home

NY Times Runs Gun Control Editorial on Front Page

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:08:22 PM EST
Tags: ISIS, Iraq, Syria (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

For the first time since the 1920's, the New York Times is featuring an editorial on the front page of the paper. It calls for gun control.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

[More...]

Guns do not cause hatred and rage, they are the means by which people express them. I'd rather have seen the Times address those underlying issues.

My view: The calls by terror groups, whether ISIS or al Qaida, for lone wolf attacks in the U.S. are the product of our decades of military involvement in the Middle East. If Americans (and Europeans) want to reduce the likelihood of terrorist attacks at home, they should urge their governments to stop the air strikes and stay out of the Middle East. Outlawing guns won't stop attacks and War is not the answer.

Until the U.S. figures out why ISIS and al Qaida resonate with so many disaffected youth, and develops a counter messaging strategy capable of weakening the groups' appeal, these sporadic attacks are going to happen. More laws restricting gun sales and ownership will change nothing.

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | San Bernadino: Supporters vs. Soldiers >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    NY Times Runs Gun Control Editorial on Front Page | 187 comments (187 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You terrorists get off my lawn... (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:04:57 PM EST


    Don't worry (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:07:19 PM EST
    With sea levels rising you soon won't have one.

    Parent
    It wasn't rising sea levels (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:12:25 PM EST
    but it rained so much in Miami today we're officially changing the name of the city to Lake Miami.

    Parent
    Howdy, I have floating docks, (none / 0) (#31)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:54:04 PM EST
    but I may need longer poles driven in by the extremely expensive pile driver guys.  They're like roustabouts.  

    Parent
    Sadly, I don't see a military, diplomatic, or (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:35:42 PM EST
    propaganda strategy that is likely to eliminate terrorism any time soon

    But we can at least try to limit the access to huge stockpiles of weapons. We have not even attempted to do that.

    With allies like these.. (none / 0) (#13)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:46:04 PM EST
    am I understanding right?

    The Saudis et al won't stop sending lawyers guns and money to ISIS until we put all our efforts into ousting Assad?

    Who wouldn't want allies like that?

    Parent

    Next it'll be (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:52:33 PM EST
    if we don't get rid of Assad, they'll stone twenty more rape victims to death..

    Parent
    Bring Back the Black Panthers (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    If the evening news routinely led with footage of well armed black men in open carry states marching through white neighborhoods, in downtown business districts, and in front of Republican party offices with so called assault rifles with large capacity magazines, the conversation about gun control would change dramatically.

    Sadly (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    There is a real possibility they might be shot on sight by police who would then not be charged with a crime because the were "in fear for their life"

    It's the world we live in.

    Crazy armed white men can overrun a Starbucks but 12yo black kids die in one second in park gazebos

    Parent

    Btw on the subject of 12yo kids in parks (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:15:32 PM EST
    There was news today

    Expert: Video shows Tamir Rice had hands in pockets when shot

    Don't reply it's OT.   Just read.

    Parent

    well obviously - he was reaching for (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:19:14 PM EST
    another toy gun.

    Parent
    Pretty stunning I think (none / 0) (#38)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:28:17 PM EST
    check out Michelle Fiore X-mas card

    In the top left corner the card lists the guns photographed: a Beretta 92FS, Glock 30 .45ACP, Serbu Super-Shorty 12-gauge shotgun, Extar EXP-556, Walther P22 (LR), Glock 19 9mm and Glock 30 .45ACP.

    Fiore's daughters, Sheena and Savanah as well as her grandchildren Jake, Jayden, Mara and Morrigan, and her mother Lill are pictured. Jake, who a bio on Fiore's website says is at least 5 years old, is pictured holding the Walther P22.



    Parent
    The look like they're getting ready (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:42:40 PM EST
    to barricade themselves in a Branch Davidian compound.

    Parent
    When it comes to throwing bloody (none / 0) (#42)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:48:02 PM EST
    red meat to the right wing hyenas, she's making Trump look like a rank amateur..

    Parent
    re Ma's AR-15 pistol thingy (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:01:27 PM EST
    The muzzle brake is highly effective but also very loud and generates a huge 18" fireball upon firing.

    "Ma's" Extar EXP-556 is only $449, for those who need a stocking stuffer.

    Parent

    Ok (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:08:56 PM EST
    Why You Should Own an AR-15 Pistol
    Maybe I've convinced you that you should own an AR pistol by talking about the frat boy fun, stunningly low price, reliability, innovative design, and accuracy, or maybe you need a bit more convincing. Despite that beer can crushing party boy image, the AR-15 has some extremely redeeming and interesting qualities.

    The AR pistol has a combination of power and capacity that makes it a winner. It delivers an impressive energy level somewhere around a .41 S&W Magnum, and it has a power level between a .357 Magnum and a .44 Magnum. And it can accept 5-round to 100-round magazines. That is a whole lotta power in a 3lb, 18" overall length gun. When in bear country, would this not be a really good option?

    Bear country?  Duck and cover Booboo.

    Parent

    The hard-partying frat boy gun.. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:26:14 PM EST
    to me that pretty much says it all about what the market researchers have found out about the gun-nut crowd..impulsive thrill seekers who want to stay twenty-and-stupid forever.

    And they vote. Oy.

    Parent

    Not clear on why you need a 100 round (none / 0) (#46)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:29:57 PM EST
    Magazine to kill a "bear".  

    Parent
    It's total horse sh#t.. (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    people hunt bears, but nobody hunts them with those.

    It does show what the gun company thinks of the intelligence of the people they're trying to sell to.


    Parent

    Ya think? (none / 0) (#48)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:42:17 PM EST
    But the lady holding it in the picture looked so intelligent

    From I F'ing love Science-

    6 things Americans should know abut mass shootings

    Parent

    Not sure why anyone would want a EXP-556 (none / 0) (#50)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:56:47 PM EST
    when they could get a Kel-Tec PLR-16 since the PLR has a 9.5 inch barrel compared to the 8 inch barrel on the EXP.  In AR style pistols every inch increase in barrel length greatly increases accuracy and muzzle velocity.

    Size matters.

    Also the EXP comes with a muzzle break that is unlikely to fare well compared to high end ones the PLR can use.

    Parent

    It's time for our right not to (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by Anne on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:54:00 PM EST
    be victims of random violence at the hands of people who don't seem to know any other way to express themselves, to trump - pardon the pun - the right of idiots with anger issues to have weapons so readily available to them. And by "people," I don't mean terrorists.

    When your facebook feed has posts of handy little you tube videos about how to protect yourself in the event of a mass shooting at your work, at the mall or at school, something is terribly wrong - and it isn't going to be solved by putting more guns into the hands of more people. This notion that we just don't have enough good guys with guns is just too stupid for words.

    No other country has this level of death and violence by guns.  Not one.  And #2 on the list isn't even close.  I guess that's American exceptionalism for you, huh?

    What's worse is we are losing whatever semblance of civil and rational standards we used to have, in large part thanks to the incendiary rhetoric of people like the Republicans who want to be president, people who are encouraging their followers to rip away the restraints.

    Pretty soon, I expect the billboards to read, "See Something, Shoot Something."  Followed by, "Shoot Something, Kill Something."  

    Enough.

    I have had to take active-shooter training (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 10:16:16 PM EST
    because that wasn't offered when I got my Education degree.  And my next degree.  And the degree after that.

    Before every semester, I used to check out my assigned classrooms to ensure that the multimedia podia are working, the screen is working, etc.  Now, I first check out whether the doors open in or out (there are different tactics involved to stop a shooter's entry; all ought to be opening in for safety, but the state cut back the budget for that), how near we will be to exits from the building, how far of a drop we would have from windows, etc.

    I am counting down the days to retirement. I am teaching online as I can, to not have to cope with this. . . .  And if my legislature, when it reconvenes next month, goes forward with its bill to allow concealed-carry on campus, I will be out the nearest exit before that goes into effect.

