text:
The Rapier of Richmond takes on the National Rifle Association
Cartoon by Chris OBrion. You can find more of his stuff here.
Who has the best lights in town? Vote now for your favorite in our holiday lights contest.
Cartoon by Chris OBrion. You can find more of his stuff here.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Now will follow the weeping and gnashing of teeth over the unfair characterization of the NRA.
too bad rt chose to present such a ignorant, untimely and disgusting 'cartoon'. Roanoke surely needs a new new provider as this outlet is getting worse by the day. I won't go into what I think about the so-called artist
This cartoon is classless and despicable. I don't know how else to say it.
Attacking the NRA or spouting about 2nd Ammend.
does not change the fact that evil resides among
There are sick puppies everywhere.
At least the cartoon is accurate.
At least the cartoon is accurate.
Nope. It isn't. Connecticut is as anti-NRA as you can get. Their way failed.
typical of the dan casey and RT liberal slant
The Media is wiping the blood from the children onto the bloody shirt for the political aims of the Democrat Party. The children are mere tools for their political aspirations.
I thought Connecticut had a large gun manufacturing base. That would make post @6 nonsense.
Yep, just looked at my Colt DE. Made in Hartford Conn.
My thoughts and prayers are with the victims of this senseless violence.
Lib strategery = never let a tragedy go to waste…go after those guns.
Ignore the violence portrayed by the video and computer game industry which desensitizes young minds to horrendous acts of wanton bloodshed and mayhem…and have been doing so for decades.
I guess that would usurp the 1st Amendment. Oops.
Some ex FBI agent this morning on CNN was explaining that lots of people would have the guns Lanza's mother had for "self defense". Ali Velchi asked him in what context that Bushmaster AR 15 Lanza's mother owned would be used for "self defense". At which point the FBI guy hemmed, hawed, chewed his tongue for a bit before explaining "Lots of people have them". Which isn't an answer. Lots of people have herpes too.
Frank, what video game did Hitler and his nation play? What movies did Stalin and his henchmen watch? What television show was Julius Caesar watch during his reign of terror? We all know that Saddam Hussein, and Jack the Ripper, would have been a stand up citizens and fed the hungry if it weren't for all them damn video games… kids these days.
There are many psychotic reasons for these people and the ones that are showing up today, but entertainment is hardly the reasoning behind it.
Kristen, just the other night, John Wilburn extolled the virtues of an AR-15 for self-defense in the home. It is apparently lightweight, accurate, and manageable in tight quarters like your home. I am also sure that it is an effective self-defense weapon when you need to shoot someone from 20 or 30 or 50 yards away. The flip side? All the things that make it a good self-defense weapon also make it a devastating offensive
Lib strategery = never let a tragedy go to waste…go after those guns. -Frank
Repub strategy = never let a tragedy make you actually have to do something… blame the devil, fags, and poor people. Frank, are you a member of Westboro Baptist Church just online… or do you travel every Sunday to hear your fellow bigots speak about superfluous and hateful ways to fix this country?
, there have been gun massacre tragedies in states that are pro-NRA. Columbine? Aurora? Tuscon? Virginia Tech.
Yes, and all we heard about after the VT shootings was 'gun show loophole' (even though the massacre had nothing to do with a gun show) Connecticut is one of seven states that requires registration even at gun shows. They have some of the toughest laws in the country, and it did no good. Nuts will always be able to get guts.
The cartoon was despicable because it pretends anyone associated with the NRA is pleased and proud those children died.
@14 guts=guns
strategery = never let a tragedy go to waste…go after those guns.
That's always it, Frank. Libs use every misfortune as an excuse to take away more liberty. People are talking about having an armed cop at every school. Are we going to have them at every playground, skating rink or Chuck E. Cheese? We have to understand things will happen in a free society. We don't want to live in the Soviet Union.
"The fundamental reason kids are dying in massacres like this one is not that we have lunatics or criminals — all countries have them — but that we suffer from a political failure to regulate guns."
"We don't have a crime problem, a gun problem or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem," Huckabee said on Fox News."
There are people who wanted this fat-headed jerkwad to run for President. It makes me think that we maybe should be more judicious in the enfranchisement of our citizenry. Anyone stupid enough to think Huckabee is presidential material probably doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to make a good decision at the polls.
I honestly don't comment on the gun threads because of two reasons; one, I realize I'll never singularly change anyone's mind, and second, because, the most ardent defenders of the 2nd amendment on the blog, Dave H, Dave W, Jason, VRWC and others too numerous to mention seem like really responsible guys that I wouldn't have a problem with being around when they're packing heat.
Up until this year I accepted the Supreme Courts most recent ruling on the 2nd as a fact of life in this country, but events like this change the game, and not just for me. Critical mass is occurring as we speak. The NRA's obstinate refusal to consider reasonable controls on access to weapons has crystalized societies will and will usher in far more restrictive gun laws. You guys pushed back against Virginia's one hand gun law, closing the purchasing loop hole and the national assault weapons ban. These were common sense laws that you guys shot down and whether you like it or not the country is going to insist on enacting far more restrictive laws.
I know this realization is going to cause some response; know that your argument is not with me but with the entire country that is finally going to insist on rational regulations that begin to address the problem. Just as you can't get spilt milk back in the bottle, there's no going back unless you can bring back 20 children who were murdered Friday.
This is happening. We as a country are going to start electing politicians with the courage willing to address this. The gun culture in this country is going to change. I don't wish any ill will on the overwhelming majority of responsible gun owners but you need to realize that you guys are complicit to a degree for the forthcoming legislation due to your resistance to common sense regulations.
"We don't have a crime problem, a gun problem or even a violence problem. What we have is a sin problem," Huckabee said on Fox News."
The governor is exactly right. Where was God in Adam Lanza's upbringing? Where was God in his town? His school? This was a highly liberal godless toxic environment up there, folks. We shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong.
And rest assured, the legions of moneychanging trial lawyers will be preying on this tragedy. All the while they're saying the right things, and even wiping a crocodile tear or two.
the article linked below presents a loop hole that, in my view, should be the first one closed as we begin discussing how to stop the kinds of killings we have had in our country.
This article tells clearly why private gun sales need to be stopped.
The cartoon was despicable because it pretends anyone associated with the NRA is pleased and proud those children died.
Comment by Suzie —
Suzie…..that is your most very warped opinion…..I simply see the news story on a T.V. and a gun toten NRA member holding up his gun….as to how much he is in love with it and pround he owns it……He'd probably rather sleep with it than his wife, LOL
Amazing the same dialogue by the RWers. The home protection excuse for gun ownership is complete and total bull. Conneticut is a complete example of that fallacy. Add in the many children killed each year by the guns supposedly protecting them. Simply an out and out fraud of an excuse.
Of course the other problem is the cowboy attitude this Nation has for violence. We give the mentally ill a pill and put them back on the street to save treatment costs. Those undiagnosed simply medicate themselves with legal and illegal drugs and alcohol. When they can't cope they grab a weapon to make society pay for their lack care. It is time for all sides to recognise the problems of mental illness, treat the illness and quit relying on drugs. It is time for out media, politicians, entertainment and political groups to espouse solving problems by dialogue, compromise, and civility rather than the macho grab a gun and blow everyone away.
"This article tells clearly why private gun sales need to be stopped."
Private sales of guns, of course, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the tragedy in CT, not in Colorado, not in Oregon, nor at Virginia Tech.
Gun control fails every time it is tried. Massacres happen in "gun-free zones," where no one can fight back. Just the way it is.
If this blog never does another thing, it proves that we talk at each other and seldom to each other.
Why am I not shocked to see the Roanoke Times haters vilify this cartoon that is spot on the money? The NRA runs the Congress of this nation in ways that should matter, yet they don't.
suzie, it seems that with all the mass shootings, the libs have let quite a few tragedies go to waste. Perhaps it is time to quit worrying about your loss of gun ownership and worry more about your right to walk through a mall or go to school freedoms. Somehow, the freedom to not be shot by a crazy with a gun whether it is the original shooter or the cowboy returning fire is of more importance than the right to own the gn in the first place. I want my right to feel comfortable doing my daily activities and I am not comfortable with the crazies having access to high powered, high volume weapons.
They just said on the news that the mother "loved to shoot" and had all those guns "in case the economy collapsed" and she had to defend her home. I guess she ignored the person she should have been most afraid of and all of her guns and self defense preparation did her no good at all.
IDK if evil is a mental illness per se , but it does exist.
I agree with Dan, this cartoon is spot on and prize worthy for the cold hard truth of it.
Yes the Cartoon is "Spot On" and thank goodness for the Roanoke Times and their courage to speak truth to the overwhelming number of backwoods, conservative, redneck, NRA Republicans that seem to dominate this corner of the Commonwealth. Without the RT, there would be no alternative opinion and those of us in the minority would be without a voice of reason in a sea of ignorance.
I have seen many posts since yesterday that have been political..blaming the gun, and not the insane person that carried out the act. The sad reality is there is no solution to pure evil. Again, lets pray for the victims and their families and hope this won't happen again. The largest mass murderer in our country used fertilizer components as his instrument. Evil cannot not be completely stopped if the evil one is willing to die.
Mexico has some of the strictist gun laws in the world and outlaw drug cartels rule the citizens and the government of that country with fear and superior power.
And, lets say our fools for leaders would pass some kind of gun control law. Does anyone think it would be enforced any better than their brilliantly fought "War on drugs?"
The only chance to stop an evil person that is willing to die…as in this awful CT scenario, is to have and good person in place there with equal force to take him out.
"Who will be in Richmond early in 2013 demanding concealed carry in churches and schools."
How did that CCW ban work in that school in CT?
If we cannot agree that gun ownership — from purchase to training to use — is not on the table as we enter the debate about where to put this tragedy into our collective national conscience, then we tacitly condone the murder of those 20 kindergarteners.
Even the most ardent gun advocates must agree. Right?
Everybody is saying how well the school personnel and first responders reacted. Within a year, all these people will be trashed by the trial lawyers seeking millions of dollars about how inept they were. We saw it with Virginia Tech.
That's as certain as the sun rising tomorrow.
No Stevie girl, your pipe dreams are not going to come true. You can throw a tantrum if you want… you can pretend that wacko Dan's ramblings are shared by a majority if you want… you can be a blow hard on the internet if you want… but the reality is that this issue is settled constitutionally and politically. Whether you like it or not.
Mr. Van Cleave and supporters of the NRA are fond of citing statistical evidence that violent crime in the US has gone down in recent years as gun ownership and concealed carry permits have increased.
Historical data tells us that the 5 or 6 worst school shootings have taken place in the last 7 years.
Can't have it both ways, folks.
Ron May, you continue to be the beacon of reason on this blog. Great links to some sobering realities.
One of the major designs of the 2nd amendment was to protect the people from the tyranny of our own government. So, from that point of view, as the the technology of weaponry increases for the government, shouldn't the citizens be able to progress also? I'm really not a big gun guy,but I do own guns. I see no logic in the liberal argument of gun control. This fool in CT could have had a shotgun, or a .22 revolver and the results would have been exactly the same. The football player that killed his girl, them himself could have done it with his bare hands. I will go back to my original statement, you can not stop an evil man that is willing to die through legistlation.
I have lived here in Roanoke my entire life and have always prided myself in supporting local businesses including the Roanoke Times. I will however cancel my subscription to the times on Monday. Not because I am pro gun or anti gun, but because of the classlessness of the times for running this asinine political cartoon on such a tragic day. Some of you on this board should be ashamed of yourselves for politicizing this heinous act. That includes the Roanoke Times and those that represent it.
Re: Cold n P @ 11:31 am
"I thought Connecticut had a large gun manufacturing base"
That's not to be confused with the lack of freedom for the average citizen.
The Brady Campaign ranks Connecticut near the very top of the most restrictive States #5 with three stars. See: http://tinyurl.com/735kc94
Most of the liberals on this board make light of praying to, or even believing a higher power. As you grasp for words, ineffective prevention methods and answers, please be self-aware enough to realize that the only real tool available to us all right now is to ask, and hope for peace from a spirit of goodwill that is more pure than humanity.
Yes, DaveHicks, the citizens of Connecticut seem unusually oppressed.
Sarcasm off. You do realize that to 99.9% of the population, the entire gun freedom nonsense is barely an annual concern, far less daily.
Dave Hicks. I'm surprised Virginia ranks a restrictive 19. I would have thought VA would be 40 or below. That's one thought provoking chart. I need to process this frankly disturbing information before further comment.
Today is a day to hold the hand of a grieving parent and cry with them. Today is not the day to let everyone know which side of gun control you are on…………
New information about the mall shooter from last week. Interesting, too.
John 11:35 'Jesus wept.'
As we all are over this senseless act.
Re: Richard J Beason CPA @ 5:31 pm
IMHO, one of the reasons many folk are so committed to personal self-defense, not just at home, but everywhere, is that your second point is not even getting lip-service.
Someone posted a question about going to Richmond in January to curtail some of the freedoms supporting self-defense. Where is the question about going to Richmond in January to demand full funding of the mental-health reforms put in place following the VT tragedy — much less expanding the services.
In an earlier thread Sandi said something about seeking help being stigmatizing and the very help sought of often non-existent. I agree. Where is the outcry about that? Where is Dan's blog agitating about that?
Another reason, is that they don't see enough being done at places like schools. IMHO, it is a disgrace that we don't prepared teachers to handle this type of crisis the way we teach them to handle fires and medical emergencies. If we did the death toll would drop dramatically, IMHO. When did you last hear of mass deaths of children in school fires? Could it be that fire drills have long been commonplace? Could it be that there are trained school staff? Could it be that there are tools in place (think sprinkler systems and smoke alarms and strategically placed fire extinguishers), which those trained teachers and staff can use to nip a fire in the bud. while waiting for the professional firefighters.
After the Ma'alot massacre in 1974, Israel instituted a policy in which volunteer school personnel, parents, and grandparents received special training, were armed, and were placed throughout the schools. Since that time, there has not been a successful mass murder at an Israeli school. Think about it.
Re: My last.
