text:
Gun Control More or Less Likely After Colorado?
The St. Louis area represents both extremes in the debate in a single week.
There's no way to avoid it. The gun control debate re-emerges with every shooting like the one on Friday morning in Aurora, CO: A man kills 12 and wounds more than 50 in a movie theater at a premiere of the latest Batman movie, "The Dark Knight Rises."
On one end of the gun debate, Missouri Rep. John McCaherty (R-90th District), of High Ridge, is set to raffle off the civilian version of the military M16 rifle at a fundraising dinner Aug. 27. The rifle is a legally owned AR15 rifle that was given to him by the NRA.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the debate over guns — legal or otherwise — only two mayors in the area have joined Mayors Against Illegal Guns: St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay and University City Mayor Shelley Welsch. (It should be noted, however, that the Washington Post reported the guns at the Colorado crime scene were purchased legally.)
A lot will need to be sorted out in Aurora over the next few weeks.
But this raises the question again: Do you think events like this make stronger gun control laws more or less likely? Is it worthwhile to have the discussion, or are the various points of view too far apart?
Christine R
7:15 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Tighter gun control will not accomplish a thing. It is my understanding that this shooter told the police that he was "The Joker". As long as society allows small children such as the six year old who was in the theatre to be exposed to horrendous, sadistic violence their entire life, there are going to be more and more incidents like this. That movie should have been rated NC-17.
I was at a party Friday night and an eight year old boy and several other around his age were playing a disgustingly violent video game right in front of their parents. If I would have said something, I would have been told that it is none of my business. Fine. But if those kids turn out to be whack jobs, then those parents will make it my business and everyone else's because they'll need our tax dollars for counseling, hospital stays in the pysch ward, jaunts through the prison system, etc. If they have insurance, they will cause other's rates to increase because they'll turn in all those claims for psychiatric care. Or maybe they'll save us some money like the shooter did and not go to counseling or prison and instead just go straight to a shooting spree killing 14 people.
7:18 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
we dont need semis and such to shoot deer we are living under one nation under gun it needs to stop! we are no longer cowboys we have law enforcement this is sick why does one person need an unlimited supply of guns!!! why must I live here im moving to Europe
Jaycen Rigger
8:19 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
What people watch is irrelevant and telling people what they can and can't watch, or what materials they can and can't produce is just as bad as outlawing guns.
What's needed to hunt is irrelevant. You have the right to own weapons, regardless of their style or type. You do not have the right to kill others unless it's self-defense. It's that simple.
Jaycen Rigger
8:20 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Let's examine the type of car you drive, so I can determine if you "need it" or not. What type of food do you eat? Do you need to eat that kind of food to receive sustenance?
Where does your mentality end? At what point are people free to think for themselves in your world?
Sonny Pondrom
7:16 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
It appears that gun manufactures won't be happy until everyone has a gun. Then they will shoot for two or more. Gun rights were needed when society had no police force protecting them. Now, we have protection and we need to join our Neighborhood Watch Program.
Every mayor should join the, "Mayors Against Illegal Guns". All guns should be illegal unless there is no police force in your area. If there were no guns, many crimes would not be attempted. For example, that incident in Florida, where the so called, "Neighborhood Watch" person who did not follow the policeman's advice not to follow the reported stranger, but he did so anyway because he was superior - he had a gun.
Greg Minner
11:47 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The police did a great job protecting those people in the theater in Colorado. Had anyone in that building had a weapon on them, we would have 1 or 2 dead, plus the shooter. I have no idea how you can argue against gun rights in light of this tragedy.
Jaycen Rigger
8:21 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Please explain to me how gun manufacturers are responsible? What does your first paragraph even mean?
Hey, guess what. I won't be happy until everyone has a my company's control system for steel forming equipment. Good lord, just listen to yourself.
Devon Seddon
1:37 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
This dispicable act was performed by a person, not by a gun. Without a gun, this idiot is still a psychopath.
"Many crimes would not be attempted?" No. more would. It would only create more un-armed victims to choose from.
You think you're being a do-gooder, but you're just not thinking. You got a President that is, as we speak, hiding involvment in an illegal gun-running operation. Do you think these illegal operations will increase or decrease with gun-control? Increase of course. And if law-abiding citizens don't have guns, how do they defend themselves from those who have them illegally?
Which house does a criminal break into, one where he may be shot, or one where he knows he won't be? Gun-control only increases the number of potential targets for those who don't care about the law. The problem is not a gun, it's a disrespect for any law you want to come-up with.
What about martial-arts? Many "enlightened" people are against martial-arts because they are "too violent". Those are people who don't understand that the basis for the teaching is a "discipline". It teaches self-defense, and self-control. It's not offensive by nature, but the bully will only mess with them the one time. Handguns are the same, they are for self-defense against psychopaths like this one, not for offensive actions. Both can be abused, so maybe we teach them both as a discipline. Addressing the gun only dismisses the criminal behavior that uses it outside it's intended purpose.
Rich Kroeter
7:56 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Do you know anything about why the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution? Here is the reason for it:
deterring tyrannical government;
repelling invasion;
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system.
Give me a break about the police - watch the news and see what the police in Syria & Egypt are up to.
Steve Blechle
2:58 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
When seconds count the police are only minutes away. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting.
12:22 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Agreed Steve - the 2d Amendment was not about hunting. It was primarily about turning away the redcoats, back before the nation had a standing army.
And 200+ years ago, surely self-defense was involved to some degree, it gave the Europeans an edge in when they came across wild animals or Native Americans. Also the guns were needed for control of slaves, which many Founding Fathers had.
Michael Kladky
10:13 am on Friday, December 28, 2012
Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not you.
Joyce Boswell
7:45 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
At least no one needs a gun that can shoot 100 rounds a minute. We used to have laws about illegal sub-machine guns. Why can't we get something like that back.
8:16 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Just to get our terms straight: machine guns are still illegal (banned for civilian use since 1934). The "sub-" prefix in submachine relates to the size of the ammunition used in the weapon rather than the weapon's rate of fire. Machine guns are capable of HUNDREDS of rounds per minute.
Perhaps you are referring to the so-called "assault weapon ban" enacted during the Clinton years? That essentially was not a ban on technology but a ban on looks. The weapons that were banned as "assault weapons" were cosmetic copies of fully-automatic weapons used in military applications (the so-called AK-47). But the underlying technology was the very same as was used by the weapons that weren't banned.
Hope this helps.
3:37 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Agreed Joyce. And we can't get sensible restrictions on machine guns until we have people and politicians willing to stand up to the omnipotent gun lobby and their bottomless pit of influence money and their loyal legions of fear-mongering lackeys.
7:20 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Bush had passed a law for this after Columbine and it expired in 2004 WHY??? lets make known what presidents do despite their camera and speech abilities
Jaycen Rigger
8:22 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Omnipotent? Gun manufacturers/owners are God? Do you feel powerless in every facet of your life?
Rich Pope
12:28 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I was just at Walmart and saw a rifle designed to look like an M-16. I might have gotten it if it wasn't $900.
11:56 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
yeah this was bush at his best actually the law was only good for 10 yrs and idk how we missed extending it for indefinity! lets stop being cowboys american hicks we dont need guns like that we are one nation under gun! our school sucks, we cant compete worldwide and we dont worry about that! but we do wanna our guns to be all trigger happy! urban decay of the youth is due to guns ... u know the country with the most guns is the us for private citizens second is Somalia... Somalia a state w complete anarchy
Mr. Completely
8:02 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The common thread among these horiffic public killings is that the shooters are deranged. You can't prevent them from fulfilling their "mission" by outlawing a particular weapon. Take away their firarm, they'll use a bomb, take away the bomb they'll use a knife, take away that they'll use something else.
We've learned in Iraq that you can't defend yourself against someone willing to strap explosives onto their body and walk into a public building and blow up themelves along with innocent people.
IMO your best defense is a good offense. If that deranged kid from Colorado would have encountered some resistance inside the theater from an armed citizen or guard perhaps fewer people would have been shot, injured and killed.
E. Witzen
10:21 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Are you kidding? If someone else, or multiple people, had had a gun and started firing at this shooter, do you not thing that the massacre would have been worse? The man was covered in protective gear he bought from a St. Louis-based company! He had on a mask, a bullet-proof vest, you name it! He was firing faster than anyone not also possessing an assault rifle or machine gun could respond to. I just never get the almost reflexive but nonsensical response that "your best defense is a good offense" especially given the specifics of a situation like this. Please.
This wacko should never have been able to buy the weapons, the protective gear, any of it. No one but military and police officials should have access to this sort of weaponry or gear. There's just no reason for it. None. We see the results, yet again.
Mr. Completely
11:46 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The shooter was a coward. Had there been some resistance in the room from an armed guard or citizen the shooter probably would have wet himself and run back out the door. He didn't come there looking for a fight, he's a coward in body armor who didn't have the conviction to kill himself after his well planned execution of unarmed kids. Now we have the pleasure of paying for his legal team, medical care and room and board for about 50 years.
I call B.S. on anyone who thinks that an armed citizen, guard or cop in the theater returning fire would have caused more problems. If your wife, son, husband or daughter were among the moviegoers you'd be grateful if someone in the crowd jumped up and started returning fire and possibly saving your loved one.
4:23 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
....since there is no use and the killer will find a method anyhow - we might as well make it easy for the killer to apprehend assault rifles etc. (head scratch.)
Also-the case for legal gun ownership is protection against criminal thugs who have illegal guns. Worth noting, this deranged guy had a clean record - a law-abiding citizen gun owner -the type of person who's 2nd amendment rights are protected seemingly helds sacred above all other rights we have as citizens -thanks to the gun lobby machine.
5:47 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I'm scratching my head too. You're pretty good about throwing out all sorts names and labels, but you're pretty thin on actual ideas. I think everybody here is interested in suggestions about how to prevent future Auroras. If making it "harder" can't stop it, then why are we making folks jump through hoops for nothing?
So far all I've heard you suggest is that we somehow have to stop corrupt politicians and the gun lobby before we can stop future James Holmes. Is that your plan? How do you propose making that work?
6:25 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
William, you got any ideas on how to counter the power of the NRA in government and American society? I'm just venting on the Patch - and it appears you are doing the same.
As Earl Higgins below states, nobody's opinion will change - which means this will continue to be a lopsided debate (and the gun side with a financial interest will continue control the "debate").
Philip Scherry
9:38 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
E. Witzen, I hope you are not trying to blame the St Louis company for selling to this insane person! They did nothing wrong.
Jaycen Rigger
8:24 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
@E. Witzen
You make several unsubstantiated claims. You have no idea how quickly someone could have responded. You have no idea how it might have turned out if several responsible gun wearers had been sitting in the crowd.
Your comment is pure conjecture.
Jaycen Rigger
8:25 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
The "power of the NRA"?!?!
Goodness, you folks live in a world of big, bad bogey-men. It must be a frightened and stressful life you lead.
12:58 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Jaycen, Holmes was a law-abider and thus a responsible gun owner. On the proposterous "what-if" a responsible gun owner was in the crowd. Well, up until that night Holmes was a responsible gun owner.
Jaycen Rigger
1:13 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Clearly, you are wrong, RDBet. Holmes was not a responsible gun owner, he used his guns to murder 12 innocent people.
There are more than 65 Million gun owners in the United States, RDBet. Please explain to me how there aren't constant rampages and wild west shootouts on every single corner.
Please explain that. In your world, how is it even possible that there are more than 65,000,000 legally owned guns in our country, yet this lunatic is the exceedingly rare exception. I'll be waiting.
8:03 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Take all the mayhem and death caused by all the Jimmy "The Joker" Holmes' you can think of and put it in a figurative pile. Then take all the same sort of death and destruction caused by governments drunk on power and control and put it on the other side. We're talking only thousands in the first pile compared to many millions in the other (one estimate I read calculates the total number of dead due to government-sponsored genocide at over 120 million just in the last century).
Gun crime *IS* a problem in this country, but the "solution" of total gun control is that in order to make it work it will take huge increases in government intrusion and oversight to accomplish (I'm not even sure it is possible--remember prohibition). Also remember that we already have one of the highest prison populations in the world!
Honestly now, in the wake of the Patriot Act "protections" and cameras everywhere, can you personally say you're comfortable that government's teeth aren't getting too long already? I just read in today's paper that the FAA has licensed over a 100 agencies to fly surveillance drones domestically. Walking through airport security is a taste of what it feels like to live in a society with massive government oversight.
I personally would rather deal with the "Jokers" of this world than raise up a government built on an expanded TSA model. At least the James Holmes are limited in their resources and to small spaces of our lives at one time.
Thomas Ford
8:34 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
People, just ENFORCE the laws now on the books, no need to put another layer on the cake, just arrest, and if found guilty, lock up the people who break the existing law, period!
Tom Ford
Klaus E Meyer
8:57 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Look at Chicago, the most stringent gun control laws in the US and some of the highest number of gun crimes and killings. Gun control only keeps guns away from honest citizens. Criminal will acquire guns, laws or no laws. Just enforce the ones currently on the books, don't give the Government any more power.
Dr Robert Arnone
9:00 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
It all stems back to drugs. Anti-depressants and other Psycho-Tropic Drugs are largely what turn people into crazy killing machines. It wouldn't help too much to control the guns as much as it would to get rid of the dangerous drugs. There is too much money to be made selling drugs so this won't end until the greed is overtaken by the conscience, if that will ever happen is another story.
Phil Gonzalez
9:01 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The murderer came in the back exit? Who let him in? Was that exit unlocked. I see lawsuits against the owner of that theater.
The murderer showed no remorse.
Conservative estimates say that at any given moment, there are over 2 million psychopaths loose in America. Everyone has the right to self defense, but we don't want crazy people owning guns. If only one sane person in that theater had a concealed or openly carried gun, things would have been over real fast with a better outcome. Banning guns is not the solution.
james lewis
3:21 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
After buying a ticket to the movie, Holmes went into the theater and propped open an exit door several minutes into the film, a federal law enforcement official said. The suspect then returned in protective gear and with high-powered weapons and opened fire, shooting scores of people and picking off victims who tried to flee, officials said.
