Opinion

Opinion

Letter: Guns, alcohol

December 22, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

According to the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health, alcohol kills more people than guns do: 75,000 deaths per year — including 5,000 underage children. Obviously, existing laws don’t stop the carnage or keep alcohol away from children. It’s time to get serious.

We must ban hard liquor and limit beer and wine to packages not exceeding a three-drink total. We need mandatory background checks and 10-day waiting periods for every alcohol purchase. Also, alcohol stored in the home must be kept in locked cabinets to prevent unauthorized access.

Ballistophobic boozers will fuss, with predictable hypocrisy and double-standards: “It’s already illegal for minors to purchase alcohol.” It’s already illegal for minors to purchase firearms. “Drunk driving is already illegal.” Shooting people is already illegal. “Alcohol doesn’t kill people. Alcohol abuse kills people.” Guns don’t kill people, murder kills people. “You don’t need guns.” You don’t need alcohol, I hope. If you do, please seek help.

“Why do you need semi-automatics and large-capacity clips?” Why do you need hard liquor and cases of beer? “Guns are made to kill.” Alcohol is toxic, made to intoxicate. “Most drinkers obey the law and never harm anyone.” Most gun owners obey the law and never harm anyone.

“Tell the parents of 20 murdered children how your constitutional right to bear arms trumps their kids’ lives.” Tell the parents of 5,000 booze-killed kids how your selfish need for convenient drinking trumps their kids’ lives. Then wipe the blood off your bottles and shut up about my guns.

Comments

RoeDapple 2 years, 6 months ago

Here, here! Nobody wants a complete and total ban, just some reasonable restrictions. All 24 pak and 30 pak cases must be banned. Imported spirits must be heavily taxed, and grain alcohol should never be sold in anything larger than pint bottles.

I never touch the stuff, but I know what's good for those that do. I encourage the president to sign an executive order to put restrictions in place. Don't even bother with those pesky House and Senate people, they're just a bunch of drunks.

avarom 2 years, 6 months ago

Handguns and Homicide On the average, if someone gets shot and killed, four out of five times it will be with a handgun. In 1997, for example, handguns were used in 79.4 percent of all firearm homicides.

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Anyone who is reasonable and cares about children won't disagree with you.

Water 2 years, 6 months ago

Does the CDC or NIH have any studies indicating how many United States citizens were born........because of alcohol consumption? Just striving to keep the statistics......um.......honest.

Phil Minkin 2 years, 6 months ago

Thousands also die in auto related accidents, but we have speed limits, drivers tests and other laws that make for fewer deaths than there would be if these laws were not in place. AAA does not spend millions of dollars opposing these restrictions and auto manufacturers are required to continually make their products safer. There are high taxes on alcohol to help mitigate the damage it does to society as there should be a very high tax on ammunition, possibly high enough to cover the cost of the NRA solution of having armed guards at every school. Incidentally, the NRA is constantly fear mongering about citizens having to protect themselves from the government, and now they want more armed government employees. Go figure.

Pal 2 years, 6 months ago

Why? Because I "choose" to. I choose to.

Classic liberal logic. They "choose" for you what you like and do not like.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Well-written and the analogy is perfect.

Pal 2 years, 6 months ago

Collective solution of Liberal phantasmagoria with a pinch of moral bullying works how again?

oh. it eliminates "choice"

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

So out of curiosity, I decided to take Mr. Reber's analysis to the next step: the global stage. What exactly, if anything, affects alcohol consumption rates in other countries? If you look at the country-by-country problem drinking rates: http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/publications/global_status_report_2004_overview.pdf

you quicklly come to the conclusion that religion is the strongest controlling factor for limiting alcohol consumption: 94% of Bangladeshis are lifetime abstainers, and most countries where Islam is the predominant religion, alcohol consumption and problem drinkers simply is not a problem, period.

What conclusion does that lead to for gun control? Well, it would be interesting to see the world's major religions come out with a strong connection between the "thou shalt not kill" commandments that are in all religions and conclude that having and using guns that are designed to kill and maim people is a sin. Wouldn't it be interesting to see if it had the same effect on homicide rates as Islam has on alcoholism rates? But I'm not going to hold my breath on that one (with or without a breathalyzer)!

So exactly what works and doesn't work for various countries on controlling societal impacts of alcohol consumption? Looking at countries that have significant alcohol consumption the global report put out by the World Health Organization... http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241580356.pdf

....reports that heavy drinking rates are most responsive (i.e. drop the most) with judicious use of the following three factors: 1) availability 2) price 3) regulation (prohibiting youth, drunk driving, open containers in public, lowering alcohol blood content level etc.)

Public awareness/education campaigns and advertising restrictions also play a notable but probably less important part of national policies. The report, which is worth reading in its entirety, suggests that any one policy will not work effectively by itself, rather nations should develop a country-specific mix of strategies that work most effectively for that population, with the result being a significant reduction in problem rates.

With this in mind, perhaps the issues of gun control should be addressed in the same way. What about re-framing the conversation toward exploring the possibility of the following: 1) Significant taxes/"Sandy Hook surcharges" on all gun and related accessory purchases that are designed for shooting other humans; 2) Requiring mandatory background clearance for all gun transactions, with penalties for folks who sell and buy without this step; Those are just a couple of ideas--folks can come up with a longer list, I'm sure.

.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Those countries are some of the most oppressive countries in the world. Control the people and take away their freedom and you can have a "safe" society.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

These religious prohibitions precede the formation of those governments. Strict religious prohibitions are part and parcel of pretty much every culture if you go back, including the US, whose Prohibition had heavy religious overtones. I'm not saying that we should go back to that kind of heavy handed approach and as I said, I'm not expecting today's religious institutions to even make a stand on it, even though, as they have in the abortion, I believe that they could make a significant impact in actual practice. OK, I opened up that Pandora's box.....

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

Sounding too much like a libertarian there. Be careful, that's a good way to always lose presidential elections.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

So you will now stop harping on organizing your grand libertarian society that in no way reflects our own, or any other civilized nation for that matter?

Good.

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Yes. When people self-organize, we call it "government."

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

No, when we hire the help, we hire the government.

We the people are not the government. You shouldn't make the mistake of thing they are one and the same.

Mark Pickerel 2 years, 6 months ago

How about we:

1) Start a national database on gun purchases and make it a felony to sell a gun off-database 2) Force a longer life for Brady background checks--1 year minimum, 5 years preferred 3) Gun dealers & private citizens must report stolen firearms within 48 hours of thefts or face a felony conviction if the stolen gun is used to commit a felony 4) Force background checks at gun shows 5) Make the sale of large-capacity ammunition clips illegal

This will let Mr. Reber keep his precious guns.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

I appreciate you offering solutions but what solution offered would have prevented the CT murders?

As the opponents of voter ID point out there is no reason to impose restrictions if you don't have a problem. So let me ask are gun owners not reporting stolen guns now? Any data to support the need for this law?

