RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Moyers writes: "The gunman in Colorado waited only for his opportunity. So there you have it - the arsenal of democracy has been transformed into the arsenal of death. And the NRA? The NRA is the enabler of death - paranoid, delusional and as venomous as a scorpion."

Bill Moyers delivered a blistering attack on the NRA, one day after the aurora shooting. (photo: PBS)
Bill Moyers delivered a blistering attack on the NRA, one day after the aurora shooting. (photo: PBS)

The NRA's Dark Gun Culture

By Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company

21 July 12


ou might think Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of and spokesman for the mighty American gun lobby, The National Rifle Association, has an almost cosmic sense of timing. In 2007, at the NRA’s annual convention in St. Louis, he warned the crowd that, "Today, there is not one firearm owner whose freedom is secure."

Two days later, a young man opened fire on the campus of Virginia Tech, killing 32 students, staff and teachers. Just last week LaPierre showed up at the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty here in New York and spoke out against what he called "Anti-freedom policies that disregard American citizens' right to self-defense."

Now at least 12 are dead in Aurora, Colorado, gunned down by a mad man at a showing of the new Batman movie filled with make-believe violence. One of the guns the shooter used was an AK-47-type assault weapon that was banned in 1994. The National Rifle Association saw to it that the ban expired in 2004. The NRA is the best friend a killer's instinct ever had.

Obviously, LaPierre's timing isn’t cosmic, just coincidental; as Shakespeare famously wrote, "The fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves." In other words, people. People with guns. There are an estimated 300 million guns in the United States, one in four adult Americans owns at least one and most of them are men. The British newspaper The Guardian, reminds us that over the last 30 years, "The number of states with a law that automatically approves licenses to carry concealed weapons provided an applicant clears a criminal background check has risen from eight to 38."

Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. Firearm violence may cost our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns.

So why do we always act so surprised? Violence is alter ego, wired into our Stone Age brains, so intrinsic its toxic eruptions no longer shock, except momentarily when we hear of a mass shooting like this latest in Colorado. But this, too, will pass and the nation of the short attention span quickly finds the next thing to divert us from the hard realities of America in 2012.

We are after all a country which began with the forced subjugation into slavery of millions of Africans and the reliance on arms against Native Americans for its Westward expansion. In truth, more settlers traveling the Oregon Trail died from accidental, self-inflicted gunshots wounds than Indian attacks - we were not only bloodthirsty but also inept.

Nonetheless, we have become so gun loving, so blasé about home-grown violence that in my lifetime alone, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined. In Arizona last year, just days after the Gabby Giffords shooting, sales of the weapon used in the slaughter - a 9 millimeter Glock semi-automatic pistol - doubled.

We are fooling ourselves. That the law could allow even an inflamed lunatic to easily acquire murderous weapons and not expect murderous consequences. Fooling ourselves that the second amendment’s guarantee of a "well-regulated militia" be construed as a God-given right to purchase and own just about any weapon of destruction you like. That's a license for murder and mayhem and it's a great fraud that has entered our history.

There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says: "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

The killer in Colorado waited only for an opportunity, and there you have it - the arsenal of democracy transformed into the arsenal of death and the NRA - the NRA is the enabler of death - paranoid, delusional, and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel hoax, a cruel and deadly hoax. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+57 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 10:56
Assault weaponry have no place in do extended capacity clips..but

the flip side of this is invariably on this thread will come response stating....all guns everywhere must be disallowed...wh ich is unrealistic considering some rural environments and professions(cat tle or sheep ranching for instance)....

So the NRA uses support this....assault weaponry...any abridgement on a right to own a gun leads to outlawing all guns...which is a completely irresponsible position in some circumstances.

so they have support in rural communities.... because in a sense the opposition to the NRA is so fervent in their ideology.

I don't like to blame the victim...but that is the situation in this national discussion.

The baby is thrown out with the the interest of urban safety the rural experience is discounted and rendered extreme is the position of gun control..when really it is not....

Even rural peoples singularly considered know...assault rifles with extended capacity clips...have not a place in america.
Mix that with no guns at all and you for no restrictions on gun ownership.
+171 # Barbara K 2012-07-21 11:35
Too many people don't realize that the NRA is a political entity, and not needed to own guns. The NRA is there to raise money for the Republicans, and have been doing so for many years. People are gullible enough to send them hundreds of dollars of dues because they think they are making them safe. People don't need the NRA to be safe. I'll bet many of their "members" don't know where their money is going. NRA rakes in money all over the place to support the Republicans, that is why the Rs support every whim of the NRA.
+115 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:05
The Republican constituency take pride in their ignorance. They shovel millions to creeps like Pat Robertson, who entered the ministry with the lint in his pocket, but who now owns a diamond mine in the Congo. And what has he ever really done for them? Send them a prayer... wow, that's really worth millions. The Republican constituency are wrong-minded and wrong-headed but as Mike Papantonio says, "You'll never change them."
+90 # bigkahuna671 2012-07-21 15:37
WestWinds, your first sentence says it all. GOP politicians depend on the ignorance of their constituents. It's one of the reasons Republifascist legislators and governors deliberately try to destroy education. They WANT and NEED an ignorant public who will believe every lie they are fed. All you have to do is look at people like Michell Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, George W. Bush, Jan Brewer, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Rick Scott, Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal, Donald Trump, and Joe Arpaio and you can see they depend on ignorance. One of the main reasons they WANT and NEED it is because they are not operating with a full deck themselves, so they depend on a constituency that is as ignorant as they are. And you're correct in quoting Mike Papantonio in saying that "you'll never change them!"
+58 # CL38 2012-07-21 15:58
But we could, with Democratic majorities -- and a strong mandate from voters --legislate their lunatic views off the books & prevent them from controlling the country.
+11 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:13
Had that chance they did not do it
+9 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-22 10:26
Quoting CL38:
But we could, with Democratic majorities -- and a strong mandate from voters --legislate their lunatic views off the books & prevent them from controlling the country.

The NRA are equal opportunity corrupters. Where there are no GOP politicians, they make sure to get their hooks into whatever politicians are available.

Even where the GOP has a solid lock on the electorate, opposition candidates get contributions from the NRA - insurance against the possibility of an upset.
+8 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:16
Not sure that strong mandate from the voters exists anymore.
+7 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:12
Wow I wonder how he treats his workers...get down in that mine and dig me more.

When the Earth goes Pooof It will not care they will go poof too.
+3 # Glen 2012-07-21 12:14
I agree, Barbara. The NRA may be offensive but it is the individual that makes choices. The NRA does not make it for them. It is a national disgrace that citizens cannot seem to overcome societal and family breakdown. Education and gun training is utilized by only a few.

The flip side of it all is that the U.S. is producing, as I have said, psychotics, due to all manner of social ills and little parenting. Teachers have seen it coming for decades. How to overcome that?

Availability of guns would not be an issue if there weren't psychotics, angry unhappy individuals, and soon, very desperate people without jobs. Fear and anger are a deadly duo.
+59 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:36
Why not give everyone their own tank? Why not an anti-aircraft gun?
+19 # DHa7763100 2012-07-21 12:46
good one
-28 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:38
Billy Bob Great Idea where do I go to get in line?
+35 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:17
Afghanistan when the Taliban was still in control. Somalia and Rwanda are other good places.

Don't forget to write!
-21 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:26
Billy Bob: I lost your address, did you want me to get you a couple, I can put it on my American Express! and you can reimburse me when I get back!
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:24
Was that supposed to make sense?
+10 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:18
You could build one, believe me in them their hills and valleys thar be weapons of WMD right here in USA
+26 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:38
Glen: Yes it is more a breakdown of society from desperation and despair!

When people lose everything they lose the ability for rational thinking...We are also seeing suicides among people who have given up! This is a direct result of government corruption and Bank corruption...a feeling of hopelesness breeds this type of incident
-18 # Glen 2012-07-21 17:14
Thank you, John. I've read many of your posts, sticking it to those who have only gun hysteria in mind. I'm astounded that so few people see the social issues surrounding the need to kill.

Reviewing the history of the U.S., religion, economics, drugs, the confusion among young people, child abuse, you name it, would enlighten a lot of citizens. Check the number of serial killers and mass murderers over the decades - who were they? This is nothing new.

While working in an emergency room at a university hospital in the sixties, the wounds coming in were not gunshots. It was knives. After that, tire tools, chains, etc. If people want to kill, they will find a way. It is psychosis, not the NRA.
+35 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:22
You should check out an urban emergency room now. My wife works in one. It's gun shots. Luckily, we are A WHOLE LOT BETTER at removing bullets than we were 50 years ago. That's how we've managed to have the number of gun related injuries skyrocket without raising the murder rate as much as would otherwise be expected.
-15 # John Locke 2012-07-21 19:59
Billy Bob: Areas with gang activity and low income seem to experience this much more then the wealthy areas with gated communities! it is really socioeconomic!
+13 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:40
The point is that we successfully remove a lot more bullets now than we did 50 years ago. What are you trying to twist that into?

By the way, they have poor people in gangs in Europe. A LOT OF THEM.
-20 # Glen 2012-07-22 06:44
The point, Billy, is that people who are going to fight and/or kill will find a way. Guns are certainly handy, but so are other weapons, and anyone wishing to use them will become skilled, whether with a knife or even bow and arrow.

That guy in the theater could have taken out a lot of people with a baseball bat had he started at the back of the theater and worked hard and fast. His was showmanship as much as killing. The desire to kill is the driving factor.
+31 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:19
Right. There was a story about a Air Force officer during WWII who kept a record of every hole in a bomber that came back from sorties over Germany and got hit by antiaircraft fire. Then they put armor on the parts that were NOT hit because those were the planes that made it back.

The people you saw in the emergency room were the ones who survived. The ones who were shot, not so much. Also, in the 60's guns were not NEARLY as available as now. Assault weapons weren't even on sale. And neither were rapid fire pistols. The gun nut religionists conveniently forget to mention that when they bemoan the lack of prayer causing all the mass assaults. So much for it all being socioeconomic and nothing to do with availability of increasingly lethal weapons.
-5 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 21:53
In the sixties I could walk into a store with nothing but a driver's lic. and buy a gun. They were readily available and nowhere near the paperwork and checks that are required today. Your so called "assault weapons" were also readily available and much cheaper than today. Rapid fire pistols?? Where do you get this stuff? Semi-auto pistols have been available commonly since before WORLD WAR 1. Do a little research for Pete's sake!!
+26 # CL38 2012-07-21 23:05
"It is a psychosis, not the NRA." The NRA is very content to feed into and further this psychosis by fighting to give assault weapons to anyone who wants them, including those who are mentally ill.

The NRA has to be made to be much more responsible. Their philosophy and greed are not more important than people's lives.
+1 # Glen 2012-07-22 06:41
CL38, you are correct, but my point is that there are weapons available to anyone who wants to kill. The NRA does feed into that, but it is much more complicated than simply blaming it all on the NRA.
-1 # tomtom 2012-07-24 13:38
Holding gun stores and advertisers responsible for avoidable crimes and deaths is comparable to indicting a bartender for allowing a drunk to drive home. We need to monitor eachother, better. Like Manson rightly said; I'm, merely, a product of our society. Hmmmm. Does he mean, we're all partially accomplices? Personally, I think if everyone, including the poor and handicapped, know they have opportunities to contribute and benefit, cynicism and defeatism would diminish.
0 # Linda 2012-07-24 09:24
These people who commit these horrendous crimes may have psychosis, depression,suic idal tendencies etc, etc,but making it so easy for these people to get their hands on a gun especially an assault weapon is societies fault as well as the NRA which spends millions if not billions lobbying in Washington !
+21 # Glen 2012-07-21 17:15
Also, why has no one noticed the violence in that particular movie, which is not unusual today, and the fact that there were children in that midnight showing? Any questions why kids are messed up?
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:23
They have the same violent movies in Europe and Japan.
-31 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:20
Perhaps better family values, and perhaps better Church Ministers.
+22 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:38
Believe me they don't. In fact, they mostly don't go to church, so I don't know where you're getting that from. Maybe it's the lack of guns?
+18 # Glen 2012-07-22 06:46
Billy, going to church does not guarantee family values. Ever check on the amount of incest and abuse involved with churchgoers?
+13 # QNetter 2012-07-21 21:52
Actually, both of those have much lower levels of religious identification and much lower levels of church attendance...
+22 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:21
Family values maybe, but very few Europeans and Japanese attend church. Guns are not nearly as readily accessible as in the US, and people are raised with different values than here.
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-22 07:55
KittatinyHawk: Agreed and even different moral values, which includes respect for their elders!

Our people are still enthralled with the likes of "A Clock work Orange"!
+3 # Glen 2012-07-22 06:37
Yes, they do, but is killing, and confused, unhappy children a part of their culture? The U.S. has an amazing mix of people with many different problems. The media of all types shoves technology at them, right along with violence. Parents have given in to it and are allowing technology and "entertainment" raise their children - that or they are neglecting or abusing the children.

You are too much caught up in the gun thing, which I understand completely, to see beyond the tool at the real problems. The issue is the same with schools in which kids arrive hungry, tired, overloaded with crap in their heads from movies and computers, and then those problems get blamed on the schools and teachers, rather than local society and parenting, or lack thereof.

NONE of us want to witness killings and do want the guns under control, but there are larger issues. As I say, if someone wants to kill, they will find a way even if every gun were taken from every person in the U.S. and being able to kill 50 rather 5 means nothing to those eager to kill.
-3 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-23 12:44
"As I say, if someone wants to kill, they will find a way even if every gun were taken from every person in the U.S. and being able to kill 50 rather 5 means nothing to those eager to kill."

Maybe not Glen, but it means a lot to the 45 not killed.
+21 # Observer 47 2012-07-21 21:44
REALLY excellent point, Glen. This country's obsession with violence plays right into the NRA's hands. One factor escalates the other.
+28 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:27
While a breakdown in the social contract definitely is causally related to increased violence, lack of accessibility to lethal weapons is a big part of preventing mass killings. Do you really believe that this guy Holmes could have killed 12 people and wounded 50+ more with just a sword or a Bowie knife?

He was able to buy over 6,000 rounds of ammunition without any problem. Is there any legitimate reason why a person would want to do that?
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 06:50
Yes, Texas, I know why. The guy is one of the psychotics.
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-22 08:09
Texas Aggie: Like in all countries weapons are available on the Black Market, If you want any type of weapon you will find it for the right price! Even if we were foolish enough to outlaw guns...they would be just as available but at higher prices!
+26 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:17
I am going to disagree with NRA being innocent. It took great step to have Charlton Heston be their spokesperson.
They knew exactly the game ball they were playing. Heston didn't mind at all.
However, if you look at the mind set at the time ReaGun for President and Heston promoting NRA These men would not sell out America.
For many this became bible in guns and owning them. People like being led, told what to do, after all then it is not their fault.. the blame game starts and everyone's conscience is clear.

Sorry it is everyone's fault that NRA has stepped all over America to make a Profit. That is what they do...not unlike their Corporate and Political Buddies.
+20 # Observer 47 2012-07-21 21:51
Not "everyone's" fault, KittatinyHawk. Some of us out here vehemently oppose the NRA, would never own guns, and would never vote for any politician who supported the NRA. Not fair of you to make such a sweeping generalization.
+9 # CL38 2012-07-21 23:08
Research why people are so angry and unhappy and what would change that.

It certainly isn't giving people access to assault weapons!! That way lies insanity.
+1 # John Locke 2012-07-22 08:12
People are angry because they have mostly lost their life savings, their job, and their future!
+5 # 2lilluc 2012-07-23 08:11
Definition of NRA: FEAR-MONGERING; "The use of FEAR to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end." The "FEARED" object is exaggerated and continuously reinforced. A pattern of repetition emerges and a vicious cycle is perpetuated; The NRA purports that all of the gun violence proves the need for more guns and less, even little control...and around and around it goes.
The NRA is not "offensive," "offensive" is a bad smell or a nasty waitress. The NRA is DEADLY! We are living in a Culture of Fear and the incentive to incite fear in the general public is not altruistic, it is motivated by greed and power, desire to achieve political goals, to amass more wealth and finally, to control.
+58 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 12:21
Quoting Barbara K:
Too many people don't realize that the NRA is a political entity, and not needed to own guns. The NRA is there to raise money for the Republicans, ...

I believe you have the relationship reversed. The Republicans are captive to the NRA, who are there for the gun manufacturers who actually fund them.
+45 # LeeBlack 2012-07-21 13:29
You bet it is political. I happened on a TV "news" show the other day that was really a half-hour show of why Obama should not be elected because he'll take away all our guns.
+13 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:21
That has been said for three years...not likely
0 # Feral Dogz 2012-07-23 13:17
Quoting LeeBlack:
You bet it is political. I happened on a TV "news" show the other day that was really a half-hour show of why Obama should not be elected because he'll take away all our guns.

Who would the Pres. get to take away all the guns? The gun toting police, the army, maybe the peace corpse or hoards of illegal immigrants? I know, his secret army of inner city youths, led by disgruntled postal workers and Occupy protesters trained by the FBI and the CIA, backed with funding from Space Aliens. Its all so clear what his secret agenda is, once you think about it.
+24 # Gevurah 2012-07-21 17:22
Quoting Barbara K:
Too many people don't realize that the NRA is a political entity, and not needed to own guns. The NRA is there to raise money for the Republicans, and have been doing so for many years. People are gullible enough to send them hundreds of dollars of dues because they think they are making them safe. People don't need the NRA to be safe. I'll bet many of their "members" don't know where their money is going. NRA rakes in money all over the place to support the Republicans, that is why the Rs support every whim of the NRA.

Thanks, Barbara, for telling it like it is. There's also the unfortunate aspect of the male psychology which equates a gun with that part of their body which they consider most important. Some men can deal with this rationally, but most, I fear, cannot.
+11 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:24
I would not leave it at men any more. There have been shows, I would not waste my time watching where yahoo women who have to do what they are told...shooting and bragging about it.
I shoot, I own a gun...however, I am not brandishing a moron attitude. I hate guns, I hate Video Games, Violent Movies.
I hate Gangs of any type.
When we have to live in fear because we do not take the time to learn we become slaves to others lies and to our fears. No one should live like that. Believe we were supposed to out of the Dark Ages?
+69 # macrhino 2012-07-21 11:43
Quoting ronnewmexico:
Assault weaponry have no place in do extended capacity clips..but

the flip side of this is invariably on this thread will come response stating....all guns everywhere must be disallowed...which is unrealistic considering some rural environments and professions(cattle or sheep ranching for instance)....

Absolute nonsense. There is almost no one in the pro gun control community who is for a total ban on weapon ownership. It is almost unknown. I notice that no one in the comments are calling for total gun bans. This is a red herring and detracts from the real argument.

I grew up in the back woods. The rural argument is silly, again only the US has rural communities?

The problem is simply the easy access to guns. PERIOD.
-51 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:08
I don't know what you are talking about, "easy access of guns." I own three pistols and I had to go through gun courses, get finger printed in every state I have lived in, had to register them and pay fee after fee for them... You make it sound like you can pick guns off of trees. Nonsense!
+44 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-21 12:31
That's only because you chose to obey the law.

Many gun owners don't.
+50 # DHa7763100 2012-07-21 12:52
Well you can go to Arizona and buy any type of gun you want...walk out the door and sell it to somebody in the parking lot. That's were all this fast and furious crap come from. Arizona Prosecutors will not prosecute someone for selling guns to the cartel because it is LEGAL. An 18 yr old can buy 200 assult rifles, and because he owns them, he is FREE to sell to whomever he wants to without prosecution,
0 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 14:53
No, I live in AZ. The laws aren't quite that loose. There's one swap meet in Sierra Vista where guns are more or less freely traded. I bought a shotgun (not an assault weapon) at a Tucson Gun show and had paperwork to fill out and the vendor phoned it into the FBI
-2 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:24
Private sales in Arizona are legal. It is NOT legal, even in Arizona, to sell to known felons or prohibited persons, or to transport guns into Mexico for sale. Not legal to sell to Cartels!
0 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 21:59
Simply not true. Do a little research before spouting that stuff, please. Makes you look biased and frankly, not that smart.
-18 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:40
Brooklyn Girl Do you think criminals follow and obey the law, or do you think they buy guns on the black market or steal them?
+29 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:16
Do you think they have no criminals in the U.K.? Why don't they have as many murders as we do per capita? Or even close? Are all the bad guys concentrated in the U.S.? Ever been to Europe?
-23 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:30
Billy Bob: Good question lets look at the comparative populations The UK 62,000,000 The US 300,000,000 do you see any difference? Let me know and if you don't I will try it another way!
+15 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:20
300 divided by 62 = 4.83870967742.

550 times 4.83870967742 = 2,661

2,661 is considerably less than 9,000.

Do you agree?
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:38
With numbers but not with Socioeconomics...
lets all get on the same page Moyer through all issues of deaths from guns into the same barrel, when you are talking about guns like any method of killing you have to break it down between Homocide and suicide and accident...

Moyer has not done that he has presented false statistics because he presented a dishonest picture. If we are to talk abour accidental deaths we need to break them down to by Car, by medical malpractice by guns, by poisioning, and drowning. otherwise the statistics are really false and portrayed as propaganda...

98,000 deaths a year are caused by medical malpractice... so doctors cause more deaths per capita then guns...

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes. Cars kill even more people then guns...perhaps we need to take a look at ending car ownership?

o you get the idea yet?

Read more:
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 23:00
I've noticed that you consistently call him "Moyer". It's "Moyers" with an "s" at the end. I know it's a detail, but you see when we read statistics we need to be detail-oriented observers. Clearly you aren't.

