The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I agree with you. The Constitution says a well-regulated militia. I believe limiting or banning military assault type weapons from private ownership is an appropriate regulation.

The one main thing that you ignored in your post is that at least 3 if not all 5 of these shootings were carried out by someone with mental issues. You can go back to the clock tower shooter to the Edmond post office, to Newtown, and almost all of the shooters have had some form of mental episode. Say all you want about gun laws and gun control, but until we as a society get past the stigma of mental health issues and quit ignoring it, it will happen again.

The one main thing that you ignored in your post is that at least 3 if not all 5 of these shootings were carried out by someone with mental issues. You can go back to the clock tower shooter to the Edmond post office, to Newtown, and almost all of the shooters have had some form of mental episode. Say all you want about gun laws and gun control, but until we as a society get past the stigma of mental health issues and quit ignoring it, it will happen again.

I understand why people want to limit access to large capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons but it's not the final word in ending large scale massacres of innocent victims.  Keep in mind that someone who is really bent on killing as many people as possible could still resort to explosives, and there's no shortage of plenty of legal materials to make an explosive device.

You're right....let's scrap controlling the ability to limit the chances of a mass murder.

plop plop

I believe stupid is a synonym for conservative:  http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/17/1347291/top-conservative-magazine-newtown-massacre-is-the-price-we-pay-for-the-second-amendment/

Huck's blaming the pill and taking Gawd out of the classroom while James Dobson is blaming the gays for godlessness....you people on the same side of their sand lines are idiots as well.

Monday, 17 December 2012 19:30
The Heart of Darkness: The River of America's Violence Runs Through Newtown
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17700-the-heart-of-darkness-the-river-of-america-s-violence-runs-through-newtown
MARK KARLIN
The killing grounds of America
In front of me on my desk is a March 9, 1992, copy of Newsweek. The cover photograph shows a student who had been shot being rushed to emergency care underneath the headline, "Kids and Guns: A Report From America's Classroom Killing Grounds."

It quotes me, since I was a leader in the national movement to reduce gun violence for more than 20 years, and was often sought out for comments on the latest mass kilings or daily shootings.  This is my quotation:

"The school setting is almost impossible to police without tyrannical dictatorship," says Mark Karlin, President of the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence.  "At what point do we create such a hostile environment that these are no longer schools?" The schools, Karlin says, "are in an impossible situation…we expect them to do what the rest of us cannot."

That was more than 20 years ago, but nothing really has changed, including the cycle of mass murders and the routine garden variety killings at home, in the workplace, in bars…at just about any setting in America. In those 20 years, more United States citizens have been killed with guns to the point that the death toll on 9/11 looks like a footnote in the annals of murder.

There was an assault weapons ban for 10 years, but the NRA made sure that it was phased out during the Bush administration. The shooter in Newtown used a Bushmaster semi-automatic assault rifle, a favorite among mass killers (including the DC sniper and narcos in Mexico).

As a nation, we have historically always been in search of killing the "enemy": Native-Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, "geeks" in Vietnam, drone killings of civilians in Afghanistan and elsewhere. It's an endless list.  It's a list of the "other," a list of anyone an angry male has a grievance against. In the last few years, more than a few Tea Party members have advocated armed revolt and killing of "liberals." 

It is the subterranean river of America's history of violence, facilitated and made more effective with guns. It is the context in which Newtown and our regular litany of mass shootings occur – and the suicides in rural areas that happen with regularity and urban, domestic, and "routine" killings and gun injuries.

We glorify the violence of "how the West was won." We cheer for lone gun men in movies who mow down mobs of bad guys. Our teens wallow in the murder and mayhem of video games.

Most of all we see the rabid hatred that leads to violence in the faces and bilious statements of the gun guys who fear the government, who fear a non-white majority, who fear just about anything that psychologically threatens their male prerogatives and sense of manhood.

And then we hear from the hunters, but there's virtually no one whom I have known who wants to take away hunting rifles.  And you're not much of a hunter is you want to make swiss cheese out of a deer with an assault weapon.

As technology has advanced, weapons increasingly kill with greater lethality.  Most of them have no place in private hands, period.

Too many gun owners like the kill power of guns, the thrill of holding a machine gun at community shootouts with washing machines and old cars as targets.   But that adrenalin rush of lethality takes its toll on a culture where the some of its penchant for violence is greater than its parts.

One look no further than the US colonial conquest of Native Americans, as this description of the massacre at Wounded Knee reveals:

The Seventh Cavalry — the reconstructed regiment lost by George Armstrong Custer — opened fire on the Sioux. The local chief, Big Foot, was shot in cold blood as he recuperated from pneumonia in his tent. Others were cut down as they tried to run away. When the smoke cleared almost all of the 300 men, women, and children were dead. Some died instantly, others froze to death in the snow.

This massacre marked the last showdown between Native Americans and the United States Army. It was nearly 400 years after Christopher Columbus first contacted the first Americans.

In his compelling, bleak journey through the dark underside of America, "Days of Destruction: Days of Revolt," Chris Hedges visits the impoverished Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, plagued by unemployment and alcoholism. In his background narrative, Hedges alludes to the Washita massacre of Indians in Oklahoma in 1868. He quotes a Major Scott Anthony of the United States Cavalry about the killing of a "terrified" three-year-old Native-American child:

I saw one man get off his horse at a distance of about seventy-five yards and draw up his rifle and file.  He missed the child. Another man came up and said, "Let me try the son of a grumble. I can hit him." He got down off his horse, kneeled down, and fired at the little child, but he missed him.  A third man came up, and made a similar remark, and fired, and the little fellow dropped."

Nations create their own destinies. The United States expanded to the West via a right to violence based on a sense of entitlement.

We need to accept that, as a nation, we need to end our destructive love affair with the power to decide who shall live and who shall die.

What it reaps in blowback is an ongoing and growing death count, a trail of tears and lives denied.

It's all about mental illness.  Something you apparently know quite a bit about.

"It's" really about responsibility. The culprit in this crime was the boys Mother who was irresponsible by allowing the tools to be accessible. The boy had bad wiring but the Mother had bad control over those tools of hers.

Are you sure about that?  Even in a safe or secure location, someone who wants a firearm badly enough will get it.

MIND
In Gun Debate, a Misguided Focus on Mental Illness
By RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN, M.D.
Published: December 17, 2012
In the wake of the terrible shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., national attention has turned again to the complex links between violence, mental illness and gun control.

The gunman, Adam Lanza, 20, has been described as a loner who was intelligent and socially awkward. And while no official diagnosis has been made public, armchair diagnosticians have been quick to assert that keeping guns from getting into the hands of people with mental illness would help solve the problem of gun homicides.

Arguing against stricter gun-control measures, Representative Mike Rogers, Republican of Michigan and a former F.B.I. agent, said, “What the more realistic discussion is, ‘How do we target people with mental illness who use firearms?’ ”

Robert A. Levy, chairman of the Cato Institute, told The New York Times: “To reduce the risk of multivictim violence, we would be better advised to focus on early detection and treatment of mental illness.”

But there is overwhelming epidemiological evidence that the vast majority of people with psychiatric disorders do not commit violent acts. Only about 4 percent of violence in the United States can be attributed to people with mental illness.

This does not mean that mental illness is not a risk factor for violence. It is, but the risk is actually small. Only certain serious psychiatric illnesses are linked to an increased risk of violence.

One of the largest studies, the National Institute of Mental Health’s Epidemiologic Catchment Area study, which followed nearly 18,000 subjects, found that the lifetime prevalence of violence among people with serious mental illness — like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder — was 16 percent, compared with 7 percent among people without any mental disorder. Anxiety disorders, in contrast, do not seem to increase the risk at all.

Alcohol and drug abuse are far more likely to result in violent behavior than mental illness by itself. In the National Institute of Mental Health’s E.C.A. study, for example, people with no mental disorder who abused alcohol or drugs were nearly seven times as likely as those without substance abuse to commit violent acts.

It’s possible that preventing people with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other serious mental illnesses from getting guns might decrease the risk of mass killings. Even the Supreme Court, which in 2008 strongly affirmed a broad right to bear arms, at the same time endorsed prohibitions on gun ownership “by felons and the mentally ill.”

But mass killings are very rare events, and because people with mentally illness contribute so little to overall violence, these measures would have little impact on everyday firearm-related killings. Consider that between 2001 and 2010, there were nearly 120,000 gun-related homicides, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. Few were perpetrated by people with mental illness.

Perhaps more significant, we are not very good at predicting who is likely to be dangerous in the future. According to Dr. Michael Stone, professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia and an expert on mass murderers, “Most of these killers are young men who are not floridly psychotic. They tend to be paranoid loners who hold a grudge and are full of rage.”

Even though we know from large-scale epidemiologic studies like the E.C.A. study that a young psychotic male who is intoxicated with alcohol and has a history of involuntary commitment is at a high risk of violence, most individuals who fit this profile are harmless.

Jeffery Swanson, a professor of psychiatry at Duke University and a leading expert in the epidemiology of violence, said in an e-mail, “Can we reliably predict violence?  ‘No’ is the short answer. Psychiatrists, using clinical judgment, are not much better than chance at predicting which individual patients will do something violent and which will not.”

It would be even harder to predict a mass shooting, Dr. Swanson said, “You can profile the perpetrators after the fact and you’ll get a description of troubled young men, which also matches the description of thousands of other troubled young men who would never do something like this.”

Even if clinicians could predict violence perfectly, keeping guns from people with mental illness is easier said than done. Nearly five years after Congress enacted the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, only about half of the states have submitted more than a tiny proportion of their mental health records.

How effective are laws that prohibit people with mental illness from obtaining guns? According to Dr. Swanson’s recent research, these measures may prevent some violent crime. But, he added, “there are a lot of people who are undeterred by these laws.”

Adam Lanza was prohibited from purchasing a gun, because he was too young. Yet he managed to get his hands on guns — his mother’s — anyway. If we really want to stop young men like him from becoming mass murderers, and prevent the small amount of violence attributable to mental illness, we should invest our resources in better screening for, and treatment of, psychiatric illness in young people.

All the focus on the small number of people with mental illness who are violent serves to make us feel safer by displacing and limiting the threat of violence to a small, well-defined group. But the sad and frightening truth is that the vast majority of homicides are carried out by outwardly normal people in the grip of all too ordinary human aggression to whom we provide nearly unfettered access to deadly force.

I think that a healthy discussion about civilian access to military weaponry should be on the table, but I don't think it's a good idea to discount in any way, the impact that modern warfare simulation games has on the minds of children.  Horror is not so horrible when you immerse yourself in it for hours each day.  Living in a virtual world where you are respected for your prowess at carnage, makes it difficult to function in the other world where you are ridiculed by people who wouldn't last 10 minutes in Call of Duty 4.

Don't think its the weapons making these folks carry out these horrendous acts.  I think that they are already immersed in these acts, the scene has played over and over in their heads, on their screens, and the movies they watch.  Picking up the metal is simply a transition from digital to physical.  I think if we really want to change things we need to limit access to virtual simulated violence, just as we do with pornography.

How about instead of taking things away from people, you educate them?    

I could see mandating a "hunter safety" type class (which has to be renewed every xx years) before a firearm could be purchased.    It might help remove the mystique that guns seem to have amongst those who didn't grow up around them.

But one of the columnists - and I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to find the piece - said that he was approached by some news network reporter asking for his views on the root cause of these violent events.  He said that one part of the problem was news media coverage.
.....

He also pointed out that they did not run his remarks.  Imagine that.

Twas Roger Ebert:

So far, this thread has covered the usual suspects: the easy availability of guns, violence in our entertainment, and the lack of mental health care.  Each has probably played some role.  But one of the columnists - and I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to find the piece - said that he was approached by some news network reporter asking for his views on the root cause of these violent events.  He said that one part of the problem was news media coverage.

It was a good point.  There's another disturbed person watching the 24 hour coverage of Newtown right now.  And he's thinking that by committing a similar act, he too can be famous.  We all may get our 15 minutes of fame, but by shooting a bunch of children, a crazy can be famous for days, weeks, and possibly years.  And that was the columnist's point.  When our news media covers this to the exclusion of everything else happening in the world, it lays the groundwork for the next atrocity.

He also pointed out that they did not run his remarks.  Imagine that.

  Going on a 2000 calorie eating binge at 3am is losing self control, not opening fire on an elementary school. 

You got a panty on your head?

Good movie just not sure of the relevance. 

" I'm purposely turning away from wall-to-wall coverage. " Conan the Libertarian

Is there some reason to stay glued to this tragedy?  There's a whole lot of living still going on in the world. 

Politicizing the issue doesn't do a damn thing either, it's just tacky.  The truth is, there is no solid answer nor a solution for why these things happen nor how to keep it from happening again.  Since the dawn of mankind, men have done horrible and unspeakable things against one another.  Thinking we know how to stop this or one political train of thought has a better idea than another is nothing but pure hubris. 

Four people were found dead Tuesday in Colorado after a woman called police to report a shooting and was apparently shot to death while she was on the phone.

Weld County sheriff's spokesman Tim Schwartz says dispatchers heard the woman who called 911 scream "No, no, no," and then they heard a gunshot. Schwartz says a man grabbed the phone and said he was going to kill himself, and dispatchers heard another shot.

The bodies were found in a home in a subdivision east of Longmont, which is about 35 miles north of Denver.

The dead included two men and two women, including one who appeared to be in her late teens or early 20s.

Schwartz says investigators have a possible motive for the shootings, but he refused to release details.

Schwartz said he believed no one escaped alive. He did not know if all four of the people lived there, and he was not sure if there had been any previous calls to police asking for help.

A handgun believed to be murder weapon was recovered. Police said numerous rounds had been fired from the weapon, but further details were not available. Police are convinced the gunman was one of the victims.

Authorities are awaiting a search warrant to search the home

Depressed over the death of his grandmother and upset over being kicked out of his family’s Garden Grove home, Marcos Gurrola allegedly shot off 50 rounds from his pistol in the parking lot of a crowded Newport Beach, Calif., mall, police told NBC4.

Gurrola said he didn’t intend to shoot anyone and that he fires guns to relieve stress, according to police.

When he stopped firing, he put the safety back on the gun.

A man answering the door of the home refused to shed any light on the alleged gunman’s actions.

There were no injuries but there was panic as people ran from the bullets at the crowded mall on Saturday afternoon.

Gurrola was arrested next to his car, a white Honda Civic. He even warned police about a wire protruding from the car so they wouldn’t receive a shock, said Lt. Mike Peters, of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.

“All I understand is he was stating there was ammunition in the car,” Peters said Monday. “There were areas in the car that he was mentioning that were reasons to be careful in entering the car.”

The sheriff’s department bomb squad took X-rays of the car and found more ammunition but no tripwires or explosives, officials said.

