35 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Michael: with respect, what the heck does a Hudson hearing on indoor shooting ranges have to do with the shooting Thursday? Had this been a tragic traffic accident, would you have linked to a car show?
Ed Larson
4:53 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Michael, I feel you are so far off base linking a possible indoor gun range to wanton gun violence in Minneapolis. Are you shilling for the anti gun crowd now?
Micheal Foley
5:15 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Hi Terry and Ed: This is an old post from just after the Aurora shootings that Twin Cities Patch regional editors decided to bring back to all the Patch home pages because of the recent shooting in Minneapolis. I had nothing to do with it.
Al Anderson
8:15 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Perhaps the Patchs' editors need to take off their collective liberal tin foil hats and post article comments that actually connect to the real world. The post above has absolutley nothing to with the shootings in Minneapolis.
The Huffington owned Patch already has a rotten reputation for painting the world leftist. The reposted post and article above just confirms it ...again.
10:05 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
Al, believe it or not, I think your contributions and input are a valuable part of our debate. But I do have to wonder why you frequent a site that you seem to abhor. It would be like me watching FoxNews and continually complaining to the producers. It seems a little foolish...
You seem to feel you are in opposition to "the establishment" regarding this site. That is good, as long as you prove the establishment wrong with concise and logical arguments. I, and many others, look forward to the debate. Don't blame the editors, prove your point.
Brian Schilling
5:31 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
If you take away the right for a citizen to legally own a firearm, the only ones left owning a firearm are criminals. Statistics have shown the tighter the gun restrictions, the higher violent crime rises. Everyone thinks taking guns from law abiding ctizens will reduce crime, but it does just the opposite. If criminals know the general public is not armed, they will do as they please with much less risk. Our police force does an excellent job, but they can't be everywhere.
8:11 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Such a total fallacy; criminals are not deterred by carry and conceal laws, no more than they are afraid of the death penalty or life in prison. Furthermore, the suggestion that every gun-packing idiot makes for a safer community would be downright laughable if it wasn't so insane. Such rhetoric is fear mongering at its best. In response to the question, there are many sensible options available to control manufacturing and distribution/sales of guns. However, as long as organizations like the NRA, and others who misinterpret the 2nd amendment, defend every citizen's desire to buy a gun, little progress can be made to implement fair, logical, and intelligent gun restrictions.
Svein Husevold
9:42 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
There is no reason to take the guns away. There is also no reason for a law abiding citizen to have fully automatic assault weapons, grenades, etc either. Finally there is no reason for not registering weapons that potentially can be used to kill.
Brian Schilling
9:50 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Joes, thanks for coming to an intelligent conversation & bringing nothing but insults & generalities. Take the time to look up some quality stat's then come back & join the grown up converation.
11:37 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
you dont get to keep the first amendment without the second one.
11:42 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
JOE, how could anybody misinterpret the second amendment? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems pretty somple to me.
Danny Urban
12:26 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Joe, please post your full name and address so I know that if you are being robbed or assaulted, I will know enough to NOT waste my time getting my weapon out and helping you. I will call the police and sit on the sidelines and wait for them to help you!
Anthony Nixon
5:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Statistics can be shown to say anything you want them to say. You could find me Statistics for an armed public and i could show you statistics saying the exact opposite. Statistics are all lies.
Matt Behning
3:40 am on Monday, October 29, 2012
Really Joe? that's why every shooting I've ever heard of recently or in the past in the cities area (and across the nation) Every single shooter did not have a permit to carry!
If people REALLY want a gun, they're easily going to get one. The only person dis-armed with these stupid gun bans (not full autos and grenades etc) are law-abiding citizens... Read Lott's Book "More guns, less crime" it's over 300 pages of straight up statistics, studies, and irrefutable proof that the stricter the gun laws... the more crime and violence there is.
An armed society is a polite society;)
matt lehman
6:46 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
never have I witnessed a gun load itself, cock itself, and aim itself, guns dont kill people, people kill people with bare hands, knives, bats, cars and alcohol, drugs, you name it. since this incident, I have been wondering if this theater bans guns from the property? The reason I ask, legally permitted and trained conceal and carry owners could have (and most likely would have) countered this horrible event and maybe lessened the outcome. The worst case scenerio is a nutcase going crazy in a business or public space that bans guns, absolutely no countering, get shot at until police arive and shoot back. I value life, everybodies life including my enemies however, If I was carrying a gun legally at this theater, I would have done my best to protect myself and the other innocent people from great bodily harm and lethal force presented by this individual obviously intending to cause great harm or death to others. How dare anybody suggest that law abiding citizens should be punished because of the actions of criminals.
Bill James
8:36 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Colorado is a conceal and carry state just like Minnesota. If there was signage that stated guns were banned in the theater, and this nut case comes in and does what he did it would be immeasurably difficult to stop it. As a responsible gun owner who like many in MN hunts a bit, it's difficult if not impossible to legislate against insanity. All of these tragic events, Columbine, VA Tech., Tucson, and now Aurora will have this moniker of death over their heads for ever. It's very unfortunate CO is a flash point for some of the largest attacks. But to Matt's point here, it takes a human to pull the trigger and while the saying guns don't kill, people do is probably a cliche (the families of the dead and wounded will argue it otherwise) it does ring to a bigger problem that is not being addressed which legislation and funding can help make a dent in and that is mental health treatment which is the 3rd largest strain on society out there (Heart disease and obesity are 1 and 2). If we want to fix the problem, you have to start with the people who are sick and struggling and are a mess. If not, then you can beef up security and the police and let them manage the problem. It will not surprise me that no matter where we go, malls, churches, theaters, restaurants, we'll all be walking through magnometers to be scanned for weapons just like at the airport.
David Mindeman
1:13 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
In the Aurora incident, the shooter was wearing head to toe body armor. Anyone in the theatre that attempted to shoot back would simply have been the next victim...or worse, shot an innocent person by mistake. Conceal and carry may feed a gun toters "OK Corrall" fantasy, but it is ridiculous to consider this some kind of deterrent for this kind of tragedy.
Janelle Camp
1:23 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Do you really believe that someone in a dark theater could have shot that man? I'mpretty sure that more people would have been killed or injured had a few "law abiding" gun owners would have started shooting. Are you aware that he wore protective clothing? We have a fully armed militia and they are called "police officers".
Ed Larson
1:29 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Janelle Camp wrote: "Are you aware that he wore protective clothing? We have a fully armed militia and they are called "police officers"."
What do these words mean to you.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
8:43 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
"People kill people" is as valid an argument as any I've heard. How many people die in traffic accidents yearly? As a result of alcohol? By repeat offenders who have been "compassionately" released for whatever "liberal" tolerances that exist? Likewise, how many repeat offenders of ANY crime are set free only to be recaptured revealing their rap sheets longer than a Dostoyevsky epic novel and "Progressives" want to whine about restricting a basic Constitutional right like that is going to stop anything a criminal will do? Criminals break any law they want and WE allow them to walk the streets time and again WITHOUT consequence.
This current AH (figure out the initials on your own because I won't mention his name and give this butt orifice the notoriety he seeks) will plead Not Guilty or claim Insanity. His trial will go on for years. His lawyers will claim the evidence is tainted because lifesavers and survivors were forced to traipse through this idiot's carnage thus messing up crucial evidence. He'll eventually sign a book/interview deal with ABC (and verify he had just joined the Tea Party . . . ?) when he decided to play a "JOKE" and scam the American Progressive Legal System by acting out in jail thus earning his insanity defense and life goes on for us law abiding citizens funding creep after creep's fair trial (which I support wholly in a reasoned manner) until some defense lawyer brings up the failure of some reporting officer to dot an "i" in one of his reports...
12:30 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
When was the last time someone killed 12 people and injured almost 60 others with a bat?
Mike Mitchell
6:55 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
Note to businesses: putting up a sign banning firearms, will not prevent a bad guy from doing so. It may in fact prevent a law abiding citizen from protecting their family and ending a bad guy's plans early.
Mitch Peterson
1:55 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Well put. Those signs need to go. It might take a lawsuit by someone with a permit to carry being prevented from doing so in a case such as this.
ward tatro
7:32 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
That gun pictured in this article looks like my Kimber. .45 Cal. It's even prettier in person. Good for Hudson.
Josh D. Ondich
9:36 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012
I give my thoughts and prayers to victims of the theater shootings in Aurora, Colorado. This is a time we as a Americans put politics aside and come together to honor the victims that lost their lives. I always believe in times of tragedy, finger pointing and name calling only makes us as nation look divided and emboldens people who want to do harm and kill others. I encourage everyone to keep the victims in their thoughts and prayers.
Deb C
5:52 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Back in the early 80's, Morton Grove IL passed an ordinance banning handguns. Kennesaw GA, a suburb of Atlanta, in response, passed an ordinance requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. Then there was a study comparing crime levels involving guns in the 2 cities. Guess which one was higher.
Morton Grove
Susan Rego
6:50 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
After Columbine, 70% of Colorado voters agreed to close the gun-show loophole which allowed anyone to buy a gun from a private dealer at a gun show without the instant background check that was required of licensed dealers at the same gun show. Really, if background checks are a good idea, why would you make a distinction between licensed and unlicensed dealers, when they are often right next to each other at a gun show, and they sell the same weapons? I don't know how the movie killer acquired his guns, and a background check might have turned up nothing in his case. But this is an example of our convoluted gun laws. We can have our guns and our freedom, and sensible safety regulations too.
7:36 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
You can't regulate crazy...if someone snaps and decides to go off on people, they'll do it anyway they can. He rigged his entire apartment with homemade bombs...I'm pretty sure there's a law against that on the books. Criminals do not blink an eye at these types of restrictions, they only harm those who respect the law.
7:52 am on Monday, October 1, 2012
Susan, I think there is an issue with your use of the terms "unlicensed dealers" and "private dealer". If you are a dealer of firearms you need to be licensed. If you are "Joe Public" at home or a gun show selling your privately owned guns then you don't need to be licensed. They are not the same. I'm not exactly sure where the cut off between the two are but I'm pretty sure if you regularly show up at gun shows with new guns to sell each time, someone will be talking to you about your lack of a dealer license.
Carol Smelser Klick
7:39 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I feel much more secure in an environment that allows handguns, that in those that don't. Legally permitted and armed residents are an asset to any community. Banning handguns will only embolden those who wish to do harm and leave the innocent unprotected.
Dick Bernard
7:40 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I follow and support the Brady Campaign http://www.bradycampaign.org/. At upper right on the home page of their website is an ongoing tally of people shot in America each day. About 1 a.m. today, for today, the tally was 8; at 7:30 a.m. it was 84. Tally for the year thus far over 54,000.... In your poll I voted "Sometimes", though I don't hunt, have never owned a gun, and qualified as expert as a marksman in the Army. There is no need or excuse for weapons of mass destruction in circulation in a civilized society. Last I heard we don't need machine guns to hunt deer; and the self-defense argument can easily be reduced to absurdity. But this won't be dealt with in the next four months before the election. People need to have the stamina of the NRA to change course on this insane business of guns in this country.
Jim Edward
8:58 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Dick, The last I heard, the shooter in Colo. didn't have a machine gun. You speak of "weapons of mass destruction". A single shot .22 rifle can be a weapon of mass destruction when a shooter is confronting a theater full of unarmed citizens. I wonder what the outcome would have been had at least on person in that crowed been legally carrying a hand gun. The chances of me being involved in a home invasion grow greater every day. So, just as a favor to you if it does happen to me, I will leave my gun in the drawer and will hopefully be able to call the police before I am shot or beaten to death with a baseball bat, my wife is raped, all of my posessions are loaded into the back of some losers van so he can sell them to support his drug habit, and then have my home set afire to destroy any evidence. You talk about absurd? Your statments are what is absurd. What are you going to do if it happens to you? Just hold the door open for them?
David Dick
10:33 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Israel and Switzerland have a better handle on guns than We do! If there had been ONE CC license with a gun in there it might have been different. With all the flakes in this Country and the ones still coming it's only going to get worse.
Ed Larson
10:49 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
A quick question Dick, how is gun control working in Chicago?
Barbara J. Miller
1:01 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
An AK15 assault rifle is well-named. The Constitution provides for the right to bear arms. Implied is the right to defend oneself and one's homestead, not the right to commit mass murder. I'm not a gun person, but here responsible gun people have told me, paraphrased: If you're going to own a gun, you must be prepared to use it. I understand that to mean be prepared to shoot (possibly/probably with intent to kill) in self-defense.
I think a single-shot gun does not qualify as a weapon of mass destruction. Am I happy/comfortable, knowing I'm theoretically surrounded by people who are packing? No. But I recognize the current interpretation of our Constitutionalal right to do so.
The conversation here about how different the outcome in Aurora might have been if folks in the audience had been packing seems naive to me. It assumes one shot from one person would have tipped the balance. I'm envisioning Gunfight at Muller Family Theaters, and that's deeply disturbing.
I'm guessing/hoping most of us want balance in this gnarly issue. How do we find that and make it happen? Seriously!
Michelle Peterson
2:17 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
You mention "no need to have weapons of mass destruction in a civilized sociey. We do not have a civilized society as long as there are "crazies" out there who are not civilized, and there are many! That is why citizens who follow the law need guns.
Joyce Denn
1:23 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Ed Larson, tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states with lax gun laws; New York has tight gun control laws, but most of the guns used in crimes there can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax laws. The lesson is that we need national gun control laws applicable everywhere.
Ed Larson
1:28 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joyce said: "tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states"
As has been pointed out repeatedly.
Criminals do not tend to purchase theirs gun legally.
If you are opposed to the second amendment, work to have it repealed.
Joyce Denn
2:20 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Ed Larson wrote: "Joyce said: "tight gun control laws in one place do nothing to protect the people there from guns brought in from states"
As has been pointed out repeatedly.
Criminals do not tend to purchase theirs gun legally.
If you are opposed to the second amendment, work to have it repealed."
Beware the truncated quotation - as I pointed out, guns purchased LEGALLY in states with lax laws, like Virginia, are responsible for crimes committed in other states; what we need are national gun control laws.
I am not calling for a repeal of the second amendment, merely for a rational application of that amendment; no right is absolute, not even the right to own guns.
Ed Larson
2:25 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joyce, beware of the word tend in my post on the subject.
Criminals will get guns and they would like nothing better than a disarmed public to exploit.
Elisabeth Nelson
7:55 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
In the 20th century alone, 170,000,000 people were slaughtered, starved, mutilated or otherwise annihilated at the hands of their governments. To put that in perspective, if 170,000,000 million people were removed from the USA, that would mean over 2/3 of the population would be gone. I recommend that people watch the movie INNOCENTS BETRAYED before making a decision about gun control. It is available at our library through the More System. Also, may be purchased. You will see what happened to citizens of countries such as Soviet Union, Germany, Turkey, Uganda, China, Camboldia, Guatemala and Rwanda who were unable to protect themselves. The "innocents" were killed by the very governments they expected to protect them. Do not think it couldn't happen here.
11:45 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
"The "innocents" were killed by the very governments they expected to protect them. Do not think it couldn't happen here."
A bit hysterical don't you think.
Vested Interest
2:03 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Renee -your response is probably just the same as those "Innocents Betrayed" victims in the movie right before they went silent and forgotten.
8:01 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I don't know what the solution is but more people die in the USA from hand guns than any other country in the world. Our gun laws are a joke you can buy a gun at a gun show from someone's trunk out in the parking lot. The NRA is a cult that is working on the behalf of the manufacturers not their members and the members believe everything the NRA tells them. American's seem to have a violent mindset. Look at our foreign policy. War, war and more war. I own a gun for protection and got mine the legal way. I think hunters should be able to hunt with guns if they so choose. Although real hunters use bows. I don't know what the solution but clearly our current laws aren't working.
Bruce Mackenthun
8:52 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I'm sure the statistics would also show that more people die from cancer,drunk driving, and many other thing sin the USA than in other countries. Your comment that real hunters use bows shows your lack of knowledge. How many duck hunters have you seen hit a duck with a bow? A bow is one of the many choices of weapons to harvest an animal. The choice of a bow does not make you more of a "real" hunter. It just reduces your chances of harvesting an animal, so it actually makes you more of a watcher of wildlife. Gun laws are not the problem! People who have no regard for the law are the problem . Last I checked, it is illegal to shoot a person or kill someone.Like others have said, if someone at the movie would have had a gun they could have shot back at the criminal saving many lives!
Danny Urban
12:43 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Rosco, I joined the NRA this year for the first time in my life, and I agree with you on that part of your comment. They are nothing more than a SuperPac giving money to the T-GOP Party. I will never again send them any money! If you are not right about the violent mindset now, they will have it in a few years. Look at the videos, games parents let their kids play. War has always been a good way to create jobs. Now down to the laws, I think our laws in Minnesota are just fine. You can't regulate these shootings like what happened in Colorado. The bad guys will always get guns!
Mitchell Dvorak
3:48 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Rosco,I'm a member of the NRA. I'm not a nut, or am i brainwashed by the so called "cult' I'm a member of. Are you a member of a local church? Should i insult you by calling you a child molester, due to the fact that some leaders of these churches abuse little boys!? This is a tragic thing that could not be stopped. This person was not sane. NO amount of laws would have prevented this. If not guns, he made some "bombs", he would of used those. Or a car, or whatever he could do to kill people.
Bill James
8:44 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
A quick search on the NRA website for Aurora Colorado shootings has zero hits. Ironically, the Colorado Volunteer of the Year is an NRA Instructor in their Refuse to be a Victim program in Colorado Springs. Details: http://www.nrablog.com/post/2012/06/06/NRA-instructor-is-a-Volunteer-of-the-Year.aspx#continue
Jim Edward
9:12 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
@ Joe Your first sentence kind of sums it all up and is a contradiction to the rest of your post Good job.
Brad Kadue
9:26 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Here is a link to a great story, and dramatic video showing a man who lawfully carried a firearm taking heroic action to thwart an armed robbery. The likelihood is that the criminals involved were not intent on hurting anybody, and were only after money, but why should the innocent victims have to be the ones that carry that risk.
These situations of lawful gun owners protecting themselves/others are not as rare as they seem. Just last summer in Minneapolis a man, probably emboldened by the fact that he was carrying a firearm, intervened in a situation where a man was stealing the purse of a women. When the criminal pointed HIS gun at the samaritan, he was met with deadly force.
tom endersbe
9:37 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
The frequency of these horrible events is few and far between. We feel the pain and want to do something. Sometimes we can't and need to accept that this a rare event. Our lives need to go on. Our constitution gives us the right to bear arms. We shouldn't over react following on of these very sad events
Joyce Denn
1:26 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Unfortunately, these horrible events are NOT at all rare in this country; I have no problem with sportsmen using firearms - my sister loves shooting competitions and a good friend is an avid hunter - but why would any sportsman need semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, and why should anyone be able to buy guns without background checks (even people on the terror watch list are allowed to buy guns) and why should anyone need to buy more than one gun a month?
Ed Larson
9:43 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Joe wrote: "Such a total fallacy; criminals are not deterred by carry and conceal laws, no more than they are afraid of the death penalty or life in prison. Furthermore, the suggestion that every gun-packing idiot makes for a safer community would be downright laughable if it wasn't so insane. Such rhetoric is fear mongering at its best. In response to the question, there are many sensible options available to control manufacturing and distribution/sales of guns. However, as long as organizations like the NRA, and others who misinterpret the 2nd amendment, defend every citizen's desire to buy a gun, little progress can be made to implement fair, logical, and intelligent gun restrictions."
Me thinks the fallacies and rhetoric are in your post. The gun control nuts will use this to take away constitutional rights. You can take that to the bank.
It's sad that some are so willing to give up not only their freedom but the freedom of everyone else as well.
9:48 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Guns don't kill people, people that point guns at people, kill people. Banning guns is like banning spoons so people won't get fat eating ice cream. One person did something bad this week. Yes it was horrendous and awful. However, we're a nation of hundreds of millions. I'm not a gun toting fanatic. I'm just an American that wants her rights protected.
9:49 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
An AR-15 and any other assault weapon should not be sold legally in this country. Period.
Ed Larson
9:55 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Why? If I want to own one, have fun with it and don't commit a crime with it,
WHY should you care?
I can do a lot of mayhem with my 870 shotgun. Do you want to ban that too.
Why Not?
Brian Schilling
10:13 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Renee, Why do you feel this way? I see & hear this comment & always wonder why the AR-15 platform is targeted to be banned. I believe the most common AR-15 sold is a .223 caliber. The hunting rifle credited with harvesting the most deer in the U.S. is the 30-30 lever action, which is based on a .309 caiber bullet. The most common rifle caliber I see when deer hunting is the 30-06, which is based on a .308 caliber bullet. If you look at the bullet size alone, the 30-30 & 30-06 are much larger.
11:30 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
bet you didnt know that "assault weapons" account for less than 3% of violent crime in this nation. you also probably didnt know that only 2 leagally owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used to commit crimes since 1917. oddly both were owned by policemen. more children dir from falling off ladders per year than accidental gun deaths. are you going to start banning ladders?
David Mindeman
1:22 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
"harvesting deer"? Assault weapons for hunting? Are there permits for taking down a herd? Still see no reason for assault weapons to be legal.
Ed Larson
1:25 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
David Mindeman wrote: ""harvesting deer"? Assault weapons for hunting? Are there permits for taking down a herd? Still see no reason for assault weapons to be legal."
Would you feel better if the shooter in CO had used a pump shot gun instead?
Adam Wienieski
6:27 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Renee, there is no mechanical or functional difference between an assault rifle and a deer rifle other than one looks scary to the uneducated. Both are semi-automatic rifles.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 to 2004 defined "assault weapons" as having the appearance of military-type weapons subjectively defined as pistol grips, bayonet mounts, folding stocks, etc in order to placate people with the need to believe the government is "doing" something about gun violence.
Gun violence didn't go down after the assault weapon ban started and it didn't go up when it ended. Such superficial and ingenuous legislation is simply ineffective.
6:17 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I totally agree with Renee on this. Any gun is a lethal weapon in the hand of a child or a a teenager without instruction on the responsibility of using weapons. I need to ask the hard question. With all the video games the teens are playing shooting the worst arsenal at the people (their own friends and family) they are playing with on the screen, and outside with air guns that resemble real guns, as well as so many accidental fatal shootings in homes -Do you really comfortable with guns in your home?
Svein Husevold
9:57 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
As mentioned a few times here NRA is a cult for the manufacturer and will promote the sale of guns to the Nth degree. There is no reason, nor is there any intentions to take the guns away. However, there is also no reason for a law abiding citizen to have fully automatic assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, etc either. Finally there is no reason for not registering weapons that potentially can be used to kill. The gun shows are a huge issue that could be better regulated. Overall this is an area better regulation is a GOOD thing!
Ed Larson
10:02 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Or they could just want to protect the second amendment so they have a market for their product. How many despotic nations first made registration necessary before they confiscated the weapons?
Your fear is driving your reasoning. A knife, bow and arrow or a piece of glass can "kill people". Should those also be registered too?
Brian Schilling
10:31 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
When have you seen any "fully automatic assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers" sold in the United States to the general public?
11:35 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
there is also no reason to own a porche, ferrari, lamborghini or $1000 designer handbag. to repeat my comment above, only 2 legally owned fully automatic weapons have ever been used in a crime since 1917, both by policemen. dictator countries have used gun registration to eventually take them away. maybe we should bring eric holder in on this one since he is so good at running guns.
10:05 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
What are the statistics about how many people die in car accidents every day? Should we ban driving? It's currently heavily regulated... There's no reason for me to have anything besides a roof over my head, clothes on my back, and food in my stomach... yet I do. This is America.
I'm new to this forum, so I think I should tell you that I do not belong to the NRA. I'm just your average American mom. I do not own a gun. But if I want an assault riffle; I have every right to get one. Just like you have every right to purchase the vehicle you drive that could very easily kill if you aimed it at someone like you aim a gun.
We need to realize it is a NUT JOB that killed all of these people. He could have done so with an IED, he could have flown a plane into the theater. He could have set it on fire. This is not a gun control issue.
Meeche Miller
10:31 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
This sad story just opens up the agenda for the gun haters to come out in full. It is NOT the licensed, permit holding gun carriers who are doing the killings - it is the idiots who can always get guns on the streets - take away our guns and you are just opening up America to be taken over by the UN. It has been proven throughout history that when the government confiscates the guns - that country is then taken over - this is what Obama and the Brady bunch of gun haters has in store for America. Obama wants to see America reduced to that of Russia and China where big brother watches over all you say or do and is able to throw you in jail for any reason at all - the only reason they need is that they don't like something you said or did - taking our guns away will guarantee this horror for America. The do goodies who claim guns are the root of all evil had better go read their history books - we need guns to protect our own - Obama and the UN know that once
the guns are gone, we are at their mercy.The media and this administration jump at every little thing they can to make the ignorant public think guns are the cause of our problems - it's the idiots, not the licensed gun carriers.
11:37 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Um, helllloooo, the shooter in CO legally bought these weapons. Canada doesn't have nearly the issue with guns, haven't seen them taken over. What about Great Britain, France, Switzerland, and the list goes on and on. The amendment was written during a time when there was a distinct need to defend against other countries invading. The public WAS the militia. We now have a militia and the public isn't it.
Even people with concealed weapons are not trained for these situations. Someone with a gun probably would have contributed to even more mayhem in the theater. We are a country with a strange obsession with firearms and ironically, the highest rate of death by firearms.
12:03 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
hitler nousilinni, stalin, pol pot and mao all banned guns. granted these are extremes but you cant get to an extreme without getting to the great brittain, france, switzerland stage first. if you look at the 2d amendment, it basically states that even with a well regulated militia, peoples right to keep and bear arms shouldnt be infringed.
Rich Higgins
1:10 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Obama has done NOTHING to infringe on your right to carry a gun. Stop using Obama as a discussion point.
Danny Urban
1:32 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Meeche Miller, just where do you get your facts? Obama just said in the news that gun control would not have made a difference in Colorado, and Romney backed him up! You better be careful who you call ignorant, as it just may just turn out that it is you!
Ed Larson
11:43 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Renee, it's called freedom.
I'm sorry it bothers you.
Let's get rid of automobiles too, they kill far more people every year than guns.
I wonder if the shooter in CO would have been so quick to make his plans if he was pretty sure someone might shoot back.
There is nothing to indicate more gun laws would have prevented this tragedy. Nothing at all.
Emily Johnson
11:46 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
"It's called freedom"??? Well, you win for the stupidest comment on this thread, which is saying a lot. Logical reasoning certainly isn't your strong point. Guns have one purpose: TO KILL. Cars, on the other hand, have many other purposes. There are millions of facts that indicate more gun laws would have prevented this tragedy. The stats on people murdered by guns in other countries are just one of them.
12:44 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
allow me to elaborate a little. i understand that "assault weapons" as they are often portrayed can seem scary. but the AR-15 for example, uses the 5.56 x 45 mm bullet. the remington 760 is a hunting rifle that uses a variety of calibers, but primarily a 30-06 bullet. the military went to the smaller bullet for a couple of reasons. first, you could carry more of them for the same weight. and second, the bullet had a tendency of injuring its target rather than killing it. it would then take 2 soldiers to remove that 1 wounded from the battlefield. thus removing 3 enemy from the field of play. when you say that there is no reason for anybody to own an assault weapon (ar-15), then you can look at it from a different perspective. if i wanted a car to go from A to B. i could buy a plain old nothing fancy car or i could buy a ferrari. both do the same thing. one just looks, sounds, smells, etc cooler. you also get what you pay for. if you look at the numbers firearms only accounted for 8% of violent crime (2009) and 28% of robberies (2009). http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=43
i found a study that lists "assault weapon" crime at 1% of all gun crime.
so if you look at banning assault weapons because you want to reduce crime, victimization or whatever, then its not going to do a lot of good in the grand scheme of things except keep them from honest citizens.
Rich Higgins
1:04 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
God I love hearing people use "freedom" as a discussion point. Simple hilarious.
