Archive for Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Letter: That’s enough

December 19, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

That’s it. That’s enough. Twenty dead children including a 6-year-old with 11 bullet wounds is way more than enough.

The NRA likes to say that guns don’t kill people, criminals kill people. In recent years it has become obvious that it takes a mentally deranged person with assault weapons and high capacity magazines to kill mass numbers of people.

These weapons are not necessary for hunting or target practice or self protection. They are only designed for and necessary for killing large numbers of people.

Any NRA member who doesn’t get on the phone or e-mail and demand that the NRA cease opposition to limits on assault weapons and high capacity magazines is a gutless wonder and an accessory to the future murder of children.

Comments

Mike Gerhardt 2 years, 5 months ago

Doctor, I am an NRA member and have been since I was 10. I also served 20 plus years in the Army and now am a law enforcement professional. Frankly, other than name calling, you are merely a blowhard. I also own an AR-15 and have never violated any laws with it. You are no more than a knee-jerk type and it will be my pleasure to never set foot in your office.

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

Law Enforcement Professional????? Hah. A professional doesn't call a medical doctor a "blowhard" simply because he has a different opinion on a policy issue of national public interest.

You sir, have no business in an occupation responsible for maintaining societal civility when you are incapable of being civil yourself.

Shame on you. You give professional law enforcement personnel a bad name.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

Considering the statement the doctor made, I think “blowhard” is an apt description.

BTW, so is your user name.

jaywalker 2 years, 5 months ago

Way to miss the point completely, Mike. The concern isn't over sane folk possessing such weaponry. Have to agree with The Sychophant, you're not representing the Army nor whatever profession you supposedly ply today in a favorable light.

Larrytown 2 years, 5 months ago

Dear Mike "Blowhard" Gerhardt-

What does being a NRA member since you were 10, serving 20+ years in the Army and now a law enforcement professional have to do with arguing for assault weapons and high capacity magazines? No one gives a rat's arse about your chest pounding accomplishments.

Furthermore...maybe you never want to set foot in his office. That's fine. Of course, if you have a family member in emergency C-section surgery....you better hope their path crosses Dr. Bruner. He's as good as it gets (in Douglas county) when it comes to this type of surgery.

kernal 2 years, 5 months ago

Mike, so you haven't violated the current laws, but what I don't understand is why you think you need an AR-15 as part of your personnel arsenal.

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 5 months ago

Because he can? Why do you need a car that can go faster than 55mph in your arsenal?

boltzmann 2 years, 5 months ago

Because a car is not part of an "arsenal".

Thomas Bryce 2 years, 5 months ago

A car can and has been used as a deadly weapon. Police consider them such. You point a car at a police officer and refuse to stop, you will be shot.

Liberty275 2 years, 5 months ago

Need is irrelevant. He has the right to own the firearm, and he wants it.

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

Funny, Mike, that you claim being a current law enforcement officer. Your profile states that you were a law enforcement officer for nine years after serving in the military, but are now an Assistant Attache in Moscow. As a so-called professional, I am sure you realize that misrepresenting who you are tends to diminish your credibility.

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

Boo............The russians are Coming........The Russians are Coming.....

Break out the guns...

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

Mike, one of your earlier posts regarding recent burglaries reads as follows:

"Solution: ADT alarm system. Sig P-220 .45 by the night stand. Remington riot 870 with aattached light in the corner. Wife has .357 Magnum S&W on her night stand. CAR-15 with laser and two 30 round clips in the other corner. 80 pound Golden Retriever sleeping on bed".

A little paranoid, I see. Most folks would feel pretty safe with the dog and one a firearm.

A suggestion: Kick the dog out of your marital bed, make love to your wife a little more, and maybe you'll be a little less edgy. And get a damn nightstand with a draw. The gun has to be accesible, not seen.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

Should we worry about someone who gets so incensed by a letter to the editor in the newspaper possessing a weapon of mass destruction? If Dr. Brunner said the same thing to Mike_Gerhardt's face when he was armed, would he need to fear for his life? I certainly hope not--that Mike_Gerhardt is enough the professional that he would never pull a weapon in such a situation. But would Mike_Gerhardt hope that Dr. Brunner would be sufficiently intimidated by his arsenal to refrain from expressing his opinion about gun control?

msezdsit 2 years, 5 months ago

Yep, just keep on supporting the slaughter of our children. Impressive.

appleaday 2 years, 5 months ago

But would you be able to hunt without these?

Larrytown 2 years, 5 months ago

There is not a legitimate sporting purpose. You just referenced AR-15 in gun competitions and hunting....both activities in which other guns can and should be used. A 30-round clip available in a AR-15 is not sport. Try again.

Sincerely,

A proud gun owner of a 12-gauge shotgun that's 100% against assault weapons.

gphawk89 2 years, 5 months ago

In a competition where you're required to fire 30 (or more) rounds in rapid succession, a 30-round magazine is appropriate.

Larrytown 2 years, 5 months ago

So when did spraying bullets become part of gun competition? 5-6 rounds is more than sufficient to meet the rapid-fire part of the competition.

boltzmann 2 years, 5 months ago

so the problem is, then, in the rules of the competition.

funkdog1 2 years, 5 months ago

Thank you, Larrytown! That's all we're asking for. Responsible gun control.

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

You are 100% against assault weapons... then you are in favor of the current laws.

Larrytown 2 years, 5 months ago

The assault weapons ban started in 1994 and expired in 2004. Last I checked...it is 2012. Thanks for playing kid...

In the former U.S. law, the legal term assault weapon included certain specific semi-automatic firearm models by name (e.g., Colt AR-15, TEC-9, non-select-fire AK-47s produced by three manufacturers, and Uzis) and other semi-automatic firearms because they possess a minimum set of cosmetic features from the following list of features:

funkdog1 2 years, 5 months ago

Had he been forced to change out his magazine, maybe those few seconds would have been long enough to tackle him.

50YearResident 2 years, 5 months ago

shooting a single person as many as 11 times ea, does require aseveral changes of the magazines.

Larrytown 2 years, 5 months ago

"Assault weapons are already banned. None have been used in any recent attacks".

That's 100% incorrect...the AR-15 (used in Colorado shooting and mostly like the Connecticut shooting) was defined as an assault weapon as part of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004 (expired without renewal). That was the 1st attempt (a few states defined assault weapons prior to the Feds in 1994) by the Federal government to provide specifics on the definition of assault weapons.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Wrong Larry. Ct has an assault weapon ban and the Bushmaster is legal. Other AR 15 rifles were legal under the fed ban.

Richard Heckler 2 years, 5 months ago

2012 was the year celebrating the most mass murders in USA history. Guns are not the answer.