What is the purpose of the database for gun ownership and how will it help stop murders? As I said I think it is good to look for solutions but they should solve a problem and not just be symbolic. With that said, I look forward to your response as I don't know everything

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

Probably nothing would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooting--not even a policeman stationed at the school. All you have to do is look at how Reagan's press secretary Jim Brady was shot by a crazy man who unloaded 6 shots in the presence of a swarm of armed Secret Service agents to realize that you cannot prevent all shootings.

Sandy Hook had very good security from what I can see, and many lives were probably saved because of the well trained staff familiar with the lock-down protocols. Reducing access through hefty taxation, mandatory background checks for every transaction, removing large capacity magazines etc. are as direct a response as is realistic and it is more than symbolic in that it has every indication of reducing the availability of guns for folks who are at high risk of going off the deep end and capable of doing these kinds of acts.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

So isn't putting a hefty tax on guns to limit access akin to a poll tax? Why should the wealthy have access to guns but not the poor?

How about if we put a hefty tax on guns the religious right then puts a heft tax on abortion. Abortion is legal, but there is now a 10 grand tax? Cool with it?

If not, then you can't do unto one right what you're not willing to do unto all rights.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

It is much more analogous to a users tax like a cigarette tax than a poll tax in that the proceeds could be used to educate the public about safe gun use, to help fund a better background check system, and otherwise create a safer environment both for those who use guns appropriately and for the rest of the public.

Mark Pickerel 2 years, 6 months ago

fred, it is very likely that the above restrictions would not have prevented the Sandy Hook murders. But if we can significantly slow down a few sociopaths, I think they are worth it. Especially since they don't outright take guns away from anyone; they simply make people truly responsible for them. Having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide/violence by a factor of three to five. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Good thing to know I can buy Everclear in the grocery store and then resell it to my neighbors without needing any record of the transaction.

Oh wait, I can't? At least there are no restrictions on my home still and the moonshine I share with friends, is there?

Well gee, now that I consider it, there are a ton of restrictions placed on the distribution and manufacture of alcohol after all, as well as restrictions on consumption (public intoxication, drunk driving, bars can't sell to someone already intoxicated, I can't take a child out to the drinking range for training, ...).

So yes, Mr. Reber, a very good analogy indeed. Certain products have restrictions, including alcohol and guns. And yes, if you have young children and leave your alcohol out in the open where they might get their hands on it, you are being a negligent parent.

With or without the cooperation of the NRA and gun enthusiasts, it is time to place limits on the size of the magazines. I won't be surprised if types of guns are also further restricted.

notaubermime 2 years, 6 months ago

Well put.

Analogies should be used to help illustrate a point, not have it be the central thesis (as it is in this LTE).

Centerville 2 years, 6 months ago

Gee, Mark_P, what do you have in mind for other parts of our lives, like, say, where we vacation or where we send our children to school or what we eat for lunch? I hope you're happily employed, but if you're not, I'm sure there's a fabulous job waiting for you with Mayor Bloomberg.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

I agree; personally I don't think humans have ever had a very good track record of being able to deal with what they have created throughout our long history, over many, many cultures. The difference is that our damage to the surrounding environment and to each other was more limited in technologically simple cultures. As our "toys" have gotten bigger, so has our capacity to create mayhem with the planet and each other. While I would like to think that as a whole, humans have become more restrained and compassionate, a significant fragment of us remain quite capable of messing things up for everyone around them, and that "circle of love" gets drawn larger and larger every day, it seems.

What to do? Don't know except to exert whatever influence you can to those around you to the moderate path of mutual respect, modelling good behavior, especially in stressful situations, expecting the best out of those around you while being circumspect about the worst vulnerabilities out there.

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

I think some of you need your satire-meters adjusted.

Phil Minkin 2 years, 6 months ago

, Although alcohol and automobiles can be a lethal, especially in combination, neither product is designed or sold for the purpose of killing people. Assault rifles and semi-automatic handguns (and their ammunition) are.

hujiko 2 years, 6 months ago

Sure is. Clearly guns weren't originally designed to kill people, that's just some liberal plot to take them away from everyone (except for criminals of course).

/sarcasm

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

I bet if any firearms factory was magic and could see which weapons were going to be used to wrongfully injure any animal, including humans, the weapon would be destroyed. If I ran such a factory I would make the company buy a shear and would personally use that shear to cut the weapon into 2 inch pieces.

Sure, we build guns to kill and injure people, but you have to be in the military or a serious collector willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for the right to purchase such a weapon, and then he will pay 20,000 for that weapon.

I haven't owned a firearm in 25 years. I have no use for them. I had a nice stainless steel model 66 S&W .357. My best friend a ruger. We knew of a berm in the country and we spent hours at a time shooting. We shot a lot of .38, but we always took a box or two of hot loads. One weekend we wanted to shoot some R12 cans we'd come across, but had forgotten our war protections. It didn't matter. We fired of 50 .357s in about 30 minutes - and here's the funny part - we discovered that after doing that everyone sounds like Donald Duck.

The reason I tell you that is because I know firearms have a use beyond violence. We had them because we enjoyed getting together and shooting at cans, others have them because it's an great hobby. People that won't do with cow meat kill deer for food.

Also, the first guns were shot by the Chinese to make noise during celebrations. They were, in fact, not originally designed to kill anything.

Your sarcasm tag is broken.

hujiko 2 years, 6 months ago

Read my post again. I didn't say that guns have no purpose outside killing people. I have also shot cans, cardboard boxes, watermelons, etc. for fun with plenty of friends, but I realize when doing so the serious damage it would do to anything living.

"you have to be in the military or a serious collector willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars for the right to purchase such a weapon"

I'm not talking about any arbitrarily ascribed "assault weapons," rather, any firearm at all. The price of a gun doesn't really determine the lethality, the fact that it fires a projectile at a rate of speed sufficient to penetrate a target does. Differences in caliber, bullet weight, barrel length, and the amount of powder all make a given weapon more or less effective, but the overall working design remains constant from a muzzle-loaded rifle to an M60. It doesn't matter if a murder is exacted with a .22 peashooter or a S&W model 500, someone will be dead regardless.

I may have misspoke when claiming guns were originally intended to kill, but how long after their creation did the Chinese realize they could launch a projectile at someone they wanted to kill at a distance? Alcohol was an accidental creation as well. How long after some clay pots storing grain got wet and fermented did the Mesopotamians realize they could drink the resulting liquid and become intoxicated?

Alcohol wasn't originally designed to kill people in automobile accidents, in the same way that guns weren't originally designed to kill schoolchildren in spree shootings. Unfortunately that doesn't prevent it from happening all too commonly.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

While alcohol is not designed to kill people it is a product that does kill and one that has no need. Society would not miss it if it were gone.