Shoppers at the upscale outdoor mall, Fashion Island, were questioning why anyone would take a chance with a gun and the emotions of a fragile community a day after the mass shooting at an elementary school in Connecticut.

Pretty much the craziest thing I’ve ever heard how anybody could do that to scare people with everything going on in the world,” said shopper David Lenz. “Who needs guys like that?”

Is there some reason to stay glued to this tragedy?  There's a whole lot of living still going on in the world. 

Is there some reason to stay glued to this tragedy?  There's a whole lot of living still going on in the world.  

Politicizing the issue doesn't do a damn thing either, it's just tacky.  The truth is, there is no solid answer nor a solution for why these things happen nor how to keep it from happening again.  Since the dawn of mankind, men have done horrible and unspeakable things against one another.  Thinking we know how to stop this or one political train of thought has a better idea than another is nothing but pure hubris.  

If the problem is violent video games, shouldn't Japan have a BIG problem, since theirs are some of the most violent and sadistic around?

Ten-country comparison suggests there’s little or no link between video games and gun murders
Posted by Max Fisher on December 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/17/ten-country-comparison-suggests-theres-little-or-no-link-between-video-games-and-gun-murders/

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/video-game-chart-hypothetical-notation.jpg)

Watched a BBC video talking about Australia and how they curtailed gun crimes.  After a mass shooting there they instigated a buyback program to purchase guns from people and changed some other laws.  There were numerous mass shootings in the 16 years before (dont remember the number exactly) but in the 18 years since there have been...... 0   and gun deaths in general (suicide, accident, crime, etc.) has been cut in half saving hundreds of lives per year. 

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.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

What happened next has been the subject of several academic studies. Violent crime and gun-related deaths did not come to an end in Australia, of course. But as the Washington Post’s Wonkblog pointed out in August, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. The drop in suicides by gun was even steeper: 65 percent. Studies found a close correlation between the sharp declines and the gun buybacks. Robberies involving a firearm also dropped significantly. Meanwhile, home invasions did not increase, contrary to fears that firearm ownership is needed to deter such crimes. But here’s the most stunning statistic. In the decade before the Port Arthur massacre, there had been 11 mass shootings in the country. There hasn’t been a single one in Australia since.

There have been some contrarian studies about the decrease in gun violence in Australia, including a 2006 paper that argued the decline in gun-related homicides after Port Arthur was simply a continuation of trends already under way. But that paper’s methodology has been discredited, which is not surprising when you consider that its authors were affiliated with pro-gun groups. Other reports from gun advocates have similarly cherry-picked anecdotal evidence or presented outright fabrications in attempting to make the case that Australia’s more-restrictive laws didn’t work. Those are effectively refuted by findings from peer-reviewed papers, which note that the rate of decrease in gun-related deaths more than doubled following the gun buyback, and that states with the highest buyback rates showed the steepest declines. A 2011 Harvard summary of the research concluded that, at the time the laws were passed in 1996, “it would have been difficult to imagine more compelling future evidence of a beneficial effect.”

Whether the same policies would work as well in the United States—or whether similar legislation would have any chance of being passed here in the first place—is an open question. Howard, the conservative leader behind the Australian reforms, wrote an op-ed in an Australian paper after visiting the United States in the wake of the Aurora shootings. He came away convinced that America needed to change its gun laws, but lamented its lack of will to do so.

There is more to this than merely the lobbying strength of the National Rifle Association and the proximity of the November presidential election. It is hard to believe that their reaction would have been any different if the murders in Aurora had taken place immediately after the election of either Obama or Romney. So deeply embedded is the gun culture of the US, that millions of law-abiding, Americans truly believe that it is safer to own a gun, based on the chilling logic that because there are so many guns in circulation, one's own weapon is needed for self-protection. To put it another way, the situation is so far gone there can be no turning back.
That’s certainly how things looked after the Aurora shooting. But after Sandy Hook, with the nation shocked and groping for answers once again, I wonder if Americans are still so sure that we have nothing to learn from Australia’s example.

This is inherently political and cuts right to the core of the idea of the social contract.  The reason the right doesn’t want to talk about it is because a majority of people now want to curtail the ability to own certain weapons.

It’s a false argument to say there is “no solid answer nor a solution”. No, there isn’t an easy or simple and more importantly there isn’t a singular answer. You can’t stop sick people from getting weapons and killing people. But we can work to see that sick people are getting as much help as possible, make really deadly weapons much more difficult to get.
We can make these events more rare and less deadly when they do happen. If this shooter had not had an assault rifle and had only been able to kill 10 six year olds isn’t that still an improvement? Maybe only 30 people would have been shot in Colorado instead of 70.


How many lives is the rush you get from owning and sometimes shooting that macho gun worth? Be an adult and give a real answer. It’s only your 16 year old self that really needs that rifle to feel cool.

Get rid of the guns and play a damn video game. Owning a AR-15 shouldn’t be real.

There currently is no workable solution, otherwise we wouldn't still have this problem swake.  Does making inflammatory or taunting statements help bring anyone to your way of thinking?  No.  Everyone needs to do a better job of seeking to understand each other instead of assuming there are only two ways of looking at something: "My way" or "Your way".

FWIW, it wouldn't change my life one iota if large capacity semi-auto rifles were banned from private sale and ownership.  They aren't legal for hunting (though a Mini-14 which comes standard with a five round magazine but can fire a 30 round mag is) and I don't know of anyone who keeps one handy as a home defense weapon, they aren't as practical or safe for it as a shotgun or handgun.

The shooter in this instance, the Colorado theater, and many other shootings before then could have caused every bit as much carnage with a simple 1911 style civilian issue .45.  You can empty a standard 7 round mag in 10 seconds or less and reload in a matter of a couple more seconds.  You can empty a 6 round .357 revolver in roughly the same time and re-load with a speed loader in a matter of seconds.  Even if you had to manually re-load a revolver, an average shooter could empty and re-load as much as three times a minute.  It's not like there is anyone bearing down on them with any sort of defense once the shooting has started.

I really don't have a problem with an assault weapon ban.  I simply believe this doesn't change anything and talking about it in the wake of a tragedy is a knee-jerk approach.  If you went back to muskets and derringers only, don't be surprised if sick clucks like this resort to explosives.

You tried to make a point with your original post that getting rid of assault rifles would end these tragedies or limit the impact.  One other common thread through all these events is these were places that the occupants were expected to be pretty much defenseless.  That's what these people get off on.  It's not an armed struggle or the fear of someone else stopping them that they thrive on.  These are people who have felt powerless and now they hold all the power. 

The Colorado movie theater was posted for no weapons, so it was a safe assumption the shooter would face no resistance.  Same with a Sikh temple, an office, a mall, and a school.

Personally, I think the best deterrent to ending school violence is armed guards posted at any entrance or exit and I do believe conceal carry is a good deterrent in the rest of our violent world.  It sucks this is the world our children are growing up in, but this is what it has become.  The only way you can successfully and safely defend against a gunman is with a firearm.  That's a simple matter of human nature and physics, unless you are lucky enough to sneak up behind him/her with a sharp object. 

Thanks for saying that. Every time I hear more about this tragedy it pulls me back to a depressed state. I need to just turn off the evening news.

I don't know why this one effects me so. I have a daughter in an elementary school and I teach chess to a bunch of kids that are aged 7 to 10 one day a week at a school. But it is more than that kids died. This one just scares me more than the other public mass shootings.

Maybe because it seems so close to home because of the mental illness portion. I employ 120 workers with disabilities at my business. I have had very few instances of violent behaior but it has happened. Maybe it is because the Mom's obsession with guns so reminds me of my brother who owns a pawnshop in New Mexico that sells guns every day and his obsession with owning very powerful guns.

Maybe it is because I believe our President when he says something will be done. I pray he does.

I am a changed person after last Friday. I need to take time to compress my feelings before I can find a path to working toward an answer. I do know this. I have to hold back my anger whenever someone says more guns are the answer and school principals should be armed. My sister is a middle school principal in Orlando. Her job shouldn't involve her taking shooting lessons. 

I think you need to go and reread the posts about what Australia did.

A person I know very well said in the wake of all this. I need to go get a hand gun right now before Obama outlaws all guns.
I for one do not advocate that type of thinking. And I take offense to being linked into that by a political party. Not all conservatives feel that way.
As I also know not all Liberals believe that our problems began in 2000 and ended in 2008.

Wal Mart and Dicks Sporting goods have pulled the Bushmaster Long range Rifle from their shelves.

For those who know of these sites, cheaperthandirt.com has stopped selling firearms on their website for the time being, and budsgunshop.com is unavailable.  It appears to be a DDOS attack (for the geeks in here who know what that is).

What about "DONGS!!!!!"

More gun related deaths than cars in US....

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/521309_521583787859940_545011665_n.jpg)

Disturbing how progressive states looking for gun control while Oklahoma pushing for MORE guns in schools. Goes to show that everyone wants an opportunity to validate their own belief system.

The Medical Examiner is calling in a Geneticist to see if they can find a Biological motive as to why the "Troubled Genius" did this. Give me a break. Genius?

Yes, the media is in awe of him.  So far, I've heard the words brilliant, genius, savant, intelligent, and advanced attached to this miserable worm.
By the time this is over, they will make him just another victim.

Limbaugh and Hannity are messes.

4. A portrait of shooter Adam Lanza emerges.
The 20-year-old shooter has been described as a troubled “genius” who had a hard time fitting in during high school and did his best to avoid attention. He lugged around a black briefcase to  his 10th grade honors English class and walked the hallways of his high school with his arms at his sides.

The following sources are passing along the descriptions regarding superior intelligence.

So the articles are describing him as a genius or claiming he had superior intelligence?

The following sources are passing along the descriptions regarding superior intelligence.

I believe I said:
I did not see anything refuting those descriptions but I did not say that the articles actually made that claim.

I don't listen to Limbaugh and usually skip Hannity so I don't know if they actually personally claimed the shooter was a genius or were just passing along the descriptions made by others. (Or if they even got involved in that description.)

The following sources are passing along the descriptions regarding superior intelligence.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/15/adam-lanza-newtown-school-shooter-honors-student_n_2306736.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/us/connecticut-school-shooting/index.html


http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/newtown-connecticut-school-shooting-victims-403059

Interesting.  Everyone has been calling for an assault weapon ban, yet now it appears the killings were carried out with two handguns while the .223 rifle was still in the car?

It was reported on the news this morning that Lanza may have had Asperger's and that violent behavior is not a trait of Asperger's.

December 18, 2012, 12:39 am182 Comments
Party Identity in a Gun Cabinet
By NATE SILVER
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/
Having school-age children in the household did not significantly affect gun ownership rates, either positively or negatively. A majority of Republican-voting parents of minor children had a gun in their home, while only about one in four Democratic-voting parents did.
Whatever makes this country so different from the rest of the world must surely be reflected in the differences in how Democrats and Republicans see the nation.

Interesting.  Everyone has been calling for an assault weapon ban, yet now it appears the killings were carried out with two handguns while the .223 rifle was still in the car?

It was reported on the news this morning that Lanza may have had Asperger's and that violent behavior is not a trait of Asperger's.

and so we move onto the "why should we give a crap?"

CSP reported on Saturday during a briefing after the first set of autopsies that the 223 was the primary used in the shootings.  The killer then took his own life with either a Sig Sauer 9mm or Glock 10mm.  They didn't disclose which.  In the trunk of the car was a Saiga 12 gauge assault rifle.  Like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD0PKDGlwiw[/youtube]

The mother, I remember hearing/reading, was killed with some sort of 22 caliber gun..once again, one registered to her...at her house.  She also owned three other firearms, but not sure of the type.

Don't include me in that "we".

So you are saying that you don't give a crap.  (Not a question, a statement based on your statement above.)

And therein lies the whole problem with 24/7 coverage on such events.  Everyone is so damned concerned about scooping everyone else that it's of no consequence to them when they post utter bullshit.  I grabbed that snippet out of one of the links posted above on this page.

The media is unwittingly glorifying these events in the minds of the next potential rampage killer.  Somewhere in a dark basement someone is dreaming of coming up with something even more diabolical.

The only time I really watched was when they were having a legitimate press conference.  That's where I got my information when the Connecticut State Police and the ME was talking.  If the news outlets would just leave it at that, the animosity most likely would not be there for the media

Instead, they feel the need to open with pretty graphics sensationalizing the event.

Majority of Americans Favor Gun Control Laws, Poll Shows
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-17/majority-of-americans-favor-gun-control-laws-poll-shows.html

Democracy.

I don't give a crap if someone says that someone says he was smart.
I give even less of a crap that you say that someone says that someone says it.
Go ahead and give your crap.  You are welcome to mine.

What I give a crap about is finding a legitimate way to reduce the occurrence of mass shooting events.

I don't need any more of your crap.  I have enough of your crap already.

So you're back in the "we".  Welcome.
I couldn't give you the crap anyway.

Here's an interesting set of homicide statistics:

It's not just the guns
America has a violent culture, too, with deep roots in history
December 18, 2012 12:06 am
 
By Gwynne Dyer

The second-highest rate of gun ownership in the world is in Yemen, a largely tribal, extremely poor country. The highest is in the United States, where there are almost as many guns as people: around 300 million guns for 311 million people.

But here's another interesting statistic: In the past 25 years, the proportion of Americans who own guns has fallen from about one in three to only one in five. However, the United States, unlike Yemen, is a rich country, and the average American gun owner has four or five firearms. Moreover, he or she is utterly determined to keep them no matter what happens.

...Half the firearms in the entire world are in the United States. The rate of murders by gunfire in the United States is almost 20 times higher than the average rate in 22 other populous, high-income countries where the frequency of other crimes is about the same. There is clearly a connection between these two facts, but it is not necessarily simple cause and effect.

Here's one reason to suspect that it's not that simple: The American rate for murders of all kinds -- shooting, strangling, stabbing, poisoning, pushing people under buses, etc. -- is seven times higher than it is in those other 22 rich countries. It can't just be guns.



http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/its-not-just-the-guns-666789/ (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/its-not-just-the-guns-666789/)

Dyer goes on to give her idea on why gun violence is higher here, but I didn't include it.  In a nutshell, she says that democracy came too early to the US.  I didn't include it because there's no way to use a premise like that as the foundation for a solution to the problem.

Ed,
We have far more access to violence than most other countries, and that "access" is not typically attached to horror, sorrow, or disgust.  The average American child will watch 8,000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school, and the number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18 is 200,000.  They become calloused and emotionally detached from what they are viewing.  The American entertainment industry finds it necessary to continuously elevate the level of violence to sell more movies and TV shows.  With hundreds of channels to choose from, I can turn on the TV right now, and within a minute find a murder, rape, or beating.