    Parent

    That's so sad (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:31:19 AM EST
    To hear.   All of it.

    Parent
    I don't see any defense against the (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    AR-15 handgun mentioned a few posts over.  100 round clips?  Anybody watch the youtube clips of those things?  WTF could you do other than hide under other people's bodies.

    Where I grew up, my teenage years at least, even plain old pump shotguns were limited to three rounds in the magazine.

    Watch the Youtube video of that guy with his 100 round clip plaything and three round legal limits look pretty darned good.  If you can't hit a deer in three shots just stay home.

    Parent

    County Government (none / 0) (#66)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:05:28 AM EST
    Where I work placed a Active Shooter video on its employee website Friday,
    Run, Hide and Fight

    The video certainly did not promote chivalry or heroism, it was all about your own personal individual safety.

    Stated that you should try to convince your co workers to run , if possible, but if they are frozen, or too scared, and want to hide in place, do not linger around, get your ass away.

    The fight part was not really about heroism, just as a last resort, find anything you can use as a weapon, and wait for a opportune time (reloading). The killer will shoot you whether you are on your knees shaking, or charging them. And a moving target is much harder to hit.

    Nice interlude during the course of your day to view that.

    Parent

    Classrooms are not offices, though (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:40:34 PM EST
    And we profs are informed that it is part of our job to protect our students in active-shooting situations (just as we are told to practice to do in fire drills, as the last ones out of our  classrooms).

    But unlike the task for K12 teachers, I have students who are (legally) adults and physically far more capable of protecting themselves.

    And at a campus with an extraordinarily high enrollment of veterans, I also have had to take training for teaching PTSD sufferers.  And some have TBI injuries, increasing with the miracles of modern medicine on the battlefronts, so I also have had to have training in teaching them.  Some of the PTSD and TBI effects, of course, can complicate active-shooting situations for them.

    So, I always also spend the first week in taking opportunities to talk with my veterans about our campus services for them, about their needs . . . and I happily determine which of them are doing fine.  They do not realize that I am factoring them into my planning for active-shooter situations as my go-to guys (including the women veterans, or at least the women ex-Marines; they also refer to themselves as "guys," I learned, when they asked me to be their campus advisor).  

    In my most vulnerable class (by campus location, building location, class time, class size, etc.) this semester, my top student -- always in the front row, with perfect attendance, smart and a born leader -- is a strapping ex-Marine, who served in Afghanistan, eventually in unit command.  

    He has no idea how great a comfort his presence is to me, for more than his great grades. . . .

    But next semester, I teach the largest class on campus -- among the largest campuses in the country -- to several hundred students.  The active-shooter training tells me that makes that class the main target on campus in coming months, even if the legislature does not change the law to allow concealed-carry on campus by then.  

    Fortunately, that also means that I will have many veterans in that class.  Probably a dozen with TBI, and another dozen with PTSD . . . but also some more strapping ex-military to barricade the four doors in that huge lecture hall.  If the law changes by then, I already know which one I will use for my exit . . . not just from that class but from my teaching career.  

    Parent

    That would be a shame (none / 0) (#136)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:55:46 PM EST
    f the law changes by then, I already know which one I will use for my exit . . . not just from that class but from my teaching career.  

    You sound like a fully engaged teacher , and the special care you take for the veterans is heartwarming

    Parent

    Thanks, but (none / 0) (#143)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:35:26 PM EST
    you will be glad to know that our students will have many wonderful, younger profs still with us.

    That is, those who have not yet been hired away elsewhere, owing to the many shameful actions taken by our governor, legislature, regents, etc. --  supported by the majority of voters in the state -- toward a world-class university system . . . for a few months more.  That is when regents, most of them appointed by the governor, will complete the process of effectively ending tenure for faculty.

    Ah, well, the number of faculty already is in decline, with few replacements for years now, as others retire or resign for campuses elsewhere.

    They are replaced by parttime adjuncts -- who rarely take training for active-shooter incidents, for working with students with disabilities, students with PTSD, other veterans, etc.

    Parent

    You can always throw the nearest (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:46:43 AM EST
    can of soup.  [Ramen won't work]


    Parent
    Doors used to always open out for safety (none / 0) (#67)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:05:38 AM EST


    Parent
    Yes, that is (or was) the fire code (none / 0) (#101)
    by Towanda on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:13:46 PM EST
    So, our campus risk management office tells us that it has conflicting advice from the Fire Chief vs. the State Patrol (campus cops) and Homeland Security.  The fire code must have altered or been waived for newer buildings, where I see more doors opening in, though.

    They battle about this -- but with words, not guns.  


    Parent

    How does law enforcement discern (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:20:31 AM EST
    Between the "good guys" and the "bad guys" when they arrive on a scene too? Anyone with a weapon and firing will be their target. There's no way for them to know who is friend or foe. I guess that's okay though, we'll let God sort them out.

    Parent
    MT, what the police do when they arrive (none / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:13:45 PM EST
    at a scene where there is active shooting is they use this thing called a microphone and an amplifier to broadcast a message to stop shooting.

    They have this theory that whoever doesn't are the bad guys.

    Parent

    Not according to my spouse who has sadly (5.00 / 3) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:31:30 PM EST
    Seen two war zones. That's why he thinks you and your ilk are out of your minds. When you are headed into a live fire situation, you fire at everyone with a weapon who isn't wearing your uniform. Your adrenaline is running so high and your fight or flight is in full gear. You don't give anyone the chance to get a leg up on you and you trust no one. The enemy will use every opportunity to hide. But whatever Jim. Keep telling yourself that a broadcast message of anything will instantly shake anything out

    Parent
    As we know, Jim has never been in combat (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:35:08 PM EST
    So, no, he would have no knowledge of the points you address. The only living things he shoots dead are unarmed animals.

    Parent
    So far.. (none / 0) (#153)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:39:51 PM EST
    just wait till one of those people who believe in complete government control and who follow Obama's false prophecy comes into his yard.

    Parent
    The only enemy jim has faced down (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    was a neighbor's pet pig. He has reported that he successfully dispatched his enemy without the pig firing back.

    Parent
    And the (none / 0) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:16:49 PM EST
    bad guys are going to stop shooting because the police tell them to? So there blows your whole entire theory about about good guys with guns. So they stop shooting so then they can get shot by someone? Your whole theory just does not compute with reason and sanity.

    In order for the police to save as many people they would have to shoot everyone with a gun.

    Parent

    Thanks for making my point (none / 0) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    ......to broadcast a message to stop shooting.

    They have this theory that whoever doesn't are the bad guys.

    And if the shooting is outside the police can see.

    If it is inside they can't and won't go in until they have used gas or other means to make the area safe.

    Parent

    Lets get back to the original point (none / 0) (#116)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:02:28 PM EST
    are you saying that there should be no regulations whatsoever on the sale of firearms?

    And that it's gang banger's and terrorist's 2nd Amendment right to load up at out-of-state gun shows?

    Parent

    Why do you ask (none / 0) (#124)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:16:50 PM EST
    are you saying that there should be no regulations whatsoever on the sale of firearms?

    Since I have written nothing that would indicate that then the reason you ask  is to try and change the subject.

    Parent

    So then it shouldn't be a problem (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:27:02 PM EST
    for you to tell us what sort of regulations you favor.

    Don't be bashful.

    Take all the time you need.

    Parent

    Why do I suspect that (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    this is the part where he sinks down into the swamp only to resurface in a different part hours later..

    Parent
    Jimmy! Where'd you go? (none / 0) (#150)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:35:25 PM EST


    Parent
    He's probably at the park (none / 0) (#154)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:42:32 PM EST
    killing blackbirds with his slingshot.

