Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Saturday, July 28, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Like most Americans, I am saddened by the shootings in Aurora, Colo., but hardly shocked. These happen on a regular basis, and we need a real solution to stop them, one our politicians and business community can support.
Since many of the shootings feature semi-automatic weapons, simply arming ourselves and our children with handguns obviously is inadequate. I propose that each student, upon entering kindergarten, be issued a semi-automatic rifle and receive appropriate training.
Given our concern over spending too much on education, I propose that students in the expensive suburban public schools and private schools purchase American weapons since they won’t notice the extra cost.
We can outsource the weapons for low-cost districts such as Clark County by issuing them Kalashnikovs from Bulgaria or China.
Actually, training children at a young age how to use and respect firearms might not be a bad idea.
My dad taught me to shoot when I was about 7 or 8 years old. The weapon was a Daisy BB gun and the targets were Blue Jays (my mom HATED those birds.) I learned at an early age that the only reason you use a gun is to kill something, and you never draw a gun unless you are prepared to use it.
I raised my kids the same way, and so far none of them have been on the news.
I understand the point the letter is trying to make, but I submit that teaching people proper respect for weapons and each other is the key element.
"I propose that each student, upon entering kindergarten, be issued a semi-automatic rifle and receive appropriate training."
Excellent letter with sensible solutions. Since there's no end in sight to the bloody carnage that guns have wreaked on our nation the next logical step is to arm the children with assault weapons. The choices now are shoot or be shot after decades of a powerful gun lobby that has flooded our communities with millions of deadly firearms while spineless politicians in both parties cower in fear.
As the writer correctly states it's time for the kids to cowboy up just like in the old Wild West. The grumpy guy living next door might have a larger arsenal than the local police and if he's having a bad day, look out. He knows that pulling the trigger is the best cure for his manic depression.
I see that Obama got the message and has tabled sign the global Arm Treaty. Obama is flip-flopping on his Chicago Style Gun Control position
The fact is most of society will remain sitting ducks in these rampages.America from inception has been a violent society. This fact is detested by the Left which believes that strict gun controls should be implemented. My expectation is that things will not change much. America's heritage is one of individuals using guns to protect themselves, and hunt. Just like in the Wild West days, there will always be the "bad guys" who will raise havoc and kill. Now the entertainment industry has invented ways through video games to heighten the role playing creativity of young and not so young to practice their killing talents. Violence is an unfortunate aspect of our lives. It is evident in all corners of the world.Living with it has always been difficult,but a necessity in life. At least America is up front about the reality of this condition in the Second Amendment right to bare arms.A well armed America is a safer place ultimately. While there will always be opportuntities for bad and crazy people to access guns, there must be a parallel ability for the decent citizerns in America to acquire adequate technology in guns to use for their own protection.
In some cultures and countries around the world, it is customary practice to instruct grade school children in arms and weaponry. Especially where violence and predation by neighboring sects and countries are and have been historically a daily threat.
CarmineD
Mr. Jack:
Your post reminded me that the liberal Hollywood movie moguls have been repenting recently over their violent pictures and the possible negative effects they have on society at large. Between you and me, do you think they will tone down their violence laden big screen crud? Or ramp them up a few notches?
CarmineD
In reply to Mr. Bob Jack; I have agreed with a good many of your positions on varying issues. But not this one, no way!!!
I go back to "VernosB" and his question to the gun owner extremists; "Tell me how many gun fights you have been in over the course of your life?" And, we're not talking about tactical paintball and or playground fantasies of water pistols at twenty feet. As far as my knowledge about you Mr. Jack, you have never served in the military, and have never been a law enforcement officer. All you have to base your premise on is a document that supposedly says that you, as an individual citizen have a right to bear arms. Since you cling to this document like a magnet, this same manuscript does not restrict gun control measures that are the name of public safety.
It is absolutely irresponsible of you to state that gun violence is a part of American culture. Well, if this is so, then this culture needs to be changed.