What we are doing to our children is preparing them to act out violence with a sense of romance and honor.

I figured there would be plenty of statistics to support the fact that we are becoming a more violent society with a higher degree of gun violence committed by kids. Well, I'm delighted to say that I am apparently wrong.  My initial assumption is obviously flawed, however while I still contend that violent entertainment is damaging to children, I must admit that according to the statistics, we are actually seeing a very significant decline. Not sure why, but all violent crime, especially that committed with guns, and committed by teens and young adults has declined markedly, and continues to trend down.  In fact, it's less than a quarter of what it was just 20 years ago.

Now here's something strange, I pulled this report (above) at about 8 am for 1993-2011 but because of the page margins I set it only goes to 2004, so I went back and attempted to pull it again in landscape, but the Department of Justices BJS site kept incurring an error, and finally went down completely.  So I called, and they told me they are experiencing a massive amounts of traffic resulting in DoS.  As soon as they are back up again I'll run the report that takes us to 2011, but you get the point.

It seems that our perception of violent crime, including gun crime is very different from the reality of the situation.  

No amount of violent crime is justified, and nothing can soften the blow of what happened last week, nor should it, but whatever we are doing to stem violent crime and gun crime seems to be effective.  It's probably an amalgam of many things, many laws, and many changing attitudes.
 

12/11/12 Happy Valley, OR – Shopping Mall
Dead: 3
Suicide: Yes
Wounded: 1
Mentally Ill: Unknown
Body Armor: Yes
Extended Magazines: Unknown
Assault Rifle: Yes (AR15)


Three mass killings with assault weapons leading to 43 dead and 61 wounded
Two mass killings without assault weapons leading to 13 dead and 11 wounded

It's time for these guns (and body armor and extended magazines) to go away. It may not stop all mass shootings, but it would greatly cut down the number of dead and injured.

Then it's time to address hate groups and mental illness to try and stop these events before they happen.
 

So, given those caveats, we can see which countries have the highest ownership rates for firearms - and which have the highest gun murder rates.

The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

The full data is below - what can you do with it?

Conan, don't you believe that had the Newtown killer entered a school with armed men this could have been stopped early?

Here's a great piece from Guardian UK.  The US has the highest average gun ownership rate at 88.8 guns per 100 citizens, yet our homicide by firearm rate per 100K people is 2.97 per 100,000.  That puts us about 28th from the top.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list#data

I saw a note about how Australia had a massacre, passed a gun ban, and no more massacres...for the last couple of years.  How lame an association can one get - there is NO valid cause/effect association there whatsoever.  

That is just ignorant, knee jerk reaction, because - IF THERE WERE - the ability to make such an association, then the passing of Norway's main gun laws, the most recent in 2009, would indicate that PASSING restrictions on "assault weapons" is what leads to a massacre...like the one they had in 2011 where a guy made a fertilizer bomb, killed 8 and wounded 209.  THEN went on an assault weapon rampage, ending up killing total of 77, and wounding another 105 or so.  

The whole focus on "assault weapons" is disingenuous, false, and is strictly a political ploy to get a "foot in the door" toward getting rid of guns.  (Ever read any of the Brady organization bullspit?)

The Oregon mall shooting has had an amazing array of stories surrounding it.  One says that the gunman "may" have heard police sirens and then shot himself just then(1)....what kind of ignorant carp is that?  Oh, CNN...sorry...silly question...  And does anyone believe the sheriff's office arrived one minute after the call came in?  Geez....

Slate proposes avoiding knee jerk reactions and let's find out the facts. (2)

And a guy who was there - feet from the action - with concealed carry may have had an effect on the gunman when he pulled his firearm out and brandished it. (3)

What are the odds that a guy like this is gonna get scared by some sirens several minutes away and just give up right then and kill himself?  Yeah...sounds right to me.

Did the armed guy scare him?  Who knows - seems like a stretch.  We are never gonna know what went on in his mind, but it sure wasn't the cops - he would have expected them to react/arrive no matter what.  These things are way more complicated.  It is stupid to jump to these "more gun control conclusions."  Especially since we have direct, incontrovertible indications that more armed people are associated with states/cities that have lower violent crime rates along with concealed carry.

And the two places that are MOST notorious for keeping people from even having guns in their homes - Chicago and Washington, DC - are the ones that have INCREASING violent crime rates at exactly the same time it's going down everywhere else!!  There is NO association possible with Chicago and DC to decreased lead levels in the environment.  How about criminalized drug activities??

I saw a note about how Australia had a massacre, passed a gun ban, and no more massacres...for the last couple of years.  How lame an association can one get - there is NO valid cause/effect association there whatsoever.  

Actually, that puts us 28th from the WORST in the world... and in the company of third world countries... please, continue....

It's important to remember that correlation is not causation.  Just because A preceded B does not necessarily mean that A caused B.  We all know people who insist that a current violent crime or heinous event came about "because they took prayer out of the schools."  It's equally valid to say that because nearly all criminals have eaten white bread, the bread is somehow responsible for their crimes.

there are over 2 1/2 MILLION incidents a year where someone in this country uses a firearm to defend themselves and prevent a violent crime.

Exactly!  But that is also the argument being advanced by these idiots.

OKLAHOMA CITY - Oklahoma state leaders and legislators will be making an announcement on school security Thursday.

According to a news release from Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb's office, he and Senate President Pro Tempore Brian Bingman, House Speaker-elect T.W. Shannon, Senate Democratic Leader Sean Burrage will present for the afternoon announcement.

The meeting is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. at the State Capitol.

2NEWS reporter Sara Goldenberg is at the Capitol for the announcement.

Who knows?  Maybe it'll be something wise.

Conan, don't you believe that had the Newtown killer entered a school with armed men this could have been stopped early?

No it won't.

Actually, that puts us 28th from the WORST in the world... and in the company of third world countries... please, continue....

'Pro-Gun' States Lead the Nation in Per Capita Firearm Death Rates
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pro-gun-states-lead-the-nation-in-per-capita-firearm-death-rates-57514947.html

States with the Five HIGHEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Louisiana--Rank: 1; Household Gun Ownership: 45.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 19.04 per 100,000.
Alaska--Rank: 2; Household Gun Ownership: 60.6 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.49 per 100,000.
Montana--Rank: 3; Household Gun Ownership: 61.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 17.22 per 100,000.
Tennessee--Rank: 4; Household Gun Ownership: 46.4 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.39 per 100,000.
Alabama--Rank: 5; Household Gun Ownership: 57.2 percent; Gun Death Rate: 16.18 per 100,000.

States with the Five LOWEST Per Capita Gun Death Rates

Hawaii--Rank: 50; Household Gun Ownership: 9.7 percent; Gun Death Rate: 2.20 per 100,000.
Massachusetts--Rank: 49; Household Gun Ownership: 12.8 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.48 per 100,000.
Rhode Island--Rank: 48; Household Gun Ownership: 13.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 3.63 per 100,000.
New Jersey--Rank: 47; Household Gun Ownership: 11.3 percent; Gun Death Rate: 4.99 per 100,000.
New York--Rank: 46; Household Gun Ownership: 18.1 percent; Gun Death Rate: 5.28 per 100,000.
PR Newswire (http://s.tt/1bLMy)

This is a false statement.
Harvard Medical School Study:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

I'm not advocating the banning of guns for self defense anyway. But I am getting closer to wanting an outright ban on semiautomatic rifles. How many times a year is a AR15 used in home defense? I'm guessing never. But these little kids were killed with one. As were a bunch of people in that movie theater earlier this year. And a teenager in Tulsa a few months ago that was guilty of being in the wrong make and color of car.

9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals.  But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there.     

Did you actually read this "study"?  Their methodology is shaky at best sloppy and lazy at worst.  Simply because it's published in the name of "Harvard" doesn't mean it's without fleas flaws.

Six jails and a prison physician.  My how scientific!!!  Amazing what claptrap you can find on the Googles to support one's views.

I agree, owning an AR-15 with a 30 round mag is a vanity purchase for a lot of people and is not a necessity in society.  Fine, ban them and melt each and every one of them.  Meanwhile, we will still be able to enjoy, vicariously, people being blown to bits in prime time TV, in movies and video games.  Meanwhile, the media will still sensationalize acts of violence which will not abate, no matter what you do.

I want you to realize more than anything that it is impossible to legislate the evil out of people.  There will still be some sick love somewhere who will figure out a way to pull off a mass killing if that's what he's bent on doing.  He simply won't do it using an assault rifle.  Then what?

Tim McVeigh didn't use an assault rifle to kill 19 children and 149 adults.

When I was a paramedic we saw GSWs almost daily.

I would say that around 90% were crime related.  Hunting season always brought a few accidents, but usually only durring the beginning of the season when everyone is in a hurry to get to the stand and adrenalin is high.

Out of the 90% that were crime related, about 90% of that was related to the purchase, sales, or use of drugs and alcohol. Most of the injurys were not life threatening and were always perpetrated by the same group of people, and FOR NO REASON.  Yes, it's amazing, but nearly every victim is attacked by the same group of people.  Ask any cop and he will back me up on this.  The following is a group of people that you should steer clear of.

When questioned as to how they were shot, the victim will offer a story related to one of the following people/groups of people:

Some Dude--Some Dude is very dangerous.  Some Dude always attacks people he does not know for no reason.  The victim has never seen Some Dude before, even though you may find photographs of Some Dude in the victim's purse or wallet. "Officer, Some Dude just shot me for no reason! No, I don't know who it was, he just shot me. I wasn't doing anything to him."

These Guys--Like the ninja warriors of old, These Guys attack without warning.  Their greatist strength is their abilty to just come out of nowhere.  "Ok, I was on my way home from Thursday night church, when all of a sudden These Guys jumped me, and I got shot.  I aint never seen them before, they just came out of nowhere and shot me."

That Crazy B!tch--TCB is obviously known by the victim, and they may be in a relationship or have several children, but she is nonetheless crazy.  The victim will have no idea what he or she did to justify being shot by TCB, because at the time the victim was just minding his or her own business.  "I was just minding my own damn business, when all of a sudden That Crazy B!tch started yelling at me, and just shot me. Why?  I don't know, B!tch is crazy!"

Sometimes there are combinations, but it's always the same folks that the cops have to deal with. 

No, you cannot always stop evil. But let’s make evil less common. Monsters are created by mental illness and abuse. We can work to mitigate that.

When monsters are created let’s do what we can to keep weapons away from them. No private sale of guns. No internet sales of guns. Gun buyers must have their identity verified and pass a background check. No guns for the dangerously mental ill, no guns for people that live with the dangerously mentally ill. No guns for felons.

Let’s stop having guns whose sole purpose is to kill as many people as possible as fast as possible. These tools have value, but not in a non-military setting. Your ego is going to fine with not owning such a gun. No military style weapons, no short barrels on rifles, no short stocks. No fast change magazines. No single shot versions of military guns. I’m on the fence with semi-autos, I would generally be ok with semi-auto hunting rifles but, it’s so easy to modify a stock, to change the pull on a trigger. At least ban the the sale of gun modification kits. I think we should go with safety here but I’m not hard on this point. No magazines for pistols or rifles with more than 8 rounds.

While I am against arming teachers, I am for having armed school police units at all schools. Like what Jenks has. A teacher has plenty to do than to keep up with a gun and and kids. A gun does not belong in a classroom setting. But, a trained police officers might well be able to spot and stop a threat before bad things happen. There are likely ancillary benefits to this with school gangs, drugs and overall student behavior.

I am against open carry. A cop that sees a weapon should be able to know without worry that a gun out in the open in public is a threat that has to be dealt with. No body armor, no armor piercing bullets, nothing that could stop a cop from being able to take out a threat if he or she needs to.

I think overall in this country we need to stop having our police be traffic units so much. Cops should have a beat that includes walking well populated areas and not just watching traffic or doing reports in deserted parking lots.

Mass killings will happen no matter what but we certainly should do what we can to make them as rare as we can and limit how deadly they are.

When monsters are created let’s do what we can to keep weapons away from them. No private sale of guns. No internet sales of guns. Gun buyers must have their identity verified and pass a background check. No guns for the dangerously mental ill, no guns for people that live with the dangerously mentally ill. No guns for felons.

OKLAHOMA CITY — Lt. Gov. Todd Lamb will lead an Oklahoma Commission on School Security with the objective of making state school campuses the safest in the nation.

TW FB post:

Problem is, the media is conflating statistics by stating overall rates to try and show a larger problem of violent crime.

What someone does to themselves is one thing, when they bring that violence to others is a different issue.  What IS meaningful is homicide rates with firearms.  In the United States, we have about 33,000 gun deaths per year.  11,000 to 12,000 are homicides, 18,000 or so are suicides.

The remainder appear to be accidental shootings, not telling how many of those reported as accidental were a half-hearted or bungled attempt at suicide.  Not that those are not significant, but it's important to understand that as a nation, more than 1/2 of all gun deaths are from self-inflicted wounds.

Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your assessment of "the media."

From your UK Guardian link, the Canadian homicide rate with firearms is 0.51 per 100,000, USA homicide rate with firearms is 2.97 per 100,000 (nearly 6 times higher).
Almost every industrialized country has a significantly lower homicide rate... the higher ones, strangely enough, are countries that export a significant amount of illegal drugs to us...

Canada's suicide rate (9.9 per 100,000) is almost identical to that of the US (10.3 per 100,000).
They buy the same graphically violent video games and watch the same movies we do... they hunt and own guns...
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/suicide/by-country/

No, you cannot always stop evil. But let’s make evil less common. Monsters are created by mental illness and abuse. We can work to mitigate that.

When monsters are created let’s do what we can to keep weapons away from them. No private sale of guns. No internet sales of guns. Gun buyers must have their identity verified and pass a background check. No guns for the dangerously mental ill, no guns for people that live with the dangerously mentally ill. No guns for felons.

This is a false statement.
Harvard Medical School Study:

I'm not advocating the banning of guns for self defense anyway. But I am getting closer to wanting an outright ban on semiautomatic rifles. How many times a year is a AR15 used in home defense? I'm guessing never. But these little kids were killed with one. As were a bunch of people in that movie theater earlier this year. And a teenager in Tulsa a few months ago that was guilty of being in the wrong make and color of car.

Just to throw a monkey wrench in the complete ban on "assault" weapons logic.

I believe it is still legal for a civilian to own a machine gun.  Yes, pull the trigger and it keeps on shooting (until your wallet runs out) lots and lots of bullets. Hundreds, not dozens.  Big ones too.

There are MANY hoops to jump through to get a permit though.  I don't know the details.

When I was a paramedic we saw GSWs almost daily.

I would say that around 90% were crime related.  Hunting season always brought a few accidents, but usually only durring the beginning of the season when everyone is in a hurry to get to the stand and adrenalin is high.

