RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Kohn writes: "In the wake of yet another mass shooting, Americans are reeling from grief and exasperation as gun rights extremists go on the defensive. The latest twist on their gruesome, partisan rationalization is to blame the Navy Yard shootings on the fact that the area was a 'gun free zone' within a city of tight gun control restrictions. This plainly ignores the facts and dishonors those killed."

Wayne LaPierre. (photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)
Wayne LaPierre. (photo: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters)


Gun Nuts Peddle Gruesome Lies in Face of Tragedy

By Sally Kohn, Salon

17 September 13

 

Their partisan rationalizations include blaming gun safety measures. They're dishonoring those who were killed

n the wake of yet another mass shooting, Americans are reeling from grief and exasperation as gun rights extremists go on the defensive. The latest twist on their gruesome, partisan rationalization is to blame the Navy Yard shootings on the fact that the area was a "gun free zone" within a city of tight gun control restrictions. This plainly ignores the facts and dishonors those killed.

While we know very little about the Navy Yard shootings, it's likely that several of those on the scene - including, potentially, several victims - were highly trained and armed military police officers. After all, "gun free zones" only apply to civilians not legitimate, armed security personnel. But more importantly, everything we know about recent mass shootings defeats this preposterous argument. According to a comprehensive study by Mother Jones magazine, in the past 30 years, not a single mass shooting has been stopped by an armed civilian. According to a study by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, less than a quarter of mass shootings in the last four years occurred in "gun free zones". Moreover, according to the Mother Jones study, there is not a single piece of evidence that any shooters deliberately chose to target locations were guns were prohibited.

Further, as Chris Hayes artfully pointed out in his response to the Navy Yard shootings, having more armed civilians in the vicinity of a mass shooting is likely to lead to more carnage, not less. According to a study by the New York Times, highly trained New York City police officers who discharged their guns in public hit their intended targets only 34 percent of the time. To put it differently, the police missed their targets - and hit something else - two out of every three shots. Now imagine even the best-trained amateur gun owners and what their record might be.

To be honest though, even having to dispel the conservative "argument" here is ludicrous. After all, nine in ten Americans- and even three-quarters of gun owners - support basic, common sense laws to ensure gun safety. The American people are sick and tired of almost weekly mass atrocities, which yes, have something to do with the collapse of affordable and accessible mental health care in America (not that conservatives are rushing to support health care reform) but also has to do with the very dangerous weapons that are all too easily accessible to very dangerous people.

The same day as a mass shooting in the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killed 26 people - including 20 young children - a sick and twisted man also unleashed a massacre in an elementary school in China. The difference? He had a machete, not a gun. In China that day, 22 children were seriously injured. But none died. For 22 families, that's a world of a difference.

The shooter in Newtown used an AR-15, one of the military-grade weapons that would be regulated under laws proposed by President Obama. With the AR-15, the Newtown shooter was able to fire a bullet roughly every two seconds. The Navy Yard shooter also reportedly had access to an AR-15, as well as a shotgun and semi-automatic handgun or multiple handguns. Details are still coming out.

Gun rights extremists like to deal in hypotheticals. What if everyone in the Navy Yard had their own AR-15? What if the shooter used knives instead? What if President Obama personally knocks on my door to take away all my guns and I need to defend myself? But especially in the wake of tragic mass shootings, the realists among us deal with facts.

The fact is that twelve more Americans are dead because of the all-to-easy availability of dangerous weapons to dangerous people. The fact is that the American people, including sensible gun owners, overwhelmingly support increased regulation in the face of such atrocities. The fact is that in the wake of an increase in such mass shootings, the only thing Republicans in Congress have done is increase their legislative obstructionism. And the fact is that conservative contortionism to blame mass shootings on anything and everything but guns cannot change these facts - or the growing frustration and desperation of the American people.

Enough is enough already. Let's stop making excuses and start making changes in our lax gun laws. Now.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

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

 
-18 # jwb110 2013-09-17 11:32
Just look at the guy in the pic. It has psychopath written all over it. You think he ever wonders if he will go to hell for telling such lies?
 
 
-33 # edge 2013-09-17 12:42
"The shooter in Newtown used an AR-15, one of the military-grade weapons"

WRONG!

Military versions are fully select automatic you sick liar!

Rifles are rarely used in homicides, actually hammers are more likely than AR-15's to be used as a murder weapon!!!
 
 
+58 # coach777b 2013-09-17 14:48
Nobody gives a rat's ass about what type of weapon was used! Was it automatic? Was it sem-automatic? Who cares! Thirteen people were killed, shot in their workplace. Let's talk about some common sense laws to curb this obscene mass murder.
 
 
+18 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:23
Quoting coach777b:
Let's talk about some common sense laws to curb this obscene mass murder.


That requires reforming our broken mental health system, not forgetting the rights inherent in our Constitution.

These issues are all relatively recent. No one ever heard of Jesse James or Billy the Kid committing mass shootings in elementary schools or elsewhere. In that era, twelve-year-old s carried their hunting rifles to school and lined them up against the back wall of the classroom until they went home. How many mass atrocities did we hear about?

We won't fix these problems by focusing on the weapon used. We need to fix what is broken in the society.
 
 
+28 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:06
Do you think psychopaths, who've already been diagnosed should be allowed to carry guns?

Lunatics exist in every society on Earth. They aren't always armed to the teeth.
 
 
+3 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 16:49
Quoting Billy Bob:
Do you think psychopaths, who've already been diagnosed should be allowed to carry guns?

Depending on your definition of "psychopath" (clinical or lay term) I don't necessarily believe they should be running around loose at all.
 
 
+24 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 20:59
In the first place, it is false that 12 year olds brought their guns to school. My grandfather (Kansas) was from that era and they didn't have anything bigger than a .22 because they cost too much and they didn't need anything bigger. And his dad wasn't about to let him take the gun with him to school.

And the thing that is broken in our society and needs fixing is the gun nuts who have this sick emotional attachment to their guns. Like the one in Pittsburgh who shot three policemen, who his mother called, because he thought they were going to take away his guns.
 
 
+11 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:16
Wow! tell me a bedtime story about the olden times - and leave out the part about how truly dangerous those times were and how few managed to live to old age. Kids had to carry guns for fear of revenge by the Indians surviving repeated massacres - or to shoot a rabbit dinner - try that in your neighborhood today.
Appealing as that may be (?), that has literally nothing to do with today's easily available weapons and our dense population (negligent shootings through apartment ceilings and walls).
Besides, a weapon close at hand is and has been a ready alternative solution for any of life's problems: your wife leaves you because you caress your weapon more than her - use the gun. You are dissed at work, hear voices, listen to Limbaugh rail against government - use the gun.
I can guarantee that you who are in possession of them act less humble than those without them. You just don't realize it because you are inside looking out. We who are on your outside can see this difference between your writing and actions and those of non-owners.
 
 
-3 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 16:52
Quoting babalu:
Besides, a weapon close at hand is and has been a ready alternative solution for any of life's problems: your wife leaves you because you caress your weapon more than her - use the gun. You are dissed at work, hear voices, listen to Limbaugh rail against government - use the gun.

Please provide statistical support for the specific cases you describe, where otherwise law-abiding persons (i.e. those who obtained and possessed their firearms lawfully) used them in the manner you describe.
 
 
+3 # Eldon J. Bloedorn 2013-09-20 21:48
You are suggesting that our congressmen have more sense than the NRA has money.
 
 
+22 # suzyskier 2013-09-17 20:48
So you're more concerned that the author made a mistake by saying an AR-15 used in Newtown was not a miliatary grade weapon than you are about 12 more innocent victims of gun rage? How do you live with yourself?
 
 
-8 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 16:58
Quoting suzyskier:
So you're more concerned that the author made a mistake by saying an AR-15 used in Newtown was not a miliatary grade weapon than you are about 12 more innocent victims of gun rage?

There is no such thing as "gun rage." Those who are mentally ill and who plan on harming others will do so whether it's with a gun, a fertilizer-base d bomb or running people down with a big pickup truck. We don't fix the problem by outlawing fertilizer or big trucks, and we're not going to fix it by banning guns. All of these things are tools; the one difference between them is that you have been conditioned to see firearms as something Bad And Scary. But firearms are not the problem. Remember: you could buy a full-automatic machine gun in the 1930s over the counter - yet no one was shooting up elementary school classrooms. What changed? Certainly not the guns. An AR15 doesn't fire nearly as many rounds nearly as quickly as a fully-automatic machine gun of the 1930s. Those who say an AR15 is a more powerful, more capable firearm than anything before it are, quite simply, lying.
 