John Hormon
9:41 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Just remember the gun stores let the ATF know about people purchasing weapons and were told go ahead and sell them ?
If the people who got killed are a few of the people in there had a weapon they could return fire instead of being a sitting DUCK to get a permit you need to take a test to make sure you can hit the target and how and when to use the weapon. Most of them would have had a chance to live a lot longer then perishing so young.
Ms Anne Thrope
9:52 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
The second most devistating, destructive act of terrorism in this country was the Oklahoma City bombing carried out using a 1993 Ford F-700 truck from Ryder. The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6, and injured more than 680 people. The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings. The bomb was estimated to have caused at least $652 million worth of damage.
The #1 act of terrorism was the WTC and Pentagon. The attacks resulted in the death of 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. The victims included 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,606 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon. Nearly all of the victims were civilians; 55 military personnel were among those killed at the Pentagon.
I don't own a gun and don't plan on owning one (afraid I might accidently shoot myself) My only point is that if somebody is intent on carrying out an act such as those described above it would be impossible to stop them and they don't need a gun.
As far as I know there have never been calls to stop Ryder from renting trucks or the airlines to stop flying airplanes. (silly I know)
Jaycen Rigger
8:27 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Excellent comment!
You are exactly right. What about all the people who bludgeon someone to death with a 2 x 4 or a claw hammer?
When that happens, do they put the name of the hardware store on the news? Do they name the carpenter who cut the lumber? Of course not, but you can see by many of the comments posted here that many peoples' brains simply can't make the logical connection when the weapon is a gun.
12:00 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
wow ur comment is far from logical the debate is guns and those being more prone accidents then these 2 you have listed reality check.
10:13 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I think in the future, psychological screening should be the norm for legal gun purchase. Ofherwise its necessary to view shootigs like the one at Virginia Tech and this one in Colorado as the price to pay for our current gun laws. I cant imagine anybody is really comfortable with these kinds of mass shootings as collateral damage for freedom.
E. Witzen
10:23 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Exactly, unless you mean freedom to kill other human beings.
Jaycen Rigger
8:28 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
@E. Witzen
It's clear from his context that he means "freedom to own property". You've twisted it for your own anti-freedom purposes. How Progressive of you.
Mike Klund
8:17 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Unfortunately all these psychotic rampages were preventable there were many warning signs. Nobody cared until it was to late!
KCF Resident
10:31 am on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Whenever a situation such as Aurora occurs, emotions reign and those who wish to exploit the tragedy move into high gear. Never let a crisis/tragedy go to waste once again becomes employeed. The City had a gun "buy-back" program years ago and it didn't make any difference. Look at all the shootings that occur daily in the STL City. Not one politician/mayor made statements until Aurora. William is among those making the most informative and emotion-free comments. The question about Aurora is how does someone with an AR-15 with a Beta C magazine, a shotgun and handguns not be noticed or questioned? OK, he got in an exit door or someone else let him in. When all is said and done, there will be a lot of BLAME statements made. Some valid and many invalid. There's a group of simple minded people(Mayor Bloomberg) who think that regulation fixes everything and that thinking has been proved wrong time and time again yet it continues. I'll refrain from ridiculous examples as they should be unnecessary for logical thinking people. Crime statistics prove that gun control does nothing. You can't control people texting while driving even though they know it's wrongi so how can you control criminals and the deranged?
Rich Pope
12:01 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I have a German Shepherd and a monitored security system for my home. I don't need a gun. Heck, by the time I would manage to get my gun out of the gun safe, take the lock off, and then point it at the would be intruder, the police would have already been notified and this guy would be torn to shreds by my dog.
3:43 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I hope that works for you, Rich. As a retired cop I can tell you that when seconds count the cops are only a few minutes away. That's AFTER you manage to call 911 or the security company tries to call you, talks to you/fails to talk to you, calls the PD, relays the info, dispatch contacts the street cop that somebody's alarm is going off....
BTW, have you ever considered how easy it might be to shoot your dog first or just poison it? I hope you'll be heading for your gun while your dog is sacrificing himself for you.
Of course the standard response to people with guns is to call for people with guns. I prefer the option to be able to protect myself while waiting for the cavalry.
Rich Pope
12:44 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I'm sure when you were an active police officer, you were only minutes away. But in high crime areas such as East St. Louis, sometimes the cops don't show-up for an hour or so after a shooting has been reported.
Guy Knox
12:43 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Guns are like drugs. If you take away the right of the average citizen to own a firearm then the illicit firearms business will become huge. Bad guys will always be able to acquire guns if they want them. If you control guns they will be able to get them anyway from illicit gun runners. If you control guns then the average citizen will no longer be able to defend him or herself.
12:02 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
cowboy its called gun reform not 2nd adment abolishment
12:57 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
What about the rights of a movie-goer to enjoy the evening. ? All this concern for gun rights and the poor persecuted gun owners is sickening.
You like to hunt -then fine -go threw the procedures to legally own a rifle. You feel inadequate to protect yourself without a handgun, then legally get yourself one. However, what is the justification of individuals owning assault rifles? All they are good for is war and for lunatics to spray bullets at crowds.
Until extremist gun nuts give in on some common sense prohibitions, your discussion points are lame. Lame, but then again you have a millions of lobbying money and cowardly politiicians in the pocket to validate this nonsensical barbaric protection of ownership of machine guns.
1:28 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I hear you, honestly I do. I'm not trying to stick up for gun rights. Actually I am mostly concerned about the rights of average citizens to do as they please without fear or control.
If you travel, you already know what has to happen to make our society gun-free--it's the same approach used by the TSA: Back-scatter microwave, metal detectors, pat-down (both cursory and invasive), papers authorizing an individual to be in a certain place at certain time. But now we have to have it at every mall, every movie theater, every church--every place where people congregate.
Norway has just "celebrated" the 1 year anniversary of that country's own horrendous bloodbath: 71 people (mostly children) murdered in cold blood. It makes an interesting study--notice how laws were circumvented by a clever criminal intent upon destruction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks. And recall that Norway has some of the world's stricter gun control laws on the books.
Bottom Line: How tight do you have to screw down people's lives in order to get absolutely 100% safety? Do you really want to live in a society where these controls are in place for everyday citizens? Do you really think it will matter for the very few who are willing to die for the chance to take a bunch of people out with them?
Answers to these questions matter. I'll certainly agree that life in this frying pan is pretty hot. But the fire, in my reasoning, can be MUCH more unpleasant.
1:48 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
We can play tit for tat with this example or that one, justifying an argument for or against gun rights. Yet the fact of the matter is that the gun lobby has disproprotionate control over our government and society. Fear and hate are powerful tools for a marketeer so much that they will eventually profit from a massacre like this.
The hackneyed mantra "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" ... may be true. What is confounding is the logic that we need to make it as easy as possible for people to kill more people with more accessible machine guns/assault rifles or whatever.
No, I am not pollyanish in thinking that an extreme form of gun control would be effective or possible with so many people armed already and the amount of money the gun lobby has invested in this. Yet, until gun people acknowledge the need for some common sense attempt to regulateof extreme weaponry that is only useful for mass killing, then I don't care to read your silly mental gyrations.
Have a good safe day.
3:53 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
One nutcase decided to violate the "movie-goer's" rights to enjoy the evening and your reaction is to violate the rights of millions of gun owners who did absolutely nothing wrong.
He could have done as much, or much more, with just a couple gallons of gasoline. If he had, instead, killed EVERYONE in the audience with fire blocking all the exits would you be screaming for gasoline control?
Jaycen Rigger
8:30 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
No, your desire to strip American citizens of their rights is sickening. Talk is yet another freedom Americans enjoy, and now you don't even want us to do that.
RDBet, are you an open Communist?
Jaycen Rigger
8:30 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
5:05 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Holmes was a law-abiding citizen gun owner.
Right up to the point when he wasn't. So what is YOUR point?
Devon Seddon
1:12 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Again, you want to blame the gun, and you keep bringing up assualt rifles. It was a person who commited this crime, and I don't think anyone is arguing with you about assault rifles.
You always want the government to come in and make all of these new laws after these situations. Apparently you don't realize the government is the one who has the conveniently bogus definition of assualt rifles in the first place. All done to keep you calling for more law. They're using you.
What's sickening is people constantly insisting they are smarter than those who built this country. It's sickening when people act like those who want to defend the Constitution, and defend themselves from PEOPLE like this, are the ones who are backward.
Things happen, people snap, it's exactly why you need to be able to defend yourself. Calling people "inadequate" who are smart enough to know this, should require you to prove that you aren't.
You always want to blame gun-maker money & lobbyists or whatever, but you don't seem to realize that those same types of lobbyists, with only their own interests at heart, are the same ones that own the current administration.
You think that those "radical right-wing nutbags" are the ones who are "owned" by lobbyists, but when those lobbyists want to take away your rights, force their beliefs on you, promise you something "free" by stealing from you, all in the name of money, big business & more government, you conveniently, and irrationally, seem to forget it.
Devon Seddon
12:13 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
The movie-goer rights are the ones that are being defended here. Just because someone believes in gun-rights, does not mean they support crminals, it means they would like to maintain the right to protect themselves from criminals.
Wally Geez
1:09 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Where were all the concealed gun permit holders during the massacre? People talk about gun control but the best control would come if a bunch of people would have been ARMED, this piece of human excrement would have encountered RETURN FIRE - instead, everyone there was unarmed, they were just sitting ducks!!! Gun control advocates are idiots trying to prevent people from protecting themselves!! Look at what happens when a "brave" criminal walks into a situation where people can fight back: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/
1:33 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Wally, Ft. Hood had plenty of people on hand to return fire....
Jaycen Rigger
1:15 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
RDBet, soldiers on military bases do not constantly carry or wear firearms. In fact, I'd say it's a rarity to find a soldier with a loaded weapon walking around. Those on guard duty are armed, but most of those on base will be unarmed most of the time.
I'm completely unsurprised that you don't know this.
2:06 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
If one is to believe that gun control is obtrusive, it then becomes necessary to view mass shootings as tragic but something that just happens from time to time. Like a plane crash or an automobile accident. Is that really acceptable?
3:55 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
My personal conclusion is that we all accept that cars and planes do crash (something like 50,000 people die on the roads every year, compared to just over 12,000 gun murders). Most of us keep driving and flying, willing to take a reasonable risk in return for a perceived greater benefit. We buy insurance, take our best precautions (seat belts and defensive driving) and keep going.
Do we really think we can do any better with preventing human passion/mental illness from tragically intersecting with other people's innocent lives using whatever deranged means come to their mind?
I don't like that we live with uncertainty and risk, but I can't deny that we do, everyday. The fact is government can't keep you safe in your car, an airplane or in the movie. As a friend of mine always says: "We're all in this alone."
Sorry. I don't like it any more than you do. But I can't figure out how, this side of heaven, that we're going to change the reality of a fallen world.
4:04 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
If not, then why are planes allowed to fly and automobiles allowed to move? More people die in car accidents than in shootings and there is no right to drive listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I accept the fact that there will be hundreds of car accidents every day. I do my best to protect myself from becoming involved in one. I also realize, from 30 years as a cop, that bad people sometimes do bad things. I do my best to be prepared to protect myself and my family if the need arises.
That is not to say that attempts to stop such horrible things from happening should cease. But violating the rights of the innocent is not the way to go about it. If you disagree then surely you couldn't argue against "waterboarding" convicted terrorists for information that could protect millions. Or maybe just arresting suspected terrorists if the rights of the innocent are so unimportant.
2:25 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Okay, RD.
You're not reading any more "silly mental gyrations." I suppose that means we're through looking for common answers.
But for everybody else still engaged on the topic: I'm all for "common sense attempts to regulate extreme weaponry." Does anybody have any ideas? Ideas that will actually work, I mean.
The point of the Norway example was to suggest that it isn't just a matter of passing some new "tough" laws outlawing certain classes of weapons unless we have a prayer of making that law stick. I'm suggesting that the way we make these laws work is that our government has to get a whole lot tougher on managing guns. And because guns aren't always lawfully owned, we can't just limit the enforcement to so-called "gun owners." Everybody has got to be in the net, because we can't know who is "legal" and who isn't...
If this is flawed thinking ("silly mental gyrations"), then I'll certainly own up to it. But what's YOUR solution, with enough detail to illustrate how you think it's going to work out in practical reality?
But please, if we can't think of anything that will actually work, and we as a society don't have the guts to step up to a very much increased police oversight, then let's not just run around and "do something" as a sop to a false sense of security just so we can feel better.
At least until the next tragedy hits.
3:57 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
These kinds of shooting happen with MUCH less frequency in Norway than here. Psychological screening maybe?
4:07 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Jh, many of our highway related deaths are a function of alcohol and driver inattention. Would you be willing to submit to routine psychological testing to prove that you're not likely to be one of the problem drivers? I don't see that the proposed solution for gun owners should be any different for automobile operators, do you?
4:22 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
...its worth noting that Norwegian authorities thought enough about thar Breivik guy that he couldnt legally purchase guns in Notway
4:48 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
What good did it do? Okay, so they knew. It didn't stop him. There are still 71 kids slaughtered.
I'm trying to answer the question as to whether or not more gun control will make Aurora events less likely.
I'm not getting a good vibe about the prospect...
4:41 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about a psychological profile to determine operator fitness. Questions like did you hate your mother and stuff. :-)
Driver's licenses don't look at anything other than your ability to operate the vehicle safely. It says nothing about your likelihood/tendency to operate the vehicle in a dangerous or irresponsible manner.
So if you're just talking about an operators license for gun owners then I don't see how that would have helped with Jimmy "The Joker" Holmes and other's like him.
4:33 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I'll state this again, if you dont think rules/laws/regulations
are needed to fix the problem of mass shootings, then it becomes necessary to accept them.