By your own logic, cars are more fatal than medical malpractice. Does that mean we should do nothing about malpractice? While we're at it, Cancer is a lot more fatal than car crashes. Does that mean we should make seat belts illegal because they infringe on our freedom?

Do you get the idea yet?
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 23:03
I've also noticed that, as this back-and-forth goes on between us, you keep moving the goal posts, so to speak. When one of your statistics or arguments falls flat on its face, you immediately pretend it wasn't what you were really getting at.

So, you've finally given up on calling MoyerS a fraud for quoting accurate statistics? Good! That's progress!

Now, I'm not sure how the rate of medical malpractice means we should turn a blind eye to the gun problem.
+9 # freelyb 2012-07-21 20:08
I think you missed the part where Billy Bob's figures indicated per capita murders.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:36
Did he miss it on purpose?
+9 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:32
Took the words right out of my mouth, you did.
-14 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:40
For our population of over 300,000,000 people 9K is not a pendemic! it is to many but there are other ways people kill and without guns! I gave those statistics here already!
+19 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:56
If you don't think 31,000 gun related deaths, 70,000 gun related non-fatal injuries, and 300,000 gun related assaults every year isn't anything to worry about, why do you feel the need to carry a gun? Obviously, you aren't worried about protecting yourself against such a minor problem, right?
+7 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:27
Quoting John Locke:
Billy Bob: Good question lets look at the comparative populations The UK 62,000,000 The US 300,000,000 do you see any difference? Let me know and if you don't I will try it another way!

Here let see if you can tell the difference?

UK (1.2 gun homicides per 100,000)
Germany (0.3 gun homicides per 100,000),
Holland (0.3 gun homicides per 100,000),
Denmark (0.22 gun homicides per 100,000)
Hong Kong (
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:39
Just curious, what are the overall homicide rates, per 100,000 people, in each of those countries? As opposed to just gun homicides?
+44 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 18:30
Are you implying that since criminals don't obey the law that we should just close our eyes and let them have an easier time getting guns? That would make it easier for the insane, emotionally disturbed, street gangs, felons, career criminals, terrorists or wife beaters also getting guns easily.

I find it disturbing that in the past decade not one person has been killed or injured in America by a terrorist attack coming from outside the nation but we have virtually destroyed our rights and freedoms guarding against such events. On the other hand, in the same decade, hundreds of thousands of Americans have been blown away by out-of-control guns in the hands of those cited above and we want to do nothing about that.

I also find it interesting that when it comes to voting, the right has no problem making eligible citizens jump through hoops to get a picture ID card even if they have to travel a hundred miles away (regardless of their physical condition) and pay a not-inexpensive fee, but they want nothing in the way of getting a gun. Voting only involves a "minor inconvenience" but any evidence you would be a responsible gun owner is a "total destruction" of our freedom.
+18 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 19:29

Thank you for joining the thread!
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:44
This kid and many who have killed in these past year were not criminals until something went off.

None of you have even brought up the biggest weapon we hand our kids...Video Games....what is your kids playing with today.
How about telling our kids how great it is to serve our Country. We teach them that Killing is Wrong, against God's Rules then we send them to the Military... Look at who the Morons are now...
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:35
As I said earlier, they have video games in Japan and Europe. Why don't they have the gun related murders?
+8 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:33
Very, very well put. Good on you.
-4 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:36
So should we restrict the rights and freedoms of law abiding americans even more for fear of domestic crime? Extra laws won't help.

felons and career criminals, street gang members, people adjudicated mentally unfit or diagnosed as mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, are already barred from weapon ownership. Those people cannot purchase weapons legally. The FBI maintains a database of such individuals and every gun dealer must consult it before selling a gun. The buyer must present picture ID and fill out an application listing prior addresses, date and city of birth, and social security number, for purposes of conducting the check. That's just the federal requirement. Most states - even most southern states - have additional state requirements. In my state, to buy a handgun, you have to go to the sheriff's office, fill out an application similar to the NICS questionnaire, and wait a week for the sheriff's office to conduct a background investigation. After a week, you can pick it up, go to the gun store or gun show, present the permit to them, then go through the FBI NICS check and if you pass that, then they can accept your money and give you the firearm. You must go throug both processes for each gun you buy sheriff's office, wait a week, gun store, FBI background check. It's not a super convenient process.
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:40
again people get facts straight if you want a weapon You can make one. Duh

Auctions are great way to bypass with shotguns It is Gangs who deal a lot in weapons, so does the Military. Who better than Military to get their hands on weapons? There was a lot of WWII who had was scary to think about it but I would guess lots of Army Navy of the fifties and sixties had arsenals of weapons.

Theft, Pawnshops...I may not always agree with Mr Locke but really you realize how many weapons have been confiscated and put back on market. Grow up people the fact of those weapons they know of is probably tripled for how many are actually owned Adults are probably majority but kids...they got guns. Men...women are catching up. Start some real reading if you want facts on Weapons. A bottle of Whiskey is a not need bullets to do damage or kill people.
+3 # QNetter 2012-07-21 21:52
In this case, all of the guns and ammo were bought legally, so...
+2 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 15:04
Most gun owners ARE law abiding, even those in Sheepshead Bay
-6 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:22
How will additional laws stop people who already choose to disobey the law? Better enforcement, better targeted investigations, better interdiction of suspicious gun buyers might work to keep guns out of criminal hands. But an extra layer of legal red tape put in front of the law abiding person, won't.
-2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 21:58
Many gun owners don't. And where exactly does this little pearl of wisdom come from...late night tv?? Geez and you apparently have thirty nine others who choose to believe this mess!
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:37
Why do you need three of them?
-25 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:43
Billy Bob: Why would you believe he shouldn't have three if he chooses to?

What right is it of yours to dictate how many weapons he chooses to own?
+26 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:15
Why does he need more than he can possibly use to defend himself? Why shouldn't he own several hundred? Why not a bazooka? Why not a tank? Are there ANY limits?

I'm beginning to see that the fact you're not voting for Obama in November was NEVER because he's "not progressive enough" for you as you previously pretended. Your comments against liberals on this very thread are proof of that. You had an agenda all along. I was wrong not to call your bluff on it sooner.
+17 # Majikman 2012-07-21 20:28
Agree wholeheartedly, Billy Bob.
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:52
I am not stepping in for JL but I have more than one gun. I do not use. I won one, My spouse bought me one for Hunting, I had bought one for protection for business.

I shoot with Cameras. But I have lots of weapons. I have fertilizer in spring for gardening. I have flour, sugar. I have had paint thinners, stains. These are all dangerous. I own knives, I have vehicle also weapon.

Difference it seems is I have not gone off point yet. I hope I never do. I have reasoning. I have hope that we will put down our need to kill.

I do not understand why this child lost his balance and jumped. But we are losing our children .... I believe most of it is because we allow children to be on Computers and Video Games because we are too busy. We are creating monsters and blaming everyone else.

NRA is a large problem but who allowed them to become the Problem. We did.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:34
I agree.
+13 # Observer 47 2012-07-21 22:01
Again, Kittatiny, unless you're using the royal "we," leave me out of it! I didn't "let" the NRA become anything.
+14 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:38
Another difference is that, except for the guns, all the "dangerous" items you own have perfectly legitimate, nonlethal uses. The only thing you own designed for the purpose of killing people are the guns. And the only items you use that can kill people in large numbers even when being used lethally are the guns. You don't own enough fertilizer to blow up a building. You can't find enough people lined up to run over many of them with a car.
-8 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:44
There are plenty of legitimate uses for guns as well. Self defense is a legitimate use, as is hunting, target shooting, pest control, etc.
It's quite possible to burn buildings down with lot's of people inside them, or use your car on a highway in such a manner as to cause multiple fatalities.
-2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:10
Aggie, you're wrong on all counts. I'm a twenty one year fireman and I've been to Homeland Security courses, Hazmat courses, you name it I've taken it. A couple of hundred pounds ( not a large amount by any means ) of ANFO and you can bring down a house, blow a car into little pieces, etc. A couple of years ago we had a Muslim student at Dook or Carolina ( can't remember which now ) that drove his car into the quad and messed up a pretty good number of kids.
+1 # Glen 2012-07-22 08:07
Kittany, I'm jumping in here to support your assertion concerning weapons. Vehicles ARE weapons and have been used as such. When first in the state where I live, a bicycle tour rode through the neighboring state. Some guy in a pick-up truck passed them, turned around and ran over about half of them, killing maybe 15 - don't remember. That type of killing rarely gets analyzed in the news, therefore folks don't consider alternative types of weapons and killing.

A knife/broken glass fight broke out in a rural bar and 10 people died outright or bled to death on the way to the hospital. Did not make national news.

Those who are compelled to kill will find a way. And yes, kids are becoming more and more immune to human contact and reality, for a number of reasons. Brainwashing exists, and many adults don't see it.

Guns are out there but few have offered a means of getting them under control and out of the hands of demented individuals. It's pretty much too late. The U.S. is the biggest gun dealer on the planet.
-8 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:06
Billy Bob, Three guns? Really? The guy must be on a set income 'cause I've got a group more than that. You want to know why? Because I'm a collector and maybe you don't realize that among the shooters there are different guns for different purposes. You wouldn't use a hammer when you needed a crowbar, now would you? And actually in this country we buy things because we WANT them not necessarily because we NEED them. One of the great things about the United States, isn't it? Oh, and Billy Bob, I won't be voting for the no-job producing, anti-business, anti-America, never held a job in his life, Liar in Chief either! Maybe we need all those guns to steal back the FIVE TRILLION bucks that Obama has stolen from us. I find it funny that Liberals are hollering about how Romney spends HIS MONEY and not hollering about how Obama spends OUR MONEY!!!!
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:32
The States that allow guns to be bought like candy are the same states that are Red. Texas, Arizona, all the souther coast to Florida have no trouble with a child buying a gun.
NE USA have laws I do not know all the others but not every state allows gun sales like candy so why thumb down????

Now internet sales I am not familiar with but the companies are supposed to follow the law. If they do not then it is time to Audit gun and ammo sales.

But do research States first before thumbing down someone. By the way, weapons of any sort have always thru centuries been easy to get or to make. Doesnot take a genius to make a gun or a knife. And you can look on any computer to find out how to make bombs, ammunition why the Homeland Security isn't doing their job....ask them.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 00:29
Quoting KittatinyHawk:
The States that allow guns to be bought like candy are the same states that are Red. Texas, Arizona, all the souther coast to Florida have no trouble with a child buying a gun.
NE USA have laws I do not know all the others but not every state allows gun sales like candy so why thumb down????

Now internet sales I am not familiar with but the companies are supposed to follow the law. If they do not then it is time to Audit gun and ammo sales.

But do research States first before thumbing down someone. By the way, weapons of any sort have always thru centuries been easy to get or to make. Doesnot take a genius to make a gun or a knife. And you can look on any computer to find out how to make bombs, ammunition why the Homeland Security isn't doing their job....ask them.

In what state may children legally buy guns? Where are dealers allowed to sell guns to people under 18?

Federal law prohibits dealers from selling rifles or shotguns to anyone under 18, and prohibits dealers and private sellers from selling handguns to anyone under 21. This applies to all 50 states, and supercedes state law.

Florida sets the minimum age at 18 for anyone to purchase any firearm, from anybody.

Texas sets the minimum age at 18.

Arizona sets the minimum age at 18.

Those are the three states you mention, none allow the sale of guns to minors. Which states do?
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 00:32
"Now internet sales I am not familiar with but the companies are supposed to follow the law. If they do not then it is time to Audit gun and ammo sales."

When purchasing a gun through the internet, in all 50 states, the gun cannot be delivered to the purchaser. It must instead be shipped to a licensed gun dealer in the purchaser's state of residence. Once the gun arrives at the dealer's facility, the purchaser goes to the dealer and conducts the transaction as he would any other transaction at that dealer's store. Same background checks, same application, same check to see if the purchaser is prohibited, as any other purchase.
+10 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:30
Read the story. Most states have very little or no control on gun ownership, not even on concealed weapons. You just picked the wrong states to live in. Here in TX there isn't even a background check if you buy from a "private" seller, who just happens to have several gross assault rifles for sale.
+5 # JTHinSD 2012-07-21 12:37
So, what, exactly, is "easy" access to guns? Do you have one? Have you gone through the steps to legally procure one?
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:27
Rural people are still seeming to be brandished as the redneck morons.
A___Holes live everywhere. I see more gangs and violence in Towns and Cities but unfortunately with the rise in Trailer Parks and Campgrounds, do to Economy the nomadic tribe has the ability to travel and take their racism with them.
+3 # CL38 2012-07-21 23:11
and access to assault weapons.
-2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 21:56
Easy access to guns. Where do you get this tripe?? Have you never gone to a gun shop and asked what it takes to buy one? Do a little bit of research please before saying something so absolutely untrue!
-38 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:01
You don't take into account home invasions everywhere, especially for a certain class of people, the elderly. You have no idea what it is like to be old and at the mercy of every wiseacre sociopath that is running around with the blessings of the police. I favor the "Castle Law" and weapons are what makes the difference between having enough security in the house at night to sleep and NEVER being able to sleep knowing that your neighborhood home invader lives only a few streets down.
+39 # Brooklyn Girl 2012-07-21 12:32
Locks and window alarms work just fine.

Personally, I wouldn't trust an elderly person with a gun. I'm 62 and I can't see clearly without my glasses.
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:46
Brooklyn Girl
"Locks and window alarms work just fine".
I hope your windows are thick and shatterproof... Police state that Locks are to keep the honest people out...but not the for an alarm a break in with an armed intruder would kill you before the police arrived!
+33 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:12
How likely are you to get your gun out of the child safe gun cabinet and load it while startled in the middle of the night before you're shot dead? You're 4.5 times MORE likely to die from gun violence if you own a gun than if you don't. This statistic takes the neighborhood you live in, your socio-economic status into account.
-15 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:38
Billy Bob: Two points here, 1. no children...and two you forget I live in Utah...Neighboo rs all look out for each other and everyone here is fully armed...guns loaded and ready but gladly there is no crime here...maybe as I said before, everyone has weapons and the children are taught to use a gun before they reach their teens! I have been out shot in target shooting by a nine year old!
+16 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:38
Once again, you don't need the gun for self-defense by your own account. I know about everyone using a gun. I did too in rural Nebraska. Then again in suburban Michigan. In fact, I've lived all over and I've never lived anywhere where guns weren't everywhere.

There either everywhere because "it's so safe".

Or they're everywhere "because it's so dangerous".

Either way, they're everywhere because they're everywhere.

It's self-perpetuati ng and circular, like your logic.
+10 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:29
Quoting John Locke:
Billy Bob: Two points here, 1. no children...and two you forget I live in Utah...Neighboors all look out for each other and everyone here is fully armed...guns loaded and ready but gladly there is no crime here...maybe as I said before, everyone has weapons and the children are taught to use a gun before they reach their teens! I have been out shot in target shooting by a nine year old!

"Gladly there is no crime here." Really????

Really Utah (9.7 gun deaths per 100,000) How does that work?
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:46
Where is your statistice? Here is the real number...

In 2009, it was reported that 260 Utahns died from gun deaths, compared to 256 killed in motor vehicle accidents, according to the news release.

But while fatal accidents in Utah have been decreasing — there were 322 in 2007, and 306 in 2008 — the number of gun deaths have not followed any trend.

There were 253 gun deaths in 2007, and 238 in 2008.

According to CDCP data, 217 of the 2009 firearm deaths — more than 80 percent — were classified as suicides....!!!

John Malouf, a psychologist from Valley Mental Health, said guns are the most common method used in completed suicides, while pills account for the most attempted suicides.
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:51
So, by your own statistics, suicides could be prevented if guns were not readily available. PIlls are usually only used "to attempt" suicide. I don't know how many skyscrapers are in Utah, but I'm guessing that may not be a viable option either. Really, a gun is always your best bet.

Are you ok with the idea that some of us think suicide is bad too?
0 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:14
BB...ask any Fire/Rescue dude how many people are killed by their own hand. We go to them all the time. If I were going to commit suicide it would be with a gun.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 00:34
Plenty of people manage to use weapons legally in defense of their homes. It is possible, it gets done a lot.
+12 # freelyb 2012-07-21 20:14

Do you have any reliable statistics on how often gun owners have been able to successfully dissuade a potentially dangerous situation? If so, then compare those statistics with the rate of accidents resulting in deaths and serious injuries from mishaps in gun-owning households. And get back to us, if you would, on what you find out.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:48
I gave statistice about the number of shots fired in self defense that number is several million annually...
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:49
What freelyb was probably asking for was a reliable link. It's pretty hard to prove, but your estimate has been widely questioned by people other than me. The estimates are all over the map however. The ones based on actual studies are MUCH MUCH MUCH less than yours.
0 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:16
BB...the Clinton administration admitted that 1.5 million times a year guns are used for self defense. It was part of a Justice Department study called "Guns in America" done by notably anti-gun researchers. Look it up. Easy to find.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:07
He won't. If he does, he'll misread the statistics or cherry pick ones from a gun-nut web site.
-1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:57
Amen Even trained Dog cannot protect your home.

Heck I wonder what the people in other Countries felt like when the cops came and shot them because dispatch had the wrong address.
+16 # BlueReview 2012-07-21 15:35
I agree, locks and window alarms. Although I read of one case where an elderly wheelchair-boun d woman defended herself excellently well with only a screwdriver . . .
+13 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:23
It's easier to load a screwdriver and you don't need to get it out of the locked gun cabinet. There's also little change it will go off by accident.
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 21:01
Nail Gun...quick and not ready for it can kill instantly or leave one quite out of it.. Know which side of head/brain to aim for. The battery operated ones are good just keep the battery charged.

But that is fine if it like the gun is near you. Other wise stay calm, or pretend you are sleeping.
-1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:55
No they don't neither do Cameras Someone needs their drugs or alcohol, they are going to come to the easiest mark. If they find a gun, they will 7 out of ten times use it. Even if they never meant to...Psychologi cal Profiles prove this fact.

I have a dog...People robbed have had their dogs beaten or killed. I know for a fact.
+36 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:37
Statistically, you're more likely to kill yourself with your own weapon than you are likely to use it in self-defense.
-31 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:48
Billy Bob: Come on we are not making up our own statistics here...that was pure fantasy! not even a good attempt at humor
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:10
Actually, I provided a link below.
+15 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:30
Gun Defensive uses

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homici des. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:31
-2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:18
Simply NOT TRUE, BB, I don't know where you get this tripe or why you keep shouting it out when it simply is NOT TRUE. Now either do a little research beyond the Brady Gang or admit that you don't care that it's not true, therefore a "LIE".
+10 # sig11440 2012-07-21 19:09
Quoting WestWinds:
You don't take into account home invasions everywhere, especially for a certain class of people, the elderly. You have no idea what it is like to be old and at the mercy of every wiseacre sociopath that is running around with the blessings of the police. I favor the "Castle Law" and weapons are what makes the difference between having enough security in the house at night to sleep and NEVER being able to sleep knowing that your neighborhood home invader lives only a few streets down.

The vast majority of those advocating stronger gun controls do NOT seek to remove guns from homes of people who wish to defend their "castle." But assault weapons with 30 or 50 or more rounds are not needed or even suitable for that purpose, and anyone with that need should be (and is) able to obtain the required permit and keep the gun at home. Yours is simply not an argument against legitimate limitations on gun purchases by unstable people, terrorists, etc.
+29 # HowardMH 2012-07-21 12:37
Obama the Wimp would not renew the Assault Weapons law. Who – Who – Who needs a magazine that holds 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells? It is the Idiots, Terrorists, Stupid People, Republicans, and the NRA who is making Millions from the stupid people. The NRA has bought all the Republicans and most of the Cowardly Democrats. It is not about having guns, and the 2nd amendment, it is all about the large magazines.
The NRA has done a fantastic job of scaring the Stupid People that their 2nd Amendment Rights are being taken away just because they can’t have magazines with 20, 30, 50 or 100 shells.
+23 # DHa7763100 2012-07-21 12:55
Isn't that something that has to go through Congress?
And I agree that the NRA are FEAR MONGERS.
+21 # kelly 2012-07-21 14:25
Renewal of that ban came up in 2004 under Bush and was allowed to lapse. Clinton was the last President to actually stand up to the NRA with the Brady Law.
-23 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 14:55
I don't own a weapon with a 20+ round clip but I might buy one sometime. It's not out of fear. It's just a toy, really, and it's fun to blast away out here in the desert.
+15 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:39
The guy in Colorado was just having fun too, wasn't he?
-4 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:18
I'm not responsible for all of the innocent women and children that the US military killed or maimed in Iraq, any more than I, as a gun owner, am responsibe for whatever crimes are committed by others who have a gun
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:30
Sorry, but the guy in Colorado was just havin' fun. It's a fact you don't want to deal with but it's still a fact.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 13:02
Nope. Target shooting and mass murder are not the same activity, nor do they reflect similar mentalities.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 13:01
No, the guy in colorado was committing mass murder. It's shameful to equate ramblinjim's legal recreation with Holmes' multiple felonies. They are not the same activity.
+4 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 21:04
Same mentality killers had.
+6 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 22:45
Because you enjoy blasting away with a 20+ clip, 12 people should die and 50+ be injured. That's sick.