 
+5 # Old Man 2013-09-20 13:38
Ask the people in Aurora, Newtown & Ft. Hood How they feel about the AR-15.
It really doesn't matter semiautomatic or fully automatic, it fires as fast as you can pull the trigger. It kills the same way. It's also very easy to modify one of these weapons if you know what you are doing.
 
 
+41 # HowardMH 2013-09-17 13:03
Jwb: You need to educate the Government Blockheads that gave him a Secret Security Clearance. Are these companies and the government so desperate for technical expertise that they give Secret Security Clearances to people that have been discharged from the military with a general discharge and with his background? It only took the media a couple hours to come up with enough stuff that should have denied him ANY Security Clearance. Be afraid America, Be Very Afraid!
 
 
-2 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:20
I totally agree with your point! Do they need SO MANY operators for the vast cascade of data that they are hiring boys who hear things and get in fights with co-workers (Manning)? Why does anyone outside a hardened embassy NEED access to our "crown jewels" (actually our most intimate conversations)? Do these guys just talk to each other and make up shit about how essential they all are? They are in need of some in-your-shorts oversight!
 
 
+11 # wrknight 2013-09-18 11:43
Part of that problem stems from the business of outsourcing government business to contractors. In our haste to "downsize" government (a true myth), we have reduced the rolls of civil servants only to replace them with contractors. In so doing, we now leave it to contractors to vet applicants for jobs working for the government as contractors.

Anyone who believes the bullshit about downsizing government need only look at the federal budget. The budget tells the true size of government - not the number of federal employees.
 
 
+2 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:04
Actually, he challenged his discharge and they changed it to honorable to avoid the paperwork. One of the predictable effects of the starve the government stupidity.
 
 
+10 # LeeBlack 2013-09-17 14:32
sorry - i met to hit plus but it counted as negative
 
 
+27 # fredboy 2013-09-17 11:32
Does the NRA allow the general public to stroll into their national headquarters brandishing a loaded AR-15?

Do they think this is OK?

I hope not.
 
 
+39 # Working Class 2013-09-17 12:49
Quoting fredboy:
Does the NRA allow the general public to stroll into their national headquarters brandishing a loaded AR-15?

Do they think this is OK?

I hope not.


The answer to the question is absolutely not. Nor do they allow persons carrying weapons to attend their conventions. Nor do they support people carrying loaded guns to gun shows. Gee two set of rules. By the way NRA leadership is protected by armed security guards. WOW - what does that tell you about their thoughts when they are not shilling for the gun manufactures?
 
 
+21 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:08
Why do they need security guards? I thought the whole idea was that they could "protect themselves".
 
 
+4 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:06
Well, they Quoting Billy Bob:
Why do they need security guards? I thought the whole idea was that they could "protect themselves".


Well they claim that the protection from the bad guys with guns is the good guys with guns, and since THEY are the bad guys with guns they need the protection.
 
 
+5 # wrknight 2013-09-18 11:46
Whaaaat?! How can it possibly be that the NRA would interfere with 2nd amendment rights to bear arms in their illustrious headquarters or at their sacred conventions.
 
 
+37 # Betty Bimbalina 2013-09-17 13:32
Guess again. I just called the NRA and they do allow "law abiding citizens" to come in with weapons including concealed carry. They also have a free shooting range in the basement where you try out your personal handgun, rifle or shotgun. Yahoo, they practice what they preach.

So I don't know how we're going to make ant sensible progress in our dithering democracy. Perhaps we should all join the gun nuts and pass laws requiring every adult to carry a firearm in any public place. Shouldn't be any problem getting that through our cowardly congress. Once that social experiment is played out and only half the population remains, maybe we can get some responsible, adult legislation passed. The arc is long.
 
 
-16 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:27
Quoting Betty Bimbalina:
Once that social experiment is played out and only half the population remains, maybe we can get some responsible, adult legislation passed.

You have THAT little faith in society? How do you think we survived our first 200+ years as a society without the laws you want passed?
 
 
+15 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:04
Because people didn't have the weapons that are common today. It wasn't too long ago that a zip gun (remember those?) was a big deal. Now if you go into a street fight armed with one of them, you don't have a chance against the firepower available to the other side.
 
 
-6 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:01
I said it elsewhere and I'll say it here: an AR15 fires one round at a time - a round of approximately the same mass as a .22 rifle. You could buy fully automatic machine guns over the counter in the 1930s. Which one could fire more bullets faster? And what stories can you link us to in which fully-automatic machine guns in the 1930s were used to shoot up elementary schools or, for that matter, military bases?
 
 
+1 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:09
And machine guns are illegal. An AR may fire one bullet at a time, but the delay between bullets is a small fraction of a second. How dumb do you think we are? This isn't a right wing site which requires you to be stupid in order to post.
 
 
+7 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:29
Quoting tedrey:
And let us find a way to ensure that, when a subject has been debated and discussed over and over again, and a large majority of the citizenry have come to a firm conclusion as to what needs to be done, it can get done.

The problem with that line of thinking is: the large majority of the citizenry have come to a DIFFERENT conclusion than the mainstream media has told you.
 
 
+9 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:05
And if you don't believe Pete, just ask the other people who assured you that the polls were skewed.
 
 
-5 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:01
Quoting Texas Aggie:
And if you don't believe Pete, just ask the other people who assured you that the polls were skewed.

You should especially ask the folks who voted in the recall elections in Colorado.
 
 
+20 # tabonsell 2013-09-17 14:07
The National Rifle Association has armed security at its headquarters and was advertising for more personnel recently.
 
 
+4 # suzyskier 2013-09-17 20:50
They probably do. They love their guns more than anyt hing, become hysterical at the very notion that they might by some fluke loose them.
 
 
+46 # DaveM 2013-09-17 11:49
I will not comment on gun laws specifically. I find it shocking almost beyond belief that a person this unstable, with the history he appears to have had, was able to obtain a security clearance and enter a secure military facility (apparently while carrying weapons--we do not yet know how or how many) unchallenged.

Unfortunately, the Charles Whitmans and Aaron Alexis' of this world do not bear a flashing neon sign warning that they are about to explode with horrendous results. None of us wear a warning sign of any form. Mercifully, all but a handful of consciousless maniacs will become murderously violent during a given generation. But each time one does, we must confront the fact that, in the modern world, monsters look the same as we do. Are you a monster? How would you know?
 
 
+27 # marigayl 2013-09-17 13:54
Anybody who enlists in the military will be systematically abused until they are trained to be remorseless killers. Episodes of mass murder in the countries the US invades are too numerous to count. Pre-enlistment programming now takes place via video games,rewarding the players for being remorseless killers of images on a screen. These poor dupes come home from their killing sprees in foreign lands, wounded, sickened by DU and other US-perpetrated poisons, burdened by all they have done. I wonder how many of the soldier suicides kill themselves upon realizing that their best selves are already obliterated. Killing is glorified in these United States.
 
 
-13 # coach777b 2013-09-17 14:57
Quoting marigayl:
Anybody who enlists in the military will be systematically abused until they are trained to be remorseless killers. Episodes of mass murder in the countries the US invades are too numerous to count. Pre-enlistment programming now takes place via video games,rewarding the players for being remorseless killers of images on a screen. These poor dupes come home from their killing sprees in foreign lands, wounded, sickened by DU and other US-perpetrated poisons, burdened by all they have done. I wonder how many of the soldier suicides kill themselves upon realizing that their best selves are already obliterated. Killing is glorified in these United States.


Apparently, you've not served in the military. Now that only 1% of Americans serve in the military, folks like you feel free to make stupid statements because you don't have to serve your country. As a VietNam Era veteran, a drill sergeant and a paratrooper, I was NEVER " systematically abused".out of the Army, I compiled my degree, raised a family, carried Top Secret clearances and raised a family. When you don't know what you're talking about, STOP TALKING!
 
 
+15 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 17:53
You are the "then" rep and these guys are the "now". YOU must spend your time watching pro sports in your dotage. Me, I spent 7 1/2 years in FBM submarines and was passed to make E-7 if I had re-upped. I wasn't 'abused' in the least. I wish now I did not hold those years so warmly (and Rota, Spain and Holy Loch, Scotland) because I was NEVER defending liberty but the oligarchs instead. Found that out later. My son, however, reps the NOW gen and he is a basket case of anger issues. He was booted after 4 1/2, TG. 3 years down the road and he is a misogynist, still. Maybe marigayl exaggerates the numbers but as to the ones in combat zones, I support the assertions. See, I don't watch television but blog pretty much constantly including RSN. See my posts and negative ratings. That does not make me an expert but just a student. Oh, I was a state trooper for a time, too. That does not make me an expert on that either. Googling police brutality, though, is quite revealing, yes?
 