Apparently, Mr. Jack, you and I are both old men. We've lived our lives, no matter how lucky we have been to have survived all these years. Now, you take your extremist views and state your case against gun control to the families of these Aurora victims, face to face, with deep eye contact. I would bet that you couldn't do it. So why are you doing this in a distant discussion forum?
I am well accustomed to trash-talkers. There was a few in the military. Prior to an operation taking effect, yeah, I heard all the rhetoric on what they were going to do once we were confronted with danger. I know them well. It was a whole different scenario when the real action confronted them. These few just as well wet their pants, and fired irradically and recklessly, or, looked for an exit to safety, leaving their brothers in potential peril. In contrast, here in Aurora you had people giving their lives to save others. But no, not the trash-talkers; they're saying what they would have done. Their talk is pure conjecture, poppycock, and absolute hogwash!!! All gun enthusiasts make me sick to my stomach.
Don't even bother replying if you think I will read your response. It won't happen. Extremist views opposing gun control has withered any type reverence I may have had at one time or another for these type of commenters.
Hello Carmine
It is hard to say. Repenting can be temporary.
Hollywood is a liberl cultland,filled with leftwing hypocrisy. Go figure.
Brad
Dream on.
The arrogant stupidity of the NRA handgun cowards is astounding. Arming kids? Seriously? How many dead people do you want to bury? It's time to make automatic weapons and handguns illegal. Your second amendment rights end where my natural rights begin.
BobJack: unfortunately, you are simply wrong. If you look at other countries and look at their ratio of guns to killings, those countries with the fewest guns have the fewest killings. More guns does not make us safer, it makes us less safe. "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". We limit all our constitutional rights. I can't yell fire in a theater, but I have free speech. My right to swing my arm ends where your face begins. I have (and want) my second amendment rights, but I shouldn't be able to buy assault rifles and body armor. Banning A gun is not the same as banning ALL guns.
Let's just give everyone two handguns and permits to carry. They can wear them like the wild west. We'll all be extremely safe due to the deterrent effect of this. In fact two might not be enough, since the more guns we have, the safer we are. Then, when there's a fender bender, we can have shoot out instead of fistfights. When someone catcalls your girlfriend, we can have shoot outs instead of fistfights. The barroom brawl can now be a shoot out. I can hardly wait to to finally be so much more safe.
LVSnews,
Think of it as evolution in action.
Brad--You are correct. I was not in the military. Thank God. Between ten and fifteen I was raised by a stepmother(RIP) who was a retired officer in the Army .She had spent time in battle,including the Battle Of the Bulge.The regimentatation that I lived through was a fitting boot camp childhood. By the time I was eighteen, my military days were over forever. I have tremendous respect and appreciation for the military,and thanks for your service. I do think that you are somewhat of a bleeding heart on the subject of guns, and the natural violence that we must live with everyday. Only leftist dreamers believe that they are entitled to a risk free utopia free of guns. That is part of the Leftist dysfunction--one small part only.
Future, July 28, 2012 @ 3:16 a.m. stated
I see that Obama got the message and has tabled sign the global Arm Treaty. Obama is flip-flopping on his Chicago Style Gun Control position
`````````````````````
Future, I am still waiting for you to cite your sources. Come on you can do it.
LVSnews 6:09 a.m.
I totally agree with all of your comments.
BobJack: in past decades, a mass killing was two people and a handgun. Now we have 70 people injured, assault rifles, and body armor. No one is saying gun free, but rather bring some sensible restrictions. To resist sensible restrictions, and name call the people who do, is the essence of the problem. We can have both our 2nd amendment and restrictions on assault rifles, they aren't mutually exclusive.
Believe it or not, the NRA hasn't always been as extreme as it is today. At some point something changed to make the organization become more radical.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/1...
For decades, the NRA supported gun-control efforts
The NRA formed its legislative affairs division during debate over the National Firearms Act in 1934, which it backed. The Association also supported the Federal Firearms Act of 1938. Together the two acts, the first major federal laws on gun control, created a system to license gun dealers and imposed stiff taxes on private ownership of automatic weapons at a time when well-known gangsters were active.