Every country on earth has some people who are unbalanced.

Only in America can they get access to adult weapons..... military assault weapons

If guns made people safe, America would be the safest country on earth.

RoeDapple 2 years, 5 months ago

There are 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes. Doctors are killers.

KSManimal 2 years, 5 months ago

Residential swimming pools are about 100 times more likely to kill than are guns. I wonder if the good doctor, or any of his MD colleagues, have pools?

jaywalker 2 years, 5 months ago

Once again someone attempting to qualify w/ a wholly ridiculous comparison. When a madman walks into an elementary school, mall, movie theater, where-ever.....and proceeds to massacre 20 children w/ swimming pools, yours will be the opinion I turn to.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Doc, you are part of the problem, not because of your opinion but because of the way you express it. Besides the immature name calling, you attack with hate. Hate divides this country, makes it grow angry and creates an environment ripe for violence.

Express your views but do so in a constructive tone that will serve to promote a dialogue and not in way that shuts down conversation and heats up anger.

Bigdog66046 2 years, 5 months ago

NO MASS shooting maybe. But they had to come up with new criminal codes for Home Invasions! They didn't have those when they had their firearms, but once they were taken away, the Criminals still have their guns and are using them against the now unarmed "law abiding citizens!"

frank regnier 2 years, 5 months ago

could not have said it better myself, great job Fred!

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

And lets get one thing straight, the 2nd amendment is not about hunting and recreational shooting. It is about self defense. If I am forced to use a gun in self defense then I want one designed to kill. I also wants one that provides me with sufficient ammo to protect myself and my family.

Finally, I want one that is reliable. I don't need a military weapon and they aren't available to me anyway, but one designed on a military weapon will incorporate the R&D that went into designing those weapons. It really is no different than the navigation systems we use in our car. They are not military grade, but the technology and design came from the military.

jaywalker 2 years, 5 months ago

" If I am forced to use a gun in self defense then I want one designed to kill."

Don't buy the Nerf gun then. Otherwise, aren't they all designed to kill? And unless your family is wandering the Australian outback in the days of Mad Max, pretty certain a normal clip will be sufficient to ward off the hordes coming after you and yours.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

A normal magazine for an AR-15 is 30 rounds, many semi-auto pistols are designed for 15-19 rounds, so you agree that we should not restrict those, right?

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

My point exactly. All guns are designed to kill but the anti gunners like to pretend A R 15 s are different.

What is a normal "clip"(wrong term btw)?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Instead of calling people "anti gunners" try thinking of them as anti dead citizens advocates. Whether or not someone calls a clip a magazine or vise-versa, you get the point. Citizens do not need rifles and handguns that fire 15 or more rounds with the simple pull of a trigger for each bullet expended without needing to reload. It isn't about being anti gun, it is about practical use. Someone thinking they need a gun that fires 30 or 50 or 100 rounds is as "nuts" in my opinion as is the person in your's who says they want a bazooka for personal safety.

appleaday 2 years, 5 months ago

There are some key words in the second amendment that are often overlooked: a WELL-REGULATED militia...

And, no, I'm not advocating taking guns away from people who have a legitimate use for them. It's just pretty clear that something needs to change.

Phoghorn 2 years, 5 months ago

In the 18th Century, "well-regulated" meant well functioning/orderly. Ie, a well-regulated clock. It was not a reference to regulation by a governing body.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

It is well-regulated in the sense of self-regulated. Not just functioning properly.

appleaday 2 years, 5 months ago

The second amendment is about protecting yourself from a tyrannical government. (Like the British in the late 18th century.)

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Smitty then why don't cops carry .22s? .22 s like BB guns can kill but a poor choice for self defense.

kuguardgrl13 2 years, 5 months ago

In the 18th century, the colonists handed their boys muskets and taught them how to hunt from a young age. They also didn't have a full military or law enforcement like we do today. They had muskets and rifles to protect themselves from natives, animals, and British soldiers. Those weapons usually had to be loaded after every shot (which takes a long time). Some might have been able to fire two shots in a row without reloading. One person couldn't possibly kill 27 people in a matter of minutes. They also didn't let the mentally ill have access to weapons or even be seen. An insane child was probably accused of witchcraft and burned. That said, weapons have evolved just like everything else. We also have police and a full military to protect us. Not everyone needs to be armed. We don't need to have guns to feed our families. We've begun to develop means for everyone to function in normal society. We still have a ways to go, but allowing deadly weapons to fall into the hands of those who can't handle them properly won't protect our children.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Good point Les. What you said goes along with something I've proposed before and that is when it comes to where is the line in what individuals can own lets look to the police. While not exactly the same you and I may have to deal with the same criminal element as the police so let me own the same firepower they own. If they need it then I need it.

And while they sometimes have to deal with criminals by themselves they often have backup whereas I will almost always be alone.

Liberty275 2 years, 5 months ago

"That’s it. That’s enough"

What the young man did was horrible, but nothing is horrible enough to deprive innocent people of their constitutional rights.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

It was once my right to own another human being. I've lost that right, thankfully. Hopefully you and I will be forced into significant loses of our rights to bear arms, as the cost to society is exceedingly high. Shall I list the names and ages of those 20 children so that you may know just a small part of the cost?

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 5 months ago

Comparing gun ownership to slavery? Classy.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

I was saying that what was once a right, might not nor should it be a right today. In the future, we might lose a right while gaining two more. It's a process.

kernal 2 years, 5 months ago

Liberty275, I hope you really don't mean private ownership of assault weapons should take precedence over the constitutional rights for the Sandy Hook childrens pursuit of life and happiness, because that's sure what it sounds like.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Kernel. So people have been driven to suicide and harmed because of the first amendment so should all free speech be limited or should those that commit crimes be punished? Lets be consistent when it comes to our rights.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 5 months ago

Unless and until it infringes on the rights of others.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

All I have to say to anyone...Government or individual...who wishes to take away my guns. Come and get'em at your own risk. Who will be the first?

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

I really don't understand how comments such as this are allowed to remain posted.

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

I know what you mean.

But, in this case, I think it sheds some light on a certain segment of the population and their mindset which is informative.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Informative in that we will be the ones legally defending you, while you cower away wishing you could defend your family, in that theater, school, or other public venue when another mental case decides to act. Many of us have been trained professionally and hit what we aim at. A small number of us have actually been a part of military operations where we have proven ourselves. My mindset is clear. I was not raised to be a coward and I don't respect your choice to be.

jafs 2 years, 5 months ago

Please stop responding to my posts.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Why...did I offend you? Just like a leftie...free speech is ok as long as you agree with it. I didn't use profanity and I stated language that the founders of this country used when the King sent soldiers to disarm the patriots. How can that possibly be offensive to anyone? Or have you forgotten all of the individuals that died giving us the rights to post what we wish on this web site?