 
+3 # Merschrod 2013-09-18 06:30
John brings up an important aspect the "then" and the "now" Back in the day, there was the draft - we were going to make it a "career" of 2-3-4 years (Some volunteered to avoid the draft into the ground troops) So many were civilians in orientation and not military career oiented. So that factor probably had an impact on the psychological rsult of indoctrination and, when overseas, changed attitudes.

The Now probably represent part of the cross section that went into the military duriong the draft - so the psychological profile of the armed forces changed.

No real point or alternative hypothesis here just an intervening variable.
 
 
+6 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 18:05
BTW, you don't read very well. The comment you (think you are) replying to states that personnel are abused with violent video games before and after they JOIN (to transform them into killing units). When I joined in 1962, they had pinball games. You, too. My Company Commander at boot camp San Diego would never be allowed to be the nice guy he was today and he was an E-6 (1st Cl)Torpedoman.
 
 
+4 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:27
Be afraid is right! It is clear every part of this god-awful apparatus has problems. From the top "picard" on down!
 
 
+7 # Phlippinout 2013-09-17 19:54
Thank goodness the people who serve are at a minimum, but I am sure that the high interest rates on student loans will send many running to the military. Its great for some but not for many! It was good for you , bravo, but not for everyone. Does that make us less of Americans? No way! Who are you to tell someone to stop talking, Did you learn that arrogance in the military? Think you're better than others? Well your not, you chose a job and that was it! many people contribute in many ways. Have some respect for others.
 
 
-5 # Depressionborn 2013-09-18 10:09
sorry coach, you are dealing wih rsn fools and idiots.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." --Cesare Beccaria
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:19
Quoting Depressionborn:
sorry coach, you are dealing wih rsn fools and idiots.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." --Cesare Beccaria


Laws that make sense make it impossible for bad guys to get guns in the first place. Apparently Cesare was an idiot.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:16
The military absolutely does "abuse" personnel. The idea is to make them jump immediately to comply with any order they are given.

I killed people in war, but after returning I was healthy enough mentally to put down the guns and while I have one, it gets taken out once a year, cleaned and goes back under lock and key.

What others consider abuse you see as training and it's a legitimate point on both sides. The military needs people to mindlessly follow orders. Basic training is all about abuse. But, it is necessary.
 
 
+16 # hammermann 2013-09-17 17:43
Well, anyone who gets sent to some hellhole insurgency, like Iraq, where soldiers were routinely ordered to kill everyone in approaching cars on the tiny possibility they were gov. fighters. Usually they were families fleeing the carnage- women and children. This was at checkpoints, sometimes invisible, or hidden.

And the answer is significantly more (ex)soldiers are killing themselves daily than are dying in Afghanistan. Would that they would instead hunt down the neocons that ginned up that treasonous war.
 
 
+74 # WestWinds 2013-09-17 11:53
I get sick of every time some person goes off on a shooting spree, that it is somehow the fault of "gun nuts".

The true blame goes to the Right-wing corporatists who have bought off our functional government and replaced it with a totally dysfunctional government that has gutted the money for social programs and good health care (the US ranks 32nd in the world in health care) for oil and war.

If we had a fully functional health care system (Medicare for All), this man would have been under care and not running around getting into trouble. But the Republicans shut down all of the psychiatric facilities and put everyone out on the streets, leaving it to the police to clean up any mess that comes along.

NeoCon Republicans are domestic terrorists and we need to get rid of them.
 
 
+32 # Working Class 2013-09-17 12:53
I agree totally. But just in case you think the system is broken, my observation is that it is not. It works as designed. Its just that those that have and are doing the designing don't care about anyone but themselves. So in short, the system isn't broken, its fixed.
 
 
+13 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:12
The problem is that there's still nothing preventing psychopaths who've actually been diagnosed, from obtaining any weapon of their choice.
 
 
+5 # suzyskier 2013-09-17 20:59
Quoting WestWinds:
I get sick of every time some person goes off on a shooting spree, that it is somehow the fault of "gun nuts".

The true blame goes to the Right-wing corporatists who have bought off our functional government and replaced it with a totally dysfunctional government that has gutted the money for social programs and good health care (the US ranks 32nd in the world in health care) for oil and war.

If we had a fully functional health care system (Medicare for All), this man would have been under care and not running around getting into trouble. But the Republicans shut down all of the psychiatric facilities and put everyone out on the streets, leaving it to the police to clean up any mess that comes along.

NeoCon Republicans are domestic terrorists and we need to get rid of them.

I'm with you let's get rid of them asap! Don't forget to vote next November so we can rid ourselves of these ignorant faschists.
 
 
+9 # tedrey 2013-09-17 12:05
Yes, now! And let us find a way to ensure that, when a subject has been debated and discussed over and over again, and a large majority of the citizenry have come to a firm conclusion as to what needs to be done, it can get done. Now!
 
 
-15 # wwway 2013-09-17 12:27
I continue to be concerned at the complacency and stupidity Americans have for these issues. Especially among Democrats. In Colorado recently it was basically the democrats who recalled their own representatives by not showing up to vote.
Democracy is a process that ensures the people get the government they deserve. Cow down to the bully arguments and you lose folks.
 
 
+6 # rose528 2013-09-17 12:47
another nazi fascist party of NO repug, follower trying to spread more lies, fear and hate
 
 
+11 # HowardMH 2013-09-17 12:54
wwway, you making it way to complicated. Just say, "Stupid is as stupid does and there is a whole lot of stupid out there".
 
 
-7 # MidwesTom 2013-09-17 12:31
The facts in this story are plain wrong. The theater shootings in Colorado, were in a theater declared as gun free. On the military bases only the military police can carry weapons, the Fort Hood shooting would have been a lot less if someone in the run other than the shooter had a gun. Clinton banned non-police members of the military from carrying weapons on base.
 
 
+5 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:32
Regardless of the theater rules, which the disturbed shooter probably did not notice, another diagnosed as dangerous white boy had unlimited access to guns and ammo to carry out his PREDICTED spree.
With limitations on gun carrying on cases, there have probably been more lives saved from prevented negligent use. Yes, Clinton did what he could for safety - and now you want to roll back the calendar!
 
 
+3 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:24
It's amazing how often this canard has been repeated, but in every case in which it has happened, the only result has been all the people were still killed and the good Samaritan was too.

Untrained people entering a firefight only increases the death toll. Hell, that also happens when trained people do it, Joe Schmoe or MidwestTom shooting it out would only increase the carnage.
 
 
+10 # Barbara K 2013-09-17 12:34
There are too many guns in too many hands in too many places. Until we bring down the NRA, we will not be safe. They need to be investigated and see what charges can be brought against them. May be like "Supplying Weapons of Mass Destruction?" They make our lives more dangerous every day with their nuttiness. We don't need to carry guns to be safe, except from them now.

..
 
 
+3 # GT06 2013-09-17 15:46
So, you want to investigate 5 million Americans? That is what the NRA is. Five million people banding together in a grass roots effort to petition their government. Five million individuals. How would this investigation proceed? Should they all be subject to searches, to IRS audits, to persecution for their beliefs.

The NRA is not a thing. It is five million individual people. Your neighbors. Your doctor. Your children's teachers. Your CPA. Your pastor. Your babysitter. The people at your workout club.

Persecution for individual beliefs seems somewhat out of step with what are commonly thought of as American values.

Are so afraid of thoughts which are contrary to our own that we would subject five million people to "investigation? "
 
 
+11 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:15
It's 5 million people craming shit the other 300 million citizens don't want, down our throats. 90% of Americans want MORE gun control - not less. 90% of 300 million is 270 million.
 
 
+9 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:13
How many of those 5 million want stricter background checks? A majority. So what does it say that the NRA follows what the gun manufacturers want rather than what their membership wants?
 
 
+7 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:34
Whoa, bro - drinkin' the koolaid. The NRA is indeed a thing, a corporation, and it is bankrolling any gun nut who wants to take over OUR governmetn. Yes, because they haveo msu ch hubris, they are likely to violate their charter.
 
 
+2 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:27
And an overwhelming % of NRA members are in favor of far stricter background checks.

Handguns have no legitimate place in a sane society. We have many times the handgun deaths of all the rest of the first world in toto. Most first world countries have a total that you can count on your fingers, we have over 30,000 a year. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
 
+3 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:32
Quoting Barbara K:
There are too many guns in too many hands in too many places. Until we bring down the NRA, we will not be safe.

You really do need to take a history class. Check out what the founders said about guns in the hands of the citizenry, and whether they thought it was a good idea, and why or why not. What you learn may shock you.
 
 
+9 # reiverpacific 2013-09-17 19:37
Quoting PeteGould:
Quoting Barbara K:
There are too many guns in too many hands in too many places. Until we bring down the NRA, we will not be safe.