5:52 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Thats becauses, as evidenced, operating a motor vehicle does not come with the crazy baggage like gun ownership may. And thats not true about cars, it is vet possible to be unfit to operate an automoblie, and if state authorities deem you as such, you dont drive.
11:51 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
13,000 people a year are killed by drunk drivers, slightly more than are murdered by guns. You and I both know we're not talking about fitness to operate a vehicle or a gun. We're talking about the ability to determine intent before the fact.
You mentioned psychological testing to determine likelihood that a person would be inclined to murder innocent victims. I'm asking if you'd be willing to do the same thing to weed out automobile owners that are inclined to drive drunk or text while driving. Same-same in my view. It's about mitigating senseless deaths by means of profiling before the fact.
For the record, I'm not in favor of government psychological profiling--that's way too Orwellian for me, but I'm trying to test your comfort with the concept when applied to any statistic that might need improvement.
Earl Higgins
6:00 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
This incident will change no one's -- I repeat -- no one's opinion on gun control. The NRA types will tell you the solution is more guns. Moderates and gun control advocates will tell you the solution is reasonable regulations. Sadly, there will be no rational debate and reasonable compromise on this single issue in America. Not in the current political climate.
KCF Resident
6:15 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Hi Earl, you bring up rational. What is rational? Does it dependend on the individual. Are all individuals rational? In everyone's mind, they are rational and their view is the correct view. The Patch doesn't provide enough space to properly get into the issue. Surely emotions have too much to do with people's thoughts. I've read several of the comments. many are excellent and many are filled with irrational emotion. Not sure if the Patch allows links but I'll try anyway. Here's a very rational editorial on Aurora, IMHO of course. Hope you all know how to cut and paste. http://patriotupdate.com/articles/how-can-situations-like-the-colorado-theatre-shooting-be-prevented
11:54 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Try me. What reasonable compromise do you propose? Not a feel-good sop, but something with teeth in it? What reasonable regulations are you proposing?
Earl Higgins
9:23 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Sorry KCF Resident and William, I'm not here to debate you or to try to change your mind -- I respect your minds are made up and rational debate is out of the question. I'm not going to define "rational debate"; again, sorry; look it up if the meaning eludes you. I kind of like the one at the top of this page http://tothewire.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/rational-debate/ but there are others.
This is not the forum, time or the place for a gun control debate anyway. See that thing up at the top? It's called a question ("Gun Control More or Less Likely After Colorado?") and all I really wanted to do was answer it, not debate gun control.
Earl Higgins
9:25 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
KCF, you do ask a question which I will answer. You ask "Are all individuals rational?". As you can see from this emotionally charged, fact free discussion, the answer is a resounding NO.
6:45 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
I am going to repeat this 'til my eyes bleed. To rationalize this as a situation that calls for more guns, is to be accepting of something that can be if not perfectly fixed than at least mitigated. To accept this as a consequence of "freedom" is very cynical and shortsighted
6:46 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
More gun control laws? I think NOT!!! My reasoning is the problem is not the weapons themselves but rather the individual purchasing them. Nor is the weapon any good without ammo. Education will win out in the end. However there should be a limit placed on ammunition. I can find no reason for an individual to purchase more than 200 rounds for any weapon. Yet I find that this individual has purchased some 3,000 rounds for each weapon class. That is way in excess of any sport or hunting need. Like I said I think a limit on ammunition would better serve the world rather than more laws on weapons.
3:11 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
"I can find no reason for...more than 200 rounds for any weapon" Philip, you obviously know NOTHING about the world of competitive shooting. Here, I'll help you out. It is quite common for some shooting sports to require the firing of 300 to 500 rounds per day just to complete the course of fire. It may require 2000+ for a multi-day match. Some of the top competitors will fire 6000 to 10,000 rounds per month just to practice and stay at the top of their game. Some competitions in which I have been involved require the use of four seperate firearms for just one event.
Most gun enthusiasts that I know will easily shoot more than 200 rounds every time they get out to a range. Isn't that a good thing? Don't you think gun owners should be as proficient as possible with their firearm's? One of the big gripes I hear from anti-gunners is that "not-cops" don't know how to handle firearms.
BTW, how is a limit on ammunition not gun control? Ban ammo but not guns? You're splitting hairs a little too fine.
7:44 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
A limit an ammunition purchase would serve as a red flag.
Should already BE a red flag. S**t this guys mother didnt have any doubt what he had done. You have to admit, if a mass murderers mother has no soubt about what her son did, you have to wonder what exactly is broken, that allows somebody like that to own firearms.
8:51 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Reports are that the guy's gun with the 100 rounds ammunition jammed before emptying- as the separate drum magazines are prone to do. Without this glitch from the gun eqpt makers, then more people probably would be dead.
Unfortunately, they will probably fix this compatibility problem with the drums and the arms race will continue and the NRA and gun nuts will support the "right" to have these weapons and add-ons suitable mass killings.
9:46 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Please remember the largest mass murder in our history was not done with a firearm, but with fertilizer commonly called ANFO. People sick enough to commit an act as heinous as a mass murder are always diabolical enough to carry it out no matter what laws are in place.
10:08 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
Please remember that currently, and precisely because of Timothy McVeigh, there are serious controls on the amount of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer a private citizen can purchase. Similar and stringent controls are necessary for private gun ownership. The fact that mass shootings happen like they do is proof that they are not.
3:14 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
And those controls would not have prevented McVeigh from getting the fertilizer today.
10:16 pm on Sunday, July 22, 2012
People with psychological problems have "privacy rights" that prevent them from being put into a database that would prevent them from legally acquiring a weapon or passing a background check. It's time that people with a history of psychological problems that could lead to tragedies and do things like this are flagged into the FBI NICS firearms background database to prevent them from purchasing any weapon.
It's time that the rights of the victims and potential victims take precedent over other factors such as psychological reporting, profiling and common sense about who the people are that commit violent crimes.
Marc Perez
7:24 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
People fear what they don't understand. Maplewood out a ban on open carry, totally unnecessary! To some every rifle is a "machine gun" or an "assault rifle". Firearms are used for protection by ordinary people several times a day in the U.S. If we start restricting constitutionsl rights where does that leave us as Americans? Which one is next? Firerams are a fact of life here in this country, we must defend our rights or we lose them. That would not be good. Fear the person, not the firearm. There are over 135,000 CCW holders in Missouri and thousands more with out of State permits. They harm no one and they might just be the only ones around to save you or your family if some body goes nuts! The theater where the shooting took place "Prohibited" firearms, the bad guy didn't read the sign. Defensless is -> you are dead! Protect your rights, the lawyers and courts protect the criminal's rights, after the crime is done.
Annette Read
1:11 pm on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Hi Marc! If all men/women against the 2nd Amend were victims (or family of victims of violent crime), the right to carry would suddenly matter very much to them. Too bad people quickly pay attention to freedom when it affects them personally.
Mary Smith
9:11 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Just how many "legal" guns are used in the daily shootings in North St. Louis? I bet none were legally bought. I am really surprised that this shooter in Colorado used guns, except for the fact that they were used in the movie. If he could not get access to guns do you not think he had the capabiity to make bombs? He would have and the devastation would have been more horrific. Are we going to let one wacko rule our lives? While you are at it let's ban cell phones because people use them while driving. Let's ban alcohol because people drink and drive. And the list goes on. The last I heard, this is a free country. We should be able to lives our lives as we please, as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others.
KCF Resident
9:58 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Hey Mary, knock off your rational comments. There are rational comments and then there are rational comments...your comments are rational. Wait until November for some real rational comments.
John Dough
9:42 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
There are two triggers involved here...The one on the gun..and the one in his mind.
One of them required the other. Libaterians will not leglislate again that 'trigger ' citing freedom of speech. Violence on the screen perpetuates violence in real life.
9:43 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
The Colorado shooter should not have been allowed to legally purchase firearms. Period. Even the guys mother had no doubt what he had done. To argue otherwise, is to accept the occasional mass shooting at the hands of real clinically crazy people. I dont know about anybody else, but I consider these mass shootings to be not only tragic, but a national embarrassment. One wacko ruling our lives? No my friend, SEVERAL wackos, indicating there is indeed a problem that seriously needs to be addressed.
KCF Resident
10:15 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Jh, we live in a WACKO society today. We have WACKO politicians running our government, WACKO people voting for them, WACKO TV program producers producing trash...need I say what programs? WACKO people watching them. We have WACKO drivers...just go out on Manchester Rd. Morals have become WACKO. Being Politically Correct has become WACKO. I could go on and on. I'm somewhat comforted by many of the more intelligent comments posted here. Not only are they spot on but quite eloquent as well.
10:31 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
What happened in Colorado was, if not totally avoidable, at least could have been mitigated, by said wacko not being able to legally purchase and own firearms. Is that really unreasonable?? It is not. I am not willing to accept these mass shootings as something unavoidable becasuse there might be crazy drivers or crap on TV. And by the way, you think people drive crazy now? Imagine a driving scenario in
the city, void of ANY rules/regulations/signs anything, it would be total. Effing. Chaos. And dangerous as hell. All I am proposing is the same sensible prevention oriented prohibitions for gun ownership, that makes driving as relatively safe as it is.
1:26 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I'm sorry for being troublesome here, but I'm not seeing how your proposal for "the same sensible prevention oriented prohibitions for gun ownership, that makes driving as relatively safe as it is" is supposed to work.
Speed limits and operating requirements for cars don't prevent people from killing people with their cars. They help the rest of us know what safe use of the car entails. There are lots of laws that apply to guns (and I haven't heard anybody suggest here that we remove/reduce any of them). But just because there is a speed limit and an insurance requirement for drivers simply doesn't stop people from killing people with their cars.
Mr. Holmes was legally able to buy a gun, just like you are legally able to buy a car. But to take it to the next step and predict that Mr. Holmes or you are going to misuse your purchase? That's an entirely different problem.
How do you propose keeping "said wacko [from] not being able to legally purchase and own firearms." Whether or not your plan is "unreasonable" depends on what you are proposing.
Sounds like perhaps you want some sort of before-the-fact predictor, like perhaps a psychological profile or something? If so, the same thing would apply for automobile licenses as well if we're really talking about "same sensible prevention oriented prohibitions..."
Does that make sense?
KCF Resident
10:31 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Here's an interesting article that just popped into my Inbox.
10:39 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
We should continue to find a way to balance the rights that citizens have to bear arms and the human rights that we all have to be safe from wackos who set out to harm others. A vast number of details are not public on this guy, but we should all be puzzled by the fact that he could aquire 1,000s of bullets, assualt weapons, full protective gear and the supplies to create IEDs and explosives in his apartment without some kind of scrutiny by law enforcement, neighbors, family members and who knows who. I think THIS is where the focus should be in finding improvements. I also think that we need to talk about how a guy like this can be so well equipped that he could have easily outgunned all of the first responders. AND, we need to discuss how this guy could park, walk into a movie theater with all of this stuff and go unnoticed. What in the hell?!?
Let's figure this out and then decide if insufficient gun control was a contributor.
KCF Resident
11:21 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Curtiss, well said!
It appears that we have become a passive and "me" oriented society. I can remember back in 1964 in NYC when people looked out windows and watched Kitty Genovese being raped and murdered and did nothing about it. A theater has a responsibility to its patrons to ensure that they are safe. They should make sure all doors are locked and only entrance from the main is available. Obviously posting a sign that says no guns permitted is useless and an after-the-fact thing. They should know who and what are entering their facility. Movie theaters operate on tight budgets so security is nil if any. Some years back I attended a full week seminar on large facility security. I couldn't believe what it took to manage places like the Meadowlands and even Busch Stadium. So think about it when nothing is done. On another note...this kid was on unemployment. Where did he find $20K to buy all the paraphenalia? It's WACKOS like Holmes that make life difficult for moral law abiding citizens. Especially when ignorant politicians implement ridiculous ineffective laws. Think about it. mayor Bloomberg in NYC makes 32 ounce drinks illegal. So you buy two 16 ounce drinks. So it didn't matter if this guy had a Beta C mag or five 20 round magazines. Beta C's are very unreliable. My guess is this guy got in via an unlocked exit door or had someone unlock it for him. Therefore whatever prevention could have been done had to be well before it this all happened and no one did anything.
Karl Frank Jr.
10:51 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Hunting rifles like shotguns and 22's remain fairly easily obtained with current practices. Any other legal gun can be obtained if you are current or ex-military, current or ex-police officer, or other current/ex-law enforcement, provided you pass a background check and Hare's Psychopathy Exam. CCW's for Handguns would only be sold after a background check, passage of Hare's Psychopathy Exam, and an extensive training program, even of a boot camp/police academy like training that includes the psychology, discipline, and responsibilities of gun ownership.
Also, the Federal Government should start a substantial gun buy-back program of at least $5000 and a pardon for every gun turned in that is not legally owned with a permit. $5000 sounds like a lot, but consider the cost of yearly incarceration. I would also offer $5000 rewards for information leading to the arrest of anyone who owns a gun illegally.
Also, anyone who owns a gun legally that is used by anyone else for murder or mass murder should receive a minimum of 5 years in prison and be considered an accomplice regardless of how that gun was obtained.
Lastly, anyone who sells a gun illegally that is used by anyone else for murder or mass murder should receive a minimum of 10 years in prison and be considered an accomplice regardless of how that gun was obtained or how many hands it passed through.
12:36 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. At least you have a plan. Much appreciated.
I'm curious if you are willing to apply this same standard to solve other areas of societal ills and how far you are wiling to ride this horse. I keep picking on vehicular manslaughter, because we're talking roughly about the same number of deaths each year. Whether somebody breaks in and murders a family with a gun or mows them down in a drunken stupor has the same result--the family and their extended families are screwed up because of another person's unlawful actions. It seems to me that both scenarios would benefit from the same medicine, wouldn't you agree? Surely we can devise a psychological battery that predict potential dangerous driving behaviors that can result in death and destruction on the road.
