when a drunk driver kills someone, we take away his license. Which he had to qualify for and test to get prior to, as well. Why is getting a license to have a gun such a problem? Here's a fact for you - SC had to refuse concealed permits to 17 people in the last couple of years *because state courts had ruled those persons mentally incompetent in other cases.* Those 17 still had/already had weapons, though - they were only refused concealed permits.

I see the paid NRA poster is doing his job.

re: drunk driver
the are very few relevant analogies here...make that NONE!

re: they were only refused concealed permits.
however irrelevant analogies do provide 'straight lines' to post relevant facts...

@ken

ironically they dont get paid...they pay dues for the privilege to oppose sensible gun control (be accomplices to mass murders)...weel OK, they do get a 'shooters cap.'

who knows, maybe a membership in the m-i-c-k-e-y m-o-u-s-e club...

Simple...fire a teacher. But you know, one armed deputy really isn't enough assurance (ref: Columbine High School with their armed deputy), so maybe fire several teachers, hire several police. There will be a fine line between "Juvenile Detention" and "Middle School", but if that is the price we must pay to keep assault weapons freely available to whomever wants one, or more, so be it.

if you actually think that the biggest question is how do you feel about armed people being posted that .. respectfully.. you completely missed the point.. excuse me for the following..... small children were ruthlessly killed in a gun free zone. last week. .. today.. this very minute there are millions of small children in school that are STILL unprotected in a gun free zone.. they are helpless victims. completely defenseless.. and we are arguing about protecting them because someone in the school will be armed..to me that's a duh moment.... I think no one wants to do this.. or wants to have to do this.. but for those who are against protecting our children, it is you who will be responsible the next time a tragedy like this happens.. and it will.. as long as there are nuts running around in out society..and it has absolutely nothing to do with guns. .. there are number of ways that we could provide protection.. and the costs would be small.. the point here is that the NRA got exactly right.. our children have been made victims by the very people whose goal was to keep them safe.. now they are doing it again in the face of a mountain of evidence.. schools, colleges, malls, theaters, stadiums.. any gun free zone is a target.. there is no for sure safe place..Carolyn.. you want to know how you would feel with armed people posted... you would feel safe.. very very safe

I don't get your comment about the NRA.. but the rest you seemed to have come to your senses.. I agree.. the nuts want to be totally in charge of their heinous crime.. and they do not want to be killed by another..they almost always need to do it themselves.. so you are right.. get rid of those dangerous gun free zones and tell the whole world they are gone and now are filled with concealed weapon carriers.. the nuts won't come.. the kids will be safe.. and the politicians can go pound sand..

Paul, check this out: http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/06/14/yet-again-the-nra-sells-out-to-democrats/

I'm not a big fan of RedState usually - but this article contains links to many other articles illustrating the point.

You know, or make pretty much everywhere a gun free zone and treat the sick. That you people actually WANT every town to regress to Tombstone in 1880 is more than a little disturbing. Laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. -- actual attributable quote from founding father Thomas Jefferson, it's inscribed in his monument.

JoSCh, we've gone over this already and I don't feel like doing it again. All change is not good change. You say things you disagree with are "regression" but I could say the same thing about banning guns, which is what Hitler and Stalin both did.

Lots of developed countries banned guns too, and not in the 1930s, recently. Their mass killings have dropped to pretty much nil, and inexplicably they haven't been overrun by dictators.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/

We're the worst by a huge margin, and getting worse every day as this right wing angst you promote as normal expresses itself.

well said!!!!! The NRA are just putting the blame on everyone else and justifying everyone having a gun. Im from England and I cried my eyes out when I seen the news of them innocent young children!!! Its a bloody joke that their answer to this is put more guns. I am not the smartest person in the world but i am sitting here watching the NRA speak out and think can people be sooooo stupid to not see past all of this. They are not getting to the point. Fair enough there are people that have guns and dont do anything wrong but like nancy it was her son that got hold of her gun. When they past this law it was 200 years ago and times change. All the NRA are seeing is money money money and if people are too thick to see this there is going to be more shooting more killings and mo0re innocent victims!!!!!!!!!!!

of course you are dead wrong.. if it were up to you we would ban assault rifles again.. repeat the no change that occurred during the 10 years the ban was in affect and the years that we got Columbine..leave the gun free zones in affect and of course based on your plan.. leave the children completely un protected and just trust that some law will keep the nuts out of the gun free zones.. we'll then sit back and wait to see what happens.. russian roulette with children is what that plan is...if you think for on single second that an assault rifle ban will make kids safe you need a transplant.. and it is you and people like you that are responsible for the death of school children as you go about your tidy little la la land business of making sure that these childred stay at risk so you can accomplish your foolish objective about guns.. no group of people have ever been this wrong as you and your anti gun nuts.. don't you get it ????? kids have been killed.. in gun free zones.. not once not twice not three times.. how many times does it have to happen before you brain kicks in ? In the final analysis .. it's not about the guns.. it's never been about the guns.. the assault rifle ban didn't work before, it was the wrong strategy then and it is the wrong strategy now. you are the problem at this moment in time.and folks like you.. you are willing to put people's lives in danger to accomplish your anti gun fetish even in the face of evidence that points you in a different directon

"and it is you and people like you that are responsible for the death of school children"

Classy. It's funny you call it an anti-gun fetish, project much Tiny? I mean, is there anything you people won't say to keep your penis extenders legal? Buy a lifted Jeep if you need to make up for your shortcomings.

re: it's never been about the guns.. the assault rifle ban didn't work before, it was the wrong strategy then and it is the wrong strategy now

it did work and it does work the rest of the world...eg

total firearm deaths per capita in most democracies with sensible gun control is around 2.0 in USA 10.0.

cant find and 'mass murder' rates by country...maybe an anti gun control advocate can provide facts/stats indicating gun control doesn't work...opines dont count.

oh/and in Britain even street cops (bobbies) dont carry guns.