On the earlier thread, I posted a link to a professional LEO comment about arming teachers, et al and @ 11:34 pm Dan ridiculed it with "And THAT'S what makes his post so ridiculous."
AMEN Earl K — December 15, 2012 @ 7:19 pm!
Dave Hicks, for the love of God, tell me you did not just suggest we train and arm teachers? Is that really your answer for this carnage? Train for it and arm yourself? Why don't we just put up fences, razor wire and armed guards at every entrance like they have in prisons. Anything as long as YOUR rights are not "infringed" eh?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 11:08 pm
How did you miss that point from my comment @ 5:47 pm, yesterday?
I have been very up front, while others are ducking and dancing (and I suspect talking in code.)
FWIIW, I respect those who are up front, honest and clear as to their intent — albeit I may not agree with them.
Re: my last and your question
Also see my comment at @ 12:05 am on the other thread,
"I think that I have been clear for some time. IMHO, any place that is posted as "no firearms" should carry with that posting elevated security. If a location is sensitive enough to disarm folk, it deserves elevated security, IMHO. Why should judges be protected by metal-detectors and armed guards but not children? [emphasis added]"
Dozens of kids have been stabbed to death in Chinese schools over the last few years, does China need tighter cutlery regulations?
Also, ten people shot on Friday in Chicago (not an unusual weekend occurence there), despite the toughest gun laws in the nation.
Doing "something" for the sake of "doing something" that doesn't work is not a good idea. Tighter gun laws DO NOT create safer environments.
As for the people who want to ban guns, please enlighten me as to the effectiveness of our assinine ban on drugs.
I'm proud that our hometown newspaper had the courage to share this cartoon. If now is not the time to have this discussion, when is?
Another attack on Friday by a mad man on 20 school children in China serves as a reminder that madness is everywhere. But the fact that all 20 children are expected recover from their knife wounds should also serves as a lesson that restrictions to gun access save lives. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2)
Now is the time to bring gun ownership into the 21st century in ways that respect the rights and safety of our neighbors our children and our community, as much as they respect the rights of the gun owner.
Thank-you cartoonist Chris Obrion, columnist Dan Casey and the editorial board of the The Roanoke Times.
One further thing puzzles me after reading this discussion, if I may safely assume the anti-gun opinions are from fairly liberal, likely pro-choice people, why does this pile of dead kids matter but if they had been killed in utero it would have been morally acceptable as "the right to choose"?
Its sort of paradoxical that violently ending a life at 6 months by a third party (abortionist)is OK, but 6 years is not via a third party (deranged psycho).
The only difference being time and all.
Thanks in advance to anyone willing to shed some light on this mystery. Its a real head scratcher!
Whenever National Rifle Association spokesman Wayne LaPierre goes on television to claim that the NRA gets its money from its membership in small donations, he's lying through his teeth. The real money behind the organization is from industries that make and sell guns and ammunition, as well as right-wing wealthy donors. The NRA receives tens of millions of dollars from domestic and foreign gun manufacturers and other corporations related to the firearms industry through its "corporate outreach program."
Those who gave money to the NRA include 22 gun makers, 12 of which manufacture assault rifles, and high-capacity ammunition magazine manufacturers or sellers. Beretta alone donated one million dollars to the NRA to lobby to overturn gun control laws in the wake of the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which eliminated laws against handguns.
The Violence Policy Center Executive Director Josh Sugarmann states, "Today's NRA is a virtual subsidiary of the gun industry. While the NRA portrays itself as protecting the 'freedom' of individual gun owners, it's actually working to protect the freedom of the gun industry to manufacture and sell virtually any weapon or accessory."
The NRA is nothing more than a front for corporate money spent to enlarge markets and profits, no different than the bogus Smokers Rights Groups that were created secretly by major tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.
From 2004 to 2010, the NRA's revenue from corporate fundraising grew twice as fast as its income from members' dues. So, let's be clear. The NRA does not exist to represent gun owners and hunters. Its purpose is to be a front for corporate lobbying, to help elect legislators who will resist any and all gun regulation, and to strike fear in its members about gun control. The political activities of the NRA serve right-wing political interests, as well. Otherwise, why would the Koch brothers have donated big bucks to the NRA in 2012?
Why should judges be protected by metal-detectors and armed guards but not children? [emphasis added]"
Comment by Dave Hicks — December 15, 2012 @ 11:29 pm
Maybe it's because we don't like the idea of turning schools into seeming prisons. That is the vision that armed guards brings to my mind. That it may come to that in this country, makes me sad beyond words.
Courthouses have accused and convicted criminals going in and out all day, as well as warring divorcing couples and other people in distress. The population in courthouses is far more likely to be carrying a weapon with bad intent than a school.
"Whenever National Rifle Association spokesman Wayne LaPierre"
Talked to a guy the other night who grew up with Wayne and was best friends with him. All he could do was shake his head at what a shill he's become.
"Today is a day to hold the hand of a grieving parent and cry with them."
Generally, I have to agree. Last week I talked to and shed a few tears with three parents who had lost two children just five weeks earlier. Pure raw emotion. Now imagine you're a parent who already has a hiding place full of Christmas gifts that will never be opened or enjoyed. Pure hell.
Isn't it interesting that the same ones on this blog defending gun rights are opposed to health care (including mental health) for all Americans? The shooters in every case had untreated mental illness.
"The governor is exactly right. Where was God in Adam Lanza's upbringing? Where was God in his town? His school?"
Please provide your evidence for no God in his upbringing.
I have to thank you, suzie, for your continued ridiculousness. Your comedy routines bring some needed hilarity at a somber time.
"People are talking about having an armed cop at every school. Are we going to have them at every playground, skating rink or Chuck E. Cheese? "
Uhh, suzie, it's the gun lovers who are talking about doing that. Not the libs.
Brian, the "head scratcher" is why anyone would use a bunch of slaughtered first graders as a platform to beat their anti-choice drum.
I doubt there's anyone whose heart isn't bleeding for those parents in Connecticut, but it's gotten impossible to hold the hand of everyone in this country who's been impacted by gun violence. The list is too long., and by this time next year will have a few dozen more names on it. The only thing that we can count on is that there's another episode coming up.
"The governor is exactly right. Where was God in Adam Lanza's upbringing? Where was God in his town? His school? T"
Good question suzie?
One of the most perverse comments I've seen on social medial the last couple of days and surprised Pat Robertson didn't get to it before Huckabee and Fisher did. As always, I'm a bit disturbed at the implication that god is responsible for the deaths of a bunch of six years olds. What you seem to be endorsing is the possibility that a lack of belief on the part of the six year old was enough to keep a just and loving god from protecting them. That's a pretty twisted idea, but it does fit fine with the god of the old testament. He could be pretty harsh on those who didn't follow his word.
Maybe I have misrepresented your position on the matter in placing the focus on children. Perhaps it was general institution of public schools who are most responsible for the sin. After all, they are the institutions who have had deal with the legal obligation of remaining religiously neutral in a religiously diverse country. That still doesn't seem like a good reason to allow the random killing of children though, but hey, maybe it's my brain that's mixed up on the logic.
I have to ask why anyone would make such a statement regarding the lack of God in that community in the first place because absolutely nobody knew anything about the victims or what the heck they believed.
This is why I abhor such ideas that come from people like Mike Huckabee and Bryan Fisher.
The tragedy itself makes me angry, sad and outraged. The reaction and overreaction of almost every one of us, however, makes me furious. The instant that this story broke in the media, the trenches began being dug for another battle over gun control. The blood of innocent children hadn't even congealed before posts, opines and columns calling for this or against that were flying at the speed of light around the globe.
Do we dare miss the irony of our own divisiveness? Could not our constant polarization, entrenchment and us-vs-them mentality be contributing factors in these tragedies, as well?
We don't come together as we should; we push apart. Had this young man felt like he was a part of something more, had he not been nurtured by a violent world divided (and we all are, whether you admit it or not), would he have chosen this path? He could've chosen the door on the left instead of the one on the right and there would be no need for this discussion. Any one thing done at any point in this young man's life could've prevented this. Until we can all agree, admit to and be willing to discuss ALL of the factors that caused this, we will get nowhere. To immediately judge one thing to be the culprit and to raise a cry for radical change is to do a disservice to justice. We're supposed to be better than that.
Fifty years ago, a tragedy such as this would've circulated through the national media for about two cycles and then the local media would be left pick up the pieces. Today, it fires around the world near-instantly through dozens of outlets and each one sensationalizes and spins the story in an effort to scoop the others and drive their ratings. Each tragedy is kept on our minds through a 24-hour media blitz. Back then, it was a tragedy that was newsworthy; now, each tragedy is a new commodity to be cashed in in a maddening rush. If you don't see a problem with that and how that becomes a contributing factor in this event, I'll illustrate:
For every 10,000 people that see that new rampage being covered by today's press, there are 9,990 who are appalled, shocked and dismayed at the horror. There are also 9 who are intrigued, fascinated or even enthralled by it. The last one and the one you and I should be worried about, is the one who thinks to themselves, "I can top that." When you saturate a populous with these violent and tragic images, it's not hard to see that many more of those "I-can-top-that"s get to see the carnage. How many of them have to be reached before one of them actually attempts it?
It's not shame on one particular person or thing. There is shame to be had by each and every one of us. In some abstract, we are all responsible for this event.
If anyone wants to genuinely approach and try to solve this problem, everyone needs to agree that we can't start in the middle. Let's start at the bottom and use some common sense ideas (and keep in mind that this is just the start):
How do we keep all weapons out of the hands of those unstable enough to commit atrocities? We must make that avenue as narrow as possible first. More must be done to identify and treat these individuals and more must be done to ensure that they aren't allowed to possess those weapons.
The shooting incident in CT is a tragedy. One deranged and mentally unstable young man is at fault; not the firearms nor the NRA.
For all you deranged and mentally unstable liberals now blogging about how
we need gun control just realize what kind of control you'll get from the government. Weapons allowed to be conveyed to the Sinaloa drug cartel in
Mexico, under the oversight and supervision of the BATF, are responsible for the deaths of over 300 Mexican citizens including a wedding party shoot up that resulted in the deaths of a score of teenagers. Yet, there is no cry to disarm the Federal Government and this administation who allowed and continue to cover up Fast and Furious.
This was a highly liberal godless toxic environment up there, folks. We shouldn't be surprised when things go wrong. -Suzie
Here we go again with another religiously charged statement. Another Catholic who claims their deity is such a loving one, but murders innocent children because of our "godless" society.
Looking at societies where god is everywhere, schools, government, and so forth; places like the middle east where people are bombed, shot, stabbed, beheaded, sexual organs and sexual parts removed, people stoned to death, women's rights are nonexistent, simply accusing a woman of adultery is a death sentence, and "Honor Killings" are for the benefit of the males of the family and go unpunished…
Yes, Suzie. I guess our society needs a god. Perhaps your Lady of Guadalupe, was busy appearing on a pancake or making an appearance to malnourished, dehydrated, and drunk superstitious people in a desert somewhere.
But what do I know… reading and thinking about facts. But you know, you are most likely right with your talking donkey, talking snake, people living inside of whales. Who am I to question such insane assertions. Of course the bald Elisha had every right to have 42 children killed for making fun of him… he must really love you, Suzie.
Your assertions are fun and exiting, but if you will excuse me I need to go feed my unicorn, and boil some water for MY god, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Bill Perdue @ 10:49 am
Isn't it interesting that the same ones on this blog defending gun rights are opposed to health care (including mental health) for all Americans? The shooters in every case had untreated mental illness.
Don't go over generalizing. One size doesn't fit all and strawmen arguments don't help reaching a understanding. You need to read some of my comments made long before this latest tragedy, including supporting a single-payer health care system (including mental health care) for all Americans.
Re: Dan Casey @ 10:58 am
But pro-gun supporters of abortion rights are not hypocrites for the same grieving.
Re: Kristen @ 10:59 am
I doubt there's anyone whose heart isn't bleeding for those parents in Connecticut,….
Thank you, both, for acknowledging that the pro-freedom contingent are grieving and are not heartless. Yes, it is possible to disagree on what should be done w/o both sides (or either side) being painted as monsters.
Anyone who has read my comments over any extended period knows that I support a single-payer health care system (including mental health care), pro-choice, pro-freedom and Constitutional rights.
Re: J.M. White @ 12:11 pm
Well said.
I know that I didn't comment until 5:35 pm and you until later.
So, there are some reasonable voices who did not rush out the instant the story broke to man the trenches for another battle over gun control.
Comment by Dave Hicks — December 16, 2012 @ 1:05 pm
"So, there are some reasonable voices who did not rush out the instant the story broke to man the trenches for another battle over gun control."
Dave, I think the tone of your post was somewhat out of character from what usually appears to be thoughtful comments. Your characterization of those who may look for some regulations on weapons used to simply kill many rapidly – not those used for hunting purposes nor target practice – dripped with contempt.
I think there need not be a "battle" over restricting and regulating these weapons – how about a discussion?. Reasonable people can agree, I believe, on commonsense regulations that protect the supposed 2nd Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" [forgetting for the moment the qualifier of a "well regulated militia"] and at the same time protect the rights of the rest of the non-gun owning citizenry to be safe from these "arms".
I keep hoping for direction or discussions from the gun advocates on cracking down on strawman purchases with strong criminal penalties or viewpoints on enacting an expansion of the law that lists those transactions subject to background checks to include gun shows and private sales [Craigslist among others], instead there only appears to be a hostile defensive position offered.
Dave Hicks:
"So, there are some reasonable voices who did not rush out the instant the story broke to man the trenches for another battle over gun control."
Count me in as one who found dancing in the blood of children to advance a political football to be distasteful. People die from all sorts of evil acts every day, but an incident involving a deranged individual, children, the sacred school environment, and A GUN becomes something they roar over. It's not about safety and reducing deaths overall or they would be promoting safer driving, job site safety, safer homes, and other various ways of saving lives… no, no, no…. they don't want this tragedy to go to waste as it could be a way to promote their desire to legislate their fears away. One particular tasteless, insulting, anonymous blogger spent all day trolling for my attention to exploit this tragedy, but I'll have none of it. He obviously cares much more about trying to defame me than those children's families.