I'm not just trying to argue here; I'm sincerely trying to see how this would work. Once we empower our Uncle Sam to *prevent* unwanted results by means of psychological profiling instead of punishing those who violate the law (necessarily after the fact), we're moving into a whole new paradigm of oversight. Mayor Bloomberg's solution for sugary drinks is another example of this line of thinking. I'm not sure where the bottom of this well might be.
WIth that said, your solution might also be something I could embrace as a way to reduce the number of abortions in this country (a societal ill that I find every bit disturbing as you do unwanted gun deaths.).
1:16 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Thank you Karl for your thoughtful reply, and thank you William for more mental gymnastics to mask your set in stone political opinions and tangents. Good grief - glad I didn't bother.
Next time Karl, save your thoughtful replies for a venue where there stands a chance of thoughtful people listening to them. No need to play Alan Colmes to the Sean Hannity's that do not have lives and dominate these forums.
Karl Frank Jr.
10:52 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
With that said, I don't think it's going to change anytime soon. Gun ownership is part of the psychopathy of the USA. It's a dogma/religious-like zealotry. Either way, I think what I suggested above could go along way in preventing senseless violence.
Devon Seddon
12:20 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The Federal Government is not a solution to every (any) problem, thinking that it is, is asinine, and ignorant of the results of every other time you've insisted that they are the solution.
Why did you attack religion which has nothing to do with this? Look out, you're agenda is showing.
Were these guns legal & registered? My only problem with gun control is the same as with many other issues. Just like Prop B, and the rediculous sanctions on Penn State's current players, it's an action, based on an emotional response to a bad situation. Another case of "gotta do something" (whether it's the right thing or not) upon the demand of those who don't understand, and usually don't care to understand, what has actually happened. Mob mentality.
New laws don't keep criminals from being criminals, often times they only penalize & cost those who abide by those laws.
There is nothing wrong with a solution, but an emotional one that penalizes those who aren't guilty of anything doesn't make sense.
1:57 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Devon with an interesting thought-tangent on the government not being a solution to every (any) problem. Solution is an absolute, so, surprise, you may be right -government is not a solution.
Of course, no regulation works perfectly. So is that reason to never regulate anything? Whether the government can play a limited positive role in addressing certain problems we've had in society is virtually indisputable. Ever heard of the Clean Air Act?
Should government go back to allowing meth ingredients for sale over the counter? On the weaponry, should our government allow rogue nations or individuals to acquire nukes and WMD? According to this, http://www.dhs.gov/files/laws/ammonium-nitrate-regulations.shtm , homeland security proposes to regulate fertilizer. Where is the outcry about taking away our fertilizer rights? Look at the measures taken at airports in response to 9-11, by government.
When it comes to guns, it is highly unlikely there will be any sort of measured response to this, yet another horrific mass murder - and it's because guns are held sacred, and the gun lobby holds disproportionate influence over our politicians.
Karl Frank Jr.
2:04 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Since we are on the topic of thought-tangents...imagine the world today if locked steel reinforced doors were on airplanes and regulated by the government on 9/10/01.
As a matter of fact, there was a group working on that for almost 30 years before then. Of course, if I mentioned the groups name it would be easily dismissed no matter how accurate it is...so I won't. :)
Devon Seddon
1:52 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
We already have regulations. Ones you pushed for. Yet each time this kind of thing happens you want more, totally disregarding the regulations we already have. When someone says "OK, that's enough, now you're starting to tread on my rights & the safety of my family", that's when you start-in on the "radicals" that never want any gun control. You act like you don't have ANY regulation, and you claim these people are against ALL regulation. Both claims are misleading and wrong. You always want more, they always want less.
My suggestion is to have them look at the definitions of what each of these types of weapons are. The current definitions of an assault rifle have nothing to do with what they can do, they only have to do with how they look. I'm not against reasonable regulation, but they don't even know where to start. As I've stated, anyone who can't even properly define these weapons, has no business getting any more involved in a situation this serious.
Your continued claim of the "disporportionate control" gun-maker lobbyists have, comes off light. Disporportionate to what? It's not even one of the biggest lobbyist groups in DC, and definitely doesn't have more influence than most others, including it's opposition.
There have only been 2 attacks on American soil, both cowardly & by plane. Know why? It's because the American people themselves are armed. (Stated by both the Russians during the cold-war, and China in 1998).
Let the point-absent name-calling begin...
KCF Resident
11:46 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
There is much more to the collapse of America than just our economic problems. 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.
All this discussion about gun control only addresses the symptoms...not the cause!
KCF Resident
11:57 am on Monday, July 23, 2012
Why didn't this type of thing happen back in the 1950s?
Why are our young people so violent and so mentally unstable?
What has changed?
Those are some very important questions. But most Americans will forget this incident very quickly and they will move on with their self-absorbed lives.
But there is so much about this shooting that calls for further examination.
What would make a highly educated 24 year old man do something so incredibly evil?
Why are so many young people suddenly "snapping" these days?
As our society continues to decay, how much worse are things going to get?
It is almost to the point where people are going to start becoming afraid of gathering in public places.
Most Americans never would have imagined that it would be dangerous to go to the movie theater.
And could it have been possible that James Holmes had some help?
There are some important questions that the media is not really focusing on in this case.
How did an impoverished college student put together an arsenal of weapons, ammunition and body armor worth thousands of dollars?
Why do some eyewitnesses claim that he had at least one other person assisting him?
Why did he surrender to police without offering any resistance whatsoever?
It would be great if we could get some answers to those questions.
In any event, this is yet another sign of how far our society has fallen. We are becoming more sick and more twisted with each passing day, and it is time to admit this fact.
Devon Seddon
12:40 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
The Department of Education & Political Correctness. Those are your major differences.
It's funny. I've seen people on here talking about how religion is somehow to blame for this incident, or lack of gun laws, or whatever they were trying to blame religion for, but (with very few exceptions) if this person was "religious", this never happens.
I'm with you. This is a symptom of OUR actions over the past 20 or so years. People always want to drag this type of thing out to a bigger problem, gun control. Well, guns have always been part of the American society. Let's go ahead & drag it out even farther, and look at what has changed. We need to quit allowing our attention to be diverted from the real causes for this type of behavior.
The problem here is behavior and SELF-control, not gun control. Without a gun, this guy is still a psychopath. Anybody who thinks we need to ban guns, is only dismissing the problem, and trying to lay blame where it doesn't belong. Guns didn't cause this behavior, let's address what did.
Rich Pope
12:24 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
I don't know the answer to this debate. I don't like the fact that some criminals have automatic weapons which puts the police at a significant disadvantage. But I don't want my right to bear arms taken away from me. It's odd that I can't buy fireworks in O'fallon but I can go to Walmart and purchase a shotgun.
KCF Resident
12:59 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Rich, I have a couple of questions based on your comment. Please expand on the automatic weapons and police at a disadvantage fact. I don't think it's odd not to be able to buy fireworks. Municipalities have reasons ranging from public safety to individual safety which includes fire prevention. The potential for irresponsible use of fireworks is greater than irresponsible use of a shotgun. So why is it so odd?
1:11 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Fireworks are for professionals who have all the fire control necessary while shooting them off. People don't follow safety instructions printed on the packages and cause major problems. Plus think about all the Vets who have been in war. Fireworks will cause a flashback and then who is to blame? Yes the cops are disadvantaged when it comes to automatic verses semi however I see the problem going the other way. An auto jams 1 in 200 rounds and semi weapons jam one in 100,000 rounds. This puts the crook at a disadvantage rather than the cops. I have always read the second amendment as the right to bear arms and arm bears.
Think about it.
Devon Seddon
1:44 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
People keep assuming the laws aren't tight enough.
Are we also assuming this person was abiding by the law?
Seems to me that this person broke the law; many of them.
Why is it that some of you think that another law would've kept this from happening?
Please use your brains instead of your emotions. It's embarrassing.
1:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
This is the P.C. Crowd you are talking to. I agree with the statement.
2:11 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Of course people overreact, and then there's a corresponding backlash to the overreaction that sometimes exceeds it.
The murderer's record was clean, by accounts that I've read. He legally purchased the arsenal.The NRA buys politicians to protect that whack jobs rights to acquire an arsenal suitable only for mass killing. Yeah, this guy could have killed people numerous other ways. Why protect the methods that make it easier for whack jobs to carry out their plans?
I don't like it. That won't make a difference in face of the power of the gun lobby and it's lackeys.
2:03 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Q: "Why didn't this type of thing happen back in the 1950s?"
A: It did. In 1949 Howard Unruh killed 13 people in his neighborhood including 3 children. See also: Charles Starkweather 1958 & Charles Whitman 1966. All through history there are stories of crazy people killing innocents. This is not a new phenomenon. Some people are just driven to do evil things for a variety of reasons & sometimes for no reason at all. To argue that crime would cease to exist in the face of a crack down in gun control is ridiculous & so is trying to make sense of that which is senseless ; attempting to assign blame to anything other than the person who did the deed. Given enough time and space anyone who can google could provide a nauseating list of mass killers of various ages who used all sorts of weapons. Are the victims of Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy less horrifying because it didn't happen all at once or by gun? At 24, this particular nut is far from the youngest to become a self-anointed executioner. Let's face it, there were no video games when Mary Bell, age 10, killed at least 2 neighborhood children in 1968. What compelled her to such gruesomeness? Gun control wouldn't have stopped her, banning video games or violent movies wouldn't have stopped her. In 1927, Andrew Kehoe blew up the town school killing 45 and injuring 58 more. He only had to fire one shot from his shot gun to do so. Banning semi-automatic weapons wouldn't have made a difference in that case.
tom wyatt
3:10 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
There was a time when rocks were the weapons of choice and innovation progressed from there. As evident with the explosive boobie traps at this nut jobs apartment he could have very easily have brought homemade hand grenades and done as much damage as he did with a gun. He could have place pipe bombs and accomplished more. Or as Glenn pointed out gasoline could have probably killed the vast majority of people in that theater. Gun control laws have absolutely no affect on criminals. Criminals by definition have no respect for laws and all gun control laws do is strip law abiding people of their second amendment rights. The second amendment consists of two parts seperated by a comma, "the rights of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state." The bill of rights states the rights of the PEOPLE.
tom wyatt
3:10 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
A study completed and hailed as the definitive study on the useage of hand guns in self defense by Dr. Gary Kleck who is a professor in the school of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahasseeitive concluded that hand guns are used in self defense situations 2.5 million times a year. What that means is that a gun is 80 times more likely to be used to save some one from a bad guy. He also found that in less than 8% of those instances was some one actually shot. That means that 92% of the time merely brandishing or firing a warning shot was enough to stop the assualt. So I would say that they're used as instraments of good far more times than instraments of evil. Due to the restrictive gun laws in Aurora, CO. presumably the only person in that theater was some one intent on doing evil so being in a 'gun free zone' and restrictive gun laws did nothing to stop him but if some one or some people in that theater would have been allowed to carry their legally licensed guns maybe they would have had a fighting chance. As it was they were lambs awaiting slaughter.
3:32 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
So , the pocket/purse handguns could have stopped Holmes? Using your logic, the other guests were fools for not wearing their gas masks and protective gear, or smuggling in assualt rifles so they could match the firepower - ya know, the sort of thing civilized people think about packing when going to see a movie.
And there are plenty of studies on gun control- as the gun lobby sees to it.
...2.5 million times a year...umm that seems just a tad high by any sense of reason.
William, do you have any replies/questions for tom wyatt's thoughtful email.
tom wyatt
3:44 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Wow, you certainly do have reading comprehension problems. I said that they 'maybe' they would have had a fighting chance. They certainly would have a better chance than being unarmed. Would it have made a difference? I have no idea nor do you. I'm also glad to learn that you are arbitor of what is civilized and what isn't. So, show me the studies, link to them but I'm sure that you've read the Kleck study and have dissected the findings. You're responses are so typical and quite laughable.
4:05 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
You do an excellent job at throwing lots of sand around, but you're fairly short on meaningful and thoughtful input. Your strategy in this discussion is limited, apparently, to just calling people names and labeling them as gun nuts. Couldn't possibly be that there are legitimate opposite viewpoints, could it? Everything is so simple when you see things in the pure white light of dogmatics.
Maybe it's time to peel your "Coexist" bumper sticker off the old Volvo, eh?
If you don't like @TWyatt's study then what numbers do YOU use? Or are you saying there are no meaningful statistics related to the use of firearms for self-defense? If you've got something to backup your viewpoint, then let's see it.
6:03 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
William, it didn't take much to draw you out of your high-browed conservative intellectual schtik. Not that anybody was buying it anyway. Co-exist sticker -ha ha. Yeah, I'm probably more conservative than you are. At least what a conservative used to be. You can waste your time lookiing up partisan blogs (or data as you call it) to refute or support any cause on earth. I get it, instead of imparting your own unvarnished opinion, you prefer to copy boilerplate opinion. Which is quite frankly, disingenuous and boring, as your true colors show now.
6:24 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Twyatt - do you also carry around a lightning rod when you go out on the town? You never know when you'll have to defend yourself from random acts of lightning.
I am sure you personally examined the Kleck study for reasonableness and it's 2.5 million claim. That is wonderful info that I didn't know, and for now I'll take your word that it is true.
But out of the 2.5 million acts of gun self-defense per year, how many times was a high-round assault rifle required? Or whatever that type of gun is called-You know-like the one that Holmes used. I'm sure the fine folks at the NRA will have a new study to figure this out soon.
3:14 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Yes and a thousand times yes Karl Frank Jr.! Everybody look at his post about psychological screening. This is a reasonable guideline for private firearms ownership in this country. William, same result but not same INTENT, and this is everything. Colorado wacko INTENDED to shoot up a bunch a people. He didnt get drunk and ACCIDENTLY shoot up a bunch of people.
3:37 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
We'll just have to part company there, jh.
You haven't lost anybody to a drunk driver have you? Vehicular manslaughter is murder. It's breaking the law and people die as result and at about the same rate as gun murders. They're no less dead and there is no less grief. So, I'm curious: if James Holmes is found to have not been in his right mind, innocent by reason of insanity, will that make what he did any less horrific to you?