Sure stanley, but every country that has ever instituted any form of gun control is now a fascist dictatorship controlled by Hitler or some Hitler like character. The entire pro machine gun in schools argument relies on this to be the truth, and if there is anything that they've shown its a strict adherence to facts backed by data.

Here is a report done by a fellow named Gary Mauser
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/faildxprmt.pdf
also an analysis I found at http://www.gunsandcrime.org. Interesting reading to be sure.

No bias there Kadie?

This site is for people who care enough about violence, life, death, liberty and slavery to put in the effort to get the facts about guns—and then understand those facts. If you don't care enough to learn, please have the decency to avoid doing things that might eliminate the ability of others to protect themselves, their families, their neighbors, and you—or might steal the liberty of our descendants.

Anybody who equates NOT having a AR15 to slavery is beyond having a reasonable conversation about this issue.

I know, I know, I'm Stalin now.

Um what? who has mentioned "Anybody who equates NOT having a AR15 to slavery is beyond having a reasonable conversation about this issue."
Certainly not I...and isn't posting things that give people other views exactly what this "conversation" is supposed to be about? Everyone here with an opinion is "biased" one way or the other. It amazes me that you, Reg, and Stan all seek to stop people from having part in a conversation because we disagree with you. You bully, insult and insinuate that because I post things contrary to what you beleive that I'm somehow less intelligent than you are. What a load of hooey...I don't think anywhere on ANY forum have I advocated all people having AR15's, but then I haven't advocated against that either. I think it should be a decision made within the law for each person to be able to acquire or not acquire as a personal choice.
Do I have to qualify everything I post with a disclaimer? Do you, or any of the other people here that post articles? What in the blazes has happened to this country that people can't disagree with one another without someone trying to shut down the debate with baseless crapola? Good grief its like being in the fourth grade...with taunts and ignorant innuendos...

Your "interesting reading" site is what I commented on. I read it and quoted it. Did you read it? The first paragraph calls anybody that believe that less guns means less gun violence a fool. I didn't even have time to disagree with you before you called me a fool...

What happened? Hard to tell when the digression really started, but I think the beginning of the end was the election of a black president following a pretty rough second term by President Bush. The GOP lost it.

JoSCh, you're kidding right..again trying to make a presumption you have no information with which to make? Is there anywhere here or on past posts that have I made a disparaging comment about the POTUS? Nope, no where....so what's ur point...

And yes JoSCh, I did read it...funny that you glombed onto the one word "slavery" and presumed it the person writing it wanted to make a connection to owning a semi-automatic weapon and "slavery." I certainly can't personally speak for the author of the website (since I'm not a mind reader evidently like you and your ilk here who seem to know the minds and motivations of everyone who don't agree with you), I think that the reference to slavery was in conjunction with the word "liberty" since by definition slavery is not liberty... just a guess on my part...

They clearly made a connection between being a free man and being armed and that the converse is also true and that anyone who disagrees with them is a fool. They're equating slavery with being unarmed. It's a pro gun website. If a gun control advocate posted something from bradybill.org or whatever their web site is and it was b.s. I'd call it out too. They never do and it rarely is though...

Sorry if you feel like I'm bullying you. Quit being disingenuous.

JoSCh, now I'm disingenuous...do guys ever run out of inane epithets? I found the website, I read the website, I posted the website for other people to read...what people do with it from there is their own business. However, (my opinion) I think if anyone is interested they can make up their own mind about how they feel about the information presented there...Unless I'm mistaken this is an OPINION page...I don't have to post any annotated cites...I did because I found it "interesting" Interesting because if you go through the pages you find that the statistics and the conclusion that people draw are not cut and dry. Interesting too, that these folks were encouraging people to get all the information they could and not just stay with their bias' If you took offense to their opening remarks that's not hardly my concern, since I didn't write the intro to their site...read it don't read its up to you. However, the innuendos and put-downs are not helpful to anyone...

Calling you disingenuous isn't an epithet any more than you calling me a bully.

If you don't like it, don't participate.

http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/1952/2557tissue_box.jpg

You really do not get it Cheryl. Having a firearm is not because "everyone" has one, it is because the government have them. Try understanding what the Second Amendment is all about---you disarm the populace and you leave the door open for complete tyranny; read what our founding fathers (ya know the ones that our current history books devalue and ignore) have to say on tyranny and an armed populace. I do not know where you stand on our current government, but I do not trust it, I do not like it, I actually find it to be despicable as currently led by a narcissistic moslem dictator wannabe who could not care less about the Constitution, the Congress or the Supreme Court. Kindly read some history about, 1930s Germany and another narcissistic dictator wannabe and how he came to power and what he did to a disarmed populace.

Mr Ambassador, it is this type paranoia that leads wackos to set up militia camps in the back woods. The rest of the population should not be put at risk just so you can feel more secure. Your rant was over the top, and had no basis in fact, just in your own unrestrained mind.

