I see gun violence is back on the agenda and yet no one wants to talk about it

After Navy Yard shootings, has America grown numb to gun violence? - Courant.com (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-todt-navy-yard-shooting-america-numb-to-viol-20130920,0,1345957.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Courant%2FOpEd+(courant.com+-+OPED))

Once again innocents have been slaughtered and someone please tell me that if pistol packin Pete had been there he would have stopped it before anyone got hurt

Nobody is surprised when a black guy kills people... its expected. If he was alive he'd probably be blaming it on something that ended over 170 years ago.

Look at Chicago's crime stats...

If you read the reporting that has come out about the Navy Yard shooting ,there is a clear link to mental health issues. Part of the reason that there is silence I suppose is that the killer didn't use a so called assault rifle . He started with the gun that Joe Biden thinks is a better alternative... a shot gun.

Chicago shooting: 13 people shot at South Side basketball court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/13-people-shot-at-chicago-basketball-court-reports-say/4971734)

Yes the Chicago crime stats are appalling and I doubt the end of slavery is to blame or are you one of those who think if you could keep blacks employed in that way your social problems would be at an end

I understand that there is a certain anger that surrounds the unemployed and the disenfranchised but there is also violence that surrounds drugs and gangs. Even the work of your own President couldn't stem the tide in Chicago and a fresh approach is needed, one that starts with coralling the guns and other weapons and putting cops in the streets.

Wherever you have disadvantage you have a breeding ground for these problems but they are only symtermatic of a wider problem, the idea that any person has a right to use a gun, just because 230 years ago someone thought it was a good idea.

In NY a judge ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional . We have had an immediate uptick in gun violence as a result .

if you read the reporting that has come out about the Navy Yard shooting ,there is a clear link to mental health issues. Part of the reason that there is silence I suppose is that the killer didn't use a so called assault rifle . He started out with the gun that Joe Biden thinks is a better alternative ... a shot gun.

Seriously Tom it doesn't matter what weapon he used, what matters is that it has happened again, and again and no one does anything about it. You are desensitised to it and your politicians are parrallised by the gun lobby.

Did he use a multishot shot gun? Would there have been less casualties if his choice of weapon was restricted and you want to hide behind mental health issues, in today's society because of drugs you have to know that mental health is a serious issue everywhere, all the more reason to connect the dots and remove the guns to an arsenal

in NY a judge ruled that stop and frisk was unconstitutional . We have had an immediate uptick in gun violence as a result .

It is time to give your judges some sensible guidelines or refer all such issues to the Supreme Court so local judges cannot stick their beak in

Chicago shooting: 13 people shot at South Side basketball court - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/13-people-shot-at-chicago-basketball-court-reports-say/4971734)

Yes the Chicago crime stats are appauling and I doubt the end of slavery is to blame or are you one of those who think if you could keep blacks employed in that way your social problems would be at an end

I understand that there is a certain anger that surrounds the unemployed and the disenfranchised but there is also violence that surrounds drugs and gangs. Even the work of your own President couldn't stem the tide in Chicago and a fresh approach is needed, one that starts with coralling the guns and other weapons and putting cops in the streets.

Whereever you have disadvantage you have a breeding ground for these problems but they are only symtermatic of a wider problem, the idea that any person has a right to use a gun, just because 230 years ago someone thought it was a good idea.

That's not the problem... you've got blacks that liberals have been teaching for generations that they are entitled to a free ride... and nothing they do they are responsible for.

And most of them aren't even eligible to own a gun in the first place.

If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife... if it wasn't a knife it would be a club, if it wasn't a club it would be with their fists...

That's not the problem... you've got blacks that liberals have been teaching for generations that they are entitled to a free ride... and nothing they do they are responsible for.
Your problems stem from social disadvantage after all it is only fifty years since you truly started liberating them and with most of the jobs exported by your Job Creators you are reaping the whirlwind


And most of them aren't even eligible to own a gun in the first place.

If it wasn't a gun it would be a knife... if it wasn't a knife it would be a club, if it wasn't a club it would be with their fists...

So you are saying is blacks are an unruly lot, a xenophobic and racist statement, but perhaps your argument has merit. That they might not be entitled to guns in a nation that doesn't restrict gun ownership in a manner that prevents them from owning and using a gun is a moot point.

One point though Tom is it somewhat difficult to attack twelve people with a knife, you have to be in a frenzy.

What you don't see is the general availability of guns makes it possible for them to get one, legally, or illegally, much more easily. We have blacks here too, but they rarely settle their differences with guns or lash out against their circumstances with guns because it is much more difficult to obtain them. No, they use clubs, shovels and axes but only against their own. By the way we also restrict the ownership of large knives

Before anyone ridicules the messenger ;they should read the op-ed and consider it.
As Freedom Destroys Itself | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359114/freedom-destroys-itself-sarah-palin)
A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can't protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they're just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.

before anyone ridicules the messenger ;they should read the op-ed and consider it.
As Freedom Destroys Itself | National Review Online (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359114/freedom-destroys-itself-sarah-palin)
A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.
And it's hard to shove the toothpaste back into the tube.

[IA decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint. The less moral we are, the more legalistic we become. But more laws can’t protect a civilization that has lost its way. At most, they’re just tiny speed bumps for a runaway truck.[/I]

Let us dissect this for a moment



A decent and moral society is guided by voluntary self-restraint.

The very absence of self restraint tells us something about the quality of society, therefore that which sees itsself as decent and moral is dilluded and as the piece says laws don't have impact because only decent and moral people abide by them. How this relates to the gun debate is the society that thought there was a public good in a right to bear arms was decent and moral but is long gone, replaced by a heddonist, largely lawless society that is very legalistic to preseve rights they are not entitled to. They are about to be hit by the runaway truck if it hasn't already happened

And it's hard to shove the toothpaste back into the tube.

The alternative is the steady decline to either anarchy or tyranny.

the alternative is the steady decline to either anarchy or tyranny.

Tom I'm unsure how you define either of those but 50,000 deaths a year must surely beg the question as to whether a red line has been crossed

From the op-ed


The first thing politicians ask after these tragedies is essentially: “What can we do to limit the freedom of the people?”

And that is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is: “What can we do to nurture and support a people capable of living in freedom?”

So by your definition you view countries with gun laws as having people with little freedom? Seems they enjoy a freedom from a non-stop barrage of american style mass killings.

The killing in Chi town was done with illegal guns . So much for your gun laws .

Guns can easily be gotten outside that small enclave and brought in. Is that your only argument?

the killing in Chi town was done with illegal guns . So much for your gun laws .

In your opinion all killings are done by illegal guns so on that basis there is no reason to possess legal guns

Regardless of laws americans will always find ways to be violent to each other.

Yes lawlessness abounds, I wonder why? Too many freedoms?

Lol yeah that's the ticket... for a post constitutional society

lol yeah that's the ticket ... for a post constitutional society

Pre-constitutional society as well. Not really that funny.

You are already in a post constitutional society

What the gun grabbers aren't smart enough to grasp. Is how easy it is for anyone with the most basic of metalworking skills to make a gun from scratch using scrap metal that works.

And quite frequently the criminals did exactly that even through the 1960's.

What the gun grabbers aren't smart enough to grasp. Is how easy it is for anyone with the most basic of metalworking skills to make a gun from scratch using scrap metal that works.
Why on earth would anyone want to make a gun?

Why on earth would anyone want to make a gun?

Because they can? Because they work? Lots of reasons


Research Zip guns... or improvised firearms.

Lots of people made them... a lot of them weren't even criminals. A 12 year old could make one.

They sometimes aren't safe... they are never legal... but they are easy to hide because depending on how crude you make it... they can look like something else.


Just pointing out the futility of disarming the public...

Because they can? Because they work? Lots of reasons


Research Zip guns....or improvised firearms.

lots of people made them....a lot of them weren't even criminals. a 12 year old could make one.
Nah. I'd rather teach them quilting or how to sew on buttons correctly (or decent grammar and spelling).

Nah. I'd rather teach them quilting or how to sew on buttons correctly (or decent grammar and spelling).

Just saying the average 12 year old with any mechanical aptitude can figure it out on their own... WITHOUT the internet or plans.

And I know they were pretty common in the 50's from what my dad told me. And he wasn't even one of the criminal element even in his youth.

