Advertisement

Letters to the Editor

Letter: NRA proposal

December 27, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

My needle is usually stuck in the vinyl. I keep hearing the same old. However, the National Rifle Association has put forth a most refreshing solution to mass violence. First, we arm the teachers. Without funds from the federal government for this slam dunk success, we will pay for it with privatization, restructuring, vouchers, outsourcing, downsizing, rightsizing, tax breaks, charitable contributions and of course volunteers. Once we secure the schools we can ask the Bowling Alley Coalition to retrofit those pin setters with some really updated rocketry.

Comments

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 12 months ago

Good piece of sarcasm there, Don.
I recently saw a statement that made me think. After Trayvon Martin's murder you didn't exactly see the NRA urging young, black men to start carrying guns for self defense, did you?

Fred Mertz 1 year, 12 months ago

Why should the NRA interject race into conversations about the 2nd amendment? Shouldn't discussions about our rights be color blind?

It is obvious why you brought race into the discussion and it is reprehensible. Trying to demonized the NRA by making them appear racist simply reveals your character.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

gandalf, she wasn't discussing a racial problem, but instead suggesting that the NRA values white people more than blacks in an attempt to disparage them. There was no constructive value in bringing up Martin.

RoeDapple 1 year, 12 months ago

Of course when Bill Clinton put armed guards in the schools you all thought it was a great idea!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/12/21/Flashback-Clinton-Cops-in-Schools

Cait McKnelly 1 year, 12 months ago

LOL!!!11 You're using BREITBART as a source? Really Roe? Have a little self respect.

RoeDapple 1 year, 12 months ago

Will the LA Times work for you? I'm not a reader of Breitbart, it was just the first of many sites with the info.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/apr/16/news/mn-20323

Liberty275 1 year, 12 months ago

No good. You need a link to huffpo if you want her to believe you.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Looks like checkmate for cait. Now I need to disinfect the AOL off my monitor. :-)

When Clinton wanted it and when the NRA wants it, putting police in schools is a horrid idea unless the school has a history of violence. We are kneejerking ourselves closer and closer to a police state.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 12 months ago

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=502802999751259&set=a.359617517403142.85729.359553784076182&type=1&ref=nf

Armed security is in many schools now - usually the more wealthy and the least wealthy, aka inner city.

So, why shouldn't all schools that want it have the option. Are the president's daughters of higher value than our children? Why does it make sense for them to have armed security but not our children?

Armed security won't stop all criminals but it is an option. We have had presidents shot despite their security but you don't see the president giving it up do you?

KSManimal 1 year, 12 months ago

The school selected by our current POTUS for his own children has....eleven armed police, employed full-time by the school. Not talking about the secret service. This is the school itself, even without the POTUS kids. Gee Mr. POTUS, I love ya man and I voted for you, twice. But if armed protection is right for your kids, why isn't it right for everyone else's kids?

bad_dog 1 year, 12 months ago

It would be interesting to know how long this security has been in place and whether other similarly situated schools provide the same level of security. It might be that the school elevated their security as a "CYA" measure following the children's enrollment.

chootspa 1 year, 11 months ago

It's a private school attended by high level Washington folk and kids with parents that can afford the $35,000 a year tuition. You're free to attend any private school you can afford if you think that armed guards are a prerequisite to protecting your children from ransom attempts.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

The one security guard at Columbine was eating lunch in the parking lot and armed with only a handgun, while the crazy criminals had a rifle. Had the deputy had the courage to enter the building after the shooting started, been in the building when the shooting started (close quarters combat), or armed with a rifle while in the parking lot, it could have greatly altered the outcome. The second officer on scene was a motorcycle cop who was nearby and also armed with only a handgun. To top it all off, the police waited for two hours before entering the building--heroes! Columbine was a learning experience for the police of today...protocols have been changed.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 12 months ago

I have some ideas on where the funds could come from. End foreign aid to china, use funds currently being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, use funds being used to subsidize energy companies. And so on. The money is there we just have to prioritize it for our children.

KSManimal 1 year, 12 months ago

Sandra Fluke didn't want the government to pay for her birth control. She wanted her insurance company to pay for it, the same as they would pay for any other prescription drug. Viagra, for instance. She did not want her insurance coverage to be picked apart by religious fanatics who have no business meddling between her, her doctor, and her insurance company.