From where I sit, if Karl's proposal is good for preventing one group of ugly deaths, it's good for a bunch more. Lot's of possibilities for improvement, given good competent counseling and oversight. Model citizens can be guaranteed, so long as we get their minds right.
I think you're naive if you think this sort of intervention will stay contained to gun issues once the bridge is crossed.
tom wyatt
3:15 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
One more little tid bit then I'll leave the liberals to their emotional arguments. Switzerland's government issues every adult a real assault rifle and provides them the training to use it. Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of anyu civilized country in the world. "An armed society is a polite society" Robert A. Heinlein
Earl Higgins
9:02 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
"Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of anyu civilized country in the world"... I would like to see source for such an outrageous claim Tom Wyatt. I know you want it to be true, but that's not the same as it actually being true.
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate would seem to indicate that the rate in a few other "civilized" countries is many orders of magnitude lower than Switzerland, for example Japan whose rate is on the order of 1% of what Switzerland's is. Japan, by the way, has very strong gun control laws. I'm not saying you are just making stuff up, but I am asking you to back it up with some kind of reference.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
2:27 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
But why is death by gun rampage rate low in Switzerland and high in the USA? It must be the people owning the guns. Only let the Swiss own guns and disarm angry white men.
3:26 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Switzeland huh? You do know that gun ownership in Switzerland goes hand in hand with compulsory military service, right? Hey, I'm all for that! Gonna say this again: Clinically crazy people in America, should not be allowed to legally purchase fireams. I sincerely hope you dont think clinically crazy people should have legal access to firearms.
Lynn Stephenson
3:58 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
According to the most recent FBI Crime report, while gun ownership continues to rise in the US, violent crime continues to drop. Put in a simpler text, more legal gun owners equates to less crime. Most crimminals are not as dumb as we think they are. They have no desire to get hurt or killed while committing crime, so they look for the area with the best chance of having unarmed victims to confront. A movie theater that doesn't allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed creates just such an area. You never hear of a mass murder taking place at a shooting range. I wonder why?
tom wyatt
4:30 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Norway's tough gun laws had absolutely no affect on Anders Behring Breivik and his killing 77 at the youth camp and an additional 8 with a car bomb last year. Or in Enland with it's very tough gun laws where Derrick Bird killed 12 in 2010. How about Nordine Amrani who killed 4 (one of which was a toddler) with a rifle and gernade attack in Belgium last year. Stiff gun laws really help.....HAR!
4:48 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
OK, let's agree that the anti-gunner's aren't going to agree with the gun owners about gun control. Let me try a different tack. The point is to protect the innocent from the deranged without infringing on anyones rights. (2nd try 1st too long to post)
Already Suggested: Psychological testing/profiling.
Profiling? Very un "PC" but potentially effective. Like it or not, profiling often works. I think I could be ok with that depending on how it is carryed out and what is done to the profilee with the info.
Testing? Not a chance. Who makes up the test and decides what passes and fails? Waayy too much chance for abuse and, as mentioned, a slippery slope no one should want to see enter our society. Where do you stop?
Metal detectors? Waste of time. Anyone doing any real planning could avoid them. Plus, it would prevent lawabiding CCW's from attending. Face it. In an emergency involving a dangerous person(s) who do you call? People with guns. Most police response will be minutes, maybe many minutes away. Anyone who has been in a REAL fight can tell you 20 to 30 seconds is a lifetime. Plus, you have to be able to contact the police before the clock even starts.
Armed guards/police at all entrances and exits. Should deter all but the most determined. Expect ticket prices to jump a LOT. Plus, do you really want to watch a movie with an armed guard standing at the theater exits? Makes me think of old WWII movies with the SS "guarding" everyone.
tom wyatt
6:39 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
RDBet, People would probably take you much more seriously if you didn't take things to the absurd for example you're ridiculous lightening rod remark. I carry a gun to protect myself and my family not because I have some kind of hero wannabe complex. Mine and my family's safety is my first concern. Again, by definition an assault rifle is fully automatic which unless you hold a special FFL it's illegal for you to posses one. The guns that are commonly referred to as 'assault' weapons are nothing more that semi automatics that are made to look military. . I sold my ar-15 for a profit years ago and I sold the 250 rnd drum with it. It was a boatloads of fun to shoot and I felt very secure it a mass attack by squirrels and or squirrel zombies were to descend on me. To ask questions such as how many of the 2.5 mil. attacks needed guns equipped with high capacity magazines is equally absurd, I have no idea but it really doesn't matter.And, yes, I have studied the Kleck study in depth. As far as carrying a lightning rod, I usually carry a 1 iron becasue not even G-d can hit a 1 iron.
7:28 pm on Monday, July 23, 2012
Tom, it is lame that I even need to ask an absurd question on how many times an assault weapon ( or whatever those enthused by guns call it) is needed for self-efense. Though the squirrel zombie comment make more sense than the logic of
keeping such weapons legal and easily available to law abiders, such as Holmes.
I don't need a gun to protect my family, but maybe I'm just more of man than you.
Oh lighten up pal , it's weak humor.... just like your carrying a cop comment. As if there was anything funny about these mass murders.
Adios, macho man.
4:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
RD, I don't carry a gun because I live in fear of an attack. I carry a gun because I want to be prepared in case of one. Likewise, I don't live in fear of a traffic accident or a fire, yet I still wear my seatbelt and have a fire extinguisher. I also have insurance, taught my kids to be careful around electricity, guns, water, strangers, broken glass, strange animals, etc. Should I just blankly stare up at the clouds expecting someone else to watch out for me and my family? Only a fool would do so.
In my lifetime I have seen people that have been attacked for no reason other than they were in the wrong area at the wrong time. Groups of 12-15 kids attacked people merely because of the color of their skin after the Rodney King incident. And this 1000 miles from CA. In fact such random attacks still happen now as evidenced by stories in the news about the "knock out" game. Saying it could never happen only highlights your ignorance of the real world.
The police can not guarantee your protection. They can only guarantee to investigate your murder/rape/robbery.
You are free to defend yourself or submit as you choose. I choose to defend myself.
Karl Frank Jr.
5:03 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Glenn, owning a gun makes you 4 x's more like to die by a gun and that is the most conservative number on the issue. The most liberal number is around 20 x's...but even 4 x's is enough. But whatever makes you feel better. Seatbelts don't increase your chance of dying by seatbelt.
5:40 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Glenn - bringing Rodney King and race into this. Are you trying to say something. Holmes was white, with orange hair by the way.
You can choose to defend yourself as you wish. As Karl points out, you are more likely to find trouble with a gun. Though you may have a multitude of experiences as a cop that shape your view, not every other person is devoid of experience as you presume.
I had a particular situation where if I had a gun, I may have used it -suspicious character snooping around my premises in the dark. If I had the gun, chances are either me or the law enforcement official that was out doing his job would be dead.
2:48 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Karl, I have always known that some day I may get killed with my own gun. And I intend the SOB will have to beat me to death with it. And the figure you mentioned is bs. It's like saying a car owner is 10 times more likely to be killed in a car accident. Probably 90 percent of the people killed in a car accident belong to households that own a car. Maybe, but it merely confuses and sidetracks the issue, as I'm sure was intended.
RDbet, I'll take your word for it. You're not responsible enough to own a gun for self defense. But that doesn't mean I'm not or that I should give up my rights to own one. I've never said EVERYONE should own a gun. But I do believe ALL law abiding citizens should have the CHOICE to own, or not own one.
BTW, my intent was not to bring race into this discussion, merely to prove that such things have and do in fact happen. There are always those who will say "That's never happened, That'll never happen. You're making that up" If you wish to play the race card, that's on you.
12:28 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Glenn, I never said I wasn't responsible enough to own a gun so there is no word to take on it. I like to hunt and shoot skeet.
By the way, according to legal standards as pushed for by the NRA machismo machine, Holmes was responsible enough to not only own a gun, but an entire arsenal suitable for waging war.
In your fear of losing your own gun, which will never happen, you justify someone like Holmes having far more than a gun.
And Glenn, you were the one ranting about post-Rodney King events as the reason people should own guns- I just noticed it. Maybe I was wrong, but it seemed like an odd and irrelavant choice of example.
9:34 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Nobody is protected, no freedom is served by allowing clinically crazy people access to firearms. Can we all agree on this?
9:37 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
England and Norway with far greater contriols on gun ownership, have far less mass shootings and gun deaths
than does the US. Mostly I would think, because clinically crazy people are not allowed to own firearms. That Breivik guy couldnt purchase firearms in Norway.
9:42 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The issue isnt wether or not one can legally possess firearms. The issue is not allowing clinically crazy people access to firearms. This is a reasonable and responsible
measure for gun ownership. Go look at Karl Frank Jr.'s posts for some idea what this would look like.
Marc Perez
9:56 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Join in a discussion with Missouri responsible firearms owners, it's free or you can join for a small annual fee. See: www.missouricarry.com
10:00 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
I am in no doubt of there being responsible gun owners. Its the crazy ones we should all be concerned about.
Marc Perez
10:03 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Future actions by the administration may be like "Killing all the chickens because a fox got into the hen house.". An armed society is a polite society, an unarmed society are slaves.
Devon Seddon
2:09 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Could some of that concern be alleviated by the rights & ability to protect yourself?
10:19 am on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
No reasonable person thinks somebody like James Holmes should have had access to firearms. How was freedom served by him having firearms. Who was protected by James Holmes having firearms.
1:27 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Yes. Though the people here don't seem all that reasonable - more concerned with protecting their gun obsession/ hobby than addressing a legitimate problem where a crazed person can legally accumulate a lethal arsenal.
There is no way to fully regulate this or any societal danger, I think we all know that. Too much talking in circles about this..suggestions of people arming themselves to protect themselves at movie theaters. Sorry folks, if the only way to go to a stupid movie is to carry a gun in, then going to the stupdi movie is just not worth it.
To avoid taking any measures, out of political fear of a lobbying group or because it won't be foolproof is a copout. Really sad.
Al Mount
7:39 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
What if he had built a homicide vest from common household chemicals because he was prohibited from buying a firearm.
This anti-firearm crusade in ridiculous.
tom wyatt
12:11 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Jh, you proved the opposing point whether you realize it or not when you said that the shooter in Norway couldn't obtain the weapons IN Noreay. Yet he got them anyway didn't he? Gun control doesn't control a criminal.
Jaycen Rigger
1:17 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Now you're just being unfair. You're trying to use facts and logic to bolster your case, when JH wants to use...his feelings on the matter.
Stop being a big meanie.
1:54 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Why is it necessary to facilitate mass murderers in their mission? Would it have been BETTER, that Breivik been allowed to purchase weapons in his home country? Oh, and Jaycen. I got your big meanie hanging. There, thats an emotional response. Not anything else I've said, though.
tom wyatt
3:35 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Jh, once again you miss the point like Stevie Wonder trying to putt. My point was that criminals or those intent on doing harm will always get the weapons that they need no matter how stiff the gun laws. If stiffer gun laws were the answer Chicago, L.A., N.Y.C. or Detroit would be the safest places in this country to live.Jaycen, you're completely right and I apologize for confusing liberals with facts. As we all know, liberals never let facts get in the way.
Earl Higgins
5:59 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Ummm, Tom, your accusing liberals of not sticking to the facts flies in the face of your ridiculous claim that Switzerland has the lowest gun crime rate in the civilized world. Care to back up that bit of nonsense with even a shred of evidence? If you scroll up this page a little I show where Japan, with its tight gun control laws, has a gun crime rate on the order of 1% of Switzerland's. Now, who is ignoring the facts?
tom wyatt
7:36 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Earl you don't even know what you linked to and that's pathetic! lol You linked to 'gun related deaths'
"This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate would seem to indicate that the rate in a few other "civilized" countries is many orders of magnitude lower than Switzerland, for example Japan whose rate is on the order of 1% of what Switzerland's is." Earl Higgins
There ya go Earl, not letting those pesky facts get in the way. I said " the lowest gun related crime", two totally different things. Those pesky reading comprehension problems persist. Please get some help. Reading is fundemental.
According to the BBC "the gun crime rate is so low that statistics aren't evern kept". http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp
But thanks to you I did find something that I was wrong about. You don't need a special FFL to buy and posses a fully automatic weapon, you need a class III tax stamp and from what I gather they are very difficult to get. So thanks for that. I do hate to be wrong on the facts. Apparently not something that bothers liberals.
Man, that's got to sting. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
7:40 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
So, you're saying the only difference between these two countries gun crime rates is the nature of the law? Very tricksey to make comparisons between cultures.
Have you spent any time in Japan?
Everybody separates their garbage into 5 different categories, rinsed. Each block has a volunteer officer that checks to make sure it's done right--if not you find your garbage right back on your doorstep until you fix it.
Women are socially required to tie the little cellophane wrappers that cover toothpicks at a restaurant into a little orgami shape and leave it carefully aligned next to their plate. Women will spend 2-3 hours each morning preparing a lunch (bento) box for their kindergartners.
Yeah, you're right. It's probably just the gun law.
Earl Higgins
8:24 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tom, I'm sorry I give you more credit, I thought you would actually read the link I pointed to rather than just the title. You see, there is a column called "Homicides", which I think we can agree are gun related crimes. In that column, Switzerland comes in at 0.58 (per 100,000). You stated, "Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of anyu civilized country in the world" which obviously isn't even remotely true. Unless we simply ignore Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Australia, all of which have significantly lower homicide rates than Switzerland. And guess what Tom (you're really not going to like this fact), those countries have, in general, far stricter gun control laws than Switzerland or the United States. Sometimes the truth hurts, Tom, but I'm not going to sling mud at you and say a bunch of childish things about conservatives not knowing their facts. That wouldn't be very classy now would it?
8:37 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
The only statistics that matter are 12 dead 58 wounded and many more lives shattered.