LVnews
Keeping guns out of the hands of deranged people and terrorists is not realistic expectation. Violent eruptions are going to occur .otherwise, what weapons do you suggest to defend ourselves against a criminal government who violates our freedoms.
That happened once in 1775.
God help us should an American Spring ever happen in this country.
BobJack: please think thru your doomsday scenario. If our gov felt threatened of the citizenry enough to go full scale violent, they have the best weaponry on earth to do so. Assault weapons would be a mere annoyance to say tanks. In the mean time, while waiting for the war with the government where their use will be irrelevant, these assault weapons are only a threat to us.
Sure, why not arms kids, the NRA would love it! You know, these gun nuts have to get over their childish fascination with guns and grow up. I would love to have RPG's and get to go out in the desert and blow up junk cars, but as an ADULT, I realize that it's not in the public's interest for ownership of RPG's to be widespread. The same is true for guns. While some gun ownership is of course fine, we need to tone down the extremists, like the NRA.
Let us put this argument in perspective. Some posters here think that no one should have guns and some believe that everyone should have guns. Both sides are patently absurd. Somewhere in the middle is where we should be. I would never endorse removing guns from the populace nor would I endorse everyone buying a gun. We can all provide anecdotal information to further our arguments. Just the other day two men became the victims of road rage and one shot the other. Stupid? Of course. Then we read about a person with a CCW that stopped a robbery in progress.
Bottom line: If you want to buy a fire arm with attendant supplies you should be properly vetted. Period. And of course arming children is also absurd.
OK John,
What do you mean by "...properly vetted..."? How much training should CCW permit holders go through? How much training do police tend to go through to become proficient at evaluating situations on a regular basis and would you be in favor of just as rigorous training for civilians since CCW holders have deadly force as a responsibility?
Properly vetted?! Oh sure. At present that would be only leftist koolaid drinkers.
Freedom to everyone is the core vetting criterion. Gun freedom is the best and only criterion. There are always risks. No risk ,no reward.
ByKepi,Welcome back,hope you are feeling much better.
Bob Jack: Do you think that Holmes should have been allowed to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition without raising red flags? Mr. Chapline stated this yesterday and I had to agree with him. There has to be a reasonable process in place that prevents such people from having fire arms.
Mr. Shaffer I don't disagree with you. If you are awarded a CCW permit then I want to know that you have proper training. I know someone who teaches a coarse that will allow you to obtain a CCW and I don't think he is capable!
"ByKepi,Welcome back,hope you are feeling much better."
Second the motion.
CarmineD
We were very fortunate to be introduced to guns at a very early age, if fact, we were shooting firearms long before we were introduced to "dangerous" bicycles -- our (three brothers) first gun was a single shot pellet Sheridan "Blue Streak" air rifle -- we fabricated a target range in the basement to practice -- then came explosives, ladyfingers, firecrackers, M-80s, dynamite, etc. -- again, we were fortunate as our family doctor was a good friend and we hung out together on a daily bases -- fresh out of medical school Doc's practice was slow in the beginning and we often passed time playing chess in the office -- as with guns, we were "drilled" with proper handling and safe usage of explosives -- it was a time when dad had to install seatbelts in the family station wagon we called "the hearse" because "hearses" weren't equipped with life-saving seatbelt options -- then came shotguns, I was so young, dad had to shorten the stock on a single-shot 20-gauge so my short arm and tiny finger could reach the trigger -- I even recall taking my shotgun to school for third-grade show-n-tell -- my, how social attitudes have changed -- a time when the local saying, "it's busy during hunting season" referred to the increase in patronage seen by the county whorehouses which just happen to coincide with the hunting season ; ) -- apparently not a childhood typically experienced by the youth of today, nonetheless a treasured experience in being introduced to armament by a veteran father surrounded with good friends (Doc was an Army reservist) -- my thirteenth birthday gift was life membership in the NRA -- seatbelts, like firearms have saved my worthless life on numerous occasions over the years -- largely due to responsible parenting whose self-imposed "duty" was to teach their children safe, proper and habitual use of devices understood as useful in providing self-preservation -- a period in time when arming children was a natural "step" in youth development, much like that of our forefathers -- a time when we were taught to fear ignorance not firearms.