Alas, let's take a look at facts. The countries with the tightest gun regulations: Japan, Singapore, Chile, Hong Kong, England, etc. also have the fewest gun related deaths per 100,000 people (wikipedia.com, today). Thus, if there were better regulations for evaluating the shooters need for a gun. This tragedy may have been prevented.
BLAM! Shot down that argument.
I can't accept the argument that more guns would have prevented this tragedy. In fact, I'd say in the chaos that was happening that night more people would have been killed.
Ed Larson
1:07 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Rich Higgins wrote:"I can't accept the argument that more guns would have prevented this tragedy. In fact, I'd say in the chaos that was happening that night more people would have been killed."
We will never know now will we?
What other freedoms do support taking away?
Rich Higgins
1:17 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Please continue to use "freedom" as a reason to let the prevalence of guns permeate this gun-addicted nation.
Wanting more gun regulation has nothing to do with "freedom" and everything to do with protection, which is what the police and trained officers are supposed to do. Not Citizen A that carries a gun because he can.
Ed Larson
1:22 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Rich Higgins rote: "Please continue to use "freedom" as a reason to let the prevalence of guns permeate this gun-addicted nation"
I will. Sad that you can't see it as a freedom issue enshrined in our constitution.
How are gun control laws working out in Chicago BTW?
Joyce Denn
1:29 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Gun control laws in Chicago are irrelevant as long as people can bring in weapons they purchase elsewhere.
Ed Larson
1:37 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joyce, Criminals seldom acquire their guns through legal means.
11:59 am on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Too bad Trayvon Martin wasn't carrying. He could have defended himself.
Ed Larson
12:02 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Yeah it's too bad Trayvon decided to punch out Zimmerman and beat his head against the concrete too.
12:16 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
exept he had george zimmerman on the ground beating his head into the concrete.
12:26 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Yeah, and maybe Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and waited for police like he was told to.
Rich Higgins
12:36 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin and provoked him. This lead to a fight. George Zimmerman KILLED him.
Of course, we can't ask Trayvon Martin if he was acting in self defense because he's DEAD.
Ed Larson
12:40 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?
Let's get back to the CO shooting and wrangling with gun control nuts.
2:00 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I respectfully disagree. Had Trayvon been carrying, I am thinking Zimmerman would be dead. I believe Zimmerman was defending himself. Why anyone doesn't is beyond me. Is he not innocent until proven guilty? I'm writing under the impression that we all understand the original reporting of the 911 calls were edited by the media- right? I believe there is even an eye witness that has testified to the grand jury that Zimmerman was on the ground defending himself from someone attacking him. The "victim" was the aggressor. While I'm sure the Martin family is devastated, I think this was a perfect example of why we need to protect the right to protect ourselves.
11:59 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Well, since Zimmerman was stalking him and obviously closed the distance between them what was Martin supposed to do? Let Zimmerman execute him? Oh, wait that's what happened.
1:32 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
@Renee: Give up the gun fight and stop being so ignorant. I think there were 3 little girls killed by their dad using a knife about a week ago. If people are crazy, they will find a way to kill. It's sad but true. You're just out to spread hate to everyone, sad to see.
6:54 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
@DJR. Quit with the spreading "hate" crap. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean hating.
Danny Urban
1:46 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
This is the wrong thread to be talking about Zimmerman. We live in Minnesota, not Florida. We really only know what the media tells us, and you can't believe all of it. I for one am leaving it to the Florida courts to decide, and am not taking anyone's side on this subject!
Joyce Denn
1:31 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Ed Larson asks, "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?"
If you'd read the news accounts, Mr. Larson, you would know that Trayvon Martin and his father were staying with a friend who lived there.
Ed Larson
1:35 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joyce, I was the one who posted that Trayvon's father was visiting hi girlfriend. Please read more post before assuming things. I was not the one who brought up Trayvon in the first place.
Joyce Denn
2:17 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Then why, Ed Larson, did you pose the question: "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood"?
Ed Larson
2:23 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Because Renee brought up Mmartin claiming he could have defended himself if he had gun. Did you not read her post that started this rabbit trail?
Joyce Denn
2:28 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Yes, Ed, I read the entire thread, and there was nothing in Renee's comment that would have prompted a question regarding the propriety of Trayvon Martin's presence in the community, which you were the first to pose.
Ed Larson
2:32 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joyce, Renee comment had nothing to do with what happened in CO. I simply pointed out that Trayvon was known by the neighborhood watcher Zimmerman be a part of that neighborhood and that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death. It was totally unnecessary to advancing the discussion on the current topic. If one throws red meat out don't expect it to be ignored.
10:06 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Ed Larson says: "Renee comment had nothing to do with what happened in CO. I simply pointed out that Trayvon was known by the neighborhood watcher Zimmerman be a part of that neighborhood and that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death".
The question was about gun restrictions. The Trayvon Martin situation is a perfect example of someone carrying and taking the law into his own hands. After police were contacted he was advised to stay in his car. He decided not to. If Trayvon Martin had been packing perhaps he would have shot Zimmerman. In either case, a gun wasn't warranted.
And your stating that Zimmerman bore the marks of almost being beaten to death? Seriously? I suspect if you or I were almost beaten to death we would be in the hospital, possibly on life support.
Ed Larson
8:00 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Renee wrote: "The Trayvon Martin situation is a perfect example of someone carrying and taking the law into his own hands. After police were contacted he was advised to stay in his car. He decided not to. If Trayvon Martin had been packing perhaps he would have shot Zimmerman. In either case, a gun wasn't warranted."
If I am on the ground with someone on top of me who is pounding my head into the payment and have a gun in my pocket I would use it too. If you feel your life is threatened, acting with whatever means is available seems perfectly logical to me.
8:08 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, the point, and most important part of this is the Mr. Zimmerman ignored the police - he thought he knew better. He was arrogant and made a stupid decision to ignore the police and continue stalking Trayvon. If he had done what was right...which was to call the police (he did this), and wait for them to get there, both of these people would still be alive, and Mr. Zimmerman would not be charged SECOND DEGREE MURDER. Defined as: a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Ed Larson
8:40 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, no one wanted Trayvon dead including Zimmerman. Please try to find something wrong with Trayvon's actions. We all need to let the evidence speak not our emotions.
8:59 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, let's see, I am walking along in a neighborhood that I have every right to be in, in fact I am staying there with my dad, watching a game on tv and want to run out to get a snack. On my way back I notice someone stalking me. Do I confront him or do I run away? Here is an except from the 911 call:
"...These assholes, they always get away.
After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit, he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin.
"Are you following him?" the dispatcher asked. Zimmerman replied: "Yep."
"Okay, we don't need you to do that," the dispatcher warned."
Ed Larson
9:06 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, Again.Let the evidence speak. You seem to think Zimmerman was the aggressor but much of the evidence does not support that claim.(Zimmerman's broken nose, cuts on the back of the head etc. Zimmerman was not legally bound to follow the 911 operators instructions. Why did Trayvon run?
9:17 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Why did Trayvon run? I'm sorry Ed, but that is a ridiculous question...
1. Someone was stalking him. 2. Fear. 3. Why can't, or shouldn't he run? I would have done the exact same thing, given the situation....would I have deserved to die because I ran away from someone stalking me?
I have already said that I will let the courts judge the man, but his arrogance in refusing to listen to the dispatcher, and his stupidity of putting himself in that situation, is all I need to know about the man. Read the definition of second degree murder again: a killing caused by DANGEROUS CONDUCT (going against police advice) and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
Ed Larson
10:27 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan wrote:"Why did Trayvon run? I'm sorry Ed, but that is a ridiculous question...
1. Someone was stalking him. 2. Fear. 3. Why can't, or shouldn't he run? I would have done the exact same thing, given the situation....would I have deserved to die because I ran away from someone stalking me? "
Stalking? Zimmerman didn't leave his truck until after Trayvon started running. How is that stalking?
You said "After discussing his location with the dispatcher, Zimmerman exclaimed, "Shit, he's running," and the following sounds suggest he left his vehicle to run after Martin."
Please explain.
10:36 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, how about if I change stalking to watching? I would still have run! And why on earth couldnt Trayvon run? I guess I didn't realize there was a law against that...how about you post that law for me...
My explanation?.....listen to the tapes! And then read the consensus of what the experts have to say.
Your argument is getting weak if you have to pick apart my words, and if you have to question what is on the record as happening.
10:42 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, on the 911 tape, Zimmerman acknowledged that he was following him....but you left that part out when you quoted me.....why?
Ed Larson
10:45 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, You made the error not me.
"Your argument is getting weak if you have to pick apart my words, and if you have to question what is on the record as happening."
You need to be willing to look at the evidence from both sides. I hope justice is done and I hope you do too.
No more from me as you refuse to accept anything I have said even though it is on the record,
10:55 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, you have no idea what I refuse to accept. At least I am not questioning what a 911 tape says. Do I wonder what happened when Zimmerman caught up with Trayvon, yes, and that will come out in court. But to question what a 911 call says, or that Zimmerman put himself in a stupid position, seems a bit naive.
Ed Larson
10:59 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, Please do not misrepresent what I said a.k.a. lie
I never questioned the 911 tape.
There is no law against making stupid choices and it appears both parties are equally guilty. Done.
11:10 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No lie, you asked me to explain what was on the tape...therefore you did "question what a 911 call says". Please don't call me a liar, it is not true.
Ed: "There is no law against making a stupid choices"....yes Ed, when this results in someone's death, it is against the law....AGAIN, read what he is charged with.
This is my whole point of the discussion, he did something (stupid and wreckless) that caused the death of another....that's what he is charged with...period.
Ed Larson
11:18 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, you need to read and understand exactly what it takes to be convicted of second degree murder in Florida.
11:28 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I didn't say convict, that is up to the jury. I said he was charged, based on the information. Go back and read what I have said. My theme (for lack of a better word), is that he has been charged accordingly, and asking why Trayvon was in the neighborhood or why he ran is a typical 'blame the victim' response. Did he do something wrong, we don't know that yet, so questioning why he was in the neighborhood (which we do know) and why he was running is disingenuous....in the least.
Ed Larson
11:34 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I'm no lawyer Susan but I hope you read the law in Florida concerning second degree murder.
IMHO the prosecutor has reached way to far as none of the conditions for second degree murder seem to have been met.
Manslaughter might have been possible but even that is a stretch.
If a jury convicts Zimmerman on 2nd degree it will have to be based on something we are not yet aware of.
11:49 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"Murder with a Depraved Mind occurs when a person is killed, without any premeditated design, by an act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind showing no regard for human life."
So is it "depraved mind" that you have an issue with?
My guess, and it is only a guess, is that their case will be that Zimmerman, at a minimum, profiled Tayvon, but more likely was a racist. I am in no way saying he is, only that it is a guess.
Ed Larson
11:58 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, it is going to be hard to prove Zimmerman was a racist when he has mentored black youth and went after the police who were involved in beating a homeless black man.
12:04 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I must get back to work. Thanks for the link, I will read it and comment after work.
3:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, I have moved the conversation to the bottom of the comments...
Ed Larson
4:16 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan said:" I still believe that Zimmerman acted recklessly, and had a proven pattern of profiling black men. I believe this would then fall into the definition of second degree murder that you supplied." "
How does profiling whether he did it or not constitute depravity of mind?
I can't believe how far you are reaching on this point.
Depravity of mind defined:
Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society.
4:27 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Oh Ed, why did we have to scroll back up here to search for comments?
"Depravity of mind refers to the state of mind which is contrary to justice, honesty or morality. Depravity of mind is a condition where there is a deviation or departure from the ordinary standards of honest, good morals, justice, or ethics as to be shocking to the moral sense of the society."
I am not reaching, profiling and chasing someone down simply because their skin is black is not honest, good morals, justice, or ethical in my opinion.
Ed Larson
12:01 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Emily, said: "Well, you win for the stupidest comment on this thread,"
Well thank you Emily but i think you may have won with: "Guns have one purpose: TO KILL"
Please post those "millions of facts". You may want to read this first though IMHO.
Oh, and it doesn't take a gun to kill someone.
Rich Higgins
12:44 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Sorry, Ed. I'd check your facts. I don't know many hunters or police officers that use guns to swat flies or to heat up their meals.
Guns are meant to kill, if they were meant to protect people they would look like a bullet-proof vest. If you really want to protect yourself you'd wear kevlar when you went outside. Instead, I'm now less protected because someone is carrying a gun.
Alas, guns don't protect people—regulations, knowledge, tests, checks, training and laws protect people.
2:22 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
@Rich: Guns are not used just to kill. I shoot guns on a regular basis, what do I kill? Nothing. I shoot clays, I shoot targets, and soda cans because I enjoy shooting and the skill involved. Last I checked, shooting is an Olympic sport. So to say guns are only meant to kill is simply ignorant.
"laws protect people." How did laws protect people in this case?
12:04 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
No, Ed Larson, you do win the "stupidest comment" award based on consistency.
You ask, "Tell me again what Trayvon was doing in that neighborhood?"
Read slowly Ed: Trayvon..... Martin..... lived..... in .....that.....neighborhood......because.....he .....lived.....with.....his....father....who had..... a .....condo....in....that....neighborhood. Got....it...now, Ed?
Perhaps you were watching FAUX when they forgot to explain that little detail.
So, the award still stands, Ed.
1:13 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
@MrsPeel: I was trying to stay away from the Trayvon piece. Did you really say Zimmerman was going to execute him? Good lord, think about what you say before you post it. If he was going to "execute" him do you think he would have let him get close enough to take him down and band his head on the ground?
Ed Larson
5:59 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
MrsPeel said: "Read slowly Ed: Trayvon..... Martin..... lived..... in .....that.....neighborhood":
Well no he didn't. His Father was visiting his girlfriend in that neighborhood. Calling it home is simply not true as Trayvon and his father lived in Miami. Trayvon went to Michael M Krop Senior High in Miami as was on suspension for drug related issues. He was not known by Zimmermann(neighborhood watchman) to be part of that neighborhood. Hopefully the evidence is what will convict or exonerate Zimmerman and nothing else.
6:48 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
So it wasn't okay for the young man to be walking in that neighborhood after dark? We all know that if this young man's skin was white, Mr. Zimmerman would not have ignored police to stop following him. Zimmerman made an arrogant and idiotic choice to follow Trayvon, and a young man is dead because of it....I will leave it to the courts to pass judgement, but the fact that he chose to ignore the police (and thought he knew better) tells me all I need to know about the man.
Rich Higgins
12:46 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Most other countries have tighter gun regulations than the U.S. and as a country the U.S. has the 12th highest firearm-related deaths (CDC, 2004-2006). Why is such a developed country ranked just below Mexico?
Japan has some of the tightest gun regulations in the world and as a result has the fewest gun-related deaths in the world.
Ed Larson
12:54 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
"Japan has some of the tightest gun regulations in the world and as a result has the fewest gun-related deaths in the world."
It is also is one of the most mono cultural places on the planet.
Gun laws protect no one except criminals from getting shot by carrying citizens.
Just admit you want the second amendment repealed . Good luck with that.
Have you red the book Rich? Probably not.
Candace Oathout
12:50 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Japan's culture is totally different than here in the US. Standing out as an individual and/ or bringing shame to your family is considered worse than the crime committed. Within Japanese society this is strict policy for behavior.
1:38 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Right on, Mike! Bill James, you too - "it's tough to legislate against insanity" is excellent! Brian - way to kick this off right. Kudus to all of you.
So many positive and true statements voiced here, while the anti-gun crowd is left to blather on about un-supported and un-supportable talking points. Dick Bernard - it's too bad that Brady website doesn't show WHO is the one pulling the trigger and WHO is being killed, what types of people are these? Do you think they are registered gun owners, conceal carry owners, law abiding citizens? Maybe a few. Maybe some of those killed were attempting a crime and a conceal carry owner took them out. Most likely those killed or those doing the killing were doing something they were not supposed to be doing. Or maybe the killer was a mother protecting her children from an intruder - does the Brady site say for sure? Statistics like those, unsupported by good solid facts and details, are dangerous to throw around.
Witness the folks in that Florida cafe recently who were threatened by a couple of thugs (Brad has the link, above), one with a gun and one with a BASEBALL BAT, who were thwarted by a 71 year old conceal carry citizen. Like a boss! THAT's getting the job done. If that State or that business said "no guns", we very likely would have been reading instead about more citizens murdered by thugs.
1:38 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
(continued from above)
Should we also outlaw baseball bats now? Guns kill people, Spoons make people fat, Needles cause drug addiction, Matches cause cigarette addiction, Cars cause accidents, Margarine causes heart disease -- where does it end? Rather, where does it start? With PEOPLE and the choices they make.
People kill, people choose to eat and be fat, people shove drugs into their systems. It wasn't the gun, the needle, the car that did it. it was the person who made that decision. If someone wants to kill, they'll use a rolling pin, a bowling ball, a baseball bat, a rock, a scissors - whatever is handy.
Joe was right in his first sentence: "CRIMINALS don't care about conceal carry laws" or gun registration -- except when they see it's likely they won't meet lethal opposition, then they have less fear.
I protect myself two ways: conceal carry and martial arts. You can't take my knowledge of the second away from me, and taking my gun away is unconstitutional. I can take someone out with karate almost as quickly as you can take them out with a gun.
I suppose y'all want to outlaw martial arts now as well?
2:07 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I am reading all these comments, many inflamatory and hate-filled, and hope that these people don't really live in Hudson. If so, this is no longer the the decent City in which I grew up. Whatever happened to civil discourse?? Oh, I know, the ability to hide ones identity on the internet when saying something dangerous, and the need to hide ones identity from the ranters. Broaching this subject before these poor souls have even been identified is in itself inflammatory and crude.
Ed Larson
2:10 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
That was clever Phiddy1, neither side knows who you are talking about.
What is your real name and were do you live?
2:42 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Clearly, many on this thread have been drinking the NRA Kool-aid.
8:53 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
throwing jim jones references is not a way to win a debate or even have a rational discussion.
3:06 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Guns are very similar to politics in that it is rarely debated factually. Rather, it is debated primarily upon emotions.
First, the Swiss have among the highest guns ownership rates in the world, but not the same problems. Maybe it really isn't the regulations, but the culture.
Second, I read the following article on a daily basis in order to keep myself reminded on the reality of our world. Take a peek,
ward tatro
6:15 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
You're post pretty well explains the situation. The culture is the culprit.
The article about the sheep and sheepdog should be mandatory reading. I too will have it printed for reading on a regular basis.
Thank you
8:18 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Chad, let me correct you. The male Swiss citizens over 18 don't own the guns they have at home, they just have their military issued guns at home (every male Swiss citizen has to do military service), but the ammunition for these guns is under tight control. It is not very easy to shoot anybody with a gun if the gun has no bullets in it.
Thus, it's not the culture of the Swiss, it's the regulations that keep Switzerland save and make the US a more dangerous place!
Sean Gilbertson
3:31 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
All of the guns this guy had were legal.
Guns need to be outlawed. We need to make a decision as a society about what kind of society we want to be. I personally don't want to live in a society where we prepare to shoot each other.
8:51 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
seriously? if all guns were outlawed, then only the criminals and police/govt would have them. good luck trying to defend your home/self/family if anything were to happen.
matt lehman
12:55 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Hello Sean, We decided what kind of society we wanted when we ratified the constitution and bill of right We also created a oath, pledging an allegiance to our flag, one nation, under god, undivided, with liberty (freedom) and justice for all.
Police, military, and individuals prepare and train all the time to shoot people. This is not a bad thing. trained people train to defend against unlawful people. Granted, on occasion a rogue cop, military, or civilian shoots someone for no good cause but, it is reported as rare events. Heres a different way of looking at it, If I was to say, one nation, under multiple gods and/or a lack of in many cases, divided on most issues to the point of total monitary collapse, deep moral/ethical divisions, liberty (freedoms) removed from most and justice (penalty) applied to all for the actions of a few.
Its kinda scary that the above rendition of the oath seems to fit, that our nation seems more deeply divided on all issues then I ever recall. Its the people that vote and decide the makeup of congress and local boards that reaps the outcomes so, it is still the peoples decision at the ballot boxes. Whats better yet? We the people picked our leaders to lead us down these uncharted, dividing, and damaging paths.
Candace Oathout
1:07 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
When you and your family need protection from a violent criminal in seconds the police are minutes away. If you have time to contact them. I am not a member of the NRA. I am a woman who drove cross-country extensively for work. I carry whenever I travel alone. It is just commonsense to be prepared.
Donna Schmitt
3:44 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
The comment that "you can't regulate crazy" is sadly true. Especially since we have the privacy act. A 'crazy' can purchase a handgun just like anyone else and the reason is that their 'crazy' diagnosis is protected and private.
This might have been a different story if the 71 year-old from Florida had gone to that movie theater!
Matt Robeck
3:54 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
If someone in that theatre had a gun of there own they may have been able to stop the guy from killing all of the people, the people that want to do this can find guns other ways, the only thing tougher gun laws will do I make it harder for people to defend themselves!
Matt Robeck
3:58 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
If someone else had a gun in that theatre they may have save some lives and ended that scumbags for everyone. People like him will find guns other ways. The only thing that tougher gun laws will do is make it harder for law abiding people to get a gun and protect themselves and their families.
Carol Turnbull
4:41 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Jim Edward says "I wonder what the outcome would have been had at least on person in that crowed been legally carrying a hand gun." (Didn't take long for THAT to come up, of course...) First of all, there may have been such a person or persons - we don't know that. In a dark theatre ("crowd"), with the movie still showing, smoke bombs making it impossible to see or breathe, and a shooter decked out head to toe with bulletproof gear- come on, Mr. Edward. How many more fatalities would there have been if a second person had started shooting?
As far as defending yourself and your family in your own home, you already have that right, nobody is planning to take that away from you, and nobody would prosecute you for doing so. So what are you getting all excited about??
Ed Larson
4:54 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Carol Turnbull wrote: "Mr. Edward. How many more fatalities would there have been if a second person had started shooting?"
That's the wrong question.
How many might have been spared death had someone been there to return fire?
matt lehman
1:14 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Its not my excitement, its my sadness that so many innocent get killed or hurt because we are not allowed to semi police ourselves past the age of 12 anymore.
I have no idea if a legal handgun in the crowd would have helped or hindered, I do know that multiple guns firing at the same location might have caused him to back out. Maybe 3 or 4 aiming at his muzzle flash would have struck him in the face area where the mask would not stop the bullet? Maybe it would of made it all worse?
making sure nobody can defend themselves or others when in the general public sounds like increased chaos.
Karen Schmeets
5:18 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I have the deepest sympathy and regret for those who were killed wounded or witness to such tragedy but taking guns away only hurts law abiding citizens from owning guns. Criminal minds and whack jobs will always find a way to bring harm to others. I grew up with weapons for hunting, I was trained again in the Army, and I currently own a dozen rifles shotguns and hand guns. They have net loaded themselves and gone on a shooting rampage. Answer is NO!
Carol Turnbull
7:46 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
In response to Ed Larson: Neither of us is asking the right question. The right question is how we allow someone to buy 4 guns, tons of ammunition, head-to-toe protective gear, chemicals and bomb-making materials, all within the past several weeks (as the reports say), without alarms going off somehow. But of course we can't have any central database for keeping track of these kinds of purchases - that would infringe on our rights. We were in Norway a year ago. Tomorrow is the year anniversary of their own horrible massacre, which had some troubling similarities. But I'm guessing they have learned some things - it seems we never will.
Ed Larson
7:52 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
Thanks for the reminder. If can happen in Norway it can happen anywhere laws aside.
The only chance these folks had was someone who was carrying to put the thug/mental case/terrorist down where he stood once the shooting started.
BTW-Norway has some of the toughest gun laws.
Bill James
8:27 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Carol, all the things you mention, purchasing guns, buying ammunition, protective gear, chemicals and materials which are not designed to create bombs and such are all legal to buy in the USA. We are an incredibly open society, can travel from state to state with simply a drivers license, we can read anything, watch anything, work at anything and do anything within the law. There is a place already where they do the tracking you suggest, it's called China. If you restrict basic freedoms, freedom of choice even if they are misguided, then the very fabric of our Country will shred away.
Now, I'll give you this, should we put some controls in place relative to large ammunition purchases, assault rifle purchases and having magazines that hold 60 rounds? Probably, given what has taken place some reasonably well thought out controls are certainly going to be looked at starting tomorrow. The NRA will scream bloody murder but society is just about at the point where enough is enough. I just hope we don't turn the bow of our ship in the direction of China where we "watched" everywhere regarding our personal choices and personal freedoms.
11:08 pm on Saturday, July 21, 2012
I agree 100% with Brian. Most criminals get their guns illegally so by tightening gun laws you're only making civilians more vulnerable. I'm sure if more (or any) audience members at that theater had guns, that guy wouldnt even have a face to take a mugshot with.
10:07 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
All illegal guns were initially purchased as legal guns! Better control of gun movements (registration or something like it, as they do in Switzerland, Austria and Germany) would go a long way in reducing illegal guns!
Joyce Denn
1:42 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Actually, tightening gun laws does make it more difficult for criminals to get firearms. A case in point would be Virginia, which failed to pass a law restricting gun purchases to one per month. People legally buy guns in Virginia which are then sold to criminals on the black market - restricting the number of guns would limit the amount available on the black market. According to NYC police reports, the majority of guns used in crimes there can be traced to legal purchases in Virginia.
8:52 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Hudsoner, you may wish to fully review your sources.
Practice with guns is a popular form of recreation in Switzerland and encouraged by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
9:34 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
It might be that i have better sources than Wikipedia, just believe me!
The ammunition is well controlled and they have to do bookkeeping for every bullet. practice with guns is only done in well regulated shooting clubs. It is the regulations that keep gun violence away from Switzerland.
And if you would read more in the cited Wiki article, you would read about that, and also that the Swiss are basically not allowed to carry any of their guns in public. Their regulations are very similar to those in Germany and Austria (they actually coordinate their different regulations with each other).
Again, it is the regulations that make a difference, not the culture (how could it be anyway, because most people around here have the same ethnicity and brought their culture with them when they emigrated).
Adam Wienieski
11:34 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Hudsoner, your theory that gun regulations make a difference has been tested. What was found is that right to carry states have more guns at home and in public (fewer regulations) yet they also have the lowest firearms homicide rates. Cities that ban guns like Chicago and Washington DC have the highest firearms homicide rates.
In the 25 years from 1973 to 1997 handgun ownership in the US went up 163 percent yet the murder rate dropped 27 percent. In the early 1990's the serious crime rate in Texas was 38 percent above the national average; after passage of a conceal carry law in 1994 the serious crime rate dropped 50 percent faster than the national average.
"The determinants of murder and suicide are basic social, economic, and cultural factors, not the prevalence of some form of deadly mechanism. In this connection, recall that the American jurisdictions which have the highest violent crime rates are precisely those with the most stringent gun controls."
Joyce Denn
1:47 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Conceal carry does not lower the crime rate:
Adam Wienieski
10:50 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Gun control does not lower the crime rate:
• During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
• Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the Chicago murder rate has averaged 17% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 25% lower.
• Since the outset of the Florida right-to-carry law, the Florida murder rate has averaged 36% lower than it was before the law took effect, while the U.S. murder rate has averaged 15% lower.
If gun control laws are effective why didn't murder and mayhem ensue after the Supreme Court struck down gun control laws in Washington D.C. in 2008 and Chicago in 2010?
10:06 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Funny, I wish that I could have sourced my college papers with 'just believe me'. In addition, you are citing one example(militia) and carrying out as an example of the whole, which by its very nature is faulty logic.
10:32 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
You know Chad, there are other people besides Marcus Bachmann, who have two different passports.
Because of the fact that every Swiss male citizen over 18 and living in Switzerland is part of the Swiss militia, there is no difference between militia and the whole!