Just saying the average 12 year old with any mechanical aptitude can figure it out on their own.....WITHOUT the internet or plans.
He needs to learn how to make brownies instead.

He needs to learn how to make brownies instead.

Kids will be kids... and what you don't know they are doing sometimes would scare the hell out of you.

Kids will be kids....and what you don't know they are doing sometimes would scare the hell out of you.
Like my class of third grade boys who were avidly studying the encyclopedia (much to my happiness), until I figured out they were looking up Renaissance portraits of nude women.

On Aug. 7, that same Alexis had called police from a Newport, R.I. Marriott. He was hearing voices. Three people were following him, he told the cops. They were sending microwaves through walls, making his skin vibrate and preventing him from sleeping. He had already twice changed hotels to escape the men, the radiation, the voices.

Delusions, paranoid ideation, auditory (and somatic) hallucinations: the classic symptoms of schizophrenia.

So here is this panic-stricken soul, psychotic and in terrible distress. And what does modern policing do for him? The cops tell him to “stay away from the individuals that are following him.” Then they leave.
Charles Krauthammer: The real Navy Yard scandal - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-real-navy-yard-scandal/2013/09/19/ddfde26a-2162-11e3-a358-1144dee636dd_story.html)

Shame the president couldn't take time out from his apolitical, non partisan rant to acknowledge the tragedy. Or that the media didn't take time to get the facts before starting their anti-assault weapons narrative or that the SWAT team was told to stand down, or especially as tom noted the cops didn't see a problem with this guy's mental state.

acknowledge the tragedyBut which one?

Lets hope this is one import we can stay away from.

59 killed in Kenya mall attack, 49 missing (http://news.yahoo.com/59-killed-kenya-mall-attack-49-missing-123909121.html)

"import"?
What does that mean?

"import"?
what does that mean?

Import means to "bring in". As in I hope they don't decide to try this here.

This sort of thing happens all over, suicide bombers targeted a church in Pakistan killing as many and any refugee or migrant can be a potential attacker. How do you stop it, with porous borders and millions of refugees world wide

University of Kansas associate professor David Guth had something to special to add to the discussion, wishing death on the children of NRA members.
(http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=5086)

#NavyYardShooting The blood is on the hands of the #NRA. Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you.
— David Guth (@DWGuth) September 16, 2013

Never fear, KU officials took swift action (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/20/david-guth-kansas-fired_n_3963351.html) and put him on paid leave. And Guth had more to say...


"If you look at how I structured the statement, I didn’t really bring [the NRA’s) children into it,” he said, according to Fox4KC. “I carefully structured the statement to make it conditional, but apparently it was too much of a nuance for some people.”

“I don’t want anybody harmed. If somebody’s going to be harmed, maybe it ought to be the people who believe that guns are so precious that it’s worth spilling blood over,” Guth added, according to Fox4KC. Guth did not immediately respond to a request for comment from HuffPost.

I see, Yes, "Next time, let it be YOUR sons and daughters. Shame on you. May God damn you" is just too nuanced . He also added this about his 'punishment.'


"I have had conversations with the university and have agreed to this action -- an administrative leave with pay -- in light of the abusive email threats I and others have received. It is in it the best interests and peace of mind of our students that I remove myself from the situation and let cooler heads prevail. It is unfortunate that my comments have been deliberately distorted. I know what I meant. Unfortunately, this is a topic that generates more heat than light. I don't think any further comment would be appropriate at this time."

And that's how many ant-gun zealots want to 'discuss' a guaranteed right, with a little 'nuance.' Of course I expect many of you to also brush off the fact that too many tenured professors like Guth are 'educating' our children and there's usually not much universities can do about it, even if they wanted to.

I'm with Guth.

I'm with Guth.

I highly recommend he takes a walking tour of the South side of CHicago at night... word has it the nighttime skyline is something to see...

And perhaps one of his own will take care of the problem for the rest of us.

If blind people can have a gun, why can't crazy people? Doesn't matter who gets killed anymore or how many. Just bury the bodies and get ready for more. No biggie.

I'm with Guth.

You wish for NRA members be damned by God and for their children to be murdered? I'm not surprised. That would be my navy veteran dad, myself and my five siblings - one who just retired from teaching and one who just retired from 40 years in law enforcement.

If blind people can have a gun, why can't crazy people? Doesn't matter who gets killed anymore or how many. Just bury the bodies and get ready for more. No biggie.

No... just registered democrats... that will drop the murder rates over 75% overnight.

I bet Ralph Erick Santiago wishes he had a gun.
Three teenage boys charged with murder of Hoboken man, officials say | NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2013/09/three_teenage_boys_charged_with_murder_of_hoboken_ man_officials_say.html)

You wish for NRA members be damned by God and for their children to be murdered? I'm not surprised. That would be my navy veteran dad, myself and my five siblings - one who just retired from teaching and one who just retired from 40 years in law enforcement.Ok.

Stare into the circle... and repeat... OH Bama AH... OH Bam AH.


http://www.ddesignerr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/016.gif

As a mental health counselor, I really locked onto this article by Charles Krauthammer in this morning's Chicago Trib --

The real Navy Yard scandal - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-oped-0923-krauthammer-20130923-2,0,344800.column)

As a mental health counselor, I really locked onto this article by Charles Krauthammer in this morning's Chicago Trib --

The real Navy Yard scandal - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-oped-0923-krauthammer-20130923-2,0,344800.column)

I believe tom posted this and I agreed with Krauthammer.

Ok.

God bless you, too.

Which god though?

Which god though?

Any one you like, unlike you I wish you well - not death.

I believe tom posted this and I agreed with Krauthammer.
I looked back and see that he did. Sorry for the repost -- but that is what we need to concentrate on. Too many of these shootings have their seeds in mental illness or associated social problems. Unfortunately (yes, unfortunately!), everyone, even the mentally ill, have "rights." So where do we go from here?

As a mental health counselor, I really locked onto this article by Charles Krauthammer in this morning's Chicago Trib --

The real Navy Yard scandal - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/site/ct-oped-0923-krauthammer-20130923-2,0,344800.column)

Me too
Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Gun Violence (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/3555550-post33.html)

I looked back and see that he did. Sorry for the repost -- but that is what we need to concentrate on. Too many of these shootings have their seeds in mental illness or associated social problems. Unfortunately (yes, unfortunately!), everyone, even the mentally ill, have "rights." So where do we go from here?

The fact that he passed both Federal and local backround checks is one of the things we need to concentrate on. All I hear about is more restrictions and regulations where clearly they are not the panacea . I know you say that Palin's comments are 'tooth paste squeezed out of the tube '(paraphrase ) . But she made a lot of sense.

I know you say that Palin's comments are 'tooth paste squeezed out of the tube '(paraphrase ) . But she made a lot of sense.
No, I said you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube once it's been squeezed out.

And the gun Adam Lanza used was properly registered. But he shouldn't have had access to it.

So what IS the panacea?

No, I said you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube once it's been squeezed out.

And the gun Adam Lanza used was properly registered. But he shouldn't have had access to it.

So what IS the panacea?

Put the loons into observation and off the streets.

Put the loons into observation and off the streets.
How do we identify the "loons," and what happens when they say they have a right to refuse? (I've had a few of them walk through my life -- friends, library patrons, and even family members. And yes, they can refuse help and any medical or psychological treatment.)

We certainly don't start by politicizing the shooting at the memorial service. I mean for God's sake the man couldn't even take a break from being apolitical and non-partisan to acknowledge the shooting, now he has to push his agenda at the memorial service?

And then statements like this...


I fear there’s a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal.

No, it is not the "new normal," mass shootings are not increasing, and one more time it is not the gun that is the problem. The breakdown of the family is the problem, the lowering of moral standards is the problem, the failure to intervene with people as obviously troubled as this shooter was is the problem, the utter disregard for the sanctity of life is the problem - the gun is not the problem.

Besides all that, the guy passed the background checks in buying Joe "fire a couple of shots in the air" Biden's weapon of choice. Not the AR-15 the media reported.

We certainly don't start by politicizing the shooting at the memorial service.
Rather than rant and rave with nothing getting done, how can we change this?

How do we identify the "loons," and what happens when they say they have a right to refuse? (I've had a few of them walk through my life -- friends, library patrons, and even family members. And yes, they can refuse help and any medical or psychological treatment.)