You really do need to take a history class. Check out what the founders said about guns in the hands of the citizenry, and whether they thought it was a good idea, and why or why not. What you learn may shock you.

They were writing as a small elite group of white, land and slave-owning (and shagging in some cases) master class who were in a position to dictate who the 'WELL REGULATED' militia should be in an as yet fairly small territory, armed with single-shot pop-guns compared to what the average American as at their disposal these days, which they could never have imagined.
This is another example of an out of date constitution being manipulated and conveniently interpreted by those who have the $ and support of a largely ignorant mass, most of whom, and I'd bet good money on it, that have never read or understood the document in it's breadth and historical context but who take their leader's words as gospel if it sounds like it suits them.
Has it ever occurred to any of you NRA-supporting lot, that one of the reasons that the cops (and I mean ONE reason) are now so militarized and heavily armed, is because of the availability of such a variety and depth of lethal weaponry generally available to use against them by those who chant loudest about freedom, giving Big Bro' the excuse to crush it?
 
 
-6 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:14
Quoting reiverpacific:
They were writing as a small elite group of white, land and slave-owning (and shagging in some cases) master class who were in a position to dictate who the 'WELL REGULATED' militia should be in an as yet fairly small territory, armed with single-shot pop-guns compared to what the average American as at their disposal these days, which they could never have imagined.

By your reckoning the entire Constitution is suspect and should be rewritten - presumably by those with whom you are philosophically aligned. What you're missing is that the Founders had fought a revolutionary war to separate themselves from what they considered a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was intended to ensure their new nation would never be similarly situated.

Read Orwell's Animal Farm. You're all ready to start revising the commandments on the wall of the barn. This is not new stuff. Orwell was writing an allegorical and dystopian novel on the Russian Revolution - which itself was not a new human behavioral pattern. Given your apparent choice to dismiss the Constitution as the work of "a small elite group of white, land and slave-owning . . . master class," you would simply be repeating history.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-09-18 20:06
Quoting PeteGould:
Quoting reiverpacific:
They were writing as a small elite group of white, land and slave-owning (and shagging in some cases) master class who were in a position to dictate who the 'WELL REGULATED' militia should be in an as yet fairly small territory, armed with single-shot pop-guns compared to what the average American as at their disposal these days, which they could never have imagined.

By your reckoning the entire Constitution is suspect and should be rewritten - presumably by those with whom you are philosophically aligned. What you're missing is that the Founders had fought a revolutionary war to separate themselves from what they considered a tyrannical government. The Second Amendment was intended to ensure their new nation would never be similarly situated.

Read Orwell's Animal Farm. You're all ready to start revising the commandments on the wall of the barn. This is not new stuff. Orwell was writing an allegorical and dystopian novel on the Russian Revolution - which itself was not a new human behavioral pattern. Given your apparent choice to dismiss the Constitution as the work of "a small elite group of white, land and slave-owning . . . master class," you would simply be repeating history.

I've read "Animal Farm" and it was written a long time by a very wise socialist.
Bugger-all to do with the current sickness confined to the US.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:33
Do you think they are that smart? If they were they would be melting down their guns and demanding the death penalty for the entire management structure of the NRA from 1977 on.
 
 
+6 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:19
The Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to quell the potential for violent uprising among the citizenry. They enacted it SPECIFICALLY to ensure each state would have a state militia (now called, "National Guard"), for the express purpose of preventing another Shay's Rebellion.

The NRA has twisted the facts to the point where people parrot the exact OPPOSITE of what actually happened. The NRA knows what it's doing. It's paid attention to the tobacco industry.
 
 
-4 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:11
Quoting Billy Bob:
The Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to quell the potential for violent uprising among the citizenry. They enacted it SPECIFICALLY to ensure each state would have a state militia (now called, "National Guard"), for the express purpose of preventing another Shay's Rebellion.

The NRA has twisted the facts to the point where people parrot the exact OPPOSITE of what actually happened. The NRA knows what it's doing. It's paid attention to the tobacco industry.


Except that the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. In the Heller decision, it ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms to all individuals. Participation with or membership in any form of organized militia is not required. The words are "The People" in the Second Amendment. So, the current law of the land is that gun rights are for individuals.
 
 
+3 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:39
The current corrupt SCOTUS said that, but they are easily proven wrong. Back in the 30s a rational SCOTUS ruled that the only people covered by the "well regulated militia" which Alito actually said, despite it being there in plain words, means nothing.

Quoting the justices who in 4 of the 5 cases have been called 4 of the 5 worst , least competent and honest in history. Only Kennedy gets a pass, but even he is judged to be bad, just not one of the worst because sometimes he actually renders opinions in accordance with the constitution despite it not being part of his ideology.

Citizens United stands right up there with Dred Scott as the worst rulings in history.
 
 
-4 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:15
Quoting Billy Bob:
The Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment . . . SPECIFICALLY to ensure each state would have a state militia (now called, "National Guard"), for the express purpose of preventing another Shay's Rebellion.

Haven't read the Federalist Papers, have you?
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:42
Most of the Federalist paper writers had little influence on the constitution because they were ignorant ideologues. Not stupid, but ignorant. But now we have a number of numbskull justices from the Federalist Society and you can observe the wreckage of the constitution burning at their feet.
 
 
+4 # suzyskier 2013-09-17 21:06
When the founders wrote the Constitution life was very different. People needed their guns/rifles for hunting and also to protect themselves as we had no police force in colonial times, at least not like we have today. I have no problem with hunters and rifles and people who enjoy target shooting but lets face it the streets are full of weapons and people are dying. Frankly it is getting to be embarrasing to be an American and I don't care what anyone calls me, if I am abroad I will claim to be a Canadian!
 
 
-2 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:15
Quoting suzyskier:
When the founders wrote the Constitution life was very different. People needed their guns/rifles for hunting and also to protect themselves as we had no police force in colonial times, at least not like we have today. I have no problem with hunters and rifles and people who enjoy target shooting but lets face it the streets are full of weapons and people are dying. Frankly it is getting to be embarrasing to be an American and I don't care what anyone calls me, if I am abroad I will claim to be a Canadian!


Let's take the Bill of Rights in order, then. There were no computers, no internet, no TV or radio when the Bill of Rights was written. Should the First Amendment apply only to the forms of communication available in the 1700's?

100 Million gun owners in American did not commit crimes with their firearms this week, or this year.

More than a million used their guns to protect themselves and their families from criminals.

A tiny percentage of people broke existing laws to commit crimes. U.S. Gov. funded studies say they can find no evidence of any gun control law which has reduced crime.
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:47
The delivery system may have changed, but the same facts of the first amendment still apply in toto.

And whoever says that a million people protected their families is exaggerating by a factor of thousands.

Just because you say you have a gun and someone leaves does not mean you protected your family. The guy may have just wanted directions. But you are 22 times more likely to die by your gun than to protect your family with it.
 
 
+4 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:14
They thought that the state militias were necessary to return runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. Speaking about really needing to take a history class.
 
 
+2 # babalu 2013-09-18 06:37
True, Running down blacks not under theri control, just like pooooor helpless George Zimmerman.
 
 
0 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:44
Quoting Texas Aggie:
They thought that the state militias were necessary to return runaway slaves and put down slave rebellions. Speaking about really needing to take a history class.

Well... no. Bogus' writings in that regard have been thoroughly debunked as... well.. bogus.
 
 
+2 # bingers 2013-09-20 06:31
Quoting PeteGould:
Quoting Barbara K:
There are too many guns in too many hands in too many places. Until we bring down the NRA, we will not be safe.

You really do need to take a history class. Check out what the founders said about guns in the hands of the citizenry, and whether they thought it was a good idea, and why or why not. What you learn may shock you.


Yep, they didn't want a standing army for two reasons, one, the threat of a coup, and also because they couldn't afford to pay them. So, because back then people needed guns to put food on the table and what they had was muskets which you can, if really good, fire every couple of minutes they didn't anticipate the dangers of tons of rapid fire weapons and concealable handguns.
 
 
-6 # Livemike 2013-09-18 02:42
You're already safe moron. Look at the violent crime rate, going down, down, down. This despite the fact that the number of guns is going up, up, up. Yeah it's the NRA that's supplying the weapons of mass destruction, not your government. You really are scum you know that? If people disagree with you you want them CHARGED. God leave America, it's not meant for you.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-09-17 12:45
I've got it! Send the NRA CEO, his head goons and faithful, redneck acolytes, with Andrew Zimmerman as their all American standard-bearer and Hank Williams Jr singing his own anthem "Kill the Sand-Niggers", to Syria, as the most lethal armed force the US has to offer, all without the encumbrance of the ability to reason beyond their trigger fingers and hateful rhetoric.
That'll scare the shit out of both Assad and the Rebels alike and may persuade them to get together, knowing that other countries are stuck with even more, persistently lethal self-inflicted problems that they have, bad as they are.
Be a good way to concurrently get rid of that gang of mindless twits forever and bring a gratitude based spell of peace to a long-troubled region.
Who needs the military with thugs like these roaming around at large with their "patriotic" chests puffed and a massive lobby in DC?
 