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

It has a very important purpose. Cushioning us our status as apes cursed with sentience. Without something like that, we'd all go mad. And religion doesn't work for everybody.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

But "society" would miss semi-automatic weapons? Brilliant.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

So, foodboy,...you're saying we should mourn the 5,000 kids who died from alcohol less than we mourn the 25 who died from mass murder....simply because alcohol wasn't "designed" to kill? Or that we shouldn't take equally serious measures to prevent further untimely deaths in either case? I'm sure that makes those 10,000 parents feel much better. (sarcasm). Thank you for so eloquently demonstrating the exact sort of logical inconsistency and selfish double-standard that the LTE tried to point out.

Abdu Omar 2 years, 6 months ago

No, that is not true. Handguns are used for target shooting and the desire to be a good shot. Home protection from those of you who want to enter my home and steal the lousy stuff I own. And for sport, although I do not shoot animals, I enjoy hitting a target 30 feet away as close to the bullseye as I can. We, gun owners, don't buy guns, to kill people on the whole, but there are a few who have MENTAL problems that get a hold on them and kill children. The right thing to do is limit them from getting guns and ensuring they are refused gun sales.

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

If any consumer of alcohol excused his drinking with the kind of statements you attributed to them and in the kind of curt, defensive tone your used, David Reber, his friends and family would be justified in staging an intervention: take alcohol away from him, get him into rehab, and take his car from him until he had could demonstrate that he was off booze. Given the tone of your last sentence, Mr. Reber, it might be a good idea if your family and friends did the same with you. You sound entirely too dependent upon guns.

bearded_gnome 2 years, 6 months ago

all of the proposed laws here would have had no impact on the Newtown slaughter except a restriction on purchase of large magazines.
Lanza took his mother's improperly stored guns, which she owned legally.

and even if we focus on large magazines, we still miss thereal problem: the brain behind the finger on the trigger.

there is a serious connection between most of the major mass casualty shootings of the past few decades: shooters's mental illness.

we have far too many unhospitalized longterm mentally ill out on the street.


the only thing that stopsa bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Wouldn't it be better to try our best to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them to kill innocent people, rather than wait until they have opened fire and then try to stop them?

I don't have a trouble with armed police in schools. Some schools already have them. But the presence of police hasn't prevented shootings (Columbine, Viriginia Tech). And it needs to be police--that is, properly trained and screened members of a "well regulated Militia"--not a bunch of self-appointed vigilantes who are in love with the idea of being superheroes, or teachers who need to focus on teaching and on their students, not on defense.

Let's pay for these police officers with a special tax on weapons and ammunition. Set the level as high as necessary to pay for all the costs associated with weapons in private hands.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

"Wouldn't it be better to try our best to keep guns out of the hands of people who will use them to kill innocent people, rather than wait until they have opened fire and then try to stop them?"

We do that. It's called a criminal background check. Meanwhile, you can have multiple DUI's and domestic violence arrests....and still walk into a liquor store and buy a case of vodka - no questions asked. Wouldn't it be better to try to keep booze out of the hands of repeat DUI offenders & wife-beaters, rather than not? Except any laws that would do that might inconvenience law-abiding drinkers....

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

People can buy guns from private parties and at gun shows without background checks, to my knowledge.

I wouldn't have any problem limiting alcohol sales to the people you mention - would you?

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

You can buy from another individual without a background check as long as you both live in the same state. I understand the rationale behind this....so old grandad Mcgraw can sell his old 12 gage at his grand-pappy's estate sale without having to contact the feds over it.

But....any purchase from a licensed dealer requires a background check. The loophole is that you don't need to be a licensed dealer to set up a sales table at a gun show, so yes...there are a lot of unchecked sales at gun shows. It would be simple to close that loophole in a way that wouldn't impinge on old grandaddy mcgraw's yard sale. I wouldn't object, either. But telling me I can't have this or that gun because someone else used it in a crime is akin to telling me I can't buy whiskey because of someone else's drunk driving.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

They're both big loopholes.

If background checks are good ideas, then they're good ideas, and should always be implemented.

Gun manufacturers don't make separate tiers of guns, one legal and the other illegal, right? So the guns in criminals' hands were almost certainly legal at one point.

Your example wouldn't stop you from buying whiskey if you're not one of those offenders - you'd just have to wait a little bit for the check to be completed. I have no problem with that, you?

Also, there's a reasonable question about high proof alcohol, like 151 proof rum. Nobody really needs that, when there are plenty of other kinds available. So, if it turns out that removing that product from the market resulted in lowering dui tragedies, it would be fine with me.

A similar argument can be made for certain kinds of guns, I think.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

"Your example wouldn't stop you from buying whiskey if you're not one of those offenders - you'd just have to wait a little bit for the check to be completed. I have no problem with that, you?"

What about people buying drinks at restaurants and bars? If we can't allow loopholes for gun shows, we certainly can't allow loopholes for liquor by the drink....right?

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Right.

The point is the same - why create regulations and then leave holes you can drive a truck through?

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years, 6 months ago

I suspect that making comparisons between high capacity magazines and high proof alcohol is a bit more valid and telling than you'd find useful in the promotion of your agenda. Do you know how long it takes for a person to take another shot of alcohol? It doesn't matter whether the booze is 150 proof or 70 proof.

I posit that the amount of time for a drunk to consume another shot of booze is analogous to the time it takes for a drunk, insane, hatefully vengeful and hopelessly sad individual to reload another "low" capacity magazine towards their goal of writing tomorrows' shocking news in our neighbor's blood.

I think you'll find that several of your armed neighbors believe drastic and misdirected measures would be taken in an attempt to solve such unsolvable problems...and that more drastic measures would be deemed necessary, in the name of fear and towards make any measurable impact in saving our breeding on towards destruction.

It is a volatile world which we have created, and though we've been blessed and coddled in this place and time, the foundation of our home is now failing. Our blessings and the smothering drape of our leaders' lard have been paid for with the sweat of the poor, in the rape of the land and by the suspension of logic...driven down a road of feigned belief...by drunken, insane, hatefully vengeful and hopelessly sad individuals.

I'M just messin' with you kiddos! Merry Xmass...

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

"Some schools already have them... Let's pay for these police officers with a special tax on weapons and ammunition."

You almost had me. I thought for a second "that would be fair". But then again, it isn't going to help anything. Sure, we can put a cop in every school, but is that going to help the people in a theater watching Batman?

Besides, I don't really like the idea of children being exposed to policemen every day, Children should be taught to avoid the police unless they are in danger or reporting something they think is wrong.

Besides that, this isn't a police state quite yet.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Bearded, Jared Loughner in Tucson was stopped only after he ran out of bullets in his extended, 33 round clip, tackled when he tried to reload. One of the people who tackled him was already shot once. That makes two cases where smaller magazine size would have made a difference. Do you believe that if the emphasis on limits was only placed on large magazines and not the type of gun, would you ever support such limits?