Dems DO worry about paying for things. That's why they usually call for collecting more tax revenue. It's the GOP who don't worry about how to pay for things. That's why they usually cut taxes far more than they cut spending; and in doing so create enormous budget deficits. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.

If you want people to take you seriously about your gun rights, and if you expect the left to stop promoting lies about guns; you're going to have to stop promoting the right side's lies that have been demonstrated as lies over and over again. Now, let's get back to the topic shall we?

Fred Mertz 1 year, 12 months ago

KS - you are right. We'd be much better if we stepped away from the talking points and realize each side has its pros and it cons (in some cases literally). Honest discussions will serve all of us much better than pithy dishonest rhetoric.

voevoda 1 year, 11 months ago

Easy to find the money to pay for police (regular duty--not self-appointed vigilantes) in schools: enact a sales tax on weapons and ammunition.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

There already is a sales tax on these items. You meant to say "increase" the sales tax...

KSManimal 1 year, 12 months ago

What are the gun laws in Chigaco, btw? I keep hearing about how strict the laws are, but I don't know any specifics. Please share.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

It took a while to realize exactly which disappointed regressive you are, but I finally figured it out.

Hey snap, did you notice Mitt Romney lost the election?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

The NRA has proven itself to be interested in one thing and one thing only -- continued gun SALES. They are the lobbyists for the manufacturers, for gods' sake, although they have convinced many that they are there to protect citizens' rights. (That is a real laugher.)

They have said where they stand, so to hell with the NRA. They have announced that they will support no limits on current availability of guns or ammunition, so lets not bother consulting them when we citizens insist that our legislators take real action. Most importantly, we need to ban the extended magazines that allow the semi-automatic weapons to shoot 50 rounds or more and the extended clips in handguns that allow one to shoot 33 rounds without reloading.

Let your legislators know, we have had enough.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

bea, you're not being honest. The NRA president was on CNN and said he supports limits on gun availability. He offered up putting those being adjudicated as mentally ill into the background check database.

Do you share an equal disdain for pro abortion groups that similarly resist new restrictions and regulations on abortion? The pro abortion are equally unyielding when it comes to protecting abortion rights so is it right to attack and demonized them?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

I've never met anyone who is pro abortion.

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

No, fred. Read the text again. Please explain what you mean by adjudicated mentally ill. Doesn't make sense and he made no " offer " to limit guns.

Do you consider the long-term effects on our children if armed guards are in every building? Not that it will happen as it is a dumb idea, rife with liabilities. In addition, think of the example that would be set for children to see armed guards every single day as a role model for protection. They would come to assume the only way to stay safe is through arming oneself, which promotes a culture of gun violence. As long as gun control laws remain as they are, the NRA is right that our schools are not safe, which is exactly why instead of fighting fire with fire we need to regulate gun control through strict legislation and stronger restrictive policies.

...and if you are hoarding automatics or semi- autos, you need to trade them in for Viagra.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

You've never met anyone who was pro- abortion rights? Really, then what do yo call anyone who fights against any restriction on abortions. Yes, I know, it makes people feel better if they call themselves pro- choice, but it is just an euphemism for being pro-abortion.

I don't need to read the text, I listened to it live today. Did you? Did you read a text of the interview? Here is the federal law Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.”

The problem is the mentally defective are not being reported and placed in the background check database. The NRA supports putting these people in the database and by doing limits the availability of guns. S, yes that was an offer to limit gun availability which is what I said in my post.

So do you think Obama, Gregory and others who have their kids in schools with armed security are subjecting their kids to harm?

Kathy, please tell me what new gun law would work? Chicago, DC and CT have very strict laws but criminals get guns and kill. So tell me what law already in effect that doesn't infringe upon my right will work. Or so you care about my rights?

And just for grins, would you accept the same type of law on abortions or voting?

What was the point of your last sentence? Did it make you feel clever?

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Abortion? There was no constructive reason to bring up abortion, fred.