 
-5 # Livemike 2013-09-18 02:40
I see so because they like guns they must hate Arabs right? Yeah and we're the prejudiced ones. You make me sick.
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-09-18 12:04
Quoting reiverpacific:
I've got it! Send the NRA CEO, his head goons and faithful, redneck acolytes, with Andrew Zimmerman as their all American standard-bearer and Hank Williams Jr singing his own anthem "Kill the Sand-Niggers", to Syria, as the most lethal armed force the US has to offer, all without the encumbrance of the ability to reason beyond their trigger fingers and hateful rhetoric.
That'll scare the shit out of both Assad and the Rebels alike and may persuade them to get together, knowing that other countries are stuck with even more, persistently lethal self-inflicted problems that they have, bad as they are.
Be a good way to concurrently get rid of that gang of mindless twits forever and bring a gratitude based spell of peace to a long-troubled region.
Who needs the military with thugs like these roaming around at large with their "patriotic" chests puffed and a massive lobby in DC?

Looks like I need to avoid Gallows, deeply ironic humor in future.
 
 
+3 # wendy 2013-09-17 12:47
Unfortunately, odds of any of the LaPierre NRA faction changing their minds is slim to none:

http://admin.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever?akid=10941.269183.nbIM9G&rd=1&src=newsletter897375&t=3
 
 
-7 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 18:03
Quoting wendy:
Unfortunately, odds of any of the LaPierre NRA faction changing their minds is slim to none:

http://admin.alternet.org/media/most-depressing-discovery-about-brain-ever?akid=10941.269183.nbIM9G&rd=1&src=newsletter897375&t=3

What's amusing and rather sad about this post is that you assume out of hand that you're the one in the right. What if you're not?
 
 
+6 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:18
What if the world is flat? What if the moon is made of green cheese? What if the tooth fairy leaves money under the pillow in exchange for teeth?
 
 
-5 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:16
Quoting Texas Aggie:
What if the world is flat? What if the moon is made of green cheese? What if the tooth fairy leaves money under the pillow in exchange for teeth?

In other words you have no substantive response to offer?
 
 
+3 # bingers 2013-09-20 19:08
The Reply was directly on point and more likely to be true than your point.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2013-09-20 19:06
Because she is.
 
 
+6 # Betty Bimbalina 2013-09-17 13:05
I wonder if our gun laws would become a little more sensible if psychopaths started blowing people away at gun shows?
 
 
+7 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:20
There were several accidents at gun shows within the past year. It doesn't take a psychopath doing it on purpose. It just takes a regular moron with a gun in a crowded room.
 
 
-4 # GT06 2013-09-18 12:59
Do you wonder why there are no mass shootings at gun shows, at police stations, at shooting ranges? But there are mass shootings at places which are posted as mythical "Gun Free Zones."

Why don't we make it illegal for anyone with a felony conviction to own a gun? Let's toss in anyone convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor offense. Let's require that any store which sells guns be checked out by the federal government and have to meet strict requirements and ongoing inspections. Let's ban the sale of handguns to anyone under 21 years old, and long guns to anyone under 18. Shoot, let's require that any gun purchased at that federally-licen sed gun store come with a background check done by the FBI. Every single gun purchase must be given the okay by the FBI. Let's make it a federal felony to buy a guy for someone else when that person is legally prevented from having a gun. Sound good?

Well, all those are currently law.

None of them have reduced crime. The feds almost never prosecute anyone for the felony crime of trying to buy a gun when prohibited.

So, since all the these, and the 20,000 other gun control laws, have shown no evidence of reducing crime, why is it we want to put even more restrictions on people who obey the law while we know that criminals (by definition) don't?
 
 
+3 # Old Man 2013-09-20 15:29
All these laws are in place for good reason. It's like we have laws for driving, but a lot of people don't follow those laws. I see it everyday.
I've been to gun show and the only question asked is are you a felon? The sale is made and now how's to blame?
I think one of the solutions should be each gun have an ID# that can't be removed along with a refundable deposit like they had on bottles and cans many years ago. If that gun hurt or kills someone the last person on record would be held responsible for the crime.
We make it way to easy for people to get a gun and it must change. Most reputable gun shops are in accordance with the law. I remember many years ago they wanted a 30 day waiting period, but I don't know how that stand now.
 
 
+4 # GT06 2013-09-17 13:17
I have a plan guaranteed to reduce gun violence by 40 percent. Guaranteed. Snap your fingers. THERE! It's done. The fact is that "gun violence" is down 40% over the last 20 years according to the U.S. Justice Department. Why doesn't the public hear this great news? Ask the media. Millions more guns. Millions more gun owners. But gun violence is down by almost half.

As for armed citizens shooting up the place -- basically doesn't happen. Many mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens -- in schools, churches, malls, etc. No reports of them shooting the wrong person.

You can wait many minutes for the "authorized" responders, while people continue to die, or a citizen who has been trained, photographed, had a background check done by the FBI, fingerprinted, and is identifiable just shoots the madman and ends the horror. How important is it to have the first responder wearing the proper clothing -- i.e. a uniform?
 
 
+4 # hammermann 2013-09-17 17:55
I am all for citizens taking out the maniac- but you are full of bull, I think. I haven't read ONE CASE of an armed civilian shooting a mass shooter. Not one. Name some
 
 
+5 # GT06 2013-09-17 19:25
Quoting hammermann:
I am all for citizens taking out the maniac- but you are full of bull, I think. I haven't read ONE CASE of an armed civilian shooting a mass shooter. Not one. Name some


Google these: New Life Church, Colorado Springs. Pearl, MS school shooting where asst. principal got his gun and stopped the shooter. Appalachian School of Law shooting where two students got their guns and stopped the shooting. Trolly Square Mall. And on, and on. The info is out there for anyone open to facts rather than dogma. The Shoney's restaurant in Anniston, AL. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XCIBViewitem.asp?ID=1446

Seek and ye shall find. That's just an earlier version of "Google it."
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:31
Appalachian School shooting - the gunman was tackled by students. Guys with guns came later.

The Trolly Square Mall shooting was stopped by off-duty police.

The New Life Church, Colorado Springs shooter was shot by a security guard.
 
 
-5 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:20
Quoting Billy Bob:
Appalachian School shooting - the gunman was tackled by students. Guys with guns came later.

The Trolly Square Mall shooting was stopped by off-duty police.

The New Life Church, Colorado Springs shooter was shot by a security guard.


The "security guard" was a volunteer member of the church. SHE shot the man who had planned to kill hundreds. Trolly Square -- the point is that someone ON THE SCENE acted quickly. There was no need to wait for dispatch to send people with guns. Someone there had a gun. Pearl, MS, assistant principal got his gun and stopped the shooter.

Get the book "The Bias Against Guns" for a deep look at how the stories of these events changed in the media. First they report the citizen with the gun stopping the shooter. Then the story changes to "a citizen intervened." Mention of the gun disappears from later versions of the stories.
 
 
-3 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:19
Quoting Billy Bob:
The New Life Church, Colorado Springs shooter was shot by a security guard.

Well, actually, no. Jeanne Assam was a parishioner who wished to carry a firearm for personal reasons. The pastor allowed her to do so in accordance with a church policy which otherwise frowned on guns by designating her as a "volunteer security guard." This was nothing more than an honorific and she was neither retained nor compensated as such.
 
 
+1 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 19:31
There was one in Mississippi. The principle went out to his car and got his 45. I don't think he shot anyone though.
 
 
-4 # hammermann 2013-09-18 07:44
So we got one. Like I said, I'm all for people shooting the maniac- I don't think you have to afraid of them accidentally shooting others when the rampage killer is doing that much faster. You certainly can't rely on the police, who cower outside while everyone is killed, then brutalize the victims with Iraq style prisoner treatment. In all these events, there hasn't been one cop hero who has gone in and stopped the shooter at risk to himself.
 
 
-4 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:48
Quoting hammermann:
I am all for citizens taking out the maniac- but you are full of bull, I think. I haven't read ONE CASE of an armed civilian shooting a mass shooter. Not one.

