121 1 min 9 yrs

Thought this was interesting;

“With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

So, time to have more  gun free zones. What can go wrong?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

121 thoughts on “INCONVENIENT FACTS…

  1. and this surprises?

    It will of course be dismissed by the group. Facts an reality do not reign.

  2. Most deaths in fires occur in flammable structures. Should we remove fire alarms, fire codes and other fire prevention laws?

  3. I agree with David. I mean Britain’s gun free laws have proved an absolute disaster over here haven’t they ? It would be dreadfull if the US toughened their gun posession laws and ended up with the same rate of gun killings as we have.

  4. since this is neither your post or mine I will say something to you mahons.

    I have said I will not engage with you yet you have continued to comment on my threads that you say offer nothing of interest. Why?

  5. The whitehouse and the democrats Colm can try all they want. With the current group of republicans in office they may even get a few minor things passed.

    The public itself is speaking very loudly on this subject and the politicians are noticing.

    No one is writing their congressman or their senator, but nationwide since the day after this incident and Obama and Bloombergs statements EVERY STATE has had record gun sales. The past 3 days the FBI instacheck system which does backgrounds for gun purchasers has had more background requests than it has ever received.

    Saturday the national system crashed and was shut down for 5 hours in the middle of the day to try and clear the backlog.

    It won’t be highly published, but you can guarantee that every political election committee is watching it and will be advising their clients to be very careful with their votes.

  6. This topic is more sideshow and diversion, a Gun Nut talking point that perculates through the sewers of Reich Wing Talk Radio in the USA.

    There are vastly more gun free zones in England and Japan, and their gun violence rate is nearly nothing as compared with the US.


    What’s different in those older, more clear eyed societies?

  7. Not well in Newtown, CT as the government is failing its concurrent duty to regulate guns responsibly.

  8. Troll is an emotional child on this subject.

    He likes his toys. He makes some income by pushing them to his frighted neighbors, so he’s economically compromised too.

    He hasn’t thought any part of this issue through objectively, and he will never do so in the future.

  9. CT has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country.

    Laws don’t stop the crazy or the criminal as the facts prove over and over.

    Armed guards do.

  10. They weren’t stringent enough to keep them away from a not quite there mother and her crazy son.

    The country is awash in guns in a way that other modern countries are not.

    And even states with sensible laws are only a 4 1/2 hour drive from states like Virginia with extremely lax laws.

  11. Really Phantom.

    That is amusing. You ignore facts and are ruled by your emotions on this topic not me or the other 80 million like me.

    I have offered a solution, we have 10s of thousands of soldiers with live combat experience from the wars we have been fighting for the past ten years. A program run by the VA to employ these men and woman as security for our schools would be an excellent program.

    We will never be able to stop attacks on our children with the written word or the seizure of law abiding citizens guns. An armed guard and metal detectors at our schools would do just that.

    Why are opposed to protecting our children? Is it because you have none? Is it because the fact that the crazy and the criminal walk amongst us is beyond your ability to grasp?

    The facts show that security Professional Security is needed, what do you propose?

  12. If we love our guns more than our children then we are lost as a society.

    I am open to discussing the idea of having a trained and armed guard who has to undergo repeated background checks at schools, although I would prefer safety by other means. We are talking a lot of schools and a lot of money. In addition just like we have incidents with some bad cops statistics indicate we’d likely have bad guards.

  13. In Va you still have to pass the federal background check. It is a myth that you can LEGALLY buy a gun anywhere in the US without going through a background check.

  14. Yes, someone can go through a background check and then their nutty relative takes the gun out of the home and goes and shoots people.

  15. We will not turn our schools and theaters and libraries into armed camps.

    The society that you propose would be one that no one would want to live in.

    You may wish to stay away from this subject.

    I don’t have all the answers – but the solution involves learning from the many societies that are much safer than the US.

  16. What other means?

    As for cost the Education budget is the most bloated budget in the nation, don’t imply the funds couldn’t be gleaned by even minor tweaking.

    Your bad cop analogy does not apply, this is not a call for policing just security. There is a difference.

    No one loves their guns more than children, that is an emotional piece of rhetoric based on your pathetic need to be smug.

  17. If only the first victim had been armed then this whole thing could have been stopped before it got started.

  18. Or they can buy one from a private seller either online or in person, like at a gun show in Texas, without ever undergoing a federal background check.