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

First, not all speech is protected. Certainly not in this forum, a private forum subject to terms we all agreed to when we signed up.

Second, while the First Amendment protects your freedom of speech, even that does not protect all speech. Fighting words intended to incite violence are not protected by the First Amendment. Your comment comes perilously close to that definition.

Lastly, I love it when I'm called a "leftie". If for no other reason than I'm also called a member of the right, though certainly not with this subject. It helps confirm my self perception as a person firmly rooted in the middle.

irishbug 2 years, 5 months ago

Why? Are you going to kill me?

What a bad ass...... I'll bet everyone reading this is afraid of you now......

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Well...if you come to my house, break in, and attempt to take my weapons???...one of us isn't walking out. I would hope you would do the same to protect your family. Actually...I am a bad ass!!! The kind of bad ass that has been through hell in training and hell in operations.....for you.

irishbug 2 years, 5 months ago

Everyone check your engines, we've found your missing dipstick.

"Actually...I am a bad ass!!! The kind of bad ass that has been through hell in training and hell in operations.....for you"

Rock On bro....Rock On!

Make sure you send your thoughts on this to all those 6 and 7 year olds parents in Connecticut. Maybe you can threaten them with your fully trained and operational hard ass as well......

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

PR, I'm sure Nancy Lanza was just as confident about her gun ownership too.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Brilliant. We should jail people who allow themselves to be killed with their own weapons.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

Talk like this, Pork_Ribs, suggests to me that you are too excitable to possess firearms.

KSManimal 2 years, 5 months ago

Keep in mind that the legal definition(s) of "assault weapon" have been almost entirely based on cosmetic features (bayonet mounts, folding stocks, protruding pistol grips, flash suppressors, etc.) that have nothing whatsoever to do with the lethality of the weapons.

That's right, folks..... the whole gun control effort is based on emotion, not logic. Hence, we've pushed to ban the guns that look scary to ballistophobes.

maporter 2 years, 5 months ago

Dr. Bruner today and others yesterday pose solutions to the symptom, not the problem. The Newton shooter took 20 minutes to shoot 26 people before the authorities showed up. He could have done this with a muzzle loaded weapon. Neither the capacity of the magazines nor the type of weapon was a factor. As David Kopel stated in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed yesterday: “People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.”

Pretend gun-free zones, where only the law-abiding citizens comply, promote rather than discourage the actions of deranged shooters such as the one in Newton.

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

'the Newton shooter took 20 minutes to shoot 26 people before the authorities showed up. He could have done this with a muzzle loaded weapon...'

Nonsense. It takes around twenty seconds to reload a muzzle loader. You think the victims would simply stand around waiting for him to reload.

mom_of_three 2 years, 5 months ago

And twenty seconds is completing it quickly, I think.

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

Doctor, you are a victim of falling to symbolism over substance. Symbolism in this case is making laws that will only keep guns from law abiding citizens. If someone really wants an AR or semi-auto AK (I refuse to refer to these as assault weapons as they are not), they will get one. If they cannot, they will find other means as many soldiers in Iraq have found out with their lives with the use of IED's. The two largest terrorist attacks on US soil and the largest school massacre in US history did not involve one firearm.

Substance... Israel armed their teachers decades ago and the school shootings stopped there. Substance... you never hear of mass shootings in Switzerland and most people ages 20-30 have an automatic weapon in their house (not semi-auto, but and ACTUAL assault weapon) and they also have one of the lowest murder per capita rates in the world. Substance... the top two countries in the western world for violent crimes are Australia and Great Britain, two countries that practically took away all their citizens' guns.

Instead of symbolic feel-good legislation, why not repeal Gun Free School Zones, let teachers be armed if they pass a rigorous course, and mandate that the principal take a rigorous course and be armed. This would make one less place these nut jobs would attack since their might be someone shooting back.

Then again, you wrote a LTE that resorted to name calling so I doubt you would listen to reason.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

Israeli teachers are military reservists--that is, part of a "well-regulated militia." Israel also has strict regulation of private ownership of firearms. In Switzerland, gun ownership is tied to military service. So by all means, labmonkey, the US ought to look carefully at these examples and consider their applicability to the US.

A truly rigorous course in arms training for teachers would be 1) extremely expensive; and 2) too difficult for many teachers to pass. And unless the guns were kept carefully locked away and constantly watched--something that is virtually impossible--they would end up in the hands of children who would do great damage with them. No school system wants to bear the financial responsibility of officially placing guns in their buildings, and no insurance company would agree to write a policy for them.

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

It should be a choice for teachers and a requirement for principals. Most principals have a master's degree which means they have passed many rigorous classes. This would be no different. And armed teachers and principals should conceal carry, not lock the arms up. These nut jobs (who are cowards and flock to gun-free zones)will avoid schools if they know someone can shoot back. What I propose is a solution that would do good and have teeth, not feel good legislation that only impedes law-abiding citizens.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

The skills involved in shooting are much different than those involved in teaching.

Bob Forer 2 years, 5 months ago

'Israel armed their teachers decades ago...'

Wrong. Most school sites are fenced and have an armed security guard at the entrance gate, but teachers are not armed as a general rule. Some of the private right-wing Yeshivas in the West Bank may have armed teachers. I don't know. I have never been to the West Bank, where only 5% of the Israeli population resides.

Armed security guards typically will accompany children on a field trip in areas deemed high risk.l But again, they are not teachers, but trained security.

There are no school shootings in Israel because the borders are well protected, and there is strict gun control.

Phoghorn 2 years, 5 months ago

Most of us Libertarians believe neither.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

ummmm....they don't. They just believe in protecting the rights of every human being...no matter their stage in life.

Katara 2 years, 5 months ago

Using that logic, all fetuses should be allowed to have guns.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

We'd have a lot less liberals if they did.

avarom 2 years, 5 months ago

If there is a law banning guns....every black market person in every country will be selling them and making tons of money....bringing them illegally to the US, without any trace of who really owns them. So, if this nut case, did not obtain his guns from his Mother, and bought them illegally out the trunk of a vehicle......we would of never known who they really belong to. Do we really want illegal gun trade to increase....its' bad enough now.....it will get worse....when there is money to be made and guns are not attainable, illegal gun trade will be even more rampade.We all know this!!I I do believe we should have strong gun restrictions.... like clean driver's record...no dui's, drugs arrests, or domestic violence arrests, gun violations etc... clean mental health status, so if you are taking any kind of physc meds for example, that would disqualify you, like driving with out your glasses, but more restrictive. You need to pass some type of gun training and you have to re-certification courses every 3 years....to keep your license current, like your Driver's license. Also, mantatory metal detectors in all schools and on duty security guards during in-session school time. And, the security guards need to carry projectile stun guns, handcuffs, protective gear and on going lockers searches. We need better protection for our children, We can't be Everywhere!

gphawk89 2 years, 5 months ago

Never considered this until now, but isn't it odd that generally the same group of people that wants to legalize pot also wants to criminalize gun ownership?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Not as odd that those who want the right to own an arsenal oppose something as peaceful as legalizing pot.