If you want to know where our real values lie as a society, look no further than these same people who scream in horror about the sensible idea of arming teachers. What does it say about a society who, even after a number of tragedies, is flatly unwilling to allow trustworthy armed teachers and armed guards to protect our children, but takes comfort in the armed guards driving armored cars who transport our money to and from our banks. What is more precious to them is obvious.
Don't tell me how superior your values are.
The blood let by gun violence is never "congealed". If we didn't discuss the horror wrought by guns in this country until some mythical length of time made the conversation more "acceptable", it would never happen. Maybe that's the point.
Dave Hicks – Your comment about fire drills in schools needs updating. All Public Schools have regular lock down drills for just this typw of occurrence. The school in question had just had a drill and accordingly, many lives were saved by the Teachers doing what they had been taught.
As for armed guards in Public Schools, in VA all Middle and High Schools have an armed resoure officer. Only the elementary schools do not.
With all due respect J.M. white and Dave Hicks, I don't think anyone rushed to comment on the role of mental health or guns in this tragedy. Sadly, these incidents are happening more frequently, thus the conversations about cause seem continuous.
That said, you both have emphasized the need to address the inadequacy of our mental health treatment system. That is absolutely a priority! Kudos to you Dave Hicks for stating plainlynthat you favor a single-payer healthcare system. I totally agree! And kudos to you J.M. White for pointing out the role of media and copycats.
Let's keep this conversation going.
The brilliant comments by Wayne LaPierre on May 25, 2012 on how many children would have to be killed to change the NRA's policies….despicable.
National Rifle Association Executive Vice President and CEO Wayne LaPierre said Monday that somewhere around 1,000 kids would have to die in a school shooting in order for the organization to reconsider their longstanding opposition to gun control.
"Yeah, that's probably the only way we'd reassess much of anything at this point: 1,000 dead kids, shot up pretty good, lying face down in the school auditorium or something like that," LaPierre said, noting that anything less than 1,000 dead kids would not be enough for the NRA to stop urging Congress to pass pro-gun legislation"
"How do we keep all weapons out of the hands of those unstable enough to commit atrocities? We must make that avenue as narrow as possible first. More must be done to identify and treat these individuals and more must be done to ensure that they aren't allowed to possess those weapons."
J. M. White's general articulation of a common sense starting point
To which I would only add that the governing principle of any regulation should be to put the worst in human nature at a disadvantage. None can be expected to be completely effective, but that's not a good reason for missing the good they can do. It's why we have speed limits in school zones, without first demanding proof they'll provide 100% safety to pedestrians. But if the NRA/VCDL "my personal freedom trumps all" crowd applied their self-centered "cars are created with the same lethal intent as guns" nonsense to school zones, we'd be doing away with those inconvenient encumbrances on driver liberty.
And if that sounds like I'm being harshly critical of the NRA and VCDL for their efforts to give gun violence an easier path, I am. Their extreme disingenousness deserves it. Like a southerner in 1859 invoking states rights while claiming it wasn't about slavery, their lobbying for loosening of disadvantages to human nature's worst use of guns really does make shooting people easier.
Ahhhhh….but probably more realistic than we think, no?
John Wilburn, you join the discussion approximately 36 hours after yesterday's tragedy. Is that the appropriately sanctimonious period of time? Without your input, the causal discussion has moved forward here. The topics discussed have included mental health treatment, the role of media (both entertainment media and news media), and firearms. The discussion rationally moves forward understanding that reducing such tragedies involves a multi-faceted approach.
One solution offered is that championed by you and Dave Hicks – arm and train teachers to respond to such threats. It's an option, one I oppose. Let's see how the discussion goes.
By the way, must you end all of your posts with the word "superior" or some variant? Your oft used "there is no moral superiority in being willfully unprepared" is unconvincing. That you think your points superior is obvious.
I'd be interested in knowing how Leon would propose disarming the entire federal government (which would include all our troops). I'll wait for an answer, Leon.
Shrillary, I'm more than willing to discuss enacting mandatory background checks on all gun purchases. However, they wouldn't have made any difference in this event, would they? More properly, is there evidence that the guns in this case were purchased without background checks? To be honest, I haven't been able to stomach much of the coverage so I could very well be under-informed.
What do you propose as a solution for private person-to-person sales? I'm wondering how hard it would be to enforce BG checks in those cases. It won't be easy to devote that much law enforcement time to make sure that p2p sales are above the table, either.
"Where was God in Adam Lanza's upbringing?"
As if suzie would know anything about raising a troubled and possibly mentally child.
You should really just go stick your mouth under the chocolate fountain, suzie.
Richard Beason CPA @ 3:39 pm
Sadly, with the reductions in financing of law enforcement, I do not believe all Virginia Middle and High Schools have armed resource officers. I keep hearing of such positions going unfilled.
The last survey that I have seen (2007) reported that 95% of HSs were served and only 74% of MSs were served. And BTW, served does not mean all the time the schools were open. At that time 26% of SROs served two or more schools. The Counties of Amelia, Bath, Charles City, Craig, Highland, Nottoway, Scott, and Surry had no SRO. Likewise, the Cities of Cities: Buena Vista, Emporia, Franklin, Galax, Lexington, and Poquoson had no SRO.s
See: http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/vcss/documents/sroStatus2007.pdf
Anecdotal feedback that I have heard for the LEO community suggest that the coverage has gotten thinner since '07.
Seriously? We are called "deranged and mentally unstable liberals" for daring to say that gun people control needs to be looked at as a part of any solution? Really?
What if I called you "deranged and mentally unstable" for lying about the BATF's misguided operation of Fast and Furious? "Some call it the "parade of ants"; others the "river of iron." The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking within the U.S., so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF's congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one."
And not for nothing but the idiotic idea that we can (or should) "disarm the Federal Government" because the NRA lobby has tied their hands in the war on gun smuggling is not sane.
Comment by J.M. White — December 16, 2012 @ 5:58 pm
Regarding the background checks on private sales – the DOJ report suggested private sellers, including gun shows, be required, before any sale, to go to a firearms dealer and use their background check system and be charged a small fee.
This was never even tried, as discussion was basically ended by pressure from the NRA. I understand expanding background checks to include private sales and gun show sales would not necessarily have prevented the tragedy in CT, but we need to have legislators in DC begin the discussions, with pressure from all of us, with a hope that we can begin moving toward prevention of future mass killings. With 2 million guns in the US, wouldn't it be smart to know who is selling and who is buying? Should the paranoia of some gun owners unwilling to have the government know how many and what type of guns they own trump others' rights to be safe in malls, movie theaters, schools, universities and at public functions?
God is everywhere and He cannot be removed. The dogma, judgment and punitive actions of his followers is what has been removed, and it will not be welcomed back. The comments of Huckabee and others in that vein are an insult to God and show only the hubris of those claiming, IMO falsely, to have a relationship with Him.
And what is up with these self-appointed guardians of when it is appropriate to speak and what is appropriate to say on a subject? Who was it that gave you the insight to determine that for anyone other than yourself?
Expecting the slaughter of these babies to not involve a discussion of the NRA, VCDL or any gun advocacy group is literally whistling past the graveyard.
For starters, his mother was armed, well armed. She knew her son better than anyone on the planet and look what it got her.
"Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation's conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The "national firearms agreement," as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.
For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don't shrug and say, "Cars don't kill people, drunks do."
Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America's traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s."
Re: Shrillary @ 2:36 pm
Sorry you think that the comment "dripped with contempt."
That was not my intent. To me, it was a display of frustration with all the over generalization of some rants on the blog.
Oh my, aren't you feeling superior by claiming you weren't "dancing in the blood of children to advance a political football"? Implication and insult being that everyone else was doing so. Does that mean that you are willing to support some sensible gun people control if it is put forward? If not, I submit that you will be dancing that dance from now on and denying it will not change a thing.
"John Wilburn, you join the discussion approximately 36 hours after yesterday's tragedy. Is that the appropriately sanctimonious period of time?"
No, but I have been awfully busy and would rather respond than react. This bunch has been especially wound up and I would rather let them cool off. When emotion is all one has, there's no reason to wait, I guess.
"Without your input, the causal discussion has moved forward here. The topics discussed have included mental health treatment, the role of media (both entertainment media and news media), and firearms. The discussion rationally moves forward understanding that reducing such tragedies involves a multi-faceted approach."
You're saying two things. One, you must think I have a lot of influence here. Maybe I do. Why would my comments have any special power to steer any discussion unless others want to take it there? I'm just another blogger, like you; the difference is that you are a mild averaged-out generic version of every leftist here and I'm coming from a different and more defined position that you apparently don't want to hear. Two, "moving the discussion forward" in your mind is to move it to your preferred topics. It would be nice to see an honest, objective discussion of arming teachers, but I'm not whining about it and discussing it here isn't going to help get it done, but there's no reason that shouldn't be considered "moving forward".
Rules upon rules and laws upon laws and "gun free school zones" have done squat. With a zero for everything record like that, there is no reason that we cannot seriously put arming the teachers and armed guards on the table. 9-11 happens – we arm pilots. 9-11 doesn't happen again. Newtown CT happens – we arm teachers and you'll never see a big body count again. Words on paper will not achieve this.
Sandi Saunders:
"I submit that you will be dancing that dance from now on and denying it will not change a thing."
Nope, but I was lobbying before and I'll be lobbying after and that WILL change a thing… or two.
Sandi, I saw that NYT article; it drew a lot of comparisons with automobiles. I guess when it comes from your side, the car comparison is okay, right?
Oh and loved his .22 rifle, growing up with guns, obligatory I-know-what-I'm-talking-about spiel in the middle. The anti-rights folks are at least predictable.
This is a quote I heard somewhere today.
"One failed shoe bomb attempt and we all take off our shoes at airports. 31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."
Appropriate car comparisons are fine. Comparing accidents to deliberate murder is not.
Ron May:
""One failed shoe bomb attempt and we all take off our shoes at airports. 31 school shootings since Columbine and no change in our regulation of guns."
How many auto thousands of car fatalities and yet we continue to raise speed limits?
"Appropriate car comparisons are fine."
Sorry, Nosaj, now Sandi has given it her blessing.
JohnW, if all you have to offer is "more guns", I can see why you waited a while before chiming in.
None of the teachers I know would have an interest in doing their jobs armed. What an admissions of defeat that would be for what's supposed to be a great country.
A future without guns:
This is a very appropriate cartoon. The message is right on target. Which part of "well regulated" don't these gun nuts not understand?!
#89 possibly mentally ILL child…
Cernan Sixtyeight:
"Which part of "well regulated" don't these gun nuts not understand?!"
Which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?!
How many auto thousands of car fatalities and yet we continue to raise speed limits?
Comment by John Wilburn — December 16, 2012 @ 8:23 pm
That's just pathetic John.
"JohnW, if all you have to offer is "more guns", I can see why you waited a while before chiming in"
I worked until after well after midnight on Thursday, then from 7 until about 1:00am Saturday, then 5:30am until 7pm or so on Saturday. This includes holding a class. When I finally saw this stuff yesterday evening I opted to let things cool and, knowing I had a lot to do today and no time to reply, I opted to sit it out a while and rest. No worries, though; Nosaj's points were all that mattered during that time.
Ron May:
"That's just pathetic John."
Dr. May enjoys his 70mph commutes. Don't bother him with the collateral damage.
By the way, Ron, nice show of contempt for Jack's uneventful day carrying in the vast majority of places that do respect his rights. Sorry you didn't get to make an example our of him on "your" campus.
Dave Hicks – My apologies, I had not checked the statistics since the recession. I have never been in facor of the police in our schools as it crosses the line of authority of the school administrators. However, that said, having a greater presence outside the schoolsseems most appropriate.
A link to a powerful article about mental illness:
JohnW isn't the only gun advocate to avoid the conversation.
"We reached out to all 31 pro-gun rights senators in the new Congress to invite them on the program to share their views on the subject this morning," he said. "We had no takers."
justin and dan,
you guys are birds of a feather, and you make my point. thank you.
yes, society and culture kills innocence. after that, all evil need do is kill innocents. you birds say, "get the guns, to heck with US actually changing OUR behavior. evil will happen unless we fight IT.
if you really want to address the problem, it won't help by addressing whatever it is that you want to do about the guns, 'cause the guns ain't the problem.
JW, your disdain for "emotion" is palpable. I understand that because I have faced such criticism for much of my life. So be it. I welcome the clarity my emotions provide for rational and logical thought and vice versa.
"You're saying two things. One, you must think I have a lot of influence here. Maybe I do. Why would my comments have any special power to steer any discussion unless others want to take it there? I'm just another blogger, like you; the difference is that you are a mild averaged-out generic version of every leftist here and I'm coming from a different and more defined position that you apparently don't want to hear. Two, "moving the discussion forward" in your mind is to move it to your preferred topics. It would be nice to see an honest, objective discussion of arming teachers, but I'm not whining about it and discussing it here isn't going to help get it done, but there's no reason that shouldn't be considered "moving forward". "
Comment by John Wilburn — December 16, 2012 @ 7:50 pm
As a matter of fact, I do think you have influence on this blog. I pay attention to your posts, but I am put off by the attitude of superiority you sometimes project. No doubt that your positions are well thought out and researched, but that doesn't make your point of view superior. There are many passionate thinkers on this blog – from the left and the right – which is why I am here. I try hard to understand the position of those with whom I disagree, because ultimately, I learn from most everyone.
I think we can have a discussion about arming classroom teachers, but I think the more salient discussion will be about the state of mental health treatment in our country. Dave Hicks has been instrumental in helping to frame this area of the debate for me.
But back to the objective discussion of arming teachers in the classroom:
BTW, Dan posted the New Scientist link earlier today. I thought it deserved a re-post.
I usually don't comment on gun threads because it's pointless, but I want to say this. If we start having armed guards and armed teachers at all schools, it seems to me that we're saying we give up. We're not becoming more free, we're becoming prisoners to fear. We will be teaching our children that there is no hope for making society better.