How pathetic ! There are over 200 million guns in USA and we have a national gun policy-it's called the 2nd Amendment. You don't need a semi- auto to slaughter people in a gun-free zone, several pistols would work. These cowards never attack a bar with off duty cops. If you think England has more liberty than we do- Delta is ready when you are.

re: , but I do not trust it [our democracy], I do not like it, I actually find it to be despicable as currently led by a narcissistic moslem dictator wannabe who could not care less about the Constitution,

@Robert Kelly

have to admire you for responding to such baseless, vitriolic hype...where/why does anyone spew such chronic diarrhea...how do they come up with it...cant be all attributed to their BO-hatred...or can it...

@Robert Kelly

re: it is this type paranoia that leads wackos to set up militia camps in the back woods.

much (all) current anti gun control bs can be attributed to the NRA, WACKO, LEMMING axis...the NRA uses the wacks/lemms to sell their anti-gun control program...

the NRA could care less about the 2nd amendment...it's all about firearm mfgs' profits...

I hope your AR15 is equally effective at hitting Predator drones and breaching M1A1 tanks as it is at slaughtering children, because that is what your justification for owning one depends on.

sure josch...and we need ar15's, ak47's (whatever), as you implied, to take out Predator drones and breaching M1A1 tanks when our government attacks us...

John Schaefer, Washington didn't say either of those things, they're NRA propaganda. Not that what a man said 200+ years ago is pertinent to today, but even when they are the very least you people could do is correctly attribute them. That you idiots think that the men who drafted this countries government were anti-government is laughable; that you think that they were making "pro gun" statements in their political speeches in a time when absolutely NOBODY was anti gun is proof that you either don't think about the propaganda you perpetuate or don't care about lying to advance the agenda that you bought from a paid lobby. Either way, your poor character is showing.

re: Jo, all I [js] ever see from you is a put down of everyone who disagrees with you...

i find most of josch's contributions to be accurate factchks of regurgitated fox/rush/ann, etal's misinformation (aka bs)

eg/FYI

re: 'Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself.'

Falsely attributed to George Washington...This quotation...appears nowhere in Washington's papers or speeches...This is a false quote, but bits and pieces of it still continue to crop up from time to time. Even national publications, such as Playboy magazine...

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html

re: 'Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.'

'...it’s not at all clear that Washington ever actually said this. I searched for it in various databases, and the earliest reference I found to it was in a 1902 source. Others have likewise noted that the quote might well be apocryphal [spurious, of questionable authenticity]

http://www.volokh.com/2010/04/14/government-is-not-reason-it-is-not-eloquence-it-is-force/

PS
more important than quotes most likely not washington's is they provide no logical reason education, testing, then license should not be required to own a gun...nor any plausible reason assault weapons should be available to crazies...

I didn't call you a hater John, I called you a liar.

Brainyquote isn't a source. It's a loose collection of sayings that aren't verified attributable. Google the quote and the first result is The Second Amendment Foundation debunking it. FFS man, quit lying. Stop it.

re: You do the same thing Jo does

i try...that is to get the facts.

re: This will be my last post on this thread...

John S seems to have a lot of 'lasts'...especially when his misinformation has been corrected...

why cant one just admit a mistake...calling UCLA and guncite.com names doesn't change the facts...there is no source (that i found) indicating pres#1 said what john s attributes to him.

if john s (or anyone) provides creditable evidence washington spoke/wrote these words...i will certainly welcome the enlightenment; admit i did not do adequate research; and apologize to john s or anyone else who believes 'fancy (actually pretty common) words' are used to impress vice search for the truth.

BTW doubt there are many (if any) persons who consider lemmings, straw man and idiot, 'fancy words.'...to most they are words that help to define an issue and are well know by all.

all said

geo's quotes and opinion of individuals are distractions...repeating the PS:

'more important than quotes most likely not washington's is they provide no logical reason education, testing, then license should not be required to own a gun...nor any plausible reason assault weapons should be available to crazies'...ie,

the issue is the gun control...

i disagree w/ josch...john s is not a liar...just an ideologue who believes all said by fox/rush/ann/etal is gospel...he should do a little fackchking before posting the 'fox-etal facts'...ditto Brainyquote.

dont think i specifically called john s (or anyone) a BO-hater...the reference was/is to anyone (or group)using vitriolic hype to describe our president...if there is another reason (other than hate) for using such rhetoric...pls enlighten...

Being an ideologue is not a valid excuse for maintaining beliefs when they KNOW that the facts that disprove their beliefs. Eventually these people will have to admit that their tooth fairy isn't real. Until they admit it they're lying.

i'm conflicted...not saying it's an excuse...but have doubts they KNOW (as in understanding) the facts (regardless of the obvious) disprove their belief...eg,

believe there were two of every kind on the ark...the earth is 4-6000 yrs old...
they will have to see sville with ocean front lots before they believe in global warming.