Out of the 90% that were crime related, about 90% of that was related to the purchase, sales, or use of drugs and alcohol. Most of the injurys were not life threatening and were always perpetrated by the same group of people, and FOR NO REASON.  Yes, it's amazing, but nearly every victim is attacked by the same group of people.  Ask any cop and he will back me up on this.  The following is a group of people that you should steer clear of.

When questioned as to how they were shot, the victim will offer a story related to one of the following people/groups of people:

Some Dude--Some Dude is very dangerous.  Some Dude always attacks people he does not know for no reason.  The victim has never seen Some Dude before, even though you may find photographs of Some Dude in the victim's purse or wallet. "Officer, Some Dude just shot me for no reason! No, I don't know who it was, he just shot me. I wasn't doing anything to him."

These Guys--Like the ninja warriors of old, These Guys attack without warning.  Their greatist strength is their abilty to just come out of nowhere.  "Ok, I was on my way home from Thursday night church, when all of a sudden These Guys jumped me, and I got shot.  I aint never seen them before, they just came out of nowhere and shot me."

That Crazy B!tch--TCB is obviously known by the victim, and they may be in a relationship or have several children, but she is nonetheless crazy.  The victim will have no idea what he or she did to justify being shot by TCB, because at the time the victim was just minding his or her own business.  "I was just minding my own damn business, when all of a sudden That Crazy B!tch started yelling at me, and just shot me. Why?  I don't know, B!tch is crazy!"

Sometimes there are combinations, but it's always the same folks that the cops have to deal with.  

Actually, no...not false.  

If America is ever to confront its obsession with guns, that time is now. America’s murder rate is four times higher than Britain’s and six times higher than Germany’s. Only an idiot, or an anti-American bigot prepared to maintain that Americans are four times more murderous than Britons, could possibly pretend that no connection exists between those figures and the fact that 300m guns are “out there” in the United States, more than one for every adult.

National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre defiantly blamed violent video games and movies, the media, gun-free zones in schools and other factors during the organization's first public statement following the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Conn. last week.

LaPierre, who was interrupted by Code Pink protesters twice during a statement (during which he refused to answer questions), said that the students in Newtown might have been better protected had officials at Sandy Hook Elementary been armed. He said that putting a police officer in every single school in America might make schools safer.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said, asking Congress to immediately appropriate the money to put a police officer in every single school in the country.

The NRA executive's statement was nothing short of defiant in the face of mounting discussion of the need for tighter restrictions on guns — including renewing a ban on assault weapons — in the wake of last week's shooting.

Protesters twice interrupted LaPierre, who will appear this Sunday exclusively on NBC's "Meet the Press," holding signs reading "NRA KILLING OUR KIDS," and screaming that the gun rights group has "blood on its hands."

^^^Liberals on gun issues are simply conservatives who haven't been mugged yet.   ;D

Defiant NRA leader rejects gun controls, asks to put police in schools

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16068647-defiant-nra-leader-rejects-gun-controls-asks-to-put-police-in-schools?lite (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/21/16068647-defiant-nra-leader-rejects-gun-controls-asks-to-put-police-in-schools?lite)

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty not see a liberal bias when they call Wayne LaPierre "defiant" in their headline and story?

And BTW, I'm NOT a LaPierre fan, simply stating that calling him "defiant" suggests, at least in their view, that a vast majority of Americans disagree with his position.

The National Rifle Association stood its ground today in arguing that the answer to gun violence in schools is an armed security force that can protect students, while blaming the media and violent entertainment and video games for recent deadly shootings.

"The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said in presenting the NRA's first comments about the Connecticut school shooting since it occurred a week ago today.

LaPierre offered no olive branch to gun-control advocates who have called for tougher laws in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Instead, he called for schools across the country to recruit armed security professionals to protect their students.

"It's not just our duty to protect [our children], it's our right to protect them," LaPierre said at a news conference. "The NRA knows there are millions of qualified active and reserved police, active and reserve military, security professionals, rescue personnel, an extraordinary corps of qualified trained citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every single school."

He was interrupted twice by protestors who stood in front of LaPierre's podium holding signs and shouting that the NRA "has blood on its hands" and that the NRA is "killing our kids." The protestors were eventually escorted out of the room.

LaPierre also scoffed at the notion that banning so-called assault weapons or enacting gun control laws would stop school violence. He instead cast blame for gun violence in schools on violent entertainment, including video games, and the media.

"How many more copycats are waiting in the wings for their moment of fame from a national media machine that rewards them with a wall of attention they crave while provoking others to make their mark?" he asked.

LaPierre announced that former U.S. congressman Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas would lead the NRA's effort to advocate for school security forces. Hutchinson specified that the NRA is calling for volunteers to act as the armed guards, rather than requiring funding from local or federal authorities.

"Whether they're retired police, retired military or rescue personnel, I think there are people in every community in this country who would be happy to serve if only someone asked them and gave them the training and certifications to do so," Hutchinson said.

NRA leaders have held off on interviews this week after refusing to appear on Sunday morning public affairs shows. They said they would grant interviews beginning next week to discuss their position.

NRA News anchor Ginny Simone said Thursday that in the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting, membership surged "with an average of 8,000 new members a day."

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has said the NRA is partially to blame for the tragedy.

"We're not trying to take away your right to advance the interests of gun owners, hunters, people who want to protect themselves," Bloomberg told "Nightline" anchor Cynthia McFadden in an interview Thursday. "But that's not an absolute right to encourage behavior which causes things like Connecticut. In fact, Connecticut is because of some of their actions."

The guns used in the attack were legally purchased and owned by the shooter's mother, Nancy Lanza, whom Adam Lanza shot to death before his assault on the school.

In the aftermath of the shooting, many, including Bloomberg, have called for stricter regulations on the type of weapons used in this and other instances of mass gun violence this year.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has said she intends to introduce a bill banning assault weapons on the first day of next year's Congress -- a step the president said he supports.

President Obama announced Wednesday that Vice President Joe Biden will head a task force of leaders from across the country that will evaluate the best solutions to reduce gun violence in the United States.

Obama said he will "use all the powers of this office to help advance efforts aimed at preventing more tragedies like this."

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, of which Mayor Bloomberg is co-chair, released a letter to President Obama signed by more than 750 mayors calling on him to produce a plan to "make it harder for dangerous people to possess guns."

The letter asked for mandatory background checks for gun buyers, a ban on high-capacity rifles and ammunition magazines, and a designation of gun trafficking as a federal crime.

ABC News' George Stephanopoulos looked at whether strict gun control laws like those that have worked for the United Kingdom and Japan could work for the U.S. on "Good Morning America" Thursday.

Others have argued that, rather than banning guns, the government should be arming teachers and administrators in schools so that they can defend students in the event of another school shooting.

While Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder vetoed a measure that would have let guns into schools on Tuesday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell praised the idea.

Speaking on the NRA's daily news program Tuesday, Dave Koppel of the Independence Institute said the teachers at Sandy Hook should have had weapons.

"We'd certainly be talking about fewer innocent people and children dead," Koppel said.

While a national debate over the necessary solutions to prevent a tragedy of this nature from ever happening again wages on, Connecticut residents will have to wait "several months" before the final Connecticut State Police report on the Newtown shootings is complete.

There was a point. After some meandering around about video game violence, LaPierre proposed a national initiative -- funded by your tax dollars -- to put armed guards in schools. "With all the foreign aid, with all the money in the federal budget, we can’t afford to put a police officer in every school?" he asked. "I call on Congress today to act immediately, to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every school — and to do it now, to make sure that blanket of safety is in place when our children return to school in January."

But this isn't an entirely new idea. You probably don't remember the name of Neil Gardner, a sherrif's deputy in Jefferson County, Colorado. He was the armed guard assigned to watch Columbine High School, who usually ate lunch with the students, so he could be in the school.

Hale High's on lockdown.

Hale High's on lockdown.

Yep. Student was passing out bullets.

Yep. Student was passing out bullets.

Hale High School searched after student hands out bullets as Christmas presents

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3bpydbjvc1qlar22o1_1280.jpg)

TW FB post:

Again? Sheeesh....like 4 times this month.

The Most Revolting Press Conference In History December 21, 2012by James Schlarmann
  
http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/the-most-revolting-press-conference-in-history/

Indeed...Joe Biden's battle. The perfect soldier for this one!

We're coming for your assault rifles and 30 shot magazines!

Bwhhhhhaaaaa!!!!! :-* :-* >:( >:( >:(

A week ago today, twenty kindergartners and six adults whose job it was to protect those children were mowed down

There are plenty of lockdown and "guns on board" stories that never make it to the press for fear of parents pulling their kids and wrecking school budgets. For instance this week I personally know of two incidents that went unreported. 10-33-2a.

The 10 Craziest Quotes From The NRA Press Conference
1) Gun-free schools zones “tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk.”
2) “There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people.
3) “[V]iolent crime is increasing again for the first time in 19 years! Add another hurricane, terrorist attack or some other natural or man-made disaster, and you’ve got a recipe for a national nightmare of violence and victimization.”
4) “We need to have every single school in America immediately deploy a protection program proven to work —and by that I mean armed security.”
5) “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away … or a minute away?”
6) “And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not complicit co-conspirators.”
7) “Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like ‘American Psycho’ and ‘Natural Born Killers’ that are aired like propaganda loops on Splatterdays and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life.”
8) “In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with one another to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of every month of every year.”
9) “Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?”
10) “Isn’t fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/21/1372001/the-10-craziest-quotes-from-the-nra-press-conference/

A complex like Union, Jenks, Washington or Edison? Forget about it. It would take over two minutes just to communicate who, what, where and when. Then the guard has to respond. With a pistol. Simpleton idea.
Then there are the parking lots, buses, and auditoriums. Simple, target rich environments even if the student body is armed.

Doesn't make sense Conan. Schools are at least two city blocks of buildings and grounds. Where do you place the guard to protect them all? The most defenseless would be the special needs area. But that leaves the main entrance and the mass of students unprotected. One guard cannot cover the whole area.

A complex like Union, Jenks, Washington or Edison? Forget about it. It would take over two minutes just to communicate who, what, where and when. Then the guard has to respond. With a pistol. Simpleton idea.

Then there are the parking lots, buses, and auditoriums. Simple, target rich environments even if the student body is armed.

He shot all the people in two and a half minutes.

If he could have been stopped after 15 or 30 seconds, how many lives could have been saved which were not?

I agree with you that more weapons is not a solution to problems like this (per your FB post), but weapons in the hands of a very well trained security force stands a better chance of saving lives than hoping a gun buy-back will find every single high capacity weapon in circulation or which is in the hands of evil people.

Who is thinking simply here, AM?  What's your answer, just allow these episodes to continue un-abated?

Guard or guard(s).  You limit entrance points to buildings to one or two just like our courthouse and federal buildings, depending on the building size.  Sheesh.  I think you just like being contrarian at times.

So we ban assault rifles and law-abiding citizens turn theirs in on a buy back.  Meanwhile, sick, criminally-minded individuals continue to assault defenseless children, teachers, and administrators because we are just too stupid to post a viable deterrent in the form of well-trained security force in our schools and limit access points which are easily breached.

One last time: People like Lanza purposely avoid resistance and go for a defenseless target-rich environment to pull off their personal apocalypse.

After 9/11 we didn't ban box cutters, jet fuel, sky scrapers, or commercial aircraft.  We stepped up security at entrance points in transportation ports of entry, limited entrances, changed procedure for cockpit access on aircraft, and have armed air marshals anonymously flying on domestic and international routes.  Sure TSA is a total clusterfuck, yet we have had no domestic hijackings since 9/11/01. Why is this so difficult for people to wrap their brains around?  

FWIW, no we don't need a federal bureaucracy to establish this.  It can be done on a state or local basis and I guarantee it would save lives.  Figure out what our priorities are, cut funding from programs deemed less important than school security and fund it as a combination of state and federal funds.

This is the problem when sheeple think guns are responsible for mass killings, not humans.

"I have a buddy who is a mechanic and a gun nut. The other night I went into his garage and took all of his wrenches. The next day I took my car in and asked if he could take a look at it. He told me he couldn't really do anything because someone took all his wrenches. I said that's ridiculous, wrenches don't fix cars; people do." ~ From Praggie, Charles Michael.

That guy bought the wrong brand of wrenches.   ;D

Who is thinking simply here, AM?  What's your answer, just allow these episodes to continue un-abated?

Guard or guard(s).  You limit entrance points to buildings to one or two just like our courthouse and federal buildings, depending on the building size.  Sheesh.  I think you just like being contrarian at times.

So we ban assault rifles and law-abiding citizens turn theirs in on a buy back.  Meanwhile, sick, criminally-minded individuals continue to assault defenseless children, teachers, and administrators because we are just too stupid to post a viable deterrent in the form of well-trained security force in our schools and limit access points which are easily breached.

One last time: People like Lanza purposely avoid resistance and go for a defenseless target-rich environment to pull off their personal apocalypse.

After 9/11 we didn't ban box cutters, jet fuel, sky scrapers, or commercial aircraft.  We stepped up security at entrance points in transportation ports of entry, limited entrances, changed procedure for cockpit access on aircraft, and have armed air marshals anonymously flying on domestic and international routes.  Sure TSA is a total clusterfuck, yet we have had no domestic hijackings since 9/11/01. Why is this so difficult for people to wrap their brains around? 

FWIW, no we don't need a federal bureaucracy to establish this.  It can be done on a state or local basis and I guarantee it would save lives.  Figure out what our priorities are, cut funding from programs deemed less important than school security and fund it as a combination of state and federal funds.

This is the problem when sheeple think guns are responsible for mass killings, not humans.

If I carried a gun when I was mugged in Chicago, I woulda been shot with it... if I would have been there when thieves (probably a couple of kids) broke into my house in Owen Park, would I really have needed to pull out a semi-automatic weapon?  Oh wait, if the NRA had its way, I would.

Doesn't make sense Conan. Schools are at least two city blocks of buildings and grounds. Where do you place the guard to protect them all? The most defenseless would be the special needs area. But that leaves the main entrance and the mass of students unprotected. One guard cannot cover the whole area.

A complex like Union, Jenks, Washington or Edison? Forget about it. It would take over two minutes just to communicate who, what, where and when. Then the guard has to respond. With a pistol. Simpleton idea.

Then there are the parking lots, buses, and auditoriums. Simple, target rich environments even if the student body is armed.

Only if you felt the need or were inclined to defend yourself.  If you feel like just letting it happen to you, that too, is your choice and you are always free to make that choice.  Seems like that is just about as stupid as all you other arguments advancing gun control, but hey, that's what the country has come to expect from the Brady Organization.  Illiterate, illogical tripe, with actually so little basis in fact as to be worse than worthless.  But hey, that again, is yet ANOTHER one of those pesky 'inalienable' rights ensconced in the US Constitution...1st Amendment...you remember that one, don't you?  The one just immediately before the one you want to abrogate so badly.