To some people here this discussion is some sort of game. It should not be easy and legally protected (sacredly protected judging by the tone of responses here)
for a lunatic like this murderer in Colorado to accumulate the weaponry to create this sort of bloodshed.
Handguns and rifles are safe. So relax your oversized amygdalas gun-lovers, when we can't even get politicians to even discuss preventative measures on the type of assault weapons used by Holmes which are not self-defense type weapons.
Lynn Stephenson
2:34 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Most people who have their concealed carry permits are every day people, who go to work, come home, pay bills, take care of their families and just go about the job of living their lives. You never know they are behind you in the checkout line, standing next to you shopping for clothes, and discussing Friday night's high school football game. They are dressed just as you are, trying to stay cool in the summer heat. They are your family, friends and neighbors. You will never know they are there, because they are not the wild eyed, gun waving fanatics that some people and members of the liberal media would have you believe them to be. They hope that they never have to draw their firearm, much less use it, but they have made the decision to be prepared if the situation ever arises. None of the CCW permit holders that I know relish the idea of taking another human life, but if forced into a choice, they would rather return home to their families at night than be the guest of honor at a funeral. Would it have been possible for a person with a legal concealed weapon to stop the murder and wounding of all those people in Colorado? Impossible to say. There are simply too many variables to say with any certainty either way. But one thing we know for a fact is that having a theater full of innocent, unarmed people guaranteed that no one would have a chance to find out.
3:00 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
that plays like a commercial for a feminine hygiene product.
2:58 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
It IS possible to say. It DIDNT happen. Again, the issue is who gets to own firearms. In light of what actually happened, its reasonable to insist that crazy people
not have legal access to firearms.
Lynn Stephenson
3:39 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
People who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses are prevented from owning firearms. There was no such diagnosis on the Colorado shooter that has been revealed.
Karl Frank Jr.
3:54 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
His actions are by definition psychopathic. The diagnosis is in his actions. Look up Hare's Psychopathy Exam. He just was never previously diagnosed. The Mental Illness tests should be part of CCW ownership or any kind of firearms purchase. There should be a random set of psychiatrists and those psychiatrists should be audited for anomalies.
Marc Perez
4:04 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
How to stop a mass killing: Very short video, good guys win
7:23 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
For those of you flirting with profiling as a means to your ends, you might be interested in this opinion piece by Erika Chistakis: The Overwhelming Maleness of Mass Murder.
She truthfully points out the obvious: all mass murders to date have been caused by males. Specifically, young white males 14-24 (representing 6% of the population and responsible for 17% of all homicides (with or without guns). The case is much worse for black males in the same category (1.2% of the population, responsible for 27% of the homicides). Together they represent just 7% of the population and are responsible for 45% of all homicides. 90% of all violent offenders are male, as are 80% of the victims.
So we don't need psychological tests to determine qualifications for gun ownership. It's simple: If you have testicles and were born before say 1985, you're out. Much cheaper than a full battery of tests and will make a huge dent in the statistics, right? Plus, we're really doing them a favor because under Karl's approach, merely owning a gun (mentally competent or not) could be setting them up for 10 years in the slammer. This way they don't have to worry.
See what fun we can have when we willing to trample all over somebody's rights just to achieve what we want? Course, we'll need to ignore the 14th amendment, but then we're already going to blow off the 2nd. Wanna try for the 1st?
Karl Frank Jr.
7:41 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
William, to be clear, it's not just by owning the gun, it's an umbrella proposal that would obviously have more details. With this law in place, in would ensure more gun-owners would take care of their weapons better, if they already don't. And I can imagine that protections would be in place. For instance, if it was stolen and you reported it stolen, then assuming you weren't involved in the theft for some reason, then that would be a reasonable argument for you avoiding a mandatory sentence, or at least a lesser sentence, depending on the circumstances of the theft; i.e. stolen from your glove compartment, not so responsible. Stolen from your locked thousand pound safe, definitely not responsible.
Also, what you say about males is definitely true. I'm sure if you accounted for socioeconomic status, the numbers between the races would balance out.
Perhaps, since we know scientifically that the human brain doesn't finish development until age 26, (especially the pre-frontal cortex - responsible for rational thought) no one without military or police or similar training can purchase more than a hunting rifle. You could even push it back as far as 35 because many studies show that is when the minds of sane males typically reach full maturity and become less aggressive.
26 years to develop and another 9-10 to learn how to use it. :)
Or, maybe we change the law all together and make it so only women can own guns unless you are in military or law enforcement.
2:54 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Karl, so make the victim into the criminal? Sounds like a liberal idea to me. We can't go around persecuting the poor person who actually committed the crime, now, can we?
BTW, there are already several laws on the books calling for mandatory sentences for people committing a crime with a firearm. They are regularly ignored. Why don't you do something about that? Keep the real criminals off the streets so they can't commit any more crimes. Or would that be too mean and hurt the self respect of the poor thugs? You'd rather persecute innocent gun owners.
12:47 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Glenn, this time last week, Holmes was a persecuted gun owner. Those poor poor persecuted gun owners and their multi- million dollar lobbying machine. Mean liberals are trying to make commies out of you all, and take away your AR-15s. What will they do next, go after the Glocks? ...poor poor persecuted gun owners in their mom's basements.
7:54 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Oh no. We can't be "adjusting for socioeconomic status" because that skews the results. We'll have to wait until the actual numbers reflect equality, otherwise we're going to get less impact that we want.
It's just a fact, race and sex are great tools for managing populations. Hmmm. I wonder if perhaps most homicides are committed by hetero males? Yet another way to improve our results, eh?
Karl Frank Jr.
7:57 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Well, socioeconomic status has been empirically proven to make a difference crime, education, lifetime earnings, etc.
I am not aware that sexual orientation has been proven to make any difference...just to one back the straw man argument.
Karl Frank Jr.
8:46 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Maybe John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle applies.
8:56 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
So all we gotta do is agree on what constitutes "harm" and to whom. Greenhouse gases. Sugared drinks. Overuse of scarce resources (the evil 1%). Hate speech. Sexual domination. Racial domination. Historical retribution. Species domination. etc. etc. etc.
Given this discussion, should be a piece of cake, don't you think? :-)
Karl Frank Jr.
8:59 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Well, ya William. Kind of. That's what the legislative process is. People elect representatives and those representatives make laws. Hopefully data-driven laws as opposed to dogma or ideology driven laws..but, in short, ya. We gotta agree on what constitutes harm. At least the House, Senate, President, and Judiciary.
Karl Frank Jr.
9:57 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I think it's very simple. When the Constitution was written, folks like Jefferson believed very strongly that he masses should be armed for citizen militias that could be called to duty as needed. Why??? Because he was adamantly opposed to standing armies. So, what do you have now? The largest standing military in world history. The 2nd Ammendment is dated and no longer necessary.
Marc Perez
10:04 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
So while your ast it are there any other Constitutional rights you'd like to trash? How about the 1st amendment, free speech, it just gets people mad! Voting rights, most people who vote are too stupid to know what they are voting for any way.
Karl Frank Jr.
10:09 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Marc, No. Just the one's that don't apply any more or don't make any sense...like the 2nd amendment. An unchanging Constitution would be equal to totalitarianism. As the times and circumstances change, the laws should change with it. There is no equal argument to doing what you say with the 1st Amendment, and you should know there are already strong restrictions on the 1st Amendment based on harm.
So, a well armed militia was necessary because there was no standing army. Now there is a standing army...so the 2nd amendment is no longer a necessary to the safety of our nation and therefore should be abolished.
10:36 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Given that the Supreme Court has just ruled that the 2nd amendment is a personal right, just like the 1st, the only honest avenue open to abolishing it is via Article V of the US Constitution.
A pretty high hurdle, in that it takes 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve (after passing both houses in Congress).
I will again point out that the "harm" limitations on freedom of speech to which Karl refers are applied *after the fact*, e.g. remedies are applied after one of the restrictions is violated (libel, slander, offensive speech, etc). To make the prescriptions offered here for gun control to be same-same, we would need to take active steps to *prevent* violations of free speech from ever even taking place. In other words: "Thought control."
Chilling stuff.
Karl Frank Jr.
10:42 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Speech and Guns are different, hence the 'sticks and stones may break my bones.' It's only the unnecessarily paranoid that would be concerned about control. It is a high hill to climb, but high hills need to be climbed occasionally. This is a perfect time to start climbing.
And thought control is already in place. If you want to stop it, just turn off the T.V.
11:49 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Paranoid? Perhaps. But I think a strong argument exists that speech can be just as deadly as guns. The old yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is the simple example. But certainly there are far more egregious examples in places like the ballot box--I grew up in Arkansas and I have strong memories of "separate but equal" facilities, poll-taxes and penal systems that were voter approved and sanctioned. The Dred Scott case is a famous example here in Missouri. From our vantage point today we see these as cases of some sort of mass psychosis, but the people living then didn't and thought the concepts perfectly reasonable (even though there may have been those that thought otherwise but were shouted down). So speech is far more than "sticks and stones," my friend. Words can kill and maim.
This discussion has proposed mechanisms that would, if implemented, move from punitive restrictions after the fact to attempts to stop people BEFORE they act (your suggestion of psychological screening). This is a new bridge you propose crossing and if it works, I think you are extremely naive to think the same techniques won't be applied to other "problem areas."
50 years ago if somebody were to suggest that we would be seeing what you are suggesting now regarding the 2nd amendment, would have been undoubtedly labeled as paranoid by most people. Course, I suppose I *could* be paranoid. Too bad there isn't a test that I am compelled to take so you can know I'm okay.
12:39 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
The 3rd amendment is a good one. Thankfully, the forefathers had foresight to restrict soldiers from quartering in my home. Not that most of them aren't good young people, but if not for that amendment - my house would be overcrowded. Maybe some folks wealthier than me should start a multi-million dollar lobbying group to protect our Holy and Sacred 3rd amendment rights, bestowed upon us by the Infallible Forefathers.
8:15 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Thomas Jefferson and the founders did not craft the Second Amendment to protect the right of hunters and target shooters. It was included – right after the First Amendment guareenting political speech – to ensure the right of citizens to violently oppose a tyrannical federal government if need be.
Marc Perez
10:18 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Sorry, without the 2nd amendment we cannot be sure we wil have a first amendment1 Government should fear the people, not the other way around. If someone brakes into you r home, you are there, do you expect the police to protect you? Response time of police 3-5 minutes, speed of a .45 cal bullet 850 ft./sec. You are DEAD! But you have your rights intact, get real. Band guys will never give up their guns. Look at England and Austraila - strict firearms control and the firearms deaths keep piling up.... Vote smart, defend your rights! Live long and prosper.
Karl Frank Jr.
10:32 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
You're fooling yourself if you believe the government is scared of its citizenry.
Besides, in America, we are our government. That's why it's called a Republican Democracy.
Earl Higgins
10:42 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Marc, I know you can only speak for yourself but I really have to wonder why you and others keep bringing up facts which would seem to indicate the exact opposite of what you assert. Your post is a perfect example. You say "Look at England and Australia - strict firearms control" then you go on to claim that the firearms deaths "keep piling up" with no backing evidence or references. Well Marc, I did exactly what you said and here are the facts: USA firearm homicide rate 4.14 (deaths per 100,000); Australia 0.44; England 0.07. Looks an awful lot like the facts don't support your claims Marc. the well referenced table is available for your perusal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate . Now, tell me if I got anything wrong. I sincerely wish to be educated on the issue as I haven't yet made up my mind, thanks.
12:55 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Live long and prosper. Star Trek was pretty good, but don't go for all the sequels...
Marc Perez
10:47 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Those countries prohibit firearms.....
"Why I carry a Gun" author unknown
I do not carry a gun because it is comfortable,
carrying a gun is not comfortable;
I carry a gun because it is comforting.
I do not carry a gun because I am afraid;
I carry a gun so I do not have to live in fear.
I do not carry a gun to kill people;
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I do not carry a gun to scare people;
I carry a gun because sometimes this world
can be a scary place.
I do not carry a gun because I am evil;
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough
to see the evil in this world.
I do not carry a gun because I am angry;
I carry a gun so that I do not have to spend the rest
of my life hating myself for not being prepared.
I do not carry a gun to make me
feel like I'm a better man;
I carry a gun because men know how to take
care of themselves and the ones they love.
I do not carry a gun because I love it;
I carry a gun because I love life and the people
who make it meaningful for me.
I do not carry a gun because I hate the government;
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations
of government.
I carry a gun because I know that I alone am responsible for my safety and I have not abdicated that right and responsibility to anyone else.
When Seconds count - the police are only minutes away
Yep, gun control works... To control!
Marc Perez
10:47 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Governments routinely murder millions
Here's a short list of government mass murder carried out throughout history, almost always immediately following the disarmament of the public (and usually involving staged false flag events to justify the disarmament):
50+ million dead: Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)
12+ million dead: Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) - concentration camps, civilian deaths and dead Russian POWs
8+ million dead: Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908)
6+ million dead: Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)
5+ million dead: Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)
2+ million dead: Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-22)
1.7 million dead: Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)
1.6 million dead: Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)
1.5 million dead: Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)
1 million dead: Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)
900,000 dead: Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982)
800,000 dead: Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21HTD8skv
Karl Frank Jr.
10:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Marc, not a single one of those governments are/were a Republican Democracy with our form of Constitution.
Again, if you think our government and military are afraid of it's citizenry you are in a land of denial and paranoia. Our military, as it stands, could run roughshod over you and the NRA any day.
It's not even a logical argument.
Devon Seddon
2:39 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Just a couple questions Karl,
If being a Democratic Republic (which is what we have, and what I think you meant) is what keeps our government from running rough-shot over the people, then why is it that everyday you support changing it to something else.
Mac's points are more than valid, they are factual statistics. It's History. I know that doesn't account for much to those who love to dismiss history in order to validate today's agendas. But it doesn't change it, or make it go away to the rest of us. "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Just something to keep in mind as you dismiss the lessons of history.
The government already does run rough-shot over the people (with your full support, mind you), but it would take more than just guns to do it in the "forceable" manner you seem to think is the only way it can be done.