    Our resident arms expert hasn’t mentioned how easy it is to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one. Maybe he’ll enlighten us with his store of vast knowledge.

  19. So Phantom a security guard is beyond your acceptance level.

    No I won’t stay away from this subject maybe you should. You say people won’t except their children being protected? Knowing that when they drop them at school they are safe from an event like this?

    Tell us your suggestion, put something honest and workable on the table.

  20. They will except their children being protected.

    God damn the pusher man. Remember that song? Don’t be a pusher. Start small.

  21. You can’t buy a gun on line and have it sent to you. It is against federal law. Has been since the Kennedy assassination.

    Every firearm purchased from an internet dealer by law must be sent to a Federally Licensed Dealer.

    Don’t know the gun show laws in Texas, but if your internet analogy is any indication of your accuracy that says it all

  22. Oh, LBJ banned on line gun sales?

    He must have been even smarter than Al Gore. Banning internet sales before the internet was invented.

    And you can buy guns on the internet. Even a cursory search shows this to be so. It may have to be routed via certain parties, but it happens every day.

  23. Daphne –

    “Or they can buy one from a private seller either online or in person, like at a gun show in Texas, without ever undergoing a federal background check.”

    A very sensible move. When the feds come for your guns you’ll want some hardware they don’t know about. All Americans should buy private when they can.

    Our resident arms expert hasn’t mentioned how easy it is to turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully automatic one.

    That’s a pretty difficult job.

  24. you show the depths of your idiocy and ignorance.

    Lee Harvey Oswald purchased his rifle through the mail. That caused the creation of federal law barring the shipment of any gun through the mail to ANY non-licensed individual.

    All guns purchased on line must be sent to an FFL to maintain your FFL you have to do a federal background check on every gun you sell.

  25. There are probably over 100,000 public schools the US. The cost of placing trained guards in each one (and creating more government workers) would be substantial. And that means we are placing guns in every school, it might very well increase the level of incidents if we have rogue guards or even careless ones.

  26. Troll,

    ‘No I won’t stay away from this subject maybe you should.’

    Was it only yesterday that you said those immortal and unforgettable words, that gave our hearts a lift, and hope that there was such a thing as justice in this world?

    “My Last post on this topic” – your very own words, can we not believe anything you say?

    Are you really that undisciplined that you deny your own words by acting otherwise two moments after uttering them? or is it that you just don’t understand the words you write?

  27. Troll

    I’ll you a steak dinner at Sparks in NYC if you promise never to comment on this issue ever again.

  28. no Mahons most schools and school districts are funded on the local level. Most State and county budgets have millions of dollars of funding for pensions and benefits.

    Remember the battle in Michigan was over teachers being forced to pay 7% of the cost of their benefits instead of nothing which is the percentage that most teachers pay.

    Take it from them. What they wouldn’t give 2% to provide for their own security or that of the children. You mean they would fight 2 cents on the dollar? but it’s for the children….

    Ernest My Last Post on the Subject was the last post on the subject of the MASSACRE NOT on Guns. I forget the limits of understanding of those that read here.

  29. Pete – I do think armed guards may be a necesary evil but I am concerned that it is only the beginning. Do we then have armed guards ride the school bus? patrol the playgrounds? Surely given your own distaste for the government you wouldn’t want a virtual army of guards and more armed government workers.

    I also think it isn’t merely a gun issue but identifying and properly treating mental illness.

    Perhaps background checks on gun buyers should be recurring and include backgrounds of household members. However that has its own challenges.

  30. how about background checks of Lawyers and Politicians?

    Their actions effect us more detrimentally than a guns.

  31. Phantom,

    “But no one loves their guns more than children.”

    Dream on. The world is filled to bursting with unloved children, making the world a very dangerous place.

    The gun was the weapon of choice of Adam Lanza, a notably unloved child. Who’s to say that his momma did not love her guns more than she loved her boys?

    Elsewhere in the world the unloved child will vent his anger and frustration in less violent—but nonetheless dangerous—ways. Bullying, delinquency, thuggery, gang culture: these are the fruits of the unloved child.

    Larkin nailed it when he wrote, “They fuck you up, your mum and dad.”

  32. Phantom –

    A few months ago you said you believe that people should be able to arm themselves for self-defence, yes?