Of course, few people are actually talking about criminalizing gun ownership. Instead, the discussion is about which types of guns are needed for safety and hunting in accordance to the Second Amendment and which ones are excessive and end up being harmful to the greater society. I can't have a bazooka because selling those would be unrational. Some feel the same about these semi-automatic rifles, that they are unrational weapons for self defense.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Beatrice only nuts want to be allowed to carry bazookas and it will never happen but it is a good CNN talking point so keep saying it.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Nuts? Why, I'm offended (read as if spoken in a grandiose false umbrage tone)! I prefer bazooka enthusiast. You just don't like my sport.

In a more serious tone, some would argue only "nuts" would want citizens to be allowed to carry semi-automatic rifles or handguns that can fire 30 times without reloading. Nuts.

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

But you are most likely to be victim of a violent crime in the western world in Australia according to a Dutch study done every four years. Home invasions have skyrocketed. Same with Great Britain after the banned guns. Nope... not the answer.

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

It is not a success, it is a total and complete failure. Within four years of the ban, Homicides and assaults were up, robberies wer up by 45%, in some areas gun homicides tripled, and crime has been steadily increasing since then. Before the ban, Australia was seeing a steady decline in crime. Great Britian has seen similar results (where as many as 25% of the population has been a victim of a violent crime).

In the United States, violent crime has dropped in the last 20 years while gun ownership has increased. Sounds like Australia and Great Britain are failures in the gun control experiment.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

No, the response is asking why they are available in the first place to those who did. Remember, the gun wasn't owned by a killer, but it became available to him when he stole it. Had his mother never owned that rifle he would never have been able to use such a rifle in his attack.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Seriously? You don't even see how greater care being made available to those with mental illness as being a possible solution?

Phoghorn 2 years, 5 months ago

Regardless, of our personal views on firearm ownership, it is obvious that gun free zones are not working. Nearly every mass-shooting occurs in one of them. This includes the Fort Hood massacre which occurred in a gun free area of the fort.

gphawk89 2 years, 5 months ago

On an even more basic level, it is illegal to murder someone. Being convicted of murder brings severe penalties. But that fact doesn't appear to be stopping thousands of individuals from committing murder every year. I don't see how laws restricting gun sales are going to make any difference. If someone is of the mind to actually commit a murder, are they going care at all whether they have to resort to illegal means to obtain a weapon? No.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

We don't need to make it easy for criminals to get hold of lethal weapons. If it's too hard to get a firearm, the person might still embark on a violent crime, but he won't be able to cause such a high number of casualties. Even if totally eliminating violent crime isn't possible, doesn't it make a lot of sense to try to minimize the access criminals have to weapons?

skinny 2 years, 5 months ago

Guess it is time to renew my NRA subscription!

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

So you like they way they have hidden themselves since the killings? So very good for you.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

I am a NRA member and think they are handling this well. Anything they say today will become the story. Let the parents in CT bury their children in peace, let emotions die down and when the time is right the NRA will engage.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

So you believe they should close their facebook page every time an innocent citizen is killed by a gun? Well, I guess there goes the NRA's facebook presence.

The conspicuous absence of the National RIFLE Association during a time when a RIFLE was used again to kill people indicates that they feel some responsibility. Otherwise, why be silent?

My guess is, unlike other events in which people were killed by a gun toting lunatic, emotions won't die down this time around. Changes will be demanded of our legislators. That doesn't mean stripping people of their right to arms, but stopping their ability to have weapons that afford them the opportunity to kill 20, 30 or more without reloading. That some would still oppose such legislation is clear how detached from the reality of the situation some people are. Limits do not mean stripping you of your right to own, but they limit WHAT you can own (hence the repeated bazooka analogy).

kernal 2 years, 5 months ago

There isn't going to be an all inclusive ban on guns. That's not even doable. What we do need is an overhaul of the existing gun laws. If you think it's okay to sell guns and ammo at shows with no criminal background checks, or to sell them on line, etc., then it's pointless to even have a discussion with you about it.

As for arming teachers in our schools, I disagree with those who think that's part of the solution. Most of our teachers have never shot a gun, much less owned one. Using Israeli teachers as an example doesn't cut it since most Israelis are required to do a stint in the Israeli Army after high school. They are some of the best trained soldiers in the world.

md 2 years, 5 months ago

Was it any different before God was taken out of the schools? Just asking.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 5 months ago

I would ask you why you doubt your god. Isn't your god everywhere?

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

I believe that if your gun is used in an illegal violent act...you should go to prison as if you pulled the trigger yourself. If you can't secure your weapons properly...then, I believe, you haven't earned the right to have them. I don't care if it's a BB gun or an AR-15.

KSManimal 2 years, 5 months ago

Check the laws in CT, and you will find such a law is already on the books.

The fundamental problem with gun control advocates is the assumption that criminalizing things serves a deterrent purpose. It doesn't. It merely gives the rest of us the go-ahead to imprison the offenders after the fact.

boltzmann 2 years, 5 months ago

No the problem is that states have open borders with other states that have lax gun control. Therefore the solutions need to be uniform and national.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

I definitely don't want to be controlled by the cowardly lefties on the east and west coasts. Thank you...but I'll stick with the state that I have control of my Rep's in.

voevoda 2 years, 5 months ago

You should not accuse people who oppose reckless possession of firearms of cowardace, Pork-Ribs. They have the courage to stand up to you, despite your bravado and name-calling. In general, embracing peaceful solutions to the world's problems takes more courage than just posturing with weapons, Pork_Ribs. Remember Jesus? Would you really classify him with "cowardly lefties"?

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Show me in the Constitution where you have the right to deny a human being the right to life? Oh...that's right...It specifically says you don't. Their stage of life doesn't matter...a human is a human.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 5 months ago

Gladly.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Please re-read and pay attention this time.

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

"It merely gives the rest of us the go-ahead to imprison the offenders after the fact." Agreed...but isn't that the case with any crime? I agree with you essentially that gun control only controls the guns of the responsible citizen (to put my words in your mouth:) I'm not sure you're correct on the CT laws though...Did the CT shooter's mom get charged yet? I'll look into it deeper and see what I can find.