I know all of you pro-gun people see it completely opposite, but as many tears as I've shed for those who lost their lives, I've also shed tears for what this country has become. I will never believe that more and more guns are the answer. I cannot believe that.
"it seems to me that we're saying we give up. We're not becoming more free, we're becoming prisoners to fear. We will be teaching our children that there is no hope for making society better."
I see your point and sincerely wish that armed teachers were not necessary. I wish that no one ever needed to be armed. However, we have to get real and recognize these threats are real and materialize from time to time. So, we need to be prepared for this. Children seeing fire extinguishers and participating in fire drills does not make them fear burning alive. Their knowledge of guns and seeing good role models carry (though not literally, as I would bet some folks sensibilities would demand discrete carry) would be positive.
We do need to better our society, but to continue to flood the CFR with more and more gun control is just opium for the hoplophobes until the next tragedy. Getting the Gun Free School Zone Act was the more restrictions on the RKBA crowd's solution. We tried that and it has failed by any objective measure. No expansion of its failed philosophy will work. Armed teachers and guards is the next soultion. Time to try our approach.
Just think if all children had age-appropriate firearm education and good education that focused on character building all the way through school. Our "gun culture" would change dramatically. Getting rid of the taboo would do us all a world of good.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." – Thomas Jefferson
The source, btw, is BrainyQuote, the official quote hopper of Dan Casey's blog.
"JW, that one is engraved on the Jefferson Memorial. At least it's real!"
It's also emblazoned on the back of a hoodie I wear. I like that jacket; the pocket accomodates a revolver and an iPhone just fine.
Now that the bodies are cold, I would be interested in Dan's take on what needs to be done to stop this violence.
87.I'd be interested in knowing how Leon would propose disarming the entire federal government (which would include all our troops). I'll wait for an answer, Leon.
Comment by gdad — December 16, 2012 @ 5:49 pm
Let's start with dissolution of the BATF after prosecution of those who broke the law in Fast and Furious which, BTW, includes the AG of the DOJ and, based on Executive Privilege claimed, POTUS. Next we can try to understand why the DHS and SSA have placed orders for millions of rounds of ammo plus the DHS procurement of a large number of urban assault vehicles. By your inquiry you must endorse disarmament of the Federal Government.
I know folks on this blog like to compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths in this country… in this country… in THIS country. The thing is this, guns are not essential to everyday life. We are not living in the times of Ben Franklin, TJ, and George Washington, anymore. In those days, society needed guns to survive in just about all respects including, food supply, protection, and even militia's as a form of homeland protection. These days we have the National Guard, and a great military. I can understand needing a rifle or two for hunting, and a pistol or two for personal and protection of your family. But in this day and age can someone really tell me a legit excuse to horde assault rifles, pistols, and loads of ammunition? I don't want my rights or anyone else's rights trampled on, but where are the rights of peaceful families and innocent children trying to achieve and education? We are giving a select few of pro-gun advocates full rights, while stripping the innocence of millions of innocent families and children. How long are we going to sacrifice our public safety for gun rights?
Traffic fatalities: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf
Gun Fatalities: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/23/facebook-posts/do-people-get-shot-every-year-facebook-post-says/
People are willing to attribute this mass killings to evil, to a god(s), to sin… whatever sin is. The fact is that we have way too many guns and not enough laws protecting us from all of these guns.
Other societies get along just fine without all of the weapon and ammunition hording. Why can't we?
Frank, cuz guns aint da problem n' stuff. Is your opinion.
More and more everyday I look out of my window and I see a world that is not rational on the real issues. We want to blame "sin" and "evil" for our problems, instead of facing our problems head on like we should.
The fact is, I think we should revisit the issue of gun laws. I don't particularly care how and where we do it, we all need to be adults and seriously tackle this issue. Too many innocent people are dying for no reason. It is a social problem, it is ALL of us that has this problem. Not just you, me, or JW's problem. It is now the problem of a child who just learned their alphabet. We need to debate and actually discuss these issues and decide what is best to move our society forward.
Frank, I don't think anyone has ever "made your point". You are delusional as per usual.
It wasn't the sort of conversation i expected to be in that evening. I'm not a g-n owner nor is "to purchase g-n" on my t'do list .. but i guess i come away looking like Johnny th' NRA. what i was *trying* to, eh, indicate is the potential for a .. Ruling Class monopoly on violence. the Police? well, *some* people/neighborhoods receive substantially more protection than others. the Military? in spite of popular sentiment for tending our own garden before blowing up our neighbor's, Armed Foreign Intervention continues apace. in short, the application and threat of State force is out of most of our hands. does personal firepower "help"? I don't know, but why should the "lower orders" continue to give in while a .. Managerial Elite continues to acrue power and dominate resources. I'm talking about any sort of famous "austerity" or "security" measure: next time Somebody wants you to give something up, ask if they are willing to do the same ..
JohnW, I'll take your commitment to freedom more seriously maybe when you walk back those meanderings about yanking democrats votes. Until then, not so much.
And the parents of this country won't stand for turning our schools into armed camps. Forcing educators to carry weapons will never, ever happen. It fun to see the arms industry shills out the plugging though!
A friend share this video with me late last night. I thought I'd share it on the blog. It gives me insight into some on this blog and how much they like there guns. The song starts at about 51 seconds into the video.
Sorry that should be "their" guns.
Here John W, which sign would be more of a deterant?
This quote from A. Lincoln seems appropriate to the discussion we are having currently.
"From whence shall we expect the approach of danger? Shall some trans-Atlantic military giant step the earth and crush us at a blow? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia…could not by force take a drink from the Ohio River or make a track on the Blue Ridge in the trial of a thousand years. No, if destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men we will live forever or die by suicide."
― Abraham Lincoln
"How many auto thousands of car fatalities and yet we continue to raise speed limits?"
Simply pitiful, John W.
So if all the guns are removed from every community in America what's next? Kitchen knives, hammers, shovels, forks, spoons, electrical cords, drinking glasses, trimming shears, cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, medication, rocks, masonry bricks, baseball ball bats, hockey sticks cricket wicketts Polo mallets….
All of which have been used to kill. Lay blame where it should be,
John Wilburn, you will never drive the conversation "forward", or increase your own credibility with repeated insults like "opium for the hoplophobes". If you do not want the insult that you accept this carnage as the price of your rights, why should we have to keep being insulted by you?
I cannot believe that anyone considers it a credible idea to just arm teachers and apparently mall employees and hospital employees… Is this truly how low we have been brought by the altar of the gun?
Interesting analysis from Mother Jones (I know many of you will stop reading at this point).
"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
John Wilburn,
The speed limit on the county roads I take to work each morning is 45. I try, especially at this time of year, to observe that limit. The biggest challenge I have traveling those roads are the occasion piece of farm equipment, innumerable deer crossing the road in front of me and flocks of wild turkeys ambling across the roads as well. You see my college was, until its opening to the public in 1966, the convent for the order of nuns sponsoring the college. It's out in the country away from interstates and other high speed distractions.
I cannot believe that anyone considers it a credible idea to just arm teachers and apparently mall employees and hospital employees… Is this truly how low we have been brought by the altar of the gun?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 17, 2012 @ 10:29 am
It's as believable as the thought that passing additional gun control laws would have any effect on the problem.
"So if all the guns are removed from every community in America what's next? "
Oh please, Amateur. Pretty much the silliest, most ridiculous — and most overused — reply out there. Congrats.
"JohnW, I'll take your commitment to freedom more seriously maybe when you walk back those meanderings about yanking democrats votes. Until then, not so much."
I explicitly said I didn't think any party's votes should be interfered with, but that "unintelligent" voting should not be tolerated. If that's more Democrat, so be it.
"Forcing educators to carry weapons will never, ever happen."
Forcing educators to disarm should never happen.
Well, in the coming weeks or months there will be legislation introduced that attempts to put a bandaid on the gun violence issue. Both sides of the debate will flood this blog with the same old stuff. Just like politics, we are divided into two camps. None of it will fix anything.
We will see if Congress is more afraid of the majority of citizens or the NRA.
Predictably, a politician was on Fox News yesterday saying if the principal had been armed, she could have put the gunman down rather than taking a deadly lunge at him. Nothing new there. This argument comes up after every mass shooting. It is probably true (theoretically) most of the time.
The snag is not in the arming, it is in the using. The average American has no clue of how to react in such a violent, loud and chaotic situation. Not to mention the terrifying fear and trauma that is induced by such rapid and overwhelming violence. Most of us are not vigilantes, not even close. We can't keep a cool head like Dirty Harry or some of the self proclaimed on this blog. We are not trained for such reactions. There is just no way a person can understand the emotional intensity of a shooting unless they have been there.
Let people arm themselves if they like, but, when the shooting starts they better be ready for some rapid, heavy duty decision making. And, they won't have the luxury of making a mistake.
""So if all the guns are removed from every community in America what's next? "
Oh please, Amateur. Pretty much the silliest, most ridiculous — and most overused — reply out there. Congrats."
So, you're admitting that gun control will never purge society of guns, yet you still want it. All I can conclude is that you want a society where cops are armed for their safety, criminals are armed for their safety, and everyone else is at the mercy of the other two.
Yes, "unintelligent" people shouldn't be allowed the (democrat) vote, but the idjits who yearn to buy themselves an armory should have at it. And frequently do.
"Nancy Lanza owned guns for self-defense, her former sister-in-law Marsha Lanza said."
That worked out well.
So if all the guns are removed from every community in America what's next? Kitchen knives, hammers, shovels, forks, spoons, electrical cords, drinking glasses, trimming shears, cars, trucks, buses, planes, trains, medication, rocks, masonry bricks, baseball ball bats, hockey sticks cricket wicketts Polo mallets….
All of which have been used to kill. Lay blame where it should be,
Comment by The Amatuer — December 17, 2012 @ 9:37 am
If we have people walking into schools and theaters and murdering multiple people with all of the things said above, we, as a country have way bigger issues than gun control. Some people's logic on this blog never cease to amaze me.
I remember being in High School with some fellas who quite crazy, and very big individuals. Lets say that somehow our government pushed the idea of arming teachers… what happens when someone takes a teachers gun, and murders everyone in the classroom? What then? I remember many of my teachers and none of them would know what to do with a weapon and then wouldn't shoot anyone with it. All I am saying is 90% of the teachers I remember having were ladies, or men who could be taken down rather easily.
Arming school teachers would be making the situation easier for the psychos out here. Also, what happens when a teacher flips and starts shooting people?
It is just not a good idea, or a good situation for anyone.
michael moore is right about one thing, America believes in genocide or more to the point, infanticide. 50 million + dead babies since Roe V Wade. Where is the outcry for these innocents?
There is a battle waging for the eternal souls of our loved ones and it will not be won with guns, laws or human government. The line is being drawn in the sand and it's time to decide which side you are going to stand with.
Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Seriously John Wilburn, name us ONE person who has been disarmed by gun control laws that should not have been. This is such a childish rant from someone who knows better- you.
Disarming criminals is not going to happen. We might be able to make it more difficult for them and that may well be all we can do. Why is that not worth it to you? Until you can prove that any gun control measure actually disarms you in some way, this is just sophistry.
For the love of God in Heaven, I hope those thumping a Bible over this issue are the first to go.
I generally dislike much of what comes out of the state of Texas, but I missed this news blip back in 2008…
Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html#ixzz2FKif0haK
Justin True:
"what happens when someone takes a teachers gun, and murders everyone in the classroom? What then?"
If you can tell how the student can reasonably get it from the teacher's concealed, level three holster, I'll answer that.
"I remember many of my teachers and none of them would know what to do with a weapon and then wouldn't shoot anyone with it."
What if they had to choose between one deranged student and several defenseless students. That might change their mind.
"All I am saying is 90% of the teachers I remember having were ladies, or men who could be taken down rather easily."
Guns are equlizers. It's the ladies and slighter guys who should want them the most.
"Arming school teachers would be making the situation easier for the psychos out here."
I see no basis in fact for this at all.
"Also, what happens when a teacher flips and starts shooting people?"
What would happen if a teacher did this now? A teacher who would flip out won't care if some laws are passed or not. We either trust teachers with our kids or we don't. Let's show concern for the known problem of pedophiles instead of imagining the potential problems of a teacher who carries.
Oh no, we got Will going again. Will, buddy, could you try for something other than the broken record routine?
@J. Wilburn 146
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
(Quoting Cesare Beccaria)
J. W. Get a grip
Sandi Saunders:
"Seriously John Wilburn, name us ONE person who has been disarmed by gun control laws that should not have been."
ME! Every time I must travel into a place that is a "gun free zone". Shall we count all of Australia?
"Disarming criminals is not going to happen."
"We might be able to make it more difficult for them and that may well be all we can do. Why is that not worth it [disarming] to you?"
You just said "Disarming criminals is not going to happen" and then immediately ask me if it is worth disarming…… I'll let you make a guess.
Sandi, would you like to see Australia's solution happen here?
Name someone who has been disarmed unfairly by our gun control laws or shut up about it.
The Amatuer:
"J. W. Get a grip"
I will…. the grip of my Glock.
Sandi Saunders:
"Name someone who has been disarmed unfairly by our gun control laws or shut up about it."
Everyone who must work in a gun free zone! They have to choose between their job and means for support over their safety! What about that pastor who spent a couple of days in jail for the handgun in his car in Washington DC? What about the Marine whose gun was confiscated at the Statue of Liberty.
Tell us how gun bans are going to prevent another school shooting or shut up about it. You just admitted they won't. What gives with you?
Gdad, I read that shooting was Nancy Lanza's "hobby". She should have considered knitting.
I hear no outcry whatsoever from teachers crying out to carry weapons in the classroom. Utterly ridiculous. They're supposed to add armed guard to the many roles they're already playing?
The problem isn't lack of sufficient guns. The problem is one gun too many.
Manchin, now Warner…we're starting to see cracks in congressional gun support. Maybe this will be the event that changes things. I hope so.
In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and must use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls.