Mr Ambassador,
Thank you. When I find that people for whom I have respect disagree with me on a policy issue, I have to reexamine my own opinions and see if maybe they are right. Clearly that is not the case here.

finally .. amoung all this foolishness .. a sane and repsonsible comment..we have two sets of nuts that we have to deal with.. one is the shooters who would kill innocent people.defenseless children and the other are those who think it's perfectly ok to let the first set of nuts have easy acces to our kids by refusing to protect them.. like Crenshaw says regulating assault rifles has no history of working.. it does have a history of doing nothing.. yet.. that's where the second set of nuts are going with their argument. while the situation with schools and children remain the same .. the horror of putting a protective gun in a gun free zone actually paralyed most of the second group of nuts, so they too, will need counciling in order to protect their very own kids in school, inorder to overcome their disorder...Lori Crenshaw should be congratulated for putting to words so simply what the immediate solution is.. and it most definitely is not calling 911 after the fact... as is the case now in every gun free zone in America.. I, too, have a concealed permit, I am not a gun nut.. I was in viet nam so I'm no spring chicken.. but I'm not a victim either and neither is any one in my family.. and that. folks, is as it should be..

re: regulating assault rifles has no history of working...

look at mass murder rates per capita in the rest of the world...specifically check out:
'Australians Urge U.S. To Look At Their Gun Laws'
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws
[CLIP] Gun violence hasn't been completely eliminated in Australia. But gun-control advocates are quick to point out that there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the 16 years since the laws came into effect [end clip]

re: those who think it's perfectly ok to let the first set of nuts have easy access to our kids by refusing to protect them...

does anyone know anyone who thinks, 'it's perfectly ok to let the first set of nuts have easy access to our kids'...i bet not.

OTOH

bet we all know those (eg, NRA lemmings) who would allow easy access to assault weapons used by deranged kooks to kill kids...

yo thunk, the kooks couldnt strangle or knife to death 20 children in 10 minutes

Carolyn, check out the full story on the Oregon mall shooting in the past few weeks. There was a Concelaed permit holder there. He drew his gun on the evil carzy, did'nt take the shot because of people behind the shooter he was afraid he might hit. The psycho saw the CCW guy had a weapon and immediately ran into a stairwell and shot himself, These slimeball cowards , with few exceptions, go to a gun-free or "helpless victim " zone.

OTOH
Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

there are no stats...just opines, regarding: 'These slimeball cowards , with few exceptions, go to a gun-free or "helpless victim " zone'...

at least all i have seen are anecdotes and opines...

a good example is Chuck Schumer . senator of NY who says we need to ban weapons and he thinks possible repeal the 2nd amendment.. I checked a few sources. .Schumer.. a Senator,, anti gun proponent.. has a concealed weapons permit and is reported to be carrying most of the time.. what's that ..? something about the goose and the gander ? Hypocrites on every street corner

FYI
feinstein's gun control position:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/dianne-feinstein-judiciary-committee_n_2324037.html

[CLIPS]
Feinstein has pledged to introduce gun control legislation on the first day of the new Congress in January. She has said she will specifically seek to ban new sales of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines of the type reportedly used in the Newtown shooting. House Democrats say they will also push for a ban on high-capcity magazines, which make it easy to blast out many bullets quickly...

If Feinstein does take over leadership of the Judiciary Committee, that could ease the passage in the Senate of a renewed assault weapons ban, which was passed under President Bill Clinton in 1994...[END CLIP]

Efforts to completely ban assault type weapons and high cap magazines seems like securing the gate after the heard has escaped. What about all of the weapons that are already in circulation? Gun purchases have hit record sales.

If the ban passes, it will probably be cosmetic as it was during the Clinton Administration, alleviating the conscience of the nation but the root cause remains.

Maybe it’s time to ban them for a while. Personally, I don’t really care. I do not have the time nor inclination to own such a mechanism. I care more about making schools safe for my grandchildren. Attempting to disarm evildoers and creating an atmosphere of awareness makes better sense than arming untrained school employees.

Schools have had a history emergency drills for years for various scenarios. I participated in several in the event of an all out nuclear attack by the Soviets.

if you read the sequence of events at columbine you will find that there was not armed security INSIDE the school.. two law enforcement officers did engage with these two nuts but once they were inside the school this engagement ended and re-enforcements were called in.. it was a free for for the shooters ..absolutely no resistance inside the school... this would hardly qualify as an armed guard situation.. most believe that the law enforcement folks blew this big time.. they should have stormed the school and taken these nuts out right away instead the waited outside.. this problem is not an easy one.. but it is one that we must solve .. today would be a good time to do it.. leaving kids in a gun free zone is just plain stupid.. at Columbine.. well that was really difficult .. it was well planned .. bombs and cocktails fire .. strategic planning by the two shooters and lousy response by the cops all contributed to a horrible end result.. sometimes that can't be helped.. I'm saying protect the kids.. it will take an armed person or so and a plan.. not a knife in a gun fight.. just try to disarm these nuts with another law.. it's never worked before..

re: securing gate after the escape

should we leave the gate open...surely the answer is no.

all precautions should be considered...but the easiest and least costly (so first priority) is a ban on military type weapons and appropriate, enforced, background checks.

next priority is: education, testing then a license to own certain type firearms...similar to the process to obtain a driver's license...why does the gun culture oppose licensing...

and why wont anti gun control advocates answer the simple question: why do you need an ak47 to kill a bunny...

next on list: appropriate school security

and then

a related but separate agenda item is mental health...this should not be conflated with gun control. support/help for those with mental health issues should be a top priority, in its own right, for our 'christian?' society.

re: Guns don't kill people; people on prescription drugs kill people...

another straw man to allow the fire arm mfgs' award wining salesman, the NRA, to sell more killer products...ie, put profits over life...