Katara 2 years, 5 months ago

The CT shooter's mother is dead. She was his first victim.

hedshrinker 2 years, 5 months ago

you do know the CT shooter's mom is dead , don't you....she was his first victim.....we should charge her for losing control of her guns when she is dead?

yourworstnightmare 2 years, 5 months ago

I ask these serious questions of those opposed to regulating access to assault weaponry and arms.

Should we have the individual right to own rocket launchers? Tanks? Missiles? Torpedos? Nuclear weapons?

I am not being facetious here. I would like to hear your serious answers.

We already have laws against individuals owning these types of arms. Where do the restrictions end for you, and why?

Paul Wilson 2 years, 5 months ago

Actually we do have the individual rights to own Tanks and rocket launchers. Missiles and Torpedos are dependent on their launch vehicle. Nuclear....If I'm a contractor for the Government...I could have the materials in my possession. It's all about the approval process. Since the weapons used in CT weren't even owned by the shooter...the point is mute.

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

I will preface this by saying I know little of hunting. But I don't think that's is a big deal if a rifle can only shoot one bullet, and then reload. If you miss, Dillon's is always an option. As for shotguns, two shells should be all you need. After that, it's off to KFC. If you need a handgun, a six shooter is enough. If seven people break into your home, you're dead.

After that, ban everything else. As I said, I know little of hunting or of guns, so I'd be open to discussing other options. But for a start, that's my position.

Kathy Getto 2 years, 5 months ago

Two shells? Two quail, perhaps? One bullet? One bunny? That's just absurd. Why limit hunters?

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

Why limit hunters? Because no one can tell me who is a hunter and who is a mass murderer. Can you?

Shoot, reload. Shoot, reload. Shoot, reload.

If you miss the bunny with the first shot, come to my yard. They're all over the place.

Maybe tax each bullet, say, $20 each and use the money to provide mental health services.

I may not know much about hunting, but I do know that if we don't make changes, we'll be burying more children next week, next month, next year. Maybe it's time for responsible hunters to demand changes that they can live with and will also do something to address the legitimate needs of the non hunting community. Those needs being that people stop shooting at our children.

If you're a responsible hunter, become a member of the NRA and demand they change their advocacy tactics. Unfortunately, an all too common sentiment here is that hunters (and others) want to make no concessions, no compromises. For those people, they are certainly part of the killing spree problem. Which side of the fence are you on? Are you for change or are you for fiercely defending your rights at the cost of the occasional mass murder of children? Decide, now.

hipper_than_hip 2 years, 5 months ago

Too bad the media doesn't have articles about the lives that are saved everyday by the legal use of firearms.

As someone pointed out above, we're ok with the police having high cap magazines, high powered semi-auto rifles, and as much ammo as they can carry.

Since the police are the second responders to show up at the scene of a crime (the victim is the first responder), why would you deny potential victims the ability to be as well armed as the police who show up after the fact?

I would argue that the need for such weaponry in the hands of civilians is at least equal to, if not greater than, the needs of the police.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Our police departments are highly regulated, we know the weapons are kept locked up when not in use and are not just lying about waiting for a mentally ill son to come picking one up and using it against his mother. The police and the average citizen are not one and the same and the average citizen absolutely does not need to have the same level of arsenal as the police.

Of course, if you want to require the type of training and background check and accountability of their daily actions the average police officer goes through for all who own similar weapons, then perhaps we could talk.

hipper_than_hip 2 years, 5 months ago

Actually you don't know that the weapons are kept safe. The semi-auto rifles that the LPD uses are owned by the individual officers, and are brought to work at the beginning of the shift & taken home at the end of the shift. Who's to say how the weapons are transported or stored at home.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

I don't think you are supporting your cause about how everyone should have access to such weapons by mentioning all the deaths caused by misuse of police officers' weapons.

RoeDapple 2 years, 5 months ago

"jhawhinsf - Dillon's is always an option"

Me thinks you know not what you offer . . . .

jhawkinsf 2 years, 5 months ago

You are correct. I was unaware of the Dillon's in your video.

ferrislives 2 years, 5 months ago

I know that debating gun rights is everyone's right in this country, but I hope that you would please remember the real victims in all of this.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-victims/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Maybe you can click each photo and read each description to learn a little of who they were and the gifts they brought to their families and friends, and this country. Maybe you can even think about how they aren't much different from the children in your own life, and how this discussion should not be dismissive. It should be real and comprehensive.

Yes, people have certain rights to own arms in this country, but these people had the right to live and prosper. The terrible loss of those rights are getting lost in this debate, and their rights matter too!

Liberty275 2 years, 5 months ago

So you would deprive the rights of 300 million because the real victims had names and families and had christmas presents under the tree?

No. We are a country of law, not emotion.

ferrislives 2 years, 5 months ago

No where did I say that I believe in completely taking away the right to keep and bear arms. What I'm saying is that some posters on this thread are focusing more of their emotion on their weapons than the victims of this crime. We don't know all of the facts yet, but if it's found that his mother did not lock up her legally-purchased guns, then that's one major part of a comprehensive problem.

Are you saying that Americans should have unfettered access to all weapons on the market without any kind of regulation Liberty275? Americans should have that access to tanks, bazookas, nuclear weapons, etc.? (I figured that since you decided to go to one extreme on my initial post, I could go to the other on yours.)

labmonkey 2 years, 5 months ago

Good God... I have to say excellent post.

ferrislives 2 years, 5 months ago

+1

We could start by funding and enforcing the existing system that's already in-place for this exact purpose: the National Instant Criminal Background Check Improvement Act.

About 22 states are already starting this process.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18354133 http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes, almost anything can be used for an evil purpose. However, guns, when used as they are designed, make it easier to kill someone than just random other things. In fact, firearms are not like other things that can be used as a weapon, they ARE weapons. Used to fire metal slugs at a target without discrimination of whether it is a paper target or a human being, firearms have a distinct advantage over using other things to attempt to cause harm to others.

If a military style weapon allows someone to fire more rounds faster than other weapons, then yes, they are "worse" given the context of this discussion (killing masses of innocent people).

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Good point. Perhaps we shouldn't just do away with assault rifles. Maybe we don't need Glock semi-autos that can fire off 25 rounds and are easily concealed either. Very good point.

For what reason does anyone need that type and size of firepower?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

And clearly you won't be satisfied until we have gradeschool children going to school with semi-automatic rifles strapped to their sides.

See how silly it appears to try to say what others want? If I wanted the complete ban of guns I would say so. What I want is for killers to not have as easy access to semi-automatic weapons that can kill dozens without reloading. Got it?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Along with limiting the clips to 9 rounds in handguns, and we have a deal.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

Wow, that was quite the impressive self-congratulating lovefest.