That's the problem... the fact someone got the idea crazy people had the RIGHT to run loose, refuse treatment and terrorize innocent people back in the 1970's.

Nobody is saying to euthanize them... but force them into treatment.

Thats the problem...the fact someone got the idea crazy people had the RIGHT to run loose, refuse treatment and terrorize innocent people back in the 1970's.

Nobody is saying to euthanize them....but force them into treatment.
And how do you decide which ones to force into treatment? Is there a level of behavior that's acceptable and can be ignored? If they have responsible caregivers in their lives (like Adam Lanza did), can we ignore them then?

I had a bipolar uncle. He lived eight blocks from my house, and his neighbors kept a close eye on him. The minute he started acting weird (putting his lawn chair on the public sidewalk and merrily waving to passing drivers or to people walking past; sitting on his front porch steps and crying; visiting neighbors multiple times a day), I would get a phone call to visit him and assess the situation. Invariably, I would end up driving him to the VA hospital or to a local hospital's psych unit where he would sign himself in for 6-8 weeks of rehab.

This would all come about because he would stop taking his meds for some reason or other (usually because he felt so good, he didn't think he needed them any longer). And I was responsible and conscientious and followed through after my neighbors' reports. Many family members of the mentally ill don't, thinking there is nothing they can do (because he does have rights and will say "no hospital, no meds.")

Then what? How do we identify who needs help? How do we get help for them?

And how do you decide which ones to force into treatment? Is there a level of behavior that's acceptable and can be ignored? If they have responsible caregivers in their lives (like Adam Lanza did), can we ignore them then?

I had a bipolar uncle. He lived eight blocks from my house, and his neighbors kept a close eye on him. The minute he started acting weird (putting his lawn chair on the public sidewalk and merrily waving to passing drivers or to people walking past; sitting on his front porch steps and crying; visiting neighbors multiple times a day), I would get a phone call to visit him and assess the situation. Invariably, I would end up driving him to the VA hospital or to a local hospital's psych unit where he would sign himself in for 6-8 weeks of rehab.

This would all come about because he would stop taking his meds for some reason or other (usually because he felt so good, he didn't think he needed them any longer). And I was responsible and conscientious and followed through after my neighbors' reports. Many family members of the mentally ill don't, thinking there is nothing they can do (because he does have rights and will say "no hospital, no meds.")

Then what? How do we identify who needs help? How do we get help for them?

You might not get them all... but there are plenty you will. And the ones who won't take their meds qualify... or those who can't be controlled by meds would be where to start.. Those that take them and are safe while on them... get to continue their lives as usual.

Call it incentive.

Rather than rant and rave with nothing getting done, how can we change this?

The ranting and raving isn't coming from us, that's the "discussion" started by the left.

You might not get them all...but there are plenty you will. And the ones who won't take their meds qualify...or those who can't be controlled by meds would be where to start..
And how do you find these people? Psychiatrists and other doctors report in to some central authority that Mr. X and Miss Z have not been renewing their prescriptions?

And another problem: I had a client who was taking several meds for anxiety and some other mental health concerns. When she took her meds as prescribed, she was fine. But her OCD told her to take her meds all at once before she went to bed. Invariably, she threw them up and then cursed medical science for not making her well again. There are many patients who do just that -- are not "compliant" as we in the mental health field say and do not take meds on time and at the correct dosage.

Then what? Who knows and who reports them -- and to whom?

The ranting and raving isn't coming from us, that's the "discussion" started by the left.
I don't see the righties making any changes -- or even joining the discussion.

And how do you find these people? Psychiatrists and other doctors report in to some central authority that Mr. X and Miss Z have not been renewing their prescriptions?

And another problem: I had a client who was taking several meds for anxiety and some other mental health concerns. When she took her meds as prescribed, she was fine. But her OCD told her to take her meds all at once before she went to bed. Invariably, she threw them up and then cursed medical science for not making her well again. There are many patients who do just that -- are not "compliant" as we in the mental health field say and do not take meds on time and at the correct dosage.

Then what? Who knows and who reports them -- and to whom?

Doctors have to report it... its no different than banks reporting your financial matters to the government...

If they aren't compiant... they get taken in to manditory treatment programs...

THey might not all pose a threat unmedicated... but who gets held responsible for the actions of those that do prove to have been a threat?

Its not a one strike and you are out program.

Doctors have to report it... its no different than banks reporting your financial matters to the government...
But it's not being done -- not always. We have seen those who fell through the cracks and what chaos they have wrought in our society.

If they aren't compiant... they get taken in to manditory treatment programs...
Now they can refuse unless they are clearly a danger to themselves or to others.

But it's not being done -- not always. We have seen those who fell through the cracks and what chaos they have wrought in our society.

Now they can refuse unless they are clearly a danger to themselves or to others.

The law was changed once... it can be changed again.

THey get the treatment... they do what's required... and if it under control... they retain their freedoms they have had...

If it can't be treated.. or they pose an imminant threat... or they get caught once failing to take their meds... into the program for as long as it takes...


Like I said... all the incentive in the world to take it serious... and do as they are required. Classic punishment / Reward reinforcement.

The law was changed once...it can be changed again.
Ah. And what would a new law say? And would it stand any chance of passing? (After all, we are all happy that we have rights now and don't want to give up any.)

I guarantee you that there is someone shopping at Walmart right now or going to college or working at a desk, living what everyone considers an ordinary life. Maybe he stopped taking his meds or maybe he should be taking some in the first place or maybe he should be seeing a counselor about something and maybe his family is tired of dealing with his occasional ravings and outbursts and just ignores him. And we will hear about him on TV or read about him in next week's newspaper when he shoots up a public library or a hospital or a nursing home or a busy post office.

Ah. And what would a new law say? And would it stand any chance of passing? (After all, we are all happy that we have rights now and don't want to give up any.)

Let the legislaters decide that... and the fact is... their right to run free always has consequences to the rights of others... their right to live free and without fear of being robbed, beaten or killed by someone with mental or substance abuse issues.

unlike you I wish you wellNo you don't, you say the nastiest things to me of anyone on this board; some have even been deleted.

No you don;t, you say the nastiest things to me of anyone on this board; some have even been deleted.

Dude, calling someone on their bullsh*t does not preclude me from sincerely wish them well. You on the other came right out and wished me and my family would be the victims of a mass shooting. Apparently your type of hatred and ignorant screed falls within the rules on this site.

You on the other came right out and wished me and my family would be the victims of a mass shootingNope, that's what YOU wrote. I quoted your weird twisting of the tweet for posterity's sake. Apparently you feel that everything is a personal attack on you and your family. That's often diagnosed as a mental illness.

Nope, that's what YOU wrote. I quoted your weird twisting of the tweet for posterity's sake. Apparently you feel that everything is a personal attack on you and your family. That's often diagnosed as a mental illness.

Dude, it's too late to walk it back now, I gave you your chance to explain after saying you're with Guth, and your insistence on insulting me further doesn't do much to help your case.

I'm with Guth.

I'm with Guth.

And I still wish you well, not murder and mayhem.

Thanks man! But please stop putting words in my mouth with your posts.

Thanks man! But please stop putting words in my mouth with your posts.

You have only yourself to blame.

I bet Jim Giffords wishes he was carrying a gun .
Cops: Teen pauses attack on 70-year-old man to celebrate - New York News (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23495854/cops-70-year-old-upstate-ny-man-attacked)

And the violence in America continues... (see my previous post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-violence-768017-2.html#post3554947))

That's just more lefties behaving badly. And don't hide you bias... how about including all violence that doesn't include a firearm... There is no lack of those to focus on... in fact there is far more of it... and even in Canada.

Thats just more lefties behaving badly. And don't hide you bias...how about including all violence that doesn't include a firearm....There is no lack of those to focus on....in fact there is far more of it....and even in Canada.

smoothy violence is everywhere but it is facilitated by access to guns and more and more are made and distributed every day, but it doesn't just affect you these guns are illegally exported to other countries and fuel the insanity there too. This is corporate american and it is ugly and the true enemy of us all

smoothy violence is everywhere but it is facilitated by access to guns and more and more are made and distributed every day, but it doesn't just affect you these guns are illegally exported to other countries and fuel the insanity there too. this is corporate american and it is ugly and the true enemy of us all

Guns have nothing to do with violence... PEOPLE have everything to do with violence. No gun has ever killed a person... people kill people.