    Mahons –

    Any particular types of guns you’d like to limit in availability?

  33. Funny thing is as a Canadian I can and have ordered guns over the internet delivered by Canada Post, first one was a 12 guage shot gun with a 12 inch barrel. Hows that possible given the NRA narrative about draconian Canadian gun laws?

  34. Mahons

    Ok so you want to create a government that can probe into the private background of entire families on a reoccurring basis for a member of that family exorcizing their rights.

    Now would those background checks to peoples families include only the exorcizing of rights covered by the Second Amendment, or how about the First?

    Please also provide a list of the type of firearms you would ban and the reason why.

    as your doing this look up in history nations where the government had the right to do “background” checks on peoples families. Then stand in front of a mirror snap your heals together and throw up your right arm with your hand outstretched palm down.

    What do you see?

  35. Pete

    I will settle for a right to have firearms in the house or even concealed carry in some cases, where the bearer is throughly vetted. ( I like the Canadian (?) system where each prospective gun owner must be vouched for by two neighbors )

    I stake out a starting point that is a bit more extreme to give myself room to negotiate.

  36. Phantom

    I will settle for a right to have firearms in the house or even concealed carry in some cases, where the bearer is throughly vetted

    That is the system we have today, the vetting is called a NICS check.

  37. Lets look at Daphne’s loophole

    U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, 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 (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

    The simple answer then to close the gun show loophole is to ban “private” sales or swapping of firearms. All Licensed dealers have to do back ground checks that law already exists.

    So stop the private NON professional transfers. That of course would also include a father giving his son or daughter a gun, or anyone from selling or giving a gun to anyone.

    How do you implement the monitoring of a private transaction?

  38. Easy.

    Same as you monitor the private transfer of a share of stock.

    You tell the registry who the new owner is.

    Problem solved.

  39. Pete – Yes, I would limit high magazine guns and assault weapons (save me from the circular arguments that arise just by my invoking the phrase). And unlike the Brady Bill which allowed for gun industry evasions by modifications, I would try to draft legislation that made those types of evasions far more difficult. And I also would not grandfather existing ownership of such guns.

  40. “a member of that family exorcizing their rights.”

    The devil is surely in the detail with gun law.

  41. A background check on the Newtown killer’s mother might have detected her son’s condition. But as I said it does involve a host of other issues, not the least of which is privacy. However, perhaps if the household items were limited to such things as is there a felon in the household, is there someone with a restraining order in the household, those types of inquiry don’t strike me as too burdensome.

  42. In Pa I can’t speak for other states if you have a felon, a person under a restraining order, or who has 3 DUIs in a 10yr period living at the same address you are denied.

  43. And that is what I am talking about. Make background checks more effective, tha tis anotehr tool we can utilize.

  44. Liberals never let facts get in the way of a good cry – with more lame attempts to change reality so it is risk-free nirvana…always in search of Utopia, just around the corner

    I wouldn’t care except the rest of us (me) have to live with liberal policies and they just create more mess and destruction than before – without exception

  45. and more gun laws will work why?

    ..because unstable destructive maniacs will just think to themselves, gee. I failed the background check and mom failed too? We have no legal guns — I guess ill take up bowling and forget about my nightmare?

  46. You, for example.

    “Make background checks more effective, tha tis anotehr tool we can utilize.”

    what you suggest is sort of like preventing obesity by outlawing large soda cups. laugh my socks off…I see Utopia just around the corner.

  47. Breaking News

    an Obama Fast and Furious Gun just showed up at a crime scene where a Mexican Beauty Queen was killed by being used as a human shield.

    So here is a gun “purposely” sold by Eric Holders justice dept used in a battle between drug lords and the army that killed innocent lives.

    Yeah lets trust the Government to do the right thing with guns.

  48. Well if the Newtown killer’s mom fails the background check, he doesn’t acquire the gun he used.

    But I don’t want to distract you from naming the liberal person who suggested Utopia can be achieved.

  49. Troll – If you don’t trust the government to do the right thing with guns why do you want to arm hundreds of thousands of guards? (I’ll leave police and military aside at the moment).

  50. It is the Liberal himself – through words and deeds – that suggests a belief in magical thinking and an attempt to achieve Utopia here on earth.

    reality does not seem to enter into the liberal equation. If only we had enough of the right regulations, we can make the world a risk-free, fair and equal Nirvana.