I knew a woman who got upset because the cops were constantly ticketing her for speeding. She felt she had the right to drive as fast as she wanted.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 13:03
Target shooters are not responsible for the actions of killers.
+2 # ABen 2012-07-24 04:56
In AZ, we just had a wild fire that burned for three weeks because some gun nut just wanted to have some fun blasting away in the desert.
+21 # BlueReview 2012-07-21 15:00
HowardMH, I agree with what you say about the NRA, and definitely about the magazines holding multiple shells, but there are two reasons why I didn't give you a "thumbs up":

1. Quit blaming Obama. Even I know that the ban on assault weapons expired in 2004, during the Bush administration, so he’s equally guilty in my opinion. I seem to remember hearing Bush saying he supported extending the ban, then let it expire anyway.

2. I notice you wrote, "the NRA has bought all the Republicans and most of the Cowardly Democrats." Are you saying that the Republicans are more noble, for having allowed themselves to have been bought? Or the Democrats who didn't allow themselves to be bought are cowardly? Or are all Democrats cowardly, whether or not they've been bought? Please clarify.
+6 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 21:03
It is sooooo true the bs before elections in local gun clubs, sports clubs, and bars is always the scare tactic by the Rethugs I laugh at them as I have heard it for 64 years....
-44 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:33
ronnewmexico: Do your own research... Bill Moyers is a fool and has provided phony statistics his article is liberal propaganda!

Last year there were just over 8,000 deaths by guns and 1800 by a knife combined they are no where even close to what this appologist for the liberal movent has claimed, his false propaganda has just discredited him as a truth teller!!!

We need less of these fools and more intellectual arguments!
+24 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:08
Cite your source please.
-22 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:42
Billy Bob I have try reading my posts... or search Gunshot deaths in the US...the real number is just over 9K not any where near this phony Moyers numbers!
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:35
Gun shot deaths is 30,000. Intentional murders is 9,000. Suicides is 17,000. Accidents acount for 5,000.

It's not that complicated.
-14 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:14
Billy...Cite your source I have cited mine...Deaths by gunshot are just over 9K
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:28
Make up your mind. You said yourself that the gun related suicide rate was 17,000. Instead of not reading the sources I've quoted, why not ACTUALLY read one of your own!
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-22 08:39
We are referring to Homicides Only!!!
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:29
By the way, you claim you already read my sources. If you still can't comprehend what they're saying it's not my fault. No "Second Amendment remedy" will help with your reading comprehension.
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:52
This is the homocide tally...
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:21
Right. And the total number of gun deaths is over 31,000.

And the number of gun related injuries is over 70,000.

And, the number of gun related assaults is over 300,000.

Moyers was right. You were wrong.
-2 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:23
Moyers is totatlly uneducated on the gun issue and by quoting him as the GOSPEL so are you.
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:52
Lets talk apples to apples and not apples to pears...homicid es with Guns, or Suicides by all sources or negligence from all sources not lump gun deaths together to present a false picture!
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:23
The argument isn't just about the murder rate alone. It never was and if you read the article or any of my comments you'd know that. You haven't bothered. I'm hoping that by repeating myself you'll eventually read what I'm trying to get through to you:

The TOTAL number of GUN RELATED DEATHS was 31,000.
Of those, 9,000 were murder.
The number of gun assaults was over 300,000.
The number of non-fatal injuries was over 70,000.

That's the WHOLE picture.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:39
It's not a false picture. I was perfectly clear about that. So was Moyers. It's too bad you have an agenda and only want to hear something that fits in with that agenda. The statistics don't have an agenda. They're just facts.
-1 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:22
Once again BB, simply not true. Last record I believe was under nine thousand. That is according to your Obama Administration, by the way. The only people who spout the thirty thousand line are the anti-gunners who don't give a damn about the truth, just their propaganda.
+10 # tabonsell 2012-07-21 19:00
You may also be misreading your own statistics.

Moyers said 30,000 gun deaths, the statistics you are citing are for homicides by guns; two different things.

Gunshot homicides generally run from 10,000-12,000 a year and have been down somewhat lately. Total deaths by guns have usually run more than two or three times that of homicides.
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-22 08:52
tabonsell Yes...Thank you...That has been the distinction I have been trying to get across!!! My objection was how Moyers presented the picture! There are many ways to commit suicide. people even drive over a cliff. I have been attempting to make the distinction clear! again Thank you for seeing it!
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:01

The table shows a total of 30,000 deaths from guns in 2010. That includes intentional homicides, accidents, suicides by gun, and undetermined intentions (they don't know why the person was shot).
+10 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 20:09
I am rural and I know that if someone come to rob you You are usually asleep or no where near your gun so an assault weapon is useless.
To need to shoot repeatedly means either you should not have a gun at all or you are going to intenionally kill people.

Only people I knew with clips, were racists and lied to themselves that they needed a gun.

Sad thing for the farmer is having to put his animal down. Assualt weapon is not needed, a good rifle and usually one bullet. It is nothing anyone wants to have to do.

Anyone who believes in a Creator should know that the Commandment says Thou Shalt Not Kill, their was no riders or amendments or legal clauses.
+3 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 10:57
Psychotropic drugs have been a factor in the majority of these mass murders...and the drug companies have actively surpressed the have the families because it reflects on them personally...Fo rt Hood, Columbine, Virginia, Arizona...just do a search for 'psychotropic drugs and mass murders'...for there is a ton of articles and studies making that point.

It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!
+61 # SearchingfortruthSarah 2012-07-21 11:14
But what legitimate need is there for an assault weapon the fires so many bullets that it can kill 'en masse'? Besides war?
+37 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:14
Why does the US government need six thousand nuclear bombs when two will completely destroy the planet?
Ask these bloody corporations when is enough enough?
+19 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 14:56
Agreed. The government itself has set a very poor example with respect to weapons and violence with its pointless wars and attendant killings
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:46
So what's the point? "Uncle Sam is killing innocent people so we should too"?
-13 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:19
Bill Moyer should be more concerned with Uncle Sam being an agent of death than the NRA.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:26
Instead, he decided to write an article about the NRA this week. I guess you'll have to cope. Can you?
+10 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:05
When more people die in the US from guns than in our wars, then I think that Mr. Moyers has the right idea.
+1 # squinty 2012-07-22 13:05
How many Afghans and Iraqis died in the last ten years? Is that number really lower than civilian gun fatalities in the US?
-24 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:51
Searchingfortru thSarah: Think, you can find your own answer, But I will give you a clue or two...

Multiple home invaders or to be sure you kill one who has a gun aimed at you!
+16 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:38
You're not preparing for a real world crime. You're preparing for a civil war.
-19 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:44
Billy Bob: we aren't concerned about that where I I don't live in a world of fear like so many on this posts do!
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:17
So the weapons aren't for self-defense at all, huh?
+11 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:33
Quoting John Locke:
Billy Bob: we aren't concerned about that where I I don't live in a world of fear like so many on this posts do!

Everything your have written shows that to be untrue. Your guns are specifically because you live in fear. If you did not fear you would not need guns.
+7 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:07
That's why you have all the guns. Got it. You don't live in fear.

John, you just lost any credibility you have ever had. Why not give it up and go find something else to do?
+11 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:31
Quoting John Locke:
SearchingfortruthSarah: Think, you can find your own answer, But I will give you a clue or two...

Multiple home invaders or to be sure you kill one who has a gun aimed at you!

Because he's Rambo. I am always amazed at the people who vastly over estimate their abilities with Guns. John Locke, How many people have you shot in your life?
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:21
War is what these people are proposing. You can't listen to a gun-hugger for long before you'll hear them discuss plans to use their stockpile against the U.S. Government.
-10 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:21
Many multiple gun owners do keep well armed in the event the government oversteps its bounds and encroaches on our freedoms to a significant degree beyond what they have already. Guns are the only guarantee of a true democracy
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:25
How well did that guarantee work out for David Koresh? Do you think you're better armed than he was?
+13 # Observer 47 2012-07-21 22:15
Quoting ramblinjim:
Guns are the only guarantee of a true democracy

Oh, really? And how does that work? The ones with the guns make the rules? Yeah, that sounds like democracy, all right.
+20 # SearchingfortruthSarah 2012-07-21 11:16
According to your premise "it aint the guns but those who use 'em" If those who use psychotropic drugs have such easy access, does that make easy access responsible?
-13 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 11:57
Can't argue assault weapons personally...

If those who use psychotropic drugs get so loosened emotionally that they see insanity and violence as their deal, then maybe those who use them should be more closely monitored by those who prescribe the drugs...ey?

You propose to take away a privilege/right of tens of millions while the 'drug inhibited' walk the streets?

How about a law that states that if a doctor prescribes a psychotropic, then they MUST meet with the patient once a week and monitor their behavior?
+19 # DHa7763100 2012-07-21 12:58
A background check may help isolate some of the crazies and drug users.
-12 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:57
DHa7763100: THey do back ground checks now but for police records...A criminal does not go into a gun shop and buy guns!! Tghey get them from the black market
+16 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:37
Which is pretty easy when there are so many of them available.

What do you say about a criminal who's waiting for the guns first before he commits the crimes he has in mind - like the Colorado looney?
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:46
Billy Bob We are dealing with as you say a Looney!

I am in favor of finding a way to keep guns out of their hands, but that won't stop their intent. they will find a way and buy them on the Black market...but a psychology test would be a good start!
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:34
A psychology test would be more gun control. Are you ok with that?

Also, the fact that guns are so available makes them easy to obtain by anybody legally or otherwise. This means more bad guys have guns which forces more scared people into getting more guns.

Do you see a pattern here?
-2 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:17
Billy to answer your first question Yes I would like to see some emotional testing! and

Guns will always be easy to obtain, if there is a profit to be made they will find a way to steal and sell guns...
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:24
If bazookas are illegal only criminals will carry bazookas. How many bazooka related crimes were committed last year in this country?
+6 # macrhino 2012-07-21 20:35
Quoting John Locke:
DHa7763100: THey do back ground checks now but for police records...A criminal does not go into a gun shop and buy guns!! Tghey get them from the black market

really? they don't buy from individuals needing no background checks or a gun show with no background checks? Nonsense.
-3 # squinty 2012-07-24 08:43
Individual sellers do not have access to the NICS system. This could be remedied: I bet that today there could be a "nics app" for iPhones - that wasn't possible when the system was created. It is still a felony to sell to a person you know to be disqualified, and in my state the private seller is supposed to receieve a valid purchase permit from the buyer, though this is hard to enforce.
Private sellers do come to gun shows hoping to sell or trade firearms. They could do so outside the gun show as well. There is no special exception about the gun show that removes the requirement for DEALERS to conduct a background check. I have only bought from dealers at gun shows. The process was exactly the same as buying a gun from a brick and mortar gun store. Same application, same NICS check, same purchase permit.

In several local gun shows, there was a pretty active contingent of undercover police, supposedly, looking for straw buyers and private sellers who were in violation of the law. They didn't net many, but it's true such behavior is hard to police. It's riskier to undertake at a gun show than it is at a private venue.
+6 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:18
That's silly. This Holmes guy bought his weapons legally. The guy who killed the people in Arizona bought his gun legally. The two kids at Columbine bought their guns legally. The guy in Pittsburgh who killed three cops bought his guns legally. The guy who went berserk in TX at the army base legally owned his weapon. The article mentions the al Qaedist, Adam Gadahn, who told other terrorists how easy it is to buy weapons legally. Even the FBI couldn't stop people on the watch list from buying guns.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:11
You have it backwards. The people who get so loosened emotionally that they see insanity and violence as their deal are the ones who are put on psychotropic drugs. The psychosis comes first, the drugs come second. It's when those people go off their drugs that they kill other people. Exhibit A - the guy in VA.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:58
Hard to say. Prozac and other SSRI drugs list suicidal ideation as a side effect. Similar side effects with some older tricyclics, Imipramine, etc. I always thought it was weird that a drug intended to curtail suicidal thoughts, could have h=the unintended consequence of causing them. Psych drugs are overprescribed, too often in the absence of any other therapy such as cognitive-behav ioral, or other types of counseling. Just handing out antidepressants in the absence of other therapies is a misue of those drugs IMO, but that's getting off the subject of gun control a bit.
+3 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:15
The easiest access is a stolen weapon. No fees, no classes, no registration, no limits.
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:38
And with so many weapons available, it's pretty easy to steal them.
-5 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 13:55
seems to me your search for truth is more like search for a 'topper' line.

Easy access for psychotropics is done through a prescription overseen by a qualified medical doctor. How can you attempt such a facile parry?
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 14:55
Searchingfortru thSarah Is this a serious question or are you attempting to be funny?

Maybe doctors should place people taking these drugs on a don't buy a gun list...and maybe the guns should be removed from their homes...then they will only have access to militove cocktails and the like!

Not every one on these drugs goes out and kills however those that have were on these drugs!
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 00:36
If you are diagnosed with a mental illness involving suicidal or homicidal ideation, you will be placed on a prohibited list.
+10 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:12
Finally! Someone with some common sense! The bad guys will ALWAYS get guns, and penalizing a whole country of law-abiding citizens for the disturbed acts of a few is just as INSANE! Stop going after the low hanging fruit. If you really want to stop the gun attacks, ask what is motivating it... and you'll probably find that it is the insane way the adults are running this country and the behavior coming out of the kids is just a symptom of the insane adult behavior kids have to grow up with. Stop the wars, take care of the planet, pay people livable salaries, put in good health care. When the parents stop bouncing off of walls, so will the kids!!!
+20 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:41
Do you think England has fewer bad guys than we do? Bad guys are EVERYWHERE. What makes you think we have more of them in the U.S.? With so many bad guys walking every corner of our planet why are so many of the bad guys able to commit murder in the U.S.? I would argue that it's much easier to murder someone with a gun than it is without one. It seems pretty obvious.

Unless you think England is a magical land of fairy princesses and unicorns where bad guys never tread...
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:49
Billy Bob: England is a magical land of fairy princesses and unicorns! Don't try to disillusion me!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 19:28
I won't. You hold on to your illusions.
+18 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 12:34
Quoting paulrevere:
It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!

It's the kinds of guns the people who use them are able to obtain.

Add in the fact that so many who should not be able to obtain guns can so easily evade the minimal restrictions in our laws. Why is no one ever prosecuted for providing guns to crazy people? Or for providing guns to known criminals?
+12 # DHa7763100 2012-07-21 13:02
"It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!"
That statement is too over simplified. And I am sick of hearing it.
-14 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:01
"It ain't the guns, it those who use 'em!" you keep hearing that statement because we are hopeful it will sink in and you will begin to understand it!
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:36
The same applies to weapons of mass destruction.
-5 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:50
Billy are you referring to the media and mass distraction?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:51
I don't have any nuclear weapons or Bio weapons. So you are safe!
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:16
Why not? What if someone else has them? How will you defend yourself against big government? They have them. What's to stop you from getting them as well? Isn't that part of your 2nd Amendment right?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:24
Billy Bob: Good point, I never considered that... now I want my right to own a neuclear weapon!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:22
I figured you would.
+4 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:25
So the solution is not to let people who use guns have them. Good idea! And since the people who want guns plan to use them, therefore we have a self-selection, self-identifica tion for people who shouldn't have guns. Problem solved. Don't sell guns to anyone who wants to buy one.

John, good buddy, you finally came up with a winner.
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:00
JSRaleigh: Because they don't generally buy their guns from a gun store...
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:35
In a country with so many unregulated guns, they're pretty easy to obtain, aren't they?
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:51
Billy Bob Only for a criminal, for the rest of us No!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:15
So many guns is the situation that makes it so easy for a criminal to get one. Without the guns, the criminals won't have guns.

As someone else said, if bazookas become illegal only criminals will own bazookas. How many bazooka related murders were committed in this country last year?

You made my point.
+2 # ABen 2012-07-24 05:06
Locke; you have obviously never been to a gun show in AZ.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:28
Why do you keep saying that? It's so easy to buy guns that a person would be a fool to run the risk of stealing one. Breaking into a house without being seen and finding a gun that is hidden somewhere isn't nearly as easy as walking into a gun store and buying a pistol.
-3 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-22 10:38
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Why do you keep saying that? It's so easy to buy guns that a person would be a fool to run the risk of stealing one. Breaking into a house without being seen and finding a gun that is hidden somewhere isn't nearly as easy as walking into a gun store and buying a pistol.

It's even easier to buy stolen guns. No messy background checks & the prices are usually considerably lower than what you'd have to pay a legitimate dealer.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:51
It is not easy for felons and other restricted persons to walk into a gun store and buy a weapon. Every dealer in the country is required by federal mandate to conduct an FBI NICS check before selling a gun, and most states have additional restrictions/re quirements. Guns are very popular targets for thieves because they are difficult for criminals to get legally.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:04
While you may have data, off hand all of the mass murders I can recall were by people who were not on drugs. They may have been psychotic, but they were off their meds when they killed people, like the guy in VA.
+2 # jancc 2012-07-22 08:52
Exactly, so maybe we shouldn't be letting everyone use them! If I am legally blind I can't drive. If I am 16 and not fully mature I can't go into a bar. It is time to do some serious work on our gun laws.
+21 # walthe310 2012-07-21 11:02
What would it take to get the American people to think seriously about more effective gun control? Money? Boycotts have been especially effective in the past in effecting desired changes. What if the rest of the civilized world organized a tourist boycott against one or more American states until such time as those state(s) enacted laws to make them safer from gun violence for both visitors and residents. I think that the idea is worth consideration.
0 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:22
Asking about more effective gun control is closing the door after the horses have left the barn. The questions to be asking are:
Why are kids being attracted to this? Are the video games and all of the murder they watch on TV programming their brains? Do we glorify war with marching bands, medals, parades and ribbon stickers on our cars? Do we buy our kids toy guns for play? Who is raising out kids, parents or the TV? Is this country in such a state of fear and anxiety because of the clowns in Washington that this toxic atmosphere is affecting our kids? Are the kids witnessing massive amounts of for-profit dysfunction everywhere they look? Isn't their behavior a sign of adult dysfunction? Our kids aren't growing up with peace and love, they are growing up with hostile dysfunction and you wonder why they are going on shooting rampages??? Wake up!
+21 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:43
They have video games everywhere in the world. Japan LOVES video games and ESPECIALLY the violent ones. Look at Japan's murder rate. Look at how many guns they have.
+10 # HerbR 2012-07-21 11:14
But "those who use them" must first HAVE THEM, right ? Why should that be allowed ? "Amendment two", the CLAIMED charter for that ownership has an important preface, or condition, if you will, modifying its meaning, and is therefore disallowed by the gun culture and its industrial sponsors.
Which so-called "right" of the Constitution is UNMODIFIED and constantly misread ? Is this not a case for the communities' rights to protection from harm ?
+13 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:45
That's right. The community - not the individual. Regardless of what Scalia says, the 2nd Amendment isn't a license to buy a nuclear warhead and keep it in your garage.
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:05
Billy Bob are you sure of that?
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:34
Yes. Why? do you want to put one in your garage but "big brother" is preventing you of your "God given right" to commit an act of terrorism?
+21 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 11:20
It would take throwing out the extreme points of view and working towards the middle...

throw guns at all.
throw out....all guns are OK

then go from there.
Both sides continuing to verse untenable positions only serves those extreme positions....

It is like with immigration consideration...
Say we must have completely open borders is extreme.
Saying we must have no immigration at all is extreme.

Throw out those two extremes....and start is standard negotiation procedure.
+27 # sig11440 2012-07-21 11:24
It is possible-- not necessarily likely, but possible-- that even the strictest gun control laws would not have blocked the purchase, and hence the use, of those weapons by Mr. Holmes, who would have qualified as a buyer because he had no criminal record or other factor to stop him. The point, then, is not this particular case but, as Bill Moyers makes clear, the national obsession with gun ownership that, not it all cases but in enough to be a scourge, leads to too many instances of mayhem. When, then, will the general public become sufficiently angry at the violence, and sufficiently fearful for its own safety, to demand that their elected officials stand up to the NRA's blatant propaganda and insist on sensible legislation?
+1 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 12:01
Not until the psychotropic drug users are differentiated as a 'must monitor on a short window during use' basis.

Do that research on the connection between psychotropics and mass sheds an entirely different perspective on the issue.
-5 # squinty 2012-07-21 15:11
Opinions differ as to what is "sensible."
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:33
That's what guns are for: to create "consensus".
-2 # squinty 2012-07-21 17:36
That's a creepy statement. Mao would agree. Are you saying that enough tragedies look Colorado will eventually produce a consensus about gun control? Or are you advocating that the government use force to create a "consensus" by forcibly disarming private citizens?
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:31
No. I'm saying the whole purpose of carrying a gun is to "create consensus" rather than working things out. That's why there are 300,000 gun related assaults in the U.S. a year.
-3 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:03
The only organizations I know of who routinely use guns to create social consensus are governments. I know many people who carry concealed weapons, who have never used their weapons to compel or coerce anyone. There is such a thing as responsible gun ownership.
+1 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:21
You live in a pretty nice neighborhood.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:54
Know, I have nice, responsible friends, who possess state licenses to carry concealed weapons. They are not murderers or bullies.
They would not allow themselves to be coerced by threat of violence from any non-governmenta l source, whether it's a lone criminal or organized gang.
That's WHY my neighborhood is so nice.
-5 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:38
Billy now we are up to 300,000 gun assults a year, wow how fast the numbers have increased

United States Firearm Death Profile, 2003
Number Rate*
Total Firearm Deaths 30,136
Suicides 16,907 (56.1%)
Homicides 11,920 (39.6%)
Unintentional 730 (2.4%)
Legal Intervention 347 (1.2%)
Undetermined 232 (0.8%)
*Death rate per 100,000 population.
Source: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:20
Are you having a hard time reading?

Look up the definition of assault before trying to continue this discussion.

I'm glad that you're accepting my other statistics although you still don't know what assault means. Your opinions have dramatically changed in one day. Earlier you said there were only 8,000 gun related deaths in the U.S. See! It helps to look things up!