Cavemen were beating other cavemen over the head with clubs to take their stuff and women...

Nothing much has changed since then.

The true enemy is the people that want to disarm the public... because they have no grasp of history... and what happens time and time again to disarmed populations.as demonstrated by the historical record.

The true enemy is the people that want to disarm the public.....because they have no grasp of history...and what happens time and time again to disarmed populations.as demonstrated by the historical record.

Call me the enemy then because I don't own a gun. When I did I know I was irresponsible, but what I do know is that if guns are not generally available less people get killed by guns, so much for the argument that guns don't kill people. Guns are designed for one purpose only and that is to kill. It is true that historically we used many devices to kill but it wasn't until the gun that we perfected it.

Human nature is raw, animal, and because of this it should not have access to killing devices paticularly those that can kill at a distance and multiple times. These things belong only on a battlefield, not in our streets

Call me the enemy then because I don't own a gun. When I did I know I was irresponsible, but what I do know is that if guns are not generally available less people get killed by guns, so much for the argument that guns don't kill people. Guns are designed for one purpose only and that is to kill. It is true that historically we used many devices to kill but it wasn't until the gun that we perfected it.

Human nature is raw, animal, and because of this it should not have access to killing devices paticularly those that can kill at a distance and multiple times. these things belong only on a battlefield, not in our streets

So... do you want to outlaw... cutlery, any hard object that can be picked up... have peoples arms shortened to where they are long enough to pick their nose and reach their mouths to eat? And their legs shortened by half so they aren't much use to kick or stomp?

Outlaw any substance that can be hazardous in case soemone got the idea to feed it to someone...

Or just outlaw breeding completely that way within one generation there will no longer be people committing any violence against other people.

And also... there is this... I don't live in a part of the world where anti-gun zeolots get to decide what I can and can't have... and I'm proud of that... we have a constitutional RIGHT to own them... and that right is no less valid than any other enumerated right.

And where I live... we have the right to kill anyone who decides they are going to invade your personal space to do harm on you ot take your stuff... and where we have the right to terminate the life funtions of anyone who decides to invade your house to do this any time of the day or night.


What's irresponsible is allowing certain criminal elements to breed,. not for law abiding citizens to own guns. I have more than a few... and nobody is going to take them... nobody... and there are at a minimum of 80 million others who feeel exactly the same way.

And what is most irresponsible of all... is the belief people should not be held responible for their own actions.


And its irresponsible to ignore that most violence that occurs doesn't even involve guns.

Oh stop using the 2nd amendment as an excuse not to pay for more cops and have more comprehensive background checks so a loony can't get a gun and wipeout the lives of as many people as he can has bullets.

Contract all that work to contractors with fat contracts and do the job on the cheap. 300 million guns in this country, and we still get slaughtered like sheep. But I guess a gun is what brings swagger to your wager and think you are somebody.

Well that does nobody else no good, and you blow smoke between massacres.

When seconds mattered to Jim Giffords the cops were minutes away.

Oh stop using the 2nd amendment as an excuse not to pay for more cops and have more comprehensive background checks so a loony can't get a gun and wipeout the lives of as many people as he can has bullets.

Go ahead and contract all that work to contractors with fat contracts and do the job on the cheap. 300 million guns in this country, and we still get slaughtered like sheep. But I guess a gun is what brings swagger to your wager and think you are somebody.

Well that does nobody else no good, and you blow smoke between massacres.

The real problem is the lefties spouting off their hatred and instigating things... their right to free speech should be taken away for the common good as well because all it does is cause trouble.. in fact lets start there.

And the violence in America continues... (see my previous post (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-violence-768017-2.html#post3554947))

As to your previous post, stop pretending violence is a uniquely American phenomenon. As long as there are people there will be violence. Deal with your own issues (www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/parent-job-interview_n_3907447.html).


Around 200 people gathered at the Saskatoon Farmers Market to protest violence in Saskatoon.

The 'Take Back The Night' march is an annual event to protest sexual and physical assault in the community.

What started as one march in 1975 has now become a global movement to protest assaults against women.

"I think marching in the city streets really brings visibility to our cause," said Coordinator of the University of Saskatchewan Students' Union Women's Centre Heather Kevill. "It brings visibility to the people and the activism, and I think it's really important."

According to Statistics Canada, around half of all Canadian women have experienced some form of sexual or physical violence.

More cops. Put 'em everywhere. Some people don't want to lug a gun around. If he wanted on, why didn't he have one?

Sure.. there are lots of unemployed high school bullies looking for a chance to rekindle that part of their lives...

We could use Washington, DC as an example... there have only been 90+ active duty police officers thrown in jail for criminal activity in recent years.


But then... take away the guns... put thousands more "police" on the streets... sounds like 1930's Nazi Germany to me.

stop pretending violence is a uniquely American phenomenonI don't but but you don't see Canadians posting ad nauseum about any violence in their country on this board. You guys seem to revel in it; as in more guns would fix the problem.

Yes there are some parents that go to their kids' job interviews, that's one of the worst problems we face. :D

Sure..there are lots of unemployed high school bullies looking for a chance to rekindle that part of their lives.....

We could use Washington, DC as an example....there have only been 90+ active duty police officers thrown in jail for criminal activity in recent years.


But then......take away the guns...put thousands more "police" on the streets....sounds like 1930's Nazi Germany to me.

Everything sounds like 1930's Germany to you. They have pills for paranoia. Or a straight jacket if the pills don't work, or you have an aversion to stuff being shoved down your throat for your own good.

And the safety of the public.

Everything sounds like 1930's Germany to you. They have pills for paranoia. Or a straight jacket if the pills don't work, or you have an aversion to stuff being shoved down your throat for your own good.

And the safety of the public.

The real danger comes from people that talk like you just have...


Because it shows a complete disregard for the BIll of rights and constitution.

Oh... and incidentally... its your people that emptied out the assylums under the pretext they had the right to rampage freely.


Or do you actually think the mentally ill SHOULD be rounded up and tossed back in.. You can't have it both ways.

its your peopleWho is "your" people?

I don't but but you don't see Canadians posting ad nauseum about any violence in their country on this board. You guys seem to revel in it; as in more guns would fix the problem.

You join right in and know it's the gun control advocates that make it political, I'm not posting ad nauseum about it.


Yes there are some parents that go to their kids' job interviews, that's one of the worst problems we face. :D

If half of your women experience sexual or other violence you have MUCH bigger problems than parents on job interviews. I mean THAT'S a war on women.

Who is "your" people?

Give it a little thought... you speak english well enough. It will come to you.

I don't but but you don't see Canadians posting ad nauseum about any violence in their country on this board. You guys seem to revel in it; as in more guns would fix the problem.

Yes there are some parents that go to their kids' job interviews, that's one of the worst problems we face. :D

Wingers here are afraid and can't think of any other way to solve a problem than with a gun. They already have 300 million, and need MORE. So they have to find stories to justify their position. I mean how loony is it to sell a gun to a blind man, instead of a seeing eye dog?

Wingers here are afraid and can't think of any other way to solve a problem than with a gun. They already have 300 million, and need MORE. So they have to find stories to justify their position. I mean how loony is it to sell a gun to a blind man, instead of a seeing eye dog?

And Left wingers can't think of anything but disarm the public so nobody can oppose them when they continue to violate the law and the constitution... jext kile... Mao, Stalin, Hitler and any other dsepots have done throughout history.

The first actions of the leftists intent on oppression is always disarming their opposition.

Wingers here are afraid and can't think of any other way to solve a problem than with a gun. They already have 300 million, and need MORE. So they have to find stories to justify their position. I mean how loony is it to sell a gun to a blind man, instead of a seeing eye dog?

More hyperbole and aversion to reality, especially since your VP thinks we need a shotgun. You know damn well responsible gun owners see a gun as the last resort to solving a problem but if comes down to protecting myself or my family I'd rather have a gun than a whistle.

And interesting that you're willing to discriminate against the blind.

And also how willing the Democrats are to hand guns over to Mexican Drug Cartels... and to arm Al Queda in Syria... while at the same time demanding American citizens have their rights denied.

Give it a little thought... you speak english well enough. It will come to you.How come you can never answer a simple question directly?

How come you can never answer a simple question directly?

I learned it from you.

<sigh>

If you can't see what you're shooting you shouldn't have a gun. That's simple common sense and has little to do with rights. By your logic, its discrimination not to sell a gun to a crazy person.