I listened and I read and you are wrong in that the NRA offered up a limit on gun ownership. The federal law was already in place relative adjudicated mentally ill citizens. Do you know what adjudicated means? How many mentally ill Americans have been in front of a judge to determine mental state? How many mentally ill people are only known to their doctors and family? How will they get around our right to medical record privacy? Soooo. The NRA offered what? A law already in existence? Guns in every school? They offered nothing but more extremism.

It may that Obama's children will be negatively impacted by having guards at all times, but I doubt it since they have parents who can give them the enrichment they need to overcome the negative aspects of being the first children. This is also a moot comparison for many reasons.

I don't have the answer to your query, fred. Of course I care about your rights as they are my rights, too, however our world changes daily and we must learn to discuss solutions without extremism. I wish I did have the answer as to what works. It is difficult for me to have this discussion since I was raised in a household with guns, taught how to use them, respect them and care for them. My dad had old meat in the pot as he called his old 12 gauge and it served many purposes, protection being one.

I probably shouldn't have added the last line. It was pretty extreme, wasn't it? See how that tactic doesn't work?

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Silence from fred. Can't defend the NRA when their lies are exposed, huh?

Lisa Medsker 1 year, 11 months ago

So, we round up and register all of the "mental defectives", kind of like a certain leader did in Germany?

Also, if "Pro-Abortion" is exactly the same as "Pro-Choice", then wouldn't that mean that anyone who is "Pro-Life" is also "Pro-Forced-Birth"? Seems like a BIG difference, to me. But, then again, I'm one of those idiots running around with the uterus, having the audacity to think I should have a say in what happens in it...

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"adjudicated mentally ill"

Judges usually adjudicate. That's why we give them money.

"and if you are hoarding automatics or semi- autos, you need to trade them in for Viagra."

And if you hoard shoes, you need to trade them in for cosmetic surgery.

Kathy Getto 1 year, 11 months ago

Oh, no you didn't' just bring shoes into this.

labmonkey 1 year, 11 months ago

I have written my legislators and asked for NO gun control legislation. We have an administration that sold guns to Mexican drug cartels, now they want to take them from law abiding citizens?

You and Cait would be all over anyone showing your disdain for the NRA to those who provide abortions. Until we stop murdering millions of unborn children, then stay the hell out of my gun cabinet saying it will keep children alive (which you know is bunk and that if any ban is passed, the bad guys will still get guns, or worse, build bombs).

Perhaps here is an opportunity for the compromise I offered in a previous blog post...

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Yes, lets hold onto all the guns because of abortion. Oh, what a wonderful argument. Lets allow the next crazed killer access to extended clips and magazines because a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy.

And I guess as long as condoms are sold over the counter, everyone should be allowed access to all the semi-automatic rifles ever made.

The idea that without guns "bad guys" would just build bombs is ridiculous. That would suggest that in nations where there is strict gun control, homicides are just as frequent as in America because the "bad guys" are building bombs instead. So which industrialized nation that has strict control on guns has 30,000 deaths by bombs instead, year after year after year?

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

bea, would you be willing to accept restrictions on abortion that don't exist now? How about no abortions after 12 weeks except when the mothers life is at risk? Why does anyone, except when there are life threatening complications need an abortion after 12 weeks? Isn't 3 months enough time to figure out if you want one?

My point isn't really to attack abortions but to point out how what you do with one right can affect other rights and just because a person or group resists restrictions it doesn't make them evil.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Why abortions? Lets talk about knee replacements if we are going to compare medical procedures with extended magazines for guns.

I didn't say the group was evil. That is your choice of words. I said that they are the lobbyist organization supported by manufacturers and their main goal is to continue to sell guns, so to hell with them. If they don't want to be part of the bigger solution and would oppose restrictions on extended magazines, then citizens need to leave them at the curb and take care of business without them.

