If drowning government in a bathtub doesn't work, attacking their unions doesn't work, maybe killing public servants like teachers and firefighters will.

It's time to do some deep thinking about the number of societal problems become dramatically worse because of the easy availability of guns in our country:

• Criminal psychpaths are more deadly when they are armed
• Children who get into their parents' stuff are more at risk when their parents' "stuff" is firearms
• Depressed people who consider suicide are much more likely to complete the act of suicide when guns, especially hand guns, are readily available
• Domestic violence is far more likely to become homicide when guns are in the home
• Home intruders who are not really intruders die because guns are in the hands of people who do not understand when it is not okay to shoot [We have read several recent stories about family members being shot by fearful, irrational gun owners]
• Boneheads who insist that protecting their PROPERTY ..... not their lives, just PROPERTY ..... justifies deadly force are dangerous when allowed to own weapons. [It should be much more clear in this country that along with owning a gun comes the responsibility that lethal force is justified ONLY when the lives of other humans is as risk]

There are far more common situations and conditions in our society that are made worse by the presence of guns, especially hand guns and assault weapons. Very few situations are improved when guns are part of the "solution."

The insistence by a significant minority of our country's citizens to exercise their "freedom" by owning weapons intended only to kill other people causes significant risk to those of us who disagree with them.

Well said.

I cross posted with 1.2 and I wanted to clarify my prior note (1.1). For those who aren't familiar with my perspective, I was mocking the right, deliberately drawing a similarity between right wing extremism and whackos who may have no political motivation whatever.

My observation of the proximity between these murders and far right political thinking is drawn starkly, but is not altogether unfair. Perhaps it is no coincidence that progressives and forces for social good are nearly always the target of these murderers. From Malala Yousafzai to Lincoln to the 2011 massacre at a Labor Party youth camp in Norway to MLK to Gabby Gifford to the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma city, to the 9-11 attack on the US.

It is not the political but emotional common ground between these murderers and the Right wing. This kind of violently reactionary right wing mindset has a commonality of the emotional detachment and anger of murderous indiscriminate violent action towards progressive forces that the right wingers of all cultures feel profoundly powerless against.

Thanks for the clarification, John. :} I know where you're coming from based upon your previous posts, but for someone reading you for the first time, the sarcasm MIGHT not have been so readily apparent.

Have a Merry Christmas (or whatever you celebrate at this time of year), and best wishes for a properous 2013. And that's a wish to everyone!

Thank you Haddie. I cleave to the Christian faith, though my theology is rather odd- Martin Luther King studied in his dissertation the work of the guy whose thoughts inform my perspectives, and MLK concluded he was more Indian mystic than Christian. Anyway, the rich bag of weird traditions have a great deal of spiritual meaning for me far beyond that of the Bethlehem events. It was simultaneously a terrifying, hopeful and socialist time of death and rebirth.

I hope everyone will gain contact with that spiritual source of eternal renewal this holiday season.

We have had enough death. It is time to start a new year of life, and progress towards the greater protection of new beginnings. This is the between time. The time of great celebration and great sorrow.

Merry Christmas to all.

Don,

Guns are not all that easily available. For 1) guns aren't cheap. A Glock or a Beretta will run you about $600-$800, and that's before transfer fees and taxes. Plus, there's the costs of a holster, ammo, a safe to keep the gun in. If you want to put a laser sight on it or a tactical light, that's expensive too. We're talking upwards to $1500.

Plus you got to worry about criminal background checks too. Unless you have a clean record, you're not getting a gun via legal channels.

Psychopaths have always been deadly, gun or no gun. It seems to me that we ought to use a policy of harm reduction. We should ask ourselves why we have three times higher rates of mental illness than other first world countries.

It is the responsibility of gun owners to keep their children away from their guns. That simply is not the gov't's job. I would further note, that by law, every new gun MUST come with a gun lock. There is a product now made by GunVault.com that sells gun safes that open only with a keyed combination or with the scan of a designated person's fingerprint.

We need to do a lot more to treat mental illness in this country. We have never really gotten our health care system right. Most people's health care plans don't include basic things we all need, like dental and psychological coverage. Most of us get regular physical check ups, but how often do we get regular psychological evaluations?

However, there is a moral aspect to this, that may sound cold-hearted, but I don't believe it is. I believe that we ought to have a higher respect for people who want to commit suicide.

It seems absurd to me that at the end of our lives, we often are able to treat our own pets more humanely than we're able to treat ourselves. And while some people respect that people with a terminal illness should have the option to die peacefully if that's what they want to do, few of us are willing to give that same option to someone who is chronically depressed.

We also see mental illness as something that can just be "fixed". Just load people up with the right combo of chemicals and that will solve everything. No, often it doesn't. And I don't see any moral reason that if we allow something suffering from cancer to die peacefully, that we don't give someone who's depressed the same option.

When it comes to intruders, things should be pretty clear. For instance, there was a lot of talk about the legitimacy of Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, because it gives home owners the right to shoot anyone who steps on their property. What the sensationalist media didn't report was that while this law applied to people's cars, it didn't apply if said person had joint ownership of the car. If someone was entering your home, this law didn't apply if the people entering were your child's grandparents.

However, I have a real problem with someone who is telling me that I'm not allowed to defend myself when it comes to my own home. The reality is that there is no way to know if someone is entering your home to take your property, rape your wife, strangle or kidnap your kids, or what have you.

If someone breaks into my home, I'm not going to stop and ask questions. Even if it became illegal to shoot an intruder, I'm not going to stop and ask questions. I'd rather be alive and behind bars, than dead.

Guns are very, very, very easy to obtain ..... even for people who should never have guns. Period.

We're talking upwards to $1500.

Pricing is always going to depend on the supplier but 1500 is hardly a lot of money.

Plus you got to worry about criminal background checks too. Unless you have a clean record, you're not getting a gun via legal channels.

It's called a gun show in half the country that is a legal channel that requires no background check.

Psychopaths have always been deadly, gun or no gun. It seems to me that we ought to use a policy of harm reduction.

Well that's already the point of discussing restrictions on high powered weaponry.

It is the responsibility of gun owners to keep their children away from their guns. That simply is not the gov't's job.

well duh the problem is when they don't it quickly becomes everyone else's problem

We need to do a lot more to treat mental illness in this country. We have never really gotten our health care system right. Most people's health care plans don't include basic things we all need, like dental and psychological coverage. Most of us get regular physical check ups, but how often do we get regular psychological evaluations?

Many get regular check up but I would doubt "most" is the best phrase. People don't need regular psych evals, that's they're not akin to a check up. What people need is not to be demonized or afraid of therapy.

And while some people respect that people with a terminal illness should have the option to die peacefully if that's what they want to do, few of us are willing to give that same option to someone who is chronically depressed.

Well that's frankly just bonkers. Depression is not a terminal illness. Terminal cancer will kill you there is nothing you can do, if you believe depression at it's worst is similar you don't know what you're talking about. Essentially what you're saying is that someone with treatable cancer should just accept euthanasia....even though it can be treated and the person would survive. If one wishes to end their own life I suppose you have that right it is yours after all but comparing that to terminal illness....that's bachmann-gohmert crazy.

One thing many people who attempt suicide often say is in the middle of the attempt they realize they actually want to live, and they can they are not going to die a slow or painful death. To compare that to someone with a fatal illness I don't care what lens you want to claim to view from that's utter none sense.

When it comes to intruders, things should be pretty clear. For instance, there was a lot of talk about the legitimacy of Florida's Stand Your Ground laws, because it gives home owners the right to shoot anyone who steps on their property. What the sensationalist media didn't report was that while this law applied to people's cars, it didn't apply if said person had joint ownership of the car. If someone was entering your home, this law didn't apply if the people entering were your child's grandparents.