Those were the additional requirements. I have no problem with any of them. It's also a voluntary program, no one is required to carry if they do not wish to do so. And truth is, not everyone needs to carry.
Granted, the schools in the Harrold District were in the unique position of being a long distance away from the closest police station. Response times were 15-20 minutes, so their leadership felt such a preemptive move made sense from a student safety standpoint. They also have cameras and other active/passive security measures in place.
They've not had any incidents. The closest was an active meth lab was found adjacent to the school and reported, to which authorities responded immediately. It took sheriffs about 18 minutes to make it to the scene.
"The problem isn't lack of sufficient guns. The problem is one gun too many."
The problem is kids in pain! Kids with emotional problems caused by parents who are out to lunch and don't love, engage, involve their children.
Neither more guns or less guns will fix this. We need to fix PARENTS!
So, do the gun people have to boycott Fox now?
"Murdoch, who has called for stricter controls on guns before, spoke out on Friday night. "Terrible news today," he tweeted. "When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy." After President Obama's remarks at the vigil in Newtown on Sunday, Murdoch asked again, "Nice words from POTUS on shooting tragedy, but how about some bold leadership action?"
I am a teacher. I want NO part of guns in our school with the exception of our SRO. I don't want (and will NEVER) carry a weapon. I don't want other teachers carrying. I have never heard any other teacher express the desire to be armed- except for one person who has not retained employment for good reason (not related to guns but to competence). I really don't want parents carrying. I've had experience with angry, out of control parents. The idea that they would come in angry and armed is frightening in the extreme.
"I hear no outcry whatsoever from teachers crying out to carry weapons in the classroom. Utterly ridiculous."
We just heard school teacher RCH say "What I think I want is to carry a concealed weapon in my classroom." on this very blog.
Oh, I get it now, when you speak of being disarmed, you do not mean in the literal sense, only in the sense of having to choose whether to enter one of those dangerous "gun free zones". Thanks for that clarification. Yes, I can see how you consider all gun control and private property control to be "disarmament". Presumably at least, a well educated teacher or mall worker could choose to be employed at some "gun friendly" workplace if they believe so strongly in being armed at all times.
I have not asked for any "gun ban" nor have I said that "any gun bans are going to prevent another school shooting" so there is nothing about that for me to shut up about.
Sandi Saunders:
"Presumably at least, a well educated teacher or mall worker could choose to be employed at some "gun friendly" workplace if they believe so strongly in being armed at all times."
But you want to limit their employment choices by saying "guns should be banned anywhere and everywhere the people involved don't want them there."
"I have not asked for any "gun ban" nor have I said that "any gun bans are going to prevent another school shooting" so there is nothing about that for me to shut up about."
See above.
JohnWilburn, look right above your post.
PP, parents don't cause mental illness any more than they can cause epilepsy. And they cannot cure it any more easily. I saw on the RT blog that Michael was predicatbly wading in and blaming "working mothers" for the culture of violence in this country, which is hilarious on many levels not the least which being that Nancy Lanza was a stay at home being royally supported by her ex husband.
And so far no one's said that this boy was mentally ill. Being a little Aspie and "socially awkward" is hardly a formula for mass murder.
Joe Scarborough is moved to change his position:
"You know me. I am a conservative Republican who received the NRA's highest rating over four terms in Congress…There's no easy ideological way forward…I come to you this morning with a heavy heart and no easy answers. Still, I've spent the past few days grasping for solutions and struggling for answers, while daring to question my own long-held belief on these subjects. I've always taken the libertarian's approach to Hollywood's 1st amendment rights and gun collector's 2nd amendment rights, and I stood by those libertarian beliefs after Columbine, after Aurora, and after Arizona…"
"…our Bill of Rights does not guarantee gun manufacturers the absolute right to sell military-styled, high-caliber, semiautomatic, combat assault rifles with high-capacity magazines to whoever the hell they want. It is time for Congress to put children before deadly dogmas…"
"Oh, I get it now, when you speak of being disarmed, you do not mean in the literal sense, only in the sense of having to choose whether to enter one of those dangerous "gun free zones".
I have to enter some "gun free zones" for work. That is because I honor the law even though I don't agree with it. For you way to work, EVERYONE would have to have the same attitude and practice.
Name one place I called for a ban not already in place John Wilburn?
We all face employment choices.
Pistol Pete, do you not understand mental illness? Parents sometimes do not "love, engage, involve their children" and sometimes a parent does everything humanly possible and it is not enough. Do you think we can force good parenting?
Good tutorial on gun free zones:
Totally understand the Sandi, but if you look at most of these monsters..(colorado, columbine, vt, Newtown) What was it they truly had in common?
Im sure everything was great at home for most of their lives?
"JohnWilburn, look right above your post."
Fine. Some do and some don't.
pistol pete:
"Neither more guns or less guns will fix this. We need to fix PARENTS!"
"Name one place I called for a ban not already in place John Wilburn?"
Oh, so now it's a moving target? I thought "Guns should be banned anywhere the owners or people involved want them to be banned" was pretty self explanatory on your part.
The market seems to be weighing in.
After all the back and forth, this is what I could support as a gun owner:
1. Expand the drug watch LE has on schedule II drugs to include mental health related drugs. The infrastructure is already in place to identify folks who are mentally unstable. These folks don't need access to guns IMO.
2. 30 day waiting period on any gun purchase.
3. Make CC laws that show the CC holder is competent to be entrusted with CC. In person. Not by computer multiple choice test.
4. Close the gun show loophole. All buyers need to have a background check and the seller can send the gun to the buyer after they pass the background check and meet the 30 day waiting period.
5. Outlaw but grandfather assault weapon type guns and high capacity magazines. We just don't need these weapons of mass destruction. Armor piercing bullets need to go as well.
6. Implement a self locking device on every gun sold in the future that would require some type of overide only the owner should be able to effect.
Ok, let the outrage rain down. BTW if I missed any sane GC suggestions I'm open to other ideas.
I believe the actions would not impinge on 2nd amendment rights and would make our schools, malls, service stations, hospitals and homes a much safer place. We can never stop all acts of this type of evil, but we must try to slow these senseless killings down.
Comment by Sandi Saunders @ 2:53 pm
Name one place I called for a ban not already in place….
I trust that you are accurate as to what you have posted.
Please, update us on what exactly you have posted in the past and are currently proposing at this time.
And now you are answering the questions put to him? It is not for me to reiterate anything. If you want to accuse me of calling for some new ban, total ban or worse restriction then YOU provide the proof of it.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 4:09 pm
I was not intending to accuse you of anything. Please ignore the "have posted in the past and" & the "at this time" part of my last.
However, please, update us on what exactly you are currently proposing.
I would love to see both you and Dan to confirm you current position.
Has the Connecticut tragedy changed your agenda, in any way?
This one is for all the gun rights folks on here.
Pistol Pete, have you read this? Just curious.
hey folks,
based on the crowd at the gun show held yesterday at the Greater Philadelphia Expo Center (Montgomery County), it looks like more people are choosing to arm themselves…yet, some would think there'd be less interest from the public in buying firearms these days…
"Oh, so now it's a moving target?"
Ironic complaint by VCDL recruiter John Wilburn
Do most of the imagined scenarios in which a VCDL member heroically defends themselves or others involve a gunman who offers a perfectly still target? If so, that would explain a lot of the imaginary outcomes preferred in those VCDL fantasies.
But here, we're dealing in words and quick thoughts, not bullets, and ideas in a dialogue are not targets, except to those who habitually frame the world in gun-centric terms. So someone probably needs some more practice at the mind range, if evolving ideas are that problematic to them.
it looks like more people are choosing to arm themselves
comment by Frank
Only if they were not previously gunowners. If they were already gunowners like myself, they're not indicative of anything in particular.
Comment by Cold n P — December 17, 2012 @ 3:23 pm
I support everyone of your suggestions, but I would like to add these to your list:
Mandate any assault weapon gun owner carry insurance through their homeowners policy or be required to purchase a special general liability insurance policy.
Outright ban on large capacity clips and magazines
Increase the taxes on guns and ammunition – much like additional taxes on cigarettes or gas.
Require all ammo sales be restricted to in-person sales.
Increase criminal penalties — with a mandatory minimum prison sentence — for people who act as a "strawman" purchaser.
re: 2:50 Scarborough's son has asperger's; Maybe he figures it better to take rights away from citizens than have his son stigmatized and locked away as a "possible" menace.
Kristen, re: :46.. everyone is saying this guy was "mental". (also note that the guy shot 26 human beings; (not really "normal" in any definition I have ever read)).
Btw… weren't you the one in another post that stated, "hey people die"?
Sandi, re: 2:57.. why can't we "force good parenting"?; just pass a law that says "one must be a good parent", let politicians and regulators write thousands of pages of "good parent" rules; create a government bureaucracy to tax parents and kids that do not follow the rules.
Surely in a society as "advanced" as ours the government can figure out a systematic manner in which to raise kids so they all turn out equal…
OK, let's get past all my quasi-sarcastic comments above and look at reality.
First, this situation is an extreme tragedy that has touched the hearts of many, but will live in the minds of those affected forever. Sadly, we all know that the first response in most tragedies is to try to "do something" (this response is particularly ingrained in politicians who think that any new law can solve any the ill of society). As we know "extreme circumstances ultimately lead to bad law". But what "something" should we "do" to really solve this problem?
We understand this guy was very aloof (by all accounts had mental issues), he came from a divorced family, spent most of his time "gaming" on the computer and had access to guns.
I suppose the "perfect fix" would be to pass laws mandating that kids spend 4 hours per day (positively) interacting with other children (to teach them social skills); divorce is illegal (it threatens family structure); computer gaming/violent videos etc… should be illegal and all guns should be confiscated from the American public.
Does anyone think a law like this will pass, much less solve the "problem"? or is the "problem" deeper?
Is the "real problem" that we have taken morals out our system? Sure God and prayer is "today" invoked by our politicians in the midst of this tragedy; but aren't these the same people who took "God and prayer" out of our schools?, and attempt to take "God and prayer" out of our entire society?
I, for one, do not see any issue with instilling, in our youth, a simple sense of morality; the "ten commandments", an understanding that we answer to a "higher" authority and our actions have "consequences" in our real life and our spiritual life, and they do not end because we "reboot our computer" and start again.
This is not something you "legislate out" it is something you "allow" in…
A smiple example is; if our society is so focused in allowing people to kill/abort their own offspring because they are inconvenient/problematic, etc… how can we expect our children to appreciate the "lives" around them? Might they rightly ponder the question, "hey mom/dad, what is the difference in taking a life of 6 months (in womb) and 6 years (out)? Our society tells them it is a choice.
My apologies that I have droned on too long (dan will accuse me of another diatribe); however I just found out my daughter is now "with child" and wonder about the environment that he/she will have to navigate.
With thanks to Say What? (#140), we'll repeat this as often as necessary for VCDL members like John Wilburn to stop using the extremely offensive phrase "victim pools", even though they're unlikely to drop that callous mindset:
"In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed."
For the pro gun folks, would it honestly be a better world if everyone had a gun? Would it make you feel better?
"Kristen, re: :46.. everyone is saying this guy was "mental"
Wtf is that supposed to mean, Mikeo? You have a couple of teachers saying he didn't socialize well? He was also an honors student. I have no ideas what the he'll you mean by "mental" except that you're making up a pretty non-specific diagnosis out of nothing. What a pile of crap. Newsflash….there are people who post on here that I would not be remotely surprised to hear had conceived and executed some homicidal disaster, and I would be more than happy to tell the press sounded "mental". What's that worth? Nothing.
"For the pro gun folks, would it honestly be a better world if everyone had a gun? "
For the pro-abortion folks, would it be better if everyone had an abortion?
Ironically, schools all over the country have decided to make parents feel safer by putting more people with guns around the school to act as a deterrent. The same thing happened at Virginia Tech after the mentally-ill gunman killed people. The state flooded the town with people wielding guns.
Dave Hicks — @ 4:25 pm
I hate it when I am almost finished a post and accidently hit the key that knocks me offline! Grrrr!
To answer your query, the Connecticut tragedy has not especially changed my position; I do not have any agenda. I am just a blogger.
I think I have mentioned all of these at one time or another:
I support registration for every gun and tracking that requires guns stolen to be reported, guns traded, sold or gifted to also require background checks such that when someone without documentation is found with a gun, that alone is a crime and we can catch criminals before they commit a crime. Follow the gun and end at least some of the carnage.
I support the "Assault Weapons Ban" and the large magazine ban. With those already registered before the ban, allowed with the same caveats as above if they change hands.
I support a law that says that when a Restraining Order is issued, the police remove all guns from the premises and no guns can be purchased; same for anyone adjudicated as mentally ill or anyone who is institutionalized or diagnosed with certain mental illnesses until such situations are adjudicated as stable and no longer needing such precautions.
In that same vein, I support civil rights legislation that says such interventions cannot be used to discriminate against the people involved so that the stigma of getting help or being evaluated on some level does not ruin lives, the way a felony conviction does.
Our society has a vested interest in a mechanism knowing who has guns or access to guns when they have certain mental illnesses, domestic violence issues, criminal records or proven trails leading that way. Seldom is a crime the first signal of something wrong. We do not need to wait for a criminal to commit a crime, if merely being caught with a gun is a crime and a serious one.
My whole point is to "get tough" on the criminals and more closely watch the mentally ill, not to make gun ownership, self-defense, sport or enjoyment harder for gun owners. There is no need for gun laws to prevent the law-abiding people from exercising their second amendment rights. There never has been. That has not been an actual goal for most of us, and certainly not an attainable one.
The bottom line here is that more and more people are not willing to just keep accepting the collateral damage to our gun culture and gun advocate led gun control. You do not have to like it, but it is happening. To what extent, we do not know.
Sadly, it should not have to be a legal matter to tell someone to keep their guns away from someone they feel needs close supervision and is clearly not well socialized. It should not have to be a legal matter that the courts, foster homes, juvenile facilities or the streets raise your children. It should not have to be a legal matter that people do not sell guns in parking lots or over the internet to strangers. It should not have to be a legal matter to report stolen guns. Lotta "should" but it stops nothing.