Never mind, my bad, I shouldn't expect logic or common sense from a winger.

If you can't see what you're shooting you shouldn't have a gun. That's simple common sense and has little to do with rights. By your logic, its discrimination not to sell a gun to a crazy person.

Never mind, my bad, I shouldn't expect logic or common sense from a winger.

And one would think it common sense to give the blind, and technology a little more credit.

5P3pisFKd3k
8aF0Al60Xl0#t=37

If you can't see what you're shooting you shouldn't have a gun. That's simple common sense and has little to do with rights. By your logic, its discrimination not to sell a gun to a crazy person.

Never mind, my bad, I shouldn't expect logic or common sense from a winger.

They give democrats guns... and many of them don't have the cognitive capacity to know what they are shooting at...

Like Joe Biden recommending taking a shotgun and putting two shots through the closed front door of your house if you don't know who's knocking on it. Yeah.. like that is going to end well 99.9999999999% of the time.

They give democrats guns...and many of them don't have the cognitive capacity to know what they are shooting at......

.

I don't recall that a certain Republican vice president was any better

LOL, I don't mind a blind guy shooting at a range with supervision, but not walking the street with a gun.

LOL, I don't mind a blind guy shooting at a range with supervision, but not walking the street with a gun.

I think that should go for everyone Tal

I think that should go for everyone Tal

It just amazes me that you seem to think the only person that could possible handle a firearm is a person that wears some kind of uniform. I suppose in your opinion that when they are off duty they shouldn't be allowed to carry either?

It just amazes me that you seem to think the only person that could possible handle a firearm is a person that wears some kind of uniform. I suppose in your opinion that when they are off duty they shouldnt be allowed to carry either?

Exactly, no private citizen has a need to carry a gun. There was a time when our police didn't need to carry guns and we were safer in those days, but there is no eveidence we are made safer by the possession of fire arms and certainly not when some macho idiot is allowed to carry a gun beyond the firing range

How many crimes do cops prevent every year by being somewhere at exactly the right time?

And if they are always there... then why is there a crime rate to speak of?

exactly, no private citizen has a need to carry a gun. there was a time when our police didn't need to carry guns and we were safer in those days, but there is no eveidence we are made safer by the possession of fire arms and certainly not when some macho idiot is allowed to carry a gun beyond the firing range

I guess Australia has a crime rate of zero then?

I guess Australia has a crime rate of zero then?

No thus our police are armed but it is much lower than the US and the single obvious difference is the availability of firearms

UNODC murder rate US 4.8 Australia 1.0

What we find is our crime is at a lower level and more associated with intoxication than with firearms

No thus our police are armed but it is much lower than the US and the single obvious difference is the availability of firearms

UNODC murder rate US 4.8 Australia 1.0

What we find is our crime is at a lower level and more associated with intoxication than with firearms

That's only because they never find the bodies.

Thats only because they never find the bodies.

Now is that an allusion to Azaria? We find bodies, found one at the bottom of a cliff the other day, poor buggar had been missing for weeks, They found one not far from my place, fellow had been missing for months, but few of them are the result of crime.

Missing believed victim of foul play still counts in the statistics

What about the people who simply go missing?

What about the people who simply go missing?

You mean runaways or those who wander off with alzimers. They usually find the old people who wander off sometime, hopefully before they die, they form teams of searchers (posse, in your terminology) I'm not saying there aren't unsolved disappearances, my own town has a couple on the books but it is fairly rare. And runaways, well they turn up somewhere sooner or later

You mean runaways or those who wander off with alzimers. They usually find the old people who wander off sometime, hopefully before they die, they form teams of searchers (posse, in your terminology) I'm not saying there arn't unsolved disappearances, my own town has a couple on the books but it is fairly rare. and runaways, well they turn up somewhere sooner or later

What I mean is more like the occasional skeletal remains that turn up in remote areas... they most times were on the missing persons list... usually the killer is never found... evidence is too degraded... many times there is evidence of foul play.

What I mean is more like the occasional skeletal remains that turn up in remote areas...they most times were on the missing persons list.....usually the killer is never found...evidence is too degraded....many times there is evidence of foul play.

We do get the odd one usually someone missing for years on a large property but the only people in our remote areas really are indigenous, and they have a habit of wandering about so you wouldn't know if they are missing or not. Generally our missing people stay in the more hospitable regions

As a general rule we don't have the same level of violent crime you do although recently the middle east crime gangs are on the rise and there is the usual drug related crime, drive by shootings, and so on associated with them. We are talking about something at much lower level than you experience it. Our police busted one of these gangs recently.Gun violence isn't tolerated.
There are parts of some major cities where you wouldn't choose to live unless you are part of that community.

Smoothy, generally this is a fairly pristine environment even in the cities, you don't see the degraded environments that are the result of urban decay. That might happen to us in fifty years but not now. We are fairly good at pulling down disused buildings unless some git slaps a heritage order on it

We do get the odd one usually someone missing for years on a large property but the only people in our remote areas really are indigenous, and they have a habit of wandering about so you wouldn't know if they are missing or not. Generally our missing people stay in the more hospitable regions

As a general rule we don't have the same level of violent crime you do although recently the middle east crime gangs are on the rise and there is the usual drug related crime, drive by shootings, and so on associated with them. We are talking about something at much lower level than you experience it. Our police busted one of these gangs recently.Gun violence isn't tolerated.
There are parts of some major cities where you wouldn't choose to live unless you are part of that community.

Smoothy, generally this is a fairly pristine environment even in the cities, you don't see the degraded environments that are the result of urban decay. That might happen to us in fifty years but not now. We are fairly good at pulling down disused buildings unless some git slaps a heritage order on it

I'm not in such an area either... people wanting to build larger houses around here need to tear down perfectly nice $500K + homes to do it ( and by nice these are places that would be incredible in many other areas.. And there are a surprising number doing that.

The new constructions go for well over a million. No urban decay around here.

But I am in one of the nicer areas too.

Yes I live in a quiet neighbourhood, wide streets, street trees, well kept lawns and a minimum of parked cars although in about two weeks the car races will mean lots of day parkers, I hope to be out of town for that

Speaking of gun violence, a school district just a ways down the road (http://www.connectamarillo.com/news/story.aspx?id=958696#.Ul1CLlPb2nM) from me has taken a stand - before Sandy Hook I would add - but the signs just went up.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/texas-school-warns-intruders-e1381774667622.jpg

Glad I don't live there, the fact that this is needed.

We're glad you don't live here either.

http://scitascienda.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/i-first-must-value-your-opinion.jpg?w=558

:D

You keep living that delusion, okie dokie?

I'm sure everyone was well aware of the recent LAX shooting, were you aware of this tragedy?


Person of interest arrested in barbershop slayings (http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3211508.shtml?cat=600#.Un0HE3DUDLJ)
Created: 11/07/2013 3:05 PM

(AP) DETROIT - A convicted felon who was wearing body armor when police arrested him in a Detroit suburb will be questioned in an investigation into the fatal shooting of three men in a back gambling room of an east side barbershop.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig described the man as a person of interest in Wednesday evening’s shooting at Al’s Barber Shop that left six other people wounded. Speaking at a Thursday news conference at police headquarters, Craig said the bloodshed may have stemmed from an ongoing feud.


Sadly, nine people shot with three dead. Did you know?

There have been shooting everyday last week. Nuts with guns killing their own families, kids too. Its sad man, people are getting crazier.

There have been shooting everyday last week. Nuts with guns killing their own families, kids too. Its sad man, people are getting crazier.

Yes things are bad all over, all the more reason to control guns

What needs controlled are Liberals that have guns... that's where 99.9% of the shootings occur.

What needs controlled are Liberals that have guns... that's where 99.9% of the shootings occur.
No, the control needs to be by the gun owners who don't properly lock up their guns. Most of the recent mass shootings have been by family members who have, for some reason, gone off the deep end and used legally owned firearms that were available in their own homes.

No, the control needs to be by the gun owners who don't properly lock up their guns. Most of the recent mass shootings have been by family members who have, for some reason, gone off the deep end and used legally owned firearms that were available in their own homes.


Yes things are bad all over, all the more reason to control guns

What isn't clearly understood is access to firearms is a problem, and the so called responsible gun owners need to realise that greater control is needed for public safety.
You cannot say, ah well, those people had a mental problem, it can't happen to me

Former advocate for disarming the population and now Detroit Police chief has some advice for the city's residents. Carry a gun.