Now, look up how many people were killed with guns in Europe and Japan last year.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:41
Billy FYI...Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:16
Did it ever occur to you that "" may have an agenda?
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:37
Speaking about making up statistics.
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:42
Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%.(4)
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:17
Be specific with the link to prove your point.
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:40
And how much did the states who don't have concealed weapons reduce their incidence of the same crimes? During the period from 1977 to 1992 and even to the present, there was a huge decrease in violent crime all over. Giuliani tried to claim that it was his policies that reduced crime in NY, but when you compared NY to places that didn't institute Giuliani's programs, you had the same results.

But you knew that, didn't you?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 20:45
Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That’s right, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc, as compared with students who were murdered by firearms during that same time period.

So its time to stop all sports activities that are killing our children!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:18
A lot of people die from cancer every year as well. What's your point? Are you suggesting that means we have no business trying to lower the murder rate?
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:46
Most people don't do sports to kill other people. You may be different. The number of kids involved in high school sports is a lot more than the number of kids involved in shooting each other, but shooting each other is only linked with trying to kill people. So if you divide the number of kids killed by guns by the number of incidents where they were shooting at each other, you get a lot higher number than if you divide the number of kids killed in football by the number of games played.

You right wingers don't do nuance, do you?
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:56
OK, so gun deaths are somehow worse than other kinds of deaths? A death doesn't matter, so long as the person killed died by some other means?
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:32
You're right though. IT IS CREEPY.
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:54
squinty: But not to what is reasonable... is it reasonable to expect all citizens to be law abiding? Is it reasonable to set yourself up to not be able to defend your family!
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:34
Opinions differ on a lot of things that are still regulated. That's what courts are for, to define "sensible."
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:32
In a sane world, someone purchasing 6,000 rounds of ammunition would attract a LOT of law enforcement attention. While he may have been able to buy them, attracting that kind of attention would have had them taken away and prevented the massacre.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 11:57
Sure. Hence the debate.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:00
I probably owned that much .22 lr at one time. I shot most of it up, at targets and varmints. I'll probably own that much again if it goes on sale. If you practice regularly, you burn through a lot of ammunition.

What does make me nervous is when somebody from outside the gun culture, who's never shot or used guns in a legitimate way before, suddenly acquires an arsenal and body armor. Why the sudden change in interest? Still doesn't make them a criminal, but maybe some scrutiny would be on order.
+15 # jmcauliff 2012-07-21 11:29
Does anyone know whether gun manufacturers, or their top officers, are significant contributors to the NRA?

Can a financial link be made between the NRA or its leaders and the Mexican cartels that arm themselves with weapons purchased in the US?

Wayne LaPierre and the people behind him may well just be true believers, but if it can be shown that there are material rewards or incentives, their credibility will be damaged.
+12 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 13:07
Quoting jmcauliff:
Does anyone know whether gun manufacturers, or their top officers, are significant contributors to the NRA?

Can a financial link be made between the NRA or its leaders and the Mexican cartels that arm themselves with weapons purchased in the US?

Wayne LaPierre and the people behind him may well just be true believers, but if it can be shown that there are material rewards or incentives, their credibility will be damaged.

The gun manufacturers are the main financial backers of NRA lobbying efforts. The NRA would be bankrupt many times over if they had to rely on membership dues for funding.

The links between the NRA/gun manufacturers and Mexican cartels are more tenuous.

Straw purchases of the guns that end up south of the border certainly fatten the bottom line for the gun manufacturers.

The NRA's successful lobbying against registration & record keeping of gun purchases, particularly the gun-show loophole, has clearly benefited straw purchasers who supply the Mexican cartels with weapons. The problem is proving intent.

All of this has been widely known for years and years, and hasn't affected the NRA's "credibility" one iota.

The NRA will tell the true believers what to think, and the NRA does not care what the rest of us think. They can rely on the true believers to refudiate any proposal that smacks of common sense.
-15 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:08
JSRaleigh: THe NRA is comprised of members who support the organization. Guns end up in mexico mainly through our own government...Bu t I guess you would rather see us unarmed and confronting a bunch of Medellan criminals at our front doors!
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:55
You made my point!
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:50
Actually you made his. As by now everyone who has followed the news knows, the reason the guns walked was because the straw buyers weren't actually breaking laws since there were no laws against what they were doing. The prosecutors refused to allow cases to be brought because there was no way they could win them.

That means that in order to prevent weapons from going into Mexico, they need to be regulated, a situation that does not now exist. The whole point of Mr. Moyers' article is that we need rational weapon regulation, the basis for which you have just provided.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:02
That isn't 100% true. By the time straw purchasers had sold/handed off guns to cartel reps, and certainly by the time the guns crossed the border into mexico, felonies - arrestable, chargeable, easily prosecutable felonies - had been committed. In addition, a gun retailer, at his discretion, may refuse any sale of he deems it suspicious or disturbing. Gun retailers embroiled in F&F repeatedly reported suspicious purchases to the ATF. The ATF could have delayed or kiboshed the sale (NICS checks are often delayed pending further investigation) and even if they didn't, the dealers could have - and wanted to - refuse sale, but were urged to complete the sale and assured that the sales were part of a sting operation. The Forbes piece is just as biased as anything Issa's office has put out, and that's saying a lot.
Guns in America are regulated. Not just anyone can legally buy a gun. They are even more heavily regulated in Mexico - Mexico has an all out ban on civilian ownership of firearms. Not exactly a land of peace and tranquility. Gun and drug prohibition work the same way: they both foster corruption, create blackmarkets, enrich and empower criminals, drive up the profits to be made from the prohibited goods, encourage violence due to the high risk/high profit associated with dealing in contraband goods, and encourage a militant, civil liberty eroding police force. Every applicable argument against drug prohibition also applies to gun prohibition.
+7 # Magret 2012-07-21 13:10
[quote name="jmcauliff"]

Can a financial link be made between the NRA or its leaders and the Mexican cartels that arm themselves with weapons purchased in the US?

Would be very informative to know if this is happening,and it most likely is. Unfortunately we are too dumb to understand how to track this to get a true picture. Fast and Furious was supposed to see if drug cartels were purchasing weapons in the U.S. -- TRUE -- American teenagers going in to gun shops and coming out with $20,000 worth of guns and turning them over to Mexican drug cartels. Well intended but stupidly thought out program that went horribly wrong.
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:10
Magret: The link is our CIA!!! Look it up its all over the net...and documented!
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:53
The article in Forbes, hardly a left wing publication, pointed out that the problem was that there were no regulations against straw buyers that could be enforced. Locke's screed to the contrary, the people involved weren't purposely letting the guns go, there was just nothing they could do legally to stop them.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 16:03
Prosecutorial irresponsibilit y. Those sales could have been held up or denied at the point of purchase - the gun dealers wanted to deny the sales, and could have done so at their own discretion, but were urged by the Phoenix ATF agents to complete the sales. The straw purchasers could have been tracked to their buyers, or to the point where the guns were trucked across the border - at which point a clear and prosecutable crime WAS committed - but this was not done. Mexican authorities could have been informed of the operation, as could ATF agents south of the border, and advised to look for the guns - but they were kept in the dark.
+8 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 14:59
The Mexican Cartels are a result of America's absurd "war on drugs" which have created violent cartels and gangs, just as prohibition of liquor in the 20's brought organized italian crime to a whole new level.
-4 # squinty 2012-07-21 17:41
Hear hear. Drug and alcohol prohibition create violent abuse and corruption, encourage and enable criminals.

So does gun prohibition. Mexico has very very strict prohibitions on civilian gun ownership.
-4 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:23
Mexico's tough gun laws virtually insure that the average Mexican citizen will eventually be murdered by criminals with guns. Makes a lot of sense.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-21 17:40
The NRA is as much an industry lobbying group as it is a pro-second amendment group.

I think the greater link between Mexican Drug cartels and the US can be made between the cartels and the state dept., via the US produced arms that we sell to the Mexican government. Things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, etc. are already hard to get - especially cheaply - in the US civilian market. But a great many are produced by US arms companies (and companies like Beretta and Fabrique Nationale under contract) and exported to Mexico. Cartels are fueled - and armed - by police and military corruption in Mexico, more than by the US civilian market.
+4 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:55
80% of the guns that are recovered in military operations in Mexico are traced back to the US. Police corruption is a major problem in Mexico, but the cartels are still get the vast majority of their weapons from US gun dealers.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:09
Untrue. Most of the guns recovered in Mexican military operations are never sent to the US for BATFE tracing. Only a small fraction are. Those that get submitted for BATFE tracing, get sent because the Mexican government has reason to believe they came from the US. Some of them are not traceable. Of the remaining guns that are traceable, roughly 80 - 90 % come from US dealers.

But that's 80 - 90 % of a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of guns seized in Mexico. There are better, cheaper sources for Cartel weaponry than straw purchasers, especially for the full-auto weapons favored by those organizations.
-60 # JTHinSD 2012-07-21 11:36
Mr. Moyers drivels on, again. In fact, I propose that Mr. Moyers, Mayor Bloomberg, Sens. Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry and their ilk, are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the deaths and injuries at the hands of madmen, be they armed with AR-15s (not an AK-type rifle, Bill) or hammers.

The fact that these folks would willingly disarm YOU, to leave YOU and YOUR FAMILY defenseless is unconscionable. A gun is a great equalizer in the battle of Good vs Evil, primarily because the Police/Military aren't there to watch your back. You, and you alone are responsible for your safety.

On Thursday, Evil won, again, because of the various efforts of the aforementioned do-gooders who'd rather see your chalk outline on the ground, next to a puddle of blood, than allow you to exercise your Natural Right to Self Defense.

Regardless of your thoughts about the NRA or Brady Campaign, if you're immorally prepared to cede your Right to Self Defense (from madmen and tyranny, for that matter), well, knock yourself out. But don't continue to deny me that Natural dare you?
+13 # sig11440 2012-07-21 11:51
Is it conceivable that greater care in the sale of weapons-- e.g., requiring background checks at gun shows as well as licensed retailers, banning sales to people on the terrorist list, and/or barring assault weapons that can fire 30 or even 100 rounds at a time-- would not deny what you call the "natural right" to self defense but just might, at some time in the future, avoid even one single incident of mayhem and perhaps save even one single life? If so, are you prepared to say that you are prepared to accept the mayhem and death of others in order to spare yourself the inconvenience of having to go through the background check before you can buy that additional weapon?
-15 # JTHinSD 2012-07-21 12:35
Not at all and that's not my argument. I've been through many background checks in this regard and am, as a Law Abiding Citizen (LACs), quite happy to argue in their favor.

Mr. Holmes passed whatever requirements were needed to purchase his guns...but the WEAPON was his warped mind, not the guns, gas, etc. He chose to use them in the manner he did against defenseless victims.

The argument to which I take exception is that of banning gun ownership or further restricting gun possession by such Citizens (of which, Mr. Holmes was one, at least until Friday). You cannot legislate Evil can only mitigate it with positive efforts to defeat it...and that means by not removing the means of self-defense from LACs, don't you agree?

It seems to me that most commentators on this site have never been at the wrong end of a weapon, be it a gun, shovel, hammer, etc. and have never had to make a decision to defend themselves against Evil. It's a very difficult decision and shouldn't be taken lightly at all! However, seventy people in that cinema had that decision made FOR them by folks who argue they should be disarmed and, by definition, victims.
+7 # sig11440 2012-07-21 13:27
You are right that, as I said, Holmes passed the requirements and would probably have been allowed to purchase those weapons. Furthermore, it is admirable that you undergo background checks when purchasing guns. However, many buyers do not; it is not required by the dealers in gun shows. As you may recall, the shooter in the VA Tech instance was definitively known to be mentally unstable, but none of the gun dealers bothered to check that out. Maybe-- just maybe-- if the first dealer had told him he'd have to be checked out for criminal background, mental stability, terrorist connections, etc., he might have been deterred from submitting the application. True, as other comments here have pointed out, he could have bought the weapons on the street, or from friends or strangers, but there is at least a chance that making the process more difficult and complicated might have averted some of that mayhem. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to require that everyone who wishes to buy a weapon be a Law Abiding Citizen, as you portray yourself, and go through the same checks that you do?
0 # squinty 2012-07-21 20:09
"it is not required by the dealers in gun shows" -- yes it is! Gun Dealers at gun shows conduct the same background checks they would run at a brick and mortar gun store.

"none of the gun dealers bothered to check that out." -- yes, they did! Cho bought his weapons at a gun store that conducted the federal NICS check, just as they were required to do. Dealers do not have a choice in the matter.

David Cho had a history of mental illness, but had NOT been adjudicated mentally unfit, committed to a mental institution or diagnosed as dangerous to himself or others. Thus he passed a background check, for the same reason Holmes did - he hadn't done anything YET that would disqualify him.
Congress passed the NICS Improvement Act - HR 2640 I think - in response to the Virginia Tech. shooting.
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-21 23:59
Your statement about gun show requirements is completely contrary to fact. Otherwise you would have to wait several days until a check is completed. You wouldn't be able to walk out of the show carrying the weapons you just purchased.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:19
A nics check takes a few minutes to conduct. In my state to buy a handgun - from anyone - you have to obtain a pistol purchase permit from your county sheriff. The sheriff conducts a background check that involves criminal history, credit, and menbtal health commitment history. The check takes one week. After a week you get the permit to buy one handgun. You must get a separate permit for each handgun you wish to buy. That's the seven day waiting period.

At the gun show, you must present the purchase permit (if buying a handgun) to the dealer, fill out the NICS form, and wait while he accesses the NICS system electronically to make sure you pass the FBI background check. If he's satisfied that your purchase permit is valid, and you pass the NICS check, then he may accept your money and give you a handgun.

Long guns are not subject to a waiting period or purchase permit, but you must still pass the FBI NICS background check to get one. The NICS check takes about 15 minutes.
Every gun show I've been to, this is the process I had to go through.

The confusion comes in because private individuals, who are not licensed dealers, do not have access to the NICS system. They are still required to obtain - and keep - a valid pistol purchase permit from every buyer to whom they sell a handgun. Gun shows sometimes serve as swap meets for private sellers.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-21 20:19
Dealers are required to run background checks at guns shows.
Weapons that can fire 30 or 100 rounds "at a time" are fully automatic weapons, they have been illegal to import or manufacture since 1986.
It is unfair and unreasonable to ban gun sales to people on the terror watch list, for the same reaosn it is unfair and unreasonable to ban them from air travel for being on the terror watch list.
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:00
Your statement about fully automatic weapons being illegal has been untrue since the ban ran out under Bush and was not renewed.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:28
Wrong. The "Firearm Owner's Protection Act," signed into law by Reagan in 1986, banned the manufacture and importation of fully automatic weapons. It is still on the books, and still in effect.
You can still buy a machine gun if it was imported or made before 1986 (grandfathered) , but you'll pay upwards of ten grand for it, and only if you can satisfy the requirements of the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1968 Gun Control Act. It's expensive and difficult to own NFA weapons, and the scrutiny and background checks are intensive.

The 1994 ban applied to semi-automatic weapons, with certain features like the ability to accept detachable magazines (which would allow for high cap mags to be inserted), heat shields, bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and pistol grips.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:11
Dealers are required to run a NICS check and comply with all state and federal law, whether in a brick and mortar store or at a gun show.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 13:17
Wrong. The "Firearms Owner Protection Act," signed by Reagan in 1986, made it illegal to make, import, own, or transfer any fully automatic weapon not registered by a 1986 cutoff date. It is still in effect. There are some full auto weapons out there, grandfathered in, but they are 26+ year old collectors items that fetch a high price, and are difficult to own thanks to the 1934 National Firearms Act.

The 1994 assault weapons ban was about SEMIautomatic weapons that had certain features dubbed "military" - the ability to accept detachable box magazines, having pistol grips, heat shields, flash hiders, or bayonet lugs, for instance.

The '94 ban did not outlaw all semiautomatic weapons, but it restricted magazine capacity and banned semiautos that had certain features dubbed scary. I never understood what was so bad a bout a pistol grip vs, straight stock rifle, or why a heat shield that kept you from scorching your hand if you touched the top pf the receiver or the barrel, were such evil features.
+4 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 12:05
I agree about the 'tyranny' needing potential for personal defense, but ANY ref to open carry and all that testosterone paranoid delusion is out of the question.

The odds of anyone being struck by lightening or hit by a golf ball are about the same as anyone being around a psychotropic drug addled mass murderer.

All this knee-jerk about being safe is just a psycho-trick to keep Americans in's just not all that relevant in the true scheme of how life unfolds.
-3 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 12:45
F.E.A.R. ='s False Evidence Appearing Real
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:37
A perfect example of F.E.A.R. is the thought that individual gun ownership will protect us from tyranny.
+23 # engelbach 2012-07-21 12:07
Even had someone else in the theatre had a gun, he would not have had time to use it.

And if someone had done so, it would have been a gun battle in a crowded movie theatre, not a scenario I'd like to imagine.

Your attributing the deaths in Aurora to gun control advocates is obscene.
-26 # JTHinSD 2012-07-21 12:23
Well, to that argument:

Perhaps someone in the audience DID have a gun, but chose NOT to use it (that's their prerogative, certainly).

If someone had a gun and did choose to engage the shooter, at least they (and other victims) would've had a chance. The alternative, and the reality, is that 12 people died because they were left defenseless by the very people sworn to protect that right...pure and simple.

Too, if the shooter had been initially deterred from his actions by laws that favored Concealed/Open Carry by law abiding citizens, we wouldn't be having this conversation would we?
+12 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:49
Actually Colorado has some of the most lax laws in the country regarding concealed weapons. Maybe the other people were aware of the statistical likelyhood that you're more likely to kill yourself with a gun accidentally than be murdered by a stranger.

Ask my cousin who was a competitive shooter and had won several trophies. Oh that's right. You CAN'T ask him. He accidentally blew his head off in his garage after he tripped. That may sound cold, but it's the honest truth. We were close and I don't think he's offended by me mentioning the truth of what happened to him.
-13 # JTHinSD 2012-07-21 13:45
Instead of "accidentally" you should use the word "negligently". There's no such thing as an "accidental" shooting/discha rge, especially of oneself. Your cousin, RIP, was negligent and failed to follow the four basic rules of gun handling. I'm sorry for your loss.
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:36
He was considered an expert. I guess NO ONE is above the possiblity of "negligence".

I'm curious why only "negligent" "irresponsible idiots" have these accidents, but when CHENEY SHOT A GUY IN THE FACE, all the gun huggers claimed it was an accident and it could have happened to anybody?

You can't have it both ways. Should Cheney have been locked up for reckless endangerment?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:23
If the individual had died Cheney although unlikely... could have been prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:55
It's actually pretty common for people to die when they're shot in the face. Are you trying to play it down?

Since his victim didn't die, he could still be charged with reckless endangerment. Unless, it was just an accident - the kind that could happen to anybody.
-3 # John Locke 2012-07-21 16:41
Billy Bob: A person is guilty of reckless endangerment when he or she recklessly engages in conduct not amounting to drive-by shooting but that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another person. Do you think Chenmey was guilty of this? Or just negligent?
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:29
Did he shoot someone in the face because he was reckless, or was it just an accident that could happen to anyone?

It's a simple question. What's your opinion?
0 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:06
Cheney was negligent. You aren't supposed to shoot your friends in the face even by accident, and Cheney broke a cardinal rule of gun safety by allowing his muzzle to point at target he was not willing to destroy.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:13
So Cheney should be in jail for reckless endangerment. Do you agree?
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:33
I think a charge or civil action should have been filed against him. But his friend chose not to file such a charge.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:05
Besides which, he was plastered to the gills according to reports from people who had seen him drinking before the incident.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 14:54
Let's be honest: criminal negligence in a hunting accident is the least of the crimes Cheney got away with!
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:32
Are you sure your cousin tripped and accidentally shot himself? Because that's a pretty dumb thing for an experienced gun owner to do. He'd have to have been walking through the garage with a round chambered, the pistol cocked, and his finger on the trigger. Might it have been a sucide? No less tragic - in fact, moreso - but more plausible.

I had a cousin killed by a chainsaw. He was working in a tree and the person belaying him lost hold of the rope and he fell. The saw cut off, but not before it clipped brachial artery as he, and it, fell to the ground.

Yet, I do not support a chainsaw ban, or blame the saw for the carelessness of it's operators.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:36
Colorado does not permit concealed carry in public venues like movie theaters, and the theater management (as was their prerogative,) banned the carrying of concealed weapons on the premises.
ot sure if a concealed weapon would have done much good in that situation, I wouldn't have tried to shoot back under such circumstances for fear of hitting other patrons, unless he got close enough for a contact shot, or within a few feet. Which he did do, according to some eyewitnesses.
+15 # carolsj 2012-07-21 13:13
If the shooter had not been able to acquire an automatic weapon, he would not have been able to shoot so many people. A six-shooter should be enough for self defense in your home. With his type of weapon he was able to kill many before anyone knew what was happening. Most of the gun ownership in this country has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia". Also, statistics show that owning a gun actually makes it more likely that someone in your house will be shot, so how is that protective?
-4 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:07
Quoting carolsj:
If the shooter had not been able to acquire an automatic weapon, he would not have been able to shoot so many people. A six-shooter should be enough for self defense in your home. With his type of weapon he was able to kill many before anyone knew what was happening. Most of the gun ownership in this country has nothing to do with a "well regulated militia". Also, statistics show that owning a gun actually makes it more likely that someone in your house will be shot, so how is that protective?