On another NRA note, did you know they oppose judges who have never ruled on gun laws? In that, they are just trying to tie themselves to the Republican party. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/26/the-n-r-a-at-the-bench/?hp

Oh, and on abortions, we apparently hold similar views, but I would probably base a cutoff at 15 weeks, not that it is in any way relevant to the current topic. Also, calling someone who supports abortion rights as "pro abortion" is akin to calling someone who supports gun rights as being "pro murder by gun," just fyi. I would think it wonderful if nobody ever needed an abortion, and I have no doubt that you would think it terrific if no child was ever shot to death.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Why abortions? Do you really have to ask? Can you think of any other right that raises as much debate and emotion than gun rights and abortion rights? And because the pro-abortion rights groups are exactly like the Pro-gun right groups. Each understand that the opposing side doesn't want reasonable restrictions but wants to completely ban the right. So, they know if they give in on something that might appear reasonable then once the ink is dry the other side will begin on the next assault.

Show me where NOW or Planned Parenthood embraced any anti-abortion law or legislation. The pro- abortion right groups sue against any new anti-abortion law as soon as the law takes effect.

Aren't they right to oppose any unconstitutional anti- abortion law? Should they just roll over and accept new restrictions? Of course not and the same is true for gun rights. Remember when you make it acceptable to violate Constitutional rights acceptable you are putting the rights you hold dear in jeopardy.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

So you are admitting that the NRA is an extremist group that won't budge from its stand. Well, I guess we agree and it is, again, why we need not concern ourselves with what the NRA wants. They do not want discussion, they do not want reasonable limitations, they want what they want and they don't care about what others want. Yes, I agree.

"Each understand that the opposing side doesn't want reasonable restrictions but wants to completely ban the right."

Of course, that isn't at all true. Only those on the extreme ends of the opposing points of view on these issues want complete bans. Most rational individuals who support one issue or the other are not calling for complete bans, but reasonable limitations, including many supporters of both issues.

You can try to make this argument about abortion as much as you like, but that doesn't change the fact that this is a guns issue. Guns, not abortions. When someone rushes into a hospital and forces 20 abortions on mothers who weren't planning them, perhaps that might be the time to combine the guns and abortions issues.

Right now, we are talking about the NRA's refusal to support a limit on the size of magazines that allow people to kill in high numbers without even needing to stop and reload. That is completely irresponsible on the NRA's part, in my opinion and the opinion of many other concerned individuals, and why we must not worry ourselves with what the NRA thinks on this subject.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

bea putting words into someone's mouth makes you look foolish. I didn't say the NRA is an extremist group nor did I say NOW or Planned Parenthood were extremist. They simply defend the rights of those they represent.

You're right it isn't about abortion nor is it about gun rights, it is about protecting Constitutional rights.

You think it is irresponsible for the NRA to do what it is doing but I don't.

Are you okay with putting the mentally defective into the background check database to keep guns out of their hands? I do and so does the NRA, but do you?

BTW, where is that group that isn't extreme on the subject of abortions? Either side?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

"So, they know if they give in on something that might appear reasonable then once the ink is dry the other side will begin on the next assault."

Okay. By your account, neither group will give in on something "reasonable" for fear of what might happen next. That is what your wrote -- I'm not putting words in your mouth. A group not willing to do something "reasonable" is, in my opinion, a group taking an extremist point of view, hence the groups as you describe them seem worthy of being called extremist. Besides extremist, what exactly would you call a group that won't do something "reasonable" out of fear of what might come next -- besides calling them the NRA?

And when you said I called the NRA "evil" even though I didn't actually say that, was that foolishly putting words in another's mouth?

Yes, I would agree that those with mental illnesses should be in the background check database. I also remember when the NRA opposed background checks.

Most people are not extreme on the subject of abortions, so go with AAA. I'll bet most people in that group aren't extremist.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

bea cut and paste where I wrote you said the NRA was evil. My comment wasn't attributed to you but a general statement about not sermonizing and calling groups evil. I don't put words into people's mouths.

And, yes, what you wrote is what I wrote. I try to be honest in these discussions and no I don't think the Pro Abortion right groups and the NRA are extreme. I think they are smart. If you want to protect a right why should you accept restrictions when you know the other side is incrementally trying to destroy your right completely?

Watch the next anti-abortion law debate and tell me if any side is moderate. What restriction on abortions has the pro-abortion sides brought forward? None, but the NRA is supposed to bring gun control legislation forward?