painfully obvious mental health must be addressed...but guns do kill...doubt if one w/ a mental health issue could kill 20 children in 10 minutes by strangling or knifing them to death...or even with a shotgun or hunting rifle.

you know seigler you just don't get do you.. there is plenty of evidence to oppose gun control.. how about 53 million innocent unarmed civilians killed by their own gov't ? by gun control.. all guns were taken from the citizens.. if you want to bother look it up .. you'll see what countries and when.. it's history.. something we all should use to learn.. the very reason the 2nd amendment is in place.. Kennesaw Ga. a smallish town out side of atlanta has an ordinance .. it's mandatory that all house holds have weapon.. gun related crime is zero... I 'm not going to go on and on about this I have said my piece.. but if you really want to know how affective gun contol is .. it's easy to find the truth.. you don't want the truth so you fail.. you contribute to the problem and so you and folks like you are the problem .. you miss the bigger picture and you put yourselve and all american at risk . down the road

re: seigler you just don't get do you...

right i dont get it...perhaps you can enlighten me...

why are anti gun control advocates opposed to: enforced and appropriate background checks; education, testing, and licensing.

doubt if any, except extreme gun culture cowboys coached by the NRA, accept the premise citizens need guns to protect us against our government. but for discussion sake;

wouldnt 'enforced appropriate background checks; education, testing, and licensing, ensure a better trained well armed militia...

OTOH

assume guns are not needed (orders of magnitude more likely than they are needed) to defend us against our democracy, then why does one needs an ak47 to unsportsman-like kill a bunny...

please help me get IT...whatever IT is the NRA lemmings get...

re: it's history.. something we all should use to learn
perhaps 'learning' should begin at home...ie, what does 53M killed have to do with gun control in the USA today...i found no connection in my brief review...

re: Kennesaw Ga... gun related crime is zero
and kennesaw had how many newtown, columbine, type killings prior to the mandatory law to own a gun...also, seems it would make kennesaw citizens (school children) more safe if they had enforced and appropriate background checks; education, testing, and licensing...

exactly

weel NOT exactly...

POINT:
Allowing any trained,certified worker to carry firearms would give the students/staff the ability to survive these evil people

COUNTER POINT
Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

why not simple gun control...surely no sane person believes they need a gun to defend themselves against their country...nor need an ak47 to kill a rabbit.

why not require the process to get a drivers license to own a gun...eg education, test, licence.

ie

'Allowing any trained [EDUCATED],certified [LICENSED] worker [CITIZEN] to carry [OWN] firearms'

it is the immediate least costly answer...then consider other measures to further improve school security.

it not either/or...but first things (guncontrol) first.

re: Criminals are not a threat to most of us

are you sure? didnt machine gun kelly murderer a 1st grade class in the 30s or was that ma barker...:)

the NRA and their grub culture lemmings are beyond belief...that is unless they have stock in an arm's mfg-er...does any NRA 'shooter cap'-er (mass murderer accomplice) have any recent examples of those we classify as criminals (who can/will have guns, regardless) committing mass murder against children...

FYI
Australians Urge U.S. To Look At Their Gun Laws
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws

CLIPs
Thirty-five people died and another 23 were wounded in the killing spree that became known as the Port Arthur massacre, Australia's worst mass shooting.
[...]
The new laws prohibited all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and imposed strict licensing rules. Even paintball guns need a permit. There are also background checks and lengthy waiting periods for all purchases.
[...]
"We [aussies] too value freedom. But that's not the freedom to own machine guns in the main streets of the U.S. of A.," he says. "The facts are you are 15 times more likely to be shot dead per capita in the U.S.A. than here in Australia."
[...]
Gun violence hasn't been completely eliminated in Australia. But gun-control advocates are quick to point out that there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the 16 years since the laws came into effect [END CLIPS]
sigh...

Hog hunting would be a good reason.

They also have gun shows where unscrupulous people sell illegal weapons to people without a background check. And the NRA and other pro-gun supporters support these illegal weapons sales, because what is the worst that could happen? Own it.

re: armed with facts...Connecticut has an assault rifle ban in place.

to repeat: 'Australians Urge U.S. To Look At Their Gun Laws'
http://www.npr.org/2012/12/21/167814684/australians-urge-u-s-to-look-at-their-gun-laws
[CLIP] Gun violence hasn't been completely eliminated in Australia. But gun-control advocates are quick to point out that there hasn't been a single mass shooting in the 16 years since the laws came into effect [END CLIP]...(apologies for repeat clip...but seems it was missed by some)

further as mentioned (also guess missed by some) all western democracies have gun control laws and murder rates much less than USA...eg, around 10.0 gun murders per 100,000 in USA and 2.0 for all the rest

gun culture cowboys armed with facts? cherry picked facts are not the best armament...dont think one would say murder laws should be repealed cause people still murder.