  51. “Well if the Newtown killer’s mom fails the background check, he doesn’t acquire the gun he used.”

    really? this is your solution?

  52. Mahons the killers mom did pass the background check and I believe CTs is more stringent the Pa.

    Cops, the Army, and Private or County run Armed School Security is NOT the Government, Let Alone the “Obama” Government

  53. Troll: “an Obama Fast and Furious Gun just showed up at a crime scene where a Mexican Beauty Queen was killed by being used as a human shield.”

    the hypocrisy on the Left is mind-boggling and this is a very good example. Apparently, over 300 Mexican nationals are thought to have been murdered with Eric Holder’s Fast and Furious guns – but this doesn’t seem to matter to them.

    maybe because the dead are Mexicans? probably because the scenario does not fit their agenda.

    the whole recent hand wringing exercise is bogus. and shameful.

  54. Phantom

    Phantom, on December 18th, 2012 at 7:19 PM Said:


    Same as you monitor the private transfer of a share of stock.

    You tell the registry who the new owner is.

    Problem solved.

    That means that all guns now in Private hands must be registered. I’m glad you agree with the U.N., The Nazis and the Soviets,

    Not surprised though

  55. and more gun laws will work why?

    See Canada, the UK, Ireland, the other EU nations, Japan, Korea, Singapore, Australia.

    All with off the charts lower gun crime rates, and all with sensible gun controls, as adapted to the local society.

  56. Troll

    Your reading comprehension is on a par with your calculus skills

    I did not say register all firearms.

    Though it IS a perfectly sensible idea. Thank you for proposing it.

  57. You must register ownership of land, a house, a car, an airplane, a boat.

    Why not a deadly weapon?

    What the hell are you so afraid of?

  58. Patty – As expected, you have no example, just an abstraction.

    A solution, no. But if he doesn’t have easy access to his mother’s guns we might have avoided this massacre.

    Troll – Are you under the added delusion that the police or the army are not connected to the government?

    If the background check of the mother also included the son’s disorder would she pass? It is unclear to me, I don’t know all the details of the diagnosed level of his disorder.

  59. Patty – You are on record here proclaiming the armed Mexican Invasion of part of Texas, so as topics go, I suggest a “no mas” be isseud by you as to our southern neighbor.

  60. Phantom –

    “I will settle for a right to have firearms in the house or even concealed carry in some cases, where the bearer is throughly vetted.”

    Ok, fair enough, but is that much different from various American jurisdictions at present?

    Look, I wouldn’t necessarily argue against something like this. However we have to bear in mind that the Supremes have upheld the 2nd Amendment, so laws will need to be drafted in that reality, and also that’s way looser than British gun controls at present.

    Colm’s a typical Briton, and you’re a gun nut next to him.

  61. Some of the same confused chowderheads who oppose security at airports now want armed guards around every pre school in the land

  62. Mahons –

    Pete – Yes, I would limit high magazine guns and assault weapons

    Fair enough, but this is where the drafting problems come in with Bills.

    What I mean is, a 20 to 30 round magazine isn’t high capacity for rifles. It’s pretty standard. Limit capacities? So some will buy two or three or four magazines. Limit the number of magazines that people can own? We’re now getting lost in all sorts of details and the gun industry will easily find some ways through.

    Second, I still don’t know what an assault weapon is and I’ve been shooting for 30 years. I know a fully-automatic rifle is such, but is a semi-automatic an “assault weapon”? If so, how is a handgun also not an assault weapon? Handguns are commonly semi-autos.

    If Congress decides to draft legislation it’ll be devilish. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it come to a halt amid a load of finger pointing and recriminations.

  63. Pete

    The characteristics of assault weapons as restricted under Clinton are available on line. I think even Wiki can help you out.

  64. When the sun set on the Clinton legislation can anyone tell me how many mass gun nut slaughters took place while it was still active law and how many have taken place since?

  65. Alison –

    I doubt anyone can explain clearly what an assault weapon is. I recall arguments in Congress over definitions and confusion afterward.

    The Columbine shooting happened while the assault weapons ban was in force. It’s a shame no-one’s had the sense to enforce a psychotropic drugs ban. At least one of the shooters had been whizzed out on Zoloft and some other anti-depressant junk for months.