The shooter did not have an automatic weapon.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:13
A glock is a semiautomatic weapon. He had one.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:34
There is a difference between automatic and semiautomatic weapons.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:40
The risk of friendly fire from a defender is significant (a number of concealed carriers in the Gabby Giffords shooting elected not to fire for that reason)
but hardly more dangerous than the unimpeded deliberate fire of the assailant. The attacker was ALREADY sending lead into the crowd. If he focused his fire on a defender returning fire for a second or two, that's a second or two wherein he's not aiming at other victims.
-2 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:33
Well said, I totally agree!
+9 # macrhino 2012-07-21 13:01
More people are killed accidentally from gun ownership in the US than people who use guns for self defense. The police say that pulling a gun defensively increases your chance of dying.

The US is NOT the only country in the world. Are you implying that criminals run wildly through Denmark, Germany, Singapore? Absolute nonsense.

Your "argument" fails in so many ways.
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:26
macrhino: I know it's just terrible and rampent in the us with 8,000 gun related deaths a year out of 330 million people!
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:53
It's closer to 9,000 than it is to 8,000. You rounded down. Are you suggesting the murder rate in this country isn't a problem?

Why do you need a gun then?
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:11
There were 31,000 gun related deaths. Of those, 9,000 were homocides, 17,000 were suicides, and 5,000 were accidents.

You're right. IT IS RAMPANT.
-7 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-21 13:13
Quoting JTHinSD:
... drivels on, again.

... foaming at the mouth because Moyers doesn't know the difference between an AK- and an AR-.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:33
He apparently also used a Glock or was at least intending to. He brought it with him.
+8 # Phlippinout 2012-07-21 14:53
JSRaleigh, Mr Moyers is very smart and educated, i am sure he could care less about an AK or an AR. We will leave that to the big apes who have nothing else to talk about.
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:30
The semiautomatic weapon he was refering to wasn't the AR. It was the Glock. Arguing that the "AR wasn't an AK" is intentionally trying to distract the subject of the article and the conversation.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-22 12:43
The AR-15 was also a semiautomatic weapon.
Semiautomatic = one pull of the trigger sends one bullet downrange, and the next bullet loads ready for another trigger pull.

The shotgun was a pump action, that require the user to manually reload a shell by pulling back on the forearm after every shot.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:09
I think that is the exact point that JS was trying to make. He was making fun of JTH's comment about Mr. Moyers.
+10 # suzyskier 2012-07-21 15:48
[quote name="JTHinSD"] Mr. Moyers drivels on, again. In fact, I propose that Mr. Moyers, Mayor Bloomberg, Sens. Feinstein, Schumer, Kerry and their ilk, are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the deaths and injuries at the hands of madmen, be they armed with AR-15s (not an AK-type rifle, Bill) or hammers.

Seems you are implying that everyone should go around with a holster and a couple of guns at all times. Sure that's just what this country needs more death because someone has access to a gun and looses their temper and shoots the guy who insulted him. Natural Rule?? What natural rule? where is this rule written down and don't quote me the second ammendment, that has been kidnapped by the NRA.
+1 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:12
For more evidence of what you're saying, Trayvon isn't the only person who has been killed in Florida by some gun nut who "stood his ground." Another one in Houston just got 40 years because they figured that when he went over to his neighbor's and started an argument that he then recorded to prove that he was "standing his ground" when he shot her, that he was planning to kill her all the time.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-22 14:56
And SYG laws did not save either person from prosecution. The guy in Texas was convicted, it looks like Zimmerman will be as well.
+28 # lucym838 2012-07-21 11:44
Thank you as always, Bill. You express my own frustration and sadness. I wonder what kind of mass shooting it will take--we have had so many and the NRA and its supporters just double down.

Has an investigative piece ever been done on HOW the NRA established such a foothold in this country? I wonder. Has to be money, but would love to read something about that.

"Hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer," D.H Lawrence about the essence of the American soul. Don't like to think it is true. But we hurtle on, one horrible killing after another.
-16 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:36
If someone has it in mind to kill and you take away all the guns, they will only resort to rope, knives, shovels, baseball bats, etc. You, and Mr. Moyers, need to stop taking laps around the field and deal with the root of the problem. Why are people killing each other?
+11 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:31
Don't they have knives, shovels, rope and blunt objects in Europe? They have plenty of bad guys as well. The one thing they DON'T have is the enormous number of murders. Why is that?
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:34
Billy Bob:

South Africa leads the number with
31,918 homocides. The US last year with 9,369 a far cry from Myers BS Propaganda. Iceland (0) total death from guns world wide 100,693
+10 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 16:14
So you're comparing the U.S. to a 3rd world country? Why not cite the statistics from Europe?

Here's a question for you: Where do you think you'll get better treatment for a gunshot wound? In the U.S.? or in South Africa?

According to the Harvard Gazette every year more than 30,000 people are shot to death in the U.S. from murer, suicide and accidental death.


An additional 65,000 of those are shot by guns each year but don't die. In South Africa most of those additional 65,000 would die as well.

According to the CDC it's 31,000 gun deaths per year.

and 70,000 gun shot wounds that are treated without death:

Is the CDC "lying" too? Is the Harvard Gazette a rag for idiots?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 16:45
Billy Bob Be honest...Isn't the US a third world Country?
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:06
Not yet. Should we lower our expectations?

Be honest. What's your response to the fact that my statistics disproved yours?
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 16:46
I gave you the site read!
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 19:42
The problem is that you didn't bother to check it yourself. According to YOUR OWN LINK:

Japan had 47 gun murders last year. Germany had 269. The U.S. ranked THIRD!

Japan has 127 million people.
Germany has 82 million people.


Still, 9,000 DOES NOT account for the other 22,000 gun related deaths that occur in the U.S. every year, does it?!?

It doesn't account for the 70,000 gun injuries or the 300,000 gun assaults.

Bill Moyers statistics were accurate and after complaining what a fraud he was, you proceeded to PROVE that they were accurate.

+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:16
Rather than giving me thumbs down, why not disprove my statistics?
-9 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:05
Billy: I have over and over but its like talking to a wall. Either you can't understand the numbers or well you fill that in!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:04
I understand that 17,000 gun related suicides, plus 5,000 gun related accidental deaths, plus 9,000 gun related murders is 31,000. For some reason, you're unwilling to accept that math.

Just ignore the zeros, then add them later.

Here's another idea: get a calculator. Maybe it would help.

Did you look up the definition of "assault" yet?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:03
lets see who the real liers are!

we have been discussing Homocide you can't take into account suicides without including suicide from all sources...that is where your statistics fall apart! Homocides are around 9K
The number of self inflicted suicide attempts were 666000 for 2009!

All suicides
•Number of deaths: 36,909
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 12.0
•Cause of death rank: 10
Firearm suicides
•Number of deaths: 18,735
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 6.1
Suffocation suicides
•Number of deaths: 9,000
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.9
Poisoning suicides
•Number of deaths: 6,398
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 2.1

If we are going to talk about suicide lets do it correctly and not mix apples and pears!!!
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:02
So, by your own statistics, the number of gun related deaths is well over 30,000. I guess you were wrong to dispute it.

One question. Did you bother to read your own statistics on this comment or did you just copy and paste them and assume it proved your point?

You also left out gun related accidental deaths which is over 5,000, gun related non-fatal injuries which is over 70,000 and total gun assaults which is over 300,000.

Did you look up the definition of "assault" yet?
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:27
Bud, suicides by gun are much more often fatal than suicides by lesser means, which means that there isn't any chance to reconsider afterwards. So your contention that we have to count all means is ridiculous.

Furthermore, Mr. Moyers explicitly stated that "Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S. " The CDC statistics that you were quoting confirmed Mr. Moyers' statement. Unlike you, he never made any statement that the number of deaths were only homicides. And your statement that "we have been discussing Homocide (sic)" is false. We have been discussing deaths by firearms. But you knew that, I'm sure.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:16
Tell you what. I'll take a Glock and you take your choice of a rope, a knife, a shovel, or a baseball bat, and we'll see who walks away. Does that maybe show you the difference? Do you really think that Holmes could have killed 12 people and wounded 58 with any of the weapons you just listed? Do you realize how dumb that argument is?
+2 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-22 10:49
Quoting WestWinds:
If someone has it in mind to kill and you take away all the guns, they will only resort to rope, knives, shovels, baseball bats, etc. You, and Mr. Moyers, need to stop taking laps around the field and deal with the root of the problem. Why are people killing each other?

It is however, significantly more difficult to kill a dozen people at a time (or to wound an additional 50+) with "rope, knives, shovels, baseball bats, etc."
0 # WestWinds 2012-07-27 05:00
My comment has netted a minus 16 so far. It only goes to show how un-reality based this country has become. You think this country is the American Dream running in your heads, but it's the Wild West all over again.
+16 # macrhino 2012-07-21 11:48
The "Psychotropic drugs" comment from paulrevere is even more nonsense. This is called "all the world is the US" argument. There are places with much easier access to Psychotropic drugs that do not have nearly the number of shootings of this type (Holland, Germany, Denmark). This is not to say it is unknown but it is very rare.

The it ain't the guns "argument" is a good indication of why we have these problems.

The logic error expressed here is better stated, “the inanimate object is not a significant part of the equation.” This is the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument.

This argument is over-simplistic . The "human factor" in this "equation" is a constant, not a variable. If we want to change the outcome of the "equation" we have to change the variables.

Here is a thought experiment. Imagine 2 separate groups of ten men each. These groups both have an equal desire (human factor) to clear a large forest that is situated next to their respective villages. But only one group has access to chainsaws or power saws. The other group only has knives. Which group (of equal motivation) will be more successful at clearing the forest? CHAINSAWS DON'T CLEAR FORESTS, PEOPLE CLEAR FORESTS.

Guns are power tools for killing. They are enablers. The argument is, "How do we severely reduce killings?" One very effective way is to reduce access to these power tools for killing.
+10 # WestWinds 2012-07-21 12:42
How do we reduce the killings? How about we stop being a war centered society? How about we stop glorifying war? How about we stop all the violence on the TV and in kids' cartoons? How about parents teach their kids to be conscientious objectors instead of war heroes? The society is toxic. Change the focus of the society and you will get different people. As long as America is being an imperialistic monster in the world, we are going to have problems because the fundamental thinking is hostile toward others coupled with a complete lack of respect for others, their rights and/or their property. The whole gun issue is only the tip of the iceberg.
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 10:34
Thank you WestWinds. You are correct. America is what it has always been. Violence goes way back, but yes, we are losing kids in that world and they will not have the commonsense to stand against the violence, or will participate personally, one way or another.

The U.S. is raising kids to enter the military as well as become psychotic.
+17 # noitall 2012-07-21 11:54
We are all aware of the domestic assault weapon vs shotguns, 22s, and other 'vermin'-type rurally used guns. Those pushing for the machine gun, 50 cal. sniper rifles, etc. do so because they're available, macho, and big kid toys. They are encouraged and politically lobbied for by the manufacturers who will never have enough wars to suit their taste for 'production' and profit. They rally for war; they're the ones pushing to "take down" Iran "for our safety" and the people gobble it up. Domestic guns are killing people but so are all these wars that we are bullied into by the oil/weapons manufacturers lobbys. You can bet that they have many politicians in their pocket and the life we are living today is due to their HUGE efforts to keep this never ending war never ending. Domestic handguns and GUNS are icing on the cake (keep them manufacturing when we are inbetween wars).
-25 # jimattrell 2012-07-21 12:11
Hitler had it right .... If the population keeps their guns they are in control ..... Take away their guns and the Government is in control!
+9 # macrhino 2012-07-21 13:15
Quoting jimattrell:
Hitler had it right .... If the population keeps their guns they are in control ..... Take away their guns and the Government is in control!

Hitler did not institute gun control.
0 # spritzler 2012-07-21 15:57
Wrong. Hitler seized the arms caches of the Socialist and Communist parties. They should have used them to overthrow Hitler when they had the chance. The rank and file members of those parties wanted to do that. The leaders did not (reflecting serious problems with their wrongheaded Marxist theory, by the way.) What a shame.
-3 # John Locke 2012-07-21 16:52
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerk e.

Try again! Read "Gun Control" Gateway to tyranny The Nazi Weapons law March 18, 1938 then correct your comment!
-2 # Glen 2012-07-22 10:40
jimattrell, there were guns in the possession of thousands of Iraqis while Hussein was in power. He did not take them away. Every Afghanistan male pretty much had/has guns, thanks to the U.S. Not every dictator or "leader" takes guns away.
+17 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 12:25
Hitler was never right....not in the slightest bit the biggest bit..not ever..... never...
-12 # spritzler 2012-07-21 12:28

Where was your outrage against violence and the murder of innocent people when you served as LBJ's press secretary from 1965 to 1967 while LBJ was murdering Vietnamese by the hundreds of thousands and ultimately killed on the order of two million of them, in a criminal war?

In 1936 Spanish workers in Barcelona seized all the guns they could from arms depots and gun shops to fight the fascists--compl etely illegally. They were absolutely right to do it. Would you on the contrary have objected to this arming of the civilian population? Would you have called for "Gun Control"? If so, the fascist General Franco would have agreed with you.

Until people like LBJ and General Franco, such as Obama and Bush I and II) and other mass murderers with armies at their command are disarmed, your call for gun control serves them, not us.

The best way to reduce wrongful violence in the U.S. is to create an economy and culture based on egalitarianism and mutual aid instead of inequality and dog-eat-dog competition (which leads some to kill innocent people); this will take a revolution. Bill, until you call for such a revolution, you're just implicitly supporting the likes of modern LBJs, shifting blame from them onto ordinary Americans. Shame on you!
+8 # macrhino 2012-07-21 12:50
Wow is this utter nonsense? I agree with your sentiments on war but if you think modern government of the status of the US are afraid of an armed populace than you have not been paying attention. and you have no military experience all.

Saddam armed his populace prior to the first American invasion. How did that work out for them?
-5 # paulrevere 2012-07-21 14:24
Pashaw...the hole in your sense of it all is that you don't know enough cops and military folks...they are and would be the enforcers against those 300 million weapons and their weilders in this country.

Once it got too ridiculous, those folks, who have families, friends and neighbors who will be part of the angst and ire directed at that 'modern' gov't. would either give up their posts, turn against their directors or join the rebellion outright...they are not stupid enough to believe that a few million or whatever their unified number can win against the masses that WETHEPEOPLE are.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:04
You can't even get unity among Democrats to vote for the Democratic candidate! What makes you think the owners of all those guns want to risk their lives and those of their children trying to play the David Koresh game? When you think of overthrowing the government with your arsenal think "David Koresh". How well did that work out for him? Are you as well armed as Koresh was?
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 10:55
Billy, David Koresh was not planning to overthrow the government, and neither were his people. His was a lesson in paranoia. Rather than arresting him for other crimes, such as possible pedophilia, while he was jogging, the government chose to destroy them all. The government has the biggest weapons and will use them.

Cops are the same - too many of them are not on our side and have no compunction about using their own power.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:13
Koresh didn't try to overthrow the government. The government came to his compound intent on violence. The Branch Davidians were a gross and creepy cult, and Koresh a gross and creepy cult leader, but the ATF committed a murderous and bloody assault on their compound. The fact that I don't like the Davidians or their lifestyle doesn't absolve the ATF.
If a similar raid had been conducted against a marijuana farm, liberals would be outraged at the violence and brutality - and rightly so. But since they were getting arrested on gun charges instead of drug charges, everyone on the left feels ok about it.
+5 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:33
Are you sure of that? I've seen absolutely no evidence of that in any of the police responses to peaceful protest. If anything, the police have been actively provocative in trying to induce violence so that they can then claim justification for killing people. And some of these guys claim to be "Oath Keepers!!"
-4 # squinty 2012-07-21 15:10
Iraqis were able to mount a pretty effective insurgency against occupiers, even while being distracted by a multi-sided civil war. The invasion and subsequent occupation would have been much easier, and less costly for the occupiers, if Iraq had had a disarmed populace.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:28
Iraq has 30 million people and was conquered by an invading force of a few thousand. Iraqis had more weapons than Americans will ever have and yet they were outgunned by an invading ALL VOLUNTEER military.

Seriously, if you're planning on overthrowing the government of the United States of America, not only will it crush you like it crushes everyone else who tries, but I will personally get involved and HELP it crush you! So will millions of other Americans.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:16
I have never advocated overthrowing the government of America, or any other government, and never shall. Do not put words in my mouth.

The Iraqi army was a pushover for the vastly superior US army (all volunteer armies tend to be better trained, more disciplined and have better morale than armies of conscripts.)
But the Iraqi people were able to mount a fierce insurgency that hasn't been fully quelled after ten years and billions of dollars. A disarmed populace could not have done that.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:12
They haven't been quelled because they haven't quit trying. It doesn't matter. They lost the war, and you'll lose the war you're interested in as well. If overthrowing the American government isn't your wish, then why are you going on and on about how we need our weapons to use against it?
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 14:58
I am not going on and on about any such thing. When have I advocated overthrow of the US government? Never.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:00
Stop accusing me of treason. It is libelous to accuse me of being interested in a war against the US government. I have never advocated for such a war.

I do believe a civilain population has the right to resist, by arms, a totalitarian government or dictatorship. The US government is not such a government.
0 # macrhino 2012-07-23 10:04
Quoting squinty:
Stop accusing me of treason. It is libelous to accuse me of being interested in a war against the US government. I have never advocated for such a war.

I do believe a civilain population has the right to resist, by arms, a totalitarian government or dictatorship. The US government is not such a government.

Well Saddam passed out fully automatic weapons to the populace shortly before the American invasion. How did that work out for them? As someone with 8 years in the military I can tell you that small arms against a modern Army means YOU DIE FIRST!

I wonder why Hitler didn't disarm his pollution? If you post the false quote floating around the internet where Hitler supposedly says he did, remember that I am fluent in German and I am going to show you that you are wrong from the people who knew him well. Funny how the "Hitler Gun Control" quote is on many gun fetish sites but unable to be found in German.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 21:15
Quoting macrhino:
Well Saddam passed out fully automatic weapons to the populace shortly before the American invasion. How did that work out for them? As someone with 8 years in the military I can tell you that small arms against a modern Army means YOU DIE FIRST!

Well, it helped them fight a deadly, expensive and intractable insurgency against the occupying force for upwards of ten years, and kept the occupying force from firmly cementing it's control over the population, and drove up the cost of that invasion and subsequent occupation to such ruinous levels that any sane country would have withdrawn, and that may yet bankrupt the country unwise enough to occupy Iraq. I'm not happy about any of that, BTW, as I love my country and lament the ruinous decision to invade in the first place.
As for 'you die first' - don't conflate the right of resistance with the ease of resistance. Small arms beat harsh language.
Hitler didn't disarm Germany's whole population - he implemented a politicized registration and licensing scheme that served to disarm those select elements of the population that he wished to oppress. That's similar to the earliest gun control measures passed in the US south, (including my states 'purchase permit' system) which were part of Jim Crow law, and expressly designed, if not worded, to disarm blacks.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 21:27
Not to put to fine a point on it, jews and other groups not favored by the state were disproportionat ely barred from weapons ownership. Government employees, and people deemed loyal, had better access. I think of that every time I hear a gun control proponent say only police and military should have access to arms - that's fine, as long as you have a healthy government that's responsive to the will of, and respectful to the rights of, it's population. What if that government sickens for whatever reason, and stops being so responsive or respectful?
It also ignores the question of personal defense against violence. The stae's monopoly on violence, in a free society, can never be so complete as to eliminate the possibility of violent crime, nor can the state always protect a citizen from violent actors. The citizen deserves some leeway to defend himself in extremis, and IMO he deserves effective, modern tools with which to do so.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:38
" I have never advocated overthrowing the government of America"

So you agree that the argument that weapons are necessary to protect against government aggression is bogus? You can't have it both ways.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 14:59
I thinbk a government that disarms it's populace is a government that is better able to oppress that populace. Not all countries with strcit gun control laws are dictatorships, but most dictatorships or oppressive government do prefer to disarm their civilian populace, or some section of that populace.
+1 # Glen 2012-07-22 10:59
Billy, Iraq was already a decimated country, so "conquering" them was not a matter to be proud of. When you bomb a country 24/7 back to the stone age, that is not outgunning the populace, it is murder. Our valiant military was ordered to sweep the streets in various towns and they all knew what that meant: killing women and kids. A LOT of returning Marines refused to go back.
+14 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 12:51
Actually Moyers was against that war. Did you expect him to resign because of it and have no say whatsoever? If you know anything about Bill Moyers you'd know he has always been very outspoken about Vietnam.