Gary Will
11:40 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
A lot of people on here have a really absurd view about guns. My guns have not killed one person. But if need be for self defense they would. I will give a word out to renee. so if some crazy pulled a gun and was shooting people and you were next would you not want me to shot that person to save your life or anyone else on here that think guns should be outlawed? I don't have to but I would. You should wear a big bright sign on your back and front that says "don't save me", all of the rest of us legal mentally sain gun toting people can just leave you be if that is your choice to express your first amendment right that way. Not every person in this country is in the right mental state or chemically free, that's why we need to defend ourselves. I have never seen a gun kill someone, I have seen crazy people who should not have a gun kill someone. I can also say that every single person who bought a gun has it for the right reasons. There are people who have legally owned guns that bought them for bad intentions. But then again every person who eats ice cream has good intentions of not getting fat too. shall we ban ice cream and mcdonalds too? Come on open your eyes to the world around you, you can't leave your front door unlocked anymore. Final answer is no, no ban of any kind of guns. THE ONLY BAN I support is releasing people from prison who have committed horrific crimes to go do more because we feel sorry for them, they are a changed person.
Gary Will
11:57 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Sorry mistyped. Every person who has purchased a gun has bought it for a reason. Hopefully for the right ones. But there are people who can buy guns who buy them with bad intentions. Maybe the nut job from CO came from a broken home or was bullyied, who knows but the vast majority of gun owners have them for protection, not to kill someone. We have not invented a technology that tells us what another person is thinking or intending to do. Maybe someone on here that believes all guns should be outlawed can invent that. Well then again most people are smarter when they have there head screwed on straight.
4:11 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Perhaps if mental health treatment was as accessible as guns are......... And I never said I wanted all guns outlawed. I said assault weapons - guns that can have many many rounds in them. Thanks for worrying about my safety Gary but I wonder what the odds of you(or anyone) needing to protect me or anyone else are that justifies more and more people walking around with guns? I have several friends that are police officers and they are not in favor of more people packing.
4:32 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
renee, there are so many shrinks out there its unbelieveable. we as a society are so quick now to label something a disease or disorder and medicate it or send it to treatment. when you purchase a firearm, the form has a questionaire to fill out. the questions pertain to mental status, criminal history and so on. unfortunately there is no litmous test for cuckoo. it is relying on the individual to be honest. the gun retailer also has the right not to sell to any suspicious individual. again personal judgement. and as far as banning "assault" weapons, the purchase of a hunting rifle is much easier and often times hold as many rounds. so that cant be the answer either. and what would you like the number of rounds to be limited to? 1, 5, 10, 20? all that would do is teach the criminals is to reload faster. personally, i am all for a mandatory weapon safety class prior to purchase. its a 40 hour (may be different now). upon completion, the individual would get a permit to purchase card. i would also leave the oversight of the class to the local level, not the federal government.
5:01 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
How long does a background check take and how thorough is it before getting a permit and/or buying a gun? I wonder if you answered the question of "why do you want to carry a gun all the time" and you told a Doctor that you were afraid to go out in public without it if you might find yourself on a 72 hour hold in the psych ward??
9:19 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
there is no background check for regular rifles and shotguns. just a form that is filled out at the gun store/show. as for pistols and "assault" weapons, a permit to purchase must be applied for from your county sheriff. they have 30 days to repond with a yes or no. i have seen people get "no'ed" before. then to carry concealed is yet another course. usually a week or two depending on how it is set up. there is also mandatory range time at the end. there are many other courses to take to hone concealed skills as well. i think if you were afraid to go out in public without, you might have some issues. everybody i know that carries refuses to be a victim and wants to be prepared in case something happens.
Gary Will
9:23 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Renee. I just purchased my first handgun a few months ago. The first background check by the local police took 2.5 weeks. The second background check performed by Scott county to get my conceal and carry took another 3 weeks. There are not any questions asking that I can recall asking why you want to carry at all times. It is everyone's choice as to how often they want to carry. As for your police friends, most cops feel empowered to carry and feel above the rest of us. police also don't want to deal with the extra time it takes to check out a permit. There is no reason a cop should feel nervous because I have a gun on my hip. he should feel nervous about the gangster that has one stuffed in his pants or in his pocket. permit carriers are not allowed to use there gun in anyway on a police officer doing his job. how about you take a walk down lake street or hennipen ave at around 2 am and tell me if you feel safe? Your police friends can't be your personal body guards. at some point in your life you will be in a situation that you feel threatened, wouldn't it be nice to not be afraid in that situation? Oh and just so you understand a permit carrier does not have to conceal there gun. I can walk around all day with it on my hip.
Gary Will
9:47 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
So to everyone who thinks that it would have been worse to have a person shooting back would have been a bad idea, would you just sit there and say shoot me? The guy had over 70 bullets on him and his gun jammed. how hard do you think it is to hit a 6 foot target at close range? I can put 30 rounds in a 2 inch target 25 feet away. its not hard. having just one gun is better than no gun at all. that person could have saved many lives. they teach everyone in the permit classes to assume bad things are going to happen to you while carrying to make you more aware. they teach you to always be
on the look out. as far as forgetting my gun is on me, not a chance. So if your answer is police then you better put on one every street corner, then I might consider not carrying. so renee you are saying that people that are wanting to carry all the time are psychotic? If you can look into your crystal ball and tell me The exact day I will need to defend myself or someone else I will only carry that day. until then not a chance.
Gary Will
10:09 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
This video will give you a whole new basic view of conceal and carry. video by Ted Nuegent
2:34 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
A clarification is in order for those who believe my statement was contradictory, but first a response to Danny Urban: my full name is Joe Polach. I am a retired Marine Corps infantry officer and a teacher in St. Louis Park. Seems a little harsh to refuse to protect someone who spent 24 years protecting your freedom of speech. But, you choose; it's your "right." My clarification is for those black and white thinkers who see no middle ground. It is not hypocritical to agree that criminals could care less about carry and conceal laws while supporting intelligent and logical gun control at the same time. Many reasons exist to support gun control besides the miniscule probability of confronting a gun toting fanatic in a theatre. In regards to the 2nd amendment, the constitution is a flexible document with the potential to be wisely interpreted in a manner befitting the complexities of modern society, not an 18th century agrarian nation relying on truly citizen soldiers while building a well regulated militia.
Ed Larson
2:39 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Well thank you for your service Joe I truly appreciate it.
but when you say:
" In regards to the 2nd amendment, the constitution is a flexible document with the potential to be wisely interpreted in a manner befitting the complexities of modern society, not an 18th century agrarian nation relying on truly citizen soldiers while building a well regulated militia."
This is the very type of thinking that judges use to write legislation from the bench.
If you want to change the constitution to say something other than "shall not be infringed: please work toward that goal. Good luck.
4:14 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Joe thanks for a very well thought out statement. You are obviously much more capable than I. And thanks for your service, both in the military and the classroom.
2:45 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
A request for all who are responding to this column: if anyone has had to use their weapon in self defense at any time, would you share your story? Thanks.
9:21 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
only in panama, iraq, saudi arabia, kosovo, and afghanistan so far.
2:52 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Thank you Ed. The issue is not with the word, "infringed;" the question is whether the court believes the whole of America is a regulated militia. Essentially that was the belief at the writing of the Constitution, that citizens could be mustered with their personal weapons in case of war since our country did not have the highly trained and elite modern forces we enjoy today.
Ed Larson
4:21 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Two clauses. Two issues.
One is a statement of fact and the other the absolute protection of a right of the people. Very few rights a specifically called out in the constitution as it is a document that reserves most rights to the people and the states proscribes very limited and proscribed rights to the Federal Government.
The the bill of rights specifically includes the right to keep and bear arms should tell all of us important the issue is in a free society.
We the people already had the right but it was felt necessary to enshrine it so there would be no doubt.
6:27 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I think (but am not going back through all the comments to confirm) that jim is the only one above who has talked about gun safety classes.
I don't think guns will ever be banned (nor should they be) in this country....well maybe the automatic and semi-automatic, but I think you have to say all or none. I believe if guns were banned they would become like drugs and alcohol when it was against the law. Is there anyone here that would be opposed to each person having to take a 40 hours course for each and every gun they purchase? How about having to log a certain number of hours and the gun range also, before they get to take home their gun? This type of regulation may have at least slowed down the shooter in Colorado, and possibly even raised a red flag if he kept showing up for class...he would have if there would have been a local data base for these classes. But of-course the criminal mind will always find a way around the system, I only want to see a better way of tracking those who have the potential for this type of massacre. But let's also remember that 55 people are killed every day in this country by those holding a gun.
Personally, I think an armed citizen, unless trained as a police officer or in the military, would have made the situation worse in Colorado. The shock, fear, and surprise of it all, along with the gas, smoke, noise, and moving people would have made it nearly impossible for an under-trained vigilante to take this very protected man out.
9:25 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
did you know it was a concealed carry person whom stopped the looney that shot the rep from arizona? and a 40 hour class for each weapon sounds excessive. okay actually is excessive. if a person took the class, bought the weapon, sold the weapon, bought a different weapon (or even traded theirs in), they would have to take the course again. looks like a way for govt to milk money out of concealed carriers.
7:50 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
jim, wrong again - here is how the shooter was stopped: "Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload. Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles. Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Six people died." These people did not have guns.
10:21 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
While 55 people may be killed by guns every day, over 2,000 are able to protect themselves from violence every day because they have a gun in hand.
11:47 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
WIWilcat, I am not questioning your information, but I haven't heard this particular statistic (2000 people defend themselves each day with a gun). Would you mind posting a link with your source?
Timothy Hall
7:18 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The shooting is a result of what we see in cities every day. The teachings of evolution. It teaches the strong dominates the weak. Some Christians would call this teaching people about being born into sin without teaching how to over come what we are born into. Timothy Hall for State Senate Minnesota, New Hope, Crystal, Robbinsdale, Golden Valley, and Plymouth
7:58 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Seriously? How about we keep religion out of it until we know if it was a part of it?
Timothy Hall
8:26 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
People are bringing gun control into the conversation. Why not a persons beliefs? He was going to school for science. How about we ban vicodin while we are at it? Even with a doctors prescription. 7 out of 10 school shooting are from people on prescribed drugs.
8:31 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Timothy, I certainly hope you are posing as someone who is running for office, and not the real thing. Your statements here are not logical or related to the topic, and make a person wonder what your real motivation is...
Timothy Hall
8:45 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The plot of the dark night movies is a person who tries to destroy a whole city. The shooter knew how to build bombs. My point is we need to get down to root causes of violence and not blame the guns.
10:04 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
A person with a rational mind will not act out violent fantasies. With your reasoning, we should blame Palin for the Giffords shooting....she had crosshairs on her website over Gifford's face. This is about sickness, not guns, and not violent programming.
Carol Turnbull
8:04 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
In answer to Bill James: It's also legal to buy cold medicine in the US, but now we have to sign our names to buy certain kinds, which are kept behind the counter, etc. I didn't suggest that nobody should be able to buy weapons, or all the other crap that this lunatic managed to accumulate. I didn't suggest that we turn into (gasp!) China. But it seems that (and I think the UPS guy said he made 90 deliveries?) we ought to have a system that is able to send up some red flags. I'm betting if he had been a Muslim, somebody would have noticed. But white males? Don't tread on me!
(And by the way, Mr. Hall, you really ought to do your campaigning somewhere else.)
9:31 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
oh com on now. somebody would have noticed if he was muslim. thats horrible. Major hassan in ft bliss was muslim and even yelled "allah akbar" while shotting his victims in ft bliss yet NO media org other than fox (i know its an evil word with some people) and bloggers covered that aspect. our own govt labelled it a "workplace violence" shooting. if we you are afraid to upset a certain group and leave details out of the news than that is part of the problem as well.
11:46 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Alsoi Mr. Hall should get it correct: The title of the movie is not "Dark Night"; it is "Dark Knight". His confusion is reflected by his inability to get even the name of the movie correct. I know that is not the complete title, BTW.
I used to live in the area where he claims to be campaigning. The people of that area are smart enough to ignore him.
7:47 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
jim, you are incorrect in your assessment of the news coverage at Fort Hood. Two of the three major network did not label the shooter at Fort Hood as Muslim the first evening. They waited for confirmation instead of possibly incorrectly reporting the news, as Fox (and CNN and MSNBC) incorrectly reported that Gabby Giffords had died. I think that waiting until you have confirmed a fact vs. incorrectly reporting the "news" is a much better way to inform people of the truth. And BTW, I don't watch Fox, or read op-ed blogs (useless as a reliable source of information), and I knew the man had ties to al Qaeda, so how on earth did I find out?
9:21 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
susan, well then the class i took was wrong. i couldnt remember his name, but i would bet one of those guys that helped disarm him was a concealed carrier. from class, they had said that even though he was a carrier, he didnt draw his weapon and had disarmed mr cuckoomcnuggets while reloading.
9:39 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
jim, how about you do a little research, and confirm your allegations before stating them as fact. My guess (and it's only that because I don't know what's in your head) is the teacher may have misrepresented the facts to promote his own agenda, or more likely, you heard what you wanted to hear, because of your own agenda.
9:41 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
And I am not sure why you posted this here...I corrected you here about Fort Hood news coverage, I corrected you above about your comment relating to a gunman taking out the shooter of Gabby Giffords.
10:10 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
susan, gabrielle giffords was reported dead first by NPR using capitol hill information. who would have guess that incorrect information comes out of capitol hill? then the other major new agencies followed suit.
with the ft hood shooter (and i must apologize i mentioned ft bliss earlier. i was at ft bliss for a while and that got stuck in my head), i was watching that day. since i can only watch 1 network at 1 time, i can only account for Fox when the news broke. they referred to witness statements from what he had said while shooting. the next day at work from CNN, there was no mention of that at all.
and if you knew the man had ties to al quaeda, then why didnt you say something sooner? kidding. i know what you were getting at. there are a few bloggers out there that get things right. granted they are usually just reposts of dropped stories, but at least the get out there.
case in point. while in afghanistan south of shindand (zirco valley), the AP broke a story that we were shooting at a school. no mention of it being abandoned, taliban hiding out there shooting at us, or that was a school for taliban in the first place. that is why now i usually have to match stories with other aciencies before i belive them.
5:46 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
So, reporting the news is actually just repeating what someone else says, whether it is accurate or not? Just because someone else does it, does not make it right or okay. I do not need to have my news the second it happens, I would prefer to hear an accurate story. My point in all this was that you said only FOX talked of the shooter at Fort Hood being a Muslim, which was incorrect. Most all news organizations covered this once it was a proven fact.
9:28 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Jim, I was suggesting domestic, not war zones. But I'm curious to hear why you fired a weapon in self defense in Saudi Arabia.
9:34 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
because by the rules of engagement you arent allowed to fire unless fired upon. desert storm 1.
Carol Turnbull
12:03 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Jim: I only meant that there are certain types of people I believe the authorities (and neighbors?) might pay more attention to than others - that is, if they're getting dozens of shipments of bomb-making materials, and so on. Sorry if that didn't sound the way I meant it. But an intelligent white kid from a "nice" family? He seems to have hardly attracted notice as he came off the spool. And you're right - Maj. Hassan should have raised more red flags also. Nobody needs to purchase an arsenal. This guy should have been stopped way before he entered the theatre. We should at least do as much tracking of those buying weapons and explosives as we do of those buying cough sirup.
Jerry W. Smith
1:54 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
To everyone in here that believes in gun control and states that in other countries there are not as many gun crimes, you man be right but that doesn't mean there is less crime. A few years ago I heard England was trying to limit the size of kitchen knives because that was the weapon of choice for criminals in England who were preying on people and commiting home invasions. So really just where would it stop the fact is it would never stop because people who want to inflict harm on others will always find a way to do it. Many use knives, baseball bats, posion gas, and explosives. The last I checked having bombs is also a crime yet this individual had plenty of those according to reports. So being that criminals ignore laws then the only people who get hurt from laws are the law abiding citicizens who are no longer allowed to defend themselves or third parties. By the way it wasn't Ft Bliss but Ft Hood the attack happened at just for accuracy sake. Also I believe Australia tried the experiment or taking all weapons away from its citicizens a number of years back and their home invasions shot up dramatically because the criminals knew they had nothing to fear when breaking into someones home. I'm a SGT in the Army and believe that everyone has the right to self defense. So someone knows police who are in favor of gun control I know police who are in favor of CHL laws and support them. But of course I'm from Texas where we are given the right to defend ourselves.
Mitchell Dvorak
4:06 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Thank you Jerry W. Smith. And thank you for your service of protecting me!
Mitchell Dvorak
3:33 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Joe, criminals are NOT deterred by laws! They ARE deterred when they believe they will come across an individual that they target as a "victim" only to find that "victim" is armed, and willing to defend themselves! Matt, Jim, Bill, Metairieman55, you make many points that I agree with. As would anyone with an ounce of common sense. If someone is determined enough to kill or even injure another man, woman or child, they will do so. By whatever means they can dream up. Janelle, in a darkened theater, or in other words a low light situation, I have faith in my skill to protect myself and/or loved ones with a shot to the criminals head! End of nightmare. David, you have trouble hitting what you aim at? In the daylight?
A lot of people died due to drunk drivers hitting others, did the government, or the people think to out law cars?! Or kitchen knives? They are used to kill people. What about rocks, baseball bats, tire irons? We humans use, and make tools, a weapon is a tool like every thing else. People kill people, not the tool itself. When will/are people going to be held responsible for there actions? This nut, like other nuts will drag this out through our wonderful court system, and than sit on death row for years before he's put to death.
Jim Duffy
6:24 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
I vote "No, people should be able to protect themselves…" I also think that an indoor shooting range in Hudson is a great idea. However, I disagree with some of the pro-gun statements on here. I especially disagree with the argument that anyone with a handgun -- without military or police training -- would have changed this situation for the better.
It would appear that this guy at least planned for the possibility of someone firing back and was perhaps hoping that someone would do just that. He was wearing body armor from head to toe. What's more, he was firing an assault rifle with a 100 round clip as well as a shotgun after throwing smoke bombs into the crowd. The scene was a dark, smoke-filled, and crowded theater. The only thing accomplished would have been making this guy's shooting less random until the person firing back was dead along with those around him.
8:54 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Michelle, the possibility that someone might br carrying a weapon in the Aurora theatre didn't seem to deter the shooter, and this in a conservative state with carry and conceal laws on the books. Most criminals only prey on the weak as it is without pondering whether they have a weapon. The only way to cause thugs to take pause and reflect would be to arm everyone. Is that a society in which you want to live? And Jim, we did not fight in Saudi Arabia.
10:20 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
then somebody should have told the iraqis. they decided to open fire on us just before we crossed the border. and from being there, an international border in the middle of the desert is a bit difficult to determine. i figured my GPS was a bit better than the iraqis guess
11:17 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
It has been reported that that theater banned guns. We don't know now if that would have been a deterrent. Guess someone could ask him...
10:15 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
If the logic of the removal of guns from our society is implemented , then the logic of removing Student Visa's and airplanes should also be used. The difference is we can also protect our property and bodies with guns. So we should get rid of Student Visa's and airplanes first. After all student visa's and airplanes killed 3000 people on 9/11. Much more dangerous than guns.
11:20 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Right on, Cynthia! and don't forget trampolines, climbing ropes, cheeseburgers, stairs, marathons, chairs, mosquitoes, boats, steak, cars, dads with daughters... Where are all the padded cells when you need one?
Dick Bernard
11:16 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
I've followed this thread since almost the beginning - my computer says 163 posts so far. I wonder how many have experienced the reality of guns person-against-person. It makes a big difference. When I filled in the questionnaire which brought me here, I marked 'sometimes'. In my comment, I said I qualified as expert marksman in the Army, but I have never owned a firearm and don't intend to.
I was in the Army 1962-63. Volunteered for the Draft (ever fewer know what that is). Turned out I was assigned to an Infantry Company in a newly reactivated Infantry Division preparing for duty in a place that was abstract to most of us - Vietnam. We played a lot of war in my two years, up close and personal, with real primitive M-1 rifles (blank ammo), bayonet training, and the like. We crawled under barbed wire under a fusillade of machine gun fire. We experienced tear gas. We did maneuvers in several states. Even playing war was dead serious. You found out it wasn't a video game or a theory. You could get killed more easily than you could kill. Having a gun, and doing target practice isn't the real deal, rest assured. In the chaos of that theater on Friday night, the worst thing to happen would have been a gunslingers duel. My opinion: authorize everyone to have a machete, and banish guns, period. Yes, a fantasy. But makes more sense than assault weapons on every corner. And check out "On Killing" by David Grossman on Amazon. Somebody earlier referred to him.
11:28 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
BTW, Cynthia, I say that in support of what you're saying. Taking guns away from citizens turns us all into sheep and increases the liklihood of a wolf attack (nice article on that, Chad! http://www.mwkworks.com/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html)
12:39 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
1) I am in favor of gun ownership and have owned guns in the past, primarily H&K handguns, 9mm and .45, (with a few assorted rifles and a shotgun), however, at this time I don't own guns but do enjoy renting and shooting them. Just wanted to point that out as usually when anyone makes any statement about any limitation they are immediately branded as someone who "hates guns" or "is freaked out by guns".
2) However, I do believe we should limit perhaps assault style weapons.
3) I do believe we should limit clip and magazine sizes.
The primary reason for this is that while sure people will be still be killed and injured if someone has to stop and reload this does provide a small window of opportunity for someone to grab the shooter - by the way this is why the shooter at the 2011 Tucson shooting was stopped.
4) However, with that being said - given that we as a society allow rather lax gun laws and we just plain have so many guns that we need to completely honest...
We can do nothing to stop a determined person who wants to kill and injure a lot of people in a mass shooting spree.
5) As for other shooters in the theater - if there had been one or two yes they might have been able to stop the shooter, however if perhaps 10 others were armed, can you imagine a dark, crowded place with 11 people with guns and no idea who was good or bad? that could have ended far worse.
1:17 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
rob, i agree with some of that. limiting "assault" weapons only get bad guys to use a different weapon. limiting magazine size only encourages either faster reloads or to carry more weapons. after reading most of the reports from colorado, the 100rd (im guessing beta mag) jammed and he switched to the glock .40. imho if you have to take behind the wheel classes, pass a written test and behind the wheel test to drive a car legally, i have no objection in doing the same with firearms. other than that, there is no stopping whackjobs. if they are that messed up, they will find a way.
12:42 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
"65 million other gun owners in the United States didn't kill anybody last Thursday evening."
6:38 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
It's an interesting article, but a bit misleading.
"In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw, Georgia, had 1."
The author leaves out the population numbers. Kennesaw, Georgia has about 30,000 people whereas New York City has over 8,000,000.
He also says that gun ownership is mandatory in this small city, but the ordinance also says: "Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony." So anyone opposed to owning a gun can opt out....I would guess that a lot of people chose not to buy a gun, therefore the entire city is not armed, as the author wants the reader to infer.
12:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Wildcat, thanks for the reprint: excellent article and metaphor. The only caveat is that warrior wannabes must understand that incompetent, untrained sheepdogs cannot protect the flock. No Marine, soldier, or law enforcement officer would state otherwise.
1:04 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
maybe not protect the flock, but i would not deny them the ability to defend themselves.
Carol Turnbull
12:54 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Susan asks: "I haven't heard this particular statistic (2000 people defend themselves each day with a gun). Would you mind posting a link with your source?" One of our local gun-in-every-pocket advocates once sent me some literature which made wild claims about how many people use guns to "defend" themselves. I checked their sources. I believe they included anyone (for an example) who even carried a gun while walking through a "bad neighborhood" - as that's, of course, using it to defend yourself. If you hear a noise in the backyard, and grab your gun before investigating, you're using it to "defend yourself." And so on. Their goal is to scare us.
As far as the Gabby Giffords shooting, I just read that several in attendance at that rally had a gun. No one was able to use it in the confusion, and yes - the shooter was brought down by brave individuals who physically tackled him.
1:09 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
here is a PHD that put several studies together: http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html
1:17 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
In the Giffords shooting the key to the take-down was that the guy was grabbed while changing magazines (he actually dropped it) which is one reason why while I support gun ownership I do believe that magazine size should be limited - at least it gives someone a change to do something while there is a pause - and these crazy shooters my well drop a magazine, have trouble reloading, etc... in the heat of their assault so a 25 round magazine is much better than a 100 round magazine in this respect.
As for other shooters - I think people watch a lot of movies and believe that if they are simply armed that they will be able to swing into action and take down the bad guy but unless they are well trained they may well freeze, be so scared that they simply duck and run like everyone else, or yes, they may get into a gun fight and may take out the bad guy or end up shot themselves.
1:00 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Words of wisdom from Chuck Norris on this:
"First, as with most societies' ills, the key to curbing crime is not more government expansion and spending. Neither is the answer dissolving our Second Amendment rights; countries with super strict gun ownership laws have equally violent crimes, and it's also been proven that taking guns from good guys doesn't prohibit bad guys from obtaining them. Our founders had a far better solution than more government and taking away guns from law-abiding citizens."
1:49 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I have been seeings (as is mentioned in links to this story) that theaters are increasing their security -
How wonderfully American, closing the barn door after the horse has left.
And exactly what will these extra security folks be doing?
Will they are armed - and not only armed - but highly trained to take on a well armed shooter in a crowded environment?
What a joke...
We have to stop these silly notions every time we have a mass shooting and just admit that there is nothing we can do to stop them, in fact there is little we are willing to do to even try to limit them and we just have to accept the simple fact that we will continue to have these mass shootings and move on.
David Hartl
7:45 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Well since criminals respect the laws so much, I am sure they wouldn't have illegal guns.
Carol Turnbull
11:03 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Susan: It's pretty much all in the way gun owners interpret and answer the questions in those surveys. The literature was sent me by Hamline professor Joe Olson, who's been a big gun advocate forever (I think he took exception to a letter I wrote to the newspaper or something...) And it was full of ambiguities like that. I made a list and mailed it back to him, and actually got a response that the author was going to make some changes(!) Thanks for asking for proof of that statement. Fact-checking is sorely needed these days.
3:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed Larson, I followed the link, and then another, and even watched the video of the police officer's son hitting the other man. There also seems to be comments about how Zimmerman went out into the community to try and help this man get justice, I commend him for this, but I have also found much more information that seems Zimmerman had more than a fascination with police work, and almost considered himself to be called to duty.
"At 9:02 p.m. on September 21, 2005, he called 911 about a stray dog on Skyline Drive. At 7:22 p.m. on St. Patrick's Day, 2005, he called 911 about a "pothole that is blocking [the] road." Then there was the pile of trash in the road near the local Kohl's, which he reported on Nov. 8, 2010. "[Complainant] states it appears recently dumped and appears to contain glass," the dispatcher dutifully reported...the newly released police calls paint Zimmerman as a man obsessed with law and order, with the minutiae of suburban life, and with black males."
Ed Larson
3:51 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, do yo see now that the charge of racisim leveled against Zimmerman is unfounded?
He may be cop wanna be but he but i don't see how that changes anything.
If he defended himself from an attacker it was a justified shoot.
3:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"But even more than cars, he was concerned about black men on foot in the neighborhood. In August 2011, he called to report a black male in a tank top and shorts acting suspicious near the development's back entrance. "[Complainant] believes [subject] is involved in recent S-21s"—break-ins—"in the neighborhood," the call log states. The suspect, Zimmerman told the dispatcher, fit a recent description given out by law enforcement officers." "Three days later, he called to report two black teens in the same area, for the same reason. "[Juveniles] are the subjs who have been [burglarizing] in this area," he told the dispatcher.
And last month, on Feb. 2, Zimmerman called to report a suspicious black man in a leather jacket near one of the development's units. The resident of that townhouse, Zimmerman told dispatch, was a white male. Police stopped by to investigate, but no one was there, and the residence was secure. After that, there's one final call logged in the report. At 7:11 on February 26, Zimmerman called police to report a black male in a dark gray hoodie. A few minutes later, that male—Trayvon Martin—lay dead on the sidewalk."
This is an excerpt from a couple different articles, so the words in quotes are not mine. I still believe that Zimmerman acted recklessly, and had a proven pattern of profiling black men. I believe this would then fall into the definition of second degree murder that you supplied.