Are you two going to negotiate on who gets to vote and sit in the front of the bus next?

BTW, they are magazines, not clips.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

Hey, aren’t you the one who was calling for people to lighten up a little.

And yes, I do object to your compromise. I will continue to use magazines that are of normal capacity for the intended firearm, thanks.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Peacemaker, I see that it bothers you to find people with opposing views coming to terms on a subject. You aren't a congressman, are you?

Clipping the size of magazines would work.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

I am fine with you two agreeing to change your own behavior, but that is not what you were discussing. You don’t get to negotiate my activities.

Nice play on clip….

rockchalker52 2 years, 5 months ago

Impressive bargaining, guys! Way to get stuff done! Now, can you do something about this cliff business?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Of course we can do something about this fictional, congress-created cliff.

Tax increase to top rate of 38% for those making more than $350K, 2% pay cut for ALL federal employees for the next two years, pay freeze for 1 year then cost of living increase to follow, 5% cut to military spending this year and eventual lowering by 20% over next 10 years, raise social security payments to start at age 66, Constitutional amendment for balanced federal budgets beginning in 5 years, no more touching social security funds for anything but social securting, and make those receiving federal relief who are physically able to work in federal programs until they receive outside employment.

A reasonable gun deal reached and cliff avoided. Next.

Jennifer Dropkin 2 years, 5 months ago

Each of the children and adults who died had a right to live, which was taken away by a person with access to a weapon of mass destruction. As a society we have the right to regulate access to weapons of mass destruction to reduce the likelihood of someone impinging on the rights of others to live.

As so many comments to this letter shows, gun ownership is for many a fetish, an emotional need that exceeds actual need and common sense.

The right of fetishists to own increasingly lethal weaponry is outweighed by the right of all of us to live protected from those who would use such weapons to hurt us.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

How many people must die before a weapon is considered capable of mass destruction? If you found a gravesite with 26 bodies, wouldn't you call it a "mass grave"?

gl0ck0wn3r 2 years, 5 months ago

It is a matter of correct terminology, but logic and language don't seem to be of particular importance to you. Following your definition above virtually anything is a "weapon of mass destruction" and thus the meaning of the term is lost,

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Oh, that is right, I am only supposed to follow the NRA definitions for weapons of mass destruction, limits on rights, and hyperbole. Thanks for letting me know.

John Hampton 2 years, 5 months ago

Remind me again what the "AR" stands for in AR-15.

Remind me what is the definition of "assault"?

I'm for ownership of guns and the second amendment. I'm also for honesty and not misrepresenting the facts.

As for a waiting period to purchase.... for what reason would someone "need" any firearm.... now? As in right now or this afternoon or tomorrow? Things that happen in the heat of the moment or in a spontaneous nature are the only reasons. These are exactly the same reasons we don't need instantaneous purchase of weapons.

I plan on buying a hunting rifle for next year's deer season. I also plan on planning ahead so I have it in time. If I wait until the day of the season, I know I'll be out of luck for that week of hunting.

It's not rocket surgery.

Peacemaker452 2 years, 5 months ago

AR stands for Armalite, it is the name of a firearms manufacturer.

It doesn't stand for assault rifle.

Nice try, but you are wrong.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

School attacks in China (2010–2012) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A series of uncoordinated mass stabbings, hammer attacks, and cleaver attacks in the People's Republic of China began in March 2010. The spate of attacks left at least 21 dead and some 90 injured. Analysts have blamed mental health problems caused by rapid social change for the rise in these kind of mass murder and murder-suicide incidents.[1] Contents

In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,[19] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.[20] Another child and an adult were seriously wounded but survived.[21] The suspect is a local farmer who is suspected of being mentally ill.[22] December 2012 Main article: Chenpeng Village Primary School stabbing

On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes. The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested. All of the victims survived and were treated at three hospitals, though some were reportedly seriously injured, with fingers or ears cut off, and had to be transferred to larger hospitals for specialized care.

So, Dr. Should we ban Knives, Axes and Chinese people?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Are you saying that it isn't easier to kill a mass of people with a gun than with a knife?

There is no denying that crazy people will kill others. It happens. What is at question is how well armed do we want crazy people to be?

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

No, I am saying, what would be banned next? Because the violence would not stop if our guns went away. Crazy wont go away! Killers will kill. Some humans suck, so let the good humans have a chance to stop it from happening.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

So since you are worried about what would be banned NEXT, you aren't willing to even consider something now? Killers will kill -- yes. Do we continue to make it easier for them to kill as many as possible by allowing high capacity clips and magazines? I say no.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

Although I deplore citing Wikipedia, I will do so since that is the source that you have used. As nearly as I can tell from their website, during the same time frame that you cited, school shootings in the US claimed the lives of 56 US citizens, not counting the suicides of some of the perpetrators.

Comparing this to the 20 deaths over a three year period in China, a much larger nation than the US, would seem to indicate that the victims of a mass attack by an assailant using knives and axes are more likely to survive than if the attack is by way of semi automatic firearms with high capacity magazines.

Case in point, and again, according to the material that you cited:

"On 14 December 2012, a 36 year-old villager in the village of Chenpeng, Henan Province, stabbed 23 children and an elderly woman at the village's primary school as children were arriving for classes. The attacker was restrained at the school, and later arrested. ALL OF THE VICTIMS SURVIVED...." I am sure that many parents would have preferred this outcome.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

i typed in, "mass murder" and "china" into google, it was the first link sorry for being lazy but it made my point, that crazy will kill, guns or not.

but, notice the latest one happening in china near the same time as the one in conn.

Ya'll are trying to make this into efficiency and numbers. One dead schoolchild is too many. ok?

Its about crazy people doing crazy things guys!

Soon, more americans will be diagnosed as... 'mentally unable to possess a firearm.'

There will be a way around it though. ((SPOILER)) Do not check the 'crazy' (mental illness) box, or circle 'yes' (to mental illness) when filling out your background check form. ;)

Disclaimer: Crazy people are not allowed to read this.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes, I noticed the "....latest one happening in china near the same time as the one in conn.[sic]"

I clearly noticed that all of the victims survived.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

Did ya notice the ones that didn't?

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng (郑民生)[2] 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school.

An attacker named Wu Huanming (吴环明), 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang (方建堂) slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher, at a kindergarten

In September 2011, a young girl and three adults taking their children to nursery school were killed in Gongyi,[19] Henan by 30-year-old Wang Hongbin with an axe.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes. I also noticed that the overall numbers of deaths are much lower, over the period of time that you cited, even though China is a much larger, more populous country.