    Parent
    you did say birds, right? (none / 0) (#156)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:56:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Things have dramatically improved (none / 0) (#65)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:49:29 AM EST
    Over the last 20 years

    In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 -- a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

    In general , despite the massive increase in firearm ownership over the past 20 years, total gun violence has dropped.

    Keeping guns from the mentally ill might help reduce the mass shootings,

    But other than total gun confiscation from everyone, what gun measure has been proposed that would have prevented ANY of the known mass shootings that you can remember?

    As the 2 horrific Paris terror events have shown, bad guys will always get guns

    Parent

    But the number of people being shot has increased. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:57:17 PM EST
    TrevorBolder: "In 1993, there were seven homicides by firearm for every 100,000 Americans, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. By 2013, that figure had fallen by nearly half, to 3.6 -- a total of 11,208 firearm homicides. The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013."

    Rather, what has improved are both the skills, knowledge and abilities of emergency medical personnel to immediately treat, stabilize and transport gunshot victims to nearby local hospitals, and the capacity of trauma centers in those facilities to provide effective and quality care for their patients. This has resulted in dramatically increased survivability rates for victims of not only firearms violence, but also other significant traumatic injuries, over the past two decades.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#133)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:36:59 PM EST
    The number of victims of crimes involving guns that did not result in death (such as robberies) declined even more precipitously, from 725 per 100,000 people in 1993 to 175 in 2013.

    Washington POst article

    Parent

    About a 75% decrease (none / 0) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:38:57 AM EST
    Any theories why?

    Parent
    TB, will you please quit with the facts (none / 0) (#70)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:20:38 AM EST
    It is interrupting the narrative.

    Now, go drink some lemonade and groom the unicorn. The rest of the children don't want to be disturb.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#72)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:27:01 AM EST

    Although mass shootings have been covered extensively in the media, mass shootings account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths[9] and the frequency of these events had steadily declined between 1994 and 2007. Between 2007 and 2013, however, the rate of active shooter incidents per year in the US increased.[15][16] Handguns figured in the Virginia Tech massacre, Binghamton shootings, 2009 Fort Hood shooting, Oikos University shooting, and 2011 Tucson shooting. The Aurora theater shooting and the Columbine High School massacre were committed by assailants armed with multiple weapons.


    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#74)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:38:33 AM EST
    While gun deaths overall may be down, I have not investigated the numbers, mass shootings are up.
    Why might that be I wonder?
    It might have to do with the 24/7 flood of hate and fear coming from the right.
    It might have to do with the 24/7 media coverage every event inspires and the desire of the whack jobs to be famous.
    It might have to do with the country being awash in guns with no restrictions whatsoever on who buys them.
    It might be all of the above.
    What could congress possibly do to stop the cycle?

    Repealing Obanacare, again, might help.

    Parent

    Here's the LATimes (none / 0) (#76)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:42:46 AM EST
    on the difficulty of nailing down the actual number

    Parent
    I go with this one (none / 0) (#79)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:56:31 AM EST
    It might have to do with the 24/7 media coverage every event inspires and the desire of the whack jobs to be famous.

    I can't recall 1 "mass shooting incident" that would have been prevented by any of the proposed gun restrictions.

    Other than confiscation of all guns.

    Being that overall gun violence is down, it is being used as a political hammer, and the the liberal media, as a arm of the Democratic Party, is a willing partner.

    After San Bern was called a terrorist attack, CNN and MSNBC were discussing gun control, not terrorism in the United States. Tweets captured from our media mouthpieces were all about gun control, not terrorism on , homegrown radicals on our shore.

    Politicians immediately throw out their "gun control measures", but how many of these publicized  shootings in the last 20 years would they have prevented? ZERO. Political red meat for the base, and it works.  

    Parent

    Then why have any laws at all, (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    about anything?  Why make anything illegal since someone, somewhere is going to do it anyway?

    How many murders have been prevented because it's against the law?  How many thefts have been prevented because it's against the law?  Drunk driving?  Speeding? Child molestation?  Kidnapping?  Assaults in general, by any means?  Arson?  

    All of these things - and many more - happen in spite of the fact that there are laws against them, and yet, I don't see you advocating for eliminating all law.  Why is that?

    I'll tell you why: because people don't want to give up their guns, and they think that constantly arguing that more laws, more measures, more procedures, won't change anything, will render their rights to own weapons more secure.

    And hey - just think: if nothing's illegal anymore, we can just open the prisons, jails, holding facilities and let everyone out.  We can eliminate almost all courts and let the judges go.  We won't need lawyers for much - at least not criminal lawyers.

    We shall all be free of all that law nonsense.  Free to do as we please, to whom we please, when we please, by the means we please.

    Who knew that paradise would be this easy to achieve?

    If your argument is that it doesn't matter, then take your argument where logic says it has to go, and explain to the people how it makes any sense at all.

    Parent

    You are correct (none / 0) (#141)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:24:15 PM EST
    I'll tell you why: because people don't want to give up their guns, and they think that constantly arguing that more laws, more measures, more procedures, won't change anything, will render their rights to own weapons more secure.

    There are laws on who can purchase guns and background checks, and laws on what types of guns are legal.

    What additional law would you want to protect the general public, and not infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase legal guns?

    The gun show loophole, is not really a gun show loophole. It is all about sales between private individuals. Most sales at gun shows are through licensed dealers, and background checks must be performed. The sales between private individuals, which may occur at a gun  show, or not, are the ones that currently avoid the background check.

    Parent

    Perhaps what is needed (none / 0) (#80)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:02:16 AM EST
    Is new proposals.
    And less denial.

    Parent
    What shows the scale of the problem... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:49:52 AM EST
    Yesterday on one of the terrorist/shooter threads someone mentioned Dear, the most recent PP shooter, but without context.

    I read it and found myself wondering, which one was he?

    Too many.  Just too many.  They're blurring together.

    Parent

    Is new proposals. (none / 0) (#82)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:20:04 AM EST
    That is what I am waiting for

    Someone, anyone...

    Propose something, anything  that might work.

    I am all for that.

    But right now, typical political BS, ginning up both bases, and nothing gets done

    Parent

    Hello? (none / 0) (#144)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:53:38 PM EST
    I can't recall 1 "mass shooting incident" that would have been prevented by any of the proposed gun restrictions.

    There was a little law called Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act , that would have possibly prevented and almost certainly mitigated many of these "incidents" and the nation did not falter, unfortunately the powers that be(mostly Republicans and the NRA) let it expire.

    If that law were in effect it would have almost certainly prevented Nancy Lanza from purchasing her Bushmaster and most likely thwarted the Farooks and others.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#145)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    I do not follow your line of reasoning

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#147)
    by FlJoe on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:30:12 PM EST
    for your disability.

    Parent
    Since you didn't choose to expand your (none / 0) (#173)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    wild claims I assume you are saying she could not have purchased an AR15 because it was assault weapon.

    An assault weapon has the capability to fire on full automatic. You just hold the trigger and it fires until you release or it runs out of ammo.

    The AR15 is semi-automatic weapon, as are many other rifle, shot guns and pistols. What that means is that you don't have to reload between shots. The weapon will fire each time you pull the trigger until it runs out of ammo.

    In both cases it is assumed that the safety is off, a round chambered, etc. i.e. The weapon made ready to fire.

    The fact that the AR15, and others, looks scary to some people has nothing to do with its abilities.

    It is not an assault weapon.

    Of course the fact is that you want to ban all weapons. Wild claims is just one of your tools.

    Parent

    Wrong as usual (none / 0) (#177)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:46:53 AM EST
    From Wiki (my bold)
    The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) -- officially, the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act -- is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms it defined as assault weapons, as well as certain ammunition magazines it defined as "large capacity."

    If that law was in effect Nancy Lanza would not have been able to buy her weapon legally.