Detroit— If more citizens were armed, criminals would think twice about attacking them, Detroit Police Chief James Craig said Thursday.

Urban police chiefs are typically in favor of gun control or reluctant to discuss the issue, but Craig on Thursday was candid about how he’s changed his mind.

“When we look at the good community members who have concealed weapons permits, the likelihood they’ll shoot is based on a lack of confidence in this Police Department,” Craig said at a press conference at police headquarters, adding that he thinks more Detroit citizens feel safer, thanks in part to a 7 percent drop in violent crime in 2013.

Craig said he started believing that legal gun owners can deter crime when he became police chief in Portland, Maine, in 2009.

“Coming from California (Craig was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years), where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of CCWs (carrying concealed weapon permits), and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation.

“I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.”

Craig’s statements Thursday echoed those he made Dec. 19 on “The Paul W. Smith Show” on WJR (760 AM), when he said: “There’s a number of CPL (concealed pistol license) holders running around the city of Detroit. I think it acts as a deterrent. Good Americans with CPLs translates into crime reduction. I learned that real quick in the state of Maine.”

From The Detroit News: Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime | The Detroit News (http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140103/METRO01/301030038#ixzz2pMA6nELQ)

Of course they had to find some pantywaist from San Francisco to counter his position, but not based on the evidence.


Robyn Thomas, director of the the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco, disagreed.

“I think at its core, his position is an emotional one, based on the idea that people feel safer when they have guns. But studies have shown more guns don’t deter crime,” Thomas said. “There’s no research that shows guns make anyone safer, and it does show that, the more guns in any situation, the higher the likelihood of them harming either the owner, or people who have access to them.”


Excuse me, but the research does show decreased crime and fewer murders thanks to concealed carry (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2013.854294#.Usbv8_vb2nO), you need to show us the research that supports your claim. I think the good chief of Detroit is spot on, he ought to know, he lives it every day.

Why do you feel it necessary to keep trotting out Lott and Mustard again. I think it was sufficiently addressed last time. Unless, this study provides some new information. It seems to be the same study as last time to me.

because he thinks that the opinion of one person proves his point, that an armed population is a safe population. It wasn't true in the 1880's and it isn't true now. This is cowboy mentality, the macho crap that leads to the violence in the first place. now Tutt you and I know better, removing guns from the population reduces gun violence. What I suggest is that all arms in private ownership should be kept in armories, that way ownership rights are not contravened, the militia can be formed at any time, but access is restricted to legitimate purposes. It has been proven that storage in homes is not secure

An unarmed population... is a population of unarmed future victims. Its not difficult to manufacture your own gun... even if you aren't an accomplished machinist. And that is if you don't buy on of they guys that are importing drugs by the metric ton...

Anyone that believes otherwise is deluding themselves... are do they want to take away hammers, bats, axes, anything sharp or pointy or hard enough to be a bludgeon....because even if they do that.....people dies at teh hands of others....literally....who use their hands as weapons....if someone wants to kill someone...not having a gun isn't going to slow them down much less stop them.

The authorities are the ones who should not be trusted... not the rest of the population.

Tired argument, look in the days of swords people carried swords and died in sword fights, carrying weapons didn't stop violence, we have progressed to the gun but we haven't progressed in our thinking. Along with removing guns from the streets must be reeducation into new ways of settling differences and handling crime. You think you can go out there and shoot it out with a perp, you are wrong, dead wrong

This explains it all.

Obama doesn't fear an armed populance he has one and understands that these are not the days of George Washington. The British don't live just over the border any more and the native tribes have been vanquished. The only thing an armed populance can do is make trouble for each other. The citizens militia is a myth, you have a militia in the person of the National Guard and the police force. are you suggesting the populance needs to protect itsself from these citizens?

Why do you feel it necessary to keep trotting out Lott and Mustard again. I think it was sufficiently addressed last time. Unless, this study provides some new information. It seems to be the same study as last time to me.

Why criticize me for trotting out research instead of the guy pulling crap out of his rectum that denies the research exists? The stats don't lie, violent crime is down where concealed carry is allowed and high in places with the strictest gun controls. That Detroit's police chief who used to support such restrictions sees the benefit now is newsworthy.

Obama doesn't fear an armed populance he has one and understands that these are not the days of George Washington.


His VP thinks you should step out on the porch and pump a couple blasts out of your shotgun.

are you suggesting the populance needs to protect itsself from these citizens?

The DHS and the new "Civilian Security Force" authorized by Obamacare (section 5210) are concerning, since they are not answerable to the Congress.

Obama's 'National Security Force?' (http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/obamas-national-security-force/)


This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama's call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.

I find it funny that when he shows what was stated by Obama the author of the article goes on to say well thats not what he really meant. lol

Some fact checking huh? The truth is he said it. That IS a fact. Watching this president rule by the seat of his pants rather then conventional means is turning this country into a laughing stock.

Speech, I don't think he was actually saying that there has been no research. I took his statement to mean the research that exists doesn't prove anything.

I would find it difficult for anyone to believe that no research has ever been done, but you never know I guess.

After the courts struck down Chicago's gun ban the city went back to the drawing board and decided to ban gun sales in the city as part of their crackdown on the second amendment.

How did that work out? Obama appointee Edmond Chang said no dice. According to Chang "the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense “must also include the right to acquire a firearm.” Imagine that.

Federal judge rules city ban on handgun sales unconstitutional - Chicago Sun-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/24803458-418/federal-judge-rules-city-ban-on-handgun-sales-unconstitutional.html)

I wonder if Rahmbo screened this guy before giving him the green light? The ruling is here (http://ia700501.us.archive.org/19/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065/gov.uscourts.ilnd.245065.238.0.pdf).

Meanwhile one of the mayors who left the rapidly declining (http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacobfischler/dozens-of-mayors-are-quietly-dropping-out-of-bloombergs-gun) Bloomberg group Mayors Against Illegal Guns had this (http://freebeacon.com/former-bloomberg-ally-says-mayors-groups-goal-is-gun-confiscation/) to say:


I’m the mayor of one of the largest cities in the Hudson Valley, just 90 minutes north of New York City. I’m a life member of the National Rifle Association and a former member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, or MAIG, started by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg in 2006.

I’m no longer a member of MAIG. Why? Just as Ronald Reagan said of the Democratic Party, it left me. And I’m not alone: Nearly 50 pro-Second Amendment mayors have left the organization. They left for the same reason I did. MAIG became a vehicle for Bloomberg to promote his personal gun-control agenda — violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and taking resources away from initiatives that could actually work to protect our neighborhoods and save precious lives. […]


It did not take long to realize that MAIG’s agenda was much more than ridding felons of illegal guns; that under the guise of helping mayors facing a crime and drug epidemic, MAIG intended to promote confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. I don’t believe, never have believed and never will believe that public safety is enhanced by encroaching on our right to bear arms, and I will not be a part of any organization that does.



And that is why we don't trust you anti-gun zealots because we believe that is your intent. Holler about background checks and such all you want, we're not buying it. You want to disarm law abiding citizens. Admit it.

Hello again, Steve:

You want to disarm law abiding citizens. Admit it.Nahhh.. I'm a lib. I'm VERY liberal. I support the ENTIRE Constitution.. Over the ten years or so we've been talking, I've probably said that before. I dunno WHY you haven't heard me. ALL I've ever suggested, is that you pass a background check law that would PREVENT people LIKE me from getting guns..

But, for WHATEVER reason, you're SO twisted up in this gun rights thing, that you're FINE with REAL BAD people - and I mean REAL BAD people - scooping up as many guns as they can carry.. Then you have the balls to complain about Fast & Furious. At LEAST those guns went to Mexico. The guns YOU'RE allowing criminals to get, are IN your neighborhood.

I'm probably gonna have to say it again, aren't I???

excon

You don't even want a doctor asking you if you have a gun at home before he prescribes mind altering drugs for what ails you. Or he thinks you are dangerous before he describes the drugs.

Admit it, you want your stash to be a secret.

For the thousandth time, we have background checks. What you want is universal registry so stop the obfuscation, that's exactly what I'm talking about and exactly what this mayor and the 50 others that left the group is saying. You cloak yourselves in innocent sounding garbage while your intent is to disarm law abiding citizens. Be honest about it. And no,what I have in my house is not your business and it is not my doctor's business so leave me the hell alone, something your side USED to advocate.