: P
John Thompson
He could have accumulated in increments.
This guy was under psychiatric evaluation,and no feed back existed.
Freedom carries risks with it.
There are nut cases in society that fail to be screened. We seem so far to be better with terrorists suspects. As a sociiety I think we need to be more vigilant.
Then we will get the liberals complaint with the ACLU that we are invading privacy.
It all boils down to being more vigilant as a society without trampling on rights and freedoms. There are no easy answers. I worry about theses matters too.
This is a joke, right?
Bob Jack: Vigilance is a good term. How do we explain the Fort Hood shooter? It now appears that we did not properly vet him because he was a muslim and we did not want to appear to be politically incorrect. This report was compiled by the ex-FBI director. I know when I was in the Army access to our weapon was severely restricted unless we were in combat. Here is an example where the availability of guns could not be greater yet the Fort Hood shooting was an exception. An exception that should NOT have happened had everyone involved done their job properly.
@LVSnews..." If you look at other countries and look at their ratio of guns to killings, those countries with the fewest guns have the fewest killings"
How about you take your own advice and remember,"you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
There is nothing at all to support that completely ignorant, fear-based claim. The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world, with about 88 guns for every 100 people. If your statement had any basis in reality we would also have the highest rate of gun killings.
Sorry to disappoint, but the U.S. doesn't even crack the top 25. Countries like South Africa, Honduras, El Salvador and even Jamaica have gun/homicide rate there is betweem 15 and 20 times (YES 20 TIMES) that of the U.S. Not a single one of those four countries has gun owership rates even ONE TENTH that of the US.
Once again, take your own advice and remember,"you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."
Now as far as arming children, Switzerland has the THIRD highest gun/ownership rate in the world. The Swiss government actually provides automatic weapons for about half its citizenry. More than 200,000 people attend the Feldschiessen, the largest rifle shooting competition in the world, and Swiss children begin shooting competitively before the are teenagers.
You see the Swiss have respect for firearms and do in fact train their children on the power and responsibilty they have.
What's the result?
Well, in 2009, out of SIX MILLION Swiss people, a grand total of 24 (YES TWENTY-FOUR) fell victim to a gun related homocide. Despite the ready availability of firearms, more Swiss people are stabbed to death, that shot.
You need to pull your head out of the sand, because you haven't been paying attention. The U.S. Government's War on Drugs targets its own population. The U.S. Government is giving away assault vehicles and assault weapons to even poorly trained police forces in the smallest communities regardless of the crime rate.
You're in denial if you believe anyone, because if you think people are "waiting for the war with the government."
The rate of violent crime in this country has been steadily dropping in all areas. All areas but one that is, the number of people gunned down by police. That number is rising and rising fast.
What people have to understand is that people like Jack LaPierre have no problem with the occasional mass murder - no big deal, no reason to even DISCUSS the need for 100 round clips. If the shooter had to stop and reload THREE TIMES, because his 30 round clip emptied, how many chances is that for the heroes in the crowd to act; how many people would have been spared?
But there are people who, after any tragedy, automatically try to put down any discussion on gun laws. Two big arguments they pull are:
1. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." BULL. people kill people WITH GUNS; If Mr. Jack could kindly explain to me the last time a mass murder was committed on American soil using a knife, sword, fruit cup, or anything other than a firearm?.............................................................waiting............................................................................................still waiting............
2 (My favorite slippery slope): "people die from fires/floods/fast food/whatever; why not outlaw that?" Fire cooks our food, heats our homes; fast food is food, floods happen because we don't have the sense to not go in/live near flood zones. Unlike fire and knives, guns exist for one and only one purpose - to kill (what about 'shoot to wound?' says the jackass with crappy aim..) A gun, when used as the manufacturer intends, results in death. you point it at what you want to die, pull trigger and it dies. Knives can kill, but also cut food into manageable portions, open things, shorten things, profess love (try shooting "PC + KG forever," with a heart around it, into a tree trunk); fast food, when used in moderation and a little common sense, will not do anything other than increase your purchase of Rolaids, and your trips to the lavatory.