I get you don't like guns and want to restrict my rights, but realize that if you erode my rights then you erode all rights.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Huh? So you said that we shouldn't, in general, call groups evil, which was in response to a comment of mine where I never called any group evil. All I have said was that the NRA needs to be ignored because they are set in their ways. If your use of the word "evil" isn't somehow equated to what I was saying, then your response is rather random. However you shake it, you are the one who used the word "evil" on this thread, not me.

Any group that won't listen to reason and refuses to bend isn't smart, they are extreme in their views.

It isn't that I like or dislike guns, it is that guns are used to kill. It is the killing with guns that I don't like. The only thing I am wanting to restrict is the ease of access to extended magazines, but that doesn't restrict your rights to own, it only limits what you can own (just as there are currently limits and restrictions of owning fully automatic rifles without serious registration that is supported by most rational gun owners). If we restrict the size of magazines you can own, you still maintain the right to own firearms.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Never denied I was the one that used the word evil it wasn't random, it was just an extended point.

I would go along with the ban on extended magazines if I had didn't believe that as soon as 30 round magazines were banned they'd go after 15 round.

Truth is there isn't anything someone can do with a 30 rd mag that they can't do with 2 15 rd mags. So banning a 30 rd mag isn't a big deal except that it gets those that want to ban guns altogether one step closer.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

So you won't go along with something that makes sense because you are afraid of the future. sigh

That, fred, is just sad.

Again, read up on Jared Loughner to see why 2 15 round magazine is not the same as 1 30 round mag.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"Lets talk about knee replacements"

OK. And instead of guns, we'll talk about guitars.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

I know Ted Nugent wields a killer axe, but I don't think he has actually killed anyone with it. Liberty, context is your friend.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

Knee surgery hasn't killed 30 million unborn humans either.

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

FYI: Connecticut has an 'assault weapons' ban in place already. . . Lot of good that did, eh?

Crazy_Larry 1 year, 11 months ago

I pay good money every year to the NRA to protect my (and your) 2nd Amendment Rights and I will continue to do so. If you're afraid to die then I suggest you never leave the house. You have a greater chance of dying by lightening than mass murder.

tolawdjk 1 year, 11 months ago

Ignore the messenger and accept that his message is self serving.

You will never be able to ge rid of firearms. And even if you managed to do that, China has shown that resticted access to firearms does not mean children won't get hurt by a dedicated assailant.

Passive restrictions like locked doors and security screening didn'ts stop the tragedy at Sandy Creek.

However, teachers should not hav the burden of teaching kids -and- performing security. An armed teacher is still in the classroom and has other duties to detract from survailence.

Personally, I think the best option would be the use of either armed former military personel and/or the use of the national guard. Someone with at least some level of training in an appropriate response to a threat.

The NRA may have been the wron messenger, but I still think it was the right message.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Like the 22 children attacked with a knife by a madman recently in China ... and they all lived! Just imagine how different the results would be if he had access to a semi-automatic rifle with a magazine holding 100 rounds.

Guards aren't a bad thing, but they aren't the only solution. We need to limit magazine and clip sizes. More than banning assault rifles, we need to limit the number of rounds available, and we need to do this with or without the support of the NRA and their backers.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Do you really think criminals will abide by a law banning certain size magazines? It didn't stop David Gregory from violating the law in DC did it?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

So if anyone breaks a law, we are to do away with that law because it didn't work? Interesting. I guess we better toss almost every single law now on the books. If we do that, about the only laws that will remain will have to do with voter ID, since virtually nobody actually tries to vote as someone else.

If extended magazines had been banned, do you think Nancy Lanza would have owned an illegal magazine? Since she was the source of the weapons used in Newtown, her son wouldn't have had access to the extended magazines. Likewise, the killer in Tucson purchased his weapons from legal sources, so he also wouldn't have had access to the 33 round clip for his glock. Neither went through the black market to obtain their weapons and ammo. Same with the killer in Aurora, and many other instances.

It is true that bans won't stop people from breaking laws, but in these instances placing limits on the sizes of magazines legally available to purchase would likely have saved lives. That is what matters to me, and it does not strip anyone of their right to own -- only how much they can fire without reloading. I don't understand the opposition to this response, so I am saying we need to ignore the opposition and just move forward and get this done even without the NRA's approval.