    CNN Reports surfaced Wednesday that one of the gunmen in the Littleton, Colorado, school shooting, Eric Harris, was rejected by Marine Corps recruiters days before the Columbine High School massacre because he was under a doctors care and had been prescribed an antidepressant medication.

    Time and time and time again, but keep it quiet, eh? Look at guns instead, although that’s a complete and deliberate distraction. Politicians get alot of cash from Big Pharma and they won’t like you messing up the business.

  66. This ‘lone nut’ seems to get about a bit.


    1. – As new details emerge, the scope of the horror expands. Lanza apparently sprayed two classrooms at the school with relentless fire from a semi-automatic assault rifle. –

    2. – Autopsies on the bodies of the children reveal that many, if not all, had been shot multiple times. “I only did seven of the autopsies,” medical examiner Wayne Carver said. “The victims I had ranged from three to 11 wounds a piece, and I only saw two of them with close-range shooting.” –

    3. – Sources say he left one gun in his car and forced his way into the school carrying the assault rifle in his hands and two semi-automatic pistols in the dark military-style cargo pants he was wearing. –

    4. – Inside the school, he zeroed in on two classrooms, killing 20 children and six adults. One of them was the school principal, who sources say tried to stop the shooting by lunging at the gunman. – (the ‘Todd Beamer’ award for fictional bravery)

    5. – The spree ended when Lanza shot himself with one of the handguns. –

    CNN reported that “Within minutes, 26 people had been killed with chilling efficiency, leaving only the one wounded survivor. The survivor, an adult, has not been named.” (there are people who can kill so quickly with “chilling efficiency” but a slightly-built geek with depression and on meds just doesn’t fit the bill.)

    The alleged killer – “Lanza was found dead next to three guns, a semi-automatic .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle and two pistols made by Glock and Sig Sauer, a law enforcement source told CNN. All belonged to his mother” –

    The NY Daily News reported that “It wasn’t immediately clear whether this was the .223-caliber Bushmaster that was found in the trunk of Nancy Lanza’s car after her son murdered six staffers and 20 innocent students at the Sandy Hook Elementary School.” This means that there must have been two .223-caliber Bushmaster rifles in the lone nut’s armoury

  67. They don’t use Zoloft in the relatatively gun crime free nations? They only use it in the US?

  68. Zoloft is prescribed in the UK. While you’re less likely to be shot here, your chances of having your head kicked in by a Ritalin addict are much higher.

  69. Maybe anti-depressants are a problem (I don’t know), however claiming that anti-depressants cause such incidents solely on the basis of a correlation like that is like saying that private hospitals cause disease. After all they are disproportionately full of sick people.

    (I specify private only to forestall the obvious diversion)

    In other words even if anti-depressants etc are perfectly harmless, it would still come as no surprise that people who are depressed or have behavioral problems would be on them disproportionately compared to those who don’t.

  70. Pete

    The patchwork of US laws is dangerous and make any controls only partially effective.

    And the NRA influenced Congress has even recently tried to undermine state law on ” right to carry “.

    It failed, this time, but had it passed, a place like NY would have lost its ability to control the ability of other state residents to enter NY with a loaded gun if they had that right in their home state. And some of those states – Ariizona, Alaska – don’t even require any permits or any training requirement at all.

    The Gun Nut movement – again, not to be confused with the average gun owner – wants no controls at all in this country. Or the continuation of a patchwork of national and state laws that can easily be evaded.

  71. “How do you implement the monitoring of a private transaction?”

    Easy. A joint commission has already recommended making access to the federal background check system a simple $10 process for all gun sellers. You harshly fine and jail anyone found not using the system.

    But of course Mahons, Phantom, Alison and I should just concede defeat on implementing any additional, commonsense measures to monitor or control gun sales because America’s fundamental liberty is at stake.

    We should shrug our shoulders and not expect that our society could possibly lessen the death rate by gunfire because lethal inanimate objects aren’t the problem. People are the problem!

    Dumb, deranged, evil, demonically possessed lawbreakers who can’t possibly be constrained or outwitted by a sane, creative, intelligent, unpossessed, law abiding majority.

    We could just raise taxes to implement new bureaucratic layers of security regimes at schools, malls, hospitals, theaters, libraries, daycare centers, etc. Beef up the department of education or add another shelf to the portly homeland security agency.