It's everybody's business if you go NUTS, and shoot a bunch of people. Or sell a gun from your secret stash to your crazy cousin for grocery money. Speech I trust you, with my life, but not the rest of your clan.

To be honest, I don't trust everybody in my own clan, and we do have a few NUTS!! So don't take it personally.

It's everybody's business if you go NUTS, and shoot a bunch of people. Or sell a gun from your secret stash to your crazy cousin for grocery money. Speech I trust you, with my life, but not the rest of your clan.

To be honest, I don't trust everybody in my own clan, and we do have a few NUTS!! So don't take it personally.

Sorry, my business is my business, stay out of it. I've heard your side make that argument a thousand times, when did you decide to abandon that?

I express my own opinion, and like you I am not responsible for the words and actions of others, no matter what side. In truth, I have heard you make YOUR sides arguments a thousand times too. So what?

And back to the point, Bloomberg and his ilk want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. That's troubling, and a total sham of what their group claims to be doing. Agree or not?

Hello again, Steve
For the thousandth time, we have background checks. No, what you have is a law with a LOOPHOLE wide enough to drive a truck through. To pretend that you HAVE a LAW is disingenuous at best. ALL I've ever suggested, is that we pass a background check law that would PREVENT people LIKE me from getting guns..

Here's how the loophole works. This weekend, they're having a gun show at the Evergreen County Fairgrounds in Monroe. You can tell WHO the licensed dealers are. They're inside with a booth, and they won't sell you a gun unless you pass a background check... You can ALSO tell WHO the private sellers are. They don't have a booth. They're standing around with several gun belts over their shoulders and guns sticking out of every pocket. You can buy LOTS and LOTS of guns from him and NEVER have to go through a background check. That means people like me can get all the guns they want, EASILY.

Now, right wingers will tell you that all I'd HAVE to do is run down to the hood to buy my guns.. So, preventing me from buying them at a gun show won't really STOP me. After all, criminals are ALL connected, aren't they??

Of course, that's SOOOOO stupid, I don't really know how to respond..

But, I will. I'm old. I'm white. I DON'T have a criminal ID card. I DON'T have tattoos. I DON'T know anybody in the hood who has guns for sale. If I wandered down to the hood with cash in my hand looking to buy a gun, I'd get my little white excon a$$ shot off.

Now, there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people like me. It would seem like right wingers would PREFER people like me NOT to have guns. But, they're SOOOO twisted up into this gun rights thing, that they're ACTUALLY FINE with people like me buying as many guns as they can carry.

Makes NO sense to me.

excon

Again, back to the point. Focus here people...Bloomberg and his ilk want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. That's troubling, and a total sham of what their group claims to be doing. Agree or not?

9th Circus just smacked down Kalifornia's restrictive gun control laws. ( Peruta v. San Diego (http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/02/12/1056971.pdf)).The Court ruled that a government may specify what mode of carrying to allow (open or concealed), but a government may not make it impossible for the vast majority of Californians to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The court leaned heavily on the Heller decision in deciding this case . Heller noted that there are many cases which say that a state may ban concealed carry so long as open carry is still allowed. But it is unconstitutional to prohibit carrying in every mode: “the Second Amendment does require that the states permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.”

While y'all are still pondering to address whether or not MAIG's intent to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens is a good thing or not, the 9th Circus Court has discovered the right to "keep and bear arms" means the right to keep and "carry" arms for self defense. They struck down a San Diego rule that required citizens to show "good cause" to carry in order to obtain a carry permit.


The Second Amendment secures the right not only to “keep” arms but also to “bear” them—the verb whose original meaning is key in this case. Saving us the trouble of pulling the eighteenth-century dictionaries ourselves, the Court already has supplied the word’s plain meaning: “At the time of the founding, as now, to ‘bear’ meant to ‘carry.’” Heller, 554 U.S. at 584.3 Yet, not “carry” in the ordinary sense of “convey[ing] or transport[ing]” an object, as one might carry groceries to the check-out counter or garments to the laundromat, but “carry for a particular purpose—confrontation.” Id. The “natural meaning of ‘bear arms,’” according to the Heller majority, was best articulated by Justice Ginsburg in her dissenting opinion in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998): to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’”

...

Speakers of the English language will all agree: “bearing a weapon inside the home” does not exhaust this definition of “carry.” For one thing, the very risk occasioning such carriage, “confrontation,” is “not limited to the home.” Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 936 (7th Cir. 2012). One needn’t point to statistics to recognize that the prospect of conflict—at least, the sort of conflict for which one would wish to be “armed and ready”—is just as menacing (and likely more so) beyond the front porch as it is in the living room. For that reason, “[t]o speak of ‘bearing’ arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage.”

https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/434042455587954688/photo/1


(https://twitter.com/gabrielmalor/status/434042455587954688/photo/1)

Yeppers. you noticed, too.

Hello again,

Yeah, you can't do that... Those silly libs...

But, NOTHING in a comprehensive background check diminishes your 2nd Amendment rights whatsoever... As YOU said a thousand times, you already HAVE a background check.. So, passing a COMPREHENSIVE one WON'T alter your life in the slightest. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns.. I can't, for the life of me, figure out what you've got against that.

excon

As with Mayors Against "Illegal" Guns is after LEGAL guns, define "comprehensive." I have NO treason to trust liberals and their innocent sounding populist initiatives. They've proven they are out to violate my rights and micromanage my life, and that pi$$es me off. It would pi$$ off the Libertarian excon I used to know as well.

Thankfully Bloomy's true intentions are being exposed, and you're still dodging the point. Bloomberg and his ilk want to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. Do you?

What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?

What are you calling comprehensive? A registration or a mandated waiting period or what? The current system passes through the FBI. What more do you want? Need every gun owner pass a Rorschach test ?

I believe they do want that (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/gun-violence-768017-16.html#post3620049) Rorschach test, yes.

Hello again,

Nothing has changed.. The comprehensive background check I have in mind, would check EVERYBODY who buy's a gun. That's it.

You ALREADY go through a background check, so have the buyers of guns from private sellers won't effect YOUR rights one iota. It'll just STOP people like me from getting guns. I dunno what's WRONG with that.

excon

I want details, not rhetoric. And I take it you're OK with Bloomy's goal since you won't respond.

Hello again,

Bloomy doesn't run anything.. Who cares what he thinks?

excon

PS> Details? I thought it was self explanitory. If you sell a gun at a gun show, you must do through an FFL. If you do it on the internet or on craigs list, you must transact the business AT an FFL.. That way EVERYBODY, who buys a gun will be ELIGIBLE to buy a gun... Who doesn't want that?

I don't care what he thinks, I care that he wants to violate my rights, don't you? You can't buy firearms on Craigslist (http://www.craigslist.org/about/prohibited) by the way, or ebay (http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/firearms-weapons-knives.html).

ex, if you buy a gun over the internet it has to go through a FFL already. It is only private sales that bypass FFL requirements. If those are shipped to you then they still must go through a FFL regaurdless of being private sale or business.

Did you hear the one about the "unsteady" anti-gun NY Governor's aide illegally carrying a loaded 9 mm Glock into government buildings and of all things, using the laser sight as a pointer (http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Ready-aim-point-talk-5116592.php#photo-5683948)during a presentation with foreign officials?


Jerome M. Hauer (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Jerome+M.+Hauer%22), Gov. Andrew Cuomo (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Andrew+Cuomo%22)'s director of homeland security, took out his handgun and used the laser sighting device attached to the barrel as a pointer in a presentation to a foreign delegation, according to public officials. It happened Oct. 24 in Albany at the highly secure state emergency operations center below State Police (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22State+Police%22) headquarters.


These officials, one of whom claimed to be an eyewitness, said that three Swedish emergency managers in the delegation were rattled when the gun's laser tracked across one of their heads before Hauer found the map of New York, at which he wanted to point.

Hauer, commissioner of the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency (http://www.timesunion.com/?controllerName=search&action=search&channel=local&search=1&inlineLink=1&query=%22Division+of+Homeland+Security+and+Emergen cy%22) Services, was disabled by a stroke a few years ago and can be unsteady. He isn't a law enforcement official. He carries the loaded 9-millimeter Glock in a holster into state buildings, an apparent violation of state law barring state employees from bringing weapons to the workplace, several witnesses say.