I guess the truth doesn't fit your agenda, huh?
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:39
Billy Bob The truth about moyers is that he is planting propaganda here and I think he is very foolish to have done so!
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:15
Like it or not, he's using accurate statistics and you're not. Who's planting "propaganda"?
+2 # brux 2012-07-22 02:10
huh, what kind of propaganda?
-3 # spritzler 2012-07-21 15:52
You're wrong. Go read Moyers' pro-LBJ/Vietnam war verbiage in 1967 at You won't find anything from Moyers saying that it was morally wrong to kill Vietnamese for the purpose of keeping a pro-U.S. dictatorship in power that defended the Vietnamese haves against the Vietnamese have-nots. But there were thousands of Americans demonstrating against the war. Moyers should have been with them; instead he was an advisor to the man leading the mass murder.
+5 # macrhino 2012-07-21 12:52
As someone who spent a good part of his life fighting Soviet Propaganda, I can tell you that your post is very similar. High bandwidth, low content.
+9 # carolsj 2012-07-21 13:25
Spritzler, it sounds like you are supporting an armed rebellion against our gov't. Is that what you want assault weapons for? If so, you are a lot scarier than the gov't. We can still make changes by voting, petitioning, protesting, occupying, etc. I suggest you put your gun away and get politically active. Stop supporting the gun manufacturers that are buying our gov't.
-8 # John Locke 2012-07-21 16:55
carolsj Glad you cleared that up for us...all this time I thought it was Wall Street!
-11 # John Locke 2012-07-21 15:36
spritzler: Great Commment Yoiu put Myers in his place and called him out for what he is!
-3 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:31
Capitalism = greed = violence. America is dog eat dog, or dog shoot dog, for sneakers or a trophy house. If you own a car you can kill any number of people without firing a shot. And it is time for a revolution.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:10
Well, it's you, John Locke and Paul Revere against the United States of America. I'm not on your side. I love my country.
+17 # angelfish 2012-07-21 12:36
Why do people think that if there is Sane and Reasonable Gun control, they will lose their "Right to bear arms"? Keep you Rifles, your home security Pistol but, for God's sake, NO ONE needs a Glock or an AK-47! We need a Law to BAN Lobbyists from Washington! The NRA is one of the most scurrilous, never the less, ALL Lobbyist should be BANNED! Bring Sanity and Reason back to Washington. Congress, do you Job of PROTECTING Americans!
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:04
But my rifle is an AK variant, and my home security pistol is a Glock.
I agree that there are corrupt and overly influential lobbyists, but there's this "right to petition the government" mentioned in the constitution. You can't outright ban lobbying without infringing on that right.
There are lobbying reforms that would make sense - like requiring greater transparency of political donors, esp. sponsors of PACs and superPACs.
-3 # Brewsir 2012-07-21 12:44
Mr Moyers' article is self explanatory. No new information there. The only things that we can change are the laws that provide access to assault weapons.
+9 # Sea Star RN 2012-07-21 12:47
What if gun owners had to display their gun registration license on their front doors, so we could be warned before entering?

A Scarlet "G" of sorts...

I want no part of a paranoid gun owner!!
0 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:32
i want no part of a paranoid pentagon general
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:09
What are you talking about?
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:09
You're rambling again, Jim.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:44
Unfortunately there are lots of them, although there were enough sane ones to have prevented Cheney/W from invading Iran. From what I read, the Air Force has the paranoid types like maggots on road kill.
0 # WestWinds 2012-07-27 05:04
That's because you haven't experienced what it is to have your home repeatedly broken into and your property vandalized on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Wait until it happens to you. You think the police are there to take care of you. Wait until they call YOU "paranoid" and tell you that you are fantasizing all the harassment and vandalism. We'll see how un-paranoid YOU are then.
-12 # James Marcus 2012-07-21 12:49
12 dead (more maybe) in Colorado. The NRA is paranoid.
Is our U S Constitution, which fairly preceded the NRA, created by a bunch of savvy humans also 'Paranoid'?
Is Obama (& our Congress) Paranoid.
These, our 'Leader People, Murder dozens of Innocents, every day, in a vast scheme of War crimes.
(no? ask anyone in Afghanistan Pakistan Iraq etc)
and we wonder why Insane individuals commit insane violence. '....
Perhaps they are Emulating their 'Leaders', not the NRA 'nut' cases?
But, In any case, 'stronger Gun Laws' will only inhibit their flow to Law Abiding folks. Yes, the Nut Cases, (including War Criminals) will continue to have them...
and we will be distracted from 'Stopping War Crimes' into
'demanding the Blood of a Nut Case'.
+17 # macrhino 2012-07-21 12:57
Quoting James Marcus:
12 dead (more maybe) in Colorado. The NRA is paranoid.
Is our U S Constitution, which fairly preceded the NRA, created by a bunch of savvy humans also 'Paranoid'?
Is Obama (& our Congress) Paranoid.
These, our 'Leader People, Murder dozens of Innocents, every day, in a vast scheme of War crimes.
(no? ask anyone in Afghanistan Pakistan Iraq etc)
and we wonder why Insane individuals commit insane violence. '....
Perhaps they are Emulating their 'Leaders', not the NRA 'nut' cases?
But, In any case, 'stronger Gun Laws' will only inhibit their flow to Law Abiding folks. Yes, the Nut Cases, (including War Criminals) will continue to have them...
and we will be distracted from 'Stopping War Crimes' into
'demanding the Blood of a Nut Case'.

Wow nonsense again. How many gun deaths in China last year (pop 1.3 billion)? 77

If bazookas are outlawed only outlaws will have bazookas. How many crimes committed in the US last year with bazookas? 0.

According to your (non) "logic" criminals in the US are armed with bazookas since the law only prevents law abiding citizens from having them

If TOW missiles are outlawed only outlaws will have TOW missiles. How many crimes committed in the US last year with TOW missiles? 0.

This is why we have this problem. The populace becomes more out of touch with reality
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:07
I LOVE the comment about bazookas! Right on target!
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:43
The right wingers on this thread would argue that that's because China only had 77 "bad guys" last year.
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 11:17
Macrhino, when speaking of China you must also ask about killings in general. Killing is killing, whether a baby, a poisoning, knifing, and on and on. Do you have those statistics?
-4 # AlwaysRightNeverLies 2012-07-21 12:50
If only every movie patron had been armed with semi-automatic rifles with 7.62 x 39 mm armor-piercing ammunition, the deranged killer could have been stopped at once. Therefore, rather than controlling such weapons further, we should mandate that all citizens carry assault rifles at all practical times. Oh, wait...what happens when stresses of life, genetics, drugs or brain parasites make some of the movie patrons deranged? That's OK, because they will be outnumbered by the sane people. But how will they tell each other apart once the shooting starts? We only want the deranged shooters killed, not the sane shooters. OK, we require the sane people to wear T-shirts emblazoned in fluorescent lettering with the words "NOT INSANE." Oh wait...the insane won't KNOW they're insane. OK, so the alternative is metal detectors EVERYWHERE. No, that's too restrictive. I give up.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:46
I think that a lot of people's snark detectors need new batteries. That is a well-thought out post.
-16 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-21 12:57
First of all, Mr. Moyers did NO research. The gun used was an AR15 and was NOT an assault weapon. He fails to pass the credibility test. And the usual rants from the gun hating RSN people...I'll keep my guns for the protection of myself and my family. BillyBob "why do you need three of them/?" For the same reason I own five vehicles and "more" than three firearms. "statistically, more likely" Billy Bob, where do you get this nonsense?? Straight from the Brady Bunch, I imagine. JTHinSD makes more sense than the rest of you combined. Guns are NOT the problem. We live in a violent society. As a twenty one year fireman I see the worst of humanity on a frequent basis. GUNS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM!! Of course most of the liberals in this forum follow the old saying...If I don't like guns then nobody should have them! Oh, Brooklyn Girl...I'm 68, own guns, and drive a fifty thousand pound fire tanker! But since YOU can't see well, I'm glad I don't drive in your neck of the woods.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:02
Here's one link for ya:

It doesn't cover the likelihood of self-inflicted injury, but it DOES state that people carrying guns are 4.5 times MORE likely to be shot than unarmed people.
-6 # squinty 2012-07-21 15:05
Correlation does not equal causality. Being at greater risk of violence might motivate more people to arm themselves. Thus the causation runs the other way - being more at risk of getting shot increases the likelihood that you'll choose to own a gun.
+6 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:23
You didn't check the link at all! I caught you!

If you had you'd realize it took that into account. The study made direct comparisons between people in the same neighborhoods and with the same socio-economic status.
-7 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:09
Billy Bob: I did check it and found several flaws...also included in the grouping were police officers!

And a false premise Despite the US having the highest rate of firearms-relate d homicide in the industrialised world, untrue statement!

A recent study found that treating violence like an infectious disease led to a dramatic fall in shootings and killings...mayb e they found a vacination?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:04
Billy Bob Doctors have a lower life span then their patients..and being in the military increases your chance to be killed what is the point!
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:05
First read the link. Then, come back and discuss it.
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:07
He also used a shotgun and a Glock semiautomatic according to what I read. Were you there?
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:03
skylinefirepest : Great comment you are welcome any time in Utah!
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:49
Yes, please go.
+3 # rvabruzzo 2012-07-21 13:22
The NRA holds all the political cards but ---

The Brady organization must work together with the NRA to help bring about sensible gun control. They must publicly shame the NRA until the NRA agrees to sit down with them. then maybe they can make joint recommendations to congress.
-14 # JackB 2012-07-21 13:28
Moyers says there are 30,000 gun deaths & 300,000 assaults involving guns per year in this country.

With well over 90% of those crimes involving illegally owned guns it is the height of hypocrisy to argue that the problem is the NRA & legally owned guns.

If the liberal community has any real interest in addressing crimes committed using guns why is they blissfully ignore the illegal weapons?

One explanation is it is difficult to target the sources of illegal weapons but the NRA is easily found. They are an easy target. It's so much easier when there is an identifiable target for their righteous anger.

The liberals have shown no real interest in solving the problem. Solving the problem would be nice but the appearance of righteous activity is all that is needed.
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 13:48
It worked out to exactly 90%? Was it really 89.3%? Was it 91.2%?

Did you just make that statistic up?

What's your source? I'd like to see where you got the 90% statistic. Educate me.
-10 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:12
Billy Bob That would take years!
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:56
It would take forever to find a source for an imaginary statistic. Feel free to get to work on that.
-5 # Susan1989 2012-07-21 13:53
We are living in a world which is seriously out of balance with an ever-increasing amount of aggressive energy. We can get rid of the guns but the aggression will come out somewhere else--and possibly only the outlaws will have guns and the rest of us will be powerless. I do not own a gun, nor do I wish to, but do not want to give up this right should I ever feel the need for it. I am more worried about the everyday ways in which the spirit of humanity is being destroyed all over th earth--with our very planet at stake.
+9 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:47
I agree. Still, you can't argue with the fact that China had 77 gun related deaths last year. Unless, the idea is that China doesn't have any bad guys.
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-21 17:20
Billy Bob: maybe you better clean your glasses China had more then 14,000 homocides by gun shot, not 77? Why do you guys have a need to fabricate statistics to try and make a point!
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 18:11
I'll admit that I ran with someone else's statistic about China. Will you admit that you TOTALLY MADE UP your statistic about gun related deaths in America?

What do you think of my statistic of 550 gun related homocides in the U.K.? That's quite a bit less than the U.S., right?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:17
I verify my statistics, That is your problem you don't and that is the problem when we attempt to have a discussion:

Number of Murders, Britain, 2008*: 648
(Since Britain’s population is 1/5 that of US, this is equivalent to 3,240 US murders)

Number of Murders by firearms, Britain, 2008* 39
(equivalent to 195 US murders)

Guns are the minor source for Killing in the UK however the murder rate is high without guns...Explain that if guns are the source?
+2 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 22:19
Don't you bother to read my comments at all? I can easily see the links I've provided for you. Why can't you? Is math a problem for you?

Once again, by your own statistics, you're furthering my point. The murder rate is 3 times as bad in the U.S. as it is in the U.K.

Most of the U.K. murders are committed without a gun.

Can you add it up?


In other words, the reason the American murder rate is over 3 times as high is likely due (at least in part) to the fact that guns are so much more likely to be used to commit the crime. That is because we have more guns available. You made it perfectly clear that the U.K. is a very violent place as well.

+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:53
Say what??? The UK murder rate is high WITHOUT guns?? Their total per capita murder rate is roughly a third of just our firearm murder rate by your own figures! Don't you read your own posts?
+2 # macrhino 2012-07-22 05:37
Absolutely you DO NOT VERIFY your statistics.

"China had more then 14,000 homocides by gun shot, not 77? Why do you guys have a need to fabricate statistics to try and make a point!"

The article you posted DID NOT SAY THAT. IT said the number of Homicides it did NOT say by "gun" shot. If you can't even do simple analysis why are you arguing with BillyBob how OBVIOUSLY is much more knowledgeable about this.

You want to go further with this one, slick, and I'll switch the conversation to Chinese.
So far your "statistics" have been made up or distorted.

I speak Chinese and my wife is a native. If you think there is 500 gun deaths in China you a Friggin clueless. You have no idea about this. You are a propagandist. AND A BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM.
-4 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:18
The source for you Billy Bob
+4 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 13:56
I'm sorry....I own several guns..where l live there is no registration process and if I commit a crime none is checking my gun to see if it was a stolen gun I used.....I have owned guns even before the brady bill,

I bought all of my guns legally back in the day one is tracking those type of things, and if they were they would not check them to see if I had them eriffs have not the time for such nonsense.....di d I do the crime that is what they are checking....not my guns source...if the crime is stealing a gun certainly....

Certain crimes a murder perhaps that would be relevant but only in certain circumstances.. .mostly no.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:10
You don't need a gun purchase registry to check to see if a gun was stolen. If a gun is stolen, you file a police report and give police the serial number. I promise if you commit a gun crime and are caught, the authorities will look at the serial number of your weapon and try to determine how you acquired it. If there's a police report associated with that serial number, they'll know about it.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 14:04
Hey right wingers! Here's a link for ya:

Apparently the murder was a "possible Democrat". Seems like all the blame on the left for "exploiting the situation" is a bit hypocritical, don't cha think?
-8 # CTRick 2012-07-21 14:07
Thank you WestWinds...You hit the nail on the head! Violence on tv, violence in the movies...all super-sensation glorious in fact, they are to be modeled after...And the drugs being served up to our population, esp. children is disgusting...No t to make anyone better, but to make money...
And finally, since when has ANY law prevented the people from getting something they really...War on Drugs, prostitution, financial trickery and manipulation (Wall Street)...This 24 year old kid who shot so many 2 days ago wil now pay with his life, or for the rest of his life, but to say this could have been prevented by stricter gun laws is absurd, and misses the issue completely...
+12 # Jyl 2012-07-21 14:10
Why not send these weapon-totin', card-carryin' NRA members off to Afghanistan, etc., to play out their dreams of war games with the "big boys"? As they are so hell-bent on playing at self-protection , let their fantasies become reality. It's pretty easy to shoot deer with assault weapons from a blind and pick off innocent victims in movie theatres, etc., while crying "foul" when people have the audacity to object. Yes, I know, guns don't kill people, people kill people, with joy = what a pathetic argument, in view of all the armed psychopaths there are.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:31
What percentage of gun owners are "armed psychopaths?" Of the millions of people in the US who own "assault weapons" (using the bullshit 1994 ban definition) how many have engaged in spree killing or psychopathic behavior? I'm not saying we don't have a problem with violent crime, of course it's problematic when an unstable person goes armed, but it's ludicrous and unfair to call every assualt weapon owner a psychopath, or conflate mere gun ownership with "picking off innocent victims in movie theaters." The vast majority of "assault weapon" owners are law abiding decent citizens.

Want to speculate about how many people serving in Iraq or Afghanistan are also NRA members?
+11 # mdhome 2012-07-21 15:02
As a hunter, I have to say there is never a need for more than 3 bullets, if you cant kill a deer with that you have no place in the woods.
-6 # squinty 2012-07-21 15:03
There's a video of which I'd like to remind you. You can see it on YouTube. In it, Adam Gadahn, an American born member of al Qaeda, the first U.S. citizen charged with treason since 1952, urges terrorists to carry out attacks on the United States. Right before your eyes he says: "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely, without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

But Adam Gadahn was wrong. Every dealer I've purchased from at a gun show has run the fedral NICS background check and complied with state law. You have to pass the same background check buying from a gun show dealer as you do buying from a gun store.

Fully automatic assault weapons are NOT readily available without background checks. Full auto weapons have been illegal to manufacture or import to the US since 1986. The full auto weapons that were grandfathered in back in '86 are becoming scarcer every year, fetch five digit price tags from collectors, and can't be owned without passing the usual NICS check, state regulations, a federal tax stamp and the extensive NRA background investigation that goes with it, plus a recommendation from local law enforcement, that go along with a Class Three NFA weapon transfer.
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:20
I guess terrorists will have to make sure they keep their records clean before they commit their act of terrorism.
-3 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:23
The statement that "fully automatic weapons are available without background checks" is 100% false, and a scare tactic.

WRT keeping records clean: Until a person commits a crime he or she is not a criminal. It is inappropriate to restrict the liberty of a person with no demonstrable history of violence or criminal activity. It is inappropriate to treat everyone as a potential Holmes, when people like Holmes are aberrations.

The two most devastating terrorist attacks on US soil were committed with fertilizer and box cutters, not firearms.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:08
Terrorists have intentionally kept their records clean for this very purpose. That's what a "sleeper" cell is.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:20
So every innocent citizen should have his or her rights restricted because he/she just might be part of a sleeper cell? What happened to due process? What other rights should we give up because there might, hypothetically, be "sleepers" with clean records? If we were taling about a no fly list, or a temporary incarceration list, or any other infringement besides an infringement of gun ownership, you'd be up in arms at the proposal.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:58
The foreign terrorists have no problem doing that. It's the domestic ones like the guy who set the bomb in Washington state that may have problems with previous records. Roughly 90% of the times that people on the watch list tried to buy guns and the sellers notified the FBI, there was no way they could prevent the sale. No laws were being broken.
+1 # macrhino 2012-07-23 09:56
Quoting squinty:

Every dealer I've purchased from at a gun show has run the fedral NICS background check and complied with state law. You have to pass the same background check buying from a gun show dealer as you do buying from a gun store.

I guess this would be nice if it were real too bad it is not.

"Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. " 1000s of unregistered weapons are sold and resold at gun shows throughout the US every year.

This means that many, many weapons change hands at gun shows, from people who are part time gun dealers, without records or background checks. The Virginia tech shooter bought all of his gun legally and he had a history of mental illness which should have disqualified him. While One can not buy fully automatic weapons without background checks easily, "modified" Ak-47s can be bought and easily re-modified.

Pronouncements do not change reality. Gadahn may not have been 100% right, but he was mostly right.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:02
GUN DEALERS are required to conduct background checks no matter what the venue. I said every dealer I've purchased from at a gun show has run a NICS check and complied with state law, and that's the truth. Every weapon I've ever bought has also been "unregistered." There is no registry in my state. I couldn't "register" them if I wanted to, there's nobody to register with.

It is not the simple matter you make it out to be to convert a semiautomatic rifle to full auto. It could be done by a skilled machinist. It is also a major federal crime that can send you away for many many years.

Cho had a hostory of psychiatric illness. He had not been adjudicated mentally unfit or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, thus wasn't in the NICS system.

Yes, gun shows often serve as swap meets for private sellers. In my state, a private seller who sells a handgun without obtaining a valid purchase permit from the buyer (or a valid concealed carry permit) is a felon, though it's hard to prosecute such sellers. Gun shows in NC have a number of undercover officers working to catch private sellers.
There's nothing a private seller can do in a gun show that he can't currently do more safely in another location. The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than the fact that private sellers don't have access to the NICS system. The solution would be to open up NICS access to private sellers (a good idea) or ban private sales outright (a bad idea.)
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:05
Congress passed HR 2640 (iirc) - the "NICS IMPROVEMENT ACT" as a response to the Virginia Tech. massacre, which mandated broader reporting of psychiatric diagnoses to the FBI database.
But some people will still go nuts in such a way that their very first act is a violent one. If you've never done anything wrong prior to your crime, there's no basis for restricting you.
So it's still impossible to preemptively stop every violent criminal, except by criminalizing everyone, which is unfair and unfree.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:08
Gadahn was mostly full of shit, not mostly right, and I don't think much of letting a terrorists half true generalizations dictate US law or policy.
+7 # jstick 2012-07-21 15:03
The NRA supports not only gun violence, but all forms of lethal and non-lethal violence. When the federal building in Oklahoma City was bombed by an American terrorist, legislation was quickly introduced in Washington to add "taggants" to the agricultural chemicals used, so that any future such bombs could be traced back to their purchasers. NRA lobbyists quickly made sure the bill was shot down.
-10 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 15:12
Here's a great 30 second video clip of an old woman in a wheelchair firing a machine gun, proving it's just plain fun for all ages and mentalities.
+5 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 15:48
The loon in Colorado was "just havin' fun" too.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:26
No, the loon in Colorado was committing mass murder. The guy shooting targets in his backyard is not engaged in the same activity as the guy mowing down innocents in a theater. It's wrong to conflate the two.

The person who engages in vehicular is not engaged in the same sort of activity as the man commuting to work, even if they have exactly the same kind of car.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 21:07
The loon in Colorado was engaged in what he considered fun. The purpose of your car isn't to kill someone or something. The purpose of a gun is to kill someone or something. We actually do regulate who can drive cars and we take vehicular homocide pretty seriously. It's a poor analogy for your argument.
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 11:31
Billy, how do you know the guy in Aurora was having fun? Don't make comments lightly.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:13
Oh I'm pretty sure the sicko was having fun playing Joker. but most people - including most gun owners - do not commit murder for fun, or consider taking lives to be a fun activity.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:12
Neither my gun nor my car are imbued with any sort of purpose. They are inert objects. The driver of the car, and the wielder of the gun, are autonomous agents that have purposes.

i do not understand why the "purpose" of an item is more important than the actual death toll racked up by that item. If my mom gets mowed down by a road raging driver, am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that at least he didn't kill her?
If more children drown in swimming pools than get shot with guns, is it somehow no big deal that they drowned, because a backyard swimming pool isn't built for the "purpose" of drowning kids?
I'd like to see the death toll go down, from firearms and for other reasons as well - a death is a death. But I don't advocate a ban on cars or swimming pools, nor do I advocate treating every driver as a criminal unless, and until, he demonstrates criminal intent. Same with gun owners.

We regulate cars, but not nearly to the extent that we already regulate guns.