And no, our government knows that the people are armed, and that they are hopelessly out-numbered by that armed population. Hence the other methods of taking control.
Our military has all kinds of capabilities, 99% of which are never even used during wars with other countries, much less in a "war" with their own people. So, you're right, but your point is irrelevent.
That's an awful lot of people dead due to your same type of naivete, are you sure you just want to overlook all of that history in favor of a religion that continually demands more government?
Marc Perez
10:57 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I have no doubt our military is ready to "rughshod" over the people, they've been practicing on the streets of St. louis in past few weeks to "shut down" urban unrest. OK, I'm glad you have full faith in the Government taking care of you. That's why God created liberals, socialists and communists. Carry on comrad!
Karl Frank Jr.
11:04 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
As a business owner for 10 years, I am not interested in anyone taking care of me. But I understand the idea that civilization requires a good government. If you have a bad government, then another government will take over. That's just the way it is.
The government takes care of you too, no matter how much you want to deny it. Next time you go out for a leisurely drive, just look at all of the government around you that contributes to your quality of life, including the road your driving on.
1:13 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Marc, US military is strongly in the GOP camp with voting records, even with the Obama CiC killing of Bin Laden.
That said, it is more likely that conservative facist nationalists that are allied closely with the military to run "rughshod" over the people than liberals, socialists and communists created by God.
cueing the star trek theme song.
Devon Seddon
3:31 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
You are so lost. Your claims are not only wrong but irrelevent. That's why you have to call names.
Fascists take away rights. Fascists force their beliefs on others. Fascists piss on the documents & individuals that created what was there before them. Fascists control businesses. Fascists believe in the state over citizens' rights, Fascists believe they should collect & re-distribute all resources. That's what liberals, socialists, and communists do. At least learn the definitions and practices of the names you're trying to call people. Geez.
People like you think Obama deserves credit for getting Bin Laden, when (while campaigning) he didn't even believe we were justified in going after him. Obama also was the one who leaked information that jeopardized that particular, and many efforts that followed, in order to give you your opinion in the first place. You just don't have a clue. You have seething hate in your heart for certain people, and blind love & devotion for others, without even knowing who they are or what they stand for.
Most of that rhetoric you can just keep. We already know what you're told to think, we all hear it, too. Some of us prefer to consider the sources of that information, look at the facts, track results, think for ourselves without emotional hinderances, and understand who controls the media & therefore your weak, labeling mind.
11:48 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Devon - your reactionary oversized amgydala is failing you again.
My comment above was sarcasm in response to Marc's labeling "liberals, commies, socialists" blah blah blah. I don't care one whit how facism is really defined, or any of the "isms" that "people like you" always tag on people that you deem to be liberals.
And do not be lecturing "people like me" on Obama crap. I am not a big Obama fan, but for far different reasons than "people like you" - you know, the fearful anxious ones with the oversized amygdalas.
So lighten up Francis.
Devon Seddon
12:42 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
I'm neither fearful, anxious, nor working from an emotional premise. It's actually the behavior I'm pointing-out. Repeating "oversized amygdala" is counter-productive, but a really effective reflection. It hasn't kept you from being on the reactionary side of the argument though. I have already pointed-out that this discussion takes place everytime something like this happens, due to reactionaries who go after gun-rights instead of criminals, when they don't go after alcohol even though more people are killed by people who are drunk than someone with a gun.
I'm with you that "crazy" people shouldn't be able to have assault weapons, but that it's the legal definition of those weapons (from the laws that are supposed to be providing you with your end-goal) that continues to allow it.
In this case, a man who was being treated for a few "issues" serious enough for psychiatric concern, was insulated more by doctor-patient confidentiality than gun laws, but we don't want to end those either.
KCF Resident
11:54 am on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Karl, not completely! We pay a nice sum of tax for what you say the government provides and quite inefficiently too. Your comment sounds like that of Obama recently.
And not to get picayune...we are a Democratic Republic, not a Republican Democracy.
Karl Frank Jr.
12:02 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
You pay a small share, the majority of the infrastructure was laid well before you had anything to contribute.
William. You are right, when harm is considered, there are common sense restrictions on free speech.
either way, the 2nd amendment is dated and serves no purpose in 21sr century America.
Devon Seddon
2:27 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
The 2nd Amendment still applies. So does the Constitution. Just because some years have gone by, doesn't make it irrelevent. We understand though, that you need it to be irrelevent because your big government agenda goes against it.
Even 200+ years later, those who wrote the Constitution are still smarter than the agendas of today. How do I know? Well, they were smart enough to know, that when a government gets too big or has too much control, it's bad for the people. We (you) don't seem to get that today. Even though we today, like to think we are more enlightened or intellegent, we still can't even figure out things like how the pyramids were built.
Again, I know this is tough because you are trained to ignore history, but if you were actually allowed to look at it, you could simply look at what continues to happen to the people as the government keeps growing. The people have less & become needier, and it is NO coincidence. It's the very same thing that created the appearance of a "need" for more government. Instead of recognizing it, and removing it as the cause, we blindly invite in more of the problem. Just because we've forgotten what snow looks like, doesn't mean we've forgotten how snowballs are made.
This whole topic is (supposed to be) about more/less law. I'd bet that 95% of the people who are call for more laws everytime something like this happens, can't even tell you what the current laws are. The very souls who called for the current laws don't know them.
Devon Seddon
10:36 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
No problem Tool-shed,
Just because you are a soldier doesn't mean you have free-run of my house, and you need my permission to stay there.
I don't know what you think it's an example of, but it's the kind of asinine law you have to make when the government takes too many liberties (as it takes away those of the people).
If you want to have an intellegent discussion, fine. But if all you (ever) have is name-calling & an innability to even understand what the discussion is, maybe you're not really equipped for these types of issues.
11:56 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Silly reactionary primal-thinking Devon. That amygdala is going ape.
Anyways, the Third Amendment is a prime example of how a constitutional amendment written over 200 years ago can be archaic in today's world. Almost as archaic as the 2nd amendment being justified to allow crazed people like Holmes to legally acquire assault weapons and shoot up a movie theater.
Devon Seddon
11:47 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Well, then let me be silly again, since you seem to have your poles reversed, no one is arguing for "crazy" people having weapons. You want to test, test. But stop using this idiot to take rights & safeties away from those who are innocent.
You only do that on this issue, yet you constantly claim that that's how others work. When you want to make alcohol illegal because of the things people do when they are drunk, you may start making sense, 'til then, your conditioning is going well.
12:28 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Once again, your paranoia and fear causes you to think people (and me personally) are trying "to take rights & safeties away from those who are innocent".
If you mean for the AR-15 with drum attachment to be a "right & safey", and Holmes to be an innocent back when he purchased them...then yes - I am in favor of taking away that right and safety from that innocent.
Regardless, no politicians will stand up to the NRA because of their money, and because of they way conditioned fear-mongerers react to any notion of restricting assault weapons with "THEY ARE TAKING YER GUNS AWAY!!!"
Now back to that sarcastic 3rd amendment example -the government and the private sector have had many programs the benefit our soldiers. So if we had well-financed 3rd amendment extremists of the NRA ilk, then when something like the GI bill passes we'd hear screamings of "FIRST WE PAY FOR THEIR SCHOOLING, NEXT THEY'LL BE QUARTERING IN OUR HOMES!!!!"
Devon Seddon
1:25 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Fear-mongering is exactly what you are doing, only this time with reductio ad absurdum. Comparing the GI bill to the 3rd Amendment? Quite a stretch.
The NRA is not even one of the more powerful lobbying groups in DC, even though you continually insist they are. In fact, their opposition is nearly as, if not more, powerful.
As you know, I am almost never for additional legislation, it's usually emotionally-charged & reactionary like this subject tends to be. But I'm with all of you legislation-addicts, if you want to regulate something that has no current regulation. I'd gladly go for a set of laws that prohibit lobbying & lobbyists altogether, so you are preaching to the choir on that issue.
Again, you assume I am for assualt rifles somehow. I'm not. I believe you can defend yourself without a tank as well, before we absurdly extend the conversation there, as well. I don't believe our forefathers would be for assault-rifles either. Nothing that I have said has indicated that I'm for just anyone off the street being able to buy an arsenal of assault weapons. As a matter of fact, I have repeatedly stated that the reason additional laws are not the way to go, is because our idiot politicians can't even define what is, and what isn't, an assault weapon. You already have laws against them, they were just written by idiots who did nothing more than take a look at them, then decide from that. You got your law, but they didn't even bother to gauge what each firearm can & can't do.
Earl Higgins
2:15 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Sorry, Devon, you are spreading bald-faced lies and you know it. The NRA's total income in 2004 was $205,402,491 and had expenses of $206,886,970. It's closest analogue on the gun regulation side is The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, and their income in that same year was slightly over $227,000, expenses $166,000 (in other words, one one-thousandth as large as the NRA).
Are you capable of understanding the magnitude of your misunderstanding Devon? Are you capable of admitting you were wrong? Wrong by a factor of ONE THOUSAND?
Devon Seddon
1:08 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Ok, I was wrong about that... sort of.
Are there any newer numbers than 2004? It also looks as if the NRA lost money that year. It appears also, that the Brady Campaign made a profit. Is the Brady Campaign still the only gun control lobby? Is the NRA the only gun-rights lobby? There are tons of lobbyists, for many different issues. My statement was intended to point out that ALL lobbyists have too much control (whether under-the-table or over), and that gun-rights, was a smaller piece of that puzzle than was being represented in this thread. Also that the claims being made were pointed to seem like the NRA was the only lobby-group with any power, or possessed some sort of unfair advantage. Since this is supposed to be the people's government, and the NRA recieved a lot of money in donations, then it must be a cause that many people support, especially if they are the unstoppable force that was indicated earlier in the thread.
Again, if you want more legislation, I'd be on-board with prohibiting lobbyists altogether. They all have to much monetary influence on our government officials. However, good luck taking away an entirely-too-huge source of personal income for our politicians on both sides of the aisle. Trying to pretend it's only on the lesser-of-two-evils side of the aisle is also blatantly mis-leading.
Thank you for pointing it out.
Devon Seddon
3:04 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Again, a necessary point to make is that Karl seems to be working from the premise that the government gave us all those things we see when we drive around. Like they were gifts. They aren't.
What I see when I drive down I-70, is a road that we in Missouri have been paying for, for a minimum of 50 years (1). I hear a President talk constantly about "investing in infrastructure", yet they won't pay to repair their own road here in Missouri. I see them trying to make it a toll-road (against the Missouri Constitution, mind you - which I guess is also obsolete), in which case, the price of every product that travels into or through the state goes up (2). We pay tolls (3). We continue to pay the Federal Government the same taxes as we always have, paying for a set of roads they won't fix. AND we as a state (because of the Fed) acquire another huge debt (like they do business) on something we've already been paying for, for 50 years.
FACT: The government cannot give anything unless they have already taken it away from someone else, AND it has taken it's own cut to pay for it's unnecesary involvement. So... doesn't it HAVE to cost more than if we were to pay for it directly?
If Karl has been in business for 10 years, then he should know that adding a middle-man (especially one with proven wastefulness & inneptitude) to any transaction, it costs way more than not adding one. It's simple business.
1:19 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Devon's patented smooth transition to the tangetial uber-libertarian diatribe.
Karl Frank Jr.
8:13 pm on Wednesday, July 25, 2012
I'm moving my part of this conversation over to my Post on the Mehlville Patch. I also modified my proposal a little bit based on further thought and discussion:
Steve Blechle
3:11 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Karl with a K. Is that German? I only ask because Hitler loved gun control too.
Karl Frank Jr.
3:17 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Steve, Yes, it is German, so is Frank. But I'm more of a mutt than anything. I think it's funny when people mention Hitler...but can you elaborate on Hitler's support of Gun Control?
12:11 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Steve, is that Blechle as in Heiligs Blechle?
I only ask because Heiligs Blechle is a German heavy metal band. http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Heiligs_Blechle/10023
Rock on dude.
Devon Seddon
10:50 am on Thursday, July 26, 2012
If you want to keep "crazy" people from having guns. Fine. If you want to categorize guns, and decide which are for self-defense & which aren't. Fine, but good luck, you've already tried it.
Unfortunately, those same people who you think are your saviors, are the same ones who conveniently defined guns by how they look and not by what they can do, and left this situation in-play so that you will continue to push for more law, (when you don't even know the current ones) each time this happens.
However, if you want to ban guns because of this one idiot, then we should ban free speech as well because of the amount of idiots that perpetuate these practices because they get their politics from SNL & Family Guy.
Lynn Stephenson
2:10 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Fact: police cannot be everywhere at every moment.
Case in point: 2 men broke into my home when I was away at night. My wife heard them enter the house, and fearing for the safety of her and our young son, she picked up a shotgun and came out of our bedroom, flipping on the hall light. Upon seeing the two men, she immediately worked the slide on the shotgun, chambering a round. As soon as the intruders heard the shotgun getting racked, they exited the house at a dead run.
Conclusion: having a firearm readily available, knowing how to safely use it and being prepared prevented my wife and son from being injured or killed. I am thankful that she did not have to fire on the intruders, but had they not left immediately, there is no doubt in my mind that she would have to protect herself and our son.
Side note: When we first met, she was scared of firearms. She would not touch them, talk about them or even look at them. It was when our son reached toddler age when I began teaching him the safe handling of firearms that she began to pick up the basics. One day she asked if we could go to the range, and now she hunts with me. Our family has spent many hours together at the target range, and hunting, and yet after thousands and thousands of rounds fired, no one has been injured or killed. Education and proper training is the key to the safe and correct handling of firearms, not restriction and confiscation.
Steve Blechle
3:04 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Here is a solution for this debate. For one year all anti-gun people have to place a "no guns in this home" sign on their front door. Gun owners will have to place a sign stating "guns in this home". After one year we vote.
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Those willing to give up liberty in the name of security deserve neither.
Steve Blechle
3:05 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
Truth is we need to have a discussion about mental health NOT gun control.