3:59 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed, you commented before I was done... :)
To answer your question, no I don't think it is unfounded. He may or may not be a racist (I am sure more will come out in court), but he followed Trayvon because he was black, which I believe is profiling....I'm not an expert, I don't know if profiling would be considered "depraved mind" in the law's eyes.
Ed Larson
4:34 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
You said you moved and now you are back here.
Susan said:
" I am not reaching, profiling and chasing someone down simply because their skin is black is not honest, good morals, justice, or ethical in my opinion."
But it is your opinion and in my opinion the law does not support your wish. a.k.a reaching.
The neighborhood had had a problem with burglary by guess what "black youths"
Sounds perfectly reasonable to have you guard up when you see someone in a hoodie walking around that you do not know has any business there.
Here is why:
5:04 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Up there, I said I was moving down here....it's just easier to than scrolling back and forth, but either is fine.
Having your guard up, and chasing a man, are two very different things.
The point here, and what I have said since the beginning is that Zimmerman made a stupid choice, and because of this, a young man is dead. Now the question is, did he have a depraved mind when he decided to chase Trayvon? Well, his past behavior says he was on the lookout for black men (possibly burglaries from six months prior).
I had a paragraph about your link, but after reading it again, I will just say that Mr. Taaffe seems to have his own agenda, and he even contradicts himself about whether his home was burglarized or not.
Here is the bottom line. I will trust that the prosecutor in this case did not make the choice of second degree murder lightly. Angela Corey said "I can tell you we did not come to this decision lightly. This case is like a lot of the difficult cases we have handled for years here in our circuit. And we made this decision in the same manner. Let me emphasize that we do not prosecute by public pressure or by petition. We prosecute based on the facts of any given case, as well as the laws of the state of Florida."
You and I don't know what happened when the two men came together that night, nor do we know exactly what motivated Zimmerman to chase Trayvon, but the prosecutor is privy to more information, and she chose 2nd degree murder.
Ed Larson
5:37 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It is just as possible Trayvon is dead because he attacked Zimmermann.
The evidence is the only thing that should be relied on. Period.
The Prosecutor has been called out as irresponsible by Alan Dershowitz.
"The prosecutor has acted irresponsibly by charging second-degree murder in a case where the evidence just doesn't seem to support that verdict"
5:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
IF, and I say only IF Trayvon is dead because he attacked Zimmerman, then this still would have been avoided if Zimmerman would have listened to the police. He wanted to be a police officer, but didn't listen to them? I mean how important is it to chase someone you may, or may not suspect of wrong doing? How stupid is it? Would you do it? Keep in mind, you only have a SUSPICION of wrong doing, based on the way the young man looks. BTW, because Zimmerman had a past record of chasing suspects, he was told in September of 2011, by a police officer, "If it's someone you don't recognize, call us. We'll figure it out. . . Observe from a safe location. There's even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don't know how many more times I can repeat it."
I don't believe Mr. Dershowitz is privy to the same information as Ms. Corey, so while his comments should be taken seriously, given his profession and experience, they should not be taken as fact. He does go on, however, to say that "Stand Your Ground" is "far too broad", and "There is a right under the Constitution, under the Second Amendment, to have guns for self-defense and for family protection and presumably for hunting, but reasonable regulations of such guns are the essence of a free society."
6:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Dershowitz also defended OJ Simpson so I think we should look at whatever he says about DA's and charges with a bit of skepticism.
Ed Larson
6:29 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
We could play what if all day:
What if Trayvon had't had a craving for skittles?
What if Trayvon hadn't been kicked out of school for drug evidence in Miami?
What if Trayvon's dad had stayed married to his first wife?
What if George didn't care about his neighborhood?
What we are left with is the evidence. Trayvon's death was tragic but Zimmerman was lawfully carrying his weapon and trying to protect his neighbors. He was under no obligation to stay put in his truck. The jury will decide if he was wrong to use his weapon. The prosecutor better not be privy to additional information.
"The purpose of discovery in criminal cases is "to avail the defense of evidence known to the state so that convictions [will] not be obtained by the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant, or by surprise tactics in the courtroom." Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925 (1977)."
6:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Now who is reaching?
The BIG difference between your scenarios and mine is that Zimmerman was TOLD NOT TO DO IT by the profession he most admires - he thought he knew better. It is basically common sense and common knowledge that we do not follow "suspects" (even if that person has done nothing wrong), never mind that it is stupid and dangerous. This exact case is why we are told not to follow people, especially with a gun....someone is going to end up hurt or dead. Zimmerman was not properly trained, or even protected, for that matter.
"The prosecutor better not be privy to additional information." And who says the defense would have released the evidence to the press?
6:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed says: "Trayvon's death was tragic but Zimmerman was lawfully carrying his weapon and trying to protect his neighbors."
How is chasing a young man, who you have no knowledge of wrong doing, 'protecting the neighbors'?
Ed Larson
6:48 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
A simple lesson in what if's. They do not change the evidence.
Discovery makes sure both sides of a case have all the evidence. Give Zimmerman a bit of credit.
You may not like his decision but it was not criminal. You seem unable to acknowledge that Trayvon was likely the aggressor and threw the first punch and then pinned Zimmerman on his back. Put yourself in Zimmerman shoes at this point and decide what you would do. I simply cannot ignore the evidence against Trayvon so easily.
6:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ed says: "Put yourself in Zimmerman shoes at this point and decide what you would do". I would call the police, give a description if I could see it, and follow instructions by staying put in my locked car, which was (I am assuming) a safe distance away.
Ed Larson
6:50 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan said "How is chasing a young man, who you have no knowledge of wrong doing, 'protecting the neighbors'?"
The previous burglaries, no?
6:55 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No, let the police handle it. Running after him is not stopping a burglary. Flash your lights, call the police, get a description....he was trying to be some kind of vigilante hero.
6:53 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"LIKELY the aggressor and threw the first punch and then pinned Zimmerman on his back"....do you have knowledge/evidence that the general public does not know?
We are stuck on two different issues....I say it all would have been avoided if Zimmerman listened to the police, and didn't stupidly chase Trayvon.
You say that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman after Zimmerman took chase. What you are failing to acknowledge is that if Zimmerman didn't run after Trayvon, it would not have happened, and this (possibly) is why he was charged with second degree murder.
Ed Larson
7:01 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Susan, how would you call the police while flat on your back with Trayvon on top of you?
I'll say it again. Let the evidence speak.
7:07 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Exactly my point! I would not have been stupid enough to go against police advice and chase him.
On your second point, we can agree. :)
Ed Larson
7:11 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
You can disagree with Zimmerman's choice to leave his truck but it was not illegal for him to do so.
If Trayvon turned and attacked Zimmerman, game over. Neither of us were there.
The prosecutor overcharged IMHO due to political pressure. If the jury decides Zimmerman was not of depraved mind they cannot find him guilty.
To do so would be an injustice.
7:18 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I know his choice to chase was not illegal, I am only speculating that the choice (and reason) to chase, may be why it is 2nd degree murder. (and of-course that the kid would probably still be alive if Zimmerman hadn't chased him).
I think it would depend on who threw the first punch, or who attacked who, but with one party dead, we only have the word of the other party, and what do you think he is going to say?
I will admit that your Dershowitz link scares me. To find out that this is the exact type of charge as the Casey Anthony case, and considering the outcome, I am a bit uneasy about the whole thing.
8:38 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I've been watching this exchange and now I have to jump in. IF Zimmerman's account is truth, prosecution is going to have a hard time proving he is guilty of anything.
At: http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html (some of which is excerpted below)
Trayvon's bloody knuckles: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/autopsy-reveals-travon-martin-had-bloody-knuckles-when-he-died/ -- juxtapose those with two black eyes, broken nose, and severe rear-of-head lacerations on Zimmerman. There's your story of what happened; Martin attacked while Zimmerman was heading back to his car.
Trayvon Martin is not the innocent little boy they showed the pictures of at first; he was a sexist, drug-pushing and/or using thug well over 6 feet tall casing a house that didn't belong to him, and he attacked Zimmerman for simply watching out for his neighborhood.
8:38 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Everyone wants to make this a racist thing (Zimmerman is a minority, too). Instead it was a neighbor standing up for his community and speaking up, trying to keep things safe after houses in his neighborhood had been broken into. You or I could be next on the list of those defending our selves and our community. Martin was not where he should have been that night and when he was, essentially, called out for it, he reacted like a criminal, not what you or I would have done.
He wasn't following Martin, he got out to look at the street sign and to see where Martin went after Martin circled his vehicle. He didn't call 911, he called a non-emergency number to report a suspicious person. He wasn't driving around looking for lowlifes, he was on his way to the grocery store.
8:50 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
WIWildcat, your comment is so full of generalization, guesses and stereotypes that the majority is not even worth the time to comment. I will say that, with Zimmerman being the only remaining survivor of this altercation, it will be difficult to prove his statement wrong....or right. So the small portion of your statement that is factually correct is: "prosecution is going to have a hard time proving he is guilty of anything."
Beyond that, I have no interest in taking the time to point out the flaws of your argument. Ed stated facts, posted credible sources and made logical arguments without broad, sweeping and vague statements. I find your comments to be a little inflammatory, and should probably pass on the rebuttal.
10:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wow, Susan, who died and made you tyrant?
Everything I wrote was a quote or was based on Zimmerman's statements, not generalizations or guesses or the sweeping generalizations you are tossing out there.
Get a mirror, then read back to yourself what you wrote to me.
7:36 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I am a "tryrant" because I choose not to argue parts of your comment that I find too general? That's an interesting way to look at it I guess, but I have asked you here on the same thread to give a source for a wild claim, and you have yet to do so, so I assumed you would do the same here, and it wouldn't be worth the time.
"Everyone wants to make this a racist thing": No, EVERYONE doesn't.
Zimmerman said "I just felt that something was off about him" Well, that's a nice concept, but I have also been in the situation walking at night and a "suspicious" vehicle has slowed or been parked with someone in it. It's a very scary situation, one that makes you want to run or hide....what would you have done? We don't really know what happened, but my point in all of this is that Zimmerman should have stayed in the truck!
"Instead it was a neighbor standing up for his community and speaking up, trying to keep things safe after houses in his neighborhood had been broken into." Zimmerman wasn't 'standing up' for his community, he was an armed vigilante going against police advice, who profiled a young man who had done nothing wrong.
Your own source says that the Trayvon's knuckles say NOTHING about how the fight began, which is THE important piece of information that you are missing. Too bad we won't get Trayvon's statement on video...
"There's your story of what happened; Martin attacked while Zimmerman was heading back to his car." You don't know that.
7:36 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
"Trayvon Martin is not the innocent little boy they showed the pictures of at first; he was a SEXIST, DRUG-PUSHING and/or USING THUG well over 6 feet tall CASING A HOUSE that didn't belong to him, and he attacked Zimmerman for simply watching out for his neighborhood." This one is so insulting, it's not even worth commenting on...
Ed Larson
9:19 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I thought I was done here but perhaps Susan could at least admit that the media portrayed Trayvon as some innocent kid when in fact they could just as easily and with photo and school evidence have shown him to be a teen involved with drugs and using nasty gestures and gang clothing.
We have not been served well by either our leaders or the press when they chose to pick sides with the race baiters.
9:27 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Ed, I do agree that the media seemed to pick a side early and continually. I will also admit that some of YOUR arguments are compelling, and the discussion yesterday made me dig deeper and do more research. I have not changed my "opinion" as to why he was charged with 2nd degree murder, or that the Zimmerman was arrogant and stupid in the night in question. If he would have drove on to the store or waited in his car for the police, I believe Trayvon would be alive and Zimmerman would not be charged with a crime. One last note, and them I am out, Zimmerman was a ticking time bomb, it was only a matter of time before someone (maybe even him) was hurt or killed. Is he charged accordingly?....we wont' know until the trial. Thanks for the informative discussion.
2:29 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Just throwing in my $.02 here on why I chose "Unsure" (not to interrupt the derailed arguments going on)
What happened in Colorado is a tragedy. The chances of something like this happening is few and far between and everyone's safety in a theater after this incident should remain of the same level. What makes this an issue (especially during the election year) is that all the news stations broadcast the killers face, his arsenal, and how he did the shooting day in and day out. Showing this type of footage only empowers those who have been thinking about doing a shooting of their own, and will now copy what this man did due to his success. And with the news showing all of these guns and pressing that he should have never had gotten those weapons to begin with. Thus, bringing up the issue with gun control and regulation.
The issue is not of gun control or regulation. There is no issues with that. Just because Colorado had a slack gun law does not mean that they enabled him to commit the crime. Everyone needs to stop making such a big issue about the guns involved and start moving toward the psychopathic side of the crime.
2:31 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Futhermore with why I selected 'Unsure' as my answer: The reasoning behind all the other selections are heavily biased.
"No" - Why would the constitution be a factor in choosing this? We know our rights. A simple "No - The gun laws should remain the same" would be of better fit.
"Yes" - You are assuming that everyone who buys a gun is manic and is a criminal. They're not.
"Sometimes" - Anything can be a weapon. Hunting rifles and PDWs (Personal Defense Weapons) are both designed for violence. They both can be turned against the aggressor and both have the possibility of killing another.
None of this are good answers.
Jim Edward
5:19 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
When Zimmerman called in his description of Trayvon Martin to the police, he described him as a "suspicious lookin black man". Does that make him a racist? It happened 3 times at least and all three times the suspicious looking people were black. If they had been white he would have labeled them as "suspicious looking white men". or Hispanic "suspicious looking Hispanic man". That is called making an accurate description. The police do it, and the news papers do it. Does that make them racist? Quit crying "foul" when a suspect is described as anything but "a white male".
9:55 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Actually, Jim, when Zimmerman called in his description of Trayvon, he did not specify color. "There's a real suspicious guy, he looks like he's up to no
good..." He did not specify color until the dispatcher asked him, and Zimmerman responded "He looks black".
Various quotes: He's here now, staring at me. Now he's coming towards me, he's got his hand in his waistband. He's a black male, late teens. Something's
wrong with him. He's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. They always get away. He's heading toward the back entrance. He ran.
Susan, I called you a tyrant (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyrant, definition #3 and #4) because of the hard way you came unleashed at me,
with the attitude that I seemingly could only be wrong and you could only be right.
Where, before your 8:44am 7/25 post did you ask me to give a source for my "wild claim"? I see you handily did choose to ignore the sources I did provide at 8:38pm 7/24 which contained most of the references from which I drew that post.
9:55 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
(cont) As Ed later pointed out, with the same link that I drew my information from, Trayvon was definitely no saint, and the toxicology report showed THC in his system (google "trayvon martin thc") further strengthening the drug-user argument.
Where did Zimmerman speak the words you attribute to him? I could not find those in the 911 call recording or the police statement. Did he say it at his hearing? Nonetheless, his 911 call speaks volumes that many choose to ignore. He did not target a black guy, he targeted a suspiscous individual in his neighborhood and later identified him as black.
OTOH, you claim he was an "armed vigilante going against police advice who profiled a young man who had done nothing wrong." Now who's making the wild accusations? And according to Zimmerman's report, yes, we do know that Martin attacked while he was heading back to his car.
You are in denial. Again I urge you to find a mirror. My comments and arguments are supported and documented and referenced. Yours? Eh, not so much.
10:09 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
WIWilcat, look through the comments (a few days ago)....no need to reply though, as you have now called me a tyrant and insinuated that I am dog "unleashed", I have found it a waste of time the discuss issues with someone who so crassly uses name calling to make an argument. P.s. Zimmerman's comment was in the link (video) you provided. And once again, for the record, I am not calling Zimmerman a racist, only speculating as to why he was charged with second degree murder.
10:14 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Susan, I will respond when I am accused of things I did not do!
Where did I call you a "dog unleashed"? I am not crassly using name-calling: I provided the basis for labeling you a tyrant.
You are, however, reaching, and it does not look good on you. You are using red-herring arguments, a fallacious method for (not) proving your points.
Terry Elliott
2:18 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Among the many misstatements in this thread, I'll just pick two interesting comments by Stein early on:
1. Stein says: "There is also no reason for a law abiding citizen to have fully automatic assault weapons..."
Agreed. The rifle used in Colorado was semi-automatic. Automatic-fired weapons have been against Federal law for 50 years or more. Not an issue.
2. "Finally there is no reason for not registering weapons that potentially can be used to kill."
Big disagreement. Why should the government have a log of who owns what weapons? Is this going to help them solve crimes? No, it's simply a database waiting to be abused (i.e., confiscation). Don't believe me? Witness states having to pass new laws preventing gun control freaks publicizing concealed carry license holders. And witness the New Orleans police immediately confiscating all weapons in the Katrina aftermath, on the grounds "it's an emergency."
And what gets registered? In UK, they're experiencing a rash of knife assaults and now knives are banned.
None of this-- as usual-- does anything to even slow down the unlawful. These reactive ideas always result in the lawful having their rights restricted.
Carol Turnbull
9:22 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
It looked for awhile as though this discussion was actually going to be thoughtful and on-topic, as opposed to most on-line ones which end up in name-calling. My mistake. One comment, however, for WIWildcat - who's so pleased with his sources. Please share your source for "Martin was not where he should have been that night." Seems I remember he and his father were visiting the home of his father's fiance, who lived in the housing development, and he had walked to the store. Where do you think he should have been that night? That is, where do young black teens belong at night? Do they only belong on the streets of all-Black neighborhoods?
There are people I really don't mind having permission to carry a gun. WIWildcat would not be one of them.
Carbon Bigfuut
11:10 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Carol, I know Wi Wildcat personally, and I would trust him with a gun anywhere.
I believe the "not where he should have been" remark referred to Trevon cutting through back yards to reach his destination. Not normally a big issue, but since that community had been subject to frequent break-ins, it was felt to be suspicious activity.
11:18 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
And sitting in a parked car at night, and then following someone through the neighborhood isn't suspicious behavior? It's a good thing for Mr. Zimmerman that there wasn't anyone else walking in the neighborhood with a gun.
Carbon Bigfuut
1:16 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle to wait for police to show up when he was attacked by Martin. He pulled his gun out when Martin was on top of him, reaching for the gun, and had said "You're going to die tonight".
1:23 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Carbon, we don't need to debate it again, but it will be up to the jury to decide if his statement is true in its entirety. Since he is the lone survivor, and there are no eyewitnesses, he could say just about anything he wants. I will wait until he is under oath and the prosecution presents his case, to decide whether I believe his current story.
3:30 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Susan, just for you. Follow the links, watch the video. You seemed to want more references. Well, there you go.
3:57 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
OMG! Since some people are just NOT GETTING IT, I will type it again:
1. I never said Zimmerman was a racist, only speculated that his disregard for the police's advice and his vigilante tendencies, may be why he was charged with second degree murder.
2. I never said Zimmerman (or Trayvon) started the fight, I said we don't know for sure, and since Trayvon is not here to defend himself(please keep this in mind when judging him so harshly), we only have Zimmerman's side of the story and I am not sure I believe him.
3. I have never said Trayvon did not have a drugs in his system, marks on his knuckles, or pictures on the Internet.
3. I have said, and still stick by my opinion that Zimmerman was arrogant, stupid, and wreckless that night, and if he had stayed in his car, or gone on to the store (with his gun), then Trayvon would probably still be alive and Zimmerman wouldn't be facing a charge of second degree murder.
4. A JURY will decide if he is guilty, not you, not me, not right or left wing blogs, and not the media.
4:07 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wow, so I see how this works with you, Susan.
First, you make up assumptions about what someone (me) is thinking, then you redress them (me) for those assumptions that you made.
Next you call me out for not providing references (even though I had), and when I provide references, you get all bent out of shape and attack me for things I did not mention and never accused you of.
Okay, I get it now. You are psychotic. Leaving this thread now before innocent bystanders get hurt...
4:19 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Haha, bent out of shape, a tyrant, PSYCHOTIC! The accusations and name calling are never ending with you, WiWildcat. It seems that you are the one with your undies in a bunch, not me.
And BTW, I am not bent out of shape, I stand perfectly erect - although , now that you mention it, I have to wonder if you do, given how you speak (write) to people who disagree with you.
5:12 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
No one knows what all happened.
Martin's dead so he can't tell us his version of events.
Zimmerman is alive and can tell us his side - but he isn't exactly an impartial observer with nothing on the outcome of the trial. I don't know if he is lying or telling the truth - or bending the truth - but I typically don't take the word at face value of the only guy who walks away alive from an incident.
There is likely evidence we don't know about - and what we do know about has room for interpretation for either side.
10:00 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I believe that what these mass shootings points to is that we have a serious lack of Mental Health Care for people in this country both in price and in how our society stigmatizes people who reach out for mental health care.
While we can institute stronger background checks (it wouldn't have made a difference in the CO and plenty of other cases), and we can limit magazine and clip sizes (which at least gives the victims a chance when the guy has to reload), in reality the problem is that these guys and need mental help before they go off the deep end and grab an AR-15 and a Glock.
We allow guns to be owned and we have a lot of them so we have to just accept the occasional mass murder that comes along as the "price of admission" because nothing can really stop them from happening more often here than in other first tier countries.
So other than trying to limit the carnage once it starts the only real safety net we have to try and intercept these guys is to make mental health care more accessible and try to get rid of the stigmatization around it. (Of course plenty of people would say "Not with my tax money").
And if we don't want to try to do something via mental health then honestly we have to just stop freaking out every time someone decides to kill and main a bunch of people because we set up the field and then complain after the obvious happens - again and again and again.
Joyce Denn
6:24 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
A retired cop and an army veteran weigh in on whether an armed citizenry makes us safer:
Carol Turnbull
11:14 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
This is from An Arms Race We Can't Win, one of the links posted above, for those who didn't bother to check it out:
"The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has compiled a 62-page list of mass shootings since 2005. What's striking is that there isn't a single example of a concerned bystander with a concealed-carry permit who stopped a mass shooting...
"We're also excessively pessimistic about our ability to control firearms in the United States. Since 9/11, federal officials have done an excellent job of restricting the fertilizers and chemicals required to produce homemade explosives."
Annie S.
10:04 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
I think Windex should be banned or at least require registered sales because it may, either intentionally or unintentionally be used in place of UV Blue Raspberry Vodka - which may result in death.
Yes, that's exactly how silly anti-firearms arguments sound to a gun owner - and remember folks, the right to Vodka is not directly protected by the constitution. In fact, if I remember correctly, the right to Vodka was taken away for a while by amendment. That went REALLY well.
12:05 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
So in other words as a society we should just be quiet and accept these occasional mass shootings a cost of gun freedom?
IMHO - since I am ok with gun ownership (I think we should limit clip and magazine sizes) but I pretty much accept these mass killings as "just the way it is".
I think that the NRA and everyone who backs the 2nd Amendment like I do should also fess up and level with the American people that these shootings will happen and we just have to accept them and move on.
2:24 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
No, there is no reason to ever be quiet and accept occasional mass murder!
Outlawing guns, though, is not the answer. As noted on this forum earlier, there was a guy that plowed his car into a crowd, killing a few. That's not the first time a vehicle has been used to kill (many woman have killed their cheating spouses that way), but there's no hue and cry to remove automobiles or the bigger semi-trucks from the road.
Jim Jones used Kool-Aid (poisoned, yes) but we still have Kool-Aid around because people realize it was the PERSON that caused the problem (it is kind of funny to say 'If Kool-Aid was outlawed only outlaws would have Kool-Aid, but I digress). We don't abhor all Africans because of what Idi Amin Dada did, or all Germans, all Arabs, etc for what their rulers have done. Same with fire (arson) - that's been used to kill tons of people over the centuries, but we still have fire.
"Fessing up" that PEOPLE will sometimes commit atrocious acts is base level thinking (e.g. start there and grow). I wonder what could be accomplished if anti-gun zealots would focus on fixing and diagnosing "unstable persons" rather than the vehicles they use to commit their outrageous behavior?
2:50 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Then what specific steps would you implement to do something about people who commit mass murder with guns?
Joyce Denn
3:24 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
WIWildcat, no one here is talking about outlawing guns, what we are talking about it regulating ownership in the interest of public safety. The First Amendment guarantees you the right of peaceable assembly, yet you are required by most municipalities to get a license to stage a parade or a demonstration and to get the venue or the parade route pre-approved; why, then, should gun ownership be an absolute right without sensible restrictions?
Uncle Paul Hargis
1:45 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Joyce wrote: I suggested that semi-automatic weapons should not be legal
Joyce, are you informed of what a semi-automatic rifle is?
Just so you know, any shotgun you don't have to "pump" is a semi auto matic. So with your logic, you have just ended competitive trap and skeet shooting.
Secondly, probably the most popular .22 caliber rifle (jst about everyone's first gun) is a semi-automatic rifle.
Joyce Denn
2:09 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
No, I do not know a whole lot about guns - change "semi-automatic" to assault rifle then. My sister is a avid sporting clay and fitasc competitor; I would not want to limit her ability to compete in those sports.
Can you offer any reason not to limit ownership of assault rifles like the military-style AR-15 with the 100-shot magazine feeding it used by Holmes?
Ed Larson
2:26 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Joyce said "Can you offer any reason not to limit ownership of assault rifles like the military-style AR-15 with the 100-shot magazine feeding it used by Holmes?"
No more than I can for a 12 gauge pump. both can do an awful lot of damage in the wrong hands. Nothing is gained by limiting them. "Assault weapon" is a silly political term meant to get the public excited. Apparently it works. :-(
2:27 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Hi Joyce,
A semi-automatic essentially means that when you pull the trigger the bullet is fired - so in practice you will be able to fire a new round as quickly as you can pull the trigger.
All Assault Rifles sold to civilians semi-automatic - civilians are not allowed to own fully automatic weapons (with some exceptions) which means you pull the trigger and bullets continue to be fired until you release the trigger or you run out of bullets.
Assault Rifles are really supposed to be able to be fired fully automatic - however, when they sell them to Civilians they are no longer fully automatic and IMHO are typically purchased because they look like a military weapon and some folks get off on that (yes, I know others will say not at all and will list plenty of reasons why they want an AR-15 over something else that looks less macho).
However, I do agree with the limiting of the size of the magazines - simply because the only chance folks are going to have against a shooter who wants to mow down folks is when he has to stop to change the magazine.
The Gabby Gifford's shooter was stopped when he had to reload and he fumbled the magazine change and someone grabbed him.
I would rather have someone have to reload every 20 rounds than be able to get off 50 to 100 rounds before reloading.
We should at least give victims a little chance sooner rather than later...
Carol Turnbull
2:11 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
The Second Amendment may guarantee the right to own arms (I'm of the mindset that it didn't intend every bleeping citizen to be part of a "militia"), but nowhere in the Constitution does it say you can buy/own as many guns, of whatever type, that you please! Weapons are becoming increasingly more deadly. Do we just keep going down this path - hiding behind the Second Amendment? Throwing up our hands and saying we can't do anything to stop these "random" attacks? Maybe I should just get a cannon and take it with me to the movies. Last time I looked, the Amendment still included the words "well regulated."
Grant has some very good comments - and certainiy knows firearms (unlike me). However, he says, in regard to the Colorado shooter: "there have been clear warning signs that were ignored..." Dropping out of college, being a "loner" - those things can be said of many of our kids. The "warning signs" that should have been noticed here were that the guy was stockpiling an arsenal. Which necessitates some sort of tracking system... The "well regulated" part of the Amendment is where government is not doing its job.
Ed Larson
2:30 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Carol, not to be unkind but when you figure out a way to keep us all safe from those intent on doing harm you will get a noble prize.
Recent court cases have laid waste your militia argument.
"Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia"
Ed Larson
3:30 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
rob said "So we have mass shootings and we don't do anything."
We arrest them guilty try them and put them to death as needed.
That is not doing nothing.
There will always be evil.
You could be walking down the street and a crazy motorist decide to run you down or into a crowd.
How much freedom do you want to give up for security?
I am asking you this very seriously.
Joyce Denn
4:03 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Ed asks, "How much freedom do you want to give up for security?"