I fully support the idea that we need to do more to help those with mental illness.

verity 2 years, 6 months ago

People are trying to dredge up the strangest analogies and then stop before they carry the analogy to it's logical end, because that brings up the many points where the analogies run into trouble. A number of these have already been pointed out, so I won't bother.

I will point out that the two policemen who were tragically killed in Topeka a few days ago were armed and trained.

As Leonard Pitts stated recently in his column (before the Newtown shooting)

"As has happened with conservatism generally, the gun rights movement has lurched hard to the right in recent years, has alienated reason, ostracized compromise and fetishized guns and gun ownership to a point that seems psychologically unhealthy.

"What was once a campaign to ensure the right of people to bear arms has mutated into a campaign to ensure guns at all times for everybody everywhere and to smack down those who would seek to ban them, even from places where banning them makes obvious sense."

I stated on here a few weeks ago that the more guns out there, the more likely it was for people to get them illegally and was pounded by a number of people for making what they considered a foolish statement, although obviously true.

It looks like people are much less willing to be intimidated since the Newtown shootings.

We might start by looking at the other western first world countries whose homicide rates are so much lower than ours. What are they doing differently?

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

"We might start by looking at the other western first world countries whose homicide rates are so much lower than ours. What are they doing differently?"

Betcha those countries DON'T have a 40% child poverty rate. Betcha they DO have universal (or at least affordable and available) health care.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

No, but you were comparing us to other countries based on our total homicide rate, not just this one event. The majority of gun-related homicides occur in crime-ridden inner cities (a.k.a. where poor people live). The poverty rate is a major factor in people turning to crime in the first place. Also, being wealthy doesn't mean that mental health care is accessible or even available. Many communities have none available. Then there's the stigma....and resulting sweeping of people under rugs rather than seeking out the care they need. All of that needs to change, and no amount of gun control is going to do that.

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

Do liberals also blame spoons for making them fat ?

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

No, we realize many fat conservatives eat fried finger food.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Make extended magazines illegal. That would make a difference. If you don't believe me, take a closer look at the shooting in Tucson.

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

having heard all of the false arguements on kmbz and rush which I listen to in order to study the lack of empathy and lack of logic exhibited over and over by people who don't like facts and who bully people themselves with emotion laden vitorol over and over I have this to offer.... one having listened to conservatives with emotional authority ignore facts when confronted with them here is the answer to the weapon question...an assault rifle is a semi automatic version of a military weapon......M16/M4=Ar 15/Bushmaster.....M14=Mini-14, FN/FAL, HK91 or 93, AK-Galil or Valmet or some Chinese knockoff... ten round clips instead of twenty or thirty. The issuing of safe purchase cards by the ATF for those who are certifiably okayed for purchase which creates a situation where no card means no purchase just like no age 21 ID means no alcohol. The 19 to 21 purchase law went into affect when I lived in Manhattan, Kansas where kids previously drank like there was no tommorrow...i.e. the Class of 1984 at MHS had an 84 keg party when I was 14. We had a couple of kids a year die from dui driving accidents previous to the 21 law in Manhattan. The mom of a person I acted with in a school play at MHS had a take the keys and drink safely at my home party for HS kids and had the book thrown at her. Canada has had a cannibal on a bus issue a couple of years ago but they have control and don't see near the gun violence we do which is why I could safely sleep in my car traveling across Ontario and Quebec in 2002 and 2003. Playing dumb to clutch guns for 30 round clips shows how little empathy these clutchers have for their fellow citizens. Spoken by a 42 year old Democratic gun owner who got my Stevens 20 gauge at age 8 in Louisiana to hunt rabbits and quail with who doesn't believe the NRA's rabid fervor..

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Obviously you don't believe in paragraphs either.

Couple other points - where did you get the definition for assault rifle? Did you make it up? And , are you suggesting kids don't drink like fish in Manhattan today? Really? No drinking to excess or underage drinking?

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

The main point to remember in these discussions is gun ownership unlike drinking, driving, buying medicine etc. is only gun ownership is a right affirmed and protected by the US Constitution.

The government could outlaw driving and people would have the right to complain but their rights would not be violated. This cannot be said about taking away the right to own guns.

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

Are we allowed to own atomic bombs or Abrams Tanks?

It doesn't say the right to bear guns.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Jonas, you're right it doesn't say guns. It says arms which based on the use of the term in those days meant weapons you could carry. So no atomic bombs or tanks.

And, your point is really just to try to tie gun ownership to the extreme in a hopes that it will make gun ownership less desirable and more scary. However, you fail because the NRA, responsible gun owners and rational people don't believe in the citizen owning nukes and tanks.

The notion of tying gun rights to nukes and tanks is just a CNN talking point

jonas_opines 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't watch CNN, and my point isn't to tie gun ownership to any extreme. My reason for responding was the utterly simplistic point at which you stopped your thought. Your reasoning is not at all established. I did quite a bit of reading on that point, and there's always been a degree of disagreement, legally speaking, over our history.

Given that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide the citizenry with the tools to overthrow a tyrannical government, then I'd say that the founders would say that the citizenry should be able to bare arms to the equivalent of what the government would have.

I've already posted on multiple occasions that I don't believe a ban is an answer. But I think it does warrant consideration that even the pro-gun enthusiasts believe in restricting the rights of the populace to arm themselves, as long as its stuff that they don't care about.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

I've made a similar point in these discussion. I've said that the people at the time of the Constitution's writing were able to bear the same weapons the government possessed. However, while an argument might be made to allow nukes and tanks I do believe it is a reasonable restriction not to allow them. I don't care if you ban nukes because I will never own one but I do care about banning semi autos since they are within my reach so yes I agree with you.

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

Interesting question. I'm not sure a private person has the resources to construct a nuclear weapon, and I'm somewhat certain their are regulations separate from gun control that limits the amount of fissile material that can be contained in one location. So nukes really aren't practical. However, on any given day, a large mining conglomerate will have enough explosive material to approach our smallest nuke from the past. The davey crocket I think.

The Abrams is still probably mostly secret, but you can purchase an older battle tank if you want to go through the many federal, state, local, mental and credit checks.

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Gun ownership is actually not guaranteed by the Second Amendment--only the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment also specifies the circumstances in which this right is guaranteed: a "well regulated Militia" organized for the purpose of "the security of a free State." So the Second Amendment could just as easily be read as guaranteeing that "well regulated Militias" can own firearms, but not individuals. It was only in the 2008 Heller case that the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment actually implied a guarantee of individual ownership of firearms, and in fact the scope of that decision is considerably more limited than gun enthusiasts like to assert. See, for example, Justice Antonin Scalia's statement in the ruling:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

So yes, the government can take weapons away from persons who cannot be trusted to use them responsibly, to ban the sale of certain weapons to certain people under certain circumstances, to insist upon testing and licensing prior to permitting gun ownership, to require owners of firearms to carry insurance, and to levy special taxes on firearms and ammunition to offset the cost to the public of the damage done with privately-owned weapons. I hope that our government will undertake all of these activities, as soon as possible.