In_God_we_trust 1 year, 11 months ago

Limiting magazine and clip sizes will do nothing. It historically (in the past gun ban) has done nothing. They just carry more clips or tape them together. You really should own a gun and learn how to use one, so you know what you are talking about, and do your part to support your self and your country and the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. Gun restrictions don't make less crime. Chicago, is a prime example. If a criminal, who doesn't obey the law by their very nature, wants to commit a crime; won't be hindered at all by the limitations you propose. These clips are useful in defending our selves and our country according to the 2nd amendment, for the general population, and we hope that we never need to use them. The fact that the population has firearms ability, has preserved our country from it's beginning. It has even protected you.

FlintlockRifle 1 year, 11 months ago

Lab, you brought up a real good point on how our present person in change of this USA, got his hit man off the charges of gun sales to the Mexican drug runners, how soon some people forget, and look the other way

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Lets see if DC prosecutes David Gregory for the felony crime of possessing a high capacity magazine? Or will they let him slide while prosecuting other D C citizens?

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Ironically, you would prefer a president who placed no limits on gun sales to begin with. No registration of gun sales, no limits, no questions asked, right? Or are you saying you do want all sales to be registered and that there should be limits? Which is it?

AjiDeGallina 1 year, 11 months ago

Recent polls have suggested that the NRA is not even representing the majority of their base who are now willing to discuss some limitations on heavy weaponry.

If a kid throws a rock, lets give everyone rocks.

Stupid, just plain stupid.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

"heavy weaponry"

LOL. Heavy doesn't start until you get to the .50 cal. Even the M60 machine gun shoots your daddy's deer ammo. They are cool to shoot if every third round is a tracer.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

LOL. I mean, anything below a .50 cal just bounces off a child's body.

It is always strange to me when people trivialize the size of a bullet.

Liberty275 1 year, 11 months ago

A .50 cal will shred a cast-iron engine block. An AR15 won't. Anyone that considers a .223 "heavy weaponry" has no idea just how heavy weaponry can get.

I don't want to talk about the things that could kill a child. The list is endless and it screws with my karma just thinking about it.

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

We have read how if there was a ban on high capacity magazines or AR 15 rifles not as many children would have been killed. Guess what, neither was used in the killing of those children

Still horrible, but once again the media puts out incorrect info that fuels their agenda.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Jared Loughner in Tucson used a 33 round extended clip. He was stopped only when he ran out of bullets and attempted to reload. “It gave him a tactical advantage,” said one federal law enforcement official who asked for anonymity. Referring to high-capacity magazines, the official said, “There’s absolutely no doubt the magazines increased the lethality and the body count of this attack.” http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/09/5801374-tucson-shooting-with-high-capacity-magazines-reignites-gun-debate?lite

And the shooter in Aurora?

Fred Mertz 1 year, 11 months ago

Anonymous sources LOL

bea did I mention anything about those attacks? Nope, only the CT one in which children were killed. No assault rifle used no high capacity mags. Just the press spewing out incorrect info.

It does blow apart your previous statements that he would not have been able to kill as many kids if he didn't have the high capacity mags or assault rifle.

But not your fault - seriously, you were relying on the press to be honest and accurate.

Corey Williams 1 year, 11 months ago

"No assault rifle used no high capacity mags."

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/16/news/la-nn-connecticut-school-shooting-assault-rifle-20121216

"Lanza, 20, fired a Bushmaster .223 semiautomatic rifle..." "...Lanza had multiple high-capacity magazines for the rifle, each with 30 rounds..."

Corey Williams 1 year, 11 months ago

Try mine: http://www.redstate.com/2012/12/27/setting-the-record-straight-adam-lanza-did-use-the-bushmaster-ar-15/ Or you can try this: http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/Journalists-get-it-wrong-at-Sandy-Hook-4139569.php#page-2 "Some of the early reports about the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary turned out to be off base. Among the factual errors: 1 The suspect was Ryan Lanza, in his 20s, whose picture and Facebook page immediately appeared on TV newscasts and websites. ({check} Ryan is Adam's older brother.) 2 The suspect's apartment in Hoboken, N.J., was being searched by police. ({check} It was Ryan's place.) 3 Adam Lanza was buzzed in to the school. ({check} He was not.) 4 Adam Lanza had a confrontation with teachers the previous day. ({check} He did not.) 5 His mother, Nancy, worked at the school. ({check} She did not.) 6 Nancy Lanza was killed in her classroom. ({check} She was killed at her home.) 7 He carried out the attack with two handguns. ({check} The killings were done with a Bushmaster rifle.) 8 The children he killed were kindergartners. ({check} They were first-graders.)