That's because if an armed civilian is present and acts quickly, it doesn't become a mass shooting, and never rises to the level of fodder for the national news. These events become mass shootings precisely because no one is there to stop them until the police arrive, which typically takes six minutes or more.
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-09-20 19:11
But there are 4 cases of one being killed for his efforts. I don't know whether there were other deaths caused by the would be John Wayne's. (Who, being a roaring drunk would have probably killed a lot of the innocents)
 
 
+3 # fishskicanoe 2013-09-17 19:19
The percentage of households with guns is at the lowest point in over 40 years. The growth in the number of guns has taken place within the gun community, not outside of it. Some surveys show that only a third of the households contain guns, others show 4/10ths. None show that a majority of households contain guns and all show the percentage dropping. And this is one of the reasons that deaths from guns have declined. A gun in the house increases the risk of injury or death by firearms. It does not decrease the risk.
 
 
+2 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:22
Now you went and listed actual data. That's not fair. You have to only use bumper sticker mentality where you don't actually analyze what the data are saying. Otherwise the gun nuts don't have a leg to stand on.
 
 
-3 # Livemike 2013-09-18 02:39
Yeah I didn't see any data to back up what he said. There is no evidence that having a gun in the house increases injury. The closest they got was a study by that Kellerman fraudster and even that showed RENTING was a bigger risk. The "gun nuts" are continually showing data. It's the real nuts, the prohibitionists , who don't have a leg to stand on.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2013-09-18 12:17
Quoting GT06:
I have a plan guaranteed to reduce gun violence by 40 percent. Guaranteed. Snap your fingers. THERE! It's done. The fact is that "gun violence" is down 40% over the last 20 years according to the U.S. Justice Department. Why doesn't the public hear this great news? Ask the media. Millions more guns. Millions more gun owners. But gun violence is down by almost half.

As for armed citizens shooting up the place -- basically doesn't happen. Many mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens -- in schools, churches, malls, etc. No reports of them shooting the wrong person.

You can wait many minutes for the "authorized" responders, while people continue to die, or a citizen who has been trained, photographed, had a background check done by the FBI, fingerprinted, and is identifiable just shoots the madman and ends the horror. How important is it to have the first responder wearing the proper clothing -- i.e. a uniform?

This does NOT excuse nor explain the fact that the Canadian citizenry has as many if not more guns per capita but practically no record of people shooting people.
The US is a very angry country for many reasons, some justified, some pure fear-based fantasy from propaganda spread by the corporate state's patsy media, some racist, some inexplicable but all applauded and perpetrated by the mad-hats who run the NRA and it's huge lobby.
Is there a Canadian equivalent of the NRA?
 
 
-2 # HenryS1 2013-09-17 13:20
MidWesTom, which facts are wrong? None of what you say points out any contradictions with the article, even if your claims are true, and I don't dispute them.
 
 
0 # lnason@umassd.edu 2013-09-17 13:24
I'm not a gun nut and have never owned a gun but I can think clearly enough and do enough research to know that the NRA is correct: all but one mass shooting in US history has been committed in a "gun free" zone. And this is surely not an accident.

If you want to kill as many people as possible, you go to a place where no one is armed and no one can stop you until the cops arrive.

And on the other side of the logic, you do not go to a gun show or police convention or a shooting range where you would probably be shot dead after you fired your first shot.

Jus sayin

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts
 
 
-1 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 13:47
It is ludicrous garbage like this that keeps me from contributing more. Facts are answered by vicious emotion and you post it. Go down the list. Every such tragedy occurs, where? And when a teacher goes to his car and retrieves a gun and stops an event from reaching these proportions, you DON'T post it, why? Do you post stories about how often government-arme d thugs (cops) kill someone, when they slam a small woman to the concrete, tase children, handcuff them? Read Pro Libertate why don't you? Post Will's articles and see your money woes diminish. Just sayin.
 
 
-2 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 14:27
Exactly
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-09-17 19:39
Quoting JohnBoanerges:
It is ludicrous garbage like this that keeps me from contributing more. Facts are answered by vicious emotion and you post it. Go down the list. Every such tragedy occurs, where? And when a teacher goes to his car and retrieves a gun and stops an event from reaching these proportions, you DON'T post it, why? Do you post stories about how often government-armed thugs (cops) kill someone, when they slam a small woman to the concrete, tase children, handcuff them? Read Pro Libertate why don't you? Post Will's articles and see your money woes diminish. Just sayin.

Evil perpetrates evil!
Just sayin'.
 
 
-6 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 20:12
Being somewhat familiar with your posts, I can't ascertain your meaning here. Just sayin'.
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2013-09-18 09:38
Quoting JohnBoanerges:
Being somewhat familiar with your posts, I can't ascertain your meaning here. Just sayin'.

Figure it out: -well, OK heah 'tis.
You're seemingly suggesting that some teachers are, and the rest should be, armed which again shows how "Exceptional", singularly paranoid and priority-weak the US is and might be even more so in allegedly requiring such trusted citizens (I suppose ministers and anybody chairing a public meeting too) might as well be armed to the teeth as the last phase in a uniquely American obsession with fear of "the other" which is becoming all-encompassin g, death, living on a hair-trigger, military-worshi p and mangled reasoning; what a way to live! And it is self-perpetrati ng from what I can observe.
I've lived, worked and traveled all over the world, including at least three Fascist dictatorships (All armed, supported and encouraged by the US b.t.w.) but have never come close to perceiving this plague of national preoccupation with an armed citizenry on such a diseased scale, cheered on by a bunch of psychopathic sickos an their lobby, bent on personal power and self-aggrandizement.
Does the term "nationally dysfunctional" ring true just a little bit now?
Just sayin'.
 
 
+2 # wrknight 2013-09-17 13:51
Speaking of the need for mental health care (low cost or otherwise), it's people like Wayne LaPierre who need it the most.
 
 
+3 # Citizen Mike 2013-09-17 14:02
The AR-15 and similar weapons are combat gear designed for a mass-killing capability that no civilian needs. It is more like a machine gun than like a hunting rifle and possessing it should be forbidden, the same as we have done with machine guns. Remember, the Tommy Gun was originally available in hardware stores to anybody for cash, Machine Gun Kelly got his as a present from his girlfriend.

Today, everybody agrees it is best that machine guns not be possessed by civilians, and the same standard ought to apply to these military-grade assault rifles.

Confiscate 'em? Yes, let everyone who owns one be compelled to turn 'em in to the feds and receive a few hundred bucks in compensation. And those who refuse be subject to criminal charges.

The public should be allowed only bolt-action or lever-action repeating rifles, these weapons are sufficient for hunting or for any reasonable degree of home defense in an emergency.
 
 
-3 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 14:25
They can't confiscate without a registry and I refuse to register my guns.
 
 
+2 # curmudgeon 2013-09-17 17:37
It's registered with the NRA....what;s the big deal?
 
 
-3 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 19:33
They are not registered with the NRA.

Registries are not a cost effective solution. Canada repealed theirs due to the outrageous costs associated with it. Can u image the cost of registering 300,000,000 million guns?
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:33
Don't we register cars?
 
 
-1 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:27
Quoting Billy Bob:
Don't we register cars?


There is no Constitutionall y-guaranteed right to own a car.

You can buy a car before you are 21.

You do not have to get an FBI background check to buy a car as you do for buying a gun at a federally-licen sed dealer. (Car dealers are not federally licensed.)

You can buy a car if your are a felon. Felons are prohibited from even touching a firearm.

Auto registration is to collect taxes. No one tells you whether or not you may own the car.

No one has used car registration lists to confiscate autos, but registration lists of guns have been used for confiscation in many places, including here in the U.S.

Canada had a federal gun registration program. They recently ended it. It costs billions. It did not stop crime. It did not result in prosecutions.

Firearm registration has only one goal -- build a list which can be used when those guns are later outlawed, one model and one type at a time. Then, the door-to-door warrantless searches begin. That's happening right now in California. Not conjecture. Current events.
 
 
-1 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-18 12:02
"There is no Constitutionall y-guaranteed right to own a car." Of COURSE there is. It is, pure and simple, Private Property, the Right to which cannot be removed except by Due Process as punishment for a harm you have done - and proved in a court of law - to another actual person. Barf up that government koolaide, will you, and be free.
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2013-09-18 09:12
Quoting Billy Bob:
Don't we register cars?

Right: both cars and guns are destructive in their own particular ways.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:26
Sorry, but the NRA already has a registry. How do you think they manage to send out their appeals to so many gun owners who aren't members? And do you really think that the present collection of emails and telephone calls and credit card transactions doesn't contain all the information needed to build a registry?
 
 
+2 # GT06 2013-09-17 15:39
President Teddy Roosevelt hunted with a semi-automatic rifle that is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, from the AR-15 to the millions of hunting rifles owned in the U.S. "Military guns?" Not hardly.
 