If the only objection you can make to such legislation, fred_mertz, is that gun ownership is a "right," perhaps you should consider that slave ownership was formerly a "right," too, upheld by a contentious and much criticized Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott. By demanding that the Northern free-state majority accept slave ownership as an inalienable "right," the Southern defenders of the slave system overstepped reason, placing their "right" ahead of human rights. After a bitter and bloody Civil War, the Southerners ended up deprived of their "right" to own slaves. Gun advocates need to adopt a sensible position that recognizes the need for regulation and the preference on the part of a majority of Americans not to have guns infiltrate every aspect of their lives.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Voe. It doesn't matter what your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is since the SCOTUS ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms. And your point about ownership not being guaranteed is silly since if I can't own a gun then how will I be able to bear it.

It is simple, if you don't like the 2nd amendment then repeal it but don't violate it otherwise what you are condoning is the violation of other rights. I've no problem with amending a right but I do have a problem with violating a right.

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Not all individuals have the right to bear arms. Felons do not have that right.

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Anyone who likes the idea of armed people gunning down unarmed people on the grounds that they are "gun haters" is probably not calm and responsible enough to own firearms.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Paul, here is why, even if a good idea, gun rights supporters will not get behind a law to do away with individual to individual sales because they know as soon as the ink is dry the anti gun groups will push for more.

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

"Gun ownership is actually not guaranteed by the Second Amendment--only the right to bear arms."

That's the only interesting angle I've seen.

I think a fair analogy would be the 1st, if we interpret it to mean you can say what you want but you can't own the medium.

That strategy breaks down as we would never allow the first amendment to be violated in that manner and we shouldn't treat amendments different from each other. I could see that being ruled based upon the 14th amendment..

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

So fred, setting the bazooka argument to the side (even though one can carry a bazooka), should I be allowed a fully automatic machine gun? If I can't have a machine gun, aren't my Constitutional rights being limited? Why is this limitation acceptable by the NRA (since they don't fight it) while others are not?

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Bea, people are allowed to own machine guns today.

Your bazooka arguments are silly and akin to people who oppose same sex marriage by saying so if we allow same sex marriage can a dude marry his dog too? It doesn't work in that case and it doesn't work here. No one is arguing to own bazookas, nukes, etc.

And no one is arguing to own machine guns because we already can

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

So I can walk in and purchase a machine gun without limitations? Just buy it as easy as I can buy a bottle of wine? Didn't think so.

Or, do you actually believe I should purchase a machine gun as easily as a bottle of wine -- heck, easier, since it is a right? Is that what you are saying? Basically, unless you are LibertyOne about it, you will admit that there should be certain limitations on gun ownership. For instance, I'll bet you agree that not everyone should be able to carry machine guns into movie theaters, although you might feel people with a C&C license should be able to carry a handgun into the same theater. Am I correct? Do you agree in certain limitations?

It is just a matter of defining what those restrictions should be.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

If by "machine gun" you mean full auto, then no...you can't just buy without limitations. If I'm not mistaken, you can't have 'em in Kansas at all. In states that do allow them, you have to be a registered "collector" with the feds, I believe. Someone can correct me if I'm mistaken.

RoeDapple 2 years, 6 months ago

In Kansas (after July 1, 2008) you can own the following items that are regulated the the National Firearms Act

Machine Guns
Any Other Weapon (AOW)
Destructive Devices (DD)
Silencers
Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS)
Short Barreled Rifles (SBR)

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

bea , there already sufficient limitations and restrictions on gun ownership. The only thing we should strengthen is getting the mentally ill into the background check database. The law and framework is there it just needs funding.

bea, all rights have limitations, nothing is absolute The important thing to remember is to restrict at the minimum level and make sure the restrictions are actually meaningful and not just conjecture or feel good.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

Fred, then extending those limitations to large capacity magazines, semi-automatic weapons with the capacity to be converted and hollow point bullets are reasonable and meaningful extensions of those limitations in light of their continued mis-use?

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Doug, show me one semi-automatic designed to be converted and has been used in a mass shooting? It doesn't happen but you'd want to restrict my right just because the possibility regardless how unlikely might exist? Do you want that logic applied to other rights? Lets limit the first amendment because someone might drive another to suicide or lets restrict abortions because someone might abuse the current rules?

Show me data on how limiting hollow point ammo will make any meaningful difference? You're just spouting talking points. What type of ammo was used in CT? Was it hollow points? I bet it wasn't.

Tell me one new law that would have stopped the murders in CT. Or a new law that will stop the gun murders in Chicago which already has some of the strictest laws in the nation.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

I won't post the details out of common sense, but it's very easy to track down on the internet how to convert the AR-15, the gun used at Sandy Hook, to fully automatic. I found 2 approaches with almost no effort, even tho it's illegal to do this.

So do your homework before spouting off how this is restricting your right due to some theoretical possibility. Remember that the M-16 is a modified AR-15 and even tho significant changes have made it difficult, straightforward workarounds are there. And with a a couple 30 shell magazines, you don't really need workarounds to create plenty of carnage, so I don't see how any reasonable person would be against limiting this type of weapon from being so readily accessible.

As far as bullets are concerned, are you reading the reports about this? Here's one excerpt:

"It has also emerged that the bullets used by Lanza were specifically chosen to penetrate deep tissue to increase the damage to the victim. It is believed he used "frangible ammunition" which fragments on impact. These kind of bullets usually cause significant injuries that are often beyond what medical staff can provide much help to."

Now not all hollow points are frangible, and not all frangible bullets are hollow points, but hollow point frangible (mostly all copper) ammunition is readily available in pretty much any caliber you choose. So whether the frangible ammunition was hollow point is a bit of a moot point. Some real thought needs to be put on restrictions of bullet types, but it needs to happen.

Once again, on the legal end of things, restricting access to these kinds of weapons does not eliminate all mass killings, but neither does arming folks to the teeth or putting an armed policeman in every school. Limiting access has a proven effect on gun-assisted homicides even tho it doesn't eliminate it. Arming the secret service agents around president Reagan didn't stop those bullets from hitting Jim Brady and the others wounded (including Reagan), did it?

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

DougCounty - Judging by the number of drunken under-age kids at parties in this town, it is clear that kegs are subject to continued mis-use. Kegs should be illegal.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

It's one of the ironies of mental illness that a sick person with a desire for mass murder chooses to take out a crowd of kids quickly with an assault rifle instead of plying groups of them with enough alcohol to turn them into drunk road killers, but I suppose if something like that happens, let me know.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Not true.

There are significant loopholes to background checks - private sales and gun shows.

Would you support closing those?

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

jafs, it is not a loophole, it is the law used as intended.

There is no gun show exemption, it is a private individual exemption. Gun dealers, even at gun shows do background checks as required by their license.

