Las Vegas Sun

September 30, 2014

Currently: 82° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Letter to the editor:

U.S. should ban assault weapons

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

Soon, America will find out what the most powerful voice in the country is: the lobbyists for the National Rifle Association or the conscience of the American people? Americans have to begin to realize that taking away assault weapons today does not mean that handguns will be taken away tomorrow.

The president cannot, on his own, take away anything. It is called checks and balances. The executive branch has but one-third of the power to make a decision of this magnitude.

We cannot, as a civilized society, continue to sit back and wait for the next tragic slaughter of many innocent men, women and children. Taking away assault weapons is no guarantee that there will not be other tragedies down the road, but it is worth the try.

Chances are the deranged individual who slaughtered people at Sandy Hook Elementary School could not have gained access to the weapons he used if his mother had not purchased them.

I have no idea why she felt a need for the weapons, but it was not to hunt squirrels or shoot innocent children multiple times. Enough is enough.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 45 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. An assault weapons ban will probably be enacted due in large part to the murders in Connecticut and I have no problem if it is. Other than that certain people 'want' to, there seems to be little reason why an American citizen needs to own an assault weapon.

    That said, Americans are allowed to do many things that can cause harm to themselves and others simply because they 'want' to. Drinking alcohol and smoking are two that come immediately to mind. I had an alcoholic in my family that damaged his own family and both my parents damaged my brother and sister and me by smoking and smoking eventually killed them both.

    An assault weapon or a hand gun did not murder 26 people, a human being did. The reason the murders took place, when all is known, will probably have a lot more to do with our society as a whole than about guns, although access to guns will most likely have played a role.

    We are a violent society. We have given up on many former values that were in large measure, positive. We have moved away from God and religion. The family unit has collapsed. We often place material items as more important than people. We place too much importance on how something or somebody looks. We take little personal responsibility. We tend to be selfish, self centered and self absorbed.

    Many conservatives often complain about the loss of our values, the anything goes attitude in our culture and the move away from religion. Many also agree with the NRA's contention that Americans should be able to possess just about any gun they wish to possess.

    Many progressives, on the other hand, embrace the anything goes culture, the move away from religion and poo poo many of the old values, yet want to restrict gun ownership.

    We can ban assault weapons and we probably will, but we will find, like other nations that banned guns, that the violence will not abate much. To accomplish that requires that each person change and society changes..... and good luck to us with that.

    Michael

  2. I have said and still do that we need to discuss and reform the assault weapons ban and/or lack thereof. Charles Krauthammer and Senator Lieberman had the best suggestions I've heard. The former said we have to look at the shooter, the weapon, and the culture. The latter said we need a National Commission to do so. And Dr. Phil pointed out that since 1974, we've had 39 incidents in America like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary. But.... let's do first things first: Mourning and grieving for the victims and praying for the comfort and strength of their friends and family. Then move on to the others.

    CarmineD

  3. Ask the Korean shop keepers in Watts why assault rifles are necessary. They used them to protect themselves and their properties from the horde of looters and rioters threatening them. Mob violence in the USA is more prevalent then are mass murders and I do not condone either. You want to wait 10 minutes for the police to show up when you are threatened? Hey, that's your choice. Many of us do not. That is not only our choice but our God-given and Constitutional right. Now, what was the phrase Charlton Heston so aptly used?

  4. Public interest in and the media coverage of the assailants feeds the problem. These individuals want to go out with attention and/or fame. That only inspires sick people to copy the others.

    Withhold their names and stop focusing on them. Don't give them attention. Focus on the victims only. It might save lives in the future. We don't really gain anything in knowing about the murderers.

    Sufficient to describe the personality traits and the warnings to parents, teachers, doctors and the public of what to look for to get these people help before they act out.

    Assault weapons should be banned!

    We need to stiffen the requirements of gun owners to keep weapons in real safes, not locked cabinets, especially display cabinets.

  5. That coming from a one time registered owner of a SW 357 Combat Mag!

  6. By now, one thing we should have learned is that doing nothing doesn't work very well. Assault weapons, by their very name, do not conjure up a vision of a hunting or home defense purpose. High capacity ammunition magazines and clips don't either.