    Parent

    Um, no. (none / 0) (#183)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    Many people legally bought and sold these types of arms during the ban, as the ban only applied to guns manufactured after the law was enacted. This style of arms manufactured before the law was enacted (or after the law expired) were/are perfectly legal to buy/sell, etc.

    Parent
    I don't doubt it (none / 0) (#184)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:34:30 PM EST
    But it's amazing

    Parent
    To me, not so much. (none / 0) (#185)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 04:38:07 PM EST


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#186)
    by FlJoe on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 06:32:20 PM EST
     I overstated the strength of the law. There were plenty of weapons were grandfathered in and ridiculous loopholes allowed more into circulation. However the number was finite and the weapons were at least theoretically more difficult to obtain and probably more expensive.

    Of course anybody who wanted such a weapon during the ban could get one if they were willing to do the leg work and pay the price, after the ban you could simply go down to Walmart, plop down your Visa card and buy one on sale just like a big screen TV.

    Would Nancy Lanza have gotten have a hold of a Bushmaster with the ban still in effect? Only maybe, but it was a certainty without it.

    Parent

    Lanza took these with him (none / 0) (#187)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:32:36 PM EST
    Taken to Sandy Hook Elementary:

    Izhmash Saiga 12-gauge semiautomatic shotgun
    Bushmaster Model XM15-E2S .223-caliber semiautomatic rifle
    Glock 20 10mm semiautomatic handgun
    Sig Sauer P226 9mm semiautomatic handgun

    Two 12-gauge shotgun magazines
    10 30-round .223 magazines
    6 30-round 9mm magazines
    6 30-round 10mm magazines

    Parent

    I guess "overstated" (none / 0) (#188)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 12:47:56 AM EST
    is one way to describe it...

    Regardless, from ABC News:

    Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

    It's impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday's tragedy.

    Lanza's primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.



    Parent
    Loopholes (none / 0) (#190)
    by FlJoe on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 05:49:06 AM EST
    can be closed, the law should have been improved rather than abandoned.

    Parent
    uh Howdy (none / 0) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:58:46 AM EST
    While gun deaths overall may be down, I have not investigated the numbers, mass shootings are up.

    The whole is equal to the sum of the parts.

    You can trust me on that.

    Parent

    No it isn't (none / 0) (#69)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:16:42 AM EST
    This notion that we just don't have enough good guys with guns is just too stupid for words.

    If anyone at the SB killing field had had a pistol and had fired back at the radical islamists fewer people would have died.

    Why?

    Because the radical islamists would have been occupied.

    I know you have never had basic squad tactics but there is something called "covering fire."


    Parent

    wear your guns to the party? (4.67 / 3) (#77)
    by fishcamp on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:04:14 AM EST
    I think I'll stay home and read...

    Parent
    Only in the fantasy world of (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 09:35:17 AM EST
    Republicans would people who are being sprayed with bullets from two rifles stand tall and shoot back.

    In the real world, sane people duck for cover when bullets are rapidly being fired at them.

    IMO, too much bad TV (Fox) fosters stupidity and rots the brain.

    Parent

    People don't have to stand tall to shoot (none / 0) (#81)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:18:39 AM EST
    People can shoot from multiple positions. People can come from other rooms, back from bathrooms, from side angles. Even inaccurate fire would likely distract shooters, especially shooters who haven't had a lot of training.

    I find that people who haven't been around guns and don't have experience with them, usually don't have much knowledge of guns and how they work, and sometimes say silly things. Many of those people are just anti-gun and because they haven't used guns or have friends/family who do use guns, they are quick to be willing to get rid of guns.

    Parent

    "sometimes say silly things." (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:39:43 AM EST
    Like this?

    guns kill people like spoons make people fat.



    Parent
    I'm tired (5.00 / 5) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:17:23 AM EST
    of whole shopworn argument about how guns don't kill people people kill people. It's as if a gun is some sort of benign instrument designed to coddle babies instead of designed to kill people.

    It's starting to sound like the screeching of God didnt make Adam and Steve he made Adam and Eve. Completely devoid of reason and full of nonsense and hysteria.

    Parent

    Ga6 and Capt, have you (none / 0) (#91)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    ever shot a gun? If so, what's your level of experience with guns, shooting, hunting, etc.?

    If you don't respond, I assume that will mean you have no experience, and that's okay. Thx.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:06:26 PM EST
    I have shot guns and grew up in a household with guns but I'm sure the GOP tells you a different story. Only "Real Americans" the GOP base know anything about guns. I know they are deadly and not a toy apparently unlike most Republicans. If you respect something as deadly you don't want every crazy person in the country to get a hold of it. It's amazing to see the GOP even so far as supporting terrorists as having the ability to buy military assault weapons and as many as they want.

    Parent
    Somehow I'm not believing (1.00 / 6) (#114)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    your claim on knowledge of guns. Just doesn't ring true. Actually, most Republicans probably understand and respect guns a lot more than liberals and dems.

    Parent
    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:30:05 PM EST
    you don't believe it. It's not in line with the propaganda narrative you've bought into from the wingnut welfare crowd. Anything that challenges that fake narrative from "approved sources" is not to be believed. It's kinda like the Moonies.

    Parent
    He's playing the conservative shell game (5.00 / 7) (#132)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:35:53 PM EST
    You disagree with him on guns, he accuses you of ignorance about guns, you reply that you have experience with guns and then he says "I don't believe you." Jim, the pet pig killer does the same thing, but then also changes the subject to challenge you on something else. They do it ad nauseum, because they don't really have any cogent arguments to make other than "I've got bigger balls than you do." Which is the thing that bullies (ie. cowards) always do when they can't counter your arguments.

    It's a shell game.

    Parent

    Shoephone, care to state my position on guns? (1.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:36:33 PM EST
    Don't think I've stated a position. But bring it on. I would love to take you on.

    Parent
    Ga6, I guess I'm the only wingnut (none / 0) (#162)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:32:35 PM EST
    supporting Hlilary now, and who supported her against Obama. It's funny how some of you try to analyze comments.
    I think Jeralyn is not anti-gun. Is she a wingnut too?

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 06:05:43 AM EST
    I remember your large amount of concern trolling w/r/t Hillary. Funny that you keep trying to hide and say you're a Hillary supporter when you were buying into every conspiracy theory regarding her. I think that has to be a first where a supposed "supporter" buys into conspiracy theories.

    Again, you miss the point. The point is not whether you are anti-gun or not. The point is you come here spouting wingnut welfare talking points which Jeralyn does not use. You apparently can't see past lowest common denominator politics.

    Parent

    Don't be such a (5.00 / 6) (#160)
    by Zorba on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:57:46 PM EST
    jerk.  I, for instance, can shoot shotguns, rifles (and I have a ROTC marksman patch, BTW), and handguns.  I have gone game hunting, as well as going to gun ranges for target practice.
    And I am far more Democratic than most of the current crop of elected Democrats.  I call myself an old, leftie liberal.
    I also know other lefties who own guns, and who can use them.   And I know conservative Republicans who wouldn't know one end from a gun from another.
    Don't make such sweeping generalizations.
    Some of us lefties are prepared to protect ourselves, not from the current government, but from the right-wing loons who might want to restrict our rights and institute their version of Christianist Sharia law.
     

    Parent
    Zorba, you are an exception and you (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:38:36 PM EST
    know it. Can you be honest in your response? Are you going to say that most gun control advocates are gun owners and understand guns?

    Parent
    Where the hell do get off (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:45:15 PM EST
    Calling people liars because you don't understand what they are saying?   Perhaps you should consider you are talking out your ass which you clearly don't know from your elbow.

    Parent
    Shell game, first move (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 12:13:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Ga6, can you explain how the GOP supports (1.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:08:11 PM EST
    allowing terrorist having military assault rifles?

    Also, do you actually know what a military assault rifle is?