I would support it except for the fact that the anti gun owners wouldn't stop there. They will continue until guns are banned.

And is private sales a problem? Are guns sold via private sales being used in crimes at a significant rate? Again, I am not opposed to repealing the exemption except we are dealing with organizations that want to ban guns completely.

And before you respond, consider the pro-abortion groups. Why do they resist any change regardless of how minor or reasonable? For the same reason- they know that they are dealing with groups that want to ban all abortions.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

Well, how do we know?

Most guns are legal at first, and eventually wind up in the hands of criminals, right? Gun manufacturers don't make them in two tiers.

Your idea that any who want to strengthen regulations, or close loopholes want to ban guns entirely is extreme, and is the counterpart to those who think that gun rights advocates want to own bazookas.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Either you believe in some level of restrictions or you do not. Fred, where we disagree is in determining an appropriate "minimum level" of restrictions.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

bea, yes you are right. I do agree in reasonable restrictions on our rights and you are right we disagree on where to set the line. However, though I might disagree with you, I respect your right to express your views, to try to set the line where you think it is appropriate.and to even try to amend the 2nd amendment.

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

hey mertz trying the emotion versus fact logic? you and fellow deniers are good at it. I've been to gun shows since 1980 as a ten year old. I was able at eleven to identify the difference between an 1891 Argentine Mauser and the 1889 Belgian Mauser my world war one collector father was looking for and we eventually found decades later. I can identify 90% of the guns out there due to my teaching as a child and my hunter's safety passing at age eleven. Conservatives don't like facts. That's how they lose arguements.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Hey tusk it would be helpful if you actually pointed out a fact I didn't like instead of making vague statements and bragging about your gun identification ability. Also, I'd be interested in where I have used emotion.

And if you're so knowledgable about guns then why do you refer to "clips?" The proper term is "magazine." Clips are used to hold ammo to facilitate putting it into magazines. Any real gun person knows it.

Also, at least in KS you can't take hunter Ed at 11.

Frederic Gutknecht IV 2 years, 6 months ago

The minimum age limit on taking Hunter Ed changed in 2005. Before that, I don't believe there was a mandated age restriction. You still had to pass a written test, of course, and some kids were "dismissed" for improper gun handling and "attitude" problems.

Centerville 2 years, 6 months ago

'Assault' weapons are those that the women in Senator Feinstein's office picked out of a catalog for purposes of the recently sunsetted bill. Their choices were based upon what they found to be visually scary.
An automatic weapon doesn't shoot multiple bullets with one trigger pull.
But, hey, why mess up a good emotional, self-righteous high?

grammaddy 2 years, 6 months ago

The NRA ceased being a lobbying group for gun-owners along time ago. They are more interestedin the rights of gun manufacturers. This was proven yesterday by LaPierre.His answer to gun violence--more guns.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

grammy, are you an NRA member? If not then you really don't know if they are reprinting gun owners. I am the NRA and yes they are reprinting me and other gun owners just fine.

RoeDapple 2 years, 6 months ago

Aw gee, if all you have to do to qualify as the resident expert is be able to identify old guns, attend gun shows and pass Hunter Safety class . . . I did 2 out of 3 before tuschky was in diapers. Hunter Safety class? Wasn't required at my age but I live it every day, hunting or not. You just keep congratulating yourself on your accomplishments though . . . Seems no one else is impressed.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Roe. Go read his post from a little earlier. Besides all the misspellings and lack of paragraphs he reveals he knows little about guns.

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

"We must ban hard liquor"

You do realize Biden has been put in charge of trying to ban things, right? Good luck getting him to ban alcohol.

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

At this point someone shifted their trolling motor into high gear

Corey Williams 2 years, 6 months ago

“I’m the only guy you know who doesn’t drink,” Biden said, adding that he has never taken a drink in his life.

“Too many alcoholics in my family,” he explained. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/riding-the-rails-with-amtrak-joe/

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

If you could go back in time and change one thing about the AZ shooting and you had only two choices. One was the shooter only had a 15 round magazine in his Glock or a concealed carry holder in position and willing to shoot him as soon as he began shooting which one would you pick?

Liberty275 2 years, 6 months ago

How many 15 round magazines? You can fit a few of those in your pockets.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Jared Loughner was trying to reload when he was tackled, so another 15 round magazine in his pocket rather than another 33 round magazine might be the difference between Christina Green living long enough to enjoy her 10th birthday and the reality of her death at 9 years old.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Would I rather he had fewer bullets or prefer that I could magically place someone directly in front of him with a weapon to stop him? Is that really the situation you are describing?

The truth is, a Conceal and Carry holder WAS there in Tucson. His name is Joseph Zumudio, but he was unable to get a clean shot because of the confusion of the scene so he showed proper restraint by not firing. He debunks the myth that when a C&C person is on hand he or she will stop a killer. In fact, he almost shot the wrong person, but again, he showed proper restraint. http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/14/nation/la-na-zamudio-shooting-20110115

You can check, but on several occassions on this site I have stated I support C&C rights. Still do.

To answer your question, yes, I would prefer the perfect situation in which a C&C holder is magically in the exact right spot and so keen to his surrounding and capable that he instantly take down a killer before he even got off his first shot. Truth is, however, the possibility of that is slim. Since it is slim, I would prefer to give the C&C holder a moment to take down a shooter who is needing to stop to reload because he doesn't have 33 or 50 or 100 rounds ready to fire. It really doesn't have to be either / or, but in the case where the shooter only has 15 rounds at his disposal, everyone has a better chance of surviving, including the C&C holder.

Mark Pickerel 2 years, 6 months ago

Nice post. I think the whole notion of CC "making us all safer" is largely a myth, and that more guns in the public domain, concealed or not, doesn't necessarily equal a safer public.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

So we shouldn't have drunken driving laws?

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

Wait....you mean outlawing criminal behavior rather than restricting access to inanimate materials by law-abiding citizens? What a concept......wow. :)

btw, if you look up DUI stats, you might find that most first-time offenders are actually on their 80th -100th offense; and it's really just their first time getting caught. And, a substantial number of DUI arrests are repeat offenders. Yet those who like to drink (but not shoot) still say we need easy access booze but tight restrictions on guns. Kinda hypocrites, aren't they....

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

You mean, like the people who have to blow into a tube before they can start their car? Isn't a car an inanimate object, yet we are restricting its use for some people. Oh, the horror.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

But you aren't restricting their access to ALCOHOL, which is the real problem. Sure, they have to blow into a tube to start THEIR OWN car. Like there aren't any other cars for them to drive.... Or, we take their license. Lots of data to show significant numbers of those folks just drive anyway. So....why not limit access to alcohol? (What's the matter, too much of an inconvenience to you drinkin' folks?)

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

We do limit access and make abuse illegal, in case you haven't noticed. Not only are there age-related limitations that carry hefty fines for those serving to under-age drinking, bartenders and the businesses they work for can be sued if a customer goes out and kills someone when drunk driving, and anyone caught driving with .08 alcohol in their system is going to get the book thrown at them.