According to Connecticut laws you can't murder either. The gun show laws are recent, they have no teeth, and to be effective we need to get these kinds of guns away from the people who so very much need them; in many cases likely from your cold dead hands. Better than another 20 kids.

the United States is a Republic with democratic tradition...most all know this and still call USA a democracy...anyhow how does this relate to gun control
...it’s more of a distraction with no relation to the pro/con gun control discussion...you are the only one I recall who makes an issue of this...it’s pretty much common usage and accepted by most...

re: I never missed the clip...

seemed you did...or you missed the clip implication...you in no way attempted to refuted the clip point that cherry picked facts are not the best armament...you chose instead to shoot the messenger vice addressing the issue...which is SOP for most opponents of gun control.

re: you [stanley s] claim that cherry picked facts (cpfs) are not the best armament...

painfully obvious cpfs are not the best armament/argument...tho you imply (please correct if I misunderstood) they are...ie;

you argue (do you really believe) because gun control didnt work, this time, in newtown, proves it hasnt worked in most of the countries (democracies, republics w/ democratic leanings, whatever) that have gun control laws...stats say otherwise.

re: the United States does not come in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in world firearm homicide rates.

And this proves gun control doesn’t work...surely you don’t believe this...anyway to pick nits and distractions;

[to be continued. See next post]

[continued. See previous post]
anyway to pick nits and distractions;

according to this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

USA is 10th worst with 10.1 murders per 100,000...there are 50-60 with smaller murder rates...eg, france at 3.0 and UK at 0.25 and as we know UK street cops don’t carry guns...

France and UK are typical of most the European countries with gun control...with gun murder rates in the 2.0-3.0 range.

re: rabbits, Australia, and a fire arm instructor [your examples of hypocrisy]

the question was asked if an ak47 was needed to kill a rabbit, perhaps I should have said needed for hunting...bet most understood this...

the aussie article and the gun instructor were cherry picked...never said they were the best pro gun control argument...they are just a small part of the overwhelming pro gun control argument...

they were posted for consideration and as a counter to yo CT cherry picked fact...guess you missed this...

In sum

cherry picked facts (yours, mine, anyone’s) are not the best armament as you implied...an individual must evaluate the weight of cherry picked facts, stats,
etc...and form their own conclusions/opines

my opine: gun control does reduce gun murders...and if not for NRA profit motivated propaganda (aka bs) there would be sensible, reasonable, gun control laws...thus:

NRA and those who bought the bs are complicit in the murders of our children

Stanley, you must not of read my post if you believe that fact that the US is a Republic does not relate to your argument when I used this fact as a foundation to say that there are other countries such as South Africa (who has very strict gun laws/regulation) with higher gun violence rates then the US.

Furthermore, the article concerning Australian murder rates that you keep posting is biased in fact that it does not distinguish between gun violence with malice (including aforethought), 'heat of the moment' and personal protection, suicide, and personal protection. If the facts were not misrepresented concerning the difference between these examples then the rates might look very different.

Also, if the Australian Bureau of Criminology can be believed a report reported to the NCPA showed that "In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault -- Australia's equivalent term for rape -- increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia's violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent." This all took place after the weapon's ban in Australia.

To address your statistics regarding the UK and France, you are correct in your gun murder rates. However, overall crime did not fall as a result but crime in the use of knives and other weapons rose. For example in the UK it is reported by the telegraph that knife crime has risen by 10%. So has gun control quelled gun violence, yes, but has it stopped overall crime, no.

To address your rabbit hunting example. This shows how much you know about hunting to begin with. I have never seen anyone hunt a rabbit with an AK-47 which fires a 7.62mm round. This would absolutely destroy the rabbit so in the sense of hunting, this would be pointless. However, those using rounds within the .22 caliber family find success such as with the .22Lr and the .223 at distance. So would most of understood your rabbit example, probably not.

It is also possible that gun control reduces gun violence, but it does not reduce overall violence and in many cases causes it to go up. The 2nd amendment is a right of the people as declared by our founding fathers who would be repulsed at any sort of regulation.
Furthermore, mass shootings have been shown to only take place gun free zones. Example, do you remember the Colorado Dark Knight movie premier? There were three theaters within proximity of the shooter's house. Of these three only one theater had posted a no firearm's allowed sign conspicuously posted on its entrance ways. This theater happened to be not the closest but the furthest.

Look at this video for proof of what happens to those who try and commit gun violence in "gun allowed' zones.
http://www.break.com/index/71-year-old-man-shoots-cafe-robbers-2349328

re: fact that the US is a Republic does not relate to your [stanley's] argument [gun control]...

read your post but your anti-gun control logic is illogical to my simple mind...ie, that there are countries with higher incidents of mass murders has nothing to do with whether a country is a democracy or republic...it's just another straw man distraction

BTW the link i reference showed SA firearm murder rate at 9.+ and USA at 10.+...

re: it [aussie article] does not distinguish between gun violence with malice (including aforethought), 'heat of the moment' and personal protection, suicide, etc...

the point of this discussion is mass murders by guns...so your argument re ''heat of the moment' ...etc is irrelevant, more distractions...the relevant point of the article is:
THERE HASNT BEEN A SINGLE MASS SHOOTING IN THE 16 YEARS SINCE THE LAW CAME INTO EFFECT

re: So has gun control quelled gun violence, yes, but has it stopped overall crime, no.

so gun control laws do quell gun violence (the point of this discusion)...if your stats are correct more work needed on overall crime...this another distraction from the pro/con gun control effect on mass and gun murders...

your anti-gun control arguments become less and less relevant/effective...perhaps you are in a hole and should stop digging...

re: rabbit hunting example

the question you beg is: does anyone need an assault weapon for hunting...a simple yes/no will/would suffice.

what i know or do not know re hunting is irrelevant, as are many of con gun control points...eg, your discussion re assault weapon ammo and effect on a rabbit.

but to comment on your distraction.

i grew up in sville when most everyone hunted (shot squirrels in back yard) and am familiar with shotguns and .22 rifles/ammo. not familiar with assault weapon.

but i believe the destruction of a rabbit would be more devastating with an assault weapon than with OO buckshot of which i am familiar...

neither killing a rabbit with an assault rifle nor with OO buck is very sportsman like...actually both rather blood thirsty and maybe a clue to the future acts of a crazy.

re: It is also possible that gun control reduces gun violence...

the gun control advocates rest...now we can address the overall crime rate...