The "Educated", we are the only enlightened ones, of the vile Left in this country" make me sick. Death threats to NRA and all its members? Hey dipsticks, the NRA didn't murder 26 kids and adults. CT already has an "assault weapons ban" sure didn't stop this nut, while he butchered children in a "gun free zone". If this school is a "gun free zone" and CT has a "assault Weapons Ban" How did this happen? He stole these guns from his mother, murdered her and went on his rampage. When he stopped was when he saw the police coming after him then he took the coward's way out, after his cowardly rampage, suicide. This fact, not being reported by the liberal media. This guy was a terrorist. Banning semi auto rifles would not have stopped this crime; banning semi auto pistols would not have stopped this crime. Banning high capacity magazines, clips and drums would not have stopped this crime. The Liberals just want to grab your guns. They don't ever let a tragedy go to waste. The victims didn't even have rigor mortis set in Friday before the liberals are calling for gun bans and more laws that will not stop events like this.
This guy was weird anti-social some reports of being a "Goth" His Mom should have been more responsible and had the firearms locked up. Especially when you hear things from people who knew her. He's burning his arm and doesn't feel pain. His Mom "I think I may have lost him". Well duh, get the kid some help or have him committed and maybe we'd be talking about the fiscal cliff instead of this tragedy.
How about a law banning Media vultures that won't leave Newtown funeral attendees alone? Geesh. These vermin should be sprayed with pepper spray to disperse.
The president of the USA is guarded and protected by people with automatic weapons and he wants to deny law abiding citizens the same rights and liberty to citizens who want self- defense with semi-automatic weapons. Mr. President give your guns up first. Lead by example.
So do you think the police should be allowed to have "Assault Weapons"?
Should we make it illegal to gun down children in school as well?
Maloof @ 8:39 and Henry @ 9:09, do your own posts make any sense when you guys re-read them? No? Outstanding! For a second there I thought it was just me…
Should we make it illegal to gun down children in school as well?
Comment by Henry — December 17, 2012 @ 9:09 pm
I would think you would know by now Henry that this one already is illegal. I can't politely say anything else about this comment.
Yes Maloof, it is just too bad we can't all be like the uneducated, and unenlightened right in this country:
Warning: Very offensive language!
Apparently that doesn't matter Henry. Stopping these things before they happen is the only chance those kids had. And we didn't do that. We have now failed children in this nation in every way possible.
Sandi thos fottball fans are disgusting however I didn't see any "
Death Threats
So really, when those law abiding citizens do not secure their guns and children are slaughtered by their mentally ill son, and some other people lose their minds and make threats that somehow justifies your comments, insults and accusations here Maloof?
Since we do not know when she got that assault weapon, maybe the ban being in place would have prevented that. Maybe if there was a law to secure your weapons from your mentally ill family members that would have prevented that.
What could have prevented your outburst?
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 8:18 pm
Thanks for the update. That's about what I remembered. Generally, we can agree to disagree, without this much difficulty. And sometimes we do agree.
FWIIW, we also agree with you on a couple of points.
Re: "I support a law that says that when a Restraining Order is issued, the police remove all guns from the premises and no guns can be purchased; same for anyone adjudicated as mentally ill or anyone who is institutionalized or diagnosed with certain mental illnesses until such situations are adjudicated as stable and no longer needing such precautions."
See: http://tinyurl.com/bunlcld
§ 18.2-308.1:4. Purchase or transportation of firearm by persons subject to protective orders; penalty.
It shall be unlawful for any person who is subject to (i) a protective order entered pursuant to § 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9, or 19.2-152.10; (ii) an order issued pursuant to subsection B of § 20-103; (iii) an order entered pursuant to subsection D of § 18.2-60.3; (iv) a preliminary protective order entered pursuant to subsection F of § 16.1-253 where a petition alleging abuse or neglect has been filed; or (v) an order issued by a tribunal of another state, the United States or any of its territories, possessions or commonwealths, or the District of Columbia pursuant to a statute that is substantially similar to those cited in clauses (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) to purchase or transport any firearm while the order is in effect. Any person with a concealed handgun permit shall be prohibited from carrying any concealed firearm, and shall surrender his permit to the court entering the order, for the duration of any protective order referred to herein. A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.
FWIIW, I'd go farther. I think the protective order should also be a temporary CHP for the "protected" individual if they are not prohibited elsewhere by statute or court order from possessing a firearm.
IMHO, as to your suggestion about removing "all guns from the premises", that gets a tad trickery re: other BoR provisions; re: what is actually the "premises"; Re: the rights of others in/on that "premises"; and re: the need for a return provision and the triggering criteria for such return. As is often the case, the devil is in the details.
Re: "In that same vein, I support civil rights legislation that says such interventions cannot be used to discriminate against the people involved so that the stigma of getting help or being evaluated on some level does not ruin lives, the way a felony conviction does." Plus 1, here.
Re: "Our society has a vested interest in a mechanism knowing who has guns or access to guns when they have certain mental illnesses, domestic violence issues, criminal records or proven trails leading that way. Seldom is a crime the first signal of something wrong. We do not need to wait for a criminal to commit a crime, if merely being caught with a gun is a crime and a serious one.
You might be surprised to learn that VCDL (and I) had a hand in crafting the following:
§ 18.2-308.1:2. Purchase, possession or transportation of firearm by persons adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated; penalty.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated (i) legally incompetent pursuant to former § 37.1-128.02 or former § 37.1-134, (ii) mentally incapacitated pursuant to former § 37.1-128.1 or former § 37.1-132 or (iii) incapacitated pursuant to Chapter 10 (§ 37.2-1000 et seq.) of Title 37.2 to purchase, possess, or transport any firearm. A violation of this subsection shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor.
B. Any person whose competency or capacity has been restored pursuant to former § 37.1-134.1 or § 37.2-1012 may petition the general district court in the city or county in which he resides to restore his right to purchase, possess or transport a firearm. A copy of the petition shall be mailed or delivered to the attorney for the Commonwealth for the jurisdiction where the petition was filed who shall be entitled to respond and represent the interests of the Commonwealth. The court shall conduct a hearing if requested by either party. If the court determines, after receiving and considering evidence concerning the circumstances regarding the disability referred to in subsection A and the person's criminal history, treatment record, and reputation as developed through character witness statements, testimony, or other character evidence, that the person will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest, the court shall grant the petition. Any person denied relief by the general district court may petition the circuit court for a de novo review of the denial. Upon a grant of relief in any court, the court shall enter a written order granting the petition, in which event the provisions of subsection A do not apply. The clerk of court shall certify and forward forthwith to the Central Criminal Records Exchange, on a form provided by the Exchange, a copy of any such order.
C. As used in this section, "treatment record" shall include copies of health records detailing the petitioner's psychiatric history, which shall include the records pertaining to the commitment or adjudication that is the subject of the request for relief pursuant to this section.
The bottom line is that you already have some of your wish list.
FWIIW, I, personally, could also support much tougher penalties on straw purchases. Ditto tougher penalties on any felon convicted a violent crime (who has not had his/her rights restored) carrying of any of the weapons listed in § 18.2-308. Personal protection; carrying concealed weapons; when lawful to carry; penalty. Ditto, tougher penalties on the use of any of those cited weapons in the commission of a violent crime.
As I mentioned earlier, when I see the rap sheet on many convicted violent felons and/or the BSJ data it is a condemnation of the revolving door of recidivism. IMHO, we have too many folk in prison who should not be (think war-on-drug & minor offenses) and too many on the street who should not be.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 10:06 pm
Stopping these things before they happen is the only chance those kids had. And we didn't do that. We have now failed children in this nation in every way possible.
See link and my comment @ 5:47 pm on http://tinyurl.com/cybzto4
Those "not allowed" on paper mean nothing. Unless the police confiscate weapons there is no "not allowed" and who is still living with the person they have a restraining order against? I am sorry if the prohibition on a mentally ill person rolls over onto their family, they just might have to live without guns. I can live with that.
Look whose calling the kettle black.
I'm not going to argue with you, with you being the most experienced poster here. I'll simply share a quote and factual historical information the left refuse to acknowledge.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. Mark Twain
I copied this from another site….but it applies.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.——————————In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.——————————Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million peaceful citizens who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.——————————China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.——————————Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.——————————Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 innocents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.——————————Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.—————————–Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.——————————
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
With guns, we are "free." Without them, we are "slaves."
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because
they knew most Americans were ARMED! Now, because the U.S. government
and DHS are so fearful of 90-million, well-armed, law-abiding
American citizens, they haven't declared martial law.
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory
being defenseless. The sword is more important than the shield, and
skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES a gun to EVERY HOUSEHOLD and provides
training! SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
May God comfort and keep the victims of the Newtown tragedy, and keep the press far enough away from those who want to bury their loved ones in peace. I will continue to pray for them.
"I support the "Assault Weapons Ban""
Tell me what this would ban. Tell me what the criteria is. I'm not being confrontational, I want to know what you think an assault weapon is and why it should be singled out.
"Since we do not know when she got that assault weapon, maybe the ban being in place would have prevented that."
This is an issue that we've been trying to explain and we just can't get through to people. Any assault weapon ban will not ban weapons with the same capabilities as an AR-15 or AK pattern rifle. They will ban guns with arbitrary cosmetic features that manufacturers will work around.
For the sake of this exercise, let's grant that banning a type of gun is a good idea. Ok, so we sit at a table to figure out which gun(s) to ban.
"I think we should ban the type of guns most often used in murders."
That would be handguns, no assault weapon ban addresses handguns and banning them would be impossible.
"How about the guns with the highest muzzle velocity."
None of the bans address this.
"What about the biggest calibers?"
Some state bans single out .50 but ignore many large calibers that are pretty much as effective at long ranges. And these calibers are damn near never used in crime.
"Rate of fire? Conceal-ability?"
Nope and nope.
So what does the typical assault weapon ban address?
Pistol grips. Flash suppressors. Bayonet lugs. Heat shields. A few address high capacity magazines, but since little crime is committed with such magazines and millions are already in circulation, what is the point? In Newtown, the majority of the victims were trapped in one room. Having to change magazines one or two more times would have made no difference.
Warren is officially obsessed with me. Half of his posts or more are about me. Creepy stalkers…. another good reason to carry!
They want to ban scary looking guns. It makes no sense that liberals want to ban guns but they want police around the school and they have guns. Do you want guns around or not? Pick a side.
You make it illegal to have a gun in school and someone comes into a school with a gun and kills people. Do you label that law a success? Do you honestly believe that gunman would have attacked that school if there were some police with guns in the office that day? Or do you think those guns would have deterred him?
And don't get on your high horse. You are the ones using the death of these children to push a political cause. All you guys want are more defenseless victims just so you can have a "win" over the Republicans.
"SWITZERLAND ISSUES a gun to EVERY HOUSEHOLD and provides
training! SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN-RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
My understanding of this broad swipe at the issue we are facing is this:
1: Every male between the ages of 20 and 30 are provided a weapon and training TO SERVE IN THE SWITZERLAND MILITIA.
2: At the end of their service a great percentage of these men surrender thier weapons.
3. Those would don't have the automatic function removed.
4. While shooting deaths are low in the tiny country of Switzerland, it ranks 23rd out of 46 Nations tracked by the information I googled.
5. This has nothing to do with young man killing his mother, forcing his way into a elementary school and killing 27 children and adults.
6. This does nothing to forward 2nd amendment rights in American unless you are suggesting that all men serve in the military and get training with weapons in order to enjoy shooting their weapons.
I refuse to compare the US to Communist Russia, Fascist Germany or Communist China. We are not discussing rounding up all guns and ammo. This is over the top, fear mongering talk. We are the good guys.
Not a well thought out post in my opinion. Sorry.
Yet you didn't answer the question. The one similarity in these cases is that the gunman chose locations where guns were banned and there were no police in sight.
"The one similarity in these cases is that the gunman chose locations where guns were banned and there were no police in sight."
And if this guy was just looking for an easy target, why did he go to a place with locked doors and at least some security? And why did the guy at Tech last December walk right into an area where there were at least two armed officers (this one elicited some absolutely hysterical replies the last time I asked it)?
Do you think either of these people were acting "rationally," Henry?
The type of disorder that causes someone to do something like this doesn't preclude basic planning. If he was as dysfunctional as you are letting on, he wouldn't be able to tie his shoes or know which end the bullet came out of. I'm not making the argument for arming teachers and such, but you are being willfully ignorant if you are insisting that mass killers don't usually select "soft" targets, that is, locations where they are unlikely to meet resistance before accomplishing whatever horrible goal they had.
So you are saying that the person is the real problem, not the gun.
Well, Dan, he wasn't exactly irrational when he chose a school with which he was intimately familiar. There is, whether you want to admit it or not, a clear reason why these types of gunmen choose the targets they do. They're locking the doors to prevent intervention as much as to prevent escape. They're choosing targets with the highest probability of being unable to defend themselves. They're certainly NOT choosing airports or biker bars or rolling down to the 'hood and shooting up gangs.
To assume that these are irrational, foaming-at-the-mouth madmen is to cheapen the problem. The shooter in this case didn't just wake up in the morning and decide he was going to go out and shoot someone, then randomly choose the school as the setting. It was planned and calculated.
It's the same mistake that people are making by dismissing all the doomsday talk pushed for the past couple of years as a contributing factor (or even an inspiration) for these tragedies. There are a contingent of people who truly believe that there will be nothing left after the 21st, so if one of those people also happens to be unstable, what do they have left to lose? With all of this endless talk about the end of the world, is it really that big of a shock when someone refuses to go out on anyone's terms but their own?
And you're also assuming that he didn't care if his targets were able to defend themselves, are you not? Or how about your assumption that Henry believes the shooter was rational?
That is exactly my point. We can throw assumptions and suppositions around all day and it won't make any difference. The evidence needs to be gathered and a clearer picture must emerge of the event before any actions can be discussed. Is that not a logical and rational course to take?
As far as evidence goes, can you find any mass shootings that occurred where the majority of victims were armed? I see your request for anecdotal evidence and raise you a request for empirical evidence.