That's called castle doctrine in regards to defending yourself in the home, that's not the controversy or issue behind stand your ground. It's not new at all nor particularly challenged anywhere. No one challenges the right to defend yourself in your own home. Stand your ground allows you to take that everywhere and shoot to kill if you believe your life is in danger, then the florida statute actually makes it illegal to even detain those individuals if it seems like stand your ground. They can't even hold them til they get all the answers.

All one need is to claim they felt their life was threatened. Sure the law uses the language "reasonable" suspicion of harm however what is "reasonable" is really not defined, it's very much one's own opinion which make the law very murky.

The gun manufacturers own the NRA. The gun manufacturers work with the Koch Brothers to have laws passed that sell more guns. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a Kochs creation. States pass Stand Your Ground laws and Right to Carry laws that were drafted as model laws by ALEC. Gun manufacturers sell more guns and make more money. Gun shows are staunchly supported by the NRA. Guns sold at gun shows are sold to the drug cartels in Mexico. 30,000 die in the the Drug Wars. The gun manufacturers make more money.

It is tragic that so many people have to die just to have the gun manufacturers make more money.

Pricing is always going to depend on the supplier but 1500 is hardly a lot of money.

In this economy?

It's called a gun show in half the country that is a legal channel that requires no background check.

Ever been to a gun show? I've been to more gun shows than I can count. I have never been to one where background checks weren't performed.

Let's get real here. If you buy a gun from a gun store, they have to do a background check on you. But if we both live in the same state, then why should I have to contact the federal government to sell a gun to another individual in the state?

The first gun I owned was a little .32 revolver that my father-in-law gave me. He lives down the road from me. We've known each other since I was 13 years old. I know he's not a criminal, he knows I'm not a criminal. Why should he get put in jail for selling, or in this case, giving his property to me?

Well that's already the point of discussing restrictions on high powered weaponry.

How are you defining "high powered"?

well duh the problem is when they don't it quickly becomes everyone else's problem

What's wrong with just putting people who commit crimes in jail?

Many get regular check up but I would doubt "most" is the best phrase. People don't need regular psych evals, that's they're not akin to a check up. What people need is not to be demonized or afraid of therapy.

I agree with you in regards to being demonized for getting therapy or having a mental illness. But I could not disagree with you more about people getting regular psych evaluations. I know a little something about this field, and even psychiatrists regularly see a psychiatrist. I think that every single person in this country should see a psychiatrist once or twice a year, regardless of whether you think you need to see one or not. This should be as common place as mammograms are for older women.

Well that's frankly just bonkers. Depression is not a terminal illness. Terminal cancer will kill you there is nothing you can do, if you believe depression at it's worst is similar you don't know what you're talking about. Essentially what you're saying is that someone with treatable cancer should just accept euthanasia....even though it can be treated and the person would survive. If one wishes to end their own life I suppose you have that right it is yours after all but comparing that to terminal illness....that's bachmann-gohmert crazy.

Oh no, I'm not trying to say that depression is terminal. Clearly, it's not. I'm just saying that if someone wants to end their suffering, be it suffering from a terminal illness, or any other kind of suffering, then they should have that option. That should be their right. I think we have a skewed view of the sanctity of life due to the influence of Christianity on our society. There would be no reason why anyone would block euthanasia for someone suffering from a terminal illness if it wasn't on religious grounds, or grounds that weren't influenced by religious doctrine.

One thing many people who attempt suicide often say is in the middle of the attempt they realize they actually want to live, and they can they are not going to die a slow or painful death. To compare that to someone with a fatal illness I don't care what lens you want to claim to view from that's utter none sense.

That's true. Many people just want a little peace of mind that if their suffering becomes too great, they have the option to end it. I think this is far more humane than what most people are forced to deal with.

That's called castle doctrine in regards to defending yourself in the home, that's not the controversy or issue behind stand your ground. It's not new at all nor particularly challenged anywhere. No one challenges the right to defend yourself in your own home. Stand your ground allows you to take that everywhere and shoot to kill if you believe your life is in danger, then the florida statute actually makes it illegal to even detain those individuals if it seems like stand your ground. They can't even hold them til they get all the answers.

All one need is to claim they felt their life was threatened. Sure the law uses the language "reasonable" suspicion of harm however what is "reasonable" is really not defined, it's very much one's own opinion which make the law very murky.

I have the same concerns regarding Stand Your Ground laws. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the law is that one needs to have a "reasonable" fear that their life is in danger or they're in danger of great bodily harm. I believe that what is "reasonable" is something a jury gets to decide.

All this seems far too murky to me as well. At the very least, the law needs to be well defined.

Most conceal carry classes will teach people to avoid danger at all costs. And you certainly aren't ever supposed to escalate things. I had one guy say that the rule of thumb is "when in doubt, wimp out".

I think that's a good over all policy for all of us. You see this with road rage. Americans seem to have become far less tolerant of each other. I say we need to learn to become more tolerant of each other. We should learn to love our fellow countrymen, not flip people the bird on the interstate. And certainly not shoot them because you're a gun nut who's in a bad mood.

Alva, you've never been to a gun show where background checks were not performed?!? Bull@!$%#. Every single gun show I have been to everyone there is willing to do private sale. No background checks. Oh, and you can pay $100 bucks for a Makarov MK-9. Why pay $1500 for a Glock when any old POS will do? Price is not a limiting factor.

Cynical I had a multi-paged discussion with Alva where I debunked pretty much everything he had to say and his only recourse was to throw out racist remarks, personal insults, and to repeat the same point. You aren't going to get anywhere with the guy because he doesn't care about facts. For the record he isn't listening to anyone on this blog in case nobody caught on. Not a damn person has talked about taking away the right of self-defense, not a damn person has talked about not helping the mentally ill, not a damn person has talked about not addressing poverty. These are fallacies he keeps playing in a desperate plea to get everyone to stop talking about guns and because of that he doesn't realize that you aren't even counter-arguing, but are just debunking claims he's making. It's completely pointless at that point in time because the person you're talking to is no longer interested in a discussion: they just want to win.

As if Alva has not proven that its statements are bat @!$%# crazy enough , to then proclaim THEY HAVE SEEN EVERYONE ONE AT EVERY GUN SHOW GET THEIR BACK GROUND CHECKED , is about as crazy as it gets

You can take the tone of a saneperson , but bat@!$%#crazy is still bsc , I am sure the nra crew just eat this BS up

Cartoon's just mad that I made him look like a fool. So now he keeps calling me a racist because I said that the Black Panthers & Malcolm X should get more credit for what they accomplished. He's a little cuckoo.

Pat, Closet, facts are pesky things. There's often gun shows at the Fairfax Fairgrounds in Northern Virginia. Before you go into the building you will see a great big sign that says criminal background checks are done on each and every single firearm sale. If you insist, I will even take a picture of this the next time I go just to show you.

Signs mean jack squat. Unless someone is standing over each and every one of those sellers, watching them check with due diligence, it's just so much malarkey. The fact that the shooter in this case was a FELON and still had guns makes your assertion laughable and meaningless.

In this economy?

In any economy. The point is the price of these weapons which for most handguns would be quite a bit lower is not a real deterrent.

Ever been to a gun show? I've been to more gun shows than I can count. I have never been to one where background checks weren't performed.

Like in half the country you don't legally have to do a background check, don't try and tell me it's not possible. Maybe it's required in your state but it is legal in a couple dozen others

Let's get real here. If you buy a gun from a gun store, they have to do a background check on you. But if we both live in the same state, then why should I have to contact the federal government to sell a gun to another individual in the state?

Generally retail ale by any non licensed dealers is a crime. If you're gun is registered to you then you should have to show who is the next registered owner. You have to transfer that license to the gun, that's how it should be. Better question is why not have back ground checks for all gun sales? Who does that hurt? Obviously not law abidding people....