    Maybe we could transfer TSA agents to perform pat downs of the kiddies and parents at schools all across the country! That might be an economical measure to thwart the evil doers.

    Then we can mandatorily arm every sane (although thoroughly checking mental health status could be problematic…liberty and all) citizen with an open carry semi-automatic weapon of their choice to take down the bad guys after they’ve shot a few innocents with their semi-automatic weapon at the local food court on a Saturday afternoon.

    I would prefer a rigorous, twelve week training course for all of our newly deputized citizen police, but 2nd amendment liberty rights would probably preclude any in-depth instruction or intense preparation on how to kill a person in a stressful daycare hostage situation. I’m sure it’ll be fine, a few friendly fire occurrences are a small price to pay to preserve our gun liberties.

    Or we could do nothing at all. Not change one blessed thing.

    Simply express our constant remorse and count a shockingly high death toll by gunfire as one of the small prices we pay to live in the freest country on earth.

  72. D

    Why are you promoting Naziism, and Socialism and any other word these guys keep bandying about?

  73. Hey, just parsing back their ideas.

    I’m sure they’d work out much better than anything we’ve suggested. We’re licked in this battle of ideas, just concede and let them run the show.

    It’ll be fine. Another twenty or a thousand or ten thousand dead children is nothing compared to preserving our constitutional liberties.

  74. I would share grave concerns on the possible overuse of antidepressants. I don’t trust them. I won’t even take a sleeping pill, ever.

    The drugs have evolved, but the problem isn’t that new. The Stones of course sang about antidepressant pill popping in 1966

    The concerns on this type of drug use / abuse has long been a major topic of concern by Michael Savage. He’s been speaking about this for years.

  75. Daphne –

    I’m sure they’d work out much better than anything we’ve suggested.

    But you’ve not suggested anything. We’ve had four days of Something Must Be Done, but what must be done? I’m genuinely interested in seeing a coherent, detailed and realistic set of proposals.

  76. Pete

    Why does it have to be one thing that’s examined to prevent tragedies? Why not several?

  77. Yes I have, Pete. Repeatedly over the last few days beginning with my post last weekend.

    I agree with you on the drug issue. I think the crap we’re pouring down too many boy’s throats have caused considerable, long term damage. It definitely needs to be addressed.

  78. “I would share grave concerns on the possible overuse of antidepressants. I don’t trust them. I won’t even take a sleeping pill, ever.”

    Nothing wrong with concerns but those should be the starting point in looking for evidence not the whole argument. Declaring a link based on just the sort of anecdotal correlation you’d expect to see in the absence of a problem is pretty silly.

  79. Realistic proposals have been presented. One of the starting points is the development of a consensus that something needs to be done, which will be no easy feat in this country.

  80. Once again to Pete, an assault weapon or rifle is described as such because it looks like a military grade weapon not a standard hunting rifle.

  81. Pete

    More than once today, I have proposed a lock stock and barrel ( not gun barrel ) implementation of the firearms policies of the very low gun crime nations. Shall I repeat them again?

  82. Daphne –

    Actually no, I was not aware of that bump fire contraption. How ingenious markets are. Can you imagine that kind of thinking let loose in, say, medical technology? Hip transplants for 10 bucks. No wonder the government/medical complex prevents markets from forming.

    an assault weapon or rifle is described as such because it looks like a military grade weapon not a standard hunting rifle

    But that’s just a cosmetic thing. A semi-auto rifle can turned into a fearsome “military-grade assault weapon” in couple of minutes, but the action and mechanism is unchanged.

  83. Mahons –

    One of the starting points is the development of a consensus that something needs to be done

    You’ve just elected a bunch of people to do that with this democracy malarkey. Let’s see how these esteemed tribunes get on.

  84. Phantom –

    More than once today, I have proposed a lock stock and barrel ( not gun barrel ) implementation of the firearms policies of the very low gun crime nations

    You’ve plumped for either the British or Canadian models, which are quite different, and you’ve said you can accept concealed-carry, which is way, way beyond anything permissible under laws in the UK. Handguns for mundanes here are entirely verboten.

    I’m a little confused, to be honest.

  85. They will do it if momentum pushes it, but I was afraid that too many of them will allow it to die on the vine. I am hoping for the best, but that doesn’t mean the best will happen.