1. The response concerning my stats with the US and Republics relates directly to your claim that the US is number 1. in gun violence when in fact it is not. I.E. the examples concerning South Africa and Columbia.
2. Come armed with facts Stanley, in October of 2002 Huan Yun Xiang, a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five in the Monash University Shooting. This has been classified as a mass shooting (know your facts)
3. As I stated above the .223 round which is within the .22 family that you claim you know so much about is the chambered caliber of the AR-15 Rifle. Furthermore, it is possible to buy an AR-15 Rifle chambered in .22 (Know your facts)
4. According to your list, yes the US is the 10th. However the 9 above it sport some of the strictest gun regulation on the planet. I see how that is working out for them.
5. British Police in response to rising crime rates are more and more deploying the use of firearms in their patrols. As proof of this I have pulled an article from the very liberal MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33448132/ns/world_news-europe/t/some-british-bobbies-gun-comes-job/
6. But French police do....
7. "In the 12 months to September, London saw a 17 percent rise in gun offenses, up from 1,484 to 1,737. According to government figures for England and Wales, there are about 50 to 60 shooting deaths in the country each year." (from the above article)
8. Seems to be getting worse to me.

assuming all your stats are correct and your adhom insinuations re stanley s are justified...

HOW in hell does any of this justify free access to guns by crazies...ie, not implementing sensible...common sense...gun control laws...

but to uselessly pick nits, as I have nothing better to do this morn...

re: 1. the examples concerning South Africa [SA] and Columbia
*guess 1/2 right is better than zip right...SA had lower gun murders than USA...not that it matters as most stats and anecdotes overwhelmingly lead any sane person to conclude gun control does reduce gun murders...

re: 2. a student, shot his classmates and teacher, killing two and injuring five...
*soo...your point is what...we should allow all crazies more access to guns...

re: 3. it is possible to buy an AR-15 Rifle chambered in .22
*another sooo...your point is what re gun control laws

re: 4. the 9 above it sport some of the strictest gun regulation on the planet. I see how that is working out for them...
*not as well for the 9, as for the 50-60 who have much lower gun murders than USA.

[pls see next post for re: 5-8]

Re: 5-8 contd

re: 5. British Police in response to rising crime rates are more and more deploying the use of firearms in their patrols.
*i never thought in was too smart not arm their bobbies...but this in no way justifies the lack of gun control...you may have a point, if you can provide evidence the UK has modified their gun laws to allow crazies free access to guns...

re: 6. But French police do....
*another sooo what...most countries do arm their police...and 50-60 have lower gun murder rate than USA

re: 7. In the 12 months to September, London saw a 17 percent rise in gun offenses,
*do yo thunk this means they should repeal or tighten their gun control laws...

re: 8. Seems to be getting worse to me
*to me too...i think they need to tighten gun laws...whatta you think?

So your whole basis for more assault weapons in circulation is that the existing toothless laws aren't effective and are being broken by survivalists and gun show attendees? Murder still happens, so why have laws against it? DUI's still happen although significantly less than they used to as the penalties have increased. Would you suggest that any law that is still broken should be stricken? Or is it JUST about these types of guns for you?

I searched again and found that the laws aren't new but they seemed to have been revised in 2008. I was wrong on when the laws were written. I did find that variants of the AR15 including the Bushmaster aren't necessarily covered by the law though. The gun used very well may have been legal. And that really doesn't matter. Legal or not, military guns aren't necessary and don't belong in general circulation because they are really only good for killing a bunch of people quickly.

@conservativetradition

re: '...so laws that say you can't own assault weapons, ect are going to do any better [than murder laws]?'

is this really your point...you must be pulling my leg, bustin my whatever...

surely you know laws against murder substantially reduce the murder rate (tho i'm not sure about the death penalty) just as gun control would reduce the incident of mass murders by crazies...

the point in comparing murder laws to gun control laws is to emphasize neither work all the time, but both have (in most countries w/ gun control laws) and will reduce incidents in the USA when implemented...but you know this...

re: gun control laws only control those who follow them, not those who choose to disregard...

say what??...you seem to illogically say all laws serve no purpose (eg, murder laws dont prevent murder)...

but to gun control laws:

gun control reduces gun (WMD's) access to crazies...eg, those who cant pass background chks...

most crazies do not have access to the criminal gun market...now WMD's are commercially available to all...

ironically criminals are more careful who they sell guns to, than legit for profit gun dealers.

further, gun control does not prevent legit gun enthusiasts from purchasing/owning guns...

this pro/con gun control argument...is stupid and promoted by NRA/gun mfg's and their sheep...

gun controllers weren't too smart either...they (eg, stanley seigler) fell for and wasted time/energy debating the NRA's straw man defenses...vice attacking the true NRA motive: profit for firearms mfgs.