The first gun I owned was a little .32 revolver that my father-in-law gave me. He lives down the road from me. We've known each other since I was 13 years old. I know he's not a criminal, he knows I'm not a criminal. Why should he get put in jail for selling, or in this case, giving his property to me?

No one suggested the actions you alledge people support. I don't recall saying anything about a punishment or what it should be. But also it's illegal to transfer guns to minors in general so actually the gun was legally still his. You're supposed to update the registry when you get a previously owned weapon how do you think we know who owned a weapon that turns up somewhere?

It has to be in your name just like a car. It's to protect the folks from bad attention. If you're gun gets stolen or something or for whatever reason is used in a crime the police are going to go after you if it's in your name because they think you were involved even if you weren't. Whether you committed the allegded crime or not isn't going to matter they will still try to get at you. More than that it's a waste of the officer's time because that's a false lead.

How are you defining "high powered"?

Weapons of design origins intended for military or law enforcement capable of causing heavy wounds, and are not designed for hunting live game. This includes assault rifles, submachine guns, semi-automatic designs like the AR-15 developed for police also count here as well for their lethality. Not all weapons of the semi-auto category will be there but some will and I will admit it is a bit of a subjective standard. However we should not focus on just one type of gun, it should be about reason. I don't have all the answers to that as I am not a gun expert however a fair standard can be established, we can debate it like how the assault weapons ban to develop more universal criteria.

Keep in mind I'm not saying make those guys illegal but they should be watched closely. Perhaps people could rent guns at ranges if was really about having fun with target practice or sport. I'm not a gun nut so I'm just floating that as an example of things we could do I'm not advocating for that specific change.

On mental health, like I said before, I think it is one's right to destroy themselves' if they so choose. I believe in an ey it harm none appropriate. That doesn't mean they should. The deppression idea you have here is bonkers, those folks can live a long life nothing is hurting them isn't it better to encourage them to live? People can do whatever they want no one can ever stop them but we as a culture normalize that idea as "humane". The "suffering" can be stopped with treatment, terminal cancer can not. The point is you're going to die from the disease no matter what you do and the treatment will make you incredibly sick while only extending your lifespan for a few more months at best. Those months would be hell, if you've only got so long to live you might as well get on that bucket list. It's the quality of life you will have. Don't just say they can kill theirelves it gets better folks

come on

that's just bonkers, find some people who've attempted suicide and overcome real despair. You'l probably find that most of them looking back will say they were wrong about how they felt then and that the help they got showed that to them. The suffering doesn't last forever

In any economy. The point is the price of these weapons which for most handguns would be quite a bit lower is not a real deterrent.

See, I think you're wrong on this. I think the price is a deterrent for a lot of street crime. This is why you will see a lot of street crime committed with cheap guns like Kel-Tec's or Hi Points. You don't generally see people robbing a liquor store with a Glock or a Beretta.

Like in half the country you don't legally have to do a background check, don't try and tell me it's not possible. Maybe it's required in your state but it is legal in a couple dozen others

As I understand it, the Brady bill is a federal law. If I buy a gun out of state, a background check is done on me. It doesn't matter what state I reside in or what state I buy the gun in. If I go to a gun store, no matter what state I reside in, a background check is done. At gun shows the primary sellers (often the ONLY sellers) are gun stores who have brought some of their inventory to the show. They do a background check too.

The only instance that I'm aware of is when a private individual sells his personal property to another private individual, and by law, this sale cannot happen unless both individuals reside in the same state and are reasonably sure that both aren't criminals. If you're buying a gun from a private individual you better call the police and ask them if the gun you're buying wasn't used in a crime.

Things are a little different and less regulated if you're buying antique guns.

Generally retail ale by any non licensed dealers is a crime.

Not technically. A non-licensed dealer can sell a gun, but has to go through a 3rd party who has a federal firearms license to clear the sale.

If you're gun is registered to you then you should have to show who is the next registered owner.

There are no laws (that I'm aware of) that requires any firearm to be registered. I'm all in favor of universal gun registration.

Better question is why not have back ground checks for all gun sales? Who does that hurt? Obviously not law abidding people....

I just don't see the point in bothering. I don't have to ask the FBI permission if I can sell my car or my home to a guy down the street. Why do I need permission to sell any other property? I do think it should be a crime (if it's not already) to sell a gun to a person who you know is a criminal or plans to use the gun in a criminal act.

But also it's illegal to transfer guns to minors in general so actually the gun was legally still his.

No, it's not. I wasn't a minor when he gave it to me.

You're supposed to update the registry when you get a previously owned weapon how do you think we know who owned a weapon that turns up somewhere?

There is no mandatory gun registration. You can voluntarily register your gun if you want to. Almost nobody ever does. You have absolutely zero legal responsibility to register your gun. If we both live in the same state, and I give you a gun, that gun is now your property. It's no different than if I gave you anything else.

It has to be in your name just like a car. It's to protect the folks from bad attention. If you're gun gets stolen or something or for whatever reason is used in a crime the police are going to go after you if it's in your name because they think you were involved even if you weren't. Whether you committed the allegded crime or not isn't going to matter they will still try to get at you. More than that it's a waste of the officer's time because that's a false lead.

There are laws that require you to report a stolen firearm.

How are you defining "high powered"?

Weapons of design origins intended for military or law enforcement capable of causing heavy wounds, and are not designed for hunting live game. This includes assault rifles, submachine guns, semi-automatic designs like the AR-15 developed for police also count here as well for their lethality. Not all weapons of the semi-auto category will be there but some will and I will admit it is a bit of a subjective standard.

Define "heavy wounds". There are many bolt action rifles that take the exact same kind of ammo as an AR-15. An assault rifle typically is defined as full auto. You're talking about tactical rifles. Well, what about tactical shotguns? Many handguns were designed for military or police use and are semi-auto. Examples would include most Glock designs, the Beretta 92 (called the M9 in the US military), and several Sig designs.

I have said that if someone is going to make rules about what kind of guns I'm allowed to own, then they should at least know a little something about guns first. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

However we should not focus on just one type of gun, it should be about reason. I don't have all the answers to that as I am not a gun expert however a fair standard can be established, we can debate it like how the assault weapons ban to develop more universal criteria.

I think we should look at the homicide and mass shooting rates pre ban, during the ban, and after the ban, and see if we can come to a conclusion on whether the ban worked at all. We have the empirical evidence for this. All we have to do is just look at it.

On mental health, like I said before, I think it is one's right to destroy themselves' if they so choose. I believe in an ey it harm none appropriate. That doesn't mean they should.

I agree.

Alva

Maybe we should look at the evidence in countries where there has been a real ban, like England, Germany, Japan or Australia. Our ban didn't reduce the number of guns or increase the responsibility for possessing a gun in any meaningful way.

Our gun death rate is approximately 100 times that of other developed countries. Maybe we should try to be more like them. Ya think?

Bloomberg Pushes Virginia to Close 'Gun-Show Loophole'

By TEDDY DAVIS and FERDOUS AL-FARUQUE
April 13, 2009

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg launched a television ad Monday pressuring Virginia's Republican candidate for governor to get behind closing the commonwealth's gun-show loophole.

"This has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. This is not the right to hunt. It's not the right to bear arms. Plain and simple it is to enforce a federal law that says you can't sell guns to criminals," said Bloomberg in Crystal City, Va.

The television commercial, which is timed to coincide with the second anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings, on April 16, features Omar Samaha, whose sister, Reema, was one of 32 people killed in the massacre. As featured Friday on ABC News' "20/20", Samaha recently attended a Virginia gun show and easily acquired 10 guns, including a Glock similar to the one that killed his sister, with no background check, in less than an hour.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7328395&page=1

Alva

Considering your a NRA flunky , it is hard to imagine you are not aware of this , but considering the brain capacity of conservative virginians , it is understandable why you have blanked it all out , hearing people like you use the word FACT , is like romney trying to explain what a flip flop is

Virgina should close the gun show loophole as soon as Ny city recognizes Va permits like 30 other states do.