There is an old saying generally attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose.
Your libertarian ideology is demanding the right to swing your fist and break my nose; sensible restrictions on gun and ammo ownership protect the rights of others.
Ed Larson
4:06 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Joyce said, "Your libertarian ideology is demanding the right to swing your fist and break my nose; sensible restrictions on gun and ammo ownership protect the rights of others."
It DEMANDS no such thing.
It demands that you cannot take away my freedom or anyone elses without cause.
Possessing a firearm is not enough.
4:09 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Ed - so you have no options for pro-actively doing anything about mass killings with firearms?
Sure we can arrest them - kill em - torture em - tattoo an image of Muhammad on their foreheads and drop them off in Afghanistan in a radical Muslim village so they can have fun with them...
As for giving up Freedom - I don't believe that limiting folks to a 20 round magazine for an AR-15 (for example) infringes on our Freedoms at all and still leaves me able to protect my security just fine. Likewise only allowing a standard size clip for a handgun.
You have a right to a gun - but there is no Constitutional right to a large capacity magazine - and while I don't agree with the next part - perhaps we need to look at the types of guns available when the Constitution was written and limit ourselves to similar capabilities?
And perhaps if someone is stocking up on thousands and thousands of rounds of ammo - perhaps yes, this could be tracked.
If the answer to "risk" is to keep every possible "Freedom" then we have a lot of work to do because we limit Freedoms every day in our society to help increase security.
If its not worth even one sliver of Freedom then we need to scrap pretty much our entire criminal justice system and just open the gates and get ready to rock - of course then I will be buying and keeping guns again...
Ed Larson
4:27 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
rob said "As for giving up Freedom - I don't believe that limiting folks to a 20 round magazine for an AR-15 (for example) infringes on our Freedoms at all and still leaves me able to protect my security just fine. Likewise only allowing a standard size clip for a handgun.
You have a right to a gun ...."
Please explain what would be gained by getting rid of high capacity drums or clips.
Everyone want to be safe but pretending that your suggestion makes us safer is has no basis in fact.
Tim McVeigh used no guns.
The 911 hijackers used no guns.
The nut job that drove his car into a crowd used no guns.
Those that released serin gas into a Japanese subway, used no guns.
The train bombers in Spain used no guns.
These are just off the top of my head.
The gun control crowd has demonized certain weapons and made some believe that if only we controlled those we would all be safe.
When have gun controllers ever stopped trying to expand the list or unsafe weapons?
Joyce Denn
4:42 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Ed, you can cite all the different causes of deaths everywhere in the world (ebola! dengue fever! - maybe we should stop vaccinating kids because there are still other diseases out there for which we have no vaccinations) but that will not change the fact that assault rifles and high capacity magazines (forgive me if my terminology is not entirely correct - I don't have guns) increase the likelihood of more deaths, and have no real purpose other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
An a related note, there is a correlation between stricter gun laws and fewer deaths from firearms:
Carbon Bigfuut
4:58 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Carol said: "The "well regulated" part of the Amendment is where government is not doing its job."
That part is not up to the government. It's up to the individual gun owner to practice with their weapon and become well-practiced (which is what the term "well regulated" means).
Ed Larson
5:28 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Joyce said, "high capacity magazines (forgive me if my terminology is not entirely correct - I don't have guns) increase the likelihood of more deaths, and have no real purpose other than killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. "
I know that is what you believe but the burden of proof is on you. I have already shown that limiting those inanimate objects would make no difference. Other options are available to those who would do us harm.
The proposed ban is nothing more than feel good law that has not effect. Politicians are masters at feel good law.
As to that study. Not so fast. You should read the comments. It propaganda and massaged data to serve a purpose.
These stats from the CDC speak volumes. You will notice that many of the areas that have the toughest guns law also have the highest gun death rates.
Please explain the lack of effectiveness of strict guns laws in Chicago an Washington D.C., and NYC
5:29 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Rob, I'd have to answer your question with a question: What do you propose we do, proactively, to stop people from veering off the streets and into a crowd with their car? You can't catch every mental case and stop them before they hurt someone but at least in the case of an attacker who has a knife, a gun, a fist, a bat - if I have a gun, I can stop them from doing more harm. Take that away and I'm just one of the sheep.
Joyce Denn
5:38 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
As I have pointed out before, Ed, most of the guns used in crimes in NYC (and very likely DC as well) can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax gun laws.
Ed Larson
5:52 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
"As I have pointed out before, Ed, most of the guns used in crimes in NYC (and very likely DC as well) can be traced to Virginia, which has extremely lax gun laws."
Yes Joyce we are repeating ourselves here.
Here is what we are left with.
You are perfectly willing to take freedoms away in the hope that the criminals will stop finding ways to kill people.
I am not.
Disclosure: I do not own anything but hunting weapons but am not willing to constrict the freedom of others to bear arms of their choosing.
The Nanny state has always done a very poor job of getting anything right.
Let freedom ring.
9:35 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Ed - so you have no proactive ideas to stop mass killings with firearms?
I have stated many times on this thread by reasoning for limiting the size of magazines and clips.
And I ask you again - how does limiting the size of magazines and clips infringe on your Freedom to own a gun?
As for the other examples you noted:
* Tim McVeigh: - the gov't now more closely tracks the types of materials he used and we haven't had a repeat yet.
* The 911 hijackers: - we have much stricter security to get on planes - and we have not had a repeat.
* Cars into crowds: - cars are not primarily designed to kill people - that is the primary if no only function of most guns that people carry around when they commit mass murders.
* serin gas: - how often is gas used to commit mass murder compared to guns in the United States?
* train bombers: - again we track bomb materials and how many trains have been blown up in the United States?
Do you support scrapping all security at airports?
Should we stop tracking bomb materials?
When can I purchase 100 pounds of C4 with a simple background check?
Will you start fighting for the ability to purchase large quantities of serin gas with no tracking?
After all - we can't have perfect security - so I presume that you are as offended by the lack of ability to do all of the above as you would be to not buy a large capacity clip or magazine.
Carol Turnbull
2:53 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Ed: I said the "militia" comment was my opinion. (Do you agree with every recent Supreme Court ruling?) Of course nobody can "keep us all safe" from everything - but thanks for the offer of a "noble" prize.
Ed Larson
3:11 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
I don't agree with all SCOTUS decisions but it is the law of the land.
I am disheartened than some people think the government is there to protect us.
Beyond offering a common defense. there responsibilities are only the ones the Constitution and we the people grant them.
Their chief role is to protect our freedoms.
3:23 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
So we have mass shootings and we don't do anything.
But we have one dude who believes he can take down a plane with a "shoe bomb" and now we all have to take off our shoes to get on a plane...
matt lehman
9:02 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
The article below sums it up well.
The truth is that the United States is like a beautiful house that may still look great on the outside but that has rotted and decayed very badly on the inside. In fact, the foundations of our country have rotted away so badly that our entire society is starting to collapse.
Just look at James Holmes. It would be great if we could honestly say that James Holmes is an aberration, but we all know better than that. James Holmes is not alone. The cold, hard reality of the matter is that our degenerate society regularly produces sickos and monsters like James Holmes.
As I wrote about the other day, we lead the world in a whole host of bad categories. We lead the world in child abuse, we lead the world in divorce, we lead the world in teen pregnancy and we lead the world in drug addiction. The basic building blocks of society that tie us together and help keep us grounded (such as the family) are breaking down, but we still seem surprised that we have hordes of "lone wolf individuals" running around doing crazy things.
We are a sick, twisted society that is producing sick, twisted individuals. If we do not admit how deep our problems really are, then we are never going to find any real solutions and we are going to keep being shocked when another James Holmes pops on to the scene. Author unknown
3:06 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Part 1
Matt, there may be some elements of truth in what you posted. But quoting "author unknown" doesn't really seem to add much to this discussion.
I would submit that one of our problems, exemplified by this thread, it that we have a group of "armchair constitutional lawyers" who are parsing a flawed document written over two hundred years ago, with the attempt to govern fewer people than live in the Twin Cities Metro area.
When they spoke of "arms", they knew only muskets and pistols. They had no comprehension of weapons that fired hundreds of rounds per minute. When they wrote about freedom of speech, they did not comprehend that some lunatics would equate the spending of "money" with "freedom of speech".
To parse every word of this flawed document is of the same level of mental masturbation that many people do when they parse each and every word of the bible (whichever edition of it they have at hand).
3:07 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Part 2
The Founders were students of the Enlightenment, not of the Confederacy. They were wise enough to know that things would change.
In this thread alone there is the "learned" discussion about what a "regulated" militia meant. That discussion was laughable, at best. What did those who wrote the Constitution mean by "militia":? Why were they concerned?" No, they were not so much concerned about the British as they were about each other.
One of the main reasons for calling the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the powers of the Federal Government, not to weaken them.
The United States today is a continental country with over 300,000,000 people. it cannot function with the mindset of people who lived in the 18th century.
As an idea to contemplate, do we realize that when Franklin and Jefferson and others went to Paris and London it was the first time that they had seen a building more than 100 ft tall? They brought back ideas which the incorporated into the Constitution and Bill of Rights from their European experiences.
I believe that we would all be much better off if we worked on problems and issues that we experience today using contemporary data and thoughts, and not try and parse words written hundreds of years ago.
Carol Turnbull
12:27 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Probably nobody's going to change their mind here but, wow, it's been interesting. I'm checking out as this is time-consuming and is basically going in circles. But before I do- I long ago realized that if I seriously were to depend on a gun for protection, it would have to be at my side at all times. I have a wad of grandkids. A loaded gun in the home is much more of a danger to them than it ever would be protection. And if one follows the recommendation that you store an unloaded gun in one place and the ammunition in another, well, you better hope you have enough advance notice when a burglar breaks in.
When my daughter was in high school, her good friend's mother was shot and killed as she slept. After an argument, her husband got the gun the mother had bought years earlier because she was afraid of an ex (by then deceased). Once I was mugged on the street. I had a half-second warning before being dragged down the street by the purse strap. If I'd had a gun and he'd gotten the purse (he did not), the thief would have merely acquired a gun. The question was asked on this site if anyone had used a gun in self-defense. If someone claimed they did (other than in war), I surely missed it.
matt lehman
10:02 pm on Saturday, July 28, 2012
maybe people dont wish to share personal self defense stories online? I was forced to defend my wife and kids, I wont share the story online.
Carol Turnbull
12:30 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
(rest of my post)
Yes, there are people who want to outlaw all guns. They're a minority, and that is never going to happen. The majority of gun control advocates simply want to institute some common sense. But the panic demonstrated by those (mostly big strong "macho" males) when someone suggests we limit the sale of assault rifles, or ammunition, or that we actually making an effort to track these purchases blows my mind. We all would like to think we're in total control of our environment but, sadly, we're not, and carrying a gun (even a Very Big Gun) doesn't change that. Our best defense is still our brains.
Ed asked, "How much freedom do you want to give up for security?" My answer is that, Ed, I have freedom that I wouldn't give up for any misguided sense of security from putting my faith in a cold piece of metal which would always have to be at my fingertips. Yes, certain people have a legitimate need to carry a firearm. And sportmen are in a different category. But those so paranoid that they cannot leave their homes without their "piece" strapped to their body are not free. Those who heatedly argue their Constitutional right to each and every sort of weapon because they're convinced that the government, the Democrats, the Communists, whomever are coming to take their guns away ANY DAY NOW are not free. It's just sad.
Ed Larson
7:24 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
The problem I have with those that are willing to chip away at freedoms is that there will always be someone else that want ts take even more freedoms away.
The founders of this country recognized tyranny for what it is and crafted a document that protects us from those who would rule over us.
We are a much less free people today than even 50 years ago.
What you consider reasonable restrictions are just more shipping away at freedom.
Eventually those that promote state tyranny will get to something you care about and who will be left to defend your rights.
Ed Larson
10:57 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Catching up on some Mark Levin this AM.
Listen to the first part of this for his perspective.
3:24 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Does it bother you that you have to take your friggin' shoes off to get on a plane because of one jerk who could not have taken down the plane? Owww, turrists.
Does it bother you that every email that you post here or anywhere on the Internet is subject to scrutiny by our Goverment? The wretched Patriot Act that surely the Founders would have burned.,
Does it bother you that you can't take a bottle of water on board a plane that you purchased outside of the "security zone"? Again because a couple of half-wits tried to do something that failed.
I guess none of these limitations on your "freedoms" bother you.
Let's just let everyone buy as much firepower as they choose. Walmart would love that because it is the largest gun seller in the US. I would also wager that Walmart is a major contributor to the NRA, whose sole purpose is to lobby for more gun sales.
Does it bother you that every damned credit card transaction that you make is subject to being accessed by government "officials"?
Does it bother you that your bank accounts are subject to scrutiny by government officials because of "terrorist threats"?
Ed Larson
11:08 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Mrs. Peel, thank you for that wonderful list.
Yes everyone of those item "bothers" me.
You seem conflicted.
You recognize the loss of freedom by the items in your list but some how imagine that loosing even more freedom will somehow make us more secure or more happy, more free or something.
Please help me understand your confusion.
12:09 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
3:28 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
@ITPro.... good luck on that when the US Airforce (which is pretty much an Evangelical arm of the military) fires a Hellfire missile up your butt while you are holding your pathetic AR-15.
Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?
What a moronic thought.
11:14 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
@ MrsPeel - Whereas you will gladly bend over, grab your ankles and take it, I will fight to the death against a tyrannical government.
You said, "Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?" At the time of the American Revolution, the British military was auguably the "largest military machine the world had ever known." They were defeated and Great Britain has never been the same! You, ma'am, would be considered a "loyalist". FYI… I don't own any AR-15s, I am strictly an AK-47 owner.
11:30 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
Exactly what tyrannical practices are you so worried about?
I think we have already seen plenty of tyrannical practices and yet no one has picked up their guns to fight...
How about we start with major international companies who make huge bets and when they win they keep the profits - but when they lose they have rigged the system and bought off our politicians so that the taxpayers end up having to bail them out so they won't suffer the consequences of what little Free Market they actually are subject to...
There won't be any "government takeover" by arms or anything - that's way old school - they have now setup the financial system where they can just slowly bleed you dry and you end up powerless because you have no say in the election other than a silly vote that in the end doesn't matter because the system is fully rigged with both parties...
Your AK-47 is fun to shoot (I've always enjoyed shooting the different variants of the AK-47) but you'll never engage anything related to the government with it - unless you go on my some shooting spree...
10:32 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I have not made up my mind on this issue yet, so I want to say thank you to those who have so eloquently argued both sides here in the last couple days. I have a few questions:
How does limiting the number of rounds each magazine will hold, limit my right to own a gun? On the same line of thinking, how does requiring a more aggressive background check, and/or tracking a large (yes, this is subjective) ammunition purchase, limit my right to own a firearm?
Would those in the NRA be opposed to some sort of a tracking system (a DNA of sorts) in the bullets and ammunition? And if so, why, and how does this infringe on my right to bear arms?
Common sense tells me that the shooter in Colorado would probably not have been able to kill 12 people, and injure 58 more if he had not been able to fire off so many rounds before his gun jammed. I am wondering why there is such an opposition to limiting the number a shots a person can get off in a very short period of time.
One other thing, if the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms (keeping in mind the kind of "arms" that were available when the document was written), how is it a violation of the amendment to limit the number of bullets I can buy in a certain time period, or being able to track those bullets (if this is even possible) a violation of my second amendment rights?
Ed Larson
11:22 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan, I thought we had covered this ground.
Let me answer by way of two questions.
1. Do you think the founders were smart enough to realize that weapons would continue to advance?
They may not have imagine where we are today but they also made no attempt to limit or infringe the right to bear arms as they could have.
2. Given the proclivity of the anti gun point of view to ever expand what they consider "acceptable" how can you assure us that this and no further will be a reality?
As has been pointed out earlier the shooter in CO could have killed even more with nothing more than a few gallons of gasoline and a match.
Personally I think there is to much focus on the wrong problem.
It is hard to imagine that the people around the shooter did not perceive there to be something terribly wrong with his mental state.
I don't have answers for that.
The world can be an evil place.
I am thankful for living in this country.
11:42 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thanks, Ed. To be clear, many of the issues were addressed above, but my question is very specifically: How does regulating the sale and tracking of bullets, or a more rigorous background check and waiting period infringe on my "right to bear arms"?
Saying that people will find a way to hurt us, no matter what, in my opinion is no reason not to try and make it harder for them to do so. Is there a line that needs to be drawn in the sand for regulation? Yes, but I don't believe limiting how much ammunition one can buy, or a longer waiting period, etc. infringes on my right to bear arms, so in these examples, the second amendment argument vanishes.
Ed says: 2. Given the proclivity of the anti gun point of view to ever expand what they consider "acceptable" how can you assure us that this and no further will be a reality?"
I think you are right to ask this question every time a new regulation is up for debate, but using it as an argument to shut down every possible regulation is more of a talking point than a solution.
11:58 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Ed says: "It is hard to imagine that the people around the shooter did not perceive there to be something terribly wrong with his mental state. I don't have answers for that."
I agree that someone should have noticed something, but what is one able to do if they know a 22 year-old man might be unstable? Do you want the government or the family to be able to lock this person up (easier than the system currently allows)? Or do we have to wait until this person hurts someone?
Do you want to make it easier to commit someone who may show signs of mental instability? This seems to be against the freedom and personal responsibility argument that many here are using.
Ed Larson
1:56 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan said: "I think you are right to ask this question every time a new regulation is up for debate, but using it as an argument to shut down every possible regulation is more of a talking point than a solution."
Relinquishing existing freedoms requires more than meaninglessness measures designed satisfy peoples desire for something to be done.
The burden of proof is on those who propose these measures.
Tyranny, whether soft or hard is still tyranny.
Tyranny - arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2:11 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I have seen the "tyranny" argument used frequently. "The seeds of tyranny" is one that I find a bit humorous, but that is another subject. Regardless of what another has posted here on this thread, I do know what the definition of tyranny is, here are a few from the web:
- Cruel and oppressive government or rule.
- A nation under such cruel and oppressive government.
- Arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
- Oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
- A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power.
I have never heard or read the word 'tyranny' used more often than with this president, which leads me to believe the argument is more political than reality. After reading through the definitions, I would have to say that I would NOT find a restriction on the number of rounds in a clip to be a cruel, oppressive, an abuse of power, or unjust. Applying the tyranny argument seems a bit silly.
I ask, and not to argue, but to learn: What would be the burden of proof? Using Colorado as an example, how could we prove that the shooter would have harmed less people if his clip had held only 10 rounds?
Also, I am sincerely interested in what the Libertarians think about the following: "Do you want to make it easier to commit someone who may show signs of mental instability? This seems to be against the freedom and personal responsibility argument that many here are using."
Ed Larson
1:58 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
susan said "Do you want to make it easier to commit someone who may show signs of mental instability? This seems to be against the freedom and personal responsibility argument that many here are using."
Committing someone against their will is no small matter but the shooter in CO was a psychiatric patient. I suspect that as more details come forth we will be appalled that no action was taken prior to the tragedy.
2:23 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thanks, Ed. I was typing my last post and did not see your response.
From The National Alliance on Metal Illness:
"- One in four adults—approximately 57.7 million Americans experience a mental health disorder in a given year. One in 17 lives with a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression or bipolar disorder and about one in 10 children live with a serious mental or emotional disorder."
A psychologist or psychiatrist may have found some of this man's thoughts very troubling, but if he (the shooter) told them that he was going to do this, the psychologist would have been bound by law to notify authorities. If he did not tell the psychologist his specific plans (that he intended to harm someone), there would have been nothing the psychologist could have done. Given that information, I again ask, what else could have been done to stop this tragedy from happening?
Ed Larson
2:31 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan said: "After reading through the definitions, I would have to say that I would NOT find a restriction on the number of rounds in a clip to be a cruel, oppressive, an abuse of power, or unjust. "
But I want you to consider this: that is only because you think it does not affects you.
What about the law abiding citizens it would affect?
The burden of proof is on the restrictions to demonstrated that the restrictions they propose would result in fewer deaths by crazies bent on mayhem.
I simply see no way for that to happen as ample examples have been given on mayhem, murder and tragedy that had nothing to do with what is being proposed.
2:46 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Ed said: "What about the law abiding citizens it would affect?"
True, this does not affect me - who would it affect, and how? Just as an example, let's use a 10 round clip vs. a 100 round clip. Again, not an argument, only trying to understand the opposition.
I absolutely agree that people will find a way (as in all the examples above), but I don't understand why we can't try and make it harder for them to do so. Please don't go to the extreme here, I am still sticking to the size of the clip in this analogy. My apologies if I have the gun terminology wrong.
Ed Larson
2:57 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan said: "I don't understand why we can't try and make it harder for them to do so."
But there is no evidence it would do anything useful and is definitely another example of chipping away at our freedoms.
An Aside: I made the decision a few year back that I would not longer fly because of the Patriot act/TSA rules that have not stopped a single terrorist anywhere and have added greatly to the cost and ease of flying. No thanks.
If people would stop being sheep the TSA would be gone in a heartbeat. It has become beyond ridiculous when young children, nursing moms and old ladies are groped by blue gloved government union hacks.
I can see no good that the TSA has done. None. I will not participate.
3:11 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I agree with you on this one, Ed. I find it ridiculous that the TSA is playing catch-up to the terrorists, but I do still fly, and will continue to take my shoes off, keep my liquids under 3 ounces, etc. It seems a minor inconvenience to dissuade the bad guys from bringing a shoe or liquid bomb on plane. I wonder though, do they scan every bag that goes in the cargo hold?
I'm not sure of all the answers, but I don't agree with 'no regulations' just for the argument that regulations are bad, or that if we allow them to regulate this, then what stops them from regulating that? Honestly, I would not feel safe in a society that doesn't regulate some things that are inherently dangerous.
Ed Larson
2:36 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
susan said: " I again ask, what else could have been done to stop this tragedy from happening?"
I don't know but nothing proposed here would likely have changed a thing.
In the months ahead, I expect to see legislation or insurer requirements that theaters effectively monitor their exits so that when one is left open for too long an alarm will sound and all the lights in the theater will come on automatically.
You heard it here first. ;-)
2:58 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Ed said: "In the months ahead, I expect to see legislation or insurer requirements that theaters effectively monitor their exits so that when one is left open for too long an alarm will sound and all the lights in the theater will come on automatically."
Now this is an interesting point, and I can understand your position a little better. Was this 'legislated' in schools after any of the school shootings? I honestly don't know this, but I clearly remember being annoyed when my son was in junior high (about 6-7 years ago), and I could walk right in the front door without anyone questioning me.
I really do understand the anti-regulation position, but I think we must apply some common sense....the problem of-course, is that 'common sense' will be defined differently by different political parties, groups, and/or individuals. As I have said before, I think extremes on any issue (to regulate or not) are bad for this country. There truly is a middle ground on most issues, and I think intelligent, compassionate, articulate people form both sides of almost any issue can come together and find solutions. Unfortunately, most of these people are too smart to get into politics and our entire system is now so polarized, and fueled by special interest money, that almost nothing gets done for the betterment (even safety) of society.
Ed Larson
3:23 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
IMHO most airline safety responsibility should be up to the airlines. They have the most to lose and are would be highly motivated to get it right with minimum inconvenience.
Of course that would involve necessary measures like profiling. That it is not currently "allowed" is beyond stupid.
Things would sort themselves rather quickly. Call me a dreamer. ;-)
3:39 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
So it's better to stop and/or detain those who 'look like' previous bombers, than to ask us all to take our shoes off?
Is that fair to those who look like previous bombers? Or is that taking away their freedom to quickly get through the line and to their gate? In other words, everyone should be free to get on the plane quickly except those that look like Khalid al-Mihdhar?
2:10 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
Ah yes, Ed... it is of course the fault of the "union hacks" that man the security posts for TSA.
I'm sure these "Union Hacks" as ;you call them wrote the Patriot Act, set the policies, wrote the rules, etc. I'm sure that the Bush Administration had nothing to do with how this works. I'm sure that the low level "Union Hacks" were the ones who ordered the Porno X-ray machines sold by Skeletor.
You give yourself away with such comments.
Ed Larson
3:47 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan said:""So it's better to stop and/or detain those who 'look like' previous bombers, than to ask us all to take our shoes off? Is that fair to those who look like previous bombers? Or is that taking away their freedom to quickly get through the line and to their gate? In other words, everyone should be free to get on the plane quickly except those that look like Khalid al-Mihdhar?" "
Please don't oversimplify or bring racism into this.
Considering where the those who have done these heinous things came from, is not at least reasonable to focus on those that have connections to these countries of origin?
Instead we have decided to inconvenience 99.9 percent of travelers with no demonstrated results.
Israel has some of the toughest airline security on the planet and they make extensive use of profiling techniques.
How profiling ever became a civil rights issue is beyond me. To me it's like saying the police should not focus on criminals or certain areas but instead harass everyone equally in the name of a nebulous concept call "fairness"
4:17 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
First, I detest when people bring racism into any discussion, unless the conversation is about race, or unless someone's comment is a truly racist comment. It was not my intention to make this a race issue, I only said "look like" because how a person looks IS the first step in profiling.
I think those who want to cause harm to others come in all different colors and religions. What I fear in slowing down Muslims or those who look to be from the Middle East, is that those people are unfairly being targeted because of what someone else has done. Do we treat everyone equally, giving everyone the same freedoms, or do we take away some people's freedoms because they look like (or have the same religion, or come from the same country) as someone who has already committed a crime?
Ryan Desmond
10:23 am on Monday, February 11, 2013
With respect to George Zimmerman, I think it really does boil down to race and gun rights. It will be interesting to see the outcome of the trial.
Carol Turnbull
4:56 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
(I had a longer post but the computer ate it...) Ed believes in profiing. Most all those individuals guilty of mass shootings have been white males; therefore, we definitely need to have stricter laws and tracking for only the white guys.
Ed Larson
5:02 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
I believe profiling is an effective law enforcement tool to find criminals.
It has proven effective over and over.
Subjecting granny to a grope search at the airport is the height of absurdity.
5:08 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
This is from an opinion piece, but I think it's got some good points about profiling:
"Terrorists don't fit a profile and cannot be plucked out of crowds by computers. They're European, Asian, African, Hispanic, and Middle Eastern, male and female, young and old. Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab was Nigerian. Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was British with a Jamaican father. Germaine Lindsay, one of the 7/7 London bombers, was Afro-Caribbean. Dirty bomb suspect Jose Padilla was Hispanic-American. The 2002 Bali terrorists were Indonesian. Timothy McVeigh was a white American. So was the Unabomber. The Chechen terrorists who blew up two Russian planes in 2004 were female. Palestinian terrorists routinely recruit "clean" suicide bombers, and have used unsuspecting Westerners as bomb carriers."
Ed Larson
5:14 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
From and article about Israeli profiling techniques:
"Airports in the U.S. have even begun asking more detailed questions of its travelers. In August 2011, Boston's Logan International Airport was one such airport beginning to use "Israeli-style behavior detection."
5:24 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
And it's okay if the innocent are detained, strip searched, and shipped home because they seem to fit a profile (but have not broken any laws)? For one who advocates freedoms, I think this is a bit of a contradiction.
Ed Larson
5:28 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan said: "And it's okay if the innocent are detained, strip searched, and shipped home because they seem to fit a profile (but have not broken any laws)? For one who advocates freedoms, I think this is a bit of a contradiction."
I don't think you understand profiling.
5:50 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Profiling: The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people.
"so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere" The key word is "capabilities"....this does not mean they will do something bad. Just because someone may be a Muslim (just to use an example), and may be very active in their church, even recruiting others to the faith, does not mean this person will blow up a plane.
You are advocating for taking away a person's freedoms (even if only temporary) based on an assessment of whether they "could break the law or be involved in violence." (A quote from your link). These women (although the writer did try to later condemn them), had done nothing wrong, had no bomb, and were still detained, strip searched and sent home. That is Israel, I would not want it to happen in America, unless someone is actually doing something wrong, or is confirmed to be part of a terrorist organization.