Perhaps, since the 2nd amendment says NOTHING about them, let's regulate ammunition; have all the guns you want, we'll just tax ammo at $500 per round, and reload supplies accordingly. Maybe the thought of wasting money would make people really think about what they are doing...
John:
Ft Hood is a good example where vigilance was missing,or ignored. There was enough evidence accumulated on this guy's connections to terrorists, and his jihadist inclinations, and his personnell evaluations. He could probably have been removed from his position for these pieces of evidence but for reasons of political correctness he was not as you observed. I agree with your assessment on this one.Nonetheless, unless this nut had been jailed, he would have been able to get his hands on a gun anyway,which leads to the point that I have been attempting to make, and that is that we live in a high risk society in which these tragedies are going to occur unless we can get these people behind bars based on enough evidence.
Patrick Collins: Of course these mass murders are made with guns. I never said otherwise. It's not going to stop them by taxing the hell out of ammo. You seem to believe that restricting access to guns and/or ammo will prevent these murders. The crazies will find the guns, ammo or the explosives to get their job done. We must be more vigilant, recognizing that these mass killings are going to happen periodically. That is unless you want to imagine they will not out of some misguided notion on your part.
@Cmon..Really? who actually makes the argument, "people die from fires/floods/fast food/whatever; why not outlaw that?" Nobody with any intellect, because even those with double digit IQ's know that we already outlaw fire. We call it ARSON.
Seeing as how floods are a naturally occurring events, there is no way to outlaw them. Well, if you figure out a way to make God stand trail, maybe. But considering how things went during his last bout with the that sort of thing, I doubt he'd show.
If those eager to dismantle our basic freedoms really cared about 14,000 or sun gun homicides each year, then why are they not twice as concerned with the 30,000+ automobile related deaths? After all cars are not constitutionally protected, so it would be a much easier fight. Let me guess, 30,000 dead is acceptable, because YOU LIKE YOUR CAR and saving lives is cool as long as you can find somebody else to make the sacrifices necessary.
Bob this man should not have 1) been allowed to continued to wear a uniform, 2) been loose on society. I agree that he would have found his weapon of choice no matter what. As an Army vet I find it appalling that this man was not in prison or at least in a psych ward.
bghs1986: I used to have to travel to South Africa for work. The town where our office was in was Pretoria. There were signs posted on the off ramps from the freeways that said "High hijack area. Do not stop at intersections". The hotel I stayed at had an armed guard on the door after 6 pm. He was Armed with a side arm and an AK-47. It was common for hijacking to take place at traffic lights. They would yank you our of your car, shoot you and take your car. When you came up to a stop light you did a rolling stop and then through the intersection without coming to a complete stop. A colleauge of mine was leaving her house and was shot on her lawn for the money in her purse. The good news is they no longer have apartheid.
Bghs: Lies, damn lies, and statistics. :-) We can go back forth on that, just depends on how you slice and dice. Dig a little deeper into your prized Swiss example and you'll find they aren't allowed to have bullets. Yes, gun (ammo) control resulted into those nice stats. Thanks for making my point.
Now, here's a stat: 43:1. That's a 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting. Accidental shooting translates into little kids playing with daddy's gun and killing himself or sibling. I think I've read that happening about 43 times for every shot burgler I've read about - so the number feels right. Total the gun carnage in the US and compare to other countries to get the real picture...
patrick collins, thanks for your comment @ 12:55. The gun nuts won't stop believing the earth is flat but we have to keep trying to convince them it's not.
We are now in the classic American phase of absurdity!
@ LVSnews, "Dig a little deeper into your prized Swiss example and you'll find they aren't allowed to have bullets. Yes, gun (ammo) control resulted into those nice stats. Thanks for making my point."
Well I provided "statistics" and you come back with the "damn lies."