No worries though, he got a waiver 4 days after the report (http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/13/cuomo-aide-caught-breaking-gun-law-quickly-receives-waiver/). I assume the Swedish officials recovered from the trauma of a perfect demonstration of not not to handle a firearm.

Okay everything is peachy keen and we can't do anything about undiagnosed nuts and criminals until AFTER they break the law and shoot up a school of kids, then shoot themselves. If it happened at your school, or movie house where your kids are, what would you do Speech? Cdad?

Perhaps if you guys started caring about the traditional family and life before it's born some of these things would resolve themselves.

Wrong thread. Or are you tying religion, gay marriage, and abortion, to gun violence? This should be interesting.

may as well blame someone tal, the NRA sure isn't taking responsibility. Remember guns don't kill people, people kill people therefore people should be allowed to have guns so they can kill more people, following this logic people should also practice abortion and a gay lifestyle. Following these courses of action people should be extinct within a generation and there will be noone left to shout freedom, you won't take my freedom away

Nope, right thread, but I'm not surprised you can't see a connection between your cheapening of human life and kids without a strong family not valuing life enough to avoid snuffing it out with a gun. And Clete, the NRA had always advocated responsible gun ownership, not using laser sights on a loaded gun as a pointing device for a PowerPoint presentation or pumping a few blasts from your shotgun off your balcony. Those are things liberals teach us while whitewashing the consequences.

Tal, I have learned to accept life as it comes at me. I would think I would handle in a manner that I already live by. I wouldnt go screaming in the halls to have everyones gun removed from them. I have seen how the law in action is used to take over our society. I have drawn my lines and Im not crossing over to liberal thinking when it comes to many issues. I still listen but I have to weigh that against what I have already learned and experienced. I will always be an advocate for second amendment rights. Isnt part of the liberal mantra choice? Then let this be mine. I dont want to see people hurt nor do many that advocate for the same issues I do. What you have to try to remember is that freedom isnt free. There is always a price to pay for it. Your choice in the making is how much it is worth to you?

speech by responsibility I mean recognising that the problem is the availability of guns particularly high capacity semi automatic weapons

@At Speech,

While I haven't seen any legislation, advocating or near what the Vice President has said, I don't think that following your bible or making people stay married is the answer, nor is it the problem. Neither is repealing Roe v Wade, or making more state restrictions. People falling through the cracks more now than before and being underserved through institutional solutions like education and economic options as the population grows and the dollars becomes rare is where I start my approach to diminishing gun violence.


I wouldn't consider ever taking guns from RESPONSIBLE citizens for hunting, protection or any other reason.

@ Cdad

I can respect your position and I too have seen and learned much and made many adjustments no matter who was running the government, or who will in the future. But too you both, should we let FEAR of what the government could do stop us from ANYTHING? Haven't we paid a high price for our freedom already. Sorry guys, but the body count just keeps rising. There has to be a better answer than more guns.

What is it?

The answer is to eliminate fear through education. We dont need to keep pushing the boundries to the point that no one gets hurt. This is life and to live it crap is going to happen. You mention body counts. How many die from car accidents in a year? Using the logic you are currently using we should all stop driving in motorized vehicles. Accidents happen crazy people happen. Life happens. We can't live in a bubble and it is not up to our government to force us into one.

Ditto with education but we can do better identifying and dealing with UNresponsible gun owners, and purchasers, even if its baby steps. I have never said anything about doing away with cars, or guns.

we always talk in extremes and absolutes rather than effective solutions, limiting the types of weapons available has been proven to effectively reduce the fallout from gun violence, limiting alcohol consumption has been effective in reducing the fallout from auto accidents, we should go further to identify and limit auto usage where age related irresponsibility is a factor and to identify other factors.

The second amendment has been intrepreted in an absolutist manner thereby multiplying the availability of weapons but certain other aspects of the loss of life are not contained in absolutist restrictions on applying remedies. There is no right to own and operate an automobile, there is no right to drive irratically or at speed, there is no right to smoke tobacco or own and use a cell phone. If society can regulate in one area it can regulate in others

So, how many firearm homicides, how many firearm suicides and how many traffic fatalities? There were over 2600 traffic fatalities in Texas last year as the signs keep reminding us. We'd be much better dealing with irresponsible drivers in my opinion, I have to dodge them every day.

Hello again,

In my view, if we got rid of cars, it would effect our lifestyle. If we got rid of guns, it wouldn't. Therefore, comparing the relative deaths caused by each, is STUPID, STUPID, and even STUPIDER than that..

If you wanna compare stuff, MAKE it COMPARABLE... Otherwise, it's just right wingers flapping their gums...

excon

I see your logic now. Since you dodge irresponsible drivers every day, then you think its okay to dodge homicidal idiots everyday. Like you dodge solutions to real problems every day. That's a great strategy to holler loud and say NOTHING that can be a solution to the problem.

When exactly was the last time you were shot at?

Meanwhile, this (https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/zero_tolerance_chicago_school_officials_suspend_11 _year_old_boy_under_dange) is part of the left's answer to solving gun violence, punish and traumatize little boys for being honest while berating parents for daring to allow their child to play with toys..


Zero Tolerance: Chicago School Officials Suspend 11-Year-Old Boy Under ‘Dangerous Weapons’ Policy for Voluntarily Turning in Non-Firing Toy Gun


February 06, 2014

CHICAGO, Il.— Criticizing Chicago school officials for being overzealous, misguided and incapable of distinguishing between an impotent toy and a dangerous weapon, The Rutherford Institute has come to the defense of an 11-year-old boy who was suspended from school after he voluntarily turned in a non-firing plastic toy gun that had been forgotten in his jacket pocket. Caden Cook, a sixth grader at Fredrick Funston Elementary School, was suspended for allegedly violating the school’s weapons policy against dangerous objects, in addition to being ordered to undergo counseling, and subjected to intimidation tactics, interrogation, and dire threats by school officials—all without his mother being present. Rutherford Institute attorneys have asked that the suspension be rescinded and all references to the incident be removed from Caden’s permanent school record.

“This case speaks volumes about what’s wrong with our public schools and public officials: rather than school officials showing they are capable of exercising good judgment, distinguishing between what is and is not a true threat, and preserving safety while steering clear of a lockdown mindset better suited to a prison environment, they instead opted to exhibit poor judgment, embrace heavy handed tactics, and treat a toy gun like a dangerous weapon,” said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590799755/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1590799755&link). “In the process, school officials sent a strong, chilling message to this child and his classmates that they have no rights in the American police state.”

Frederick Funston Elementary School introduced a random “pat down” to its security and screening procedures at the beginning of this school year. All students are physically separated from their bags and randomly chosen for a manual “pat down” before going through the metal detectors. Students’ bags are also separately searched at random. On Friday, January 31, 2014, sixth grader Caden Cook was waiting in the school line to be patted down when he realized that he had mistakenly left in his sweater pocket a toy plastic gun which he had played with the previous night while he was out with friends and family. Realizing his error and that the toy was a prohibited item on school grounds, Caden alerted the security personnel to his predicament, explaining that he had accidentally brought the plastic toy to school and relinquishing the toy to school security personnel. Instead of recognizing that Caden was attempting to do the right thing and acknowledging the mistake, school officials allegedly subjected the 11-year-old to intimidation tactics, interrogation, accusations of lying, and threats. All of this was done in the absence of Caden’s mother and without her having been informed of the incident. Upon her arrival, Caden’s mother was berated and criticized for allowing her son to use toy guys.

In coming to Caden’s defense, Rutherford Institute attorneys point out that Caden’s conduct does not rise to the level of serious disruptive behavior, given that he immediately alerted school officials to his accidental transgression and voluntarily turned in the toy once he realized his mistake, even prior to entering the screening area, nor does the plastic toy gun constitute a dangerous object by the school’s standards or anyone else’s.

I have a theory, that besides public school officials having been lobotomized, they're mad that we law abiding gun owners don't roll over for them so they use their Gestapo tactics on the kids. Get a grip people.

" We would be better dealing with irresponsible drivers, in my opinion"

You would be better off dealing with both.

The irresposnible attitudes that lead to gun violence and irratic auto use are symptoms of the same problem, this idea that the individual has greater importance than the society in which they live