2:33 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
@ Carol.... good idea, cause we all know those angry white guys all look alike.
Yes, our friend Ed likes profiling; so I will provide with a little information.
Israel has one major airport, Ben Gurion, which annually has the awesome passenger traffic of (drum roll, please) of 11,5 million passengers.
Here in the US, just to pull three examples of the medium traffic airports:
Minneapolis/St Paul -- 33 million passengers
Detroit -- 32 million passengers
Seattle/Tacoma -- 33 million passengers
These three airports alone have ten times the passenger traffic of Isael in one year.
I wonder how many "Union Hacks" it would take to profile this number of passengers?
We already do profiling in the US... it's called "Driving While Black".
Jim Bob
12:55 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
There are approximately 2.1 people in US prisons. 66 percent of these prisoners are non-white. Just doing the basic math here, one should conclude the non-whites should be profiled becuased they take up the most space in prisons.
No wonder the white guys a worried and have to be so heavily armed. They are surrounded by some many non-white criminals.
Ed Larson
5:30 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Why Carol, do only white guys commit crimes?
Please try to learn what profiling actually is before you make another inflammatory comment.
Jim Bob
12:47 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
I'm not sure the Founding Fathers wanted non-whites to own guns. Since they didn't want them to vote and considered slave be be private property and less than human, my guess is they wouldn't have wanted a bunch of less-than-humans running around with guns. That could lead to revoultion.
Carol Turnbull
5:41 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Ed: I previously said "Ed believes in profiing. Most all those individuals guilty of mass shootings have been white males; therefore, we definitely need to have stricter laws and tracking for only the white guys." I assumed it would be understood I was responding to your comments in support of profiling - not being serious. But the fact is that profiling tends to look much different if you are the one being unfairly profiled, right?
Ed Larson
6:37 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
OK Carol. I guess I took that wrong. ;-)
That fairness word is often used to garner an emotional response.
If 90%(totally made up stat) of poisonous mushrooms have a certain "profile" it seems like an efficient use of resources to to look for those identifiers rather than be "fair" to all the mushrooms.
6:00 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Ed, should we use profiling when someone makes an application to buy a gun? Right now, a young man who lives alone, has done well academically, is quiet, has no criminal record (other than a speeding ticket), and has visited a psychologist, should be denied the right to buy a gun because he fits the profile of someone who will shoot 70 people in a movie theater.
Ed Larson
6:42 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Susan, something went seriously wrong.
I want to know what the psychiatrist knew and when she knew it.
The right to own a gun should be revoked if necessary to protect the public in certain cases .
That is something that would require a change in law and I would support it.
Felons lose their rights in this matter already.
5:52 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Ed, you may have missed my point, which was to show an example of how profiling can, and will end up targeting the wrong, and most often innocent people.
Regarding your comment, I agree that someone had to know something about this man. I did see that Fox seems to be trying to point to the psychiatrist, but as I mentioned before, I think her hands were tied unless he told her specific plans to hurt or kill someone. We will see...
Timothy Hall
10:54 pm on Monday, July 30, 2012
Susan I agree if we profile people buying a lot of bullets innocent people will be targeted. When bullets go on sale hunters buy them buy the case. Our Federal Government already tried to blame gun shops for selling guns to drug dealers when our Federal Government made them sell the guns for a failed sting operation. We never know how elected officials will use info when they mess up.
6:53 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Interesting point, Timothy, but why would a hunter care if he has to 'register' a large ammo purchase? If he has nothing to hide, why the fuss to have it recorded?
Timothy Hall
7:40 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
It come down to a person having to prove their innocents. It isn't like innocent people never go to jail.
8:26 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The burden of guilt is on the accuser, not on the accused. One would not have to PROVE innocence, if one is not guilty.
Timothy Hall
8:35 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
A police officer once asked if he could look in my car. I said sure I had nothing to hide. Well I had two prescriptions for bronchitis that I had put into one bottle. So I was transporting a controlled substance illegally. Had my car towed and spent the night in jail. Then I had to go to court. Innocent people can get caught in the cross fire of laws we pass.
9:09 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
But Timothy, you weren't innocent. Was it stupid and ridiculous that the police officer did this? Yes, but technically you violated the law.
Yes, innocent people do get sent to jail, that is a problem with our judicial system, not a problem with our laws and regulations.
Timothy Hall
9:24 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
How our judicial system works has to be taken into account when making laws. It isn't much of a leader that doesn't. Saying I am right. They are wrong. When the law started with legislators.
9:43 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
My apologies, what I meant by "judicial system" is what happens to a person (in court) AFTER they have been charged with a crime....that is where innocent people are found guilty.
Carol Turnbull
10:33 pm on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Grant: I hadn't seen your response above earlier. Thanks for sharing your perspective on the terms "regulated" and "militia." This may sound like a facetious question, but I don't really mean it to be. Do you (or anyone) know exactly what kind of weapons were in existence at the time the Constitution was written? That is, what "arms" are referred to?
6:34 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I respect and appreciate what you are teaching in your classes. Do you get any response from former students that they have actually used a weapon in self-defense?
Dick Bernard
1:44 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
I've followed this conversation since the first day.
A few days ago I tried to get a handle on the dimensions of the problem of guns in this country. It seems, best as I can figure, that between Columbine and Aurora about 100,000 or so Americans were killed in person-against-person gun violence. The number would triple if suicides and accidents with guns were included. Hardly a minimal problem.
A friend, a retired corporation management guy, defined the situation well a few days ago: he was held up by someone with a gun at a suburban hotel parking lot in Twin Cities in 1977. In this hold-up, he lost only his money.
Afterwards he asked the policeman "what if I'd had a gun?" The response was pretty quick: if he had a gun, he better be a better shot than the assailant, even then he might be in legal jeopardy; if the assailant was shot while running away, the shooter could be charged with use of excessive force. If a bystander was shot by accident there'd e charges and likely lawsuit....
No politician of any party can take on the gun issue before November: political insanity.
After November 6 is the time for mobilization of the common sense faction for change, including restoring the NRA to its pre-radical political mission (prior to the mid-1970s). NRA was once an honorable organization. In important ways, it's changed.
The issue has never really been the Constitution. It's common sense.
5:54 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
You raise a point I have thought about regarding the argument that if we only had more people armed then they could stop someone else.
As you noted if someone pulls out a gun to engage a shooter - yes, they better hope that they are a better shooter because they may get off a shot but then it will be a gun battle if they don't take the guy down (and hitting a moving target in a pressure situation isn't as easy as it looks on TV - which is why the pro's practice it a lot).
And of course if they hit an innocent person - even if there aren't criminal charges (which there might be) there will certainly be Civil Charges.
They always seem to leave out the very real possibility that in the heat of a gun battle they could hit an innocent person and watch as their personal finances get wiped out in a Civil Lawsuit and may well end up in a criminal trial if the DA finds that they did something wrong, etc...
2:48 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
Let's just face it people. The US is an Empire in rapid decline. The Empire is going the way of the Romans, the Spanish, the Dutc, and the Brits. It is happening faster to the US because change moves much faster in the 21st century.
Instead of looking to the future like the BRIC countries are (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are doing the United States is bogged down in re-fighting the Civil War in legistative ways which has completely ossified our goverment which is basec on 18th century thoughts.
In addition to that, there is a large number of people interested in parsing the meaning of words in the Bible (which was written by humans and not by any god --thousands of years ag0) and by the word in the Constitution, which was also written by flawed human beings well over two hundred years ago; and no god had anything to do with that document either.
Perhaps the "Floundering Fathers" as my US History Prof called them, made some mistakes. Why should we have to live with those mistakes?
Jim Bob
8:03 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
Mre Peel, compared with the Roman Empire, where do you think the US is in its stage of decline?
In 753 BC, Romulous found Rome.
In 64 AD, Nero played his fiddle while Rome burned.
In 1461, the Roman Empire came to an end when the Ottomans capture the empire of Trebizond - the last Greek state.
The Roman Empire covered a time spand of roughly 2200 years. The US has been around for 236 years.
The latest, big argument I heard between to local conservatives in line a the convenience store lately was that the hot weather made there swimming pools too hot. The next day I heard two people in line excited about the free healthcare Obama has given us.
7:14 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I don't believe the US is an empire nor is it rapid decline.
I think that too many Americans look back at the Post-WWII decades and think that that was what America should be like - but lets not forget that prior to WWII America really wasn't an economic powerhouse nor was it the big dog on the world stage.
Post-WWII, Europe was a disaster, Japan and China was toast and the US was not only giving money out to other countries to rebuild but the American industrial economy was the only major one left undamaged by WWII and American workers found themselves in a position where they were supplying the world with goods and were not facing much competition - this was certainly not a real world scenario that was going to last for very long.
It was inevitable that not only would Europe and Asia rebuild but that other countries would become competitive and America would simply fall back into a more realistic economy.
However, I would agree that in some ways the US will have to get its act together because other countries are combining the best of the Free Market with the Government to compete on a larger scope than the United States is doing in many areas and they are starting to eat our lunch on technologies that will be important in the coming decades.
Carbon Bigfuut
8:49 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
"In 753 BC, Romulous found Rome."
Where did he find it? Was it lost?
Jim Bob
9:17 am on Monday, July 30, 2012
I believe he found Rome in Italy. Found Italy the roman Empire spread West and eventually ended up in North Hudson. Perhaps the last standing evidence of the Roman Empire is Pepper Fest.
2:54 am on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
@Frunobulax...good question.
The so-called Roman Empire was really three succesive powers. The first Empire went from 27 BC (which is commonly agreed to) to 476 AD. By that time the Empire had moved to Constantinople and ran on until it was superceded by the Holy Roman Empire which Napolean ended.
The Ottoman Empire lasted aproximately 400 years. The Dutch Empire lasted about 300 years as did the Spanish and British Empires.
Ther are many other empires in the East which none of us know much about.
The history of empires is showing that in the more modern times the timelines are quite accelerated.
The US really dates from 1789 or 1776, take your choice. So, it's about 236 years since it all started. You do the math.
The common theme of demise of the empires is overextension of geographical reach (which is somewhat mitigated today); the cost of maintaing the troops to garrison the empire (currently about $1 Trillion per year); and the morphing into "business" being financiallly oriented (think the Tulip Swindle) instead of actually producing products.
Food for thought.
5:06 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Guns dont shoot people...people shoot people!!
5:49 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I suppose then since we know that "People Kill People" maybe we should avoid giving them weapons that will kill at a distance - and force them to get "Up Close and Personal" to do their killing - I bet that there would be a lot less killing if the guy had to wade into a crowd of 100 people with a knife and bat to try and kill folks...
6:04 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I agree, rob, and let's not forget that someone who's magazine holds 100 rounds instead of, say 10 rounds, may kill 90 people much faster than if they had to change the magazine nine more times. Gabby Gifford's shooter has brought down (by a 60-ish year old woman) while he was changing the magazine.
7:33 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Susan - that is why although I am find with guns being around I would like to see the high capacity clips and magazines eliminated.
Even if I had my former H&K .45 at that theater to be honest I am not sure I would have wanted to get into a shoot out with a guy who had an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine - first - I don't practice enough to ensure that I would hit the guy at much distance, particularly in a crowded theater under huge pressure and in the dark.
And regarding having people carrying concealed guns what if 10 guys had been armed and they all pulled their guns and started shooting - how exactly would they identify friend from foe in that situation? I suspect that we may well have had a much larger bloodbath had there been more than one or two other people with a gun.
And if there had been a shoot out and innocent people were hit by the folks carrying the concealed weapons what happens once the civil lawsuits are filed against those shooters for medical costs?
Ed Larson
7:48 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Those imagining all sorts of scenarios and all manner of regulation need to step back and consider what it really means to be free.
That so many are willing to take away the right of others is sad.
It's Sad when mayor Bloomberg wants to get rid of the big gulp, get salt out of restaurants and lock up baby formula in the hospitals.
Those who have decided they know best will always find more freedoms to take away ALWAYS
We are a much less free people than we once were.
8:15 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
How about if we just get rid of all laws that are designed to protect us? Would America then be a safer place to live? Well, at least we would be free....or would we?
1:21 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Can you provide some specifics on the Freedoms we no longer have and who took them away?
8:35 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
We have a right to bear arms....yet "both federal and state laws consider a felon to be disqualified to purchase or possess a firearm. The Gun Control Act of 1968 further defines a prohibited person under Title 18, U.S. Code, Chapter 44. A prohibited person is one who has been convicted or is under indictment for a term exceeding 1 year; is a fugitive from justice; is a user of unlawful and/or addictive controlled substances; is mentally defective; is an illegal alien or has renounced citizenship; has been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. armed services; or individuals who are subject to a court order of restraint."
So no, not everyone has the right to bear arms. This is to protect us.
You do not have a 'right' to a magazine holding 20+ rounds, yet we seem to think it is a right...wouldn't this be a privilege?
You do not have a 'right' to a semi or fully automatic weapon. This would also be a privilege.
How about we stop screaming about gun regulations and realize that these things are privileges, and that better screening, longer waiting periods, and strict guidelines for the purchase of large capacity magazines are to help protect us, not to take our freedom away.
Ed Larson
8:41 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. - Benjamin Franklin
8:46 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
And here is the problem with your argument....waiting for a gun, or going through a tougher background check for a larger magazine is NOT giving away a freedom (or liberty). Just because someone makes a product before the product has been deemed safe, does not mean that everyone should be able to have all they want, whenever they want, of that product.
Ed Larson
8:51 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. Ronald Reagan
8:54 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
You can quote as many people as you want. You say buying a 100 round magazine is a freedom, I say it's a privilege that should be earned. If someone wants to say that you can not have your drivers license anymore, are they taking away a freedom or a privilege?
Ed Larson
8:57 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery. Wayne Dyer
9:00 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I choose to live my life not surrounded by a bunch of people with guns that have the capacity to shoot 100 bullets in less than a minute.
Ed Larson
9:02 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. John Stuart Mill
9:11 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Yawn....do you (yourself) have anything to say, or is this about what dead men have said? They were smart, possibly even brilliant in their time, but they don't live in 2012.
Timothy Hall
9:12 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ed using a quote to call Susan a miserable creature is uncalled for. She is fighting not to fight.
Ed Larson
9:15 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws. Tacitus
Ed Larson
9:19 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Quotes not directed Susan. She wants safety but at the expence of some one else freedom.
9:27 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I want safety to spare people's lives. You want to claim freedom for all, on something that should be an earned privilege.
I knew what the quote meant, but thanks all the same, Timothy.
9:19 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim… we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
9:21 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
"And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it."
-- Bill Clinton
Ed Larson
9:25 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
James Bovar _ As we learned from the Clinton administration and much of the media, a machine gun in the hands of a federal agent is now a symbol of benevolence and concern for a child's well-being.
9:46 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ed, I really do understand what you are saying. My point, however, is that the specific things I listed are not 'rights' or 'freedoms' to be taken away, they should be privileges to be earned.
Once again, I will thank you for the debate, it's always a learning experience with you. Have a great night.
Timothy Hall
10:01 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I have debated hundreds of left wing gun owners in my life. They believe in evolution, social justice, abortion, gay marriage, and legalizing drugs. They will give all that up to not have gun regulations and vote Republican. It isn't the NRA stopping gun regulations. It is the voter. Bill Clinton knew this and it is how he was elected.
10:18 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
I am not "left wing", but lean left on most social issues (more right on fiscal issues)...I would NOT give up my position on evolution, abortion, gay marriage, or the legalization of some drugs to "not have gun regulations and vote Republican" (did you mean this, how it was written?). I will not give up my position on anything until I debate with a well informed and persuasive individual who can make a compelling enough argument to make me rethink my position...as Ed did with the Zimmerman case. Although I still hold my initial position on who is at fault, I have changed my mind as to whether Zimmerman should be found guilty as charged (manslaughter would have been much better, and I do believe him guilty of that)....but I don't want to get in that debate again.
Timothy Hall
10:38 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Susan I was not talking about you. I was talking about people that don't want gun regulations. Even President Obama has not passed any gun regulations. I was pointing out where things stand politically. Poverty is one the leading causes of violence. Taxes, drug use, illiteracy and health problems are leading causes of poverty. I use to live at Park Place in Plymouth. A two bed room apartment with a washing machine in the apartment, tennis court, two out door pools, sauna, hot tub, and a tanning booth. In less then 10 years the apartment went from 650 a month to 1400. It wasn't millionaires and billionaires that caused this. It was taxes. These are the reasons I am running. I understand what the average person is going through and I have solutions.
Carol Turnbull
11:31 pm on Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Ed quoted someone as saying, "Freedom means you are unobstructed in living your life as you choose. Anything less is a form of slavery." That has to be one of the stupidest quotes ever. There are people who "choose" to drive while legally drunk, to own dogs that terrorize the neighbors, to beat their spouses, to sexually molest their children... You get the idea. There are people who feel there's justification for each of those actions. But nobody who lives in a community can be "unobstructed," and there are legal consequences.
Gun nuts, however, think they should go merrily along buying/carrying any kind of firearm they choose, even into schools and churches, with no obstructions. They scream that anything less is taking away their "freedom."
matt lehman
12:21 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Carol, our views differ. Currently our country (obama admin) is assisting the syrian rebels overthrow their government, we are equiping them with guns that shoot rapidly and have large magazines. We say freedom for the rebels against the oppressive government assad. Surely if we are going to equip and fund foreign rebels in the name of freedom and democracy, we would do the same for our own freedom and democracy. I believe the intent of the second ammendment (federalist writings) was to make sure our own free people had the means (right to bear arms) and organization (well regulated militias) to over throw our own government if the need ever arose. we have non violent processes first but, the last resort is Syria type rebeling. Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Afgahnistan, and many others had the support of the USA. How can so many different US Presidents all have the same policies yet suddenly these same policies do not apply at home? Are we not the free in comparison? When you know you are forced into a war, you try to disarm your enemy first. We the people are not the enemy. We want our government to be of, for, and by the people with the elected doing as we say, not the elected telling us what we must do. We cannot protect people from people, its simply a factual impossibility.
8:11 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
matt, do you really believe the people in America would be able to rise up against the government (the massive DOD), as was the intention of the second amendment? If so, I will borrow a post from MrsPeel, above:
" good luck on that when the US Airforce (which is pretty much an Evangelical arm of the military) fires a Hellfire missile up your butt while you are holding your pathetic AR-15.
Seriously you think you and your buddies can take out the largest military machine that the world has ever known?"
Ed Larson
9:17 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
And yet, a small group of committed fighters was able to do great damage to this country with nothing but box cutters in their pocket.
Constant drum beating over the number of rounds one can fire in a short time or the amount of ammunition one can purchase is a wasted effort as it has not practical effect in improving the much desired safety.
Just a little more is the cry of those who want to limit freedom.
9:45 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Ed, at some point you are going have to stop beating the generic freedom drum, and tell us exactly what freedoms you think I want to take away from you....otherwise your comments become nothing more than a talking point, not a logical and persuasive argument.
Joyce Denn
9:20 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I see a lot of talk here about freedom, in particular from Ed Larson, about his freedom to own any and all weapons of his choosing and any amount of any kind of ammunition he wants; anything less would impinge on his freedom as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
I would remind Mr. Larson of the quotation generally attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."
Constitutional rights, even the Second Amendment rights, are not absolute - your rights are limited by the harm they can do to others. When your right to own a military arsenal impinges on others' rights to live free from the danger of bodily harm or even from the loss of life, that freedom must be limited.
9:49 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Joyce, I have a quick question. Above we discussed the Colrado shooter and his trips to see a psychiatrist. Fox seems to already be pointing their fingers at this psychiatrist. We don't know yet what happened there, but is my assessment that the shooter would have had to tell the psychiatrist very specifically that he was going to harm himself or someone else, before she could have done anything? More specifically, that her hands were completely tied unless he said those exact words?
Joyce Denn
10:12 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan, laws regarding involuntary commitment vary from state to state, but in the two states in which I have worked in health care an adult cannot be involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility unless that adult is a threat either to himself or to others. In the absence of overt threatening behavior, there is nothing a health care professional can do.
10:20 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Joyce, but could she have notified authorities that this man seemed disturbed, or that she was worried, if he did not specifically say that he wanted to harm others? Where does doctor patient confidentiality stop in respect to the safety of others? Thanks.
Joyce Denn
10:29 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Again, Susan, I am not familiar with the laws in Colorado, only with those in New York and Minnesota - a health care worker can violate confidentiality and have a person involuntarily committed ONLY if there is overt evidence (like a direct threat) that the person is a danger to himself or to others. Reporting the person to the authorities under any other circumstances would be a violation of the privacy rules.
Stafford Christensen
10:55 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
You are correct that "rights are limited by the harm they can do to others." One's right to consume what they wish does not include consuming excessive amounts of alcohol and proceed to get behind the wheel of a car, for instance. Consuming excessive amounts of alcohol while on the couch at home or in the bar with a plan for a friend or cab to take you home is perfectly legal on the other hand.
Personal freedom stops becoming freedom when one infringes upon the freedoms of another.
The second amendment protects the right to defend oneself, as everyone has a right to life; guns exist in reality and people need them to defend themselves against others with guns. Individual property rights protect the right of property owners to allow or ban things on their property (like schools or hospitals ban guns from their premises), as everyone has the right to conduct their property in the way that they choose so long as no one else's freedoms are infringed upon in the process. Gun owners infringe upon the rights of others when they take their guns into establishments that do not want them there or, God forbid, use them on people who are not threatening their life - this is a misuse of their freedoms. In the same way, the rights of all gun owners to own guns to defend his or herself are also infringed upon when some try to use the force of government, which exists to protect the liberty of all, to restrict gun ownership because one person or group of persons misused the right.
Ed Larson
9:56 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Joyce said: ""I would remind Mr. Larson of the quotation generally attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., "your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose."
Constitutional rights, even the Second Amendment rights, are not absolute - your rights are limited by the harm they can do to others. When your right to own a military arsenal impinges on others' rights to live free from the danger of bodily harm or even from the loss of life, that freedom must be limited."
But until my fist reaches for your nose there is no harm.
We are born with freedom from our creator. Only government or others can take that away.
As long as my freedom does no harm to you, bug off.
Any weapon I may have can do you harm, would you limit that as well?
Where does it end?
Joyce Denn
10:15 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Actually, Ed, freedom in this country comes from a thoroughly secular document, the Constitution of the United States, not from any creator. The rights you enjoy are guaranteed by that Constitution, as well as the rights others enjoy, including the right to be safe from others. When ordinary Americans have to fear going to public places because of other people who feel they need to be armed to the teeth to feel free, those ordinary Americans have their rights infringed.
Ed Larson
10:01 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Suan said: Ed, at some point you are going have to stop beating the generic freedom drum, and tell us exactly what freedoms you think I want to take away from you....otherwise your comments become nothing more than a talking point, not a logical and persuasive argument"
Read your own posts Susan. You have repeatedly said you want to limit high capacity clip and the amount of ammunition one can purchase.
I have no responsibility toward you do make you "feel" safe.
The responsibility I have is not to harm you.
I can't make it any simper than that.
You want to limit freedom for what you think is the greater good.
I want to remain free and accept the responsibility that goes with it.
10:11 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
And this is my point....you call owning these things a freedom, maybe a God given freedom, whereas I call owning them a privilege. Where in the bible or the constitution does it say that a 100 round magazine is an absolute freedom given to you at birth?
Ed Larson
10:15 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan said: "I call owning them a privilege"
According to whom?
You see it isn't up to you decide who gets "privileges".
What you consider reasonable will no doubt not be enough for others and the erosion of freedom will continue.
I have asked repeatedly where the line is and no one is able to answer because there isn't one.
Freedom can be scary.
Loss of freedom is much scarier.
10:42 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Ed wrote: "According to whom?"
The state, just as with a drivers license, an analogy that you ignored above.
There is no way to guess where the line is, so it's a question that simply can not be answered. Staying involved, educating yourself on the issues, and voting are ways we can help decide what powers the government will have. unfortunately it seems that lobbyists have more power to sway those in the law making business than the voters do.
Ed Larson
10:20 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Joyce said:'Actually, Ed, freedom in this country comes from a thoroughly secular document, the Constitution of the United States, not from any creator. The rights you enjoy are guaranteed by that Constitution, as well as the rights others enjoy, including the right to be safe from others. When ordinary Americans have to fear going to public places because of other people who feel they need to be armed to the teeth to feel free, those ordinary Americans have their rights infringed."
Perhaps you have forgotten one of our founding documents.
In part:
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Joyce Denn
10:27 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Ed, our founding document, the blueprint for our form of government, is not the Declaration of Independence, it is the Constitution of the United States, composed years later, by different men for a different purpose.
Ed Larson
10:32 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Joyce, without the declaration the Revolution and the constitution would never have happened.
The Declaration was the beginning. The constitution was the result.
Why try to divorce one from the other?
Acknowledging a Creator is not religious only an acknowledgement that we are born free.
It is men who take rights away.
Dick Bernard
10:35 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Try as I might, I can't detach from this thread. It's my own "cold, dead hands" moment, I guess. As I've noted, no politician will touch this issue before November 6. After Nov. 6 we can (pardon the expression) "go in with guns blazing" to at minimum restore the assault weapons ban which was allowed to expire in 2004. There can be strategies to defang NRA as well - that will be tough, but why not? Once upon a time, before the radicals took it over, it was an honorable bunch. Ed will doubtless remain in his bunker, wherever that happens to be. Susan, Mrs. Peel, Joyce, Carol, et al, the voices for sanity, Thank You.
Ed Larson
10:42 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
That's funny stuff Dick.
You have nothing to fear from me until you pint a weapon or threaten to do me harm.
However, I have to fear those like you who think freedom is something to be handed out and controlled.
Dick Bernard
11:16 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
You have no fear of my pointing a weapon at you, since I don't have one to point. At the same time, a weapon in your possession gives you no freedom either. There really isn't an upside that I can see, if you actually feel you have to use that weapon against someone else. The literature is hardly filled with examples of the glory of guns person against person.... The arguments are more emotional than rational. Prisons are full of folks who felt good after they shot somebody.
Ed Larson
10:47 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan said,
"The state, just as with a drivers license, an analogy that you ignored above.
There is no way to guess where the line is, so it's a question that simply can not be answered. Staying involved, educating yourself on the issues, and voting are ways we can help decide what powers the government will have. unfortunately it seems that lobbyists have more power to sway those in the law making business than the voters do."
You have given the very reason why our level of freedom cannot be at the whim of those who desire to control. Thank you.
The words "shall not be infringed" are just not that hard to understand.
11:12 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Ed, I will make it easy for you to understand my point. I would not want to live in your (definition) of a free country. I am comfortable with the government regulating certain privileges to make my home and person safer. Although you may be a responsible gun owner who may never take the law in his own hands, there are many others who are not. Regulating inherently dangerous products is the state's responsibility. Imagine what our food suppliers could sell us, if they were not regulated, or how much more dangerous our roadways would be if there weren't drivers license tests and speed limit laws. If the people had the freedom to drive 100 miles an hour down Main Street without any behind the wheel training, people would be hiding in their homes....which is certainly not what I picture when I think of freedom.
Ed Larson
11:17 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan said: "Regulating inherently dangerous products is the state's responsibility. Imagine what our food suppliers could sell us, if they were not regulated, or how much more dangerous our roadways would be if there weren't drivers license tests and speed limit laws. If the people had the freedom to drive 100 miles an hour down Main Street without any behind the wheel training, people would be hiding in their homes....which is certainly not what I picture when I think of freedom." "
Except that I am not endangering you until I point a weapon at you.
You need to understand the difference or we can never move forward.
11:26 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
I understand the difference. What do I do about the person who does point a gun at me? Oh yes, reach into my purse, pull put my gun and hope I can shoot them before they have a chance to fire off 100 rounds at me....or at a crowd in a theater? Once again, do you really believe the shooter would have harmed so many if his clip only held 10 rounds?