The simple fact is that semiautomatic firearms with large capacity magazines provide an efficient way to inflict deadly injuries on larger numbers of persons in a shorter amount of time than do knives, axes, and other hand tools.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

We are talking schools and schoolchildren here. How many deaths in the past 3 years in the U.S. by guns? Thus, the overall numbers a greater in China. Not to mention all of the maimed children that lived and will be mentally and physically scarred for life. You lost this argument.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

Yes, I am talking school shootings. 56 school shooting deaths in the USA during the same timeframe that you cite 23.

Your arguments are without merit. The fact is that semiautomatic firearms with large capacity magazines are more deadly than knives and axes.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

progressive thinker is right. I misread the total the first time. I sit corrected. You sir, have won that argument! forgive me

I agree that Chinese schoolchildren are 'more safer' (percentage wise) from mentally ill killers because of gun bans. (10 more per year avg.)

So lets move on, ok? How many people have died by govt. guns in China during Mao?

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000 (give or take a few) millions... tens of millions... not so long ago

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

All because the people (many of them children) did not have access to high capacity mags, ammo or guns!

Banning something a crazy person might use is not a solution. It is only treating the symptom.

Strike the root! Ban mental illness! Make mental illness illegal!

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

"Ban mental illness! Make mental illness illegal!"

So, let me make sure that I understand your position. As I understand it, you are now asserting that mental illness is a choice and that we should pass a law making it illegal for people to choose to be mentally ill?

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

No.

I forgot to use sarcasm tags on that last sentence.

Do you agree that sugary drinks should be banned? Drinking soda is a choice that kills more people than guns. Where is the outrage there? Just because a someone dies instantly instead of slow suicide makes it less deadly?

Think of all of the millions of people dying because of diabetes. Sugary drinks are the high capacity magazines of diabetes.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

The deaths caused by sugary drinks are primarily those persons who choose to drink them in excess, after being fairly warned of the risks.

Firearms were used in around 10,000 murders in 2010, where the person who died had no choice in the matter. Because a firearm is used to kill someone else, as opposed to causing long term health problems for the person who chooses to use them to excess, there is a clear difference. Accordingly, your argument is flawed due to the fact that you have drawn a false equivalence.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

Tell that to the children who inherit the diabetes risk. Do they have a choice? No.

Lets do automobiles now. Drunk Drivers kill people. They have access to high capacity vehicles that kill efficiently

An estimated 10,228 people who died in drunk driving crashes, accounting for 31% of all traffic deaths in 2010.

The people that are killed by drunk drivers have no choice in the matter.

progressive_thinker 2 years, 5 months ago

Again, a false equivalence. Type I diabetes was not caused by drinking sugary soda, which is what you were raising as an issue. Inherited [type I] diabetes was not caused by sugary soda.

Automobiles are still not an equivalent because of the position that they occupy in our lives. They are pretty much a necessity in many parts of the US to get to work, shuttle children, and the like. That said, It seems that you are arguing that you would be willing to accept the same sorts of restrictions for firearms that are placed on automobiles including licensing and registration of all firearms and owners, insurance, government regulation of manufacture and specifications to include safety features, and all of the other regulation that applies to automobiles. The gun industry has not been willing to accept this sort of regulation and control, as of yet.

Bill_Slu 2 years, 5 months ago

Cars are a choice. Where you live is a choice. Where you work is a choice. Where you shuttle your kids is a choice. The fact is, that choosing to travel on a interstate at 80mph, in over 2000 pounds of metal, is gambling with your life. Some lose. Over 44,000 people die this way each year. Many of them are children.

Remember driving is not a necessity or a right. It is a privilege.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

As we learned from the recent presidential election, people should not trust gallup polls.

Your misguided and obsessive hatred for our president is sad. You even have him as your avatar. Would you even exist if you didn't have this hatred?

Dec84 2 years, 5 months ago

Why don't we just teach our children, the meaning of Life.... Now that will be Enough.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

What. I find interesting is many who screamed about the sanctity of our rights and how the horrible right was trying to infringe the right of a person to vote by imposing an ID requirement are quick to further limit gun owners rights that are already highly regulated and limited.

Double standard in my opinion. I am okay with the current limitations on my rights and would consider further limitations if a cause effect relationship can established.

Would you not demand the same if we were talking about restricting 1 st amendment rights or more restrictions on voting?

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

BAZOOKAS FOR ALL! Otherwise, you are limiting my rights. Correct?

It has been shown that there are virtually no cases of people trying to falsify who they are in order to vote. It is a made up concern in order to prevent certain types of people from voting. Access to weapons of mass destruction, on the other hand, recently left too many children and teachers dead. The issue here is really without question and I don't think they are really one and the same.

Also, if ALL semi-automatic weapons were banned, you would STILL be able to arm yourself. Saying to someone without an ID that they can't vote, and you have absolutely and completely stripped them of their ability and right to vote. Big difference.

But hey, if it makes it better for you, if asking people to show their IDs meant we wouldn't have another instance of slaughtered children, then yes, I would say it is a sacrifice worth making and limitation worht having on our rights. Sadly, the gun rights people aren't willing to make the sacrifices necessary. People who support the full range of military-style weapons to be available to all are saying that the slaughter of innocents is the price worth paying for that right. I believe that price is too high.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Bazookas for all - right out of CNN's talking points. No fact, just a distraction. Yawn......get a new talking point you've worn that one out.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

But it is true. A limitation does not mean an outright ban. I will stop using the bazooka analogy as soon as people stop using the "take away our guns" line.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

So you think there should be limits on one's right to arms? Funny, so do I.

hedshrinker 2 years, 5 months ago

I am really confused about how all of a sudden, the gun rights people say it's not about easy access to guns, it's all those mentally ill people who are the problems...I'm not sure what they are proposing for mentally ill people....put them in a camp, lock them up, sterilize them? Have you any idea how many people are taking anti-depressants and stimulants for ADHD and anti-anxiety meds, and sleep aids, and even some prn major tranquilizers thrown in, most of which are prescribed BTW by their general practitioner, not a psychiatric expert .....these MILLIONS of people ALL must carry a psychiatric diagnosis: adjustment disorder, ADD, sleep disorder, dysthymia, social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, etc. I assume the gun rights people who think gun violence would disappear if "crazy " people couldn't get gun access aren't talking about restricting guns from their college student with ADD or their sister with premenstrual dysphoria or their spouse with depression...or maybe they are....what about people with schizophrenia (who are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence), what about people with personality disorders (antisocial, etc), who are probably not in treatment, don't have a formal diagnosis and may be more of a concern than anyone else? If the current concern about mental health would get Gov Brownback to put millions of dollars back into the budget for community mental health centers, adding highly skilled personnel and decreasing now lengthy waiting lists, it might help the access problem, but something tells me that's not what the gun people are advocating. They are just looking for another fall guy so they can keep their gun safes full and swagger around with their machismo attitudes saying Make My Day! I am very fearful that just as we are coming out of the dark ages of terrible stigmatizing of people with ANY kind of common cold variety of mental health issues, we will be pushing those people back into the closet so they will NEVER seek treatment, no matter how "available" it might be. Also, after 3 decades in the trenches in both public and private, inpatient and outpatient, academic and clinical mental health, I know how difficult to impossible it is to predict who is a danger to self or others...I would really be interested in the implementation process the gun people have in mind.