    Parent

    Shell game second move (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by shoephone on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 12:14:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Are you even serious (none / 0) (#122)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    Do you have a tv.   The speaker of the house just went on tv and EXPLAINED EXACTLY HOW AND WHY the GOP is allowing terrorists to have assault rides.  

    They blocked legislation that would have stopped people on the terrorist watch list from buying them.

    Parent

    Btw (none / 0) (#125)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    The why was because they might be on the list by mistake.

    I'm sure that totally makes sense to you.

    Parent

    But they've (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:23:57 PM EST
    never advocated getting rid of said list. So in essence they want people to be listed on the terror watch list but also want them to have guns.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#151)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:39:04 PM EST
    There is problem with that list.

    At least 72 employees at the Department of Homeland Security are listed on the U.S. terrorist watch list, according to a Democratic lawmaker.

    Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.) disclosed that a congressional investigation recently found that at least 72 people working at DHS also "were on the terrorist watch list."

    "Back in August, we did an investigation--the inspector general did--of the Department of Homeland Security, and they had 72 individuals that were on the terrorist watch list that were actually working at the Department of Homeland Security," Lynch told Boston Public Radio.

    Parent

    Or (none / 0) (#152)
    by TrevorBolder on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:39:29 PM EST
    A very big problem at DHS

    Parent
    Ted Kennedy was on the list. (none / 0) (#174)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    Guess the TSA thought Teddy could get a '67 Oldsmobile 88 on the plane.

    Parent
    Experience (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Repack Rider on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:53:25 PM EST
    what's your level of experience with guns,

    US Army service. E-5, Honorable.

    In the Army everyone has weapons training.  On a military base no one other than Military Police or payroll officers is permitted to be armed except when ordered to be.  Sure, you have a weapon, because it has to be maintained.  BUT HAVING AN UNAUTHORIZED BULLET IS A COURT-MARTIAL.

    We can assume that virtually everyone on a military base is a "good guy and has had weapons training.  The military has hundreds of years of experience with arming people, and they do not permit weapons-trained, "good guys" to carry loaded weapons without a military reason.

    What does the military know about "good guys with guns" that keeps them from wanting to arm such people?

    Parent

    I used to hunt.. (none / 0) (#104)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:25:18 PM EST
    and have been thinking about taking it up again because as a meat eater I think it's more humane than how the industry conducts it's business.

    That doesn't mean though, that I automatically feel compelled to indentify with and defend people who sell AR15s to gangbangers at gun shows..

    Parent

    Capt, i guess you can't understand (none / 0) (#90)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:53:17 AM EST
    my neighbor's sense of humor. Doesn't surprise me.

    Parent
    I have plenty of (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    "Experience with guns" moron.   I grew up and live in the gun culture.   I have a gun.  
    And no, I don't appreciate your idiotic neighbors "sense of humor"

    It doesn't even make sense.   Like most if your war mongering right wing nonsense doesn't make sense.

    Parent

    Freaking armchair generals (none / 0) (#107)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    They will be the death of us all.  

    Parent
    Green26 (1.33 / 3) (#96)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:08:44 PM EST
    Ga and Howdy and the rest of'em understand the point.

    They just won't acknowledge the fact. What they support is total government control. So individuals are not responsible for their actions. If they kill someone then it is not their fault. They suffer from a bad childhood, insult to the prophet or from a dozen other excuses. Chief among them is that the gun, in the hand of the killer, made him do it.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:16:47 PM EST
    he was a killer before, and when he needed a gun, you sold it to him.

    With all the sense of personal responsibility of a crack dealer.

    Then you retreated back into your geriatric bunker and turned on talk radio for further instructions.

    Parent

    So the tool (none / 0) (#98)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:12:43 PM EST
    doesn't matter? You're the one that doesn't want anyone held accountable for what they do. You've said it time and again.

    Maybe you and your toddler friend Erickson could go shoot up some more newspapers.

    And handing out guns to terrorists and mass murderers is what the GOP wants to do and we do not want it to happen. Own it Jim. Just go ahead and say it was great thing that terrorists have access to assault weapons.

    Parent

    GA (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:58:45 PM EST
    And handing out guns to terrorists and mass murderers is what the GOP wants to do

    Thanks. There is nothing I could do that would explain what and who you are any better.

    Parent

    "Total government control" (none / 0) (#110)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    and Obama isn't stupid, he's "evil".

    Jim, you express quite a bit of paranoid ideation.

    As we've seen in too many cases already, mental illness and guns don't mix.

    Do you have someone who stops in and checks on you periodically and makes sure all the guns are unloaded and out of reach?

    Parent

    jondee what doesn't mix (1.33 / 3) (#112)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:55:58 PM EST
    is politics and mental illness.

    Obama is what Obama is. He knows that his actions in the ME has killed people and made us less safe.

    Yet he tries to expand his false prophecy.  That's evil.

    Parent

    "False prophecy" (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:15:02 PM EST
    Another odd choice of words..

    With religious overtones..

    Maybe Obama has the Mark of the Beast, eh?

    But, "the paranoid style of the right" is a syndrome that was discussed years ago..

    None Dare Call It Treason..

    Parent

    So called experienced gunmen (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    Say stupid things as witnessed by your comment.

     Experienced, well trained gunmen were at the PP facility. Four were shot and one was killed. They were unable to distract the shooter enough to keep from getting shot. Experienced, well trained gunman kill bystanders in error. H€ll so called responsible gun owners shoot themselves or family members on a fairly regular basis but somehow the the average person with limited training is going to take on two people with semi automatic rifles without getting himself/herself killed.


    Parent

    Loudmouth conservatives with guns (5.00 / 4) (#137)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    sometimes turn cowardly in the face of real perps. When I was attacked at my coffee job years ago, the right-wing regular customer who continually bragged about always carrying his gun on him sat frozen in his chair, pissing his pants, while I had to fend off the 6'5" nutcase that tried to choke me to death.

    Parent
    They are much better suited to (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    strutting down the street or playing masked macho men complete with guns outside of mosques terrorizing people for fun.

    They are also very brave when shooting pet pigs.

    Parent

    That's (none / 0) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:17:43 PM EST
    been my experience too. Loudmouths and braggarts are always the first ones to run and hide when a situation arises.

    Parent
    Why do think they're so obsessed (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by jondee on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:27:22 PM EST
    with loading up on guns?

    Because they're soiling themselves with fear.

    Parent

    I wonder if anyone on the NY Times (1.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 10:25:26 AM EST
    Editorial Board has ever shot a gun?

    Parent
    Native born terrorism (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Repack Rider on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:59:29 PM EST
    Christianity had its blood thirsty times and didn't mind killing for God, King and money. But that happened a long time ago

    Beg to differ.  Do you believe the KKK no longer exists?

    Matthew Derosia rammed his SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota. Derosia, who had a history of mental illness, claimed that Jesus told him to do it
    .

    Most of the terror attacks in this country are committed by white, right-wing, nominally Christian, native born Americans.

    Every Planned Parenthood attack whose perpetrator has been identified was conducted by a white American who was not Muslim, e.g. Eric Rudolph.  Sandy Hook, Aurora, Oklahoma City, Charleston, Columbine, Umpqua Community College, all mass murders carried out by non-Muslim, native born Americans.

    Atheists do not become terrorists.  Why is that?

    And how many killings have (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:30:50 AM EST
    the KKK been involved in the last 20 years??

    Your attempt at moral equivalency between radical islam and modern Christianity in the US is laughable.

    Read this.

    And this.

    Note that the Garland, TX attack and the SB attacks aren't included.

    And McVeigh was not a Christian.

    Now if you want to get the crazy homeless people off the street just wait until a Repub is elected. Their locations will be broadcast almost daily in articles and video.

    Funny how the media can't find them when a Demo is in office.