Ed Larson
11:32 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Yes, he was bent on mayhem. He could just as well have used a shotgun or something else "acceptable" and killed as many. We are going in circles.
Limiting the size of the clip or the shape of the weapon does not do what you hope.
So while you consider your restrictions reasonable they have no basis in fact.
I just don't know how else to say it.
11:49 am on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
There is no way to prove it as fact until the regulations happen, and we can compare data before and after those regulations are applied.
You are right that we are going in circles. We must agree to disagree on this one. I will say that I would prefer to live in a country where people are governed by rules and regulations designed to protect us...your idea of a totally free country where anyone can choose to do as they wish in the name of freedom, scares the bejesus out of me.
Ed Larson
12:04 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan said: You are right that we are going in circles. We must agree to disagree on this one. I will say that I would prefer to live in a country where people are governed by rules and regulations designed to protect us...your idea of a totally free country where anyone can choose to do as they wish in the name of freedom, scares the bejesus out of me."
As long as it does not not harm you it should make no difference.
There certainly are places like you claim you desire. They certainly are not immune from tragic events.
Some people are just evil or sick.
12:13 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Without rules and regulations, it is much easier for someone to harm me...whether intentionally or not - drivers license exams, speed limits, food and drug regulations, etc.
Ed Larson
12:11 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Now this issomething to consider.
Crime and Mayhem in the USA
1:47 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
It seems me, that a country that allows it's citizens all the freedom they want (after all, where do you draw the line), is a country where only the very rich or ruthless survive.
2:01 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
People talk about "Freedom" and losing it - or having lost it - etc... but they all really don't mean that they want real "Freedom" - they all believe in the government putting its boot on the throat of people as long as its for something that they think isn't "necessary" and as long as their pet "Freedoms" are preserved...
2:11 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Exactly rob, I would like to know where those freedom riders draw the line. When can the government regulate and punish for a freedom gone too far?
Carol Turnbull
11:56 pm on Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Susan: It seems the only freedom which Ed is really concerned about is the "freedom" to own any kind/amount of guns/ammo that he desires. For some people, the Second Amendment is the only one in the Constitution. Guns are the way they can feel macho, in charge, safe from criminals around every corner, safe from their own government... That kind of paranoia doesn't sound much like freedom to me.
7:52 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Carol, I agree that some gun enthusiasts certainly look at it this way, but I think the bigger issue here might be the 'freedom taken away' argument. Stafford Christensen put it well above "Personal freedom stops becoming freedom when one infringes upon the freedoms of another."
I have read and reread his post and given it a lot of thought. While that sentence makes complete sense to me, I also say that the government already makes laws which take away certain freedoms (the freedom to drive as fast as we want), and regulates some things that are inherently dangerous (you must pass a written and driving test in order to drive). I really believe that these examples are for the good and safety of society. Like these, I think that better background checks, mandated training for each gun, and data bases for tracking purchases of guns and ammunition are sensible regulations or requirements of gun ownership. I will agree that it does take away the freedom to buy as much and as often as the gun buyers may want, but ultimately they would still get their guns, and at least police would get a heads up in situations where an individual might try to repeat one of the mass shootings. Having a gun and knowing how to properly use it in a tense and highly emotional situation are two very different things.
Ed Larson
8:09 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Carol you really are attributing to me things of which you cannot possibly know.
I am not paranoid except when it comes to people that are never satisfied with the restrictions they get because they always want more.
A perfect example is Mother Against Drunk Driving
It sounded like d perfectly reasonable idea but look at the progression through time of the organization.
They are in no Zero Tolerance mode and that is hard to deny.
It is no different with the anti gun nuts.
8:15 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed, you take exception with Carol's assessment of you, but you label us as "anti gun nuts"? I am not anti gun, I just want to make sure people are properly trained, and police have a tool that may help track those planning mayhem.
Ed Larson
8:05 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
rog_h78 said: "they all believe in the government putting its boot on the throat of people as long as its for something that they think isn't "necessary" and as long as their pet "Freedoms" are preserved..."
Pet freedoms? You really do not understand do you?
Who will there be to defend the "pet freedoms" you enjoy when someone decides they are no longer good for "society"?
consider this:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
Ed Larson
8:32 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan siad: "Ed, you take exception with Carol's assessment of you, but you label us as "anti gun nuts"? I am not anti gun, I just want to make sure people are properly trained, and police have a tool that may help track those planning mayhem."
As has been stated ad nauseum. what you think will result in greater safety will have zero effect except to provided another step in the true anti gun nut crowd toward no fire arms and the abolition of the second amendment.
I don't know either of you or Carol but as they say "if the shoe fits"
I'm sorry you cannot see how dangerous your position truly is. Go back and read that quote I posted.
8:42 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed, I have read most of the comments more than once. Please explain how speed limits and drivers license exams have limited my freedom to drive.
And please prove that gun regulations will lead to a ban on guns, or all of my other freedoms being taken away. Never mind, you can't do it....yours is a theory, and only a theory, repeating it (ad nauseum) does not change that fact.
Ed Larson
9:04 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan I ask you to prove that it won't
There is a long history of progression to ever more constraints on rights.
Can you show me the opposite?
9:16 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Again, how does requiring behind the wheel training and tests for a drivers license take away my freedom to drive, Ed?
Joyce Denn
9:44 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed wrote: "There is a long history of progression to ever more constraints on rights.
Can you show me the opposite?"
Voting rights used to belong only to white male property owners; those rights have been extended to people of color, to women, to 18-year-olds, to people without property...
The right to own property used to be restricted to white males; it has been extended to include women and people of color.
Contraception was outlawed in many states until Griswold; now men and women have the freedom to use contraceptives and health care providers have the freedom to prescribe them.
Sunday closing laws used to restrict the rights of non-Christian business owners to compete; those laws are no longer in effect in most states, except for liquor sales.
Homosexuality used to be a crime punishable by imprisonment; homosexuals are now not only free to be themselves, openly, they are also free to serve in the military and, in some states, to marry.
I could go on.
Ed Larson
9:22 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan, refusing to prove that your further restriction of rights will not continue in even more restrictions is not helping your case.
Your diversion into what you consider a safe area without addressing the current issue is disingenuous or dishonest.
As far as I'm concerted it makes more sense for insurance companies you decide driver restrictions as it is they who determine rates and are truly concerned with limiting liability.
You seem all cozy with government trying to protect you when the market could do a much better job at lower cost.
Think about all the non productive labor in licensing vehicles and drivers by the state.
9:33 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed, you are also refusing to prove how my suggestions would end up in a ban on guns, so go look in a mirror when implying that I may be dishonest or disingenuous.
The Libertarian argument about free markets solving all the problems in this country is just wrong. Take health care for an example, this can not be a true free market because the consumer can not decide whether or not to be a consumer, they eventually have to, whether they want it or not, and whether they can afford it or not. It has been proven that when it comes to profit, big business can not be trusted to regulate itself and put the public's safety first...think of BP.
I believe we are at the end of the line here, as neither is budging, and the frustration is reaching a point of name calling. Thanks, Ed, for working to save all my freedoms, but I think extremes are bad for this country, there must be some middle ground as not every citizen (or business) is going to be responsible and law abiding.
Ed Larson
9:37 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan, looking to government to fullfill your desires, make you safe and control others who mean you no harm is liberal thought.
There is no middle ground when liberal/progressives have a long history of controlling people for their ends.
Feel feel to prove that statement wrong.
Ed Larson
9:49 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Joyce said: "I could go on."
Please do. You are making a wonderful case.
Just look how we have "progressed"
We now have more than half he population paying no income tax while the top few percent pay most of the bill.
What a great idea.
Kill off the producers a.k.a. "the rich" so we can all live in poverty but be "equal"
No thanks.
Joyce Denn
10:22 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Wow, Ed, you really are divorced from reality.
More than half the population paying no income tax? That would be because they are too poor (that half includes the elderly and the disabled, in case you hadn't noticed); after taking the standard deductions, they don't have enough income left on which to pay taxes. They do, however, pay state and local taxes, highly regressive sales taxes and the incredibly regressive payroll taxes, which they pay at a higher rate as a percentage of their income than the wealthy.
The top few percent paying most of the bill? Look up tax rates - the tax rates on the wealthy are the lowest they have been in about 60 years.
"Kill of the producers"? You mean the Wall Street bankers who invented exotic financial instruments with which they enriched themselves and crashed the economy? They've had the lowest tax rates and the highest incomes in decades - so, Ed, where are the jobs they are supposedly producing?
You have been marinating in way too much Randian idiocy.
11:22 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Yes, that is the new Conservative Republican talking point...
When you think about people such as Romney paying for example around 15% in taxes (while middle class Americans often pay almost double that) - and yet when you add up the dollars they do pay a lot of in terms of dollars - the argument that you are actually making is that the top few percent have such a huge percentage of total wealth in the country that they can pay a big chunk "of the bill" WHILE paying at a lower real tax rate than almost everyone else.
As for the people who don't pay "income tax" let's take a quick look at who those people are: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505
"Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers. (In years like the last few, this group also includes a significant number of people who have been unemployed the entire year and cannot find work.)"
AND - let's not forget that while they are poor enough to not pay Income tax they still pay taxes every time they purchase gasoline, they pay sales taxes on goods and merchandise purchased, etc...
Ed Larson
11:43 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Joyce, you progressive apologist you. (-:
Wow, Ed, you really are divorced from reality.
The reality you speak of is that thanks to progressive policieswe live in a welfare state where many consider it OK to to steal from "the rich" to put money in their pockets.
Notice that "Progressives" only speak of tax rates. NEVER of how much is paid.
Yes please look up who pays the bills.
Ed Larson
11:47 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Rob said: "When you think about people such as Romney paying for example around 15% in taxes (while middle class Americans often pay almost double that) - and yet when you add up the dollars they do pay a lot of in terms of dollars - the argument that you are actually making is that the top few percent have such a huge percentage of total wealth in the country that they can pay a big chunk "of the bill" WHILE paying at a lower real tax rate than almost everyone else."
And yet another Progressive/liberal who can only speak of rates,. How sad is that.
What gives you the right to decide how much is OK to take from the pockets of the rich for your pet people and programs?
I am not a wealthy man but I don't look to others to pay my way.
Shame on you progressives.
Where is the evidence that your tax and spending policy has ever worked?
12:29 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed: Well, what gives you the right to decide how much is OK to take from the pockets of the middle class to pay for your pet people and programs and tax deductions for Prancing Ponies?
So, while you are not wealthy yourself, I assume that you make enough money to pay taxes?
If so, I am certain that Romney and others are very grateful to your hard work and dedication to ensuring that they never have to pay the same real tax rate as you and other middle class Americans have to pay - no doubt you will be receiving your annual "Thank You" note in the mail any day now - just keep checking your mail box...
If so, why do believe that it is ok for one group to pay a higher real tax rate than another group?
As for evidence, well, the evidence abounds but we can simply look at the Bush years where taxes were cut particularly for the very wealthy and where the economy was at the end of his two terms for how the model works that you apparently believe in...
Ed Larson
1:17 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Rob_h78 the good little progressive said "
"Ed: Well, what gives you the right to decide how much is OK to take from the pockets of the middle class to pay for your pet people and programs and tax deductions for Prancing Ponies? So, while you are not wealthy yourself, I assume that you make enough money to pay taxes?"
Again with the rates. Sad.
Maybe you would care to explain why Romney's share of the federal take should be 100s or 1000s of times what yours is.
Only progressives think free riding on the backs of others is a good thing.
Who's money is it after all?
Why are you silly progressives so consumed with how much someone else gets to keep of his money earned through his own efforts?
I believe in a flat tax rate for all income for everyone.Do you support that?
Romney's or the Federal government's?
1:24 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed, I must commend you on your patience. Good Lord, I can't believe this thread is still active, and STILL going around and around in circles with the same arguments, as if both sides think that if they just repeat themselves often enough, the other side will finally give in and say "Yeah, you're right". Sometimes, I guess, it does work that way (saturation marketing principles) but IMHO the arguments here have been pretty much exhausted. Thanks for being the stalwart gatekeeper, though, Ed. To the rest of you Liberals, Anti-Gun folks, and constitution-change-wannabe's: Good Luck with all that.
2:40 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Yes, I am sorry that Rates keep coming up but that is what determines how much we pay - we don't pay just a flat dollar amount...
Of Course I support a FLAT RATE (so now you *want* to discuss rates?) - which is really (without being explicit about it) what I spoke about when I noted "If so, why do believe that it is ok for one group to pay a higher real tax rate than another group?"
Jeez - I'm not sure what you are debating since you agree with me that everyone should pay the same rate (which is what the Flat Tax would do).
- WIWildcat - no worries Ed is now agreeing with me about Tax Rates - we should all pay the same rate - so we got that settled :)
IMHO, one reason why we will never have a Flat Tax is that wealthy people who donate to both parties do not want it since it would take away the deductions that they use to lower their real tax rate (yes I keep using the word "rate", sorry about that).
What if the Flat Tax was 20%? In that case some very wealthy people who pay a lower real rate now - would see a Real Taxes Increase as they lose their deductions! Yikes
Would you still support a Flat Tax Rate if the wealthy ended up actually paying more real money than they are now?
Ed Larson
2:24 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Thanks WIWildcat :-)
So many don't seem to understand the ramifications of what they think are good ideas.
Sometimes you just want to throw up your hands and say nasty and unkind things.
Sometimes sticking with an issue long enough can at least get some people to think.
I hope so anyway. ;-)
Ed Larson
2:47 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Petulant Rob said : "of Course I support a FLAT RATE (so now you *want* to discuss rates?) - which is really (without being explicit about it) what I spoke about when I noted "If so, why do believe that it is ok for one group to pay a higher real tax rate than another group?" Jeez - I'm not sure what you are debating since you agree with me that everyone should pay the same rate"
I call BS because you are more than willing to have Romney and anyone else in his tax bracket pay what 35, 50, 70, 80 % ?
3:18 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed: Ah, calling names now, I can see that I must be getting to you, its ok - hang there - it may be painful but this is good for you :)
Please point out where I wrote that I was "more than willing to have Romney and anyone else in his tax bracket pay what 35, 50, 70, 80 %"
Really - please point it out - surely you aren't just making stuff up?
If you cannot find a quote from me on that then I will accept your apology - or if you don't want to apologize I will need to, as you noted, "Call BS"...
Here is what I wrote:
- "Why do believe that it is ok for one group to pay a higher real tax rate than another group?"
Now isn't that essentially the definition for a Flat Tax Rate? No one paying a higher percentage than anyone else?
But - are you willing to answer the question I posed previously - I rephrase so I don't just repeat a whole section...
- Would you still support a Flat Tax Rate if the wealthy ended up actually paying more real money than they are now due to the loss of tax deductions?
Ed Larson
5:07 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Rob_, please substantiate your claim that Romney pays a real lower tax rate .
Do you support the end of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250K?
6:44 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ed: I didn't see an apology so I guess I have to call BS on your statement regarding what you claimed I believe about taxation...
I see that you asked me to "substantiate my claim that Romney pays a real lower tax rate".
You also asked me, "Do you support the end of the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250K?"
Now since I have answered questions you posed previously but you haven't answered the simple question I have posed twice.... Well, I don't play the game where we each ask questions, I answer and then you don't answer but keep asking questions...
So I will re-ask the question so that you can answer it with a direct answer...
"Would you still support a Flat Tax Rate if the wealthy ended up actually paying more real money than they are now due to the loss of tax deductions?"
A simple yes or no would be fine - if you want to elaborate that's great also.
Carbon Bigfuut
3:56 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Joyce said, earlier today:
"More than half the population paying no income tax? That would be because they are too poor (that half includes the elderly and the disabled, in case you hadn't noticed); after taking the standard deductions, they don't have enough income left on which to pay taxes. They do, however, pay state and local taxes, highly regressive sales taxes and the incredibly regressive payroll taxes, which they pay at a higher rate as a percentage of their income than the wealthy."
Joyce, different taxes are based on different things. Sales and excise taxes are based on the price you pay. Property taxes are based on the value of the property that you own. These have more to do with what you spend, and nothing to do with your income (I'm using the analogy here that you spent money to buy property, so it's a "spending" tax).
Income taxes are based on the income from your job. Capital Gains taxes are based on an increased value of your investments. "Payroll taxes" are not so much taxes, but based on your income towards a "future value" that you will receive in medicare and social security.
None of these taxes are "regressive". Those taxes that those that relate to income increase as income goes up, and those that relate to spending increase as spending goes up.
Carbon Bigfuut
4:05 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Rob said:
"As for evidence, well, the evidence abounds but we can simply look at the Bush years where taxes were cut particularly for the very wealthy..."
Rob, remember that the "Bush Tax Cuts" cut tax rates much more for the lower end of the income scale (cut by 50%), than the high end of the income scale (cut by ~9%). Some people are going to get a shock when the current rates expire on Jan. 1, 2013.
4:51 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Hey I agree. I think that Americans need to start getting the bills for what our government has been spending - of course Liberals will say "Its the Pentagon and Wars", Conservatives will say "Its welfare and deadbeats".
Of course the reality is that its a lot of things:
Unfunded Medicare Part D
Rising Medical Costs
Medicare (see point above)
Unfunded Wars
Military Weapons that even the military doesn't always say that they need.
and the list can go and on and on...
Everyone pointing at everyone else saying "Your stuff has to be cut, but my stuff is sacred and cannot possibly be cut by even a single penny and if you try you will be labeled as fascist, socialist, commie, heartless, hating America, hating Americans, being too Christian, not being Christian enough, well you get the point...
4:05 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Bringing this back to guns, this is the top story on KSTP's website right now:
"A 2-year-old boy was shot Thursday at a St. Paul home, and taken to the hospital.
Authorities tell KSTP the boy, Jacob Xiong, was shot around 12:30 p.m. at a home on the 1300 block of Beech Street in St. Paul.
A 16-year-old was watching Jacob, and four other children at the time of the shooting. All five people in the home were related.
Police say the kids found a gun, and the toddler, later identified as Jacob, was shot in the head. Police are looking into this as a 'tragic accidental shooting.'
The babysitter did not see the shooting. At this point it's unclear what room the shooting happened in, and who shot the gun.
Jacob was taken to Regions Hospital. Additional details on the extent of his injures have not been released."
Once again, not all gun owners are responsible...
4:44 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
While I am fine with gun ownership - people who leave a loaded gun where a kid can get to them should be held responsible for whatever happens - both the Owner of the gun and anyone the gun owner let take possession of that gun.
They should be tried for a crime with similar sentencing guidelines just as if an adult had picked up that gun and shot the kid in the head themselves.
4:45 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Seems to me I've seen stories of kids who have put their parents running cars into drive or reverse and cause injury, damage, and death, as well as idiotas who leave their young kids and pets in cars during extreme weather temperatures.
Not all automobile owners are responsible, either. Let's have a psychiatric evaluation before you buy a car or have a kid, too.
4:54 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
WIWildcat, it seems to me that those people are held criminally responsible when doing irresponsible things with their cars that hurt others (even pets).
5:00 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Everyone gun owner should be held completely responsible for whatever happens with their gun - unless they report it stolen and are willing to sign an a statement to that fact for the police.
Every gun owner I have ever known would agree with that statement which is why the gun owners I know, including myself, have safes where guns and ammo are kept unless that gun is with us and we know exactly where it is.
5:07 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
I agree with you rob, it's too bad that these tragedies have to happen before we know who is not a responsible gun owner.
5:45 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan, So what was the purpose of the posting, then? Just to illustrate that all gun owners are not responsible? These folks will be held responsible, too. I don't get it. Surely you had more reason to post this than just that?
5:50 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
WIWildcat, I fear too many answers disagreeing with you will bring another barrage of insults and name calling, but I will say this, the name of this article is "Does Colorado Shooting Show a Need for More Gun Restrictions?". I felt bringing in another gun tragedy so close to home would add to the discussion. My sincerest apologies if you disagree.
Ed Larson
5:09 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan said: "I agree with you rob, it's too bad that these tragedies have to happen before we know who is not a responsible gun owner"
And your solution is?
5:12 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Gun safety and training before you are allowed to bring your gun home. Will it stop all of these tragedies? No, absolutely not, but if it saves one innocent kid, I would be happy to put in the time....I am not so arrogant as to think I couldn't learn something from the training.
6:55 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Solution? Simple - hold gun owners responsible for what happens with their guns unless they report them stolen.
There is no reason at all why gun owners cannot maintain proper control of their weapons.
I owned both an H&K .45 and an H&K 9mm for years along with a rifle (just a little .22 for target practice simply because the ammo was cheaper) along with other guns I've owned over the years but were just things to shoot for fun and I never had any problem maintaining control over those guns - I always knew where they were and every gun owner I know always maintains control of their weapons - most have very nice gun safes built into their houses a few have smaller floor models...
Yeah - I am sure that you can't believe that I actually owned guns - but I am not quite a liberal as you appear to think I am... Flat Tax, Gun Owner - heck - I may even watch Foxnews from time to time - LOL - just kidding on that last part...
If the gun is not locked up then it is on your person or in a location that you have control over such as a gun case in the trunk of your car.
If people cannot do that then they should be held liable for what happens with that gun if someone else gets a hold of it and the penalty in the case of a kid getting a hold of it should be quite severe.
7:16 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
If the gun owner is found to be negligent, they should be charged as if they were the one firing the shot.
Ed Larson
7:09 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan said: '"Gun safety and training before you are allowed to bring your gun home. Will it stop all of these tragedies? No, absolutely not, but if it saves one innocent kid, I would be happy to put in the time....I am not so arrogant as to think I couldn't learn something from the training." "
An innocent kid got killed by someone's stupidity and you are ready for more gun control to save a single life?
How about we just outlaw stupidity? Think how man lives could be saved.
7:18 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Not "more", it's what I have advocated for all along, Ed.
"A single life"? You're not that naive, are you?
Ed Larson
7:11 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
rob said:"If the gun is not locked up then it is on your person or in a location that you have control over such as a gun case in the trunk of your car."
How about at your bedside loaded?
7:24 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
If you believe you have to sleep with a loaded gun by your bedside then that's your call - if you believe you can maintain control of that weapon in your sleep fine - if not then that's the call you have to make as adult and a responsible gun owner.
Its really simple - I have no problem with people having guns - but I also believe that they should be held responsible for what happens with that gun at all time.
Sure you don't believe that people should guns but then have no responsibility regarding that same gun?
Ed Larson
7:22 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Susan said:Not "more", it's what I have advocated for all along, Ed.
"A single life"? You're not that naive, are you?"
Did you mean something else by your use of "but if it saves one innocent kid"?
You have been an advocate for more guns control laws this entire thread.
7:28 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Let's not take it out of context..."but if it saves one innocent kid, I would be happy to put in the time".
No, not the entire thread (now who is misrepresenting another's words?). Through this discussion I have come to the conclusion that training, licensing, and better tracking are not only a smart position, but a life saving position.
Ed Larson
7:28 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Rob a gun is no use to you if you have to get it out of the cabinet, take the trigger lock off load it.....
You get the idea.
Don't try this at home as they say.
Ed Larson
7:31 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Well Susan, i cannot agree with your desire to infringe rights.
Those may be all fine things but as soon as you cede control to the government you will see your ability to acquire a gun diminish.
7:33 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
And we are back to the Big Bad Government taking away all of our freedoms....
Good night, folks.
Joyce Denn
9:42 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
I just waded through all the comments that were posted while I was at work yesterday; I don't have the time to seek out individual posts and reply to each, so I'll just put some comments here at the bottom.
On taxes, if you don't think payroll taxes and sales taxes are regressive, then consider this: both are levied on a greater percentage of a lower income earner than of a higher income earner. With regard to the payroll tax, for example, a person earning $110,000/year pays the SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT in payroll taxes as a person who earns $110,000,000/year, the very definition of a regressive tax.
As for the sales tax, poor people pay those taxes on a much higher percentage of their income than do rich people. The reason, of course, is that rich people spend a smaller percentage of their incomes on taxable items, while poor people spend most of their incomes on taxable items.
The whole point of a progressive tax system is that it places a heavier burden on those best positioned to handle that burden; a flat tax is more onerous to low and middle income earners than it is to the wealthy, who still have loads of money left after taxes. Moreover, it is in the public interest to let lower and middle earners keep more of their income because they are the true job creators - our economy is fueled by consumerism; if people cannot consume, businesses fail.
Joyce Denn
9:44 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Just as aside for proponents of a flat tax - I wonder if you understand that those taxes would need to apply to everything, including home purchases.
11:34 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
The Flat Tax is one way the other way is essentially have a Federal Sales Tax and perhaps a VAT also.
But we will never, ever have a Flat Tax for several reasons.
1) Flat Tax would mean that tax deductions would be lost (if they are kept or re-instituted then we will end up where we are now).
And Politicians used Tax Deductions, etc... in the tax code to curry favor with people and companies who back their campaigns. Also they are used to help move resources around to places that they think would be best served - both parties do this.
2) If the Flat Tax rate is put at a level that is higher than what many wealthy people in terms of a real tax rate they would see the amount of taxes they pay likely go up - perhaps a lot because they would lose all of their deductions that are used to shield income and investments from taxation.
3) Homeowners would lose the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction - that alone would doom the Flat Tax because so many voters in both parties love that little bit of socialism from the government - even folks who believe that they want nothing to do with socialism.
Ed Larson
10:00 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
We are missing a larger point here.
Why should anyone not be paying taxes to the federal government to pay for the the cost of running said government.
Do we really want a society where the few pay the largest part of the cost?
Does that promote self dependence or government dependence?
Check out http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer for a better way.
Joyce Denn
10:28 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed, people do not pay federal income taxes for one of two reasons: either they are too poor to owe taxes (it would be ridiculous to leave low income earners with too little money to live on) or because they are extremely wealthy and can afford to shelter their money in off shore tax havens.
Wringing more money out of the very poor actually does a disservice to the economy because it further erodes their purchasing power - remember that our economy is fueled by consumerism, and businesses need customers.
11:27 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Hi Ed,
Hey, maybe you missed the question I asked previously during our entertaining discussion on the Flat Tax but again so glad you agree with me on the need for it but that's cool we can move on.
The site you noted has some interesting points - do you really agree with this point?
"The FairTax provides a progressive program called a prebate. This gives every legal resident household an "advance refund" at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free. The prebate prevents an unfair burden on low-income families."
Ed Larson
10:30 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
And wringing more money out of "the rich" doesn't affect the economy?
How many so called poor do you want to have in this country?
Joyce Denn
10:43 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Reducing taxes on the poor does not create more poverty, Ed, it helps poor people climb out of poverty.
Taking more money from the rich does not hurt the economy the way taking more money from the poor would. Let me give you an example; let's say you own a business, a shoe store perhaps. Right now, you have excess inventory because you have hardly any customers - the economy is in a slump, people are trying to pay off personal debt, and they are not shopping. The wealthy, of course, are still shopping because they have plenty of extra money, even in a recession, so, if you give the wealthy more money they are not going to spend more, they already buy everything they want, they are going to invest that money, probably overseas where it will be sheltered from taxes.
Now, suppose you, the small business owner, get a tax cut; are you going to use that extra money to expand your business, buy more stock and hire more workers? Of course not, because you don't have enough customers and you have excess inventory.
Now, suppose you give a tax cut or a tax rebate to a poor family that has held off buying new shoes, relying instead on hand-me-downs because they cannot afford to shop; now they go to your store to buy the shoes they've been putting off buying. Multiply that by millions of poor people around the country...
Joyce Denn
10:45 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
...and you have inventory moving, so business owners need to buy more stock. That means manufacturers (if there still are any in this country) get more orders and have to hire. Even if the products come from overseas, truck drivers and others who ship merchandise will now have jobs and be able to spend, stores will have to hire people to stock the shelves and wait on customers, resulting in still more people with jobs who can spend money, resulting in still more hiring - it's called the multiplier effect.
Give a wealthy man more money, he will not spend more than he already does; give someone living on the edge more money, and that person will spend it, and that is what fuels our economy.
Taking more money from the poor only hurts our economy.