So, let's review - YOU want your rights to embrace and enjoy to the fullest, and yet, at the same time want to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine.  Ok.
You really wanna go there, huh??  Ok...let's go.


So, here we are experiencing an amazing effort, driven by the well known and documented LWRE doctrine of ridding the country of a Right found by the founders to be important enough to actually enumerate in the US Constitution...that effort driven by some inane, misguided nonsense that somehow equates taking the rights away from millions of law abiding citizens with safety for children.  And the false premise that somehow removing a magazine from circulation will make everything all better.  Where is your baseball bat umbrage??  (As debunked by actual FBI statistics, if one were intellectually honest enough to study and understand...)

AT THE SAME TIME, most of those same misguided are also rabidly frothing at the mouth to enable a 'right' that has no text, nor reference, nor standing in history or law for almost 200 years after the founding.  The ongoing massacre and slaughter of over 1 million children per year, one kid at a time, by their mothers, and the performance of that killing, hundreds if not thousands of times per year, by the doctors enlisted to be complicit in that massacre of abortions.


And the perspective is somehow focused on the millions of people who use firearms to successfully defend themselves every year - the vast majority without ever having to fire a shot.  And the tens of millions of law abiding gun owners who enjoy shooting every year.  Yeah, it's ALL about perspective and how badly warped it has become by both extremist, lunatic fringes in this country.  The AR with the 30 round magazine is not the problem. 


 

Oh, c o m e ...  o n ! !  You are smarter and better than that!

May take 2 guards...or 3.  How many janitors do each of those schools have.  I know when I was at Hale, there were always at least 2 or 3 that I saw all the time.  May have been more.  So, you argument is implying that mopping up a food spill in the cafeteria is a bigger priority than keeping the kids safe...? 

Oh, c o m e ...  o n ! !  You are smarter and better than that!

May take 2 guards...or 3.  How many janitors do each of those schools have.  I know when I was at Hale, there were always at least 2 or 3 that I saw all the time.  May have been more.  So, you argument is implying that mopping up a food spill in the cafeteria is a bigger priority than keeping the kids safe...? 

How can anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty not see a liberal bias when they call Wayne LaPierre "defiant" in their headline and story?

And BTW, I'm NOT a LaPierre fan, simply stating that calling him "defiant" suggests, at least in their view, that a vast majority of Americans disagree with his position.

Is there a reason BOTH suggestions couldn't be applied?

Sure, just read the posts of the resident firearm bed-wetters and multiply that by multi-millions  ::)

Taking scary-looking guns from honest citizens doesn't solve the problem of those too dishonest to turn theirs in.

That's the bottom line.  

You guys enjoy your thread and have a Merry Christmas.  Just don't ask me for any ideas after the next massacre in a target-rich environment of defenseless people.

I'm sorry H, as the other left leaning 2A supporter in here, I'm going to have to diverge with you here.

I have to believe that if the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights knew of the kinds of killing machines that mankind would have invented, I'm thinking that they may have worded the 2A a little differently.

Remember, back then it took nearly a minute to reload.

Sorry, Conan.  Any mainstream media use of the term "defiant" to describe LaPierre's partisan rant has got to be the understatement of the year.


LaPierre is nothing more than a carnival barking TRAITOR who caters to gun cultists... a traitor to democracy, to truth, to human dignity, to America... and finally and most importantly... to the cause of the many, many responsible gunowners who choose not to stockpile weapons, who use their guns for hunting and/or keep a handgun for personal protection, and who actually respect the dignity and rights of others and are inclined to agree with those of us who do not want guns present in our children's schools...

Yeah, I can't wait for thousands of donut eating police-wannabes from Wackenhut, etc. to be stationed in every single school in the country while thousands of teachers get pink slips...

There are many schools in the inner-cities of this country who have had armed security in place for years.
There are even some suburban schools who had armed security in 1999... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html
This is NOT a badge of honor.  It is an admission of failure.

Traitor, huh?  And what would you call someone who works so hard to go directly against what is specifically written in the Constitution??   Pot calling the kettle....etc, etc.

Bedwetters?  Tell me your experiences living in a high crime area or working as a public school teacher...
Truth is, Conan, you have no ideas... only unflinching apologist support for gun nuts... and warmed over NRA propaganda I heard thirty years ago after Reagan and Brady were shot.
"Too dishonest to turn theirs in?"  School teachers don't stop giving tests just because they know some dishonest students will cheat.
Stop acting like an idiot.

That's another gun nut lie.
Your interpretation of your rights to unlimited access to all forms of gunnery in the Constitution is highly suspect.

And yes, LaPierre is a traitor.
What he said and did last week was absolutely despicable.

That's another gun nut lie.
Your interpretation of your rights to unlimited access to all forms of gunnery in the Constitution is highly suspect.

Brady Organization apologist = Traitor.
Taking what otherwise could be considered virtues and trying to twist them around to fulfill the radical Brady Organization extremist agenda.

I know I certainly don't want guns in our children's schools...and it is a felony to bring one to a school... but since criminals, BY DEFINITION, don't obey the law, that's just an incredibly lame rendition of nonsense in the general vein of "why can't we just all live together..."

Still wondering why you don't address the question of baseball bats?  Been brought up several times.  Where is your uneducated ranting and raving about that?  Who is the traitor building and supporting the distribution and use of all those baseball bats?  Is it the CEO and officers of Louisville Slugger?

I also haven't gone back to past posts...wondering what your stand is on the institutionalized removal of babies from their natural habitat?

Saw this a week ago, and it really does cover the whole thing well.  Applies to baseball bats as well as guns.

People are already offering up solutions to this tragedy. There isn’t one.
Evil people exist. They always will. Some people are simply born broken. They want to rape, kill, hurt, whatever.
You can prepare for them, look out for them, and do your best to be vigilant, but you cannot legislate them or counsel them to not be broken.

Actually, I go by what is actually defined BY the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;  consisting of the Constitution itself, any and all ratified treaties, and the Code of Federal Regulations.  Wherein "my" interpretation of rights derives.  Nobody, except your "jump to extremist postion" conclusion has said that I feel I have the right to unlimited access to all forms of gunnery.  I feel - and I am again, BY DEFINITION, reinforced in that feeling that I have the right to have any or all of the firearms allowed by the supreme law of the land.  That includes machine guns....... blah blah blah...
......................................... Brady Mafia has...

Only if you felt the need or were inclined to defend yourself.  If you feel like just letting it happen to you, that too, is your choice and you are always free to make that choice.  Seems like that is just about as stupid as all you other arguments advancing gun control, but hey, that's what the country has come to expect from the Brady Organization.  Illiterate, illogical tripe, with actually so little basis in fact as to be worse than worthless.  But hey, that again, is yet ANOTHER one of those pesky 'inalienable' rights ensconced in the US Constitution...1st Amendment...you remember that one, don't you?  The one just immediately before the one you want to abrogate so badly.

So, let's review - YOU want your rights to embrace and enjoy to the fullest, and yet, at the same time want to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine.  Ok.
You really wanna go there, huh??  Ok...let's go.

AT THE SAME TIME, most of those same misguided are also rabidly frothing at the mouth to enable a 'right' that has no text, nor reference, nor standing in history or law for almost 200 years after the founding.  The ongoing massacre and slaughter of over 1 million children per year, one kid at a time, by their mothers, and the performance of that killing, hundreds if not thousands of times per year, by the doctors enlisted to be complicit in that massacre of abortions.

Wait.  Didn't read this one.... you didn't even get my point.

That's because you've never been mugged.  And after reading Gas's unsympathetic stereotypes that blame the victim, well... bet he's never been mugged either.
This has NOTHING to do with whether I'm "inclined" to defend myself.  I did.  To the best of my ability. 
You've been reading too many pro-gun propaganda stories about how guns stop crime.
If I had expert training in all aspects of shooting a handgun, what good is that gonna do me if I get jumped from behind?
Hey, maybe I'm stronger than that twentysomething male and the other two shadowy figures I couldn't see... so I take that gun and during the struggle it goes off... too bad that little girl was in the line of fire... tragic, really.  But I know my constitutional rights and therefore that little girl and her parents don't have any right "to impose an arbitrary "will" to eliminate the exercise of mine."
Whose fault would that be?  Not mine.  I mean, I was just exercising my constitutionally guaranteed right to carry a gun wherever I damn well please... in a densely populated urban neighborhood...
So, when you arrogantly act like I "feel like just letting it happen" you have absolutely no clue.
This is real life.  This is not some Clint Eastwood or John Wayne movie.  

Ask the friend of mine who worked for Chicago PD for decades.
Ask the "armed security" off duty deputy at Columbine HS.

But hey, I'm just being so unreasonable by trying to limit your constitutional right to own any weaponry you choose (hmmm, can you sell me some biological weapons?  I'm a law-abiding citizen, just afraid of the gubmint!)... and I guess those rights trump all consideration of public safety.

Law abiding citizens should never have UNRESTRICTED RIGHTS to assault weapons that have no use other than to kill scores of human beings.
Once a law abiding citizen doesn't mean that citizen will always be law abiding... our latest mass murderer had no criminal record... his mother was teaching him to shoot, er uh, defend himself...
 

Baseball bats are not manufactured for the sole intent of killing people.
You are the uneducated and ranting one.
You are the one doing rhetorical gymnastics about your right to own any and every weapon invented for warfare... because criminals will get their hands on them anyway, so "law-abiding citizens" must have one, or two, or five, or ten, or a hundred... what an interesting sense of entitlement that must be... just can't be bothered to limit that right in any reasonable way, shape or form...
 

Unfortunately, we’ll never eliminate all abortions or gun deaths. (I think everyone, left and right, would agree with that.)  Yet, overwhelming majorities, consisting of conservatives and liberals, would agree that we should do whatever we can to reduce the number of abortions and the number of gun deaths as much as we reasonably can. To reach those goals, it is unacceptable to simply say that we should have no restrictions simply because some will still do what we’re trying to prevent. And it is unacceptable to simply say that there is no limitation that may be placed upon what we deem to be a right.

At some level most all of us agree in principle (as evidenced by liberal arguments for gun control and by conservative arguments for abortion control) that rights have their limitations. Could it be that the left and the right have more agreement than they actually realize?

This nails it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

This nails it.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU[/youtube]

...it shows how an armed person can defend people and stop what could have been another movie massacre. 

You're acting like a conspiracy enthusiast. Agenda? You are smarter than this.

What happened is what a real estate agent would call "a non comparable". It wasn't even reported what gun he was using, whether he was dressed in armored clothing, or had a well prepared plan. He was just a jilted lover who started shooting at marked police cars outside a theatre. But you wanted the press to cover it nationwide?

Not really comparable. Not even a different story from what happens on Friday, Saturday, New Years eve all over the country. Now, if he had been carrying a 100 round clip and a Bushmaster and the guy who shot him dead wasn't an off duty guard....

Could is the appropriate word here. It seems like this was a fight between two people, not a madman trying to kill innocent people. That is the reason why there is minimal national coverage.

This guy went to the restaurant where his "issue" was, shot a couple rounds, then consciously went elsewhere - a movie theater - firing a couple shots until he was shot by the lady.  Obviously there was at least a similar intent, even if there was inadequate infrastructure to do the kind of damage the Newtown person did or the Oregon theater guy did..  The difference is in degree only - he was stopped early in the process.  But the defendant did have to pay $100 to the court fund, and $100 victim's compensation.  Plus costs.

Maybe you aren't as smart as I thought you were. Or maybe this fixation on gun rights is messing with you. I think the latter.

Girl? So what?

Look, after I read your post I ventured into the weird world of Yahoo and pulled up lots of violent activities across the country. Saturday night gun and knife club stuff. This was just one more of them only an off duty guard, with a pistol, stepped up and shot the guy. You ignore the fact that he had been shooting into a patrol car and yet the well trained, well armed cops couldn't stop him. You think the press should have played this up to prove a point that all security guards need to carry weapons and hang around theaters? Is that a strong defense of your thesis? There is no comparing this episode to a well planned out assault with an assault weapon like the school shooting.

If there is an agenda it is to reduce gun violence. Differing views on how to do that have been presented. When most of the world holds a differing view than yours and acts to effect change, it doesn't make them bad people who have an evil, nefarious agenda who collude with the press.

You have such an imagination. He obviosly went to the theater to hide or escape. The shots fired in the theater happened when the lady started firing at him. The reason there was any firing in the theater was the "good samaritan" took matters in her own hands and got involved. The people in the theater became endangered because they both started shooting at each other.

For you to imply that he went to the theater to start killing innocent people is outrageous and completely false.

Points are being missed but your insistence on your point of view as reality places you as defendant. Did you read or comprehend any of this post?-

...we continue to look at symptoms and diagnose from conflicting indications rather than looking holistically at the sickness. That's why people point fingers at the NRA, the celebrities, the politicians, the guns themselves. Take a page from the "House" philosophy. One, all patients are liars.  Two, look in the environment of the patient for evidence of the cause of the symptoms. Then you can diagnose and treat the disease.

To wit:
-We are plagued with drug driven populations. Bears repeating. We have drug problems. Fosters mental illness.
-We have to endure unequal opportunity for success, education and justice. Money buys easy access to those critical elements. That leads to wildly disparate and concentrated wealth the rest of the first world countries don't have to cope with.
-Our population is easily swayed by stupid leaders who are bought and sold. The result is more prisons, more violence, less public education support, more gambling (both in casinos and in Wall Street) and emphasis on "simple" solutions.
-And most importantly, we refuse to recognize the reality of this environment I described. Its a mental illness when what you see, does not represent what is real. Its tragedy when the rest of your life is based on those false perceptions. That's why we can't reach agreement on fiscal problems, social change and science.

Insisting that a (as you said probably drunk) guy with a pistol ambling around town shooting things up is analagous, comparable or even similar to a well planned, well armed mass shooting is just not right. It demeans and distracts from your arguments for gun rights. Keeping hundred round clips and military weapons regulated is an effort to limit the damage done. A tactical effort. Your restaurant/theater shooter would have done much more damage with one of those guns. Am I shooting too high?

Let me ask you this. A couple of years ago a guy was shooting into the Arkansas River and strangely enough missed the river entirely a few times. The bullets travelled across the river, through a kitchen window and past a woman making dinner. What would be your response to this story? Was the shooter being irresponsible? Should he be liable for damage from the bullets? Should a public river be off limits to firearms? And is a regulation limiting this activity acceptable to you?

I use that story as a litmus test for deciding the sanity of gun rights activists. Your answer seems reasonable. I have to say, its the first reasonable answer I've received. Most simply say that is just the unfortunate result of the protection of our second amendment rights and if he was on his own property, then he is safe. No regulation required. And one of those responses was from a county deputy.