Are you under the delusion that I would suddenly lose the ability to read? Not once had you mentioned ammo or bullets, but suddenly that's your point. You tell others "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" then belittle the facts you don't like,...."Lies, damn lies, and statistics." It must be nice to have so little integrity that you can just bob and weave around the facts when they don't suit you and completely change your argument when you can no longer bob and weave.
The bottom line is that the number of guns in a country DOES NOT EQUATE to the number of gun killings. Nothing you have offered proves any different and nothing I provided does either.
Faced with a losing argument, you suddenly pretend to have been talking about bullets and the ratio of guns being used in self-defense as opposed to a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting as if that had been your point all along.
Sadly, even if you want to change your argument the idea that "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts" is still in play, and both your statements about Swiss Ammo control and the 43:1 ratio ignore facts in order to support your new stance.
Yes, the Swiss did, as a result not on increased gun deaths but of an increased media coverage of crimes linked to military arms, vote (a Nation Vote of the people by the way) in favor of maintaining service arms at home, but with ammunition stored in depots. Since this vote only dealt with Military ammo, not private ammo, your assertion that Swiss are "aren't allowed to have bullets." Not only can they retrieve the stored ammo when easily, the voted didn't have any affect on their personal ammunition.
Oh, and another, tiny, little point about the Swiss. Since my statistic of 24 gun related homicides was from 2009, and the vote to control ammo was held in 2011, exactly how do you figure, "gun (ammo) control resulted into those nice stats?"
Here's some good advice " Dig a little deeper" next time, and don't ever rely on "I think I've read that..." because that never turns out well, as you will see with your "your prized 43:1 example." Stay tuned as I explain how you got that wrong as well.
John
I agree with your assessment on the Ft Hood guy.
Quite a story about the hi jacking. You were in highly dangerous situation.
Pretty shocking stories.
Regarding a situation where the government denies basic rights and in essensce is in criminal mode there would likely be a rift in the government and the military with there being loyalists to the government and an opposition. The likelihood of that is extremely remote but is still a classical reason for permitting citizens to bear arms.
I noted that Homeland Securiy recently placed an order for a massive amount of ammo,and Obama signed an executive order that in essensce gives him Marshall law powers. I wonder what is on his mind? Did you read about those events?
There were 450 million rounds of hollow point bullets ordered by Homeland Security recently. Does it make you wonder why your government needs that much ammo all of a sudden. We should be able to buy all we want in my opinion. If its ok for Uncle Sam why not the citizens.
Here is link to the Homeland Security ammo order.http://rt.com/usa/news/dhs-million-point-government-179/
Bob yes I read about those events and had the same reservations as you. It really makes you wonder what is happening and what the "current wisdom" in the WH is.
By the way Bob, being in an airborne recon platoon in Viet Nam was a dangerous situation. That scared the crap out of me. For some strange reason I was not concerned while I was in SA. My company provided me with an armed escort whenever I had to go there.
@LVSnews.."Now, here's a stat: 43:1. That's a 43:1 ratio that states every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting."
Now here's why stating.." I think I've read that..." is such a bad idea. First it lets me know that your opinion is not based on facts you know for sure, but rather something that might be true and since it supports your argument who cares if it is.
Didn't someone say, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts?" Wasn't that someone you?
What you think you may have read was most likely discussing the 1986 study published in the June 12, 1986 issue of New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Arthur L. Kellermann, in which he concluded that every time a gun is used in self-defense, it is 43 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide, or accidental shooting. His study was based on data collected in three cities, Seattle WA, Memphis TN, and Galveston TX.
The problem with the 25-year-old study was it narrowly defined description of "self-defense." While I would argue that if I use my weapon to frighten an intruder away, subdue, capture or even would him it was in self-defense. But when that didn't support Kellerman's position he decided to only consider cases of justifiable homicide in his self-defense tall, making his conclusion incomplete.
Don't believe me? Let's have the good doc explain it. Here is the disclaimer he published with his 43:1 study.
"...studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified....A complete determination of firearm risks versus benefits would require that these figures be known."