12:02 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
I agree Steve. Let's talk about the mental health.... the mental health of people that think its fine to allow people to legally acquire personal arsenals that are more suitable for mass killings, than for self-defense or hunting.
Christine R
7:53 pm on Thursday, July 26, 2012
I didn't mean that we should regulate what people can and cannot watch. I just know that a child who is exposed to sadistic violence and has instability in their home life is MUCH MORE likely to turn to violence or other negative methods to release the built up anger. And, I am going to have to pay for those actions in the future so it is MY BUSINESS if I see your child watching things he/she shouldn't if you are too incompetent to prevent him or her from doing so.
Also, I feel very sorry for innocent children who were killed or present and survived. As far as the adults, NO ONE deserves to be shot, killed or hurt in anyway, but if you are going to sit in a theatre with 200 others to watch sadistic violence, just admit nothing good can come out of that. Start using your brains. At best, you wasted $14 filling your brain with horrible images. This movie is on the level of such trash as Saw. It's disgusting. Of course it attracted a maniacal, homicidal freak. Are you surprised???
tom wyatt
12:43 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Cesare Beccaria
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
10:15 am on Friday, July 27, 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.
Devon Seddon
12:40 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
You argue about things being dated, or obsolete, yet you use a quote from a man who lived in a time before 95% of our current gun-regs. The same regs you likely helped get, continue to ignore, apparently don't even know, and keep acting like we don't have. You are no longer able purchase & fire a gun at whim. Gun laws were different during his time. Also, that quote makes it sound like you tend to, like we have people on street corners handing-out guns like fliers.
Be careful too, you've just been caught quoting a staunch Conservative Republican, Martin Luther King Jr.
Democrats & Liberals like to claim him, even though their beliefs & values aren't at all similar. Abortion, Religion, Welfare, Government Involvement, etc. MLK wanted to end Racism, not use it as a way to try discredit anyone who disagrees with you. He wanted people to have equal opportunities & independence. He was against dependence on government assistance. He spoke to all races, not just blacks. All things liberals don't want you to know. Which is why you likely don't know them. The contradiction between Liberal beliefs & MLK is endless.
Plus... The President even stated yesterday that the enforcement of our current laws should suffice.
Wow, quoting conservatives, and dismissing the quotes of the head liberal is probably not what you thought you'd be doing today when you woke-up this morning, huh? But hey, the day is still young, you still have a chance to make sense today, it just hasn't happened yet.
1:08 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Once again, that Devon.... primal reaction. Not thought out. Blinded to many factors that can not be seen in the reactionary angered state.
I have not been following the right wing blogosphere as closely as you have. This is the first I've seen of their talking point and revisionist history of MLK as staunch conservative republican... Or is that your original concept? Be honest now.
And if I recall correctly, MLK went to Memphis to support striking AFSCME janitors. Next day was killed by bullet from assassin's gun. (some far-fetched right wing conspiracists dispute that as well.)
Was Abe Lincoln a liberal? - he was more favorable to labor vs. capital. What we know of his reconstruction plans were pretty generous to the South. He enacted the first income tax....hmmm. I digress.
Earl Higgins
1:16 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Devon, your funniest two assertions: that MLK was a "staunch Conservative Republican" and that Barack H. Obama is a Liberal. Such a slim grasp of reality calls into question all that you say.
Devon Seddon
2:21 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
You're worth addressing, thank you.
But those are both facts. Perceptions are not reality. Being in the media since '91, I'm not sure how you can pretend Obama is not a liberal (unless the PC term has changed), but I can understand why you might mistakenly think that the MLK was not a Republican. It's because that's what you've been made to believe. I gave you some issues on the liberal agenda, feel free to research MLK's stance on them.
3:10 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Agreed that Devon's MLK as "staunch Conservative republican" assertion demonstrates such a slim grasp of reality and calls into question all that he says. But, Earl - isn't that status quo for Devon?... I am not sure, I typically avoid reading warped reactionary comments, save for occassional entertainment. (though this topic is far from entertaining).
And Devon, below T Wyatt waves off MLK's quote as "Just another liberals opinion" - so you may want to paste or link some of that right wing blogosphere points about MLK as conservative under his comment to catch him up to speed too.
Devon Seddon
5:54 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
You might avoid reading "warped reactionary comments" but you have no problem posting them. Your entire stance is in emotional, irrational reaction to an incident.
You can believe whatever you want, but as long as you refuse to look it up, do some research, stop name-calling trying to discredit, & actually make a point that isn't just another example of reductio ad absurdum, you'll always miss the point and have to attack me to cover that ignorance.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. I'm only trying to point things out to you that I see in a newsroom everyday. There is an endless number of items you are convinced of, that you have been blatantly misled about. Ex: It's happened all week with the Penn State story. (Where one of the people getting off 'scott-free' for his role in the whole thing, is the current Republican Governor of PA. Affiliate me with a party if you like, but you'll just be wrong again. I affiliate with the truth, even if it's not popular or well-known.)
Look up King for yourself. apply the issues I gave you. Until then, you're just showing your ignorance, and applying your training in discrediting the truth. Smart people can see right through it.
You'll also notice, I give you (what you never provide) examples, support, and also a chance to prove my statements wrong. Why is it that you always leave out those things & call names, never providing proof or even a valid counter? Instead, you attack me as if that's some sort of a point.
tom wyatt
11:28 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Just another liberals opinion. I'll take an Itallian philosopher and one of our founding fathers, especially Jefferson who was infinintly more intelligent that King. "Scooby doobie do" Frank Sinatra.
Earl Higgins
1:17 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Tom, that word, liberal. I don't think it means what you think it means.
11:59 am on Friday, July 27, 2012
Jefferson had slaves -hundreds of them.
I wonder how many of them he allowed to bear arms?
Overall, I admire Thomas Jefferson too. Though it is worth noting that the founding fathers were not infallible, just as MLK was not. When history judges their actions, sayings, proclamations - the context of their time should be taken into account.
This also goes for the context of the time the 2nd amendment was written -a period in which the US had a small standing army, and "arms" like the AR-15 did not exist for crazy individuals to legally buy and use them.
tom wyatt
12:43 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
the fact that Jefferson had slaves means absolutely nothing to the question at hand. I would imagine non of them had the right to keep and bear arms since they themselves were property and considered less than a full 'man'. Soooo what. Whether you admire Jefferson or not again means nothing to this discussion. What matters is his view on the documents that he had imput on and the constitution itself. Again, the AR 15 that this nut used functions the same as a ruger mini 10 or any other SEMI AUTOMATIC and wasn't fully automatic. 1 bullet for each trigger pull. The only difference between the other semi autos is that his AR 15 looks military. That's it. It's cosmetics.
I'm curious if you read the link to the NRO article? It's a very educational and interesting read.
1:30 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
You brought up Jefferson, and some Itallian philosopher, not I.
I don't read any of the things you link. In fairness, I barely read any other links from internet site folks, regardless of political affiliation or none. Maybe that willful ignorance makes me a bit republican in a George W Bush-ish type of way...
One thing we can both probably agree upon, this thread needs to close. You may feel obligated to the Cause to get the last word in though. So have it.
Gina Veesaert
2:43 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
In my opinion, gun control laws are a waste of our government's money and time. Only law-abiding citizens care about gun control laws. People who don't feel remorse over killing someone are not going to care whether the gun they used to kill people are legal or not. Common sense, people. Let's choose our battles a little more wisely.
Al Mount
7:45 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Your opinion is also my opinion. Great post young lady :-)
5:18 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
@Devin - Earl is right. President Obama is not a liberal. He is a Marxist-trained Progressive with Communist ties. They are considerably further to the left than liberals. If you'll excuse me I have to go wash my hands. After typing the words "Earl is right" I feel....dirty.
Earl Higgins
6:00 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Elizabeth, it does you no favors to just throw your opinions around as if they were fact. To be educated is to be informed. Obama is a moderate. But please, don't take my word for it. Research it yourself. Here's a start (and it is just that, a start):
Respectfully, Earl
5:50 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
@ Elizabeth-Birther - Obama occassionally makes liberal talk. But can we all agree talk is cheap, and actions are what you measure? And Obama's in office actions thus far have been decidedly conservative.
He's about as far right as Mittens Romney
8:21 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
Relax Earl & RD, it was all in good fun. Although I urge you to read Dreams From My Father. I'd post the link, but by his own admission RDBet doesn't follow links that might require him to be educated. I tend to take a man at his word and the President has provided us with plenty upon which to judge him. "Spread the wealth" comes to mind.
Birther? Really RDBet? That's based on what statement exactly?
The two of you are really too easy.
Earl Higgins
8:49 pm on Friday, July 27, 2012
As you are probably well aware, it is difficult to tell when one is joking on the Internet because-let's face it, I can see your face or hear the tone of your voice. I have in fact read both Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope and recommend both highly. I found his admiration for his mother particularly endearing.
For the record, I never called you a birther; I don't even like that term.
What exactly about me is easy? Honestly, I've never been told that. Thanks, Earl
8:24 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
Sorry for labeling you as a birther Elizabeth. I now see you have Obama down as a marxist-trained progressive with communist ties, and if I'd only read the links that might require me to be educated, I could think that way too. ...
...ok, took a quick foray into the omnipresent right wing - it's sort of confusing Elizabeth, many of the Obama's a marxist etc pages also have links to birtherism, and conspiracies about Obama taking away all our guns! Then again, maybe I don't have the liberal open-mindedness that you have Elizabeth, to discern which link to hit. Nor do I have the time.
Kevin Lane
11:09 am on Friday, August 3, 2012
Guys, we've gotten off topic.
Here are the stats as presented by various studies.... (U of FL - Gary Kleck for one)
2.5 - 3.1 million times per year, a gun is used in defense of a crime.
100,000 - 135,000 times per year, a gun is used to commit a crime.
That's about a 25:1 ratio. That means, in this country, 25 lives are saved for every one that's lost. Whose side are you on anyway?
Only by using facts & tracking results can we open-mindedly discuss this issue.
Emotions need not apply.
Annette Read
12:37 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
I keep a heavy vase by my bed at night in case of intruders.
Why is it always assumed that conservative embrace Romney? Politicians are bankrupting our country.
Al Mount
7:51 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Now that you have unwisely given out your real name and the fact that you are unarmed...... Were I you, I'd run to the hardware store and buy extra locksI
A 6 year old could Google and find out your home address. :-(
Annette Read
1:07 pm on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Don't need extra locks because I have heavy vases by the doors too, Al.
8:17 am on Sunday, July 29, 2012
OK.... I just hope the're not "Ming Dynasty".... :-)
5:43 am on Saturday, July 28, 2012
Yhea,every body is going to have a gun or machine gun ,so when i drive and see an A Ho cutting off in front of me I wll show him my gun and then he will shome his and then the party will start.because we have the right to have a gun, the bigger the better they say.
9:58 am on Thursday, August 2, 2012
James Holmes could have done just as much damage if he had multiple pistols instead of an AR-15, which fires a round smaller than a 9mm.
Devon Seddon
12:10 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
Here's a new side to this story.
12:26 pm on Thursday, August 2, 2012
And this one.
Uh oh. Knives of mass destruction: Gotta get this under control.
9:11 am on Saturday, December 29, 2012
Hey William you know nobody died in the knife attack in China on the same day as Newtown. What do you think would have happened if that guy had a gun.
2:22 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
One failed shoe bombing attempt and we all have to take off our shoes at the airport.
20,000 killings by gun every year and nothing.
Rich Pope
7:29 pm on Friday, December 28, 2012
If you take all the guns away, a crazy person would just point his car at kids exiting their school buses and mow them over. No matter what you do, it won't stop anything. It's a human heart issue, not a gun issue.
Marc Perez
9:17 am on Saturday, December 29, 2012
If another shooting happens at a school will you again stop and think, why didn't we allow some one in the school to be armed? Next time is too late. It works in Israel, but then again they are more pro-active. In america we just depend on "Hope it doesn't happen here" and then ask (again) why? There is a time for action, a trained and armed citizen is the best defense, that's just the way it is.
No action=same results. Action->defense.
10:38 am on Saturday, December 29, 2012
so Marc what's your plan for dealing with the shootings that happen in malls or movie theaters. Give employees there a gun? This is not just a school shooting problem
Marc Perez
11:08 am on Saturday, December 29, 2012
The armed citizen is the ever present deterrent to the armed assailant. Then seconds count the police are just minutes away. I have nothing but the most admiration for law enforcement, but they cannot be everywhere all the time. NO, not everyone should carry a firearm. Those who chose to be responsible for their own safety, their own lives should not be "denied" that right. If some one does not believe in the rights of the Constitution, The Bil of Rights, freedom and liberty given to us by our founding fathers I certainly will not change their minds. Liberty lost is very difficult to regain. The 2nd amendment is the onlt assurance we will keep the 1st amendment. If you doubt that, you have never learned the lessons of histroy. Here like else where the lessons of history can repeat themselves. Don't believe it? Think again.
2:48 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
so basically you just gave me a bs answer and are hiding behind the second amendment like the NRA and some Republicans
Marc Perez
3:10 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
What is that about? I stnd for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Good reading, you should check it out. They are the foundation for our Republic. Obviously a lot of people haven't done that in a long time. Maybe they skipped that class.
3:18 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
The way I see it, your standing for an amendment that leads to thousands of deaths every year. Yea responsible people have guns, but thousands of others aren't responsible and use guns to kill. Look up how many gun related deaths there are in the U.S. compared to other civilized nations. Obviously people haven't done that in a long time.
Rich Pope
3:33 pm on Saturday, December 29, 2012
I heard a sheriff speaking on the radio today. He wants teachers to have the option of conceal and carry. Do you know how bad of an idea this is? There are teachers who can't handle an angry parent on the phone let alone handle a firearm. Anyone who knows anything about elementary school teachers knows most of them are on anti-depressants just to handle the stress of their jobs. Do you really want them to have concealed weapons? BAD IDEA!