So outlawing drunk driving has reduced the problem, but the problem still persists is what you're saying, right? So are you suggesting that while both mass killing with assault rifles and drunk driving are illegal, both alcohol and assault rifles are being abused, so we need to step up the program on both?

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

Are you suggesting that the 75,000 alcohol-related deaths each year aren't worth preventing simply because alcohol isn't "intended" to kill?

So the parents of college kids who drink themselves to death, or drown drunk, or parents who lose their sober kids to drunk drivers....they won't mourn just as much as the parents of kids who get shot....simply because of some "malicious intent" nonsense? Sorry...not buying that.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

I still can't believe the NRA's "solution": We need people using the items we promote to protect us against people using the items we promote.

That would be funny if it weren't so damned tragic.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Do you really want me, an untrained individual, taking a gun and start shooting at a crazy person inside a mall? Can't imagine anything bad going on in that situation.

I am 100% honest with myself. I do not think "banning guns" (something I've never called for) is possible. Reducing clip sizes, however, WILL save lives. It would have saved lives in Tucson and Newtown.

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

bea..."I still can't believe the NRA's "solution": We need people using the items we promote to protect us against people using the items we promote.

That would be funny if it weren't so damned tragic." As opposed to having someone run through a school unopposed and emptying his weapon. Good thinking bea.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Don't understand what's so hard to "believe." Fairly common sense solution actually. Inner city Atlanta used to have a program called "Dad", where fathers, uncles, volunteers walked the halls of high schools all day, significantly reducing violence and gang activity. Knowing there's an officer at a school might just deter the next madman.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Seriously, their answer is MORE guns. Nobody is surprised. And what is the idea of detering crazy, since when do we reason with mad? Either they are crazy or they aren't -- which is it?

Armstrong 2 years, 6 months ago

You don't reason with mad, you shoot back

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Wow. Where to start. Okay, their suggestion isn't more guns, it's having a law enforcement professional guarding the school.
As for the last two sentences..........huh? "what is the idea of deterring crazy, since when do we reason with mad?" What is that supposed to mean? "Deter" ain't a synonym for "reason".

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

Lawrence schools already have a program like that called WatchDOGs. I am not sure if all schools have them though.

Katara 2 years, 6 months ago

I don't think it is at the high school level. From what I know, it is mainly elementary and middle school. But having that program aimed at younger kids, it can help deter future problems.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Absolutely. Would love to see more volunteerism in all schools. All hands on deck.

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

mertz....my father and I have collected World War One weapons for over twenty years. I know the difference between a Valmet, an FN 49/56 Hakim, and a Stoner 223. cal. I've studied weapons for thirty years. You sound like an archie bunker armed with clutching bitterness and an aversion to facts. Personal attacks are all you know right Mertz. I took Hunter's Safety in my Cub Scout troop 73 at First Baptist Church in Manhattan, Kansas in 1981 and passed it so you are the one that doesn't like facts. My father and I have collected over 150 weapons of all kinds except semi automatic weapons/assault weapons. I leave those to the clutchers and the doomsday preppers who fear whatever the GOP, the Tea Party, and NRA rhetoric plugs into their heads. You all said Obama was going to take guns away and you spread the code language fear even as I could walk into Jayhawk Pawn and see more assault weapons and high capacity clips than I'd seen in a long time. The NRA put out posters at gunshops like I saw in Tulsa saying that the President was the best gun salesman ever. It wasn't his actions that led to these circumstances. It was the racist code language fear mongering and all of this apocolypse nonsense that led people to act even more paranoid and arm themselves for something they hoped would happen to justify their zealousness. Whatever happened to reasonable and responsible gun ownership? why did someone let politics pervert this during the Reagan era? My dad had bagged six deer with old school muzzleloaders.....who needs an assault rifle? sorry some of you have an inadequacy issue....better go buy a Hummer H2 to fix the problem.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Still haven't figured out the paragraph have you?

RoeDapple 2 years, 6 months ago

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that makes me the authority, blah, blah, blah. Same old excrement, blah, blah, blah. Because I say so, blah, blah.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

RoeD, I think you just summed up the NRA response.

msezdsit 2 years, 6 months ago

pointless meaningless tripe, but nice try reber.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Sad to think Mr. Reber was probably patting himself on the back after penning this idiocy. There are thousands of ways people die, and many of them are due to pure stupidity or irresponsibility. Ban soda machines 'cuz some moron might rock one when it steals his money, so it falls on him. Ban electricity; can't people see the inherent dangers there? Don't even get me started about auto-erotic asphyxiation.
Sorry, David, alcohol is self-ingested. When madmen start running around shooting 30 shots of Wild Turkey into the mouths of 6 year olds you might be closer to a relevant comparison.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Being killed by drunk drivers is not self ingested nor is fetal alcohol syndrome.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

No kiddin.' Except virtually nobody sets out to kill someone while driving drunk. And the latter is a matter of responsibility of the parent.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

OK jaywalker....so you want to discount alcohol deaths because they are all self inflicted, accidental, or originate from failed parenting? Fine. Let's apply the same standard to gun deaths. That would leave you a total of ZERO gun deaths to fuss about.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

As I read the comments, one thing is clear, many are for restricting the rights of gun owners because the restrictions wouldn't affect them personally. It isn't really about saving lives or reducing crime, but instead it is about taking away the right of individuals to defend themselves and become more reliant on the government.

I base this on the fact that there are so many things we could do to save lives every year but we don't because it would inconvenience us. For example, we could require anyone wanting to drink alcohol outside the home to have a breathalyzer interlock installed in their car. Or require the use of helmets for kids driving in cars.

Or we could have a better more informed electorate by requiring a free civics class before being able to vote.

Do you think any of these ideas would be embraced or would they be fought vigorously?

With the exception of putting the mentally ill into the background database I oppose new gun control measures unless the restriction does not add to the cost of gun ownership, restrict all law abiding people from purchasing and owning guns and there is direct scientific data showing that the measure will actually stop gun violence.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

"many are for restricting the rights of gun owners because the restrictions wouldn't affect them personally."

Is that right? First of all, taking semi-automatic weapons and/or clips that hold 20 to 30 rounds isn't "restricting the rights of gun owners". It's common freakin' sense. Second, it's incredibly simplistic and naive to pretend people speak of some semblance of gun control ONLY because it doesn't effect their personal stockpile.

Love the breathalyzer idea though.

KSManimal 2 years, 6 months ago

"taking semi-automatic weapons and/or clips that hold 20 to 30 rounds isn't "restricting the rights of gun owners"."