Even the NEJM cited the flaws in Kellermans research less than six months later when it published a study by David Stolinsky and G. Tim Hagen that found that "a firearm kept in a home is at least 167 times more likely to deter criminal attack than to harm a person in the home."
Kellerman's theory was again proved false in 1995 when Northwestern's Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, published a study, "ARMED RESISTANCE TO CRIME: THE PREVALENCE AND NATURE OF SELF-DEFENSE WITH A GUN" which concluded that when a firearm is used to defend ones home only about one in 1,000 result in the death of the intruder.
So applying the 999 cases that Kellerman's study ignored we learn every time a gun is used against an intruder there is less that 4/100ths of a chance the gun was used in a homicide, suicide or accidental shooting.
The most pathetic part is how easily it would have been for you to find this out on your own, but why muddy up an impassioned argument with the truth, right.
I am now excited to see how you change your argument to accommodate this new information.
John: I admire your courage. I have never lived through anything like that.I have spent nearly my entire life here on the ground.The Vietnam ordeal must have been a nightmare. We must be about the same vintage. I was in college in a class while the prof was pointing to a spec on a map explaining where Vietnam was--that was in 1963. We were just beginning to figure out that we were into something big.
Bob the latter part of 1963 is when I was there. I was 18 then. Just a boy. It seems like a lifetime ago. But we are straying from the topic here.
I think an interesting point is the fact that gun sales in CO have increased dramatically after the Aurora shooting. In a blue state no less. Interesting point.
John
I had not heard about the increase in Co gun sales,but the reasons might be the fear that there may be sales crackdowns so people are getting in their buys and also for protection. .probably more the former.
This "hot button" issue has been around forever. There is no answer to the 2nd amendment fakes and the NRA thugs who coerce and threaten anyone with a lick of sense to take a good hard 21st CENTURY LOOK at the 2nd amendment's vague and ambiguous bullsh*t. There ain't no need for anyone to privately own an assault rifle, tons of armor piercing ammo, loads of body armor, gas masks and the other accessories of an ANARCHIST OR MENTALLY DERANGED SOCIOPATH. Hide behind your "rights" as you like, and expect more of the same deranged and psychopathic behavior to continue... and it will. As I've posted before, I own guns.
After reading the above posts, it seems like most people are unable to have a rational discussion about gun ownership. The perpetual politicization of this issue is frustrating because people should be able to have conflicting opinions about this subject without being insulted by those who disagree. The preferred insult is whatever deragatory term they use for members of the OTHER political party. While commenting on a similar story, I was recently described as both a "lib" and a "right wingnut" on the same thread.
I will summarize my opinions on the Second Amendment: The Second Amendment says what it says. While I will agree that it might not be socially desirable to have unconstrained gun ownership in a nation of idiots, I cannot pick and choose which rights guaranteed by the Constitution I personally find socially acceptable.
Our society seems damaged and feels toxic to me. Blame has been placed everywhere from violent video games to broken homes to our "wild west" culture. But there are other countries not so different than ours with similar gun laws that have nowhere near our gun violence.
I believe much of the problem is due to the relentless amount of fearmongering we are exposed to on a daily basis coming from all directions. Everyone seems to live with so much fear. The people who declare that they REFUSE to be manipulated with fear are met with extreme hostility. In fact, others are genuinely dumbfounded and will then provide more reasons to be afraid.
What is even more twisted is that somehow fear has come to signify the new bravery. These nuts claim to be braver than the rest of us because they see a clear and present danger that we don't.Then they claim they are courageous enough to face that fear head on. By using their guns.
Everyone is afraid of everyone else and it is pathetic. So people go out and get guns to protect themselves and somehow this is believed by some to be an act of bravery.
The fearmongering never ends. Just read the comments on almost any article and you will notice it is used by both sides in their defense of any issue. I believe the political polarization of this country along with the tactics that are being used to prove the other side wrong are partly responsible for the toxic environment we live in, which breeds so much gun violence.
That's a clown letter Bro.
You kid me, right?
Sam, thank you very much. Hope you have a nice day.