 
0 # mdhome 2013-09-17 17:43
The main difference, Teddy Roosevelt did not have a 30 or 50 round clip and a couple of spare clips in his pocket.
 
 
+2 # GT06 2013-09-17 19:30
Quoting mdhome:
The main difference, Teddy Roosevelt did not have a 30 or 50 round clip and a couple of spare clips in his pocket.


The cartridge in President Roosevelt's semi-auto was more powerful than that fired in Modern Sporting Rifles - the .223 Remington.

100 Million gun owners did not shoot anyone yesterday. Tens ofl millions who own semi-auto rifles did not shoot anyone yesterday.

The shooter at the Navy Yard did not bring a semi-auto rifle with him. What is the obsession with a type of rifle which has been popular for more than 100 years and is used in fewer murders than are fists and feet. (FBI Uniform Crime Reports)
 
 
-1 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 19:35
But the caliber of his hunting rifle was far more powerful than a round from the AR15.

So than you agree the function of rifle is not the problem?
 
 
-2 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 19:35
But the caliber of his hunting rifle was far more powerful than a round from the AR15.

So than you agree the function of rifle is not the problem?
 
 
-1 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 19:36
But the caliber of his hunting rifle was far more powerful than a round from the AR15.

So than you agree the function of rifle is not the problem?
 
 
+2 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:35
Quoting Citizen Mike:
The public should be allowed only bolt-action or lever-action repeating rifles, these weapons are sufficient for hunting or for any reasonable degree of home defense in an emergency.

The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rolling in their graves. Their idea was that in a free society, the citizen should have the same arms as the soldier or policeman. After all, the soldier and policeman SERVE the citizen, not the other way around. At least, not in a free country.

You DO know this is supposed to be a free country, don't you?
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2013-09-17 19:50
Quoting PeteGould:
Quoting Citizen Mike:
The public should be allowed only bolt-action or lever-action repeating rifles, these weapons are sufficient for hunting or for any reasonable degree of home defense in an emergency.

The framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights are rolling in their graves. Their idea was that in a free society, the citizen should have the same arms as the soldier or policeman. After all, the soldier and policeman SERVE the citizen, not the other way around. At least, not in a free country.

You DO know this is supposed to be a free country, don't you?

"Supposed" is the word you should be careful of using when referring to the US in any way; and the amount of angry people owning and driven to use guns has many reasons and outcomes, many of them based on the knowledge that their government doesn't give a shit about them and the feeling that they have to fend for themselves, part of which is owning lethal weapons.
You need to travel a bit and see how other countries, none of which is perfect, which have decent social safety nets are a lot happier and in which the average citizen feels no reason nor obligation to "bear arms".
You keep harping on about history, the constitution, and a "Free" society but can you really honestly say that you live in a free country? Think before you respond, including how your taxes are squandered on a gigantic military for the profit of a few monopolist corporations.
 
 
+3 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:30
You really have no idea of what the reasoning behind the second amendment was, do you? You really believe that the founders who wrote the Constitution to replace a federation with a centralized government wanted the citizenry to be able to overthrow that government whenever they wanted to? Do you consider David Barton to be a credible historian?
 
 
-4 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:24
Quoting Texas Aggie:
You really believe that the founders who wrote the Constitution to replace a federation with a centralized government wanted the citizenry to be able to overthrow that government whenever they wanted to?

Straw man argument. There is a difference between "overthrowing the government whenever they wanted to" and the emergence of tyranny. We certainly don't have a situation at the present time - or anything approaching it - that would call for such behavior. If we don't like what we have we can vote it out.

As to whom I consider to be a credible historian on these topics, the attorneys who successfully argued Heller and McDonald, and the scholars whose works were cited in the resulting decisions, qualify.
 
 
-12 # Vardoz 2013-09-17 14:12
If Obama had any balls he would have told us this is why we need background checks at the very least!
 
 
+5 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 14:24
We already have background checks
 
 
-1 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:34
Not at gun shows.
 
 
+5 # Lee10011 2013-09-17 14:16
Who here believes that self defense is a individual birth right? If u don't, read the Supreme Court Heller decision because it affirms that right.

FYI, there is no amount of gun control that could have prevented this. He went through a background when he bought his standard shotgun.

We need to find the things we agree on and go forward with it. We should start with a more thorough NICS system.

The NRA had nothing to do with this shooting.
 
 
-13 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 14:17
BTW, about Newtown, the fact of the matter is, the AR-15 was found in the trunk of a car, not in the school. Can you say false flag? Who killed JFK, RFK, MLK Jr, Jack Ruby, Vince Foster, the boys at the Mena airport. Who took control of a certain Mercedes Benz and ran it into a tree? Who benefits when these deaths have the blame assigned on "lone nuts"? Follow the money. Lee Harvey Oswald was photographed in the doorway of the depository and arrested in the cafeteria. Set up. But you government lovers are down with the Warren Report and the miracle bullet. You are some sheeple, I tell you, for falling for that. Did you know that LBJ was deeply involved with the murder of a golf pro (fooled around with the wrong woman so he "deserved" being snuffed I guess. JFK was about to dump him when ...), that he stole his senatorial election? That John McCain killed 167 of his fellow crewmen on the USS Forrestal and got away with it? That his father covered up facts of the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? That a certain photogenic colonel covered up the responsibility of the My Lia massacre? Fast track to general, supporting the government line, yes? What about the USS Pueblo? What's with that? Let's get back to poor Vince, Hilary's inconvenient lover, hmmm? And you espouse a love of Howard Zinn while ignoring his truth-seeking. Truth - try it more. You are getting close these days only to publish a crap story like this one.
 
 
-8 # kev74 2013-09-17 14:26
Would this be any more or less of a tragedy if this kook would have killed 12 people by running them over with a car in the parking lot? Stop blaming the object. Blame the deranged individual committing the acts.

Wayne LaPierre is like Superman and the NRA is like the Hall of Justice.
 
 
-4 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 16:37
Quoting kev74:
Blame the deranged individual committing the acts.

The problem is they're not TRYING to address the real issue. This is ideology, nothing more - those who practice it and those who have been brainwashed by it.
 
 
+1 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:36
Absolutely correct! And when you realize that your ideology is what enables this kind of event, and change your ideology, then maybe so many people won't end up dead. Why should civilians have access to weaponry now that they didn't have three quarters of a century ago when mass killings were relatively rare?
 
 
-3 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-18 08:58
Because there are armed thugs acting under color of law that are the forbidden standing army and are be-weaponed and be-tanked like the armies of the world's largest. Look at the words of Michael Bloomass--le paraphrasing 'I have the country's largest army at my disposal'. Keene and Concord NEED tanks to deal with dissent from peaceful Free-Staters. More people "end up dead" at THEIR un-gentle hands that from ANY crooks/"terrsts ".
 
 
-2 # PeteGould 2013-09-18 17:28
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Why should civilians have access to weaponry now that they didn't have three quarters of a century ago when mass killings were relatively rare?

The weapons widely available three-quarters of a century ago were fully capable of doing the same damage as anything available today. Do you honestly believe that a WWII-era rifle was less capable than an AR15? In truth the damage was worse. They were larger caliber weapons than an AR15 and could fire at a faster rate. And you're quite correct that in that era, mass killings were relatively rare (I would venture to say virtually nonexistent). So what changed? Not the guns.
 
 
-8 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-17 17:14
Nah, NRA makes its money by agreeing to "limited" gun control and scaring the membership into donating big bucks. REAL opposition you want? Go to GOA. They could eventually fall down the same hole as NRA but, for now, they do a pretty good job.
 
 
+2 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:36
Cars have another purpose besides murdering as many people as possible, as quickly as possible before anyone has a chance to stop you.
 
 
-3 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:29
Quoting Billy Bob:
Cars have another purpose besides murdering as many people as possible, as quickly as possible before anyone has a chance to stop you.



More people use guns in self defense than use them to commit murder. On balance. firearms are used to save lives.

Not to mention the millions who feel safer knowing they can protect their families.

100 million gun owners did not shoot anyone this year. If guns are only for shooting people, how can this be?
 
 
-2 # JohnBoanerges 2013-09-18 09:01
Right. Take them away from cops and military (70 armed federal agencies, too) who do NOT see a duel purpose to guns. When all you have is a hammer (gun), then everything looks like a nail (legitimate target).
 
 
0 # bingers 2013-09-20 19:18
Quoting kev74:
Would this be any more or less of a tragedy if this kook would have killed 12 people by running them over with a car in the parking lot? Stop blaming the object. Blame the deranged individual committing the acts.

Wayne LaPierre is like Superman and the NRA is like the Hall of Justice.