Ed Larson
11:00 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
The economy is in a slump is an understatement.
We refuse to address the real problem of massive government spending and massive borrowing to pay for it.
But that is another issue for another thread.
Progressives are killing this country whether it tax policy, spending money we don;t have or further destroying our rights and making up rights that don't exist.
And please don't think that that comment is limited to one party.
Progressivism is a disease that has infected this country for close to 100 years and the results are evident.
With that I leave this thread.
Joyce Denn
11:12 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed, government spending is precisely what is needed to save the economy - why do you think WWII got us out of the Depression? It was the government spending, which created jobs. Right now, we do not have enough government spending (borrowing is not the issue right now - other nations are paying us to borrow from them); the private sector is adding jobs; public sector lay-offs account for much of the current job loss. Remember that one person's spending is another person's income; when neither individuals nor private businesses can afford to spend, then the government MUST spend to stimulate the economy. If you doubt it, look to Europe, where austerity is shrinking GDP, not expanding it.
The time for government spending is during a recession, the time for austerity, for paying off debt, is during the boom years. That is a proven formula.
11:16 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed - since you noted that your comment was not limited to one party.
Can you include what the Republicans are doing to kill the country and drive up spending?
11:20 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Joyce - you are quite correct that when the economy is in trouble the government needs to step in and spend to "prime the pump" - and all we have to see is the insane Austerity in Europe to watch that disaster play out.
I completely believe that we have to get the debt under some control but trying to go into austerity in a big recession is like someone scolding a fat person for eating fast food while they are suffering a heart attack and thinking that going on the Atkins Diet will solve the problem with the heart attack while it is happening.
Further as you noted - very correctly - the Private Sector is ADDING jobs the PUBLIC sector is Cutting jobs - which is hurting the unemployment rate.
Now you would think that normally Conservatives would be very happy about that but since Obama is President they suddenly don't want to mention that part of the picture.
We all know the Republican Playbook.
The only time they care about Cutting Spending is when they are out of power - as soon as they are in power they spend like crazy, decrease revenues, tell us that Deficits aren't a problem...
Ed Larson
11:20 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Sorry but I have to respond.
We have spent $Trillions to get out of this recession much of it borrowed money.
It's not working.
Public sector workers add nothing to the economy as they do nothing to form capital i.e. increase wealth.
You cannot borrow your way to prosperity.
It is the progressive's dream that never comes true.
They will say we didn't borrow and spend enough.
How is that working out in the European union?
We either turn the corner now(and it may be too late) and reject progressive "solutions" or this republic will be but a shadow of it's former self.
Depression II is a very real possibility.
Time for a change.
Joyce Denn
11:42 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed writes: "They will say we didn't borrow and spend enough. How is that working out in the European union?" FYI, Ed, the Europeans are practicing austerity, not stimulus, and that austerity is not working out at all well, it is, in fact, shrinking their economies and raising their borrowing costs.
Our cost of borrowing is at an historic low - we are being paid to borrow from other nations. This is the perfect time to borrow and invest in our infrastructure, creating jobs and growing our economy at the same time.
As for public sector workers, they do, in fact, add to the economy since they are consumers, and consumerism is what fuels our economy. People with incomes tend to spend that money, which in turn stimulates the economy. Firing public sector workers to help a depressed economy is like trying to cure anemia with blood letting.
Joyce Denn
11:43 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
I would add, Ed, that you cannot increase employment by increasing unemployment, which seems to be your plan for economic stimulus.
Ed Larson
11:58 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
To all progressive who think austerity is a bad thing.
Austerity WILL happen the only question is will it be voluntarily or forced by collapse of the system.
Every dollar in spending reduction must by necessity come out of the GDP but there is no other way to gt back to sound economy instead of one built on the lies of extend and pretend.
Low borrowing costs and the resulting low interest rates are destroying retirement incomes.
Pretending that more borrowing solves anything is just not using your noodle.
We are in fantasy land. But all fantasies come to and end and it won't be pretty.
We have been lied too, cheated and served poorly by most of the political class.
12:03 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed - I don't see anyone here saying "Austerity is a bad thing".
It is, as with many things in life a question of timing.
Is eating a big bowl of ice cream a bad thing? It depends - will you be running a marathon in a couple of hours then yes, it is probably is a bad thing - will be sleeping in tomorrow and just relaxing then its probably ok.
Is fasting a good or bad thing? It depends, if you will be outside working in a hot summer sun then you may want to save the fasting for a day when you won't be exerting yourself so much...
Austerity needs to be practiced when the economy is going well - we need to then reduce spending and build up a surplus. But when the economy is in the tank that is the wrong time for austerity.
Joyce Denn
1:10 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed, the thing is, we have been practicing austerity, and that is one reason we have not significantly reduced unemployment; at the same time as there was a federal stimulus, state and local governments practiced enough austerity to negate the effects of the federal stimulus. What we should be doing is providing more aid to state and local governments so they can spend and hire.
Ed Larson
1:18 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Joyce said:"We've been practicing
By what measure?
We have added 50% to national debt since 2008.
That isn't austerity, it's stupidity."
Ed Larson
11:38 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Wake up folks.
The politicians have got you right where they want you.
Dependent on either some government program or pet deduction or pet issue.
You are being manipulated.
And it's not for your benefit but the entrenched powers that be.
There is no getting out of this until people figure it out and throw the bums out.
12:06 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed - once again we agree - both the Democrats and the Republicans have us completely engaged on government spending.
Republicans have been telling us for years that the Government does not create jobs - but now that Defense Spending cuts (that Republicans put into deal for allowing the spending cap to be raised) just might occur they are of course screaming that cutting government spending will cost people jobs (I didn't realize that the Defense Department was supposed to be a Government Spending Jobs Program).
Democrats of course love their spending also.
And both sides in the Farm Belt work very hard to make sure that taxpayers provide subsidized crop insurance and bailouts for farmers and others who enter freely into a private business and then run into hard times and might have to sell out or go under...
Ed Larson
12:02 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Joyce said: "I would add, Ed, that you cannot increase employment by increasing unemployment, which seems to be your plan for economic stimulus."
My plan for economic stimulus is to have a real economy not the fake one we have now.
We refused to clear the system of bad debt in 2008-2009 and the longer we eait the deeper it will bury us.
The banksters and their pawns the politicians screwed us all with the concept of too big to fail.
Instead of putting them in prison for fraud we bailed them out.
12:10 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Bankers have hit upon a perfect business model, well, for themselves, not so much for us...
They Privatize Profits when things are going well, but they are able to Socialize Losses when things go bad.
Jim Bob
12:49 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Mr. Ed days:
"Public sector workers add nothing to the economy as they do nothing to form capital i.e. increase wealth."
A vast majority of K-12, college and vo-tech teachers are public employees teaching US students skills ranging from basic math, science, English, etc. to nuclear physics, machine tool design and operation, truck driving, etc. etc. that enable the vast majority of Americans to be employed in the current and future jobs available. They also teach skills like accounting, marketing, human resources management, etc. that provide small business owners to startup business that hire people who have been educated in the public school systems in our nation.
A vast majority of the road and bridge systems that allow for the transportation of goods and services in our local, state and national economy come from public funding and the labor of public employees.
Those serving in our military are public workers who are making America safe for the free-market properity that is part of it's backbone. Those public sector fireman driving public funded fire trucks down public roadways to put out the fire at the capital producers factory don't produce any capital but they sure help protect the assets of the private investors and owners.
Not sure Mr. Ed has local past the Ayn Rand talking points to understand what's behind the the safe drinking water in his house and the road his bread travels to get to his table.
Ed Larson
1:01 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Mr. I love government Frunobulax.
You are the problem.
You actually believe your own bilge.
In your world we should all work for the glorious state.
Hmmm. That's called communism. No thanks
Joyce Denn
1:18 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed, it seems you don't understand the differences between communism, socialism and social democracy.
Jim Bob
1:25 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Mr. Ed:
Are you advocating that we eliminate the government? That would be an interesting experiment. Even our Founding Fathers understood the need for government.
Perhaps you didn't attend a public school during you education? Your comments strike as coming from a reactionary history-revising whacktivist or perhaps a home-schooled corporate-crime-forgiving secessionist.
Or maybe you're just yanking my chain...
Ed Larson
1:34 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Mr. Frunobulax.
Even a government fanboy like yourself should be able to see that our government has become all encompassing and oppressive.
The federal government was never meant to be the behemoth it is now.
Jim Bob
3:08 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
So lets get rid of the Department of Education and let public education be managed at the state level. Does that work for you?
Are you opposed to taxpayer-funded public education? After all you said, "Public sector workers add nothing to the economy as they do nothing to form capital i.e. increase wealth."
Without the public education system -- which has plenty of room for improvement -- I have no doubt the private business sector of this nation would be in very sad shape.
Why would we all work for the state in my world? I'm all for private enterprise. I also understand the importance of the role played by public education.
I guess I'm a victim of the public education system and am unable to understand the prespective of the irrational reality-denying hatriots of this country.
Ed Larson
3:13 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Let the states and the parents decide how to educate their children.
The federal government should never have been involved in education beyond enforcing basic civil rights to errant states.
Ed Larson
3:19 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
You know what Frunobulax,
If business couldn't find the type of people they need they would open their own schools or move to states that had good education systems in place be they private or public.
"Education" has been polluted by the teacher's unions.
Look what happened in Wisconsin when the teachers were no longer forced to belong to the union.
Half of them left.
That should tell you all you need to know.
Joyce Denn
1:15 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
For those who think public sector jobs are not real jobs that that public sector jobs do not help the economy, let me put it simply:
Let's say A is a public sector worker and that B is a small business owner. A likes to patronize B's business, but A gets laid off thanks to government downsizing. A can no longer afford to patronize B's business, so B, losing customers, has to downsize his staff and let people go. Now, there are even fewer people who can patronize local businesses, so more businesses start laying off workers.
Now, suppose more public sector workers get hired; they can now shop at local businesses, which will then need to expand and hire more workers, who can then afford to patronize local businesses and so on.
The increase in consumerism grows GDP which in turn reduces the deficit and reduces debt as a proportion of GDP. That is exactly what we did during and after WWII - we had massive government stimulus in the form of highway construction and the GI Bill. Even the Marshall Plan was a stimulus plan, pouring money into European economies so they could afford to buy our products.
Ed Larson
1:19 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Joyce said:
Ed, it seems you don't understand the differences between communism, socialism and social democracy.
This is a Republic. None of the above thank you.
Ed Larson
1:45 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Listen folks.
Changing a liberal/progressive's mind is probably impossible.
They don't deal well facts.
They use emotions to make decisions.
They cry fairness but only accept their idea of of what is fair no matter who it hurts.
They will never except blame for the devastation their policies have wrought.
They will only say that the wrong people implemented it or that not enough money was thrown at it.
They will never be satisfied.
They are long on rhetoric and short on substance.
They need to be defeated at the polls.
I only hope that enough sane people are left to get the job done.
2:11 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed - All Republicans have to do is let the Auto-Spending Cuts that they demanded be put in place for the last deficit ceiling deal be allowed to go forward - and we will see some nice, big, cuts in government spending - but they are now not wanting those to occur - after they demanded them...
Pretty much everyone Democrat and Republicans say they want cuts to be done - but they just don't agree what to cut - and the American people are likewise divided - no one wants to give up any spending for the programs they think are vital.
2:12 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed, labeling everyone who disagrees with you as a liberal and insane does absolutely nothing to promote or explain your position. Instead, it alienates those who may be swayed by your argument. I am always surprised when seemingly intelligent and articulate people sink to a level of frustrated name calling when someone disagrees with them, especially when it is so counterproductive.
Ed Larson
2:16 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Like I said Rob.
They have got you exactly where they want you.
Divided. with everyone saying touch them but not me.
Get it?
2:36 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Me? Hey - I say we start with a 10% across the board cut - everyone - including defense and medicare.
What do you propose cutting?
Are you ok with EVERYONE taking a hit or do you have any pets that you want to keep safe from cuts?
Ed Larson
2:41 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
You and I are on the same page with this one Rob.
Across the board.everyone's ox gets gored.
10, 15, 20%. whatever it take to zero deficit spending as soon as possible.
Add to that:
No more bailouts as nothing is too big to fail.
Jail terms for the fraudsters as they certainly deserve it.
The sad thing is you will be hard pressed to find a single politicians calling for any of the above.
They still think bending the curve or more deficit spending or ________ will fix everything.
Ed Larson
2:20 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Susan, I have tried to honestly tell you what I think. if you fall into one the categories I listed so be it.
History will prove one of us wrong.
Frankly I don't care anymore.
I'm done being nice about it.
Stupidity is just that. And sugar coating it does nothing but promote more stupidity.
There is no reasoning with sheep.
2:26 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed says: "There is no reasoning with sheep."
Or people who are so arrogant as to believe they have all the answers and have no tolerance for those who disagree. There are words for this also, but I won't stoop to that level. I believe we are done here.
2:37 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed - why not lay out your cards - what do you want to cut and how much?
Jim Bob
3:16 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Susan, it wouldn't be any fun having Ed agree. When you try to have an intlligent discussion with someone in boxer shorts sitting at a computer screen pretending you are Glenn Beck, you are only going to get frustrated. It's times likes these when you want to say "Mr. X you are an uninformed, over-medicated tobacco-juice-dribbling crackpot." But you don't, because you are a caring, educated concerned American and you don't play by the same rules as people like Ed.
Ed Larson
3:22 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Hey Frunobulax, I don't smoke, don't chew and ware briefs and only on rarer occasion have hear Glenn Beck.
But thanks for proving my point about liberal wackos.
Jim Bob
11:00 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Ed, I don't smoke and I don't chew and I don't go with girls like you who do...
Ed Larson
2:34 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
If you want to admit to being a sheep Susan that's your business.
I want this country to be great again and it isn't going to happen when people listen to soothsaying politicians that claim they have the answers when history says they don't.
We are in a mess.
Thinking there are any easy or painless ways out is far removed from reality.
Everyone needs to stand back and decide if our current crop of political leaders is dong the right thing for the entire country not just their pet peeve.
This weeks outrage beside the Chick Fil-A stupidity.
When Harry Reid goes out and shills for Obama by lying about Romeny and providing no evidence of his allegations it should give you some idea of the level of political discourse on the table.
The man is deranged.
4:42 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Sorry to bring this back again, but I wanted to update a story from yesterday:
"St. Paul Police say the handgun involved in the accidental shooting of a 2-year-old boy, was not secured.
The boy, Jacob Xiong, was shot around noon Thursday at a home on the 1300 block of Beech Street in St. Paul.
Investigators believe that one of Jacob's siblings discovered the weapon in an unlocked cabinet. The child apparently thought the weapon was not loaded, and began playing with it.
As the child played with the handgun, it went off, and a bullet hit Jacob in his head."
Thankfully this boy did not die....but it certainly is a warning about leaving your guns unlocked....which, by the way, is illegal in Minnesota.
5:18 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Susan - it is gun owners like this guy that hurts all responsible gun owners.
Whoever owns that gun should be put on trial and then if found guilty of leaving a loaded gun out of their control and in a situation where children could get it, well that gun owner should spend some serious time in prison.
5:23 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
rob, I wholeheartedly agree! As I said above, I think he/she should be charged as if they were standing there and pulled the trigger. Of-course that won't happen, but I wonder if that were the law, if there wouldn't be so many stupid people out there saying "it will never happen to me, I'm too smart, and my kids/grandkids would never play with it because I told them not to". Complete and utter idiocy!
6:47 am on Wednesday, December 19, 2012
still...the gun didnt go off by itself....and there are laws against leaving loaded guns lying around with kids.
laws only work if people follw em....
Joyce Denn
5:35 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Ed wrote: "We've been practicing Austerity. By what measure. We have added 50% to national debt since 2008. That isn't austerity, it's stupidity."
Interesting that you start with 2008, the last year of the Bush presidency and long before any Obama policies were put into effect or could influence the economy. It was under Bush, you no doubt recall, that the economy tanked and we hemorrhaged jobs, reducing tax revenues (no income means no taxes owed) and increasing the burden on the government because of unemployment payments and food stamps - a civilized nation does not let people starve in the streets, however much you'd like it to.
And yes, we have been practicing austerity, as I stated, at the state and local levels; public sector workers are being laid off, states are cutting back on aid to cities. That is austerity, Ed, and those public sector lay offs are contributing to the unemployment levels, no matter how strongly you believe that public sector jobs are not real jobs. You cannot decrease unemployment by increasing unemployment, no matter how hard you try.
Ed Larson
5:46 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Bush though also a big spender is a piker compared to Obama.
11:08 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Sorry, Ed, but I have to take exception to what this picture represents. Clinton left us with a surplus, then 9/11 hit and everyone wanted things beefed up, which cost real money. In 04, Bush and the short-lived Republican congress started to get things under control, but in Nov 06 the Dems took both houses, and from there we see the huge numbers coming in as the policies they forced past everyone began to take effect and the costs and entitlement programs began to take their toll.
Rather than "it's all GW's fault", it should be "it's all Dem's fault"...
5:52 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Another 'opinion' piece, but the graphs don't lie.
"The second graph shows that under Mr. Bush, tax cuts and war spending were the biggest policy drivers of the swing from projected surpluses to deficits from 2002 to 2009. Budget estimates that didn't foresee the recessions in 2001 and in 2008 and 2009 also contributed to deficits. Mr. Obama's policies, taken out to 2017, add to deficits, but not by nearly as much."
Ed Larson
6:01 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Read the entire thing. Obama is twice the spender Bush was and he was terrible.
6:05 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
Dueling opinions and graphs...no wonder most Americans have no idea what's going on with this country.
I did read the entire thing....twice.
Jon Mast
9:52 pm on Friday, August 3, 2012
We should call this page the "Ed Larson vs. Susan" Forum.
Ed Larson
8:14 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
I have spent far too much time in this thread but want to thank the participants.
I hope some of you will take the time to watch and listen to the words and ideas of Milton Friedman.
It was produced by PBS over 30 years ago and it is just as relevant to day.
10 parts and worthy of your consideration.
Dick Bernard
9:46 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
I see there's 564 comments, and I've also noted that this thread started about guns after Aurora and has now morphed far afield. I suppose all of us can find something from 30 or more or less years ago that precisely fits our own bias. A country of well over 300 million in a world of over 7 billion cannot operate like that. Friedman had his day, and many people believed all of it, and it wasn't all wonderful, as we found out not very many years ago. Even Friedmans guru, Friedrich Hayek, wasn't as far to the fringe as Milton Friedman. (I read Hayek's book whose introduction was written by his admiring acolyte Milton Friedman.) Have a great day.
Ed Larson
9:53 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
I guess it,s true what they say, Those who refused to listen to history are doomed to repeat it"
BTW-If you do not read the forwards to "The Road to Serfdom" you will be confused by some of the terms he uses as their meaning has changed substantially.
And today's Keynesian does not even follow Keynes plan to reduce debt during times of surplus. It's spend spend and spend and borrow to do it without regard for ever paying it back. Yeah that is going to work out well.
Dick Bernard
10:09 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
I've seen Santayana's quote (you reference) about history in person at Auschwitz.... I was steered to Hayek by a right-wing friend a fair number of years ago, and I was fascinated by how many deviations I found from what would be accepted as the hard-right American Friedman philosophy. I read the book and printed out 56 pages which included statements that I, a liberal, could actually agree with at least in part. You seem to look down on the rest of the rabble from some heights of supposed intellectual superiority ("you will be confused...") but there are more useful opinions than just the right-wing talking points. I came into this conversation as a "sometimes" person, way back when we were still talking about the need for assault weapons as a human right. Moderation is better than radical excess which always happens in polarization.
11:12 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Speaking of the GUNS issue that this thread was started on, and in response to the comment one poster made about defending yourself against an Air Force that can send a missile straight up your arse (which begs the question - why haven't they ended the Afgh war yet then?), here is a very apropos note about the AMERICAN MILITIA:
(see next)
11:12 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Over the hunting period, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
That is more people under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.
These people deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely. Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world..
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.
The point? America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.
Hunting.... it's not just a way to fill the freezer.. It's a matter of national security.
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed. Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.
Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain... what army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens?
11:20 am on Saturday, August 4, 2012
That's an interesting point, WIWildcat. Would these men (and women) fight voluntarily, or would they be drafted? I wonder how they would stand up against "weapons of mass destruction", or even those fighter jets...
5:05 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
Awesome Argument WIWildcat...
I propose that given those numbers and the very effective argument you made that we cut our Dept of Defense spending by 50% next year and shrink it further over the next decade.
Defense Spending is about 20% of our GDP and second - we don't need it to protect ourselves as you very clearly pointed...
Jim Bob
11:13 pm on Saturday, August 4, 2012
The defense program is one of the biggest government welfare programs going. Just think what a 50% cut would do to the unemployment rate! Perhaps the government could put an excise tax of the the chicken hawks who beat the meat of more military spending.
Those would be your US military FOX-perts: Ted Nugent, Charlie Daniels, Dickless Cheney, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Paul Wolfowitz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, etc.
Micheal Foley
12:56 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Our sister Patch site in Oak Creek, WI, has a post about a mass-shooting situation unfolding there right now:
1:19 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Thanks, Micheal, but I got about half way through the comments and decided I didn't want to be involved in that discussion. It's a bit surprising to me how SOME (not all, so please don't blast me on that) Wisconsin Patch users are allowed to attack each other personally. It has been my experience that commenting on the Minnesota Patch sites seems more civil as the editors often delete those who make personal attacks that have nothing to do with the subject of debate. Don't get me wrong, we do it here too, but from what I have read from across the river, it can be a free-for-all of one-upmanship of name calling.
Micheal Foley
5:49 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
I know what you mean, Susan. I used to use a lot of cross-posted content from the Milwaukee-area Patches, but I felt the same way about their commenters. Now I just post their stories on a separate thread with separate commenters.
I hope you still appreciate the reporting done by the Oak Creek Patch editor. That's what I was linking to.
6:17 pm on Sunday, August 5, 2012
Absolutely, and I appreciate you linking the news. After the morning politics, I turn my tv off for the day on the weekends and might now of known of this....another sad and tragic story. What is happening to people?
11:38 am on Monday, August 6, 2012
IMHO - this latest shooting shows the need for Muslims, Sikh's and Hindu's to not only start buying more firearms but applying for concealed carry permits.
2:27 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
I think you hit on something important here, rob. The gun advocates are actually saying that every human being should be walking around, untrained, with a gun strapped to their hip (the bigger and faster the gun, the better). I see this only creating more mayhem, not less. But apparently I am a gun hating liberal who wants to take them away from everybody...even though I have said nothing of the sort.
Carol Turnbull
12:43 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Wade Michael Page, the gunman who walked into a Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin near Milwaukee and opened fire,... served in the military, discharged for misconduct in 1998... He was in a white supremacist punk band...
We are a violent country infested by dangerous semi-automatic weapons. Not only do we have far more murders, and especially murders by firearm, than other societies with advanced economies, but we launch far more wars than other such countries, and spend more than the next 20 advanced countries combined on our war industry. The mindset of frontier warriors taming the encircling savages, which goes back to early American history and, later, the legends of the Old West, informs both domestic attitudes and foreign policy.
Carol Turnbull
1:28 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Is it time to talk about gun control yet?
Time and time again, I hear about this mass of reasonable gun owners who are dismayed by events like the one in Wisconsin this Sunday. I hear, endlessly, about the "responsible" gun owners of this country. I have no doubt that they exist. I know a great many of them, some of them friends of mine from Wisconsin itself... My question is: Where in the hell are all the "responsible" people today? Where were they two weeks ago? Make no mistake. Without them, this profound problem cannot be solved. If they are the majority — and god knows, I hope that's the case — then why don't they wrest control of their side of the issue, and of the NRA itself, from the crazy mountebanks who are only in it for the buck? I am quite sincere about this, and I'd like any gun owners who read this blog, and especially any members of the NRA, to provide me with an answer. Where are you people?
3:03 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Carol - what legislation would you propose.
I do think that the NRA is far to over the top in their zeal for fighting every single thing that comes along but IMHO the reality is that we will always have guns and in our society if someone really wants to shoot up a crowd they will get a gun to do it - but what we can do is try to limit the carnage or give victims some type of chance - but the NRA won't even discuss those options.
Perhaps we will see some gun legislation from certain Conservatives if a bunch of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindu's go down and start buying lots of guns and ammo and start applying for concealed weapons permits and if denied for any reason the ACLU takes up their 2nd Amendment Rights.
Just might be an interesting discussion...
3:20 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Again, an excellent point. The problem is that those religions that you mention promote peace and human rights and the followers would never consider buying a gun. On the contrary, some of the far right, gun toting Christians think that violence should be met with violence.
3:54 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Yesterday, 52 million gun owners (minus 1) did not go on a rampage and shoot anybody.
There's your responsible gun owners, Carol. (reference 1)
Now, how many automobile owners killed someone yesterday? Approximately 115. (reference 2)
Roughly equating the numbers, there are about the same number of cars in the US as there are guns, yet, yesterday, cars killed approximately 19 TIMES as many people as guns did.
Why aren't we having this discussion about responsible car ownership?
Perspective, Carol. Perspective.
REFERENCE 1: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gun_owners_are_there_in_the_United_States_of_America
REFERENCE 2: http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html
4:01 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
In one year on average, almost 100,000 people in America are shot or killed with a gun, which averages to 274 people being shot every day in the United States.
In one year, 31,593 people died from gun violence and 66,769 people survived gun injuries (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC)). That includes:
12,179 people murdered and 44,466 people shot in an attack (NCIPC).
18,223 people who killed themselves and 3,031 people who survived a suicide attempt with a gun (NCIPC).
592 people who were killed unintentionally and 18,610 who were shot unintentionally but survived (NCIPC).
4:03 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Yes, more people are hurt and killed in a car. The difference....most people are in "accidents". Cars are not designed specifically to hurt or kill.
4:12 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
One other point...owning a gun does not mean you are protecting yourself. You are PREPARED to protect yourself. To put it another way - someone may work hard to get a black belt in karate - this does not mean he is "protecting himself". This person is not protecting himself with karate unless he actually makes a motion to do so. The karate training (gun) is preparation, kicks and punches (firing the gun) is actually protecting yourself, not simply walking down the street with a gun in your holster.
I make this point because some will say that guns are for protection, and I say no, guns (unless fired in self defense) are only preparing you to defend yourself, so please don't offer up false statistics about people that protect themselves everyday with guns.
Nancy Voss
4:15 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Do you really think that if some nut case wants to kill someone that our gun laws will be able to stop them from getting a gun. No it will just stop someone who wants to protect themselves or their family from these idiots. They will get a gun one way or another.
4:44 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
How does mandatory training, a national data base to track guns and large ammunition purchases, and limiting the number of bullets in a magazine "stop someone who wants to (prepare to) protect themselves or their family from these idiots"?
matt lehman
7:45 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
Susan, Mandatory training, national databases, and the new world tracking systems are still not able to stop multiple repeat dwi offenders. These programs cost the struggling taxpayers billions if not trillions of dollars yet the problem continues. matter of fact, in order to really address drunk driving, many more dollars are spent on dwi campaigns where police saturate target areas using overtime man/women hours at additional expenses. Right, wrong, good, bad, the facts remain the same, the best deterent to all crimes is a growing and positive economic outlook. Low unemployment, lower taxation, less wasteful government spending and more hard earned money available to spend in the hands of the wage earner. When people have hope in their future, they tend to look forward to the future, when the future looks bleak with no positive signals from our leadership, well, some people tend to show their dissatisfaction in ways most would not. If you truely want to make society better, fix the terrible economic conditions placed on our population by our leaders. remember, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government." If our government does not address our economic situation, guns will be the least of our problems.
8:39 pm on Monday, August 6, 2012
matt, that is an excellent observation and partially true assessment. I say partially because we have always had poverty in this country, but it has not always been so easy to get your hands on a gun....legally or illegally. I do believe the entire welfare system needs to change as som