    The NRA would do itself and the country a great service if it promoted only weapons with sporting or defensive purposes. Instead, they choose to promote and support the paranoid delusion that everyone should be able to own an assault weapon in case it becomes necessary to overthrow the government next week.

  7. lvfacts101

    "Now, what was the phrase Charlton Heston so aptly used?"

    I think it's safe to assume Charlton Heston has been disarmed. :-)

  8. Deranged individuals will always find a way to act. The day before Newtown, a Chinese man stabbed 22 school kids in Central China. There have been a string of these types of attacks. Do we ban silverware next?

  9. Blanner,

    Most would agree. Please begin the process by defining "assault weapon." Then, put it into law with a full definition and a list of banned weapons. Then, when new weapons become available, and existing weapons are modified, please add those to the list in a timely manner. Then...then...ad infinitum.

    I trust you can see the folly in your argument. Therefore, it is not "worth the try."

    Regards,
    Purgatory

  10. "We are a violent society. We have given up on many former values that were in large measure, positive. We have moved away from God and religion. The family unit has collapsed."

    Ah, the culture war argument. The problem with this "argument" is that it doesn't withstand a challenge on evidence.

    The United States enjoys the same "violent" tendencies as our industrialized peers. Our shared values are similar, as well.

    As far as religion, we are far MORE religious than our industrialized peers. We enjoy the same entertainment.... movies and video games and "evil" music.

    Yet...

    "The US homicide rates were 6.9 times higher than rates in the other high-income countries, driven by firearm homicide rates that were 19.5 times higher. For 15-year olds to 24-year olds, firearm homicide rates in the United States were 42.7 times higher than in the other countries. For US males, firearm homicide rates were 22.0 times higher, and for US females, firearm homicide rates were 11.4 times higher. The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries. Among these 23 countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States, 86% of women killed by firearms were US women, and 87% of all children aged 0 to 14 killed by firearms were US children."

    Simply: the culture war arguments cannot explain the vast increases in those statistics.

    So... what else ya got? Cause "we're not religious enough" or "we watch violent TV shows" or any of the other excuses blaming our culture just don't explain it. It's an "easy" response to a complex issue.

    Finally, can anyone honesty say that these types of lunatic mass murderers give a damn about our shared values? They're insane. Our values? Our logic? Not applicable. Some of these guys hear voices think God is talking to them.

  11. Both sides are wrong, in my opinion and that's because they take a black and white view on a complex issue. The side that thinks nearly all guns should be available is wrong, in my opinion. The side that is sure banning assault weapons will make a huge difference in the numbers of acts like this is also wrong, in my opinion.

    As long as human beings are born, some will be born with serious mental issues. Less access to guns, especially assault weapons, would be a step in keeping those weapons out of the hands of such people. I support that effort.

    However, as I said, our society also plays a part in these horrific acts. We should also look to our values, the way we treat others, our priorities and how we look at people who have mental health and or behavioral issues as a part of this. That's my point.

    Some people seem to have a problem because I am not black and white on issues. Nope, I am not that. We all have to live on this planet together and when too many people are black and white on issues, unless everyone is on one side, all you have is perpetual conflict. That's not the world I want to live in. Thanks just the same. I keep trying to see both sides.

    Michael

  12. As a former LEO, I utilize my right to bear arms. However, I see no right to automatic (or semi) assault rifles OR semi-auto HANDGUNS. Back when the 2nd amendment was enacted, there were no handguns that could be concealed..... I don't care how wonderful the ROI is for sporting folks who like to target practice with precision.

  13. Stop and ask yourself why this young 20 year old killer of 26 children and adults in a Connecticut school,
    had so many guns and so much ammunition on hand he could have killed everyone in the school.

    We should be asking ourselves why does anyone need this many weapons and this much ammunition.Many questions very few answers

  14. Sam,

    There is an answer to your question. It's because some people 'want' to have many guns, of any type they desire and a lot of ammo, in any configuation they'd like and in our anything goes society, most people get what they want and feel completely entitled to it, as long as no consequences are attached to anything they choose to do.