    Parent

    There is no way you can make that (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Anne on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:40:58 AM EST
    definitive conclusion.  I could just as easily - and more logically - say that if anyone at the SB killing field had had a pistol and had fired back at the people shooting at them (at the time, no one knew who was doing the shooting or what their religious affiliation was, more people would have died.  How can I say this?  Because this wasn't a controlled situation, time wasn't standing still to allow controlled shooting by anyone - it was chaos.  You have no way to know how calmly, how accurately, anyone in the line of fire would or could have reacted, and whether any of the bullets fired would have unintentionally struck an innocent person.

    You said the same thing about the shooting at the movie theater and the church.  It defies logic.

    And that whole self-defense thing?  Here's a little something to ponder (bold is mine):

    Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home.
    Kellermann AL1, Somes G, Rivara FP, Lee RK, Banton JG.
    Author information
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE:

    Determine the relative frequency with which guns in the home are used to injure or kill in self-defense, compared with the number of times these weapons are involved in an unintentional injury, suicide attempt, or criminal assault or homicide.
    METHODS:

    We reviewed the police, medical examiner, emergency medical service, emergency department, and hospital records of all fatal and nonfatal shootings in three U.S. cities: Memphis, Tennessee; Seattle, Washington; and Galveston, Texas.
    RESULTS:

    During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homicides. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.

    CONCLUSIONS:

    Guns kept in homes are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault, or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense.

    "Covering fire?"  Come on, jim - if these people with guns are so anxious to be heroes, let them join the military and put their courage under fire to some real tests.

    anne, covering fire refers (none / 0) (#109)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:48:43 PM EST
    to shooting at the enemy to keep him engaged and not shooting at you and others.

    Your link raises some interesting questions.

    Why only 12 months for the city which has been first or second in homicides for a number of years, I refer to Memphis, yet 18 in Seattle and Galveston?

    What is being hidden?

    And why do we have only urban areas? Does the fact that the response time by deputies in rural areas is much longer and gun ownership is higher?

    And what does "438 assaults/homicides" prove beyond the fact that the people assaulted and killed had no defense??

    anne, what you want is for no one to have a gun.

    Ask the people in SB how that worked.

    Parent

    I think it was the current mayor (1.00 / 2) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:19:52 PM EST
    of Chicago who, early on in Obama's administration, said that no crisis should be allowed to go to waste.

    Of course the crisis is not about guns. The crisis is about radical islamists and guns. And needless to say, taking guns away from all honest citizens won't get the guns away from radical islamists.

    But your president, I have long ago disavowed him in a useless ritual that had no purpose beyond making me feel better, won't even say "radical islamists." As president he has failed in the single most important duty a president has. His foreign policy has insured that we are much less safe than we were.

    And it would be nice if we could just say, "To heck with you bunch of crazy killers, we're going home. Call when you arrive in the 21st century."

    But we can't. Because the fact is that Islam is a religion that has been spread by violence and conquering by a significant number of Muslims since day one. ISIS, al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, et al is just a restart of a very old problem. And yes, there are many Muslims who are not part of this but they are not in control and show no sign of taking control.

    And yes, Christianity had its blood thirsty times and didn't mind killing for God, King and money. But that happened a long time ago and does not offer any help to those being killed by radical islamists today.

    Finally, only someone who is either stupid or evil would try and remove weapons for defense from people who are under attack.

    And I don't think Obama is stupid.

    And we are under attack.

    So he's evil..pure unadulterated evil.. (none / 0) (#54)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:38:54 PM EST
    but of course, we all suspected that.

    It started when he was indoctrinated by his Father, who hated colonialism, Reverend Wright, Saul Alinsky, the New Black Panthers, and a cabal of Marxists, Freemasons, militant gay-feminist-gun grabbers and environmentalist hoaxers.

    God help us all.

    And God bless the United States of America.

    Parent

    jondee, like too many people (none / 0) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:12:15 AM EST
    you obsess over motives and where they came from.

    It doesn't matter where they came from.

    It is what he does that matters.

    Same with the SB radical islamists.

    They killed.

    And he wants to take everyone's weapons. He is an enabler of killers.

    Parent

    The Republicans promote (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 08:25:44 AM EST
    allowing suspected terrorists the ability to legally compile an arsenal of weapons. They refuse to close loopholes that allow felons, those with a history abuse and  those with serious mental illness to purchase guns with ease. If anyone enables killers, it is they and people like you who are the enablers.

    Parent
    And completely banning guns (none / 0) (#92)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:56:47 AM EST
    worked so well in Paris.

    Lemme see... how many dead??

    Parent

    So you (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    were glad that the terrorists had guns? Heck they probably had them shipped from NRA headquarters here in the USA.

    Parent
    GA (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:03:44 PM EST
    I know the latest talking point is to say that
    if you want people to have guns for defense  you really want radical islamists to have gun.

    But nobody outside the looney Left is buying it.

    So keep on making dumb statements.

    It keeps you occupied and out of the real world.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:21:46 PM EST
    your idiot Speaker of the House went on national TV and said as much. He said we don't want to keep suspected terrorists from buying guns. There was a vote. Every Republican supported allowing terrorists to buy guns. It's there in black in white. The fact that you can't read or research is not my problem. It's yours.

    Parent
    Background (none / 0) (#128)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:25:44 PM EST
    CHECKS

    Parent
    GA, you are infamous in parsing (none / 0) (#172)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 09:56:55 AM EST
    the subject was using the TSA's no fly rule.

    "The majority of the people on the no-fly list are often times people that just basically have the same name as somebody else who doesn't belong on the no-fly list. Former Sen. Ted Kennedy once said he was on a no-fly list. There are journalists on the no-fly list," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

    This is another stalking horse that Obama has thought up.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    why don't they try to get rid of the no fly list? They don't do they? Because the GOP wants to have it both ways. They want a no fly list for suspected terrorists and they want the suspected terrorists to get guns. There's no other way a rational person could reason what they are doing.

    Parent
    At least their government (none / 0) (#138)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    did not vote to allow the terrorists to purchase their arsenal at the local gun store or show.

    The gun manufactures here in the U.S. own the Republican Party to such an extent that they will not prohibit people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing all the weapons they want. Those restrictions might cut into the gun industry's profits and their bought and paid for politicians campaign contributions.

    Parent

    Still no sense of humor, huh? (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 01:06:02 PM EST
    At least, you're making me chuckle.

    Sick (none / 0) (#1)
    by bocajeff on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:30:36 PM EST
    If the shooters in CA would have used pipe bombs or gone the way of McVeigh or Tsarnev we would be having a different convesation, yet the underlying issue would be same.

    But they didn't. (none / 0) (#2)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    and most killers don't.

    Sometimes tools suggest behaviors the way words and colors suggest behaviors..

    The advertising industry has known this for decades.

    If people weren't tragically impressionable they wouldn't vote for the people they vote for and watch reality tv.

    Parent

    However, (none / 0) (#3)
    by bocajeff on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:47:52 PM EST
    The fact that the conversation we, as a country, are having now is about gun control and not terrorism is the actual point. Taking the gun away from someone who is at war with you only limits their weaponry. It doesn't take away their desire.So they can fly a plane, use a pressure cooker, pipe bombs, car bombs, etc...

    The issue of gun control is a desireable and needed conversation since more than 14 people will be murdered this weekend by guns in this country. However, terrorism is a different conversation. And, obfuscation by the NYT makes things harder for those that believe their is a war going on simultaneously, but unrelated to, gun crimes.


    Parent

    Not sure what country you live in (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    But the one I live in has been "having a conversation about terrorism" pretty much non stop for about 14 years.

    I like what the Times did.  

    I also think it's probably pointless.  It will just reinforce everyone's opinion.   About the subject and about the New York Times.

    Violent right wing white extremist are IMO a bigger danger to the country than terrorism.   And war in the ME has nothing to do with their motivations or their targets.

    A conversation about terrorism is fine.  But I won't stop the killing.