Really, J.M. White? Why did the guy at Tech last year walk straight up to one of the armed people on campus. And with another armed person watching (but too far away to intervene)?
J.M. White, name some places where the majority of people would be armed — except gun shows, police stations, hunting camps, military sites, John W's house. Of course the truth is that in the VAST majority of locations, most people AREN'T armed. If I decided TODAY that I was going somewhere to kill a bunch of people quickly, I'd be hard pressed to find a spot where the majority of the people would be armed.
"J.M. White, name some places where the majority of people would be armed — except gun shows, police stations, hunting camps, military sites, John W's house."
LMAO. That made my morning!
"If I recall correctly, the Fort Hood shooter did his horrible deed on an army base, rather than at an elementary school, or in a church, or movie theater."
And if I recall correctly, our soldiers are disarmed while on base now.
"Really, J.M. White? Why did the guy at Tech last year walk straight up to one of the armed people on campus."
Here's a difference I see and why they aren't all the same kind of "nut with a gun". Crouses killer, Ashley, really did act randomly. He held up a real estate brokerage in Radford (had it been a different brokerage no one would even know his name), he steals a car that he let run out of gas, he walks to campus and shoots a random victim – or at least a random cop, then goes to another parking lot and shoots himself. It looked to be an impulsive target. None of that shows anywhere near the planning that Cho showed in his caluculated rampage at VT. Cho made tapes which he mailed between shootings one and two. He carried locks and chains, he perpared thoroughly.
While most of these shooters do act in the most evil manner possible, they do show some decision making as to how to best achieve their goal. If their goal is mass slaughter, the gun free zone is the way to go.
Glad to have made your day, John W. I thought you might appreciate that one.
One Facebook friend of mine posted a complaint today about the NRA being silent since the shooting. It's very hard for me to be silent about the stuff some people have been posting the last few days, but they have the right to post whatever they want to on their own page. I have the right to ignore it.
gdad: there is no evidence that the shooter at Tech last year planned a killing rampage, either, targeting multiple innocent people. As happens often with that kind of killing, a moment of unchecked anger spiraled completely out of control. So, what's your solution then, gdad? It's obvious that gun-free zones are little more than a barrel full of innocent fish. So, do you want more zones? Maybe outright bans (please keep in mind that I'm not opposed to further requirements and registrations for gun ownership)?
Would you feel safer if I turned in all of my guns? That brings up an important point: How do we shape and operate a society based on our feelings? Just traveling around Blacksburg, on foot or by vehicle is a harrowing experience for me. It's dangerous, and if I'm not on guard at every single second I can be hurt or killed. I don't like that feeling. By "feel safe" logic, shouldn't there be even more restrictions/penalties on drivers so I can feel secure while in the town where I live and conduct business? I'm only comparing feelings here, not the instruments of our terror or the people who wield them.
As much as I've looked around, I still see no evidence that gun control will stop or significantly curb rampage killings, while I also admit that the evidence of armed victims stopping shooting sprees is also tenuous. Most of the UK's killings sprees by gun were made after their ban on guns. I can't get over this feeling that we're just trying to build "better" coops instead of neutralizing the fox that's killing the hens in the first place. I hope we can find the right answers.
Dan: you're correct that the Ft. Hood shooting was on base. What you don't acknowledge or maybe don't realize is that it's easier to carry a firearm openly in Roanoke than it is to do so on a military base. Only MPs and high-ranking officers (for display) have firearms outside the armory. I'm willing to bet that the shooter there was well-aware of this.
J.M. White said: "As far as evidence goes, can you find any mass shootings that occurred where the majority of victims were armed?"
Actually, if you look at all public shootings in which three or more people died, since at least 1950, the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in 2011 is the only one that took place outside of a gun-free zone.
"If I recall correctly, the Fort Hood shooter did his horrible deed on an army base, rather than at an elementary school, or in a church, or movie theater."
Comment by Dan Casey
Again, at a place where it is unlawful for his victims to be armed. What? Do you think people run around military bases with guns all day?
The mentality of many of the pro gun advocates is clearly illustrated by the marketing campaign buy the compnay producing and selling he Bushmaster
weapon. Their slogans: :Consider your man card reissued" and "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you" indicate clearly what this monstrosity is made for. It's not for hunting. It's not for traget shooting. It's to kill as many peope as possible, as eficiently as possible, and in the least possible amount of time. This is the weapon that John Wilburn, Dave Hicks, Maloof, and others are defending and believe should not be restricted And there are lots of other weapons like them out there. Their defense of these weaqpons is disengenuous at best.
"If I recall correctly, the Fort Hood shooter did his horrible deed on an army base, rather than at an elementary school, or in a church, or movie theater."
Soldiers can't carry guns on base. It was a soft target.
Debbie@ 12:15
As far I'm I'm concerned nothing would make me happier than for the NRA to remain silent from now on.
Arizona, where Gabby Giffords was shot, is an open carry state, and there are lots of people armed. Who finally shot the guy who murdered and assaulted the 20 victims at the Gabby Gifford's event? Oh, that's right — nobody! Jared Loughner was subdued by unarmed citizens when he stopped to reload.
The one guy nearby that was carrying, admitted he was unsure in all of the confusion who was the shooter and confronted the wrong guy – it was lucky he never fired his weapon.
"it was lucky he never fired his weapon."
It wasn't luck, it was discretion. The majority of carriers have this, believe it or not.
Dave @ 1:26 Me too.
"This is the weapon that John Wilburn, Dave Hicks, Maloof, and others are defending and believe should not be restricted"
Yes, I defend its value and do not think it should be further restricted. people whine that these rifles aren't for hunting, well, they're right, but only because according to the state of Virginia, they aren't powerful enough. VA doesn't allow deer hunting with the .223 cartridge it shoots.
I don't have an AR-15, but have always wated one. Oh well, I better move up my priority of getting one or two while I they are still remotely affordable.
"And you're saying the maniac with the gun who killed 20 6- and 7-year-olds and 6 adults was acting rationally."
You said that Dan, not me. I was just pointing out that you guys claim the gun was the problem and then turn around and say the Aperger's kid was the problem. Pick a side.
The other mentality I find strange is "I saw a man with a gun and it scared me. Send men with guns". You don't want people to have guns but if something scares you, you want men with guns around.
Just think, last week, Obama was welcoming a rapper who sang about murdering children to Washington. Oh, the irony.
The other mentality I find strange is "I saw a man with a gun and it scared me. Send men with guns".
This one's getting stale already, Henry.
John W @ 242 – the word "lucky" was not my characterization, but that of Joe Zamudio's [the concealed carry guy]
"I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He [was the one who had] wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Joe Zamudio's own words:
" I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of, holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."
Thanks for the congrats… just saw a picture 8 weeks very tiny and fragile, but still makes one tear up…
I don't know the reasons for other's actions, just as I don't know the reasons for scarborough's. (if you noted in my post I mentioned it was sarcastic). My point is that you can blame the "device" or blame the perpetrator or blame society and culture; when we raise a generation of children with no true understanding of morality, what are we to expect?
Kristen, news today is that his mother was trying to have him committed (usually that is not done for non "mental" issues) which sparked the event because he believed she cared more for the school than for him. (granted more facts will come out).
As Sen. Warner has now said:
"It is time for this kind of senseless violence to end," he continued. "There won't be one perfect law to stop a crazy person from doing evil things… even if we save a few lives, we make progress."
My question to you is if instead of restricting gun ownership, he was talking about locking up all those "crazy person(s)" before they commit their dastardly deeds, would you be OK with that?
Does anyone remember "speed kills", or the headlines where "SUV's" kill pedestrians? To "even… save a few lives" we should have all speed limit laws below 30mph and "outlaw" SUV's. Sadly, so many (particularly politicians) look for a "solution" to an unsolvable problem.
In this recent case the problem is an evil person the only counter to "evil as bad" is "good is right" and this was taken out of schools.
Mike O,
What exactly are you basing what "good is right", off of? What or who is your moral compass?
I know that real schools teach reason, logic, and rationality, to guide one's morality. So what exactly does a person with mental disabilities have to do with coming into a school and shooting innocent children? You insinuate that mass shootings happen because someone keeping children and teachers from meditating to an already proven insane, and bipolar of a god. And somehow you are not the crazy one in this scenario? Your insinuation is moral..? Really? I will go out on a limb here and say you and your mentor, Pat Robertson, are a tad bit on the loony side , with inane comments such as that. Personally, I would feel really embarrassed if I thought that, much less said that out loud.
Mike O,
By the way… is there a time limit on prayers or something? Do they fade away or do they just float into space like a balloon? If the Christians in this country feel that prayer is so powerful, if they pray in the morning before their breakfast, does it lose its powers when you leave the building it was said in? Perhaps if you say your prayers into a freezer bag and sealed it up, and then when you get to your godless school, or workplace, Yahweh, can protect you there too… with all of us heathens running around and such.
I think the deaths of these children were caused by a mixture of fanatical gun owners mixed with lack of mental capacity to understand the full effect of the aftermath. NO deity needed in this equation.
The other mentality I find strange is "I saw a man with a gun and it scared me. Send men with guns". You don't want people to have guns but if something scares you, you want men with guns around.
Comment by Henry — December 18, 2012 @ 2:51 pm
Henry… are you saying that 20 year old, Billy Bob Jeebus, with an M-16 A-2 Service Rifle, never been through proper training, never read how to attack a building, never ran more than 15 yards and that was only because it was raining outside of Burger King, never trained with someone on Close Quarters Battle… do you think he would be just as qualified as someone like myself(Marine Infantry)that has been? Really? If that is true then empty out Frank's trailer park and send them to Iran, and Benghazi to find these terrorists we need to bring to justice. All you need is a hunting license and $150 and you are a trained killer. Well, that was a waste of my time.
Make no mistake, I do not mind being around men or women with guns, but they need to be well trained, WELL TRAINED, as in police and/or military training. I don't want some guy around me with a gun that has dip spit running down his chin, and can't stop thinking about if "the south woulda whun weedah had it made!" NO you can keep those fellas. Saying that we want our police force armed is much different than saying we want everyone in this country armed to their guMs (if you have ever been to Floyd, you know why I said guMs and not teeth), with weapons. Their is a difference, and you know it.
Maloof, do you know what they say about people who just copy things of the internet without citations and full of BS? Well, let's just say they might say they prove Mark Twain right.
Since you want to stick to facts, we'll do just that.
"….there's this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don't. Ten years ago, when Israel had the outbreak of violence, there was an expansion of gun ownership, but only to people above a certain rank in the military. There was no sense that having ordinary citizens [carry guns] would make anything safer.
Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They've been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they're not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household."
I won't try to embarrass you by taking your copied post apart piece by piece because the truth is, it flat does not matter.
Shrillary quoting an article:
"So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast"
Then HE mischaracterized it as luck. He made good decisions. Kudos to him.
Sandi quoting an article:
"there's this widespread misunderstanding that Israel and Switzerland promote gun ownership. They don't."
Per The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide and criteria they ranked and averaged, Switzerland ranks 5th on the Firearms Freedom Chart, but Israel ranks 42.
It is possible that if the principal or one of the teachers had been armed in Connecticut this tragedy may have been prevented. It is also possible that if the "assault weapon" ban had been maintained, this tragedy may have been prevented. It is also possible that if the law abiding gun owner doomsday prepper had handled her guns responsibly this tragedy may have been prevented.
I find it laughable with all that teachers are assaulted with from the general public and bloggers in particular they would be all that insulted that people do not want them armed in schools. They complain about lunch duty and now they are to willingly take on security guard? I just don't think so.
The problem of mass shootings is very serious and complex and the availability of "assault weapons" is but one facet of the problem. That alone will only make it somewhat more difficult. Nothing more. It is a piece of the puzzle, it is not the solution.
I would sincerely hope that this time an "assault weapon" ban is more than a joke or cosmetic, otherwise it is the same as nothing.
Jason, I consider assault weapons to be automatic and semiautomatic military style guns that use a rifle cartridge/magazine. Psst, I am not writing the legislation. I am a blogger.
Dan and nosaj,
The study that you cited, "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault" is a true example of either very shoddy research or a study designed to give a desired result (most likely for political points or to get more government funding from the NIH). If you read the study, which is available online from the American Journal of Public Health, you see that the "study" suffers from many fatal flaws. The design of the study has huge selection bias– the shooting case participants were people who had already been shot to start with. But then, the researchers say " We assume that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of the day or night". WHAT??? So THEN what did they do? The control cases were "sampled from all of Philadelphia via random digit dialing" They literally picked their "controls" from the phonebook, called them, and asked questions, such as have you been assaulted and do you own a gun!! The general Philadelphia resident is not going to own a gun or admit to it, and will be much less likely to have been shot than the other cases who had ALL already been shot. And if you read further, the shooting case participants "more frequently worked in high risk occupations and had a greater frequency of prior arrest". Shooting case participants also were "more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking". So these "researchers" compared prior convicts in the low income/drug trafficking part of town that wound up getting shot, with someone from the middle/upper income parts of town sitting at home by their phone, and were amazed that the people who had evil guns were more likely to be shot! This study tells us absolutely nothing about regular law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves. Apples and oranges to make a political point sound like its scientific.
Good read: http://tinyurl.com/c2ge8tz
In school shootings, patterns and warning signs
By Katherine Newman, Special to CNN
updated 11:35 AM EST, Mon December 17, 2012
Editor's note: Katherine S. Newman is the James B. Knapp Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences at Johns Hopkins University and the co-author of "Rampage: The Social Roots of School Shootings" (Basic Books, 2004).
(CNN) — How could it happen here? This is the question plaguing residents of Newtown, Conn., a picture-perfect country town with good schools, quiet streets and a strong sense of community. But small towns like Newtown are where 60% of rampage school shootings in the United States occur. Far from big urban centers where gun violence is common, these communities are generally very safe. But more often than not, they are the places where this kind of tragedy strikes.