    Many people also 'want' to have both parents work so they can have all the 'toys' available, live in a bigger house and have new cars, 'want' to have children outside a committed relationship, 'want' to end a marriage or relationship at the first sign of trouble, 'want' to have only one parent or none to be responsible for the child they created together, 'want' to place their career above raising their children, etc, etc.

    As I have said, I support an assault weapons ban but if we are 'really' interested in seeing fewer Newtown's, we'd better decide to change our priorities and change our society, along with enacting an assault weapons ban.

    Michael

  15. 300 million guns, a million dead over the last several decades and incalculable medical costs in caring for the injured.

    When a mass killing occurs in the industrialized world the US gun industry more than likely supplied the parts and labor.

    The Norway killer used an American Ruger mini 14. 47,000 dead in Mexico with 67,000 American guns confiscated.

    The UK has about 50 gun deaths a year.
    Germany about 240
    Here 28,000 killed. Ridiculous...I have had in the neighborhood of 15 friends and coworkers shot and some killed. The military used to train their trauma surgeons at King Drew in LA. During the drug wars gunshot victims were brought in 24 hours a day. The entire center went bust because so few paid for the carnage.

    Limit gun capacities, ammo sales and strict background checks that check for both criminal activities as well as mental illness.

  16. I love guns and used them for many years. Assault weapons with high capacity magazines have one purpose, to maim or kill human beings, period! There is absolutely no need for the average citizen to own one.

  17. Let's be clear: the weapon is question was a Bushmaster. It is designed to be used for target shooting or competitive shooting or hunting.

    A pistol could have been just as devastating as the Bushmaster. Banning "assault" weapons won't change the violent landscape in America.

    Why is there a gun control debate at all? What not a debate about that monster who was living among us? Mental health? Warning signs? Broken families. Parents who don't parent. Why aren't we talking about those issues?

    Shame on the liberal Left for using this tragedy as a springboard to one of their pet peeves, gun control.

  18. Respondi you have a six year old's blood on your insecure gun nut hands !

  19. 20 six years olds dead ; How many at colunbine,Auroura and Tucson ? Gun nuts don't have a leg to stand on. The phlegmatic duo of Obama/ Reid must at least support Feinsteins expired bill.

  20. Jerry 5:12 a.m.: Exceptions for law enforcement and Korean shopkeepers and any other reasonable person as defined by the Sheriff of the jurisdiction--not subject to disclosure. Permits / licensing available on an as-needed basis. We'd allow legitimate "Posses" during times of anarchy, invasion, gangland activity.

  21. Charles Kruathammer had it right, If we're going to attack the NRA how about we attack the Trial lawyers and the ACLU too. Starting back in the 1970's they've done their damnedest to let mentally deranged out of our institutions. We've been teaching people that it is impolite to call the shooter of Gabby Giffords a crazy man, a weirdo, a misfit. That's not nice!! they scream. The truth is the Gifford's shooter, the Colorado Theater shooter and this most recent shooter were all CRAZY

    It's not hard to say. Repeat after me. THEY WERE CRAZY. They were deranged crazy people who should not roam around in the general popluation.

  22. Letter writer says "Taking away assault weapons is no guarantee that there will not be other tragedies down the road, but it is worth the try."

    Except that it has already been tried. Both here in the US and in other countries. In every case the ban failed to have any measurable cause and effect results with regard to reducing gun crime or gun deaths.

    So why waste time trying something that has already been shown to be completely ineffective.

  23. No rational discussion on this topic can be had without first understanding *exactly* why we have the Second Amendment in the first place.

    Some have pointed out that the Founding Fathers could not have envisioned the types of weapons we have today. But they could (and did) envision what might need to happen if their grand experiment in liberty failed.

  24. RefNV (Re Freeman): At 12:43 p.m. today you wrote: "A gun can be a great equalizer for a woman at home by herself trying to protect herself against more physically powerful male intruders."

    Agreed. But it's a usually in a situation where the intruder is at a heavy disadvantage; strange surroundings, often dark; an unsuspected occupant; much more importantly an unexpected ARMED occupant. In other words a one-on-one situation where, so to speak, the defender occupies the, "high ground."

    You seem to have a good ability to search the internet, perhaps you can answer the question I asked regarding another letter. Do you know of one documented instance of a single armed civilian standing up to one or more mass shooters? Much more to the point, has that single armed civilian actually STOPPED the mass shooting?

  25. renorobert: Not exactly your scenario but I know a man who formerly resided in Metro San Fran--he told of a story that didn't get the publicity it should have. A military Colonel took a day off sick and was in bed. His home was intruded by 2 or 3 burglars--he killed them. Then another guy (the driver) came looking and was killed--believe the Col. / homeowner didn't use any gun. Back then they didn't even discuss possible charges against the homeowner. Don't think I could ward of even one intruder without my handgun.

  26. renorobert,

    While not a direct example of what you wanted, here is a story that on the surface describes a citizen who did everything right, resorting to armed force only when it was required: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/jan...

  27. Gun control is so much easier to handle than the real issue, mental health. It;s way too hard for the government to focus on mental health issues in this country so they take the easy way out with gun control. This is a sick world we live in, look at the video games with killing people in it, thats what our youth is learning today. There is no more playing with the kids on the block out side , now its inside with video games and see how many people you can shoot down.
    most of these wackos are being raised in a spare the rod spoil the child atmosphere .
    what we need to do as a society is go back to whippin some but when the kid needs it. The youth today doesnt care about right or wrong so its no biggie to kill people if they;ve had a bad day.

  28. Kevin,

    "The US firearm suicide rates were 5.8 times higher than in the other countries, though overall suicide rates were 30% lower. The US unintentional firearm deaths were 5.2 times higher than in the other countries."

    I wonder if the suicide statistics include legal euthanasia in some of those countries? It should be considered, because that would certainly explain the higher percentage.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Along with gun laws, there might need to be ammunition laws. Consider that ammunition can be reloaded, with the potential for a good size ammo stock.

    According to a report in the NY Times...

    "In addition to multiple high-capacity magazines for the rifle, Lieutenant Vance said the gunman had brought a number of magazines for both pistols.

    Collectively, he said, there were hundreds of unfired bullets."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    When it comes to comparing the 2nd Amendment with today, we have to consider the population density, the needs at the time, the availability for an Army presence in an area or not. A militia would be very much needed in an area with little to no Army presence.

    Today, we have a very different country and military. There is nothing to say we cannot have a local armory for a militia of today.

    I still believe that people need the freedom to possess a firearm for self defense, a rifle for hunting, and be accountable for how and when they use such a weapon.

    Guns can offer a false courage for some who can use them faster as a result. We also don't know the mental stability of the person killing someone, known or unknown, in "self defense".
    ~~~~~~~~~~

    We go back to mental health issues and the ability to check records. I don't know if gun registration ever requires a renewal or not, but if not, certainly life changes and health changes could make a difference in who should be a considered a responsible gun owner.

    Mental health issues in general should be put on a priority list, gun registration or not.

    In my opinion, school children should have annual mental health evaluations to see if we can identify problems before they become disasters. There are many issues that could benefit by such evaluations.

    We also need to provide mental health counseling and treatment services that are affordable, so financial concerns aren't a reason to not get help.

    This would be best facilitated through a single payer universal healthcare system.

  29. Question: Why isn't the National Guard in each state considered the militia of the 2nd Amendment?

    Question: Why couldn't an official citizen's militia be formed and legally recognized in each state? They could have very secure armories, that would serve as an organizing meeting place in a time of need.

    Question: Why should innocent people be in fear of their lives and those of family, in order to allow others to put them in jeopardy through gun ownership?

    Question: Why can't we place strict laws and limitations on the manufacture and sales of arms across US Borders?

    Question: Why can't we have limitations on what stores can sell arms and ammunition, excluding online sales altogether?

    WalMart and other such retail stores, seems a ridiculous place to purchase arms and ammunition.

    We need to redefine an assault weapon and it's capacity.

  30. No one wants to address the Second Amendment's purpose, which is not surprising.

    Setting that aside, I would suggest that background checks for gun purchases be extended to members of the entire household besides the person making the purchase. I don't know the data off the top, but it seems that many of the stories we see involve a family member using a weapon purchased by someone else in the house. That was certainly the case in Newtown.

    I'm not entirely happy with that, but I would accept that as a reasonable attempt at finding a real solution instead of just banning as much as possible. I don't think banning is the answer, I think the real problem is who has access (legal or otherwise) to a weapon is.

  31. Kenny,

    Mental health issues could be more easily identified and addressed within a single payer universal healthcare system.

    Annual evaluations for everyone would help to identify problems and early help could be initiated.

    It is very difficult to manage this in our current system from a coordination and cost standpoint.

    I would add that there also needs to be a coordination of studies that help to identify patterns of cause and effect. This might also include environmental issues that could cause aberrant behaviors, and genetic connections within families and cultures. This might alter the solutions and treatments.

  32. boftx,

    "I would suggest that background checks for gun purchases be extended to members of the entire household besides the person making the purchase."

    That is a good idea! It would help to identify problems in the family as well that would need to be addressed before a legal weapon was allowed in the home or on property.

  33. "In every case the ban failed to have any measurable cause and effect results with regard to reducing gun crime or gun deaths."

    This is categorically untrue. A lie.

    How do you explain Australia?

    "At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country's new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a "genuine reason" for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."

    "What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post's Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since."

    It might help if the unapologetic gun fanatics tried using facts, rather than lies, to bolster their case.

    As it stands, Mr. Gladu has just fatally undermined his own credibility.

  34. Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia has no affiliation with any religion and lives with a man to whom she is not married. Rationality and reason govern Australia, which is why it is such a safe Country in which to live.

    There are no assault rifle massacres and mass killings because weapons of mass destruction, such as the Bushmaster rifle, are not available to the public for ownership. As a result, Australia is a safe, rational country.

    Compare that with the GOP, where at least 6 Presidential candidates said they were asked by God to run for office. Does that mean we have a polytheistic Universe? Or do multiple gods equal to one god to maintain a monotheistic Universe? Rick Santorum warned that Satan was attacking America and the Pope should be in the White House. Religion evolves from paranoia, superstition and 2000 year old cult nonsense and demands to rule.

    It exchanges death in this world for everlasting life in another. This country will continue to experience mass killings until the day people learn to think instead of relying on cult ceremonies to invoke the power of benevolent spirits to guardianship.

  35. Banning guns would only push the sale of guns to black markets where crime perpetrators would only have access to guns AND would increase the flow of money going to illegal activities. If someone wants to murder they can choose other means such as hammers, hands, fists, feet, knives and other sharp objects, poison, explosives, narcotics, drowning, strangulation and asphyxiation.

  36. @SunJon...Okay, "There are no assault rifle massacres and mass killings because weapons of mass destruction, such as the Bushmaster rifle, are not available to the public for ownership. As a result, Australia is a safe, rational country."

    That's clearly putting the cart before the horse.

    Let's compare that with Mexico. where weapons like the Bushmaster rifle can be bought only by members of the police or the military. And where handgun permits for home protection allow only for the purchase of calibers no greater than a .38.

    Quick, where would you rather walk alone at night, Juarez or Newtown?

  37. @ LV_Tom..You are quite the hypocrite aren't you?

    "The truth is the Gifford's shooter, the Colorado Theater shooter and this most recent shooter were all CRAZY

    It's not hard to say. Repeat after me. THEY WERE CRAZY. They were deranged crazy people...."

    Yet I bet you would be up in arms if the Aurora shooter plead not guilty by reason of insanity.

    You want all the "deranged crazy people" off the street, even if they are not dangerous.

    Yet, I bet you aren't willing to support increasing the State's mental health budget to pay for the 800% increase in mental health beds we would need to accomplish this.

    The ACLU is no more responsible for these tragedies than the NRA. These two agencies do nothing more than defend rights provided us in the United States Constitution.

    True Patriots should be "card carrying members" of both organizations.

  38. @JeffFromLasVegas..." not one of the rest of you gun cowards had the guts to say what you really think.."

    They might not, but you don't seem to have the guts to actually posts facts. No one wants (or can get) a weapon that fires "50 rounds in 10 seconds." Such weapons are not the issue, but I guess you go with the lies when that's all you know.

    I wonder. Do you have guts to say what you really think, which is, to the parents of those killed " Too bad for you, but don't mind me while I get my leech on and use your the death of your child to further my own political agenda. I mean your little one is the perfect victim and I am not above exploiting his/her death. Now if you will, please cry for the camera while I blame the NRA for making sure your child was not protected from the monsters among us, even though I know I'm to blame."

  39. Roslenda, boftx: Thanks for your comments. In neither case, however, were there multiple victims for the defender to worry about. Neither instance is particularly unusual, both are a fairly normal self-defense situation. In your case, Roberta, the Colonel could probably be considered a trained shooter.

    The argument here, however, is about the abnormal - one or a few shooters, heavily armed, armored in recent cases, with many potential victims running around seeking shelter. As a former LEO, Roberta, surely you are aware of the shoot-out some years back in the LA area - multiple shooters (bank robbers, if I remember right), heavily armed and armored, vs the local PD. Yes, the perps were all taken down...eventually...but they took quite a bit of "taking" by professionally trained officers, not by a casual bystander. Nor was there a crowd of potential victims running around hunting cover and confusing the scene further.

  40. people who kill and maim for sport are all crazy. That doesn't stop these folks from acquiring millions of guns and billions of rounds of ammunition.

    In terms of comparing the United States to other countries. Nonsense! The United States is the only country in the industrialized world that has a major gun violence problem. England has 50 deaths. Germany a couple hundred. Australia a few. Here we are approaching 1 million over the last 30 years alone.

    In terms of a woman using a gun for self-defense purposes??? Nevada is the state where a woman is most likely shot to death by her husband. If a woman is shot and killed in this state it's more than likely her husband that that it.

    Most people can't hit the broad side of a barn with a handful of rice. As I stated in another post the military needs 250,000 rounds of ammunition to hit one guy. How many gun owners in the United States engage in regular training. Statistically very close to none.

  41. the Cato Institute provides a heat map of guns used for legitimate self-defense purposes in the United States. Check the website. It does happen. The problem is for every gun used for self-defense there are millions of rapes, robberies and property crimes facilitated by the use of guns. If someone is laying dead in the street from other than natural causes it's more than likely a gun that caused his demise.

  42. There was a similar situation at a pancake house in Carson City awhile back. A quote from one of the news stories might be appropriate...

    "Then Sencion <the shooter...> left the IHOP and began shooting up other businesses. "I had my pistol," says the owner of a restaurant next door, but "I wasn't going up against an automatic rifle."

    It would appear that we have a huge number of John Wayne types who claim they would cheerfully follow the script and shoot back against all odds. I'll guess that we have many more people who would rather find a hole, crawl in, and pull it in after them! Cowards? Not f---ng likely. REALISTS!

  43. @Jeff..."It must be comforting to you thinking people like me are to blame for those kids death."

    Only you would even suggest anyone would find comfort in the death of children. Because shootings like this aren't tragedies to you. They're opportunities. You swim in the blood and misery of others in order to advance a political opinion that feeds off your cowardice.

    And I have no plans to keep you from doing anything. I'm certain you are too inept to be a physical threat to anyone. I have faith in your inadequacies.

  44. Ah kevin,

    And as for Australia, your statistics overlook that there had been a steady downward trend in gun crime and suicides preceding the ban and that the rate of decline did not increase as a result of the gun ban.

    Don Weatherburn, the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research said that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence.

    In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology.

    You also said "But here's the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn't been a single one in Australia since." which is false as you apparently choose to ignore the 2002 Monash University shooting of seven people.

    So even the experts agree that Australia's gun ban did not show a measurable cause and effect relationship with regard to gun crime and gun deaths in Australia.

    So yes, I agree that we should look at Australia's gun ban as a model. It is accepted as an example of legislation that completely failed to produce any measurable results and that should pay attention to as an example of what NOT to do.

  45. Jeff, I could care less what you think of my point of view. I am simply pointing out that what you advocate has already been tried, multiple times in multiple places, and has failed to achieve the desired results each and every time.

    You know what they say about trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results....right?

    So how do you defend demanding that laws be enacted that have already been shown to not work? Are you expecting up front that the laws will be just as ineffective as in the past, which would make demanding them stupid and foolish....or are you expecting that there will suddenly and magically be a different result this time than every other time in the past? (the definition of insanity)