The closer to the day of the tragedy, the more mistaken information you will get.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

And since I brought it up, what about the killing in Tucson. Is the killing of 9 year old Christina Green any less tragic?

You, the NRA, nor anyone else has given a rational reason why high capacity magazines and extended clips are needed. It doesn't take away your right to own, only limits the number of rounds one can have. The notion that banning those is the tip of the slipper slope of complete banning of guns is not a valid excuse.

labmonkey 1 year, 11 months ago

Bea...

Gun control legislation will not keep guns out of the hands of people who really want them. Just look at Columbine. All the guns were illegally obtained, and none were what you wrongly call assault rifles. Mainly pump shotguns and handguns with 10 round magazines. They also made 99 IEDs with instructions easily obtained from the library or the internet. This was smack in the middle of the assault rifle ban, and they commited many felonies before they stepped foot into their school. If someone is mentally unstable enough with enough pent-up anger, no law is going to stop them. Not Loughner, not Holmes, not Lanza. The only thing that could have stopped them is a good guy with a gun. Although the Oregon mall shooter wasn't killed by the concealed carrier (who was damn responsible actually and what you want to see from someone with a CC license http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html), he didn't kill anyone else but himself after facing someone else with a gun.

All gun control does is keep guns from law abiding citizens, and the stats on Chicago and DC do not lie. Around the world, crime skyrocketed in GB and Australia when they banned guns, and Luxemburg is one of the murder capitals in the western world. What many call "reasonable" gun legislation is feel-good BS that will not solve anything. If teachers want and can pass a rigorous course, let them carry. This gives them more than "throw pencils and erasers, and if you can, a desk if someone looks agressive" (actually in a KC area's school handbook for teachers), it is a simple solution, and the teachers who carry probably already own a gun so there is little taxpayer expense (and I had several teachers and administrators in school I would trust with my life and to safely carry a gun over many police officers, especially police officers in the town I went to school in).

And Obama (whose administration sold guns to Mexican drug cartels and hails politically from the city with one of the strictest gun laws yet with one of the highest crime rates in the country), and Dianne Feinstein (who has voted against the partial-birth abortion ban many times so she isn't in it to protect the children while wanting to fingerprint and register gun owners) have very little credibility when it comes to "reasonable" gun control.

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

Okay. Then I guess it is a good thing that I have never called for banning guns. (You are directing an argument against me that I never made, you know that, don't you?)

I am saying that we need to push through legislation on magazine and clip sizes. That is all, and doing so does not take away your right to own.

Tom Huyser 1 year, 11 months ago

Did anyone notice the shooting incident in Texas that happened the day after Sandy Hook? A guy pulled out an AK and started shooting near a crowd of people in line to go to a movie. He first shot up some stores but his line of fire was moving towards the crowd. An off duty sheriff shot him with her privatley owned weapon, stopping him before he could hurt anyone. The most important part of the story is the fact that no one from the national news networks even mentioned it. Now rather than provide a link I suggest you look up ANY newspaper or local news outlet from Texas, I think it was around Amarillo area and see what they are saying about it

beatrice 1 year, 11 months ago

I doubt they are saying, "thank goodness the shooter had access to high capacity magazines."

newguy 1 year, 11 months ago

I should go and write a silly tongue-in-cheek letter to the editor of my local small town midwest newspaper regarding a controversial subject.

That will certainly make a difference and maybe someone will think I'm a clever person.

Maybe.

Please validate me?

Please LJworld, aspire to a higher standard of Journalism and ignore inane letters like this.

Larry Sturm 1 year, 11 months ago

Arming teachers is not the answer can you imagian the devistating effect on a teacher if they shot and killed some one mabe even the wrong person accidently', they would proubably never be able to teach again.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.