Yes, we should take away sharp sticks too, as at one point they were militarized; that is exactly what I meant. Finally get another GOPtard that can spell and he's a pedant; super.

No, I meant the configuration of the weapons ability to add accessories and its appearance. If it doesn't have a "prominent pistol grip" and bayonet lugs and some other cosmetic issues it's ok, regardless of caliber. Of course one outfitted like that doesn't look badass enough for the types of tools that own these things, but it is legal in Connecticut and just as capable.

The person that owned the gun in question was a "good person" but her son wasn't. If this particular "good person" didn't have such a capable killing machine maybe we'd be talking about 2 kids dead instead of 20?

If you can't contribute anything enlightening or new then contribute a lot?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhTiJEYqqY8

Bravo paul macleod. Bravo.

Because your idiotic rant made me realize that the only solution to mass killings is MORE mass killings. The tide goes in, the tide goes out. You can't explain it!

re: la la land.. a place where no reality is allowed in...

perhaps your response to previously asked question would help gun control advocates in lalaland see reality...no response is further evidence anti-gun control NRA shooter caps have no facts...

previously asked:
why are anti gun control advocates opposed to: enforced and appropriate background checks; education, testing, and licensing.

doubt if any, except extreme gun culture cowboys coached by the NRA, accept the premise citizens need guns to protect us against our government. but for discussion sake;

wouldn't 'enforced appropriate background checks; education, testing, and licensing, ensure a better trained well armed militia...

It seems the basic argument against controlling weapons of mass destruction either relies on the gun owners' "rights", or the idea that if everyone carried shooting weapons, murderers would be killed before they could murder.
Constitutional "rights" are not absolute. The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of reasonable regulation.
But the tougher question is trying to understand why so many gun advocates think there is no problem with mass destruction weapons freely available to practically anyone who wants one, or more. Does ANYONE really need one of these? If the high capacity rapid fire assault weapons were totally banned for the civilian population, would anyone suffer? Regulation can start at point of manufacture, and they would simply not be available, and a mandatory buyback program (eminent domain laws allow for fair market value when government needs to acquire property for a government purpose) could vastly reduce what is already out there. So I still do not understand; why would this be a bad thing?

re: But the tougher question is trying to understand why so many gun advocates think there is no problem with mass destruction weapons freely available...

dont expect an answer...there will be none...similar Qs asked numerous times without response...can only assume there are none...

a corollary Q: do the same NRA sheep believe...anyone (mentally, physically deficient or otherwise) should be allowed to go to a dealer buy a car jump in and head for the streets...

OK so the right to own/drive a car not in the constitution...but the founders probably missed this right...just as they missed consideration of USA Today's armed forces and assault weapons...

point: the NRA 2nd amendment argument is a straw man...not in anyway related to free access to WMD...

I know there isn't much point in replying to you since I also read the NRA-ILA website and your post is essentially a copy paste from there, but this little gem needs addressing: "They pay dues to enable their views to be presented before our congress. Unfortunately, money is required to do that."

Money is required to do that because of organizations lead by the NRA purchased legislation that protects themselves. They're a self licking ice cream cone. And the supporters of the NRAs tactics used here have effectively conceded for all of us the United States to corporations. I'm curious what you think you'll get in return? Other than more capable murder devices to use on each other.

re: I'm curious what you think you'll get in return?

they get some GREAAAT kid stuff
http://membership.nrahq.org/
24/7 defense of your [their] Second Amendment freedoms
• Official NRA members - only shooter's cap *
• Your choice of monthly NRA magazines (Premium Digital Editions now available)
• Membership card and decal
• Insurance for you and your guns
• Free Admission to NRA's Annual Show **
• Invitations to "Friends of NRA" dinners and other special events and more...
* - shooter's cap available for regular annual membership of 1,2,3 or 5 years only
** - For active members only

and a complimentary membership in the M-I-C-K-E-Y M-O-U-S-E club.

NRA short changes their lemmings. it does not defend 2nd amendment rights...ie, where is the well armed (trained) militia the 2nd grantees...

OK so the 2nd doesn't specifically grantee a trained militia...but certainly implies this...surely the founding fathers (FF) didn't intent each musket owner go off and do their own thing...eg, shoot a senator, an MP, a tank, a predatory drone...when our country attacks us...

utterly amazing grown-ups(?) pay the NRA to feed them bs...and they regurgitate the bs...

does anyone really believe the NRA sales pitch for the fire-arms mfgs...the NRA is better than the tobacco lobbys were...but;

they to will come to the same demise as the tobacco lobbys...sad children may/will be killed until the demise.

Brian,
1.) Good idea starting off with the stupidest question first. It improves the relative value of the following ones.
2.) No one has been really against the idea of security, but no one has offered to pay for it. Sidwell Friends School can well afford the cost, and the families of the students are willing and able to pay the tuition costs. Not so for most Americans.
3.) Define the weapons by the rapid fire rate and size of magazine. Not that complicated. Sure, there could be some haggling over precise limits, but that is what politics is all about...making decisions that benefit society.
4.) I doubt a majority of US citizens belong to NRA. In Dec 2011 YouGov survey estimated 7% of Americans belong to NRA, and 24% of gun owners.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/

So Brian, why do you personally think assault rifle Weapons of Mass Destruction are actually good for the country?

Yup, you nailed it exactly.

http://www.photo-dictionary.com/photofiles/list/1952/2557tissue_box.jpg