FlintlockRifle 2 years, 5 months ago

Hang on there doc, AR'S come in hunting calibers not just in 5.56 or 223, just shows how much the average smow knows about what the news media feeds you. Just stick to your docking,

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

Just because someone doesn't know details about guns and calibers and such, that person is supposed to ignore the bodies of dead children as a result of excessive access to semi-automatic guns? I don't think so.

Brock Masters 2 years, 5 months ago

Right Bea, don't let your ignorance stand in the way of telling others what to do.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

I can't explain exactly how a nuclear bomb works either, but I know I don't want the NRA supporters to have access to them.

You see, I recognize that the frequency of high body counts after mass shootings makes it clear that we need to limit the number of bullets that can be fired from a single gun with each simple pull of a trigger. Call it what you will, ignorance or whatever, that makes no difference.

Limits on how many bullets a firearm can fire between reloads does not mean a ban on all guns. You have bought into the myth the NRA sells you that everyone wants to take away your guns and that no limits are necessary.

JW1945 2 years, 5 months ago

There was a time when we could proudly call ourselves Americans, & rightly so, but our country has lost it's way when almost every month we see on the nightly news that some American somewhere has went on a rampage & for whatever inexcusable reason goes out & murders dozens of other Americans who are innocent people. What frightens me even more is that I go to work the next day & people do not even mention these events anymore! It has become the norm. I am afraid our soceity has now became immune to these ever more increasing murders - just another day in America. I saw some kids coming in from recess today & I thought to myself I guess we'll be forced to build 15 feet concrete walls around our schoolyards these days with 5 feet of electric barbed wire on the top, bullet-proof all the windows (or no windows at all), have armed guards at every door & gate. How about our school buses? Do we need to put 6 inches of armor on them & bullet-proof their windows? I applaud Dr. Bruner for having the courage to say enough is enough, he is right about that. We cannot be proud to be Americans anymore until this is solved, whatever it takes.

notaubermime 2 years, 5 months ago

The way that I see it, the US has two problems: mental health and easy access to firearms. I don't know that you can look at the Virginia Tech shooter, Tuscon shooter, Aurora shooter, and a whole host of other mass murderers and think that there isn't a problem with mental health in this country. Heck, all one has to do is look around on the streets of downtown sections in practically every city in the country to come to the conclusion that not enough is being done for these individuals. These are people who need treatment at the very least, and round the clock care at the most. We need to listen to trained psychologists and psychiatrists about how to better care for them.

The second thing that should be considered is how easy it is to get guns, and how easy it is to get illegal guns. Individuals with obvious mental health issues should not have access to guns. Criminals should not have access to guns. American guns should not be fueling drug violence on our border, nor empowering cartels to pump illegal drugs into the US. I respect the right of a trained, licensed, and responsible gun owner. I call into question why anyone else should have a gun.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

The right to own arms is not the right to own all possible arms available, does it? We are talking about reasonable limits here, not the banning of all firearms.

beatrice 2 years, 5 months ago

If we had the limits on the number of rounds in a magazine, I would agree on not going after the guns themselves. Scary looking doesn't make a gun any more or less deadly. The capablity of holding dozens of rounds, however, do make any gun capable of these larger magazines more deadly. It isn't the gun, it is the number of projectiles coming out of that gun.

notaubermime 2 years, 5 months ago

Because disturbed individuals have been known to mass murder more than a dozen small children with their voting ballot? Not a very good analogy. Cars, on the other hand, can be lethal and we require training, licensing, and responsible driving.

notaubermime 2 years, 5 months ago

Bush and Iraq? You mean the place where we sent a bunch of people with guns? I seem to recall that nobody died there from a voting ballot being thrown at them.

Believe it or not, the Constitution was written by a bunch of reasonable and responsible people who decided what was going to be constitutional. And they disagreed a lot.

I'm not in favor of banning weapons. I'm in favor of required training and licensing.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it specifically say that you have a right to modern guns. It says you have a right to "arms", which at that time meant muzzle-loading muskets. That would be the correct literal interpretation of what the Constitution is protecting.

Crazy_Larry 2 years, 5 months ago

I think this explains the 2nd Amendment nicely.

JW1945 2 years, 5 months ago

So it seems the constitution's intent was to allow the average American the right to bear arms to defend themselves against a state militia? Let's think about that one for awhile ............Saddam Hussein had thousands & thousands of Russian tanks, scud missiles, a standing Army of hundreds of thousands, Russian jet fighter planes, Triple AAA anti-aircraft missiles, etc, etc, & the U.S Military destroyed his entire military in about a month & killed tens of thousands of trained soldiers. And the argument is that the average beer drinking Joe who goes out & practice shoots or hunts, who by the way has 0 tanks, 0 jet fighters, 0 Triple AAA Anti-Aircraft, 0 cruise milles, 0 nuclear weapons, 0 B-52 Heavy Bombers, 0 Stealth bombers or fighters, 0 Nuclear Aircraft carriers, 0 Nuclear submarines, O Bazookas, RPG's. Self propelled Howitzers, Wart Hog Gunships, 0 access to hundreds of sensitive military satelitte data (eyes in the sky), the CIA organization & the FBI organization. So tell me again - - the constitution's right allows us citizens to overthrow our government if need be? That's the lamest argument I've ever heard, Are these people for real? I would buy tickets to see these guys go up against the entire U.S.military complex & actually think they are going to win?

dlkrm 2 years, 5 months ago

Dr. Bruner, you are a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance.

Leslie Swearingen 2 years, 5 months ago

My thing is that by focusing on the weapon we are ignoring the killer and what brought him to that point in his life. It is my belief that his mother took him to shooting ranges to channel his interest in guns and teach him to be responsible. I have to assume that none of the people in charge at the ranges saw anything that worried them about this young man.

I would ask the commenters above these questions, do you know anyone who has weapons who has made some iffy comments about killing people, and if so what did you do about it?

frank regnier 2 years, 5 months ago

Wow, the dogs keep fighting while the cat drags away the dinner! Hey people, focus on the real matter. " Gun Control for persons who should not have access to them" Now let's spend our time and money on those who need mental help instead.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.