1.    All guns are always loaded.
2.    Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
3.    Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
4.    Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

Where's the Fairgrounds sanity? Is rent from these carnivals for rednecks that important? The commissioners need to look at the consequences should one customer be the wrong parent, child, friend, patient, bully, student, etc.

Send these goons elsewhere....

Where's the Fairgrounds sanity? Is rent from these carnivals for rednecks that important? The commissioners need to look at the consequences should one customer be the wrong parent, child, friend, patient, bully, student, etc.

Send these goons elsewhere....

POST OF THE YEAR (so far)

You REALLY need to get a life!!

Ruf. That game only exists because it is a show of "Legally" sold guns.

You'd think the county shows would be more than willing to sell guns to black people, considering all the liberal propaganda out there accusing the NRA of being a racist organization... and also considering that blacks living in high crime areas would theoretically be better served (safer?) if they had guns to defend themselves... besides, I thought those shows only featured "private dealers" who'll sell you a gun without calling in for a background check?..... or would they only call in a background check if you were "buying while black?"

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju1hflebAmk&feature=player_detailpage[/youtube]

I blame Hillary... and the UN.   ;D  /snark

You'd think the county shows would be more than willing to sell guns to black people, considering all the liberal propaganda out there accusing the NRA of being a racist organization... and also considering that blacks living in high crime areas would theoretically be better served (safer?) if they had guns to defend themselves... besides, I thought those shows only featured "private dealers" who'll sell you a gun without calling in for a background check?..... or would they only call in a background check if you were "buying while black?"

I blame Hillary... and the UN.   ;D  /snark

Yes. Of course equal rights to all was covered in the constitution. So one would deduce from your reasoning that there was no reason to fight the civil war, enact women's suffrage or argue against "separate but equal" in Brown.

This concept that we just need to enforce existing laws seems weak when you look at the past history of enforcement.

Wow!  You obviously haven't been to a gun show.  

Obviously "posting while clueless".  


As for this crock of carp that keeps coming around in the Brady Bunch Clown Circus about "letting" the mentally ill have guns... as I have stated before, it has been illegal since the 30's on a Federal basis for someone who has been found to be mentally ill to own, possess, or use a firearm of any sort.  And they are, by definition, criminals.

This in not new ground - there are a comprehensive set of prohibitions to gun ownership and use - it has been covered WAY before the latest Agenda-laden propaganda war started.  The lies, half-truths, distortions, and attempts at misdirection will continue forever, since they so obviously work on a knee-jerk basis on people too lazy to investigate and study the reality, or just willing to buy into something they think sounds like it "ought to be true"...you bought into it!

Yes.  I have.  Including the one this weekend.
Line had to be nearly a mile long.... no blacks in site.
The rest of your post is CONSERVATIVE FOLKLORE DOGMA & GUN ENTITLEMENT BLATHER.

We need Australian-style gun control laws.
That is my opinion, and the opinion of MANY responsible gun owners, hunters, policemen, etc. who don't approve of the bat-crap crazy NRA and their conservative guns-on-demand weapons industry agenda.

It is a common fantasy that gun bans make society safer.  In 2002 -- five years after enacting its gun ban -- the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime.  In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.

Even Australia's Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:

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.
Moreover, Australia and the United States -- where no gun-ban exists -- both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America's rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: 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.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
While this doesn't prove that more guns would impact crime rates, it does prove that gun control is a flawed policy.  Furthermore, this highlights the most important point: gun banners promote failed policy regardless of the consequences to the people who must live with them, says the Examiner.

Source: Howard Nemerov, "Australia experiencing more violent crime despite gun ban," D.C. Examiner, April 8, 2009.

I'm simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

There is no law that would prevent these folks, who wanted to kill lots of people, from killing lots of people.  You can change the tool, but that does little to change the motive of the technician. The solution lies in eliminating the motive, or at least recognizing it.

BTW, I noticed you posted one of the pics from the Tulsa Firearms Show in your race rant.  Here, I've helped you.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8510/8365805412_9d0918d6a0_z.jpg)

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

"Australian gun ban" seems to be the latest mindless chant for ill-informed liberals.

It's the new "Venture Capitalist", "Ermahgerd Werter Berding!", or "Haliburton!!!"

I don't know about you guys, but I'm glad Ruff doesn't exercise his 2A right  ;D

You missed a few in your photo, Gas.  What's that?  Oh, I also seem to see Hispanics and or Asians and Middle Easterners.  I bet they even let Jewish people in these shows!
I'm simply looking at the problem from a pragmatic standpoint.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8510/8365805412_9d0918d6a0_z.jpg)

Yes, but can you spot the psychotics?

Post of the day!

That is the point.  Can you spot them as they drive by your office window?  How about at the grocery store?

If they don't self identify can you discriminate?

However, if they are under treatment, they are known to someone who is responsible for management of their condition.

And ammunition needs to be bought with a huge levy.

Just curious what that purports to accomplish?

Seems to me all that would do is add to the cost for people to legally defend themselves since criminals seldom get their guns or ammo via legal channels.

Just curious what that purports to accomplish?

Seems to me all that would do is add to the cost for people to legally defend themselves since criminals seldom get their guns or ammo via legal channels.

"Enough," Giffords said.
----------------------------------------------------
Giffords, 42, and Kelly, 48, are both gun owners and supporters of the 2nd Amendment, but Kelly had strong words for the National Rifle Association after the group suggested the only way to stop gun violence is to have a "good guy with a gun."

There was a good guy with a gun, Kelly said, the day Jared Loughner shot Giffords and 18 other people, six fatally, at her "Congress on Your Corner" event.

"[A man came out] of the store next door and nearly shot the man who took down Jared Loughner," Kelly said. "The one who eventually wrestled [Loughner] to the ground was almost killed himself by a good guy with a gun, so I don't really buy that argument."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I bought a gun at Walmart recently and I went through a background check. It's not a difficult thing to do," Kelly said. "Why can't we just do that and make it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get guns?"

The debate over high-capacity magazines and assault weapons has been renewed after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre.

Kelly, a veteran of Desert Storm and a gun owner, said he doesn't believe an extended magazine is necessary for the sport.

"An extended magazine is used to kill people," he said, "lots of people."

Loughner used a magazine that had 33 rounds in Tucson, while accused Aurora shooter James Holmes had a 100-round magazine. Adam Lanza, the Newtown shooter, used numerous 30-round magazines to load his Bushmaster AR-15.

Finally, Kelly hopes to address the issue of how the mentally ill are treated in the United States. Loughner, who was deemed incompetent to stand trial, pleaded guilty to 19 counts in August.

"Jared Loughner was clearly mentally ill," Kelly said.

"Sad," Giffords added.

Kelly said, "We have to learn how to identify these people and get them treatment. And we don't do a very good job at that."

I have no problem with guns or anyone owning one. I have never owned one or even wanted to. I have hunted with friends and shot plenty of guns. Just never got all that excited about firearms.

My problem is with assault rifles. I just don't see the need for the general public to have them. They are made for one thing. Killing people in large numbers very fast. For Military use yes. But we are not at war with our society. IMO they are just not needed.

As a responsible gun owner and 2A advocate, I agree wholeheartedly with this.  I own firearms, but don't believe that it is really necessary for civilians to own weapons that by definition have been used in combat.  Do you really need an AR15 to shoot deer?

Also, do we really need 30 round magazines for Glock 23?

The 2nd Amendment was not written so that citizens could shoot at deer.

It also wasn't written so that citizens could use military weapons to shoot children.

Another reason we need to fix the mental health system in this country.

It also wasn't written so that citizens could use military weapons to shoot children.

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

I would not be against assault rifle measures if we could show that those measures would be effective in stoping psychotic people that want to kill folks, but nothing in either of these cases indicates that.  Instead, as I've stated before, I think we need to empower healthcare providers (of which both of these individuals were under the care of) to implement policies that remove access to any firearm as dictated in existing law.  We could do that now, with little or no resistance, and actually save lives, instead of just changing the picture of the weapon used in the next massacare.

We have, in fact, 10 years of empirical (real world) evidence using exactly that ban that is being proposed, that it does nothing in stopping psychopaths from doing what they want to do.  It HAS been tried.  It WAS ineffective at accomplishing what all the wringing of hands is all about.

And yet, we continue to ignore and look away from root causes.  We continue to fixate on band-aids that don't work.  

Can someone make the argument that we continue to ignore a search for root causes and again try something the has been proven ineffectual?   Wow!  This is sounding like what we do in the "war on drugs"... keep going back to the same stable of proven false conclusions and wanting the keep trying the same old ineffective hog slop!

When do we as a society start to realize; that constitutes insanity as public policy?

Heiron, I am sure you understand that it has nothing to do with banning assault style weapons, just as Obamacare has nothing to do with reducing the cost of healthcare.  
It has to do with creating a MEANS to an END.  There is no chance that the federal government could ever ban and ultimately confiscate guns, UNLESS they were successful in implementing a series of baby steps to restrict and regulate their use and function.  This of course starts with appearance.  Military style weapons look scary, so that's easier for the low information folks to get behind.  The Clinton law was unsuccessful because it was never amended to expand the ban (as was initially intended).

Civilians with guns do not serve the state and ultimately pose a political risk.  The ability of millions to defend themselves when someone breaks down the door takes power away from government in it's duty to protect your rights.  Civilians with guns are free because there is no way to regulate how they use that power, and government has the organic need to regulate and control.



In 1928 Germans were required to register weapons with the government.  In March 19, 1938 Germany passed Waffengesetz, a law that restricted the ownership of "Millitary Useful Weapons", their term for "Assault Weapons."  Shortly after they passed legislation making ownership illegal for certain groups of people. When they marched into the Kraków Ghetto in 1942 to "liquidate" its residents there was little or no resistance.  

It always starts the same way.  It always will.

Can someone make the argument on why we should allow private ownership of magazines with more than ten rounds?

10 is an arbitrary number.  Why not 7, or 12, or 15.....?

Perhaps 7, but when you get over 10, the shoes come off.

WAKE UP!!!!!-I'm reposting this from earlier to EXPOSE this FACT, and HOPEFULLY get some more debate on the SOURCE of the PROBLEM:In 1957 there were over 500,000+
institutionalized in State Mental Institutions and we had reasonable involuntary commitment laws. We had no modern "gun control" laws, could buy your M1 Carbine through the mail along with all the 30 round magazines you wanted- yet mass random shootings NEVER HAPPENED!!! Was 1957 America a police state? Doctors and judges made the decision who to keep in the loony bin, and they could not get out until they were no longer a threat to self or a public threat. You still had the rights to a lawyer and judge to prove your sanity and get out if there was no basis for the decision.

Today we have emptied and closed the State Mental Institutions, created the homeless population, made involuntary commitment impossible until AFTER you commit a crime- and then try and blame guns for the actions of the mental patients!!! Jared Laughner- parents tried to get him help at least twice but were turned down for la#$%$ insurance, neighbors said he would ride around on his bike talking to himself, school said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been institutionalized long before he shot Gabby based on his obvious illness! Virginia Tech- school teachers said he was unbalanced- in the PAST he would have been institutionalized based on his obvious behavior!!! Colorado- His college psychiatrist was so alarmed by Holmes that she had him banned from the campus, but nothing else. In the PAST- she could have had him involuntarily committed BEFORE he hurt anyone!!! What was even the POINT of him trying to get help from the psychiatrist when all she did was ban him from the school???!!! Even Charles Whitman in 1966, the first of these crazed m#$%$hooters warned authorities before hand by seeking help from Texas University's school psychiatrist- repeatedly! He had severe migraine headaches and extreme anger that HE knew was irrational, turned out he had a BRAIN TUMOR- discovered AFTER his death!!! He even told his psychiatrist he was fantasizing about shooting people from the tower!!! If his school psychiatrist had remotely done his job he would have gotten the help he sought. To this day Texas University won't release all of Whitman's medical records, claiming the deceased "right to privacy"- so the school won't be SUED!!!! Newtown CT- Mother was so scared of her son she told sitters not to turn their ba#$%$ on him even if they went to the bathroom, but with him not having committed a crime involuntary commitment is virtually impossible and there is no where to send him. 40 years ago he would have been institutionalized in a State Mental Institution based on his behavior. You know where the largest State Mental Institution in Connecticut is? NEWTOWN- its been CLOSED for DECADES! This is NOT a "gun control" issue!

I like this post on a yahoo board from American1975:

Your quote was absolutely right.  Just like we have been saying.  You decided to come back to reality, then?  That should be refreshing for all your friends and family....

It's not an "'either-or" approach. Guns and ammunition need regulation.  Humans should be audited.

I've always been in reality ....separate from yours.

I have to remove my pants to count to 21.

It's not an "'either-or" approach. Guns and ammunition need regulation.  Humans should be audited.

I've always been in reality ....separate from yours.

It's not an "'either-or" approach. Guns and ammunition need regulation.  Humans should be audited.

I've always been in reality ....separate from yours.

Is there any product or form of commerce that in your opinion does not need regulation?

. . .besides pot!

California Weighs Bill to Track Ammo Sales

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323706704578229951143416628.html

"If passed, the bill would give California more oversight of ammunition sales than any other state in the nation. Few states currently regulate or oversee ammunition sales, with state laws typically targeting guns instead."
"It's appalling that ammunition is largely unregulated in America," said Mr. Van Houten, whose group advocates for stricter gun-control laws.

Follow the ammo!

Heirloon, in your perception of reality what could go wrong raising the tax on ammunition and following who is stocking up?

Hey clown.  If the government identified a citizen who was buying lots of ammo, what then?

Super! Data is meaningless unless acted upon.

The more you post, the more we know the less you know.

So you just want to collect data?

For what purpose?

Identification of potential threats....homeland security.

I guess no one on this forum can make a case for the need of private ownership of ammunition clips that hold more than ten rounds.

Good. Let's ban them.

In many cases, we already had data to prove a mass killer was insane, yet no one did anything about it until after he ended up killing others.

So what does homeland security do to someone who has 1000 rounds of .223 ammo that they legally purchased?

I guess no one on this forum can make a case for the need of private ownership of ammunition clips that hold more than ten rounds.

Good. Let's ban them.

That's because your question offers no reasonable solution.  10, 20, 30, 100, the time necessary to reload is a fraction of a second, and unless an assailant is faced with armed or advancing resistance, the capacity of the clip is meaningless.

Why should anyone own a 52oz Quik Trip mug?

Why should any one person be allowed to sleep in a king sized bed?

Why should a couple with no family be allowed to live in a 16,000 sqft home?