Its not really a loophole its the ability to sell privately, which conveniently happens an awful lot at gun shows

I personally would be ok with requiring a nics check on private sales(but granting the public access to the service as dealers get) and a magazine size limit BUT I think the 8 restrictive states which only grant constitutional rights to celebrities and politicians and whoever they feel like fall more in line with other 42 states

obviously this person possessing a gun was an ILLEGAL gun by definition at any level but the lack of uniform reasonable laws is ridiculous supposedly David Gregory or others at meet the press are under investigation for the use of a magazine as a prop in his interview with Lapierre. They probably either ordered it online or bought it on the way to the show in Virginia.

Illegal guns is a ridiculous talking point in light of the wildly different laws in a handful of states. Where are the organizations against illegal abortion or illegal marijuana? (I realize there are numerous organizations but I doubt that use that term) A lunatic felon having a gun is yes--illegal

Don,

I agree that we should be more like Germany and Japan. But I don't think they have fewer homicides because they have less guns necessarily. Canada has far fewer homicides as well, and they have about as many homes with guns as the US does.

The difference is that Canada, Japan, and Germany are all more equal societies. This makes them more functional.

This also is why these countries have greater levels of trust amongst neighbors, less teenage pregnancy rates, less kids dropping out of school, a lower prison population rate, and a whole host of other social ills.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/violence

Pat,

I'm no flunky for the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA, nor will I ever be a member. I consider them a bunch of right wing nutbags. Since I am opposed to right wing nutbaggery, I will not associate myself with them.

If Bloomberg thinks that guns are so inherently dangerous, then perhaps he ought to tell the NYPD, which he boasted was his personal army, to universally disarm.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2068428/Bloomberg-I-army-NYPD-State-Department-New-York-City.html

Name any other single group in Bloomberg's NYC that are better armed than the NYPD. This is the same police force that killed Amadou Diallo execution style. This is the same police force that pepper sprayed Occupy protesters for the crime of sitting on a side walk and minding their own business. This is the same police force that stole property from the Occupy movement, including their entire library. If any single group in NYC should disarm it should be the NYPD. Bloomberg could make that happen tomorrow. Until he does he is nothing more than a hypocrite when it comes to anything he has to say about guns.

See, I think you're wrong on this. I think the price is a deterrent for a lot of street crime. This is why you will see a lot of street crime committed with cheap guns like Kel-Tec's or Hi Points. You don't generally see people robbing a liquor store with a Glock or a Beretta.

The price for a hangun usually does not have much affect on crime, once again they're aren't that expensive. As I recall this 1500 price you came up with was with a sight, flashlight, laser sight and other accessories. The Glock models sell for around a thousand dollars less that what you claim. More importantly whether it is a "cheap" gun or not is irrelavent it is still highly dangerous.

and in fact you do really see thugs rob stores with handguns

As I understand it, the Brady bill is a federal law. If I buy a gun out of state, a background check is done on me. It doesn't matter what state I reside in or what state I buy the gun in.

No, no, no. You don't seem to get it. In many states you do not need to submit to a background check selling at a gun show. That is a fact feel however you choose about that but this weren't the case then how has half the country amended their law to close that loophole?

You keep trying to play soe irrelavent state none sense but no one is talking about that. Guess what like it or know it or not states do not share the same laws around them. They do in fact very. Live with it or don't I don't care but that's the fact.

Generally retail ale by any non licensed dealers is a crime.

Not technically. A non-licensed dealer can sell a gun, but has to go through a 3rd party who has a federal firearms license to clear the sale.

You do realize you just shot down your own retort on that. It is illegal to own a gun business and not be federally registered as a dealer. To not do so is illegal.

I just don't see the point in bothering. I don't have to ask the FBI permission if I can sell my car or my home to a guy down the street. Why do I need permission to sell any other property? I do think it should be a crime (if it's not already) to sell a gun to a person who you know is a criminal or plans to use the gun in a criminal act.

And because of those policies criminals can get guns and those who illegally cooperate knowing full well of the nefarious intent will none the less be able to wiggle their way out of most trouble. It is indeed a crime. If you're a law abiding citizen you should have nothing to fear. Really you're just alleging it's in convenient but those concerns are far out weighed when compared to the damage to society it could cost. Maybe if we didn't have so many gun problems, but we do, simple as that, that conversation is over.

There is no mandatory gun registration. You can voluntarily register your gun if you want to. Almost nobody ever does. You have absolutely zero legal responsibility to register your gun. If we both live in the same state, and I give you a gun, that gun is now your property. It's no different than if I gave you anything else.

If you buy from a licensed dealer then yeah you kinda do....you're in fact supposed to fill out certain forms for the state

more irrelavent "if I live in the same state blah blah" where you live is only relavent because gun laws differ from state to state. There is nothing else to that at all. Nothing.

There are laws that require you to report a stolen firearm.

and if you haven't registered that gun I don't how the police can help, they won't even know what to look for

Define "heavy wounds". There are many bolt action rifles that take the exact same kind of ammo as an AR-15.

You'd think "heavy wounds" would speak for itself, very simple concept. Wounds that can cause death with minimal shots. Before you say even a derringer can kill lets not pretend you're equally likely of being killed with one compared to a glock.

I made no mention of banning any kind of ammo or that if it's bolt action it's going to be "ooh it's bolt action looks like we can't do anything".....get real. No type of gun is to be dismissed, like I said we can have a debate and hash out legal specifics at a later date with all the figures and numbers. The fire mechanism doesn't really mean anything. Ever heard of a case by case basis?

An assault rifle typically is defined as full auto.

no duh sherlock who said didn't....funny I don't recall commenting on the specifics of any kind of weapon to begin with.

please point out where I talked about what is or is not an assault rifle. People call them assault weapons, I don't give a damn what people call it that makes no difference. The label should obviously not be the deciding factor. By the way if you're going to try and say something about the assault weapons ban or how you alledge I've supported it but I make no value judgement. It is simply an example of how we can work on the various specifics as to what's reasonable or not. My personal beliefs have nothing to do with that.

You're talking about tactical rifles. Well, what about tactical shotguns? Many handguns were designed for military or police use and are semi-auto. Examples would include most Glock designs, the Beretta 92 (called the M9 in the US military), and several Sig designs.

could care less about the label, not ruling out anything

believe it

by the way most handguns are designed for civilian use not law enforcement. They make more designs for civilian than military or police.

I have said that if someone is going to make rules about what kind of guns I'm allowed to own, then they should at least know a little something about guns first. I don't think this is an unreasonable request.

Explain where I used false information about the operation of a firearm. Oh that's right you can't because I didn't. In case you missed it I said very little about guns themselves and said nothing about their modes of fire

Alva

Canadian gun laws are much more restrictive than ours. Here's an excerpt, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Gun politics in Canada

Gun politics in Canada is largely polarized between two groups with opposing views. One group includes those who object to the registration of personal firearms and the other group includes those who believe in strict gun control.

Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation had become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and from 1995 until 2012, all firearms were required to be registered. As of April 6, 2012, the registration of non-restricted firearms is no longer required in any province or territory, except for Quebec, pending litigation. Systematic auditing of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Central Canada,^[1][2] and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Bill 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).^[3]

I chose not to even read most of your comment because you began with a false premise

Canadian gun laws are much more restrictive than ours. Here's an excerpt, courtesy of Wikipedia:

Reminds me of how Romney talked about Israel's healthcare as being so good in between making an ass of himself on his foreign trip. Except that Israel is more socialist than the US. I wonder how many self proclaimed friends of Israel know that.

It's odd that some think that we can't take pages out of competitor's playbook when they are beating us because we're america and that makes us perfect, with infallibility. The right refuses to consider any changes on guns, they want to destroy public education even though China and Finland are without privatization and kicking our asses in math and science

Yes-- they would say, "Why, firefighters focused on battling a fire instead of looking around for gun danger are just 'sitting ducks'. Arm them. Have armed guards on fire engines..." Those sick monsters at the NRA.

Yup. Maybe even mount a .50 on the truck. Insanity.

Just to make sure I have the NRA logic straight...

We need guns to protect us from being afraid for our lives and living in a police state...

So everyone needs to carry a gun because anywhere you go is potentially dangerous...

because there are lots of people out there with guns...

welcome to NASCAR logic.

The Arms Race 2.0

Here is a free image I made to commemorate the absurdity of Wayne LaPierre's solution of arming social servants: NRA firetruck.

Maybe someone can get some satirical/ public comment mileage out of it. It is from free images, CC3.0 license info appended at link if anyone is interested in reusing.

"because there are lots of people out there with guns...

welcome to NASCAR logic."

Dragoon21b,

I'm glad you brought up NASCAR. It may be a poor analogy but it's the best I can come up with in connecting firearms and race-cars.

You can have a race car but there are laws that won't let you drive it on a public highway. You have to put it on a hauler and take it to a drag strip, road-course or an oval track to use it.

The same should be true for certain types of firearms, such as assault rifles. I don't have a problem with someone owning one but there should be laws covering how and where they can be used.

...assault rifles. I don't have a problem with someone owning one..

Well, polls show you are in the extreme minority. These style guns = more massacres.

Nearly everyone has a Big big problem with that. Not just owning assault weapons, but any military style weapon capable of shooting 10 shots in 5 seconds.

John, I have other posts below that I try to explain my position. Your post here reinforces the thought, Obama and the democrats are going to take away your guns. Look at the gun sales now, way up. My thought was, what are the odds a person will be a hazard with a single shot "any kind of weapon."

Sick SOB'S also cut holes in the floor and cover them up with the hopes of US getting Injured.

A lot of people are buying guns after Sandy Hook, because they expect new gun laws will make it illegal to purchase them.

Personally, I've always wanted to own an AK-47, but as far as guns go, it's pretty low on my list of guns I want to buy. But if I don't have the option to buy it in the future, then it's gone to the top of my list.

The point is that if the anti-gun left wasn't hell bent on enacted new gun laws, then gun shops wouldn't be making insane profits after these sort of tragedies.

I would further note, that you'd have to be pretty damn bonkers to set your own home on fire, hoping you don't get burnt alive, just so that you can live long enough to shoot first responders, and to do all this on Christmas Eve.

But does any rational person really think that a sane person with a gun would do this sort of thing? If so, then shouldn't we focus on the insanity part of the equation?

As I understand it the run on ammo was ongoing since Obama took office.

Luz, very much so. The prices for ammo has skyrocketed as well. The only ammo that's even remotely affordable anymore is 22's and 9mm.

He set a neighbor's house on fire (across the street?).. More bodies to count..

Shot those firemen in the back with the fire's roar to help him..

Alva: You lost, and are currently losing. I do give you points on clearly seeing that the "anti-gun left" is out to get you. The only way people like myself can continue our private ownership of firearms is to accept and support rational gun control and safety. You and your ilk are the roadblocks, not the saviors. I fear people like you, not Diane Feinstein. The people you need to fear are preparing for an invasion of DC: the Newtown Parents. Senator Feinstein is going to give each of these parents a very powerful microphone, and the cowardly Republicans will need Depends underpants to deal with it.

The only problem is that "rational gun control" will not reduce the number of school shootings. These shootings will continue, regardless of what the gun laws are. And if they continue regardless of what the gun laws are, then we're wasting our time trying to solve this horrific problem with ineffective solutions.

But that is what we do now as a country. We never find the root cause of anything and address that. We just allow our own biases to confuse the issue instead of studying the ills of our society in depth.

This is no different then 20 years ago Republicans began freaking out about the increased crime rates and came out with mandatory minimums and three strikes laws. Now we have the biggest prison population in the world, and crime rates are still high.

Never once did any of these Republicans ask "Why is the USA do different than the rest of the world? Why do we alone have higher crime rates than other countries?"

Never once did any of these Republicans wonder if the society they were creating was producing these results. Which, of course, meant that the problem of crime would never be solved because the root of what was causing it would continue.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

It's not "either-or" -- we can and should do several things, e.g. limit the tools of destruction (e.g. consider Australia's effective gun control efforts); better identify and deal with people likely to be a serious danger, whether they are mentally ill or not; AND do a better job of preventing and dealing with mental problems (which now has very limited coverage by med insurance).

PEA, I agree it's not an either or option, but we should pursue policies that are the most effective first.

It is incredibly cruel to ignore the pain and suffering caused by poverty and income inequality, the suffering that people endure dealing with mental illness that they have no economic means, or the health care plans to address. Most people don't even have enough understanding of psychology to understand what is wrong with them.

Alvin, you are a disgusting individual. I'm sorry to be so blunt but you are.

Please go back to the NRA site and stay there.

I should not have to fear my neighbor because they own an assault rifle.

Every human being, every single one, is capable of breakdowns, suicide, depression and mental health crises. This is a human thing. It just is.

We have had professionally trained soldiers lose it. We've had otherwise "normal" people pull their guns in fits of road rage. It happens. You do not need to be evil. Just human with access to more firepower than you ever would need.

We have figured out that every country having nuclear weapons is maybe not a good idea. It's time for American citizens to sign an arms treaty with each other.

@Donna

Did you read his comments on the other page? He had some interesting (by that I mean incredibly racist comments) to say about MLK and Ghandi. I finally put him on ignore. I suggest you do the same and save yourself the headache ;-)

I refuse to accept that 32 deaths a day is necessary for people to exercise their freedom to own something they don't need. Any solution that doesn't actively look to reduce that number is, in my mind, an unacceptable answer.

"Personally, I've always wanted to own an AK-47, but as far as guns go, it's pretty low on my list of guns I want to buy. But if I don't have the option to buy it in the future, then it's gone to the top of my list."

Alva Goldbook,

I am not a collector of firearms but I work with many who enjoy collecting firearms. It's my effort to find some common ground between the people who think the government is going to take their guns away and a way to let people legally buy and collect firearms.

You said you would like to have an AK-47 assault rife. I don't have a problem with that as long as you don't have a multiple round clip that fits into that weapon. If you want to shoot multiple roud clips you must obtain them at a licensed firing range and when done leave the clips there. At home you can fire the weapon as a single shot. I think the multiple round clips are one of the root problems. I don't think it's likely that a bad guy would find a single shot asault rifle very intimidating.

Donna, I'm a disgusting human being? I've spent 5 years volunteering my time at homeless shelters and soup kitchens.

Grrrl, you're right on when it comes to nuclear weapons. And as a practical matter, I wished we didn't have 300 million guns in this country. But people collect them, and they almost never break. :/ The first gun I ever owned was a little .32 revolver made by Smith & Wesson in 1902. It still works as good as the day it was made.

Cartoon said I'm a racist because I said that more radical elements in the Civil Rights movement won victories that people gave MLK credit for. While I find King to be an incredibly remarkable man, I think the Jim Crow establishment was more concerned about placating people like Malcolm X and the Black Panthers than anything else. The remarks I made about Gandhi follows the same line, and I said this based upon a book I read by Ward Churchill. I was simply repeating what Churchill said. I think Cartoon's real problem is that I made him to look the fool.

Tom, large magazines are not very reliable. I once owned a Tommy gun. It was a reissue of the old gangster gun that was made popular during prohibition. It came with a standard stick magazine that held around 15 rounds if I'm remembering correctly. It also came with a drum magazine that held 50 rounds. I could never pull off more than 5 shots with that drum magazine before it jammed. It was useless. That damn Tommy gun weighed a metric ton. And 100 rounds of 45 ACP ammo is pretty damn heavy on it's own.

I eventually got tired of it and sold it.

I would be okay with limiting magazine capacities for tactical rifles like an AR-15 or an AK-47. So long as we still allow standard sized clips.

Alva,

I don't know how many rounds are in a standard clip for an AK-47 or AR-15, but if these clips can be sold to the public then the security people everywhere will have to be prepared to face that. That is why I wanted clips for guns that fall into what I hear are classified as assault weapons, to be restricted to licensed firing ranges.

It is not my wish to stop you from purchasing an AK-47. There has to be something done about the clip size.

A couple of years ago there was a video of two bank robbers in I think it was California that had some sort of assault weapons and they were outgunning the police. That sort of situation is still possible and both sides in this gun discussion have to find a way to resolve it. Alva, I believe the burden is mostly on you to improve the situation and make things safer. If you don't negotiate and make an effort to find a way to make people feel more safe then others will take your guns away.

In the U.S. between 1990 and September 18, 2012 there were 1,302 police officers killed of which 1,132 (87%) were killed by a firearm (75% were handguns)*. In England for the same period, there were 45 police officers killed, of which 10 (22%) were killed by a firearm—including 2 female police officers on September 18, 2012**. British police officers do not carry guns ours do.

Source: http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2012/09/gun-fact-3-number-of-police-officers-killed-by-guns-last-22-years-u-s-1132-england-10-why/

National Gun Victims Action Council: A Force for Sane Gun Laws.

Good source for sound reasoning and accurate facts.

"Gun Enthusiasts Pack Shows to Buy Assault Weapons" (WNAX Radio 570)

This is happening as a reaction to the shootings in Newtown, CT.

http://www.wnax.com/pages/15109079.php?contentType=4&contentId=12070575

Tom,

I'm not really a rifle guy, so I'm not sure how the normal clips take for an AK-47 or an AR-15. I'm pretty sure the classic curved clips take 30 rounds. I know that 100 round barrel clips are easy enough to get with an AK-47.

I think before we talk about reducing clip size, we should ask "will this law save lives?" When examining this, it helps to look and see if smaller clip sizes are already mandated by state law somewhere.

California does have a limit of 10 rounds per clip, and that's for handguns. It's pretty difficult to buy a tactical rifle like an AK-47 in California. I'm not positive of the laws there on this (as I said, I'm not a rifle guy), but I'm pretty sure you have to reset your magazine every time you fire an assault rifle in order for it to be legal in California.

So, you'd have to put clip in, rack the AK, fire, then take the clip out, put it back in, rack the rifle again, to fire a 2nd round.

So how does these laws affect California? How do they fare when it comes to the safety of Californians to be free from firearm homicides?

California has the 4th highest per capita firearm homicide rate in the nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

I don't think this is a total damnation of gun control. I just don't think it's very effective. Louisiana is a pro-gun state, and they rank #1. Maryland is a gun control state and they rank #2.

What these states have in common is a whole lot of poverty and income inequality. I think if we address that, we'll do more to solve this issue than any other gun control law will. I just think it would be a more effective way to save lives.

And that's all I'm interested in. I just don't want to see my fellow countrymen gunned down anymore. And I certainly don't want to see this happen to little kids going to elementary school. What their poor parents must be going through this Christmas must be unbearable.

"So, you'd have to put clip in, rack the AK, fire, then take the clip out, put it back in, rack the rifle again, to fire a 2nd round."

Alva, if you wanted to buy for your collection an assault rifle and it operated in the manner you stated, I would not have a problem with that. I would also like to add that if you could take that rifle to a licensed firing range and operate it in true semi-automatic or automatic, I'm OK with that, as long as when the rifle is at home it operates as you stated above.

If it is found that you have modified the gun so it will fire semi-automatic or automatic at home, I would bring felony charges against you and put you in jail.

Like I said before, the burden is you, the gun enthusiast, to make me feel safe.All I own is a forty year old single shot 22 that I haven't shot in twenty years. It really doesn't matter to me if they take all the guns away. There is nothing I have that is worth shooting and maybe killing someone over. I do have empathy for people that do like to collect firearms.

Tom,

I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to own a semi-automatic tactical rifle. If we're going to allow people to own bolt action hunting rifles that hold a half dozen rounds, then why are we making AR-15's and AK-47's illegal? Furthermore, one can use a semi-auto tactical rifle for self-defensive purposes. Why should anyone be able to dictate what tools I use to protect my life?

I have absolutely no responsibility to make you feel safer. Your safety is your responsibility. A single shot 22 isn't going to get the job done, and it is irresponsible for you to own a weapon that you haven't shot in 20 years. How do you even know it still works? With a single shot, how do you know you will hit your target?

You may have nothing you own that you're willing to protect, and hey, that's cool with me, we over value property anyway, but don't you think your own life is worth protecting?

Sosh, I think we need to have a better understanding of psychology in our society. For some reason, we have three times higher rates of mental illness in our society than other first world nations.

No one feels ashamed to say that they have heart disease or asthma. But for someone to say they have a mental disorder, that's considered a failure of one's character. As if someone is able to *will* themselves into sanity.

When was the last time any of us got a physical from our doctor? Compare of how often this happens with people getting mental evaluations.

Sosh, what about people who re-load their own bullets in their basements? I know people who can make a thousand rounds a day and never leave the house.

Re-loading is becoming more popular than ever since it's cheaper than buying ammo and no one can restrict how many you make.

Knuckle, I've noticed this too. some people are even bragging about their "special" loads. This is stupid too. It won't be long because someone screws up and their guns blow up in their hands.

It happens. Natural Selection will take care of it.

Alva- I'd like to say this, but I know you probably won't listen. You go on and on in your posts about how people should have mental evaluations on a regular basis. As if that would make a difference. The only way you can reliably tell who is going to walk into a school and shoot 20 children, or who will blow up a federal building, killing 176, is after the fact. Do you know what kind of mental illness will result in behavior like Lanza's in Connecticut? Do you honestly think that most of these killers could have been discovered in advance by having a mental evaluation? In a crowd of 500 people, can you reliably tell, just by looking at someone, which one is the shooter?

The whole idea of mental evaluation is a red herring, meant to distract from the real issues at hand. It's the shiny object. And who would have access to that mental evaluation (conducted by a doctor, with privacy privileges)? You? The guy selling the gun to someone they've never met? Even the federal government? My guess is that you would find revealing your mental and psychological profile to anyone would probably be more unsettling than registering your gun. Also, you would have to have a mental exam prior to purchasing a gun. So, is the government going to enforce a mandatory mental exam on everyone (because you don't know who's going to be buying a gun in advance)?

Let's deal with the real issues. Nobody knew that Holmes was going to shoot up the Aurora theater, or that Lanza was going to execute 27 people. Moody, maybe (at least according to their friends), a little bit of a loner, somewhat withdrawn, didn't fit in. Well, that was me in my teens. Somehow I've kept my raging desire to blow people to smithereens in check.

Guns are the problem. Access to guns is the problem. Access to ammunition is part of the problem. 300 million guns on the street are the problem. A government so afraid of the NRA is part of the problem. All your solutions, like confiscating guns from the criminals, occur after the crime has already been committed. Limit ammunition sales to registered owners of guns. A gun without ammo is a paperweight or a club. Keep a national database of gun owners, and a permanent record of data following mandatory background checks, not a 24 hour limit. Require a license to own a gun and mandate insurance on that gun(s).

Will this stop the violence? No, but it's a start. And you have to start somewhere.

No, no, NO! There will be NO MORE waiting this out for the NRA!

Shannon Watts, 12/17/2012 creator of One Million Moms for Gun Control http://onemillionmomsforguncontrol.org/ : "We will not stop this time" until meaningful federal and state gun control legislation is passed.

The NRA has been successfully brainwashing Americans into thinking that their lives are at constant risk, because of other Americans. This mentality is as crazy as the North Korean leaders brainwashing their citizens into believing that they are surrounded by powerful enemies who are plotting to destroy them (but are unsuccessful because of North Korea's military dominance in the world).

The NRA simply wants to profit from the sale of more guns and ammo. North Korea wants their people to dedicate their lives to military service, in order to keep them from noticing how bad their country and leaders are.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would require two-thirds of each House of Congress to agree, and three-fourths of the state legislatures to agree. I would note that 39 of the 50 states have Shall-Issue conceal carry permits. Only 1 state does not allow conceal carry to be issued at all.

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

Furthermore, each state has their own Constitution and their own Bill of Rights that you'd have to contend with as well.

And/or we could "well regulate" these supposed militiamen. And how do you have a militia without knowing who's in it? Register firearms!

YES! And repeal the First Amendment while your at it. No one should be able to see violent video games and movies. We need to save these people from themselves.

The second amendment can be repealed easily if we take the politics out of government.

Enough of the two-thirds stuff and all that mumbo jumbo.

Guns exist for one reason and that reason is to at minimum hurt a person and maybe do worse. As long as gun manufacturers get their profit, it's okay for others to die. Stop putting any one organization or business ahead of the nation as a whole.

At some point somebody is gonna have to stand up to these organizations and put them in their place.

Future, guns exist to shoot a projectile. Yes, guns can hurt people. Sadly, some people need to be hurt or even killed.

What a gun does is bring about an equality of force between people. Some guy who's 6'4, bench presses 300 pounds, and who's a crazed lunatic, can harm just about anyone he wants to. A 120 pound woman has no chance of survival against such a guy. Unless, of course, if she has a gun.

The reality is that almost any weapon can be used offensively or defensively.

Apparently the 120 pound lady who is attacked by the 300 pound guy never heard of "kick to the crotch" or "poke to the eye"

Guys, there is no need to repeal the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not grant an unlimited right to any type of arms and the courts have held that local, state, and federal government may place reasonable regulations on the possession of arms.

Citizens cannot possess nuclear arms of any type. Citizens may only possess non-lethal chemical arms (mace OK, nerve gas forbidden). Citizens may possess some forms of firearms (e.g. revolvers) but not others (fully automatic weapons).

Since one does not need more than a few shots to drop a deer or intruder, it would be reasonable to regulate ownership of semi-automatic guns with magazines greater than 6 or 10 (pick a number) rounds. Laws enacting reasonable regulation of these such weapons would be consistent with legal precedent, including that of Justice Scalia.

The question as to what is reasonable is up to the various legislatures and the courts, but it is not obvious that banning large clips or intermediate velocity rifles outside of a gun range would be unreasonable.

Alva Goldbook

What a gun does is bring about an equality of force between people.

This is what you people come up with after unarmed fire fighters , teachers and children are gunned down in cold blood? These statements are insane and should have never be spoken

When we pass sane legislation , people like this will be fighting it tooth and nail , all while lying about dems , liberals , and crime victims the whole time , so have a miserable christmas and go f**k yourselves

Pat,

Sadly, guns can be used offensively. They can also be used defensively. It's just how things are. If there was a way to make a gun not work offensively, I would be all in favor of it.

Happy Holidays, pat.

Just like everything else you have posted , that makes no sense , and does not define a conclusion in any way , it's called gibberish , and when it is presented to people who just had a loved one exploded , as a conversation pretending to look for solutions , it is insulting , to say the least

Pat,

If you just lost a loved one, then I am sorry for your loss.

My concern is that we actually fix the problem, not put a band aid on the problem and hope it goes away.

Taking on the NRA is pretty easy. But solving the root cause of this mess will be a lot tougher. We don't just need to address mental illness, we need to prevent mental illness. We can prevent it by asking why the USA has three times higher rates of mental illness than other first world nations.

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/research/mental-health

Solving this problem means addressing poverty and income inequality. In order to do that, it means we have to take on Wall Street. It means we have to take on American capitalism as it is now operates. It means we have we have to solve a whole host of social problems that creates this mess.

We're a society that embraces cruelty and vindictiveness. Most Americans are in favor of the death penalty. We are unique in the civilized world in this belief. We believe we're justified to occupy whole nations, we never question whether we have the right to do so.

Limiting how many bullets can go in a magazine will not change the fact that we have the largest prison population in the world. We have the lowest class mobility in the first world. We have the poorest health care outcomes in the industrialized world. We have the lowest levels of trust amongst neighbors in the first world. We have the most homelessness in the first world. And we have the highest rate of homicides in the industrialized world.

The cause of all this is interconnected. And to solve this, it's going to take a whole lot more than a few more regulations on firearms.

My fear is that we will focus on policy changes that won't solve the problem, and the bodies will continue to pile up, while injustice is perpetuated unabated.

In the film Bowling For Columbine, Michael Moore asked the question, "What makes us so different?"

It's not violent video games. It's not the music those kids are listening to these days. It's not violent movies. It's not our nation's violent past. It's not even the guns themselves.

This is what makes us so different.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

Your mental illness views were already exposed up thread , they are as appallingly misinformed and barbaric as your gun control views , your kind vote for people who trash funding for mental heath , and have done so for the last 30 years

You people are counterproductive on these issues , because your embarrassed as hell that you support such pig headed community actions and non actions , much like jim crow , your bigotry is presented in a polite and reasoned way , all while preaching justice freedom and liberty to everyone you meet, then passing laws that throw all the colored folks in jail for exercising their justice freedom and liberty

People and their childrenn have a right to not be shot and killed going to school , over the rights of YOU , to allow insane people , the right to kill with military grade weapons , period

Pat,

I was reading a little bit about this guy who shot at these fire fighters. He was an ex-con. What did he originally get put in prison for? He killed his own grandmother by beating her to death with a claw hammer.

The police released part of a note he left, which he said he just wanted kill people. Why? Because that was his favorite thing in the world.

Are you really going to tell me that guns caused this horrific tragedy?

I've mentioned before that I have some background in psychology. Specially, abnormal psychology, which is the study of mental illness.

A man does not commit an act like this, and a man does not beat his own grandmother to death with a claw hammer unless he is a psychopath.

Psychopathy is a dangerous mental illness. Most psychopaths are just petty thieves. Many abuse drugs. But violent psychopaths are often serial killers. Dahmer, Bundy, Gacy, all psychopaths.

Psychopathy is a mental disorder that one can think of as a sort of brain damage.

When a child is young and still has a developing brain, the child can quickly and easily learn a language. As you get older, you begin to lose this ability. The neural networks have failed to develop, and the likelihood of them developing is slim.

There's been a few cases where some children have never been taught a language, and have never been spoken to. After they reach a certain age, they never will learn a language, no matter how hard someone tries to teach them.

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/article750838.ece

There is a part of the brain that also processes emotions. Specially, emotions that deal with empathy, or the ability of one to "put one self in another person's shoes"

A psychopath does not have this ability. A psychopath sees other people not as people but as things, i.e. inanimate objects.

There are a lot of theories as to how this mental illness develops. There is some interesting research that suggests genetic triggers for it. But the general consensus is that it's caused by environmental factors.

When a mother does not hold a baby and shows it affection and gives it attention, that child runs a serious risk of never understanding a connection between two different people. And that child can become a psychopath.

This is often found in children who are born into poverty. They live in chaotic environments. Their mother has little parenting skills, such as showing affection for their child.

In other words, it's no surprise that the United States has had far more serial killers like Jeffrey Dahmer than any other industrialized nation on earth.

Sadly, like those children who never learn to speak, there is no way to cure a psychopath. Psychopaths tend to have a process of "mellowing out" as they get older, but it doesn't change the fact that they're psychopaths. The best you can do is give them anti-psychotics to tame their worst behaviors, but it won't change the fact that they have an inability to see other people as actual people.

I am opposed to the absurdly draconian prison sentences we have in this country. The fact that we have prisons at all, in my view, demonstrates that our social institutions have failed us. The vast majority of crimes are committed because of either 1) economic injustice or 2) mental illness.

If we solved the problem of poverty and income inequality, we could do quite a lot to prevent children from ever becoming psychopaths in the first place. But sadly, once someone is a psychopath, I see no better alternative than to keep them locked up for the entire duration of their lives.

This is a tragedy that never should have happened. An ex-con never should have been able to get his hands on guns. But somehow he did. A psychopath who beat his grandmother to death with a claw hammer never should have been let out of prison, but he was. If he has been raised in a stable and loving home (I would bet money that he wasn't) then he likely wouldn't have become a psychopath. But he did.

And you're going to tell me that guns did this?

It is so incredibly cold-hearted and mean spirited to refuse to see this for what it is. As vile an act that this man committed, it happened because he lived a life where he was subjected to horrific cruelty.

I once worked with a psychopath. It took years for him to get comfortable enough with me to open up about his childhood. When he did, he recalled when he was 6 years old, having a teenage babysitter that would brutally molest him on a daily basis. His mother never noticed this because she was so badly addicted to heroin that she didn't notice much of anything.

To turn your back on everyday horrors like this simply because you don't like guns, in my view, is appalling. Gun control will not fix this problem. This is a much deeper problem that requires a more concerted effort. Opting out for the lazy solution that won't work is utterly heartless.

mistake

Phenner,

We obviously need to do something about mental illness anyway. We have 3 times as much mental illness as other first world nations. It seems cruel to me to ignore this.

Have you ever been to a gun show? Let me tell ya, most of the people who go aren't wound too tight. Given the sheer volume of Nazi memorabilia, you gotta think that most of them are loons. If they had mental evaluations done, I'd suspect that at a bear minimum, 40% of them would become disqualified from owning a gun.

What exactly is going to be the criteria for determining that someone is mentally ill and shouldn't own a gun? People that are Nazi freaks? People that go to firing ranges? People that hunt? People that are cop wannabes? People that are military freaks? People that love war? Who is going to determine that someone is mentally unfit to own a gun? Are we going to vote on it? Are we going to go by people that say someone doesn't "act" like they think they should? Are you going to evaluate the whole family before that one person can own a gun? Playing the mentally ill card is a whole hornet's nest that will require so much written into it and so much paperwork that it will never happen. Which is why it's being brought up. Better to try and push something that doesn't have a chance at succeeding than to do the common sense thing and just ban the guns that no one needs to have in the first place.

No one needs to have automatic weapons, or clips, or drums. Someone wants to collect firearms? Fine. Let them go through mental evaluation, extensive background checks, and then pay through the nose for a permit and/or license to own them, but let them NOT own the clips, barrels or ammo for them. Otherwise, let them join the military to play with those toys.

Phenner, several people since before Aristotle have pointed out that wanting to hold public office should be a reason to deny that person any position of power at all. The same thing applies to guns. If someone wants a gun that has no other function (hunting) than killing people, then they are by definition too mentally unbalanced to be allowed to own one. And even if the gun in question is a hunting rifle, if the person doesn't hunt, then they are automatically banned from gun ownership.

Another thought is that since you can't fire more than one gun at a time, people who want to own multiple firearms need to be considered too mentally unbalanced to be eligible for gun ownership.

dkm: Must be nice to just invent your own draconian standards... So if you drink alcohol on occasion, you can't own a car? Alot of MADD people feel that way, and they too would love to just invent laws on the fly. We are a diverse nation of 300 million, not some cookie cutter pattern easily fit. Progressive people need to stand up to the gun lobby with fair and reasonable proposals and ideas.

I dunno dkm that seems a little extreme. I think we can have a solution where we're not going extremely liberal on gun rights or extremely conservative. I think it's safe to say that it's OK to own a gun for hunting, for home protection, and to defend your business. But I don't think we need to have every tom, dick, and harry armed to the teeth with handguns pretending that they're batman out to stop criminals. It shouldn't be our goal to set up public policy that aims to end the lives of other people unless that's absolutely necessary (like in war).

I think reasonable bans like the assault rifle ban, the extended magazine ban, and establishing a policy mandating everyone has to register their firearms and keep a license to use their firearms should help significantly. The gunshow loophole has to be dealt with (my suggestion was we use dealer licenses and notaries to solve that problem) and we have to prevent people from selling guns in parking lots (like with Fast and Furious) or other establishments where they don't have to adhere to official rules (like background checks, licensing requirements, etc.) Above all else we need national policy and not state-by-state policy. Part of why statistics are so misleading between states is that crime isn't local- especially when it comes to weapons. Weapons get trafficked across state boarders especially in places like New York and New Jersey where it's convenient to cross state lines. It does us absolutely no good if one state implements strict gun laws and the state next door implements loose laws: I used New York and New Jersey as an example because most of the gun problems these two states deal with come from their neighbor Pennsylvania (which has lax gun laws). It's not at all uncommon for people to traffic weapons across the boarders and then sell them on the streets to people who should not be owning guns: like felons.

Actually, I think dkm was being facetious. Groucho Marx said that he "wouldn't join any club that would allow him as a member". Maybe (speaking facetiously) we should just refuse to sell guns to any registered Republicans. That would eliminate 80% of the problem right off the bat. Add in any fat, white guys with a buzz cut, and it could go to 90%.

Seriously now, Fast and Furious happened here in AZ because there is no limit on how many guns you can buy at one time. Federal agents from ATF could not stop anyone from purchasing as many weapons as they wanted. Virtually no background checks are made at gun shows. One student purchased over $180,000 in guns and nothing could be done because here it was a legal sale. Every last one of those guns was headed for the Mexican border. Gun sales are like owning a bar; the worse things get, the more business you do.

Sensible rules and regulations can cut into that business. Limit ammo sales. Limit the number of weapons you can purchase within a certain period of time. Register all purchases. Require a license to purchase ammo. Not one of these rules violates your Second Amendment rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Every Constitutional amendment has been modified and revised, clarified and brought up to date by case law, just as the founders planned. The Constitution is a living document, a guideline, and it has served us well. But we have to realize that we are no longer living in the 18th century where flintlocks were the only long guns available.

Seriously now, Fast and Furious happened here in AZ because there is no limit on how many guns you can buy at one time. Federal agents from ATF could not stop anyone from purchasing as many weapons as they wanted. Virtually no background checks are made at gun shows. One student purchased over $180,000 in guns and nothing could be done because here it was a legal sale. Every last one of those guns was headed for the Mexican border. Gun sales are like owning a bar; the worse things get, the more business you do.

Right this is what I was referring to. What you can do in Arizona in terms of arms trafficking should be illegal. Things like that need to be outlawed and we need to give police the ability to catch and prosecute those who engage in such trafficking.

Sensible rules and regulations can cut into that business. Limit ammo sales. Limit the number of weapons you can purchase within a certain period of time. Register all purchases. Require a license to purchase ammo

I agree with all of these.

OMG,,??

We always say such garbage rather than actually take action to stop the insanity. Why?

Replace fire hoses on trucks with artillary! Make fire suits out of Kevlar and send troops in to secure fire zones before letting the firemen enter! We needs our guns.

Remember this, 60%-70% of ALL Fire Dept's Nationwide are Volunteer. In 2007 when I went through FF1, it was 70%.