Yes, it is. Fred is spot-on. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you ban semi-autos because you think they fire too fast. With semi-autos, you get one shot per trigger pull, just like a revolver. Do you ban revolvers now? OK, so you ban 20 round magazines. Then someone uses two 10-round, 22 caliber revolvers in a crime. Do we now ban 10-round revolvers? How many is too many rounds for you? Are we down to six now? That's restricting me and my 7-round revolver. On and on and on.... And you still want to let a guy with five DUI's walk into a store an leave with a case of vodka....because restricting access to alcohol might impinge on your social life.

jafs 2 years, 6 months ago

I support most of those ideas.

In fact, my wife suggested the interlock idea a while back - makes sense to me. I'd rather prevent tragedies than put people in jail after them.

And, I've suggested some sort of civics class/test for voting in the past as well.

beatrice 2 years, 6 months ago

Fred, is the reason you support the laws restricting machine guns because it doesn't affect you personally? I think laws restricting clips and magazines actually may affect many supporters of such restrictions, in that they may keep them from getting shot.

We require helmets on motorcycles in most states, as well as seat belts in cars. I am only affected by the seat belt rule if I am in an accident.

Making illegal extended magazines and clips will not prevent people from owning guns. This won't stop gun violence, but rationally it will help diminish the damage and loss of lives from such attacks. I've still not read a single reasonable reason to not limit the size of clips and magazines.

Ken Lassman 2 years, 6 months ago

Fred, you're letting your emotions guide you, not rational thinking.

You are using hypocrisy as your guide (and even that is muddied since there are plenty of restrictions on alcohol abuse, children in cars, etc.), not what would be a rational approach to reducing abuse when it comes to guns. Why take restricting access to assault weapons, high capacity clips and raising the cost of gun ownership off the table? If there is scientific data indicating that these are effective measures that will reduce the frequency and severity of mass killings, why should these not be legitimate options? There is plenty of precedent for doing these things as a part of the social contract, i.e. giving up a measure of individual liberties in order to reap the benefits of living in a social setting. And I don't buy the emotional paranoia that restrictions like this lead to taking all guns away--that ain't gonna happen.

Taxing gun transactions to pay for a better background check system is no different than buying a deer license in order to hunt. Reducing clip size is no different than any number of other design restrictions that have been developed by gun manufacturers to reduce the potential for abuse.

You need to recognize your own biases, try to rethink and reconsider the issue in a more rational frame of mind.

Pal 2 years, 6 months ago

Apologies, I did not expect sensitivity from an avid follower of the arcane.

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

Americans always say blah blah blah to facts. that's why much of the world sees you for the archie bunkers you are. It's fun watching Keeping Up With Appearances to see how the British networks clown people like mertz for being facts aversive and backwards. I had to listen to Republicans and Talk Radio speak with no facts and loud opinions just like mertz all week so that's why I put my two cents in. I worked in the neighborhood where the TPD police were killed last week and a half mile to the east of there was where I had a gangbanger pull a Raven 25. cal on me to rob me in June 1992 while working at that particular job. Shots were fired to get my attention and luckily I hid the money bag in the truck and I convinced the thief I had no money. I didn't go out and buy a gun after that. I did get pepper mace though. I couldn't haul a shotgun (my preferred weapon) in my vehicle so I grew way more cognizent of my surroundings in Central Topeka, East Topeka, and North Topeka and did that job for another four years with one more robbery involving a sawed off baseball bat. A gun isn't the total answer to everything.....it's just easier for people who are too lazy to think or reason.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Boy I must really get under your skin Tusk. And yet, you've not responded directly to any of my questions or challenges.

So, I will give you one more opportunity. Show me a fact I've ignored or where I used emotion.

Tell me if you are so knowledgable about guns why you use the incorrect term clip instead of the correct term magazine.

And finally, why the aversion to paragraphs?

MarcoPogo 2 years, 6 months ago

Paragraphs are for Archie Bunker "dumblicans". It's in a treaty that you've never heard of, which makes you a "raceist" idiot.

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Darn, if I only got my Boy Scout merit badge on it when I was 11. Lol

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Funny thing is he doesn't know how to reply to a post so he has to start a new post each time he wants respond.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Tell us if you are so knowledgeable about guns why you continue to incorrectly chastise others for using the correct term? A 'clip' is synonymous with 'magazine' and/or the item holding multiple rounds inserted into the 'magazine.'

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clip

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(ammunition)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/clip

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

jay. The wiki link doesn't work and the free press doesn't really have a definition for it.

Here is the definition from MW - 2 : a device to hold cartridges for charging the magazines of some rifles; also : a magazine from which ammunition is fed into the chamber of a firearm

Based on this definition and on reality, a clip and a magazine are not the same. A clip is loaded with bullets to facilitate loading a magazine.

But hey, at least you know how to reply, providing supporting data to try prove your point and used proper grammar so I give you high marks.

Merry Christmas all and I am out of here.

jaywalker 2 years, 6 months ago

Well, I'll take that as a compliment as I'm sure you intended, though I have no choice but to consider you've been dealing w/ tusch, so I know wherefrom you're comin'!

Merry Christmas!

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

yeah....tange.....mertz is probably so indoctrinated that when I venture out of the nra/fox/gop points he repeats the same nonsense without realizing the empirical points of a discussion because his limited view renders him incapable of doing so. I probably should've realized that when confronting a wall of denial a couple of times the answers won't change. Besides his hero Mike Parks of KMBZ fame crossed up the clip/magazine discription all week. Nothing funnier that listening to a Conservative host being attacked by conservatives. Remember the look President Obama gave the moderators when Romney went on tangents?

Brock Masters 2 years, 6 months ago

Lots of interesting discussion with a pinch of emotion thrown in. Always entertaining and enjoyable - thanks for the mental fun.

I think I've beat this dead horse long enough but before I exit this thread I just wanted to say Merry Christmas to those of you who celebrate Christmas and Happy Holidays to everyone.

windex 2 years, 6 months ago

Turned on CNN this morning to see that firefighters responding to a fire in NY were shot when they arrived on the scene. Two killed, two injured, fire left to burn. Those attacked were, as usual, shot. Not hit with baseball bats, poisoned with involuntary lethal applications of vodka, run over by trucks, or attacked with machetes. Just more dead-from-gunfire firefighters, to join the dead cops, kids, movie-goers, teachers, congresswomen, etc.

Mike Ford 2 years, 6 months ago

if conservatives want to protect life maybe they should act more like christians and be less selfish and self serving.

ScottyMac 2 years, 6 months ago

What a pathetic analogy.

Look. Can you picture a disturbed individual walking into a school armed with a 12 pack of PBR? What's he going to do? Shake up the cans and spray the innocent children with beer?

Or maybe someone will show up at a mall with a jug of Chardonnay and uncork it so he can pour wine all over some folks?

Perhaps a lone mad man will walk into a movie theater with a Super Soaker filled with vodka?

How silly can these gun nuts get?

Kirk Larson 2 years, 6 months ago

Something I read: We do not need to ban alcohol to reduce problem of drunk driving. However, no one thinks that more alcohol is the solution.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.