  86. Pete

    The British model is superb.

    But I will negotiate.

    Compromise is not a dirty word to me if it leads to something better than now.

  87. Mahons –

    I doubt it will happen. A politician putting his name to a law is a hostage to fortune, and anti-depressants.

    Imagine: they line up behind the lectern to announce bipartisan agreement, Obama talks of how “we do this for our children” (he does that because he thinks children belong to the state), and three weeks later a shooting mocks the law.

    Reaction? “But you told us our children were safe, you bastards.”

    Politicians would rather ham it up with phoney arguments and phoney finger-pointing rather than do something concrete against which they can be judged.

  88. Pete – Not necessarily so. We had a very permissive culture here on drunk driving. Finally parents got sick of it and pushed for tougher drunk driving laws whic hhave greatly reduced (though one can never eliminate) the crime. There has been a dramatic change in our cultural attitudes because of it.

    I don’t elevate politicians but I don’t debase everything they can do either. I am hopeful that this crime was so horrific that it will shame and/or pressure them into concrete action.

  89. Hold on, Pete. I thought all politicians were enslaved and insulated by their corporate overlords. Which must be true considering 91% were reelected despite scorching low public approval rates (10% last August, barely 30% in November).

    Why would they give a rat’s ass if the public approved or later went berserk over any minor gun control measure? We’re mercurial, stupid and run rampant with ADD. Most of us don’t even know our congressional rep’s name, much less where the local voting booth can be found.

    And yes, it’s a purely cosmetic call describing assault weapons as such.

  90. mahons

    Despite the NRA and its followers saying that any thoughtful reflection is ” exploiting the tragedy ”

    They will be happy to discuss it in 10,000 years.

  91. Phantom – I am hopeful against all prior history that even the NRA might “get it” a little bit. To their credit they took down their Facebook page and remained silent until today when they issued (by their standards) a fairly modest and civil statement.

    All NRA folks are not as demented as some of the people who visit here.

  92. did you know that your “representative” Scmucky Schumer has a “special carry permit” ?

    That means not only can he and does he carry a firearm he can carry it in restricted areas where if you I or even a cop carried they would be arrested. but he’s special your not, your life is not as important as his.

    Sorry our system wasn’t designed that way, Feinstein, and Reid also have that special permit.

    They have to be armed because their lives are worth more than yours.

  93. Senator Schumer actually doesn’t have such a permit, that is an urban myth. His office makes him a target for lots of nutcases so I don’t begrudge any elected representative in this day and age from having one.

    Anyway, the whole issue isn’t about banning all guns. Just regulating them better than we are doing now.

  94. no they just read a list on the news a list of Senators that have those Permits. out of 100 senators 67 have them and Schumer is one of them.

    What is your source that he doesn’t.

    Guns are very heavily regulated and you know it, you also know criminals and crazy people don’t follow regulations.

    and please site your source on Schumer as venomously as you do when I “quote” something

  95. He was asked in a debate and denied it and produced a letter from the NYPD that he had no such permit. Heck you could even read that on his Wiki page.

    But it wouldn’t matter to me if he did. I don’t mind folks owning guns.

  96. Yes but he does mind folks owning guns, so it is relevant.

    You’ll trust wiki, yet you’ll nay say brainy quotes which is where the one Washington quote came from.

    Now I’m inclined to trust the NYPD, but I have also seen Politicians get a “favor” from the cops as I’m sure so have you.

    The list was a federal register of the permits.

  97. The issue isn’t about Schumer. He is more dangerous if you stand between him and a news camera than he would ever be with a gun. As far as I know he doesn’t support a ban on guns, just regulation of them.

    I only offered Wiki as a quick link to his denial. You can look elsewhere if you want. Again, who cares if he has a gun?

  98. Gun ownership should be on a “need to have” rule. Other than military and police personnel very few people in the US need to have guns. If someone is caught with a gun and they do not need to have one, they go up the river. An exception might be hobbyists who would have to belong to a club where guns are securely stored and not ever allowed to be taken away from the club area. Any so-called “rights” in the Constitution should be interpreted for life in 2012 and not 1789, and will be maybe even before the two older right wingers on the Court retire or die. This is the best solution to the US gun problem.

Comments are closed.