Though I will give you a good answer. . .I like high capacity rounds so that I don't have to take that extra 1/2 second to reload when shooting my guns.  It's comforting to know that I won't have to constantly reload clips (it's hard on the fingers you know).  ;D

We need to reactivate government institutions for mentally ill and put them under Homeland Security rather than let all you guys run around pretending....

Can't do that, 30 years ago bed wetters decided it was cruel to keep the mentally ill from society.

I guess that's a social experiment gone bad, eh?

Can't do that, 30 years ago bed wetters decided it was cruel to keep the mentally ill from society.

I guess that's a social experiment gone bad, eh?

I guess no one on this forum can make a case for the need of private ownership of ammunition clips that hold more than ten rounds.

Good. Let's ban them.

WRONG! It's what happens as a result of cutting out health services and out sourcing the issues to the Prison Industrial Complex.

How do you think public education will fare in another 20 years as a result of the voucher system?

WRONG! It's what happens as a result of cutting out health services and out sourcing the issues to the Prison Industrial Complex.

How do you think public education will fare in another 20 years as a result of the voucher system?

Homeward Bound vs. The Hissom Memorial Center

I. True Story

In early American society, individuals with developmental, mental/physical disabilities and elderly were cared for by the family unit. As the population of America increased and became more industrialized, society and family life became more complex because family members worked outside the home and often away from the community, so the care of individuals with disabilities became more haphazard. The numbers of homeless increased and many were abused/neglected. As a result, the need for more comprehensive program for individuals with developmental disabilities, etc. became urgent.

Informal groups were formed to care for large numbers of individuals with developmental disabilities, etc. These groups lacked sufficient funding and organization to adequately meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities. These groups were the beginning of institutions. The increased availability of institutions contributed to more incentive for families to place their family members and loved ones outside of the home.

The early history of institutions was not pretty. Individuals were chained to walls, beaten, subjected to poor hygiene and poor nutrition and were abused in ways which can hardly be imagined. The institutions were situated in the worst part of cities and in the country sides, “out of sight and out of mind.” The institution became a self-contained, self-serving and self-monitoring system. It had little or no transparency or outside oversight and many were run by directors who acted as if they owned this population. What happened in the institution stayed in the institution and outside contact/visits by families or others concerned on behalf of individuals were discouraged or not permitted at all.

The institutional model, disempowered families and local communities, which shifted the power to government entities which demanded full control or no control at all. If a family wanted to provide care for their own, they received little or no assistance; however, if they chose to give up their responsibility and place the individual in a government-run facility, the average cost to the taxpayers was $100,000 or more per year. Institutions resisting releasing individuals from their care because their own jobs depended on keeping them in the institution. Can you imagine you or your loved one being kept in an institution of any kind, i.e. hospital, etc. simply because someone’s job depended on it? (Pause)

a. Although there were many good people working in institutions, the system failed because it was self-contained, self-serving and self-monitoring, i.e., government as a provider in an institution was training their own people, providing their own psychological services, social services, physical therapy, etc. and those who were supposed to be watchdogs for the system were getting a paycheck from the system, which had little or no incentive to challenge the system which resulted in abuse, neglect, corruption and cover-up.

Why is ten the arbitrary number?   Why not 8?

It is just a number. It could be 8. I don't have enough knowledge of guns to know what the usual amount of rounds are in a somewhat standard sized clip is.

But why do we allow 100 round magazines? Is it because gaspar just wants them?

It seems to me that only allowing clips of ten (or eight) rounds could be a reasonable way to try to slow down the mass killings. 

I agree. No private citizen should be allowed to own a magazine that holds more than 20 rounds. That is a reasonable limit to me. If that were the law, we would be a safer country.
I am trying to have a rational discussion of reasonable limits. If any of you disagree, please explain.

IIRC, California limits to 10 on AR style guns and I believe the magazine is fixed so that the gun can only be re-loaded with stripper clips which would slow down the reloading process somewhat, but if an assailant is up against un-armed resistance, that's still not a panacea in terms of saving lives.

Remember, the worst mass killings in U.S. history to date did not even involve a gun, it involved a rental truck and jet air craft.  What did we do to protect against more attacks like that?  Limited access to certain government buildings and stepped up security.

As I've said before, it won't affect my life if I can't buy 30 round mags.  However, if there's no additional security measures added to protect children and their teachers, it will be as effective as issuing school kids woobie blankets to shield themselves from stray bullets.

Comprehensive background checks seems to be at the top of everyone's list in DC.

Can't do that, 30 years ago bed wetters decided it was cruel to keep the mentally ill from society.

I guess that's a social experiment gone bad, eh?

At the same time Reagan was throwing ever more people into prison he was throwing people out of mental institutions — a habit he adopted as California governor in the late 1960s. When he came into office President Reagan inherited the Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, a law that passed with huge bipartisan support and was intended to improve the quality of community mental heath care. Reagan immediately killed the law by refusing to fund it, thwarting the intentions of Congress.

Reagan was offended by the entire idea of public health policy: remember Just Say No?

The Reagan administration cut funding for mental health treatment and research throughout the 1980s and it has never recovered. The Administration changed Social Security policy to disenfranchise citizens who were disabled because of mental illness, making hundreds of thousands homeless. What they called the New Federalism resulted in mental health treatment moving from the public to the private sector and becoming mainly voluntary: mentally ill people had to want to get better and then generally had to pay for their own treatment.  No wonder it didn’t work.

Jump to Newtown just over a week ago where 20 year-old Adam Lanza managed to slip virtually unnoticed through the mental health system. Anyone who knew him knew he was troubled, but his family had enough money to keep him out of the system.

It seems to me that only allowing clips of ten (or eight) rounds could be a reasonable way to try to slow down the mass killings. 

The problem with relying solely on background checks is that people often buy a gun and only later go nutso....

Still, I'm completely in favor of keeping firearms out of the hands of stupid, incompetent people, which by definition is everyone except me.  I'm sure many of you feel the same. 

Using that logic, if we limited beers to 8oz bottles it would cut drinking and driving deaths.    I don't buy causation.

I find it funny that we can have armed guards in our banks, malls, sporting events and grocery stores to protect our money, clothing, shoes, and professional athletes, but the concept of doing the same to protect the most valuable things in our lives, our children, is somehow distasteful. 

Biden may be a bafoon, but I have a feeling that even he cannot escape the most logical approach to avoiding tragedies like this in the future.  I think some of his recommendations on Tuesday will be surprisingly logical.

Good guys with guns are still the best defense against bad guys with guns.

Its buffoon. And one would gather you'd know that having read your name in the same context so many times.

I've never seen an armed guard at my bank and only one at my credit union. The only guards I've seen at malls are rousting teens and occasionally collaring a shoplifter. The Muskogee mall had guards and it did little to help. Best Buy had one too. Tulsa Vo-tech at Riverside has a guard shack and a couple of cars. They stare at you as you drive in and hit their siren if you speed. Very intimidating eh?

But lets analyze the situation further. How many armed guards do you see at an OU football game with 75,000 people? Think its enough to do the job? Lets say the whole OU security detail was there. Maybe 100? 100/75000 is 1 guard for every 750 people. That leaves no guards for the rest of the campus. Of course they won't be up on the upper levels, they will be at the gates probably or around the concessions. So, the real ratio is more like one per 7500. If one guard at the gate fails to stop a guy with some weapons and some 100 round clips those remaining guards are hopelessly outgunned and will wreak havoc.

I have no problem with guards at schools. If the public will pay for them, fine. From my experience, most are quite helpful in maintaining general respect for rules and order, not security from attack though. I walk into one high school with a lanyard and a card around my neck past a security station and no one even glances at me. Union high school has several thousand students and staff, acres of land and multiple buildings. How many guards would you think could do the job? One at every window, like where the Sandy Hook murderer gained access?

Its just silly to think that guards do anything more than keep honest people honest...sane people naively comfortable. Latest reports show about 80% of NRA members think some more regulation is a good idea. But not you. But I doubt you read this far anyway.

Will you be upset if Biden recommends armed security at public schools?

Will you be upset if Biden recommends armed security at public schools?

I've only seen them at middle schools and high schools in the TPS district. Part of TPD with their own cars and specialized duties like hostile parents, drug usage, and parking. They are very good at those limited duties. Repelling an attack like Sandy would be a stretch.

I've never seen an armed guard at my bank and only one at my credit union. The only guards I've seen at malls are rousting teens and occasionally collaring a shoplifter. The Muskogee mall had guards and it did little to help. Best Buy had one too. Tulsa Vo-tech at Riverside has a guard shack and a couple of cars. They stare at you as you drive in and hit their siren if you speed. Very intimidating eh?

But lets analyze the situation further. How many armed guards do you see at an OU football game with 75,000 people? Think its enough to do the job? Lets say the whole OU security detail was there. Maybe 100? 100/75000 is 1 guard for every 750 people. That leaves no guards for the rest of the campus. Of course they won't be up on the upper levels, they will be at the gates probably or around the concessions. So, the real ratio is more like one per 7500. If one guard at the gate fails to stop a guy with some weapons and some 100 round clips those remaining guards are hopelessly outgunned and will wreak havoc.

Its just silly to think that guards do anything more than keep honest people honest...sane people naively comfortable. Latest reports show about 80% of NRA members think some more regulation is a good idea. But not you. But I doubt you read this far anyway.

You mean, bedwetters like Ronald Reagan?  Now I think I've heard everything...  ::)

http://www.cringely.com/2012/12/24/reagan-and-newtown/

So Ronald Reagan has blood on his hands from Sandy Hook?

Where do you find this moonbat smile?  It's no wonder people like you are so delusional, you rely on un-accountable bloggers and editorials as fact-based hard news.

What bank/credit union do you go to??  TTCU and OCCU both have them.  F & M has them.  You may not always see them, though...

OU game is not a valid comparison - it's NOT soccer, where 10,000 of them may just riot and start beating/killing people.  I'm also inclined to believe that at the typical OU football game - or at many if not most college and higher football and baseball there are enough fans who would be willing and able to do something if that should occur.  Just wondering....

I have personally never seen more than one old guard at TTCU though I've just been there for a year. I may not see them cause their busy watching TV monitors. That comforts you?

OU barely missed having a terrible disaster a few years ago when a young man decided to blow himself up rather than fans. Security hadn't noticed him. I doubt you guys would find any comparisons meaningful.

Here is what the TCC guard looks like:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk1bFJnnAkI&playnext=1&list=PL3694AA7163E48526[/youtube]

......and the OU Bomber (Wikipedia that) tried several times to get his TATP bomb in the game (picking a gate with no surveillance cameras).

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

A little devil's advocacy here:

I'm trying to figure out how a restriction or ban on "assault weapons" is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment based on the fact that there are certain "arms" individuals are not allowed to own, or not allowed to own without some sort of advanced licensing.

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas.  Ownership and operation of fully automatic weaponry is limited only to specifically licensed individuals.  None of those restrictions are considered a violation of 2A.  Just curious why a restriction or ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons" or high capacity mags suddenly becomes an impingement on one's Second Amendment rights.  Let's discuss. 

..snip..

And Hoss, at the same time, there is nothing in the 1st that addresses the use of social media either, since that, too was uninvented at the time it was written.  I bet you would scream if someone wanted to take away your "connectability".  Free speech means exactly that - go out on the street and speak.  Don't fall into the Brady Bunch trap....

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. [United States v.] Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

Apples vs oranges argument.  Social media can be taken without recourse, simply because it's provided by a company and/or individual and not the government.  I'm pretty well versed in that part of it having owned several websites and run several forums.  Much like this one.  Wrong argument to make.

But whatever.

Oh, and BTW, Justice Scalia wrote this opinion back in 2008:

Highest Court Reaffirmed That Regulation Of Firearms Is Permissible Under The Second Amendment In Landmark 2008 Case. In the 2008 Supreme Court case, District Of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the Second Amendment is "not unlimited" as "commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." Justice Scalia continued:

 

To my knowledge, individuals are not allowed to own or operate fully functional mortar launchers, grenade launchers, grenades, tanks, fully armed fighter aircraft, or bazookas. 

Darn!  I was saving up for a F-18.   ;D

How bout banning any "Assault Weapons" used by Police or Military units.

These AR-15's?

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/20121009_p1Rifles1004.jpg)
(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/20121009_p2Rifles1004.jpg)

The right to bear arms. At the time when the 55 Delegates wrote this, The Second Amendment, into The Bill of Rights.
What was the firearm of that day? Without the use of a crystal ball. They had no idea that mankind would at a later date. Be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Or more on point. Multiple killings from a single firearm.
I'm not sure but, were they using flint lock rifles and hand guns? The Second Amendment if written today would most assuredly come with updated stipulations on what type of firearms could be owned by the general public.

I would still like someone to explain to me. The need for a assault rifle in the hands of anyone other than Police or Military individules. And please, no more Feral Hog examples. I've seen two hot women catching them with dogs and their bare hands.

Puny .223 is just hilarious too. Take a few hits from one Gas then come tell us how puny.

You are way too logical and also naive in believing that your questions will be addressed with the same logic.

Puny .223 is just hilarious too. Take a few hits from one Gas then come tell us how puny.

But, I will be naive as well. Just what regulatory changes to law would be acceptable to those who yell SA rights as the only answer? Or is the amendment simply too holy to ever be touched? If it is not then stop fighting against the changes and help effect intelligent, meaningful changes that address everyone's concerns, not just yours.

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

Re-read.

"...meaningful changes that address everyone's needs, not just yours."

Typical "no compromise" T-party bs.

Perhaps it would change the photos of the weapons that the media would display on your TV screen as you are wracked by nausea and disgust, but there is no evidence to suggest the outcomes would be any different.

The right to bear arms. At the time when the 55 Delegates wrote this, The Second Amendment, into The Bill of Rights.
What was the firearm of that day? Without the use of a crystal ball. They had no idea that mankind would at a later date. Be manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. Or more on point. Multiple killings from a single firearm.
I'm not sure but, were they using flint lock rifles and hand guns? The Second Amendment if written today would most assuredly come with updated stipulations on what type of firearms could be owned by the general public.

I would still like someone to explain to me. The need for a assault rifle in the hands of anyone other than Police or Military individules. And please, no more Feral Hog examples. I've seen two hot women catching them with dogs and their bare hands.

But, I will be naive as well. Just what regulatory changes to law would be acceptable to those who yell SA rights as the only answer? Or is the amendment simply too holy to ever be touched? If it is not then stop fighting against the changes and help effect intelligent, meaningful changes that address everyone's concerns, not just yours.

Articulate "everyone's needs."

I was under the impression we were trying to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.  It seems "everyone" (you) have other intensions.

Articulate "everyone's needs."

I was under the impression we were trying to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.  It seems "everyone" (you) have other intensions.