Bghs: I have no need to change my argument. I provide my 'facts', and you provide your 'facts'. In today's society we can find any 'facts' we choose. Because you find an article discrediting another article doesn't make you right. Chances are all it means is your side is better funded....like by the NRA which lobbied to have the writter of my 'facts' defunded by congress. This is simply the world we live in. My life experience tells me that more people are harmed, either purposefully or accidentally, by guns, than burglers shoo'd away by a gun. We have a 2nd amendment though, so let's put reasonable restrictions on it, like we do for all other amendments. I have a right to protection from unlawful search and seizure, but we have the "Patriot" act don't we? Every conversation I have is potentially monitored. Why must we have head to toe body armor, ballistic helmets, and 6000 round assault rifles? Seriously!
LVSnews,A very good response back to Bghs,"I have no need to change my arguement". These are the facts to everyday life,we either like it or we don't."Nothing wrong with putting reasonable restrictions on the 2nd.amendnent". It's all good if it saves lives and prevents injuries,commited by crazies with automatic weapons etc.Very good post!!!
LVSnews...You make me laugh and right out of the gate as well.
Your opening line, "I have no need to change my argument" is perfect. Because no sooner do you make that claim then you go and CHANGE YOUR ARGUMENT.
"I provide my 'facts', and you provide your 'facts'. In today's society we can find any 'facts' we choose."
Yep, that's completely consistent with your assertion "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts?" You are now arguing the exact opposite. I guess in your world, the one were legislation passed by the Swiss in 2011 can affect gun deaths in 2009 that doesn't mean you've changed your argument because that world exists only in your mind.
Facts are truth and you have yet to provide any truth. Even after I have provided several sources discrediting the quarter century old 43:1 theory, you'll have none of it. And why is that. Oh yeah, "My life experience tells me that more people are harmed, either purposefully or accidentally, by guns, than burglers shoo'd away by a gun."
Your personal life experiences are not facts. Facts don't change from person to person. Conclusion based on ones limited personal experiences are not facts, those are opinions. Remember there was a time when most people's life experience told them the Earth was flat and the Sun revolved around it. That didn't make it true.
And, take a better look at what I've written, I have no problems with placing reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. There are already in place. We restrict who can own guns, which of those owners can conceal those guns. We have restrictions. You wonder "Why must we have head to toe body armor, ballistic helmets, and...assault rifles?" I agree. It's crazy that we need these things, but we do, and her is why (http://bit.ly/MUA9SN) and this is another reason. (http://bit.ly/MUAJ2Y). You want less guns, start there.
In 1789, all the guns were flintlocks. A fast reload could be accomplished in less than 45 seconds. When ready, the shooter would aim, then close his eyes and pull the trigger while attempting to stand as motionless as possible to maintain the aim. Even with cap and ball ignition, the sparks and burning powder grains could injure the eyes or even blind the shooter.
The 2nd Amendment uses the words: "being necessary to the security of a free State". Citizens of a Free State have a Constitutional Right to security. With complete lack of ammunition control, security is not possible and therefore, we now have an Unconstitutional condition because Citizens cannot go to a movie, store or picnic without being the target of random mass murders.
A semi-automatic weapon with 50-100 round clips are made for mass murders, not self protection.
There should not be ammunition or gun regulation so long as the guns are all flintlocks. The Constitution never implied that semi-automatic arsenals could be kept at home with 1000s of rounds in large clips.
Protect your country, its liberties, your family, and yourself through mass armament - buy weaponry in bulk while becoming proficient in its usage - as it is safer to be prepared without the need to act, than be required to act and not possess the capability.
There's mass murders out there - be prepared - build your own arsenal of weaponry now!
: {
Jon Becker makes a good point about regulating ammo as well as guns. When a wildfire spread into a rural northern subdivision last year, the bulk ammo stored by all those rugged Nevada individualists went off like popcorn, making firefighting an even more dangerous profession. Maybe firefighters should have the right to know if the house they're trying to save is loaded with ammo and explosives. Like bio-hazard signs, ammo-hazard warnings could be posted where dangerous amounts of ammunition are stored.