You likened a target shooter making holes in paper to Holmes killing people deliberately in a theater. THAT equvalency was vile and slanderous. It is the equivalent of saying everyone who drives to the corner store is the same as a drunk driver or road rager who murders people. THAT is the poor analogy. It is possible to drive responsibly. It is possible to shoot responsibly.
0 # Glen 2012-07-22 16:04
Nice, squinty. Seems folks haven gotten caught up in rather much an hysteria. Certainly, their argument about guns being only for killing is legitimate, but as you say, death comes in many forms. Also, thank you for pointing out that gun owners cannot be equated with killers.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:31
A couple quibbles:

1) guns aren't ONLY for killing. I own guns, I do not use them for killing (unless you count occasional game/vermin animals.)Most make holes in paper or knock over bowling pins at a gun range, for fun. So the argument is not legitimate. In highly unlikely circumstances, I might use a gun to save my life.

2)I have hunted. I've shot prairie dogs at range on a friend's farm, killed coyotes and other vermin, hunted squirrel, deer and feral hogs. All but one of the weapons I used would have fallen under the 1994 "assault weapon ban." They were well suited to the purpose for which I used them, which was to kill animals in a legal and humane fashion. Is hunting the same as "killing?"

Is using a firearm against someone threatening you with great violence always illegitimate? After all, if you do so, you might kill them. Arguments that guns are only needed against other gun owners fail to take into account different physical abilities. A relatively frail older person living alone may be outclassed by a larger/younger/ stronger assailant armed only with hands or a makeshift weapon. A firearm in the older person's hand removes some of that disadvantage.
-1 # Glen 2012-07-23 06:20
Gun owners, thank you squinty, do not need to defend the fact that they own guns. Guns do have many uses, and there are a great many collectors who have nothing more than an interest in the historical aspects of various guns, their manufacture, engravings, and so forth.

If the U.S. degenerates to the point that many have predicted, guns will gain importance in self-defense as well as hunting. Where I live, if the economy crashes or gas prices increase to the point grocery supplies almost end, there will be a lot of folks in the woods with guns, attempting to feed their families.

Guns owners are not psychotic. The guy in Aurora recently purchased guns and ammo because his psychosis drove him to do it. If he were an average gun owner he would have already had those guns.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:21
Sorry typo. The line in the above post should have read:
"If my mom gets mowed down by a road raging driver, am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that at least he didn't shoot her?"
+8 # seeuingoa 2012-07-21 15:36
Is it so difficult to understand?

In 1850 when the immigrants arrived and went west, no laws, no sheriff, indians,
nothing but Billy the Kid.
That´s the reason for the constitutionall y right to bear arms.

But now we live in 2012 and the police arrive in 5 seconds.

America need to grow up, big!

The difference between democratic Europe and America is

No guns,
No death penalty,
No money in politics,
Universal health care

Please !
+8 # indianfirst 2012-07-21 16:16
This is incorrect. The U.S. Constitution predated the move west. It had to do with the right to have militias and only much more recently has been interpreted as the right for individuals to own guns.
+2 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 00:59
But the basic point is still valid.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-21 19:27
The police take 5 to ten minutes on a good day in my area. Even for calls involving active violent crime. 5 seconds is a dream response time.
-3 # ramblinjim 2012-07-21 20:35
The police arrive in 5 seconds? You must live next door to the barracks. But if someone breaks into your home at night that five seconds is not even fast enough. You need a split second to drop the intruder.
+9 # indianfirst 2012-07-21 16:04
The Center for Disease Control says there were 31,347 gun deaths in 2011. This includes suicides and accidents. Our death rate from guns is only exceeded by Mexico, Panama, Estonia, Brazil, Swaziland, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, El Salvador, Columbia and South Africa. This is not good company to be in. The other Democracies are below 7%. Canada, for example is 4.78%. England and Wales are .46% -- that's less than one percent. In terms of manufacturing -- the United States is the number one maker of guns. 41% of the world share. We make talk about illegal guns, but they were most likely made here and came back to the country via the illegal gun market. We are flooding ourselves with illegal guns made right in this country. That's a powerful reason not to have gun control.
+3 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:12
Thank you for citing real gun death statistics rather than relying on NRA misinformation.
-4 # ValM 2012-07-21 16:33
Many good comments, but I was amazed somebody tossed out the China/77 deaths. Where does such an absurd statistic come from? The Chinese Govt? What a joke, they say whatever they want. 77 deaths by one Chinese civilian to another civilian, in a highly militarily suppressed people, seems like a made-up statistic. That same reporting govt/dictatorsh ip goes out and murders untold thousands of their helpless population who dare to disagree with the supreme dictator/prime minister. Our overly sensationalized mass shootings are nothing in comparison to the killing going on around the world. How about the mass shooting of at least 80 people killed at a summer camp on the Norwegian island of Utoya, by one guy,for those thinking the highly gun regulated countries are safer? Nothing has changed really, in many thousands of years. Human nature is pretty evil in this regard.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 17:06
There were 550 murders in England last year. England has 62 million people. There were 308 in Detroit in 2010. Detroit has just over 700,000 people.

What a joke? I'm not laughing.
-2 # indianfirst 2012-07-21 17:06
I'm seeing 15,000 homicides in 2008 according to Gun Policy dot org. That is a tiny percent (1.1) for the population and probably reflects the fact that gun laws are very tight with severe punishment. Capital criminals don't languish in jail there while their appeals meander through the courts. The typical sentence is death with two years probation. If no other crime occurs, a more lenient sentence is possible. However, if death is found to be the sentence, it is carried out immediately. The homicide rate using guns is rising in China.
0 # indianfirst 2012-07-21 17:16
2nd point: There is no corollary between a country's low gun distribution and mass murder, at least none that I know of. If there is any comparison to be made, it could be the availability of highly sophisticated weapons on an international market. That would suggest that even countries with low gun use and high education values and schools for all of its children are still vulnerable. Breivik was determined to be insane and sentenced to the maximum of 21 years, with the possibility of an extension based on a medical evaluation.
+2 # macrhino 2012-07-22 05:46
Really, "they (the Chinese) say what ever they want." You are a China expert huh? State your credentials. We know where the joke is. Answer this again slick and we start typing in Chinese.

How well do you speak the language? OR any language other than English ? How much time did you spend in China?

What you wrote above is PATENTLY UNTRUE and the mark of someone who has never left the US.

Why do people comment on things of which they have NO KNOWLEDGE?
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:21
Of course, China is a historically open society that doesn't censor the internet or subject it's people to propaganda or misrepresent itself to the rest of the world. China's never done any of that.

I'll concede that China is becoming more open (yay capitalism) and the US citizenry is pretty heavily propagandized and subverted. But it makes me laugh to hear China criticize police response to occupy protesters. Not that the criticisms weren't valid, but coming from the country that brought us the Tiananmen Square massacre?
+1 # macrhino 2012-07-22 05:53

According to FBI statistics, in 2010, there were 12,996 murders in the United States, of which 8,775 were caused by firearms.
Whereas in China, only 77 of the 500 gun crimes last year were homicides, ministry figures show.
+7 # rblee 2012-07-21 16:34
So, the pro-gun position boils down to: there are so many people with guns that we must have more guns to combat them.

Don't ya love the RW idea that an armed populous will keep them safe from tyranny? I always wonder how they will approach organizing their rebellion. Will they construct a "well regulated militia" as per the Constitution or will they just randomly start shooting people who don't look friendly to them?
0 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 16:40
To prevent any perhaps unintentional misinformation. ..assault weapons are not fully automatic machine guns.
They are basically this....

.The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired on September 13, 2004, codified the definition of an assault weapon. It defined the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine containing more than 10 rounds, and two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Primary pistol grip
Forward grip
Threaded barrel (for a muzzle brake or a suppressor, commonly called a silencer)
Barrel shroud

the shooter did not have a fully automatic weapon but a assault type rifle with a extended clip both of which were regulated by the clinton era law. offense but we all do not live like that......and the western expansion as I read it was a genocidal land grab of colonial inspiration.... ..which had not much to do with gun that...

settlers were allowed or encouraged into incidents did occur with natives...the army was summoned and established bases to protect the settlers just allowed in by the government..thu sly allowing pretense for military control and claim of ownership.

I and many others in rural areas have not local immediate sheriff response. Peoples don't bother me....animals.. .they may.
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 01:07
Your point being?? That since the weapon Holmes used didn't meet the exact definition of a "fully automatic weapon" that it was ok? That there's a big difference between a fully automatic weapon and an assault weapon? If he managed to shoot 70 people, some of them multiple times, don't you think that sort of makes any pedantic quibbling about legal definitions moot?
-2 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 16:55
Norways guns are regulated but highly...I'd say no.
They are available to anyone basically who wants to hunt or is a sport shooter. A training course is required for both and membership for the second and thusly the police sign off on it.....

Weaponry in china has been strictly regulated but certain groups are given exception due to locality and necessity of profession or lifestyle.
+1 # Gevurah 2012-07-21 17:27
Quite apart from the discussion of who should or should not have guns -- a recurring theme in these ghastly incidents is that the perp had been known for a long time in advance to be "strange" in various ways. But there appeared not to be any way in academia or in industry for management to be made aware of the perp's problems, and possibly to deal with them via counseling or other mechanisms. People are, in our society, rightly afraid to impinge on the privacy of others. But when persistently anti-social conduct is not addressed, it can lead to an Aurora.

What can be done to bridge the gap between invading privacy and protecting the innocent public?
+9 # Rick Levy 2012-07-21 17:36
Assault weapons are vital, especially for hunters. You can never tell if a deer might be armed.
+1 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 21:12
Would like to arm the Buffalo and Wolves, it is getting them to go to the training courses. Deer do not like signing for anything.
One thing is for sure, they are anti the 2nd amendment. All the creatures die in protest daily
-3 # jimattrell 2012-07-21 18:23
Marchino .... Here is the exact Hitler quote..."The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."
+4 # brux 2012-07-21 18:45
Hitler was not an historian.
+7 # Billy Bob 2012-07-21 19:23
There are several problems with that whole argument:

1. Needing Hitler to further your argument is always shakey at best. It's sort of a last resort when all else fails - esp. for the right.
2. Hitler wasn't capable of stopping an armed resistence within his own country if one had occurred immediately. Our country is. There is virtually NOTHING you could do to overthrow our country violently. The good news is that you don't need to resort to violence. All you have to do is vote. Hitler didn't allow elections either.
3. Comparing our country to nazi Germany simply because someone SUGGESTS there are too many assault weapons is laughable.
-2 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:42
You know who else invoked Godwin's law on internet discussions?
+2 # macrhino 2012-07-22 05:51
Quoting jimattrell:
Marchino .... Here is the exact Hitler quote..."The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing."

Wrong, that "quote" has been discredited. Please provide the speech and venue where this was said. More than this the Nazi's did NOT institute gun control.

Koennen Sie auch Deusch sprechen? Wir machen weiter aufs Deutsch. Dann koennen SIe auch ein Bischen lernen. Zeig mir wo ich auch dieses lesen kann.
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 19:02
Once again..Hitler was a idiot without a original thought to attest to....
That said.... there is a long long history of relegation of weaponry to nobility. Laws were present mostly informally during such days preventing commoners from possessing such. It was the purview of knights and nobility to possess and use such things, possessing such by a commoner was tantamount to rebellion against the lord.
One was considered part and parcel by birth of a lord and attached as property to a parcel of land.

Such is the european environment of weaponry restriction.
In one certain buddhhist sutra,(basket sutra) considered to be originated in china not india back in the day, the usage of weaponry was put in a religious context...basic ally lay peoples and monks were prohibited from owning them. AS these societies approximated a asian form of feudal society back then I personally ascribe that to the same basic intent...speaki ng to a role in societal structure as much as anything else. A religious aspect but in china back then weaponry by a commoner was disallowed...
this is why the monks of china initiated martial arts and the usage of farm implements for self defense..
Suchly we hsve sholin and karate.
So there is a history to weaponry restriction, it is not hitlers though he may have stolen a bit of it.
Governments historically have often restricted this. The american mention may be a response to that european history..
+3 # Texas Aggie 2012-07-22 01:13
A trained monk armed with a flail has a lot better chance against a soldier with a sword than anyone here has with an assault rifle against an Apache or a Bradley fighting vehicle. The bit about being armed against oppressors went out the window once the weapons industry got into high gear.
0 # Duster 2012-07-22 02:35
Your historical overview is mistaken. In many European countries and England in particular, most landholders, which includes a broader set of classes than simple aristocracy, were required to own their own weapons. Farmers for instance, and any "yeomanry" class were included in this. Armor and high quality edged weapons were indeed limited to aristocracyy, butg mainly because of costs. Your everday farmer couldn't afford the equipage. They could afford bows though, and up through at least Tudor reigns every able bodied man was required by law to own a bow and to practice with it.

This state of the basic free population being expected to be ready to defend the country continued in England up to the early 20th Century, thou enforcement pretty well ended by the early part of the 19th C.

By the late 19th C, a number of political and radical movements had become worrisome to the government, and the first gun control act appears to have been an attempt to thwart potential revolution. The act is strengthened probably in response to the enormous mass of soon to be surplus weapons from WWI and the recent revolution in Russia, which the more paranoid were sure would exported westward. These days you have to be careful walking around Britain with a pocket knife.
+8 # tadn54 2012-07-21 19:15
"Handguns are made for killin', ain't good for nothin' else"..Ronni Van Zandt

"We should fear guns the same as we fear cyanide, the plague, or the atomic bomb; yet, some people keep them as pets".....Vonnegut

-2 # Duster 2012-07-22 02:40
Quoting tadn54:

Which is to make a "coward" of all governments and politicians, as well as all armed criminals. While the rest of us bravely take the course of ... well what course DO you take with a violent home invader?
+4 # carolsj 2012-07-21 20:20
If the airlines can have "no fly" lists, why can't the gun merchants have "no buy" lists. How about people with guns having to carry insurance, like drivers do for liability?
-6 # John Locke 2012-07-21 21:25
carolsj we do, we own homes and it is covered under our home owners policy, maybe buy a home and get the same insurance?
+1 # Ethel 2012-07-22 11:10
1) Only "honest" gun-owners would get the insurance. Just like many who drive, to so uninsured.
2) What good would "insurance" do? Do you think Holmes would have bought it? For what purpose? For the victims to claim families after a loved-one has been murdered?

What we need is a ban on assault weapons. The only people that use them are mass murders. This ban would not harm your 2nd ammendment right, unless you are or plan on becoming a mass murderer. If we would have done something about these assault weapons after the Columbine tragedy, since latest event couldn't have happened.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:25
What's an assault weapon? I use a Saiga .308 with some American made parts to hunt deer and hogs in brush. It can take a 20 or 25 round magazine, but for hunting I use the factory eight round. It fires a harder hitting projectile than the original AK-47, the .308, which is a more humane and accurate round for hunting.
This rifle would have been illegal under the 1994 ban, but functionally it is no different than a .308 Remington 7600 or Browning, which are more traditional wood stocked "deer rifles." I am not a mass murderer, nor will I ever commit murder. I use my rifle the same way countless other hunters use theirs.
How do you define "assault weapon?"

There is a technical definition of "assault rifle" - a rifle in an intermediate caliber, that uses detachable magazines, and is capable of selective fire - ie, there is a switch that let's you use it as semi automatic (one pull of the trigger = one round fires) or fully automatic (bullets fly out for as long as the trigger is depressed.) FULLY automatic weapons have been banned from importation or manufacture since 1986 - well before the 1994 ban - and they are still banned, by the Hughes amendment to FOPA. The definiton of an "assault weapon" is a vague and arbitrary political distinction, and the 1994 ban foebade the sale of many weapons that had entirely legitimate functions.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:47
It is patently untrue and ridiculous to claim that the only people who own or use so-called 'assault weapons' are mass murderers. Millions of people own such weapons, and have owned them for years, without committing any sort of crime. The vast majority, in fact.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:49
An infringement of a right is an infringement of a right. If the government were to ban internet posting, it would be an infringement of free speech - even if we were still able to stand on soapboxes and talk, or publish books with moveable type. Banning a particualar type of speech is an infringement of free speech, even if the ban doesn't affect all types of speech. Banning a particular class of arms is an infringement - even if other types of weapon are unaffected.
But the fact is, the Brady campaign has tried to redefine almost every class of "firearm" as evil. They concentrated on semiauto weapons for awhile, calling them "assault weapons." But then they decided that bolt action rifles were evil too, and you can occasionally hear them denounced as "sniper rifles." Big game cartridges are denounced as "armor piercing" (Ted Kennedy stood up in congress and held up a .30-.30 round - a lever action rifle round used to hunt deer for over a hundred years) and stated that it should be banned because it could penetrate soft body armor. Small caliber/low powered weapons became "saturday night specials" whose only purpose was murder. And on and on. There is no class of weapon that they would not falsely claim had "no legitimate" use, in order to see them banned.

The Columbine tragedy happened in 1999. Right in the middle of the assault weapon ban. The assault weapon ban was in full effect when that mass murder was committed.
+1 # JSRaleigh 2012-07-22 11:40
Quoting carolsj:
If the airlines can have "no fly" lists, why can't the gun merchants have "no buy" lists. How about people with guns having to carry insurance, like drivers do for liability?

There are "no buy" lists. That a person is on one of those lists doesn't always show up on the NICS check. Mostly persons convicted of domestic violence or who are under domestic violence restraining orders.

It really depends on whether the state where they were convicted/restr ained keeps track & reports them to the federal government.

Case in point - George Zimmerman had a 2005 domestic violence restraining order against him in Orlando, FL. He was also arrested in 2005 for felony assault on a police officer (technically: RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE & BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER) when he was questioned at a bar regarding under-age drinking. He was 20 at the time.

The felony charges were reduced to a misdemeanor resisting charge to which he pleaded guilty. That guilty plea was later scrubbed when he entered an alcohol education program.

Both the domestic restraining order and the misdemeanor resisting conviction bar him from gun ownership under the Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)] a.k.a. the Lautenberg Amendment, yet he was easily able to obtain a concealed carry permit from Florida and buy a 9mm handgun.
-1 # ramblinjim 2012-07-22 14:22
To sell guns you are required to have a Federal Firearms liscense and about 10 million in liability insurace to cover a wrongful death lawsuit
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:27
Then the states reporting needs to be improved, and the practice of "scrubbing" records needs to be questioned.
If you are not convicted of a crime, if you are pardoned or have the record expunged - then you aren't guilty, and it's wrong to have your rights infringed. If you go on to commit another crime, as Zimmerman did, then you face the consequences of that crime - as Zimmerman now does.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:16
"No buy" lists are just as unconstitutiona l as "no fly" lists.
Liability insurance is a good idea for gun owners.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:51
Barring someone with a criminal conviction is not the same thing as barring someone for being on the no-fly or terror watch list. Those lists are arbitrarily compiled, with no transparency, and do not reflect any sort of conviction. Nor are they contestable in any meaningful way, nor do people on themm get the right to confront their accusers or argue in their defense. If someone is so dangerous they can't be allowed on an airplane, then there ought to be enough evidence to arrest and charge them. if there is not - then it's unconstitutiona l to bar them from flying.
As with a "no-fly" list, so with a "no-buy" list.
It's interesting to observe how liberals and conservatives switched opinions about the no-fly and terror watch lists, right after the '08 elections. Liberals railed against the unconstitutiona l limits imposed by such lists, conservatives defended them as necessary for security. Then a different party gained the white house. Suddenly conservatives are all about due process, and how those lists violate it, and now Liberals insist the lists are necessary for security.
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-21 20:49
I guess me and all my neighbors are all cowards...when bear broke in through a neighbors kitchen window not all that many years ago he was shot by a coward .. this same bear breaking into a playhouse I had built for my ping off the door, luckily at night they were not in it. Bears going mad as people do occasionally with age and decrepitude.... .. Bear scat I found in forest, two days ago forest adjoining my property...

and when a elderly lady in New mexico was killed and eaten by bear in her rural home several years ago.....she bravely did not have a gun....

and on and on...
point being.... one should not apply their personal experience of or with guns to those one know not what is their personal environment....
such leads to extremism on both sides..

Guns in a urban inner city....I'd say you who live there should say...I don't live or know that area as you do. Probably none should have guns there..but really it is you not me that should say.

To say we should not be able to say yes or no......questio nable that ral is not urban.
+2 # macrhino 2012-07-22 05:56
Ron ownership of guns do not make one a coward. Trying to oppose sensible regulation like every other industrialized has done does make one foolish.
0 # Nell H 2012-07-22 12:52
But, did these people need an assault weapon in order to defend themselves?
-2 # KittatinyHawk 2012-07-21 21:27
One can make weapon, even a gun. No need for any Sales Pitch. Can reload bullets, No background for powder ask Wallie World

Now I do not know the why for anyone who kills. It does not matter what the weapon or how many. Neither does it matter the age, color etc. Bullets do not care. Bullets are not the problem...

One thing you are all discussing is good. Everyone has the right to their opinion, how to safe guard themselves. I do not care if you live in NYC or Utah...Neighbor s have a great habit of looking the other way, or saving their butts.
Problem we are overlooking is the immunity children are growing up with...they have no clue about the consequences of killing. It is a game, it is a movie with great killing scenes.
We are being killed by Terrorists, the Terrorists are our own Children. This was somebody's Child, a nice kid, a smart kid who needed an arsenal, then had to go out during Batman vs a Stallone Movie and Kill the Audience.