Rampage shootings are never spontaneous. They are planned, often for months in advance. We don't know yet whether the Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, gave any warnings, but in the episodes we studied, shooters commonly told their peers — often in a veiled and ambiguous fashion — what they had in mind.
One reason shooters tip their hands is that they are trying to solve a problem. Though they are often intelligent, high-performing boys, their peers tend to see them as unattractive losers, weak and unmanly. In a school culture that values sports prowess over academic accomplishment, they face rejection. The shooters are rarely loners, but tend instead to be failed joiners, and their daily social experience is full of friction. Since they are almost always mentally or emotionally ill, those rejections — so common in adolescence — take on greater importance and become a fixation. Rebuffed after trying to join friendship groups, they look for ways to gain attention, to reverse their damaged identities.
Maybe we really do need to have a discussion about what it means to be "mentally ill". Does it mean you are irrational, totally unpredictable, disorganized with no capability to focus, distracted to the point of dangerous, fixated without relief, tormented, unable to change? Does it mean you are incapable of functioning normally in any capacity? Does it mean only that you are not "in control" of your emotions, actions or functions? Is there a level to be decided for every case? How can we hope to do that on any mass scale needed to prevent tragedy? Should we even try? Is this a "rights" issue? Who says we all have to be round pegs for round holes?
Is the pure evil I believe it takes to shoot an innocent child cowering in fear a mental illness all on its own or a symptom of another mental illness? Is what we consider evil, like torturing (an animal, a human being, a child), mental illness or is it simply evil? Is killing evil?
People and their minds function at many different levels and one of our biggest mysteries is how that should all come together and what, precisely is "normal"?
Personally, I believe in evil. I believe a mind that is disturbed, either by mental illness, drugs, abuse, isolation or any combination of them, can become evil. I believe that this evil is fully rational, fully capable of functioning, fully capable of making decisions, but completely fixated on achieving the goal of whatever mayhem they have decided will end their pain, existence or situation, or feed their demented fantasies. Ted Bundy was somewhat attractive, intelligent, capable, affable and totally, ruthlessly obsessed with killing and not getting caught. David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hitler, Idi Amin, Ed Gein, all were evil, but also capable, some charismatic, convincing, cruel, abusive, sadistic, and ruthless. Were they all mentally ill? Or evil?
Like I keep saying, this is about far more than "assault weapons" and "mental illness".
"It is possible that if the principal or one of the teachers had been armed in Connecticut this tragedy may have been prevented."
"It is also possible that if the "assault weapon" ban had been maintained, this tragedy may have been prevented."
No, because all the last ban did was make guns more expensive. Once the ban sunset and with the help of inflation, the prices have stayed almost as high. That wouldn't have factored at all.
"It is also possible that if the law abiding gun owner doomsday prepper had handled her guns responsibly this tragedy may have been prevented."
While that may be possible, once someone is murdered, anyhting is possible. Even locked away in the gun cabinet and stored responsibly, there would be next to nothing keeping a determined theif out.
"I would sincerely hope that this time an "assault weapon" ban is more than a joke or cosmetic, otherwise it is the same as nothing."
If you knew the last one was a joke, why did you suggest that it might have been effective?
If you locked up all the nuts in this world the streets would be empty. Bottom line, there really are no answers. M'out.
Sandi Sauders said: "It is also possible that if the "assault weapon" ban had been maintained, this tragedy may have been prevented."
This is not the case. Let's use a car analogy. I know, you guys don't like those, but we aren't comparing how they are used to kill.
Let's say all of a sudden the government said "We're going to ban cars. And by 'ban' we mean that no new cars can be manufactured and sold to civilians after today."
Does that mean that people all of a sudden do not have cars? No. Does it mean that people might keep the cars they already have longer? Sure, maybe. Does it mean that if you do want to buy a car from a dealer or another citizen that you might pay more for it? Definitely. Does it mean that cars are now out of the market? Of course not.
Granted, technology in cars changes all the time, so a ban on newly manufactured ones would have a significant effect on the quality of the cars on the road after a certain amount of time, with regards to what *could* have been. Guns are different, however, as their technology really isn't changing that much as quickly.
But you get the idea.
"On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia's history.
Twelve days later, Australia's government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well."
First man off the "Let's Solve the Problem of Gun Violence Committee" is Roanoke's own U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte.
Goodlatte, elected chairman of the Congressional Judiciary Committee, told "Roll Call" on Tuesday that he does not favor tightening controls on firearms, such as banning assault weapons or high capacity magazines after the killings in Newtown last week. We're going to take a look at what happened there and what can be done to help avoid it in the future, but gun control is not going to be something that I would support."
Here is my question to Rep. Goodlatte: "How many first-graders have to be shot to death in their classrooms in order to get you to show us you have any sort of a heart? any sort of a conscience? any sort of sense of responsibility to your constituients — of all ages? Or does the money the NRA gives you count more than those lives?"
I am determined to do what I can to bring a balanced debate on this issue, but we MUST be open to debating all of the issues. Goodlatte needs to step aside and let someone with common sense take his place.
Art's right. The best we can do is defend ourselves because we can't stop irrational nuts from killing people.
The BBC commentator yesterday took issue with the idea that the Aperger's shooter was irrational. He claimed it was a pre-meditated act of suicide in which he included homicide as part of the act. It wasn't random. He chose his targets. It wasn't irrational. It was evil.
John Wilburn, I suggested that it might have been effective because that is as valid as all of the other suppositions. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda is not a solution.
There is a reason that these killers, the gun culture, movies, video games, and music display/choose this kind of "assault weapon". That is reason enough for a ban and serious strict control on who has one or access to one IMO.
That's not what I said, Henry. But you knew that.
Sandi, I greatly admire your resolve. Your voice on this topic is resolute.
There is a reason that these killers, the gun culture, movies, video games, and music display/choose this kind of "assault weapon". That is reason enough for a ban and serious strict control on who has one or access to one IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 19, 2012 @ 9:30 am
Many of you have noted that the guns used in this tragedy and other mass shootings in recent years were obtained legally. Had the assault weapons ban still been in force, these killers would not have been able to legally obtain the AR-
15 rifle. Isn't it possible, then, that some of these killers would not have followed through?
Taking the AR-15 and the like out of circulation will not deprive one person of his or her ability to protect home and property, and it will not deprive anyone of the means to hunt. Nor will taking high capacity magazines out of circulation.
It looks as if we will have a national discussion of the factors underlying this tragedy. I hope the primary focus is on mental health services. The role of firearms must also be on the table, and there is no doubt we will discuss arming school officials and classroom teachers. Safety protocols are already under review. Hopefully, other causal factors will come to light during these discussions. I do not think there is any one solution. I am optimistic that we will find the middle ground that provides wider protections while minimizing the need to infringe on one's rights. The time to compromise is here.
There is a reason that these killers, the gun culture, movies, video games, and music display/choose this kind of "assault weapon". That is reason enough for a ban and serious strict control on who has one or access to one IMO.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — December 19, 2012 @ 9:30 am
According to FBI statistics…"assualt weapons" have been utilized in .2%
of crimes where a weapon was used…leaving 99.8% of such violent crimes to be unaffected by the ban Sandi supports.
"The BBC commentator yesterday took issue with the idea that the Aperger's shooter was irrational. "
The guy was shooting Asperger's, Henry? Weird.
I read an interesting article about gun violence and murders…and how total gun deaths (including murders, suicides, and accidents) would possibly outpace deatsh by car crashes in the not too distant future.
But, that wasn't what caught my eye. What was is the irrefutable statistic that mass shootings have accounted for a mere 1% of total gun deaths in this country since 2006. 1%. It is possible that some measures added to the lawbooks as a result of Newtown might impact those remaining 99% of gun deaths, but why was there not a broader dialogue going on before now?
Could it be that no one really cares (in the broad sense) if bangers are killing themselves, or a mentally distraught person eats a bullet? But that when 20 first graders get mowed down that's what triggers our collective outrage? What exactly does that say about society in general?
I don't think it speaks well of us, honestly. I'm just asking, because it's something that has gnawed on my brain for a couple days as I've seen some utterly ridiculous stuff spouted by both sides of this growing debate.
Since the Timothy McVeigh attack in Oklahoma City, which was the largest terrorist attack in the US until 9-11, fertilizer purchases are monitored:
"Many of the regulations only require the purchaser to show a drivers license and have the information recorded and kept on file by the retailer at the time of purchase, but this information is only helpful after an attack has occurred as there is no required reporting of sales." http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/materials-fertilizer-bombs-not-regulated
So the governments, whether state or federal, require that information, at the time of fertilizer purchases, be kept by the shop owners. yet, no ammo purchases, whether large or small quantities, are monitored or recorded anywhere…Wow, just wow.
Sandi Saunders:
"John Wilburn, I suggested that it might have been effective because that is as valid as all of the other suppositions. Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda is not a solution."
No, armed teachers has some component of reality, where the cosmetic AWB had no component of reality.
I like the new avatar, BTW.
"Taking the AR-15 and the like out of circulation will not deprive one person of his or her ability to protect home and property, and it will not deprive anyone of the means to hunt. Nor will taking high capacity magazines out of circulation. "
Well, if a group attacks you and they have AR-15′s, what do you want to defend yourself? Banning AR-15′s is like banning marijuana. How is that illegal drug thing working out? If you can't stop bales of marijuana from coming into the country, how will you stop Ak-47′s? If the drug lords and gangsters are the only people who have assault weapons, how is that going to work out? So we basically end up with a lunatic illegally shooting up a gun-free zone like a school or theater with an illegal weapon instead of a legal weapon.
When these kind of incidents happen, why is our response always to take guns from the people who didn't do it?
Dan and Nosaj,
Here is a re-post of my comment #257:
The study that you cited, "Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault" is a true example of either very shoddy research or a study designed to give a desired result (most likely for political points or to get more government funding from the NIH). If you read the study, which is available online from the American Journal of Public Health, you see that the "study" suffers from many fatal flaws. The design of the study has huge selection bias– the shooting case participants were people who had already been shot to start with. But then, the researchers say " We assume that the resident population of Philadelphia risked being shot in an assault at any location and at any time of the day or night". WHAT??? So THEN what did they do? The control cases were "sampled from all of Philadelphia via random digit dialing" They literally picked their "controls" from the phonebook, called them, and asked questions, such as have you been assaulted and do you own a gun!! The general Philadelphia resident is not going to own a gun or admit to it, and will be much less likely to have been shot than the other cases who had ALL already been shot. And if you read further, the shooting case participants "more frequently worked in high risk occupations and had a greater frequency of prior arrest". Shooting case participants also were "more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking". So these "researchers" compared prior convicts in the low income/drug trafficking part of town that wound up getting shot, with someone from the middle/upper income parts of town sitting at home by their phone, and were amazed that the people who had evil guns were more likely to be shot! This study tells us absolutely nothing about regular law-abiding citizens using guns to defend themselves. Apples and oranges to make a political point sound like its scientific. Comments?
Henry, right now an AR-15 is between $1100-2500 and hardly anyone really wants an AR-15. But a bag of weed is a different story. For as little as $10 you will not want to shoot anything, you will want a bag of Funyuns.
I cannot grasp your logic of these situations. You have compared guns killing innocent people to cars, SUVs, and now marijuana… what next, cheeseburgers? Hot dogs? Hot dogs kill at least 70 children annually. Can we get your comparison on that one?
And what is the difference in lunatics shooting people with an illegal weapons or legal ones? If you make them illegal to own there will be less of them, the price will skyrocket. So really the only people to have them will be Police, Military, and your drug lords. I don't see drug lords walking into our schools and shooting people anytime soon.
When these kind of incidents happen, why is our response always to take guns from the people who didn't do it? -Henry
Well if we waited on them to do something, what good is regulations then?
And that's my point, Dan. 99% of the other gun deaths really haven't raised anyone's hackles, aside from the long-term activists. And to me, that's pathetic. It's not like gun deaths are a new thing, it's been ongoing for decades but people either don't care, or we're numb to it. Either way, it speaks terribly of society that it takes a shooting in an elementary school to open up the dialogue.
Mark at 6:01 p.m., I wondered about the details of the study. You have made some interesting points, but here is how I see it. A random sampling from, in your words, "random digit dialing," seems reasonable to me. Isn't random digit dialing a common way to survey folks? What questions would you ask in a survey about the relationship between gun possession and gun assault? To say that some of the respondents had already been shot, as a criticism of the study, seems somehow misplaced. The study is about people who are injured with guns.
The study certainly fits the point of view I espouse – if you possess a gun, you are more likely to be shot with a gun. My view doesn't include just felonious shootings. I include accidental shootings and suicide, too. I simply don't view firearm handgun possession as a panacea.
I think the mass killings are just something we cannot wrap our heads around. One person killing another in anger, retaliation, in commission of a robbery, over drugs…is at least "understandable" and we can make some sense of it, even knowing it is wrong and awful. There is not that sense in mass shootings, they are just terrorism so like Hurricanes they make a bigger impression, regardless of their "statistic".
Even before the previous assault weapons ban, killings with these types of weapons accounted "about 2% according to most studies and no more than 8%".
That is what is known as a cited and verifiable fact Leon!
"A .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two handguns were recovered at the scene in Newtown, Conn.,
James Holmes reportedly used a .223-caliber rifle in the theater shooting in Aurora, Colo.
a .223-caliber Bushmaster was used in the Washington, D.C., sniper shootings
Thirteen of those weapons were recovered in crimes in Chicago within a year of their purchase between 2008 and 2010".
Those are also cited and verifiable facts Leon.
Now, having said that, I will also admit that just banning a weapon while others are in circulation is futile. Banning one weapon when others can fire just as fast and just as long is also futile. Banning one class of weapons is symbolic and will have a minor if any true consequence.
We need to accept that the price of freedom and gun rights is abuse of that right and mass killings. I don't like it, but it appears to be reality. How anyone can gleefully defend that remains a mystery.
"Gun deaths to surpass deaths in traffic accidents by 2015: report
Gun deaths are on the rise, and in three years, more Americans will die from gunshot wounds than in car crashes, a report found."
May God have mercy.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.com)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.
All fields are required to comment.