Cars are NOT made as a killing weapon, guns handguns and semiautomatic rifles have no other real life use but killing. Apples and oranges.
 
 
+3 # switch 2013-09-17 15:07
This article is full of lies and half truths. First, Mother Jones deliberately distorted their research. They only included 'mass shootings' where 4 or more were killed. There are several incidents that were stopped by civilians when only 2 or 3 were killed. If they had waited until the police arrived, it is probable that more would have died. Even then, they ignored the Pearl MS school where the principal caught the student and held at gun point for 5 minutes before the police came and the KY law school where the shooter were caught by armed students.

There is no evidence that having more armed civilians will cause innocent bystanders to be shot. LEO are 3 times more likely to shoot innocents the civilians are, but civilians shoot 5 times more criminals.
90% do NOT want more gun control. If they did, they would NOT have recalled the senators in CO. That is a completely bogus statistic.
One round every two seconds? That is pitiful. An average shooter should be able to get off 3 rounds every second and aimed too.
All that shows is the machete in China did not want to kill anyone. If he had, they'd be dead.
He is right, there is no evidence that mass shooters deliberately picked gun free zones - except in all but 1 were in gun free zones. Ask yourself, how many gun free zones are there? In Aurora there were 7 theatres, some bigger, several closer, but he drove to the one that was gun free.
Common sense? Give me a break. All he wants is to outlaw all guns.
 
 
-1 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 18:12
Quoting switch:
Mother Jones deliberately distorted their research. They only included 'mass shootings' where 4 or more were killed.

Which of course is EXACTLY the point: it doesn't BECOME a mass-shooting if stopped by an armed civilian. It's like saying "not one traffic accident fatality was saved by a seatbelt." Duh. If the seatbelt saved them it wouldn't be a fatality!
 
 
+2 # Quickmatch 2013-09-17 16:30
To put it differently, the police missed their targets - and hit something else - two out of every three shots. Now imagine even the best-trained amateur gun owners and what their record might be.
Now, actually, I'm not a police officer or an amateur, but I've watched TV and youTube videos of some amateur sports shooters in action--putting two shots in each of three targets with no misses. There's no excuse for a person to be paid as an armed police or security guard who can't match that accuracy at least 80%. But that leaves the armed civilian who target shoots 50 rounds a year, gathered in a mass of people including a hundred other armed civvis and one kook who pulls and shoots starting a chain reaction of armed fools who pull and snap shots at whoever they see with a gun in hand. Will that ever happen. Yes! Bet the house on it! It's only a matter of time.
 
 
+2 # PeteGould 2013-09-17 18:17
Quoting Quickmatch:
I've watched TV and youTube videos of some amateur sports shooters in action--putting two shots in each of three targets with no misses. There's no excuse for a person to be paid as an armed police or security guard who can't match that accuracy at least 80%.

The typical community only pays for its police officers to qualify with their firearms once a year. Typical initial training is MAYBE forty hours devoted to firearms - the rest is to to other topics. It's all a matter of money. So most police are more or less on par with the 50 round a year shooter (they may fire a couple hundred rounds but it's all on the same day).

So yes - many devoted amateur shooters who shoot for sport have A LOT more training than police. Not saying it's GOOD, just saying it IS.

And remember: under the labor laws if a police officer has to do something to retain a proficiency to a standard required by his or her employer, the officer MUST be paid for that time, as it's time worked. So you can't just say "retain this level of proficiency or be fired."
 
 
+3 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:38
The cops who shot 9 civilians trying to get one bad guy were NYC cops. Are you saying they were underqualified?
 
 
-1 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:32
Quoting Billy Bob:
The cops who shot 9 civilians trying to get one bad guy were NYC cops. Are you saying they were underqualified?


No, they were not qualified at all.

Do you know how often hey have to shoot for qualification? I shoot more in a week than they shoot in a year.

Most police are terrible shots, the don't know anything about guns, and they are among the least qualified as we see with multiple cases of them missing the bad guy and shooting bystanders. This does not make them bad. It just means they have very little training and practice with firearms.
 
 
+1 # Billy Bob 2013-09-17 20:37
Those aren't life and death situations.
 
 
+2 # Texas Aggie 2013-09-17 21:38
And of course shooting at a target is just the same as shooting at someone moving with a weapon.
 
 
-1 # GT06 2013-09-18 05:33
Quoting Texas Aggie:
And of course shooting at a target is just the same as shooting at someone moving with a weapon.



And, of course, many people take this seriously and get proper training.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlrGfhErqlg&list=PLscB-49EdZcuKOrDogPOGkeTde5OqGTT3&index=5
 
 
-1 # bingers 2013-09-20 19:22
Yes, but the best marksmen panic when confronted by targets shooting back, and in the Army I saw some of our best shots being useless in a firefight. In most cases the biggest gun nuts were also the crappiest soldiers.
 
 
+1 # Livemike 2013-09-18 02:35
"According to a comprehensive study by Mother Jones magazine,"
Yeah was that the same Mother Jones article that talked about one case where the armed resonder was injured by nobody died? Because you see they didn't count that as a mass shooting stopped. Someone went berserk with an assault rifle, but since nobody died it didn't count as someone stopping a mass shooting. They only mentioned it because the defender was injured and they used it to point out that the defender could be injured. So basically it's impossible to tell how many shootings were prevented by this, as if a shooting was stopped from being "mass" they didn't count it.

Seriously how stupid do you think we are?
 
 
+2 # usmcflir 2013-09-18 06:09
"highly trained New York City police officers who discharged their guns in public hit their intended targets only 34 percent of the time." Maybe it has to do with the fact that they are taught to just empty their firearm once they start shooting or the fact that they are not held accountable when they hit something other than the intended target. Since civilians would be they would be more hesitant to just point and shoot making it more likely that they would aim and only take a shot when they thought they had a clear target.
 
 
+1 # GunSense 2013-09-18 07:08
This shooter passed state and local background checks. System is broken. Let's fix it before expanding it.

94% of background check "initial denials" are false positives, but we spend police time and $ investigating each instead of allocating that time & $ on more productive activities https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf

Gun ownership is at its highest since 1993 http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/Self-Reported-Gun-Ownership-Highest-1993.aspx

According to FBI crime stats, violent crime in general and gun crime in particular are about half what they were in 1993.

Again, since 1993 we have seen way more guns and way less crime (plus more permissive laws like concealed carry laws).
 
 
+2 # wrknight 2013-09-18 10:20
Those GD fools in Congress won't do anything about gun control. But you can jolly well bet that if it had been the hallowed halls of the Capitol that Aaron Alexis was shooting up, they would be singing a different tune.
 
 
0 # Nemo1 2013-09-20 14:31
Quoting GT06:
Quoting Billy Bob:
The Founding Fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to quell the potential for violent uprising among the citizenry. They enacted it SPECIFICALLY to ensure each state would have a state militia (now called, "National Guard"), for the express purpose of preventing another Shay's Rebellion.

The NRA has twisted the facts to the point where people parrot the exact OPPOSITE of what actually happened. The NRA knows what it's doing. It's paid attention to the tobacco industry.


Except that the U.S. Supreme Court disagrees with your interpretation. In the Heller decision, it ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees (not grants) the right to keep and bear arms to all individuals. Participation with or membership in any form of organized militia is not required. The words are "The People" in the Second Amendment. So, the current law of the land is that gun rights are for individuals.


Actually, that's not true, and the SCOTUS is being intellectually dishonest if they say that. The words "The People" do not refer to individuals. The phrase is an eighteenth-cent ury term of art that actually means "The State." Even been in court, where every criminal case is declared as "The People vs (name of criminal)?" "The People" is represented by a public prosecutor who works for (gasp!) the government. What the Second Amendment guarantees is the right of the *government* to bear arms.
 
 
0 # Lescy 2013-09-20 23:32
I am so sick and tired of this whole gun debate. I'm sure I'll get loads of thumbs down on this comment, but there are few people doing a lot of great work uncovering the false flag nature of nearly all of these mass shootings. From Sandy Hook to Boston Bombing to the Naval yard shootings. There are great reasons to disbelieve that any of them were what the mass media describes they were. But absolutely NO ONE is angry about the way these things are elaborately covered up, contrived and why they are. Please, people, do more than read the NYT and mainstream media. Go to the alternative media and read before you make up your mind about what the gun advocates are really saying. Not that I love guns, in fact I hate them, but I am also for keeping our second amendment. I also dislike many of the NRA nuts and their ways of creating lousy arguments for guns. The only real reason for the debate should be to uphold the 2nd amendment! Maybe we can have one huge debate with all sides given equal time to debate these issues! But 'they' don't want that because then some would have to do a whole lot a 'splainnin!
 

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.

RSNRSN