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

Someone doesn't understand muzzle velocity, I think. Also, who the hell "typically" hunts with a .50 caliber rifle? Are they hunting elephants? A NATO round out of any decently long rifle will easily stop a bear or any other animal found in North America. (If carrying a handgun, just lay down and prepare to be eaten, even a .50 with a hot load will merely annoy the bear)

Modified to add H to the comment. If the current laws aren't doing the job, your suggestion is that no further changes would be effective either. So, dump them all and label opponents as Brady Agenda devotees.

What is the greatest number of people killed in a single incident by an armed assailant in the US in the past 40 years who was armed with only one or more handguns? I think you're making things up again.

That said, handguns are a much bigger public health problem than long guns are, even the scary looking long guns.

You're like talking to an upholstered chair. Try someone else. I like to converse with people who are able to think outside of their own world and welcome me to theirs. I've seen your world. Fox broadcasts it each night.

Modified to add H to the comment. If the current laws aren't doing the job, your suggestion is that no further changes would be effective either. So, dump them all and label opponents as Brady Agenda devotees.

 The laws will be changed because we are a democracy where a 70-80% view will usually trump a minority view. You can either help make the new laws more effective, fight for secession or educate the public to your point of view (good luck). Either way, change will happen.

Why the focus on a point that contributes relatively little to the overall societal issue of people's lives being taken prematurely/violently/criminally??

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background
check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

Maybe a due-process issue if the gun was seized under flimsy circumstances?

Full background checks also take an inordinate amount of time.  The one for my CC took over 90 days.

Full background checks also take an inordinate amount of time.  The one for my CC took over 90 days.

So. . .back on subject. . .

Is everyone happy with President Obama's very reasonable common sense executive orders?

Full background checks also take an inordinate amount of time.  The one for my CC took over 90 days.

The president unveils his $500mm plan.

(http://The president vowed to use "whatever weight this office holds" to press lawmakers into action on his $500 million plan. [b]He is also calling for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools[/b] and bolstering mental health care by training more health professionals to deal with young people who may be at risk. Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=745&articleid=20130116_745_0_WASHIN309664)

More window dressing like the Clinton assault weapon ban, adding 1000 officers in schools barely scratches the surface.  Nothing but politicking and making people feel like someone is working on the problem.  More false sense of security.

I did like the list of proposals Gaspar listed earlier, however government bureaucracy will have that all SNAFU in no time!

The president unveils his $500mm plan.

(http://The president vowed to use "whatever weight this office holds" to press lawmakers into action on his $500 million plan. [b]He is also calling for improvements in school safety, including putting 1,000 police officers in schools[/b] and bolstering mental health care by training more health professionals to deal with young people who may be at risk. Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=745&articleid=20130116_745_0_WASHIN309664)

More window dressing like the Clinton assault weapon ban, adding 1000 officers in schools barely scratches the surface.  Nothing but politicking and making people feel like someone is working on the problem.  More false sense of security.

I did like the list of proposals Gaspar listed earlier, however government bureaucracy will have that all SNAFU in no time!

You do know you favor killing children and wanting the mentally ill to have fully auto weapons with thousand round clips if you oppose Obama; right?

Wannamacher is whining on 6....but they cut it up to make him seem more than a seedy carny.

Sharp guy!  But you wouldn't recognize anyone like that....

Very talented mechanical engineer in a previous life.  Haven't talked with him for a long time, so don't know if he still messes with that...I know he makes a ton on the gun show.  Good for him!!  Capitalism at it's best.

Sandy Hook has prompted a national effort to limit access to assault weapons. Ironically, Connecticut already possesses an assault weapons ban, Section 53-202a defines assault weapons to include “Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol.” Section 53-202c provides, “. . . any person who, within this state, possesses any assault weapon, [with limited exceptions] shall be guilty of a class D felony and shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which one year may not be suspended or reduced”

In 2005, our state Supreme Court, in Benjamin v. Bailey, rejected a constitutional challenge to the ban, grounded in Article 1, Sec. 15 of our state constitution. Section 15 provides, “every citizen has a right to bears arms in defense of himself and the state.” Opponents of the ban argued that our constitution contained an absolute, unfettered right in the citizenry to bear any type of arms, including the enumerated assault weapons in Section 202a.

Was anyone else aware there is an assault weapon ban in Connecticut? 

Golly, how did it fail to keep the Sandy Hook tragedy from happening?

http://blog.ctnews.com/meehan/2013/01/17/conn-s-assault-weapon-ban/

In preparation for the ban, folks are getting creative.
(http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/dan/weapon_mods/chainsaw.jpg)
If you cant' have that 30rnd mag or fixed bayonet any more, why not a chainsaw?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3ljd_hUxCfI[/youtube]

Thought I read where the gun wasn't purchased in CT.

Willing to be it's not that quick after recent developments.

Not enough he shot an unarmed man, but he tried to destroy his life when he didn't die:  Jurors took less than an hour Wednesday to acquit a man accused of pointing a gun at a Harrah police officer during a traffic stop.
He was accused of running a stop sign at a high rate of speed. Stevenson faced up to 10 years in prison if convicted of the firearm charge.
He was pulled over about 1 a.m. Nov. 19, 2011, in the 5400 block of South Harrah Road.
Stevenson took the stand Wednesday, telling jurors he was unarmed when officer Jason Hall shot him after he exited his pickup at the officer's request.
Stevenson acknowledged having an unloaded handgun in his jacket pocket. He testified that he tried to tell Hall about it three times but the “agitated” officer wouldn't let him finish.
It was when the officer was about to search him that Stevenson said he decided to pull the gun out of his pocket and show the officer because “it seemed like the right thing to do at the time.”
Defense attorney Michael Branch, in his closing argument, said Hall lied about what happened because “he shot an unarmed man.”

The attorney told jurors the lead detective in the case “botched the investigation” and cost Stevenson a chance to properly defend himself in court.
“They did the right thing. He was innocent,” Branch said of the jury. “The truth came out and they judged Mr. Stevenson based on those facts.”

p.s.  I want all pro-gun toting citizens to come see the new Roughnecks...I also want all gun-control supporting citizens to come see the new Roughnecks.  I highly recommend conservative Republicans come see the new team, as well as liberal Democrats and libertarian hockey fans.  Soccer is a great family sport, so families are always welcome.  However, if you are single... well, there's  http://soccerfandating.com/  We'll also be very civic minded and will have our own local supporters group regularly chanting, "Tulsa till I die, I'm Tulsa till I die...I know I am, I'm sure I am..."  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgAa5AFy4VE  The atmosphere will be like Octoberfest every game-- all hail local brews!... and, of course, Christians who do not imbibe alcoholic beverages will be a highly valued part of our fanbase... I encourage all pro-life catholics to buy season tickets; as well as the pro-choice midtown elite... se habla espanol.....
Did I mention we already have a theme song?... and tradition?...  and nicer hooligans?...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5BystnkpjA  
Now, all we need's an owner.......

Used to love soccer.  I played until I was about 11.  Charlie and Paula Mitchell were my next door neighbors so we got to go to most of the games.  When I was about 13, I taught Charlie how to shoot baskets before a charity event at the Mabee center.  Unfortunately, he still opted to do granny shots once he got there.

Soccer is an excellent game for children because the rules are very simplistic and fundamental. Basically it's easy to learn and requires a low investment to play.  That is the primary reason it's the most popular game in the world.  A ball, shoes, and a flat piece of land with some goal posts, and you have a game.  It also requires far less thought and strategy as more complex sports.

Unfortunately, I find it about as interesting to watch as a haircut.  They would probably have to offer free beer for me to attend a game.

Sorry Ruff, to me soccer is a game I think this country has grown out of.

Don't tell Ruff, but I used to enjoy playing it when I was a kid, too.  Was extremely informal, cause no one really knew the rules, but it was fun.

You're right - it just isn't commercial in this country - at this time.  Maybe later.

When they clean up all the violence....  (couldn't resist)

Unfortunately, I find it about as interesting to watch as a haircut.  They would probably have to offer free beer for me to attend a game.

Sorry Ruff, to me soccer is a game I think this country has grown out of.

5 hurt in shootings at gun shows in Ohio, Ind., NC
http://news.yahoo.com/5-hurt-shootings-gun-shows-ohio-ind-nc-010502999.html

People ignoring basic gun safety...

People ignoring basic gun safety...

Won't see that here simply because at gun shows it's a requirement to make sure the action is locked (usually using a ziptie through the action does it).

If we didn't have to worry about "who's packin' heat," we might be able to settle our differences in a more entertaining fashion...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd9FKLbUDcM[/youtube]

If we didn't have to worry about "who's packin' heat," we might be able to settle our differences in a more entertaining fashion...

Won't see that here simply because at gun shows it's a requirement to make sure the action is locked (usually using a ziptie through the action does it).

I have a feeling that anytime one of these incidents takes place. We are going to hear more about them than before. I just hope that this is not the beginning of copy cat crimes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2265837/Albuquerque-pastors-son-Nehemiah-Griego-15-shoots-family-dead-assault-rifle.html

Back on the subject, there are some interesting studies that we should probably be aware of:

http://www.fox23.com/content/rant/story/FOX-RANT-Gun-Control-Evidence-it-Would-Backfire/QykhACdWYESYheYPHS7cIg.cspx

I agree with "the rant".  

Wish they would use the same reason and logic when it came to abortion and drugs, etc.  Outlawing and banning this and that isn't the direction we ultimately want to go.

The solution ultimately lies in creating a culture, a people, who "as we are taught to pray (on earth as it is in heaven)" and as it says in the Bible (in heaven the laws are not written in books or scrolls, but on the hearts and minds of men)... a culture and a people who choose to do the right thing, who have the skills and thoughts to do the right things, a society that focuses more and more on learning more and more on how to get that done versus focusing so much time, energy and money on, "lets write yet another law to ban this or that, or institute a harsher punishment".   I was always taught that Repent didn't mean "express or tell, or say your sorry", but actually meant... "to change ones feelings and ones mind and beliefs" which would then change a persons actions.  Banning abortions or guns or drugs, etc. doesn't change peoples hearts and minds, it doesn't help them become better people making better choices which would then ever more and more decrease gun violence, abortions, drug abuse, etc.

  "On earth as it is in Heaven, people doing the right thing because they both feel its the right thing do do, and understand it's the right thing to do... not because it is something written in a book or scroll and they will get punished otherwise."      Thousands of years and we still don't get it.

List of Sheriff's not toeing the Obama line.

http://cspoa.org/sheriffs-gun-rights/

Wagoner County Oklahoma on the list.

(http://www.oklahomasheriffs.com/Sheriffs%20Photos%20&%20Profiles/photos/COLBERT,%20BOB%2009.JPG)
http://www.oklahomasheriffs.com/Sheriffs%20Photos%20&%20Profiles/Colbert.htm

I agree with "the rant".  

Wish they would use the same reason and logic when it came to abortion and drugs, etc.  Outlawing and banning this and that isn't the direction we ultimately want to go.

....Banning abortions or guns or drugs, etc. doesn't change peoples hearts and minds, it doesn't help them become better people making better choices which would then ever more and more decrease gun violence, abortions, drug abuse, etc.

  "On earth as it is in Heaven, people doing the right thing because they both feel its the right thing do do, and understand it's the right thing to do... not because it is something written in a book or scroll and they will get punished otherwise."      Thousands of years and we still don't get it.

Now let's see how much misinformation the media can disseminate in the next 24 hours and how many inaccurate comparisons they can make to Newtown and Aurora.

3 people, including 1 gunman, wounded in #shooting, 4th had heart attack, Lone Star College spokesman, feds say.

Now let's see how much misinformation the media can disseminate in the next 24 hours and how many inaccurate comparisons they can make to Newtown and Aurora.

Those all come from first responders and officers in the field, and they are as varied as night and day.
The latest is that the shooting wasnt an attack, but rather a domestic dispute with people in the crossfire.

(http://www.tulsaworld.com/articleimages/2012/20121009_p1Rifles1004.jpg)

I was thinking immediately of Bank of America at 21st and Utica. Never saw a guard there and I banked there for many years til I wised up. Bank of Oklahoma in Brookside. Saw one there once and I have banked there for many years. I have personally never seen more than one old guard at TTCU though I've just been there for a year. I may not see them cause their busy watching TV monitors.

Weird coincidence?

Man Shot By Security Guard After Robbing Tulsa Credit Union
Posted: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:09 PM EST Updated: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 10:48 PM EST

TULSA, Oklahoma - A man was shot after holding up a TTCU branch Wednesday, police say. TPD says that security guard fired several shots at the suspect, hitting him at least once.
Police say a man with a gun hopped the counter, demanded cash and left with an undisclosed amount of money.
But once the suspect made it outside, police say he was met by a retired Tulsa Police officer, who now works on site as a security guard.
"The individual was shot at several times by an off-duty security officer, who was working inside the bank," Officer Leland Ashley said.
A tree out front was marked by two stray bullets, and a customer's windshield also took a hit. The car's owner was inside the credit union when the shots were fired.  http://www.newson6.com/story/20660915/tulsa-police-man-shot-while-robbing-credit-union-on-pine

Gun people can be real a$$holes.

The only threat comes from time, because eventually the growing masses of the historically ignorant will greatly outnumber the rest of us, and they will demand the bonds of slavery in order to shield themselves from the perils, difficulties, and responsibilities of liberty.

The constitution will survive this president.  He has not actually posed any gun control laws, or any executive orders that infringe on gun owner rights.  As with everything else, he has thrown suggestions and recommendations out into the ether and let those least equipped to address the problems take the lead.

The constitution will survive President Obama.  It will survive this congress.  The only threat comes from time, because eventually the growing masses of the historically ignorant will greatly outnumber the rest of us, and they will demand the bonds of slavery in order to shield themselves from the perils, difficulties, and responsibilities of liberty.

(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8082/8427483932_4bc2d53792_z.jpg)

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." – Dosteovsky

The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves. – Dresden James

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. – George Mason

A people incapable of protecting themselves will lose their rights as a free people, becoming either servile dependents of the state or of the criminal predators who are their de facto masters. – Robert Cottrol, George Washington University law professor

It is sobering to reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. – Charles A. Beard

Both sides claim this to be true about the other.

There are more than two sides.

This man is asking the same question that I have been asking. And look at the response he got. Don't just shout the blanket answer. Explain why.......You can't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html

Mark Mattioli, whose 6-year-old son James was killed at Sandy Hook, got a standing ovation when he said there are plenty of gun laws but they're not properly enforced.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html#ixzz2JO9FEnEv
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This man is asking the same question that I have been asking. And look at the response he got. Don't just shout the blanket answer. Explain why.......You can't.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269910/Parents-children-slain-Newtown-school-shooting-beg-legislators-stricter-gun-control.html

Gun people can be real a$$holes.

Question being, why does anyone need a 30 round magazine...  It has been answered.  Because I want one.  That's all the answer needed.