No matter how many kids or adults died from Gunshots, the fact is the number is not coming down. The fact is Gun Lobby, Gun Makers do not care. NRA doesnot care and have defended themselves for decades. I do not care what Party they are all to blame. I am amazed none of you blamed the KKK Party. No one President is any better than the other on this matter.
We have let this Mess happen. Stop passing the Buck. It will continue to happen because You Let It.
+4 # Hexalpa 2012-07-21 22:20
Quoting KittatinyHawk:
Had that chance they did not do it

That is most likely because (1) they didn't have a "death wish", and (2) because they knew instinctively that a Republican minority would filibuster any attempt. We need to "get real" about this issue, and recognize that a HUGE majority of "the people" have to want meaningful gun control, before a bare majority of political office holders can force the issue down the throats of a large and well organized minority. We "sure as hell" don't want to touch this issue in a presidential election year anytime soon. I have no desire to see the Democrats "snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory", and that is precisely the potential that the gun control issue would have in 2012. If you want to see gun possession effectively regulated, set your sights on 2052, not 2012. We are a LONG WAY away from a political consensus among the citizenry that "this needs to happen". Talk to neighbors and friends... calmly...dispas sionately... rationally... and just maybe you will change one or two minds. Maybe. This is a "long march" issue, not subject to a "quick fix" matter how badly we may want to "wish this truth away".
+4 # macrhino 2012-07-22 06:41
The most amazing part of this discussion is the number of people who consider must simply be lacking some rational faculty.

We live in a community of nations. Some of these nations are very similar to ours. England, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Etc. These are generally referred to as industrialized nations.

When one compares any statistic and see some anomalous difference one should look are at the stat.

Life expectancies are similar. (ca 77 years) But if only one country in the group of 1st world countries had a life expectancy of 52 years, we would know that country has a problem

Here is a good example, medical bankruptcies are all but unknown in Europe, or Singapore, or Japan. Bankruptcies due to medical care are above 60% of American bankruptcies. so we know some thing is askew.

The US gun homicide rate is an anomaly. We are a magnitude above the rest of the industrialized world. A MAGNITUDE!! This is a huge anomaly.

Many in the industrialized world would gladly accept the idea that most American were simply evil or stupid. But I reject that. We have very easy access to handguns, like no other industrialized country (If you come back with a place like Switzerland. I switch the conversation into German and post the Swiss laws in their original and YOU'LL get an education. I lived there.)

Anyone of the gun fetishists here @john Locke @spanky want to postulate an explanation for this anomaly?
0 # Glen 2012-07-22 08:18
Macrhino, do not mistake those who prefer common sense and reality to a gun fetishist. We live in the U.S. and most cannot leave the country. We must live with the reality. Many folks would attempt to remove every gun in the U.S. but it will never happen. As has been stated, even by myself, the issue is huge and society at large is ill. Kids are ruined early on and genetics and pollution is creating even more damaged kids.

Killing has always been endemic in the U.S., beginning with the first explorers arriving. Hatred and bigotry exists and has even been encouraged within certain communities and within homes. It is not a mystery why the killing continues. Guns are just a part of the problem.
-2 # ramblinjim 2012-07-22 11:02
Kids are ruined by television and the movies and, more recently, violent video games. American adults have always felt rage against other Americans, and the truth is, most of us have a long list of people we'd like to kill if we thought we could get away with it.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:42
Speak for yourself, I have no such list. As for railing against TV and video game content - please. Let's not pit the first amendment activists against the second amendment activists. I like ALL the freedoms outlined in the bill of rights.
+1 # CL38 2012-07-22 13:30
Guns are a HUGE part of the problem. Assault weapons should be banned outright and our gun laws revamped to seriously address this problem. The NRA has to be targeted and made to cooperate.
-2 # Glen 2012-07-22 16:09
Controlling weapons of any sort would be difficult in the U.S. The NRA will not be regulated due to their lobbying efforts and monetary influence.

Once again it is up to individuals and communities to get local crime and all else under control, if possible. The U.S. government has opted out of national crime.
+2 # macrhino 2012-07-23 09:45
Quoting Glen:
Macrhino, do not mistake those who prefer common sense and reality to a gun fetishist. We live in the U.S. and most cannot leave the country. We must live with the reality. Many folks would attempt to remove every gun in the U.S. but it will never happen. As has been stated, even by myself, the issue is huge and society at large is ill. Kids are ruined early on and genetics and pollution is creating even more damaged kids.

Killing has always been endemic in the U.S., beginning with the first explorers arriving. Hatred and bigotry exists and has even been encouraged within certain communities and within homes. It is not a mystery why the killing continues. Guns are just a part of the problem.

Sorry I don't buy it. I have lived in 8 countries and my wife is a native Chinese. I get by in 7 languages. You are simply mistaken if you think "we are different" you will need a good bit more evidence than your opinion.

I encounter less bigotry in the US than in any other country I have ever been in. China is far more polluted and they have the same type of movies and entertainment. Gun deaths in the country of China was 77 in 2011. 120 times less than the US.
0 # jimattrell 2012-07-22 07:12
I do wish that the NRA was an arm of the Republican Party but the truth is that in the 2010 election the NRA supported 14 Democrats because of their stance on gun control as reported by National Publuc Radio at If Liberals spent just 10% of their time trying to do something positive for our country instead of attacking conservatives over silly and go-nowhere issues such as gun control, our country could pull out of the Harry Reid, six-year tailspin our death that we're in. What on earth does gun control have to do with 8.2% unemployment and massive overspending. Let's put aside that which really does not matter much and work on getting things back to normal once again; if that's even possible.
+5 # sapereaudeprime 2012-07-22 09:23
It seems to me that the NRA has become a big business, and has lost sight of the initial part of the Second Amendment: "A Well-Regulated Militia." My family has owned firearms since they arrived in this country in the 1600s, and I would never give mine up, but I recognize the need for proper regulation. Until the civil War, every free male between the ages of 18 and 55 (it varied from colony to colony) had to keep a firearm, ammunition, and a fighting edged weapon in his residence. However, for much of that time, every county seat had a whipping post and a gallows, and people were well aware of the consequences of committing a violent crime. If the NRA were serious about the Second Amendment, the officers would work for a salary that reflects the median income in the country, not for the several hundred thousand dollars they make today. They would also emphasize the "Well Regulated" part of the Second Amendment as much as the right to bear arms.
+1 # doneasley 2012-07-22 14:48
Quoting sapereaudeprime:
It seems to me that the NRA has become a big business, and has lost sight of the initial part of the Second Amendment: "A Well-Regulated Militia."...

The NRA has distorted the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. NRA says we have the right to bear arms to protect against our own government. But if you consider when it was written, 1789, it was meant to allow our government to rally the Colonists in order to protect against outside invasion, e.g., the War of 1812. It was also prior to the time that every state had a National Guard.

The NRA has been extremely disingenuous in their efforts to proliferate the use of guns of any type, by anyone at any time or place. Most opponents to the proliferation of guns in our society are not against the use of handguns or guns for hunting and sport. But where are all of these attack weapons coming from? At a time when we know where every car is, and who it belongs to, we refuse to track guns, weapons meant to kill. It's a shameful statement about our society.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-24 00:14
Recent supreme court decisions affirm the interpretation of the second amendment as describing an individual right - like the rest of the bill of rights. Even the ACLU has finally come around to this way of thinking in light of the Heller decision.
-1 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:31
Well regulated in the vernacular of the time means well equipped. Easily confirmed with a minor bit of research.
+4 # bluemoonwoman 2012-07-22 09:32
We have been lead like sheep to the slaughter. There are those who have diabolically planned the destruction of our families, our livelihoods, and our hearts so that we will end up in a mire of hatred and bloodshed. The problem is so much bigger than the sum of its parts. We have been deceived mightily by those who arrogantly assume that those of us who do not have the same intelligence, money, resources, are not fit to live on this planet, and have created plans for us to turn on each other. We have to stand strong, not in guns necessarily- but strength through love, compassion and willingness to see the whole ugly picture. It is a bit of a stretch to see how much we have been deceived and when you begin to understand the " bigger" picture it is truly horrifying. But we have to stand up to these people. Jesus was right about the " love of money." Not money in and of itself. But the love of hoarding it, the love of power over others, the love of power itself. Yes, out children are nuts! This culture is nuts. It is cold, calculating, and devoid of warmth and love. Our children know something is horribly wrong and we refuse to listen. Instead, we concentrate of how "smart" people are, how rich they are, instead of the focusing on the true character and heart of the individual. In many indigenous cultures, the ones who were honored the most were those who were selfless in their concern for the community. In this country, we honor the selfish!
+1 # ramblinjim 2012-07-22 09:57
Good points about America's romance with money and material things to the exclusion of human values, and, though I'm not a religious person, I'd say Jesus would frown mightily upon Capitalism which fosters grasping and greed.
0 # brux 2012-07-22 10:28
Nice post. We, human beings, have failed at our attempts at being more than stupid animals. We reward people for being violent and psychopathic, so we now have a world of psychopaths all blundering through destroying the planet and making each other miserable. Why can't the good people wrest the power from these criminals and take over?
+1 # CL38 2012-07-22 13:26
0 # doneasley 2012-07-22 15:50
Bluemoonwoman, "we honor the selfish" because the GOP leaders have been following the selfish Ayn Rand philosophy that "the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off". We heard it first from Ronald Reagan, didn't we? There are some dangerous politicians in control of our government who are disciples of Ayn Rand. Paul Ryan, who controls our budget, requires his staff to read her books. Her philosophy is reflected in his budget, where he shreds the Social Safety Net, and funnels more money upward to the rich. This "Rand Disease" has spread throughout the Republican party - the people who claim to be such religious patriots - and is affecting all Americans.

To reiterate your observation... the "bigger" picture is TRULY HORRIFYING!
+3 # Ethel 2012-07-22 10:55
Once I was posting after some after horrific mass murder by assault weapon. I wrote, "If I had a gun and someone invaded my home, I would still shoot to wound." Several pro-gun-nuts responded with, "You NEVER shoot to wound" or "If you shoot, it should be a head or heart shot". To this day, I am concerned about those comments.
0 # ramblinjim 2012-07-22 11:39
Ethel, the reason for the "shoot to kill" comments is that dead men tell no tales, nor can they file suit against you for a lifetime of lost income due to inability to walk or type, or whatever, and if you just wound them they may still come after you. A dead intruder cannot testify against you if the incident goes to trial, etc. Also, make sure the police find the body INSIDE of your house, even if you shoot the person in the process of climbing through a window.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:37
Shooting to wound is a bad idea. There are some pretty big arteries and veins in a leg, and you can bleed to death pretty quickly with no blood showing, just collecting inside your thigh cavity.
"shoot to kill" is bad advice as well, you shoot to end the threat posed to you. If threatener surrenders or flees, good - you have defended yourself, there is no need to continue shooting. Killing is not the ultimate goal.
Most self defense instructors recommend shooting center mass, because if you aim for the center of the target, there's less chance of a complete miss if you are a few degrees off. Accidentally shoot high, you still hit chest/head. Accidentally shoot low, still hit pelvic girdle or legs, etc. This is safer for you and for anyone behind the assailant.
If the attack doesn't warrant the use of lethal force, it doesn't warrant the use of a firearm period.
If you fell that you would not want to risk killing an assailant in ANY circumstances, even to save your own life, I respect that. If that's the case, there are less lethal options that you can look into. A nice big can of Bear grade OC spray, or a TASER. They don't work as well as guns, but have the advantage of not being likely to kill the assailant.
Good locks, difficult to break windows, a good alarm system and ready access to a cell phone are your first, and best lines of defense. I keep a good lock on my doors so I'm less likely to need to use the gun.
0 # squinty 2012-07-22 15:40
Dude, this is terrible, outdated advice. Read up on current castle doctrine, and stop advising people to kill unnecessarily and tamper with evidence at crime scenes. I do not advocate shooting to wound, but "shooting to silence" is not self defense nor is it ethically supportable. If the result of your defense is retreat or incapacitation instead of death, you do not 'finish off' the intruder to silence him. That is murder.
Take a concealed carry course in your state to get a better idea of what the current "use of force" laws are, and how they apply to home defense.
-1 # skylinefirepest 2012-07-22 22:29
Ethel, are you a shooter? Serious question. If you are then apparently you are not aware of how difficult it is to shoot accurately under a huge dose of adrenalin and fear. Even the police shootings involve multiple rounds and multiple misses. You don't even try to shoot to wound!!!
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 11:27
Standard police procedure is to shoot for center mass. Peoples think it is easy to shoot and kill a person due to media and is anything shoot center mass always to prevent from a miss and to be lethal...heads legs and such are easily missed by a moving target which the assailant always is...if not why shoot him? And if you do not desire to be lethal you should be using other means of protection than a gun..

a gun out....means you are intending to kill....taser nightstick flashlight other means are when killing is not necessarily.
Police wise gun....killing is intended always.

So the training of others is based upon police. .
The only exception I know of in law enforcement is particular to certain situations such as sniper hostage taking and perhaps in secret service application when the assailant iis wanted to be kept alive for information purposes perhaps. Very rare those.
0 # ENetArch 2012-07-22 12:57
Has anyone else noticed that multiple articles concerning gun deaths this week. Who would benefit by using the public's furor over the massacre to drive through new gun control legislation?
0 # ramblinjim 2012-07-22 14:25
More serious iniatives about gun control result in more gun sales and effective gun control will result in a much larger and stronger underground market, just as it is with the government's useless war on drugs.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 22:38
Right. Prohibition has the same effect whether it's alcohol, drugs, or guns.
-1 # Glen 2012-07-22 14:28
It is fun to get involved in these discussions, ENetArch, and the discussions exemplify the disagreements and confusion without solving anything, most especially society at large and the indifference of the government.

However, the media LOVES this stuff. Sure it is important, obviously, but it also feeds law makers, as you say. Nevertheless, there is also an article on how Obama and Romney are not commenting on gun control at all. It never ends, this squabbling. I have heard gun arguments for a few decades and total gun control has NEVER been brought up. After a time, the public gets bored and moves on.
-1 # ronnewmexico 2012-07-22 14:17
For what aim this stop us from fomenting rry that is silly.

Take a look at afghanistan...t his military, US, is well now equipped and suited to fighting a insurgency which is what any revolutionary group armed would be.....and go figure..with few ey are to withdraw front that place but not due to loosing militarily..... it is just to expensive for return...

Sound cannons energy streams to disrupt thinking various drugs and concoctions.... ..they have them all.
Me with my pitiful gins..laughed at....told to go home and stop playing with the big boys would I be...

Conspiracy requires a great great overstatement and understatement of consideration.. ..peoples simply know not what the military hos nor their capability.
We spend more annually for the military than all the other nations of the world combined ...think about that..then think of my pityful guns in comparison to their need gun control for that aim if that be their aim...

Sorry no personal slight intended but thought about that is quite comical....this army of conquest by one order could be directed not out but in...and now it is well suited to just not conquer but also maintain....the y have grown capeable.
They can now hold what they conquer......US as mply very simply held, if wanted to.
+2 # carolsj 2012-07-22 14:57
Guns will not protect you from pollution, unemployment, climate change, toxic chemicals, nutritionless food, dangerous drugs, lack of education, medical mistakes... I could go on and on. If the powers that be (the corporate controlled gov't) want to do us in, they don't need guns. We don't even see it coming and it's happening already. Your guns won't help you. Get busy and correct all those other problems first, and you won't need guns.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-22 16:07
Nope. If it makes sense to protect yourself from heart disease and poor nutrition, why doesn't it also make sense to protect yourself from violent assault?
I disagree that restricting or disarming the population any further is the best way to do that.

Americans deserve better access to affordable healthcare, better chances of economic mobility, better education - and access to better higher education. They also deserve to own effective modern tools for self defense.
It's not like there's a zero sum choice between guns and clean air, or guns and a woman's right to choose. Well, given the platforms of the two major parties, maybe there is such a zero sum choice, but there shouldn't be.
+1 # macrhino 2012-07-23 09:33
Well it really doesn't matter what you agree to. Your premise is wrong. The simple possession of a handgun increases one's chance of violent assault not decreases it.

You can say "Americans should be protected from falling off the edge of the Earth, that does not make the Earth flat no matter what your opinion is.

During the study interval (12 months in Memphis, 18 months in Seattle, and Galveston) 626 shootings occurred in or around a residence. This total included 54 unintentional shootings, 118 attempted or completed suicides, and 438 assaults/homici des. Thirteen shootings were legally justifiable or an act of self-defense, including three that involved law enforcement officers acting in the line of duty. FOR EVERY TIME A GUN IN THE HOME WAS USED IN A SELF-DEFENSE OR LEGALLY JUSTIFIABLE SHOOTING, THERE WERE FOUR UNINTENTIONAL SHOOTINGS, SEVEN CRIMINAL ASSAULTS OR HOMICIDES, AND 11 ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED SUICIDES.

The entire argument here of the gun fetishists are "The whole world is the US" or "we are vastly different than anyone else" otherwise they would not ignore the real experiences of places all over the world.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 10:36
People have the right to defend themselves from violent attack, and the right to own modern effective tools for doing so. That is true regardless of what other uses those tools are put to by irresponsible or criminal owners. I have the right to free speech, even though some other guy shouts fire in a theater. I have the right to use public highways in my vehicle, even if other people drive drunk or recklessly. I have a right to freely assemble, even if others assemble for illegal or immoral purposes. I have a right to keep and bear arms, even if someone other than myself abuses that right.

Those thirteen people had a right to defend themselves, even if - especially if - they were outnumbered by criminal actors. Ask any of those thirteen if they'd have felt safer without their weapons.

Not every act of self defense is a "justifiable homicide" - or even results in an injury. Such incidents do not represent 100% of the total usage of firearms in self defense.
-1 # squinty 2012-07-23 11:07
If you are interested at all in hearing divergent views, check out Kopel's, and Kleck's, criticisms of the Kellerman studies you cited.
And some others, fetched by random google search. Kellerman's methodology was as questionable as John Lott's.
-3 # baldyc76 2012-07-23 09:07
In another article a list of 10 causes of our violent society. One was missing. Our love for the violence in sports. Basketball, which used to be a very finesse sport, has become a football game without pads. Watch LaBron James, 6' 9" and 275 pounds, smash slim Kevin Durant, 6' 10" and 215 pounds!
0 # Insider 2012-07-23 22:15
Quoting baldyc76:
In another article a list of 10 causes of our violent society. One was missing. Our love for the violence in sports. Basketball, which used to be a very finesse sport, has become a football game without pads. Watch LaBron James, 6' 9" and 275 pounds, smash slim Kevin Durant, 6' 10" and 215 pounds!

I understand what you are trying to say...but reality is Lebron is 6'9" 255....and Durant is 6'9" 235...
+3 # lamancha 2012-07-24 00:54
How about the notion of living in an ordered society, advanced by the 17th century philosophers Rosseau, Hegel & Locke, that we need to yield to the common good, to promote a society that is both egalitarian & protective of the majority (a basic tenet of democracy ). How about the fact that the 2nd Amendment clearly mentions "militia" at the forefront and "people" only at the conclusion? Was the intent to have "the people" on an equal footing with our military, for the number and depth of weaponry? Pure logic says "no", it would be idiotic to allow "people" to possess bazooka's, grenades, rocket launchers, and yes, even atomic weaponry. Well, why not, if you accept that "people" and "militia" are equals for weapons possessions, according to the 2nd, and to back that premise up, a letter sent to me by the NRA a few years ago, in response to my query, "how can you support "cop killer bullets" to which they replied, in summary, "anything that compromises the right to bear arms is contrary to our principles." These are deranged and dangerous people and I personally believe they want to foment revolution. For all you gun lovers, put yourself in place of the families of 9000 - yes 9000 civilians, killed, murdered by guns each year in the good 'ol USA! Remember, the NRA was once a "hunters lobby" and now look at the deranged organization they've become! Mark my words - unless checked by our government and the civilized amongst us, they will take down this country.
-1 # kenward42 2012-07-24 13:35
To startwith Bill Moyers' position is ridiculous. Guns, themselves are no the ssue, the problem is unstable people. Counties that have outlawed private gun ownship re most often have dictorial governments, or atlest the citizens have restricte rights, Bill Moyers' is a nut job, as are those who support his position. Our founding fathers, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were all in favor of an armed citizenery. One reason that Japan feared invading the United Statesin WWII was that Airal Yamamoto ( who had been educated in the United States stated in Ameica there was a rifle behind every blade of grass, and the citizens would help defeat them here.
0 # 11eugene11 2012-08-20 20:29
I think the NRA is a good place to get good shooting gear but I agree that they should have control over their guns
0 # RICHARDKANEpa 2013-01-05 09:10
Quoting kenward42:
. . . George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, were all in favor of an armed citizenery. One reason that Japan feared invading the United Statesin WWII was that Airal Yamamoto ( who had been educated in the United States stated in Ameica there was a rifle behind every blade of grass, and the citizens would help defeat them here.

Japan thought it was freeing Asia from the West, but Asian countries it occupied didn't feel free. The two US Aircraft Carriers were supposed to be at Pearl Harbor.

Since all the US ships at Pearl Harbor were destroyed Japan decided not to land and finish invading (or in their mind liberating Hawaii from the West).

Japan would have no more reason to invade the US mainland then it would England who they were also at war with.

By the way Al Qaeda is at war with most of the world. The US is lucky it likes Football not Soccer, so we don’t have to fear al Qaeda terrorists attacking our sporting events. However if one football player manages to to get the game stopped so he could pray, angry al Qaeda would want to attack Football as well as Soccer. By the way bin Laden wanted to derail trains because it would harm the US economically without encouraging a draft a cheaper way to fight. If suicidal maniacs had to fear percussion grenades that would prevent their death we would face less suicidal maniacs. If we would look at it from the terrorist’s point of view we would figure out how to stop them.

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.