    Parent

    The thing (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:59:17 PM EST
    that is not allowed to be said: Right wing terrorism. It's been happening long before 9/11. If as many Muslims had committed mass murders in this country the GOP would have a collective meltdown and they would literally be running around trying to round up all the guns. But since it's home grown American terrorism we're just supposed to sigh and accept that right wing terrorism is a part of life in the US these days.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    At least with the "no fly list" the Venn diagrams of insanity have some overlap.

    Parent
    rw terrorism . . . (none / 0) (#18)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:38:20 PM EST
    for 100 and some years, African Americans were terrorized in the south by RW terrorism and some of them were killed and others only had crossed burned on their lawns . . . and some were hose or beaten . . .

    It still goes on a little bit, but seems to be much less, like the recent sc shooting that has led to removing the conf flag in many places .  . .

    supposedly rw terrorism has only killed 40-some people in the last 14 years . . . but the question is whether or not that would include shooting Tamar Rice by police and Laquan and some others where the shooting seems to be, at least to me, very clearly unjustified . . .  Presumably police carelessness is not considered terrorism in the same way as KKK actions or the SC shootings.

    and rw terrorism should probably include a guy killing abortion doctors or people at planned parenthood .  . .

    Terrorism in defense or in advocacy of a cause dries up when the cause becomes lost or meaningless.  

    There were anarchist terrorists more than a hundred years ago and some of them killed the archduke Ferdinand and helped cause WWI.  During and after the war, some of the jailed anarchists regretted what they had done . . . he or they would never have done it if he or they would have known the consequences.

    Today there are very few and maybe no anarchist terrorists.

    we've had rw terrorism since Good Friday, 1865 . . .

    Parent

    I think you should consider (none / 0) (#7)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:01:54 PM EST
    stopping the killing, Cap.

    Call a friend next time you get the urge.

    Parent

    Very funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    Fine

    "IT won't stop the killing".

    There you made me use another comment.

    Parent

    OK I officially change my mind (none / 0) (#30)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:49:59 PM EST
    It was not pointless.

    Eric Erickson-

    I shot holes in the NY Times editorial

    I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Put them on Instagram and use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout. #EERS

    You can follow me on Instagram and Facebook at @ewerickson

    All the best,
    Erick



    Parent
    how old (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    is he? Honestly that sounds like something a middle school boy would do. So childish and idiotic but then I have decided that the average maturity level of these people is about 13.

    Parent
    Falwell urges students... (none / 0) (#49)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 08:55:49 PM EST
    to arm themselves.
    "`I've always thought that if more good people had concealed-carry permits, then we could end those Muslims before they walked in," he says, the rest of his sentence drowned out by loud applause while he said, "and killed them."
    He's the president of Liberty "University."

    Parent
    Well, I don't see it as obfuscating (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 03:55:25 PM EST
    and the issues of terrorism and the easy availability of guns as being as disconnected as you do..

    If there's loose canons and possible cells here, why should AR 15s et al continue to be so easy to procure?

    I favor a multi-pronged, wholistic approach to these problems.

    Parent

    If there are loose cannons and possible cells (none / 0) (#40)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:41:42 PM EST
    here, who's gonna be the first to line up at the police department to turn in their guns?


    Parent
    This guy appears to be a loose cannon (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 11:26:08 PM EST
    driving around Long Island, armed to to the teeth, just looking for some trouble.

    With the arsenal he's amassed, you'd think the cops would be concerned. But no. He's just a white guy who likes guns, and uses fake police ID's.

    Parent

    My neighbor always tells me that (none / 0) (#60)
    by Green26 on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 11:37:56 PM EST
    guns kill people like spoons make people fat.

    Parent
    That is (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 07:32:05 AM EST
    Probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

    Parent
    True, (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by KeysDan on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    but its probably their best argument.

    Parent
    When you put it that way (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    It could also explain why so many ride around in those fat cars at Walmart.

    Parent
    I would, seriously, (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:25:29 PM EST
    consider moving.

    Parent
    Big whoop. Front page (none / 0) (#14)
    by Redbrow on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    Of a rag that went from 63 million circulation to barely over one million last year and plummeting.

    "Front Page" has very little relevance and impact these days.

    The falling literacy rates in red states (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:22:15 PM EST
    doesn't help much either.

    At least the NRA bulletins come with crayons now.

    Parent

    How are those literacy rates (none / 0) (#21)
    by Redbrow on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:57:36 PM EST
    I get it. My name has red in it so I must be a red state republican.

    Sorry to ro disappoint you and your prejudice/hatred but I will play along anyway

    How is the literacy rate in Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago and other cities controlled by progressives and democrats for generations?

    How are those city's, where guns are banned, murder rates compared to cities states with higher gun ownership and nra membership?

    Parent

    Of all the BS surrounding (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    The gun culture the most asinine is the idea that in a country awash with guns the fact that a city cannot successfully control them is a surprise.  Or a state for that matter.

    Parent
    The states with the highest gun violence (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:23:20 PM EST
    per capita:

    1 Alaska
    2 Louisiana
    3 Mississippi
    4 Alabama
    5 Montana

    All obviously liberal anti-gun states


    Parent

    The New York Times never had 63 million readers. (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:55:22 PM EST
    Daily print circulation for ALL of the nation's papers reached its peak in 1984 at 63.3 million subscribers. 20 years later, that number had fallen to 43.7 million. Reasons for that decline include the move by publishing companies to build and enhance online editions and digital content, deliberate strategies to reduce bulk sales to third-party sponsors that offer papers for free in places such as hotels, and decisions to eliminate home delivery to locales outside a 100-miles radius from the place of publication.

    But while print circulation has dropped, online circulation has correspondingly grown. The Audit Bureau for Circulations reports that for August of this year, 93% of men and 92% of women ages 25-44 who were online engaged with newspaper digital content. During the third quarter of this year, 57 million people visited a newspaper Web site, and revenues from online advertisers are growing.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    And yet, within hours of that editorial (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Towanda on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:49:42 PM EST
    on the front page of the newspaper that still has significant influence, the President schedules -- on the topic of the editorial -- only his third address to the nation from the Oval Office.

    (Sunday night, 8 p.m. Eastern time.)

    Coincidence?  Not to those who know their media history and their political history.  Of course, they also know how to look up correct circulation data.

    Parent

    Went a party to watch FSU/Clemson on TV (none / 0) (#17)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:25:34 PM EST
    and was bummed out.  In fact I was out of it for most of the weekend.

    Fast forward to yesterday when one of my FB friends posted a link to some mass shooting site.  I was shocked to learn there had been a mass shooting in Tallahassee the night before the game.  How could I have missed something like that.

    Turns out it is not so hard to miss a mass shooting listed on the sight.  Seems like a guy got drunk at a party in a trailer park.  Then he got his bud to drive him home, where ever that was, to get a shot gun, drives back to the trailer park and puts a round into the crowd.  LEOs are called but have to call for additional LEOs due to a hostile crowd.  Two of those hit by the shotgun shell were taken to the hospital with non life threatening wound.  Two more folks who were hit declined treatment from EMTs called by the LEOs.  So by definition four peeps were hit so it is a mass shooting.

    Couple of weeks later the LEOs arrest the perp and charge him with possession of a gun by a convicted felon, discharging a weapon from a vehicle, and attempted murder.  Clearly the guy is guilty of criminal stupidity and I have no problem putting him in jail and throwing away the key.  But in my book this is not a mass shooting.

    Does it disturb you (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    That a site exists to track mass shootings.  Regardless of your agreement with the definition?

    As the site says the LE definition of a mass murder is 4 or more so IMO it does seem to make sense.    Though I agree that the current climate might require raising the qualifying number just to weed out trailer park shootings and rowdy Saturday nights.

    Parent

    If a shooting vic declines EMT treatment (none / 0) (#23)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:06:51 PM EST
    I am not sure I would call them a shooting vic and count them towards the four required to meet the definition of a mass shooting.

    I would also note the perp was charged with possession of a fire arm by a convicted felon.  Seems like a classic case of "if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns".

    What bothers me more is that everyone agrees the largest single group of gun deaths are self inflicted.  I keep hearing about mental issues being a factor in shootings, but I wonder just how you prevent suicide.

    Bottom line for me is that there are a whole lot of folks out there with mental problems.  A lot more take their own lives than lives of others.  Sad to say even in what I call advanced countries like Sweden the suicide rate is disturbingly high, and they don't have any guns there.

    I have to wonder what is wrong that causes so many folks to think life is not worth living.

    Parent

    The statement that there are (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    Not any guns in Sweden is a false statement. It is ranked 9th in the world for gun ownership.

    the Swedish National Police Agency in 2006, there were a total of 656,000 individuals who had a license for one or more guns;[9] 6.5% of the population. There were 2,032,000 guns or 21 guns per 100 residents. Of the 2,032,000 guns, 959,000 were rifles, 726,000 shotguns, 122,000 combination rifles, 88,000 pistols, 55,000 revolvers, 3,000 automatic guns and 78,000 weapons parts.



    Parent
    MO, I think Sweden is like (none / 0) (#33)
    by fishcamp on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    Switzerland where all males go through the military and then keep those issued guns at home.

    The suicide issue is different.  The three Scandinavian countries have always had a high suicide rate.  They attribute it to the longer nights and darker days much of the time.  Depression.

    Parent

    Myth. (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 11:59:30 PM EST
    One of the more enduring myths surrounding Sweden is that the people here are particularly suicidal. This rumour is often traced back to a speech given by US President Dwight D Eisenhower in the 1960s. No fan of Sweden's social democratic politics and neutrality, he blamed the country's generous welfare system for `sin, nudity, drunkenness and suicide'.
    ...
    Statistically, Sweden is nowhere near the world's top in suicides per capita - world stats and rankings will vary from organisation to organisation, but Sweden generally ranks outside the world's top 40. And if further proof were needed, Swedes are among the most satisfied with their lives, according to the OECD Better Life Index.

    The suicide rate is higher in U.S. than in Sweden. The U.S.was ranked number 47 with 12.38 rate per 100,000 and Sweden ranks 58 with 11.43 rate per 100,000.

    Parent

    You seemed to have missed my point (none / 0) (#51)
    by ragebot on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:02:07 PM EST
    I never said Sweden did, or did not have guns.  Rather I said Sweden (and other what I called advanced countries) had a disturbingly high suicide rate and that concerned me.

    Sure there are a few what I will call crazies who go around shooting places up.  But there are a lot more folks who take their own lives.

    I have to wonder just what makes folks in places like Sweden (or the US or other countries that are well off compared to the rest of the world) reach a point where they would take their own lives.

    Parent

    Actually, yes.. (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 09:08:49 PM EST
    you said Sweden didn't have any guns.

    Parent
    Yes, indeed, he did say it (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by shoephone on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 11:05:22 PM EST
    Right here:

    Sad to say even in what I call advanced countries like Sweden the suicide rate is disturbingly high, and they don't have any guns there.


    Parent
    You might want to read what you actually wrote (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:18:30 AM EST
    You said that they do not have any guns there.

    The suicide rate in Sweden is lower than in the U.S. but many of the suicides are by guns.

    Firearm Access is a Risk Factor for Suicide

    Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.
    ...
    lethal than other suicide means. They're quick. And they're irreversible.

    About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that's a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)
    Link



    Parent
    That's a fair point (none / 0) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:12:23 PM EST
    But I think the hard truth is people shooting themselves is not the biggest concern of most gun control advocates.

    Parent
    To be clear (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 06:20:27 PM EST
    I am a bit conflicted on the subject.   On one hand I agree with what BTD said the other day about gun possession.   In a perfect world that would be great.  Sadly we don't live in a perfect world and nothing even close to that is even remotely possble.   IMO it just isn't.

    That said there are things that could be done.  The idea that the 2nd amendment gives you a right to own a bazooka is insane.  Or IMO an assault rifle or a hand gun.   Prohibiting them as I said is not possible but controlling regulating liscensing monitoring them is.

    We make people prove they can drive a car before they can do it legally why is it unreasonable to do the same with an instrument who's only reason to exist is to kill human beings?

    Parent

    "....why is it unreasonable.......? (none / 0) (#155)
    by NYShooter on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 03:45:43 PM EST
    Of course it's not unreasonable.

    But, what is unreasonable is to expect politicians who would vote for reasonable gun laws to vote themselves out of office.

    Get the private money out of politics and you've gone a long, long way towards sanity in our Congress, and, in all our elections.

    Government financed elections is such an obvious answer to so many of our problems, it should be first, and, foremost in, not only the insanity of our current gun laws, but, in most of the reasons we're suffering under a dysfunctional Government.

    Every other modern, civilized country in the world knows this, but, just like our disgraceful Health care policy, The United States stands alone in its stupidity.

    Parent

    Interesting (none / 0) (#35)
    by TrevorBolder on Sat Dec 05, 2015 at 07:09:57 PM EST
    Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation's population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm--assaults, robberies and sex crimes--was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

    Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008

    Are you (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:09:48 PM EST
    aware that there was an assault weapon ban in the 1990's? But I'm also guessing that you will give that no credit for lowering the mass murder rate.

    Parent
    GunTV - an all-Guns cable shopping channel (none / 0) (#99)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    will premier in January with 6 hours of daily gun frenzy frivolity.  They hope to expand to a 24/7, all the guns you can eat, all the guns you can buy with a second mortgage format.

    Holy hell (none / 0) (#171)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 08:49:40 AM EST
    We really are doomed.  Or damned. Or both.

    Parent
    Wasn't moving the goalposts. (none / 0) (#167)
    by Green26 on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:36:20 PM EST
    Just didn't believe the answer. Can you explain my view, by the way, or do you admit that you just made that up?

    It appears you are engaged in (none / 0) (#168)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 06, 2015 at 11:50:27 PM EST
    some sort of imaginary conversation with yourself, regarding equally imaginary comments. Get back to us when you've recovered.

    Parent
    Shoephone, just as I thought (1.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Green26 on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 05:27:29 AM EST
    You can't back up your statements, and you have nothing substantive to say. Attack, and then bob and weave. Get back to me when you have something substantive and honest to say.

    Parent
    While you folks are calling (none / 0) (#175)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    to take our weapons away from us.

    Another licensed conceal carry person has stopped a mass attack.

    Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

    The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State's Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

    A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

    The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records.  Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said.  No other injuries were reported.

    Wonder why that hasn't made the national news???

    So jim this event happened while (none / 0) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 01:54:52 PM EST
    we were discussing guns in this thread? Did it now?

    Since this event occurred, 337 people were killed and 1,024 were wounded in mass shootings here in the U.S.

    BTW, the story about the Uber driver appeared in the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun Times, the Washington Post, the Business insider, the New York Daily News, and was carried on all of the major new channels.

    Parent

    I think he's the one who posted (none / 0) (#182)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 02:00:33 PM EST
    Mark Vicar's bail yesterday.

    Parent
    The Vicars story is a current event (none / 0) (#191)
    by MO Blue on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 07:28:39 AM EST
    The Uber driver shot Everardo Custodio in April not exactly while we were discussing guns in this thread.

    As previously stated, 337 people have been killed and 1,024 have been injured in mass shooting events since that time.

    Parent

    You all need to stop the insults (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 08, 2015 at 01:39:05 AM EST
    and personal attacks on each other. People disagree about this issue. Respond civilly or scroll past it. I don't have time to read and moderate all your comments. The ones I see that include namecalling and personal attacks I delete.

    NY Times Runs Gun Control Editorial on Front Page | 187 comments (187 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment