Letters to the Editor

Cowardly act

July 28, 2012

Advertisement

To the editor:

The recent massacre in Aurora, Colo., has revived the question of gun control in America, especially concerning assault rifles and multiround clips.

The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. In Washington, the powerful NRA has bullied Congress to comply with its every whim, which has morphed this amendment to now include automatic weapons and unlimited clips that can be legally sold without background checks to anyone with money like gangs, drug dealers and the mentally deranged.

As a Vietnam combat veteran, I am familiar with automatic weapons, how to use them and what they can do to human beings.  As an American, I think it is time to address this issue and try to avoid the future slaughter of innocents in places like Columbine, Virginia Tech and now Aurora. Unfortunately, neither presidential candidate has the courage to even talk about this problem.  Our gutless Congress and local politicians refuse to address this issue. After all, it is an election year and God forbid they offend the gun lobby.

I do not want to take anyone’s guns away, but we Americans cannot solve our gun problem by letting more people have them! Once again, our politicians have proven themselves spineless, selfish individuals at the bidding of the NRA and special interests, and we the voters continue to elect them year after year! Shame on all of us for putting up with this cowardly act!

Comments

FalseHopeNoChange 3 years ago

can be legally sold without background checks to anyone with money like gangs, drug dealers and the mentally deranged.<

You mean like the NRA's "Fast and Furious?" program of Selling (guns)...your word...to bandits from Mexico?

I do not want to take anyone’s guns away, but we Americans cannot solve our gun problem by letting more people have them!<

huh?! This 'emotional' intellectually 'complex' thought, conjugated with 'nuanced' critical thinking, seems 'vacant' of consistency or relevance.

Ahem....you said you were in the military?.....they are "firearms", not guns. "This is my rifle. This is my Gun. This is for shooting. This is for fun." 'member that ditty?

SamAdams1776 3 years ago

I'm with you. Been to the sandbox and even had I not, I know that an armed citizenry is safer from both criminals and government tyrany. And the real purpose of being armed IS all about tyranny.

xdcr 3 years ago

The shooter didn't have an automatic rifle, he had a semi-auto rifle. Big difference. To legally own an automatic weapon, a Federal license is reguired. Show me where a person with a licensed automatic weapon has used their weapon in a crime in the last 50 years. Don't waste your time looking------zero. If a person wants to be a nitwit, they will find a way, even if semi-auto weapons become illegal.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

"The shooter didn't have an automatic rifle, he had a semi-auto rifle."

So that means that that the hundreds of rounds he shot off in a few minutes didn't really happen-- the people he shot aren't really shot. Is that about right?

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

But he didn't fire hundreds of rounds from his rifle, it jammed with plenty of ammo still in the first magazine.

KayaknColoRivers 3 years ago

LOL@False, It's a "weapon" in military circles.

KayaknColoRivers 3 years ago

Wrong again, not a "Sir". I was enlisted.

Richard Heckler 3 years ago

Change the gun laws...it's simple.

Make it completely illegal to own any type of military assault weapons across the board. Take automatic weapons off the street yesterday.

Plenty of documented incidents and dead bodies to back this up!

Cowboy_Dan 3 years ago

Please provide that documentation, Merrill. How many incidents, how many bodies, where and when?

It'll take some time, so I'll try to check back.

SamAdams1776 3 years ago

The freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right -- subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility" (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/news/nl/disp.asp?d=7/28/2012)

Also, the term "assault weapon," is a legal fiction created by Diane Feinstein to define certain military "styled" weapons that have certain cosmetic features. The fact is, the semiautomatic AR-15 was created BEFORE the M-16/M-4 as a sporting rifle. The military adopted it by making it as a full auto/select and later as 3-round burst/selectable weapon.

As to automatic weapons, since the NFA 1934 only one machine gun (automatic) has been used in a crime. It belonged to a police department and was used by a cop to kill his wife and her lover. No other automatic legally owned has EVER been used in a crime. Regardless, there can be no reason based on "public safety" to limit the types of arms of the people--because it IS an inalienable natural right whose purpose is tp protect freedom.

If I am not free, what good is it to be safe (and you wouldn't be anyway--not from criminals and not from a tyrannical government). You do not know what you are talking about and I am not about to allow you or this government to threaten constitutional rights or liberty generally.

This is not directed to any individual but to all: We wish to be left alone, but if you try to take our guns away, We WILL kill you.

SamAdams1776 III Molon Labe

Brock Masters 3 years ago

How can anyone give serious consideration to the LTE writer and people like merrill who obviously have no clue what they are talking about. It was already pointed out that the shooter in CO did not use an automatic weapon. Automatic weapons can be legally owned, but the process and cost makes ownership very difficult. They are not on the street.

Background checks are indeed required.

It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on the issue when people fail to take the time to educate themselves on the issue.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

"It was already pointed out that the shooter in CO did not use an automatic weapon."

Yep, it was, and you seem to also be making the point that the weapon he used was just a harmless toy, right?

Brock Masters 3 years ago

bozo, you really should slow down in your reading of my post. Please point to the section of what I wrote that seems to imply that the weapons were a harmless toy. I am really curious how you can read that into anything I wrote.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt while I wait for your reply, but I must say at this point it is looking like you're just making stuff up (AKA lying).

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

Because you get your panties all in a twist because someone called a semi-automatic and automatic, even though a semi-automatic allows scores of rounds to be discharged in a short period of time with the mere squeeze of a trigger.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

No one getting their panties in a bunch, simply pointing out the ignorance of the people spouting solutions. You can't have a viable solution when you don't understand the problem.

And you too are showing your ignorance of weapons. A semi-automatic weapon does not allow scores of rounds to be discharged in a short perior of time with a mere squeeze of a trigger. Only one round can be discharged with each pull of the trigger.

Please educate yourself on the issue so perhaps we can discuss the subject in a intelligent and meaningful way and thus, work together to find a solution to help stop these senseless killings in the future.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

So, 100 rounds takes 100 squeezes, all within a very short period of time, allowing someone like this shooter to kill a dozen and wound scores of others in a matter of minutes.

What sort of education does it take to understand that? What solution do you have to offer other than trying to argue that the weapons he used shouldn't be restricted in any way?

Brock Masters 3 years ago

bozo you are making progress. You're right, about how a semi-auto functions.

Now that you understand the problem (correctly) we can discuss solutions. The answer isn't an easy one because we are faced with preserving and protecting a Constitutional right. One solution is to amend the Constitution.

You're right any solution I come up with won't involve infringing upon the rights of law abiding citizens. Speech is used to kill people and I would not suggest censoring people. So, what can be done? We are an angry sick society. We must work to restore civility and respect and heal a divided nation.

Holmes was obviously sick and should not have owned weapons. We should focus on ways to better treat the mentally ill and keep weapons out of their hands. Again, easier said than done.

Something to think about when we consider solutions. What is the cost we are willing to impose upon the law abiding public to ensure that this type of crime never happens again? For example, how many people are killed by drunk drivers and speeders? We could greatly reduce that number by requiring interlocks and governors on all cars. Why not do it? Because people are willing to accept the risk to keep their freedom. The same with guns.

The issue is not violating our constitutional rights so the answer is to amend the constitution.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

"Speech is used to kill people and I would not suggest censoring people."

WTF?!?!

Brock Masters 3 years ago

I really wish you'd do a little research on your own, but I guess we all have our crosses to bear so I'll take the time to share my knowledge with you.

There are all types of speech and today includes different types of media. People have used facebook, for example, to torment and bully people to the point that they committed suicide.

How do you think Hitler and other hate groups rally people to do horrible crimes? Speech.

What is the likelihood that Matthew Shepard would have been murdered if not for anti-gay rhetoric? Speech is used to demonize and dehumanize people so that people can kill them without qualms.

Comprende?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

Yes, there is power in speech, but the bottom-line is that speech never kills-- it takes a whole different kind of action to do that-- you know, like pulling the trigger on a semi-automatic weapon.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

If speech never kills how do you explain the teens and others who driven to despair by unrelentless verbal bullying kill themselves? How about the student whose roommate taped him on a gay date and posted the video? That was speech and it caused the death of that young man - so didn't speech kill?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

Speech intended to incite a criminal act is illegal (and suicide is illegal.) What's your point?

Brock Masters 3 years ago

My point is there is a risk for abuse with any freedom but the solution isn't to take away that freedom from law abiding citizens. Yes, speech to incite a criminal act is illegal, but so is buying a gun illegally and using it to kill someone. You are so desparate to prove me wrong that you fail to open your mind and actually consider what I say.You nit pick in attempt to prove me wrong and then when you can't you resort to playing dumb - "what's your point?"

I have no problem with disagreeing with my point, but to pretend there isn't one is silly.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

Our "freedoms" are restricted in myriad ways. I see no reason why we can't restrict the freedom of insane people to obtain weaponry of the sort used here to exercise their "freedom" to kill a dozen innocent people and injures scores more.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

People who have formally been found to be insane cannot legally buy a gun. With that said, how to you prevent someone who is insane, but who has not formally and legally been found to be insane from buying a gun? I am all for keeping guns out of the hands of insane people, but tell me how to do it?

I am listening.

jafs 3 years ago

They can buy one from a private party, who is not required to do any sort of check before selling them one.

And, as far as I know, that's perfectly legal.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

Speech used to kill people? Hard to imagine, is it? Adolf's speech had nothing to do with killing people, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAUPt9SX2qk#t=2m30s

Liberty275 3 years ago

900 rounds per minute vs maybe 80. Big difference that, even someone as ill-informed as you should be able to understand. Twist the numbers in your panties and get back with us.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion on the issue when people fail to take the time to educate themselves on the issue."

A good place to start is with you fred.

KayaknColoRivers 3 years ago

Fred is correct, they were all semi-auto (except for the 12 gauge). Do tell, what does foot taste like?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

So the dozen dead people have risen from the dead, and the scores wounded have miraculously healed, is that your point?

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

Why are people killed by firearms so much more important that people killed by automobile? We can save many more lives by implementing stronger regulation on vehicles than on firearms. Hello!?! We're trying to save lives here! Let's not ignore the elephant in the room! Can we talk about obesity next? Firearms are specifically mentioned in the document as a constitutional right, driving a car or stuffing your face at McDonald's is not.

Mike Ford 3 years ago

the shooter had a 100 round drum on the bottom of said AR 15. He had larger clips on the Glocks. He had purchased 6,000 rounds of ammo prior to the massacre. This kind of behavior is what tipped off the ATF to David Koresh back in the day....you know they're all out to get me so I'll arm myself to the hilt nonsense......nice to know intelligent conversations can never occur without some dimwit reference to genies or some stupid use of the word nuanced by people doing nothing but trolling..... I own many guns...I'm a Democrat.....and I see the NRA as nothing but the third part of the GOP/Right Wing triad.....you know....God, Abortion...and drumroll....Guns.....people so simple they can vote on three issues and let everything else go as their heads enter the sand.....sheep are so easy to herd up....good job GOP/Tea Party... reality be tossed.....

bad_dog 3 years ago

Tell us more about "stump breaking", falsie. You seem to know a lot about "animal husbandry".

rtwngr 3 years ago

You own guns? Well, because of this rambling rant, maybe we should come over and take yours away. You sound a little unhinged, tuschy!

beatrice 3 years ago

So now the discussion is about citizens being able to "outgun" the federal government?

So I guess anti-aircraft guns in the backyard are needed, along with nuclear subs in the swimming pool.

Unbelievable.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

Looks like a returned troll looking to get disappeared again.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

FYI, I love guns and am a liberal. Take your broad-brush B.S. and shove it where the sun don't shine.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 3 years ago

The post I was responding to was removed (along with the poster, who had just registered with a name that was clearly based on mine.)

I have no idea why my post got attached to LO's post.

But I fail to see why that justifies your doing a little trolling of your own

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

My post was in response to the troll who's now removed, not you. LJWorld should remove the entire thread instead of leaving me hang-out to dry.

labmonkey 3 years ago

This Ronald McDonald look-alike showed he was pretty creative with chemicals and explosives when he booby-trapped his apartment. Even if he were unable to obtain guns, do you think the attack would not have happened? Probably everyone in that theater would have died because he would have made a shrapnel-spewing bomb.

There have been many calls to ban the "evil" black rifles, but a nut-job in Norway proved you can do just as much damage with a mini-14. The assault rifle ban (which liberals claim would have prevented Aurora) was just plain stupidity because it was based on looks of the rifle. Just chop off the bayonet lug and replace the pistol-grip with a dragonov-style stock and bam, you now have a compliant AR or AK. And considering there are tens of millions of magazines out there, it wasn't too hard to find a pre-ban magazine.

I don't know what the answer is, but if someone is bats**t crazy enough to do something like this, they will find a way to do it. If someone wants to commit a gun crime, they will find a way to obtain one. There is no need to punish law-abiding citizens for these people who will get their guns anyway.

labmonkey 3 years ago

Exactly.... and it wasn't too hard to make AR's and AK's compliant to produce during the assault rifle ban.

Abdu Omar 3 years ago

Calm down you guys!!

Here it is with the twelve killed many wounded and we talk about guns. Even though the guns were used for this heinous crime, they are not the criminal. It is the person weilding them that is.

Last week a car accident in New York killed 3 people in such a horrible way that the state was horrified. So by all of your thinking, let's outlaw cars, the automobile, the trucks, and anything that goes upon the highway, automatic, stick shift or what ever. How foolish!

beatrice 3 years ago

But if we were to have a discussion about how to make cars safer, I don't believe the auto industry would react by screaming that liberals really just want to ban cars.

In fact, cars are much safer now than they were a few decades ago because of new regulations. Is there no line you believe should be crossed when it comes to the distribution of guns? Should all citizens have access to every type of military weapon made?

We are only discussing if anything can be done and still allow citizens the right to defend themselves, and that hardly seems foolish to me.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

Why are people killed by firearms so much more important that people killed by automobile? We can save many more lives by implementing stronger regulation on vehicles than on firearms. Hello!?! We're trying to save lives here! Let's not ignore the elephant in the room! Can we talk about obesity next? Firearms are specifically mentioned in the document as a constitutional right, driving a car or stuffing your face at McDonald's is not.

beatrice 3 years ago

Because an automobile, when used properly and as it is intended, will never kill people. A firearm, in many instances when used properly and as it is intended, will.

There are many regulations on vehicles, with new regulations continuing to be implemented to make them safer every year. That doesn't make auto-enthusiasts scream that people are trying to ban cars.

Right now, automatic weapons are illegal for most people. Does this mean all guns are banned? Of course not. We aren't talking about doing away with all guns, but considering what could help keep guns out of the hands of madmen and criminals. I don't agree with the defeatist attitude that nothing can be done.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

bea, this statement is not correct: Because an automobile, when used properly and as it is intended, will never kill people. A firearm, in many instances when used properly and as it is intended, will.

A car being driven down the street as it was intended and being properly driven blows a tire swerves and kills a pedistrian. The car killed someone.

A car equipped with a battering ram front end being driven by a police officer is rammed into a criminal's car - used properly and as intended, kills the criminal.

A gun, used as it is intended and used properly is fired at and kills a criminal is used to kill - anything wrong with that?

beatrice 3 years ago

Properly maintained tires should not have a blowout. However, if it does, then it is an accident that would result in another's death. The death by a firearm is often anything but an accident.

The police car scenario is altering the original intent, but I get your point. I still do not believe comparing guns and cars is the best analogy for very obvious reasons. Also, regulating the use of cars does not mean the banning of cars. Wouldn't you agree?

No, nothing wrong with a firearm being used to stop a criminal.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

Regulating cars and guns are two different issues. Gun ownership is a protected right, car ownership is not. A car is tool, but not intended for killing. A gun is a tool and it is intended to be used for killing. So, yes, the two have differences.

The only reason I use a car as an example is to highlight my point that we are willing to accept risk even when we don't have to accept it. We could reduce automobile deaths greatly by having an breathalyzer interlock, governor to control speed and require crash helmets. I don't think you can dispute these things would save lives, but I doubt the majority of people would willingly accept them. We value our freedom and are willing to accept risk. The same goes for protecting our right to self defense although I am not convinced a total gun ban would stop gun deaths. I would fight against, but would accept a gun ban if it was done by amending the 2nd amendment and not forced upon us unconstitutionally. I will not consider a gun ban done any other way.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

crazy, as I mentioned in an earlier post many lives would be saved by putting a governor on a car to restrict its speed and to install breathalyzer interlocks on all cars.

Why aren't people supporting this type of government regulation???

jafs 3 years ago

Because way too many people like to drink and drive.

Which is, of course, an activity that is dangerous not only to oneself, but to others, and often results in tragic accidents and fatalities.

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

How many of my BOR rights can I exercise today? I'm going for all 10!

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

Curtis, if you had bought a firearm from a licensed dealer anytime in the past few decades, you'd know that they have to call in your information for a background check.

beatrice 3 years ago

Good point, because if I purchased all of the same firearms owned by the Colorado shooter from an unlicensed dealer at a gun show, however, no background check would have been required. Would it be that tragic to close that loophole?

KSWingman 3 years ago

"unlicensed dealer at a gun show"

There is no such animal. Gun dealers must have a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

Regular folks may buy and sell firearms with each other, in "private sales". Happens all the time, not just at gun shows, and no law or number of laws will stop it.

beatrice 3 years ago

In Arizona, guns are sold at gunshows without background checks all the time. And why can't private sales have some level of screening?

KSWingman 3 years ago

"In Arizona, guns are sold at gunshows without background checks all the time."

That's what I said. Private citizens buy and sell guns to each other all the time, including at gun shows, in Kansas as well as in Arizona. Private sales, no dealer involved. Perfectly legal.

"And why can't private sales have some level of screening?"

Because no law or collection of laws will stop a private citizen from making a private transaction with another private citizen.

beatrice 3 years ago

If I sell you my car, won't it need to be registered in your name? Yes, laws can be inserted in the middle of a private transaction, and it can happen without stopping the transaction. Otherwise, we are just stating that felons and anyone else who shouldn't have a gun has clean access. Yes, they will illegally possess, but putting a barrier before the transaction makes more sense. I would rather felons not have such easy access to guns.

KSWingman 3 years ago

You can sell me your car, and I can own it without registering it (purchasing license plates). According to KS state law, I would only need to buy license plates if I chose to drive it on a public roadway. If I wanted your car for stock car racing or demolition derby, to drive around the pasture on my ranch, as an investment, or for parts, I would not need to register it.

If you want to buy my rifle, and I choose to sell it to you, the government would not know unless one of us chose to tell them. The government does not have a Federal database of gun ownership nor transactions; both are specifically prohibited by law. Since there is no mandatory gun ownership nor transaction database, there is no way to prove a citizen failed to make a criminal background check as part of a private sale.

beatrice 3 years ago

Didn't think of the other options on the vehicles. Thanks for clarifying.

For guns, should the loophole of not criminal background checks be closed? I only ask in thinking about how to best keep guns out of criminals' hands, but I do see that it could be a hassle for owners.

KSWingman 3 years ago

It would be impossible to implement or enforce. It wouldn't be a hassle; people would just ignore it.

labmonkey 3 years ago

Bea, have you ever purchased a firearm at a gunshow? Every time I have, they called me in.

beatrice 3 years ago

No, I buy all my guns from the trunk of an old Impala from a guy named Vinnie. ; )

Who are "they" and where did they call you in to?

labmonkey 3 years ago

I had to fill out the usual paperwork and the vendor called for the same background check as when I go to a gun shop. I couldn't even purchase a handgun at the gunshow at the KCI Expo due to I had to have an FFL holder in Kansas to send it to. (You can buy long guns across the state line, but you need an FFL for handguns).

beatrice 3 years ago

Question for gun enthusiasts (which I am not, if you haven't noticed): Should states be allowed to create whatever gun regulations they choose, or should it be a federal issue?

Keep in mind that the Supreme Court has already ruled that people have the right to protect their homes, so the all-out ban so often used as a scare tactic is out of the question.

Just curious what people's responses will be.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

The states should be able to create gun regulations provided they do not conflict with federal law or the US Constitution - in other words, as long as they do not infringe upon the right to bear arms. So, in theory yes, but from a practical stand they will not be able to do it.

beatrice 3 years ago

I agree on the total ban comment. In America today, that clearly is not possible.

I disagree that the incident in Colorado had nothing to do with guns. Easy access to military-like weapons make it very easy for people to go on killing rampages. However, it is about a madman, which is difficult, certainly, to attempt to make laws to regulate.

beatrice 3 years ago

I see too many of the individual state laws acting like band-aids that do not work. How is a ban in California going to prevent someone bringing in guns from Arizona, where guns are all but mandatory? If you can train and get a conceal and carry in Kansas, shouldn't that transfer to other states?Should there be a national standard for conceal and carry? Should Texas be allowed to sell automatic weapons if they choose?

All just interesting ways to think about guns in our country.

I still have zero desire to own a gun, but appreciate reading rational comments from the gun enthusiasts.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

And I appreciate reading rational comments from those that want to stop murder and senseless killings in this country. We or worse, one of our loved ones could become a victim to crime any day. It is in all our best interest to find a solution to violence in our country.

Brock Masters 3 years ago

I think defenders of the 2nd amendment would be more willing to accept restrictions if they knew there was a back stop, but time and time the anti-gun groups don't stop. They want a total ban. Plus, often what they want won't do any good except to negatively impact the law abiding citizen.

Show me that "magic bullet" law and I'll consider it, but I don't believe it exists.

beatrice 3 years ago

Anyone clinging to the total ban fantasy has already lost that argument. The back stop was the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the topic. People have the right to own. Period.

At the same time, whenever options are under discussion, like should everyone automatically have access to extended clips and huge magazines, for instance, the argument against the idea shouldn't leap right to the fear of a total ban. We can achieve the shared goal of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals while still giving the law abiding citizens access. How? I honestly don't know, but we can only do good by not approaching the topic from an extreme point of view from either side.

Would you agree that a national C&C law is worth considering?

Brock Masters 3 years ago

I am not sure what happened to it, but there was a bill to allow CC in all states reciprical. Not exactly what you're talking about I know.

I can see some benefit to it - more uniformity in rules, but the downside would be more federal redtape and the federal government doesn't have the authority to do it.

beatrice 3 years ago

Congress would have the authority, wouldn't they?

Brock Masters 3 years ago

Congress is the federal government but I wonder how they would have passed the CC bill they had before them.

Maybe they do have the power?

beatrice 3 years ago

They have the power -- just not the guts. I mean, attempt to do something for the good of the nation .... who we kidding?

Horatio Bfor 3 years ago

For what it is worth, the whole "he purchased 6,000 rounds" is worthless info. Telling this info is just designed to scare people. To those who want to limit ammo purchases: How limited do you want to make ammo? There is no way that this shooter carried 6,000 rounds. Without ammo magazines, 6,000 rounds would have weighed 160-190 pounds. He probably had 400 rounds max, most likely 200-250 rounds. With a partner, I can (and do) shoot 400 rounds in an afternoon at my range. Should I be limited from doing this? Should I be limited from purchasing a few months worth of ammo for a bulk price? There is no ammo restriction that could be imposed that would have had any ability to reduce this guys ability to carry the quantity of ammo that he had.

labmonkey 3 years ago

Except he doesn't know the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic.

FlintlockRifle 3 years ago

More gun laws, crap,just look at Washington D.C and Chicago two of the tufts gun laws in the country and have the highest rates of crime in the country, yep that's what we need more laws for the gun owners. Does anyone know how many gun laws are on the books??? No I don't

beatrice 3 years ago

Exactly. Time to look at the whole thing anew. Dump the useless, band-aid type laws and bring some common sense into the issue. Seriously, how useful is a law in Chicago if it isn't nation wide? It is like having a non-smoking section on an airplane.

We need fewer, but better laws.

Which ones are they ... well, that is the rub, isn't it?

KSWingman 3 years ago

So, let's get practical. Dumping the useless band-aid type laws, as you called them, would require the repeal of every state law and local ordinance in the country. The only legal way to do that is to repeal the 10th Amendment. The only other option would be an executive fiat, which would be unconstitutional- although the current administration has not let a little thing like the Constitution of the United States slow it down.

beatrice 3 years ago

Since my words here are of no real consequence I was not attempting to be truly practical. To that I will admit. It is all theoretical, as I know nothing will be done. However, if the Supreme Court can rule against the laws in cities banning guns from homeowners, the idea of a broader platform for gun ownership on which to start the conversation is not completely out of reach. Or perhaps it is.

Regarding the current administration, I do not know what part of the Constitution they have ignored. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court supported the constitutionality of their actions, as I recall. If attempts are made to usurp the Constitution, I have no doubt someone will take them to court over it.

KSWingman 3 years ago

The Supreme Court ruled against prohibitive gun ordinances in the District of Columbia and Chicago, on the principle that local ordinances could not abridge Constitutional rights. These decisions had nothing to do with home ownership.

The current administration has violated Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed", by refusing to enforce immigration law and by failing to enforce or defend the Defense of Marriage Act. The Constitution does not say "enforce only the laws he likes" nor "enforce only the laws he thinks are constitutional". The authority to make and repeal law is vested in the legislative branch, and the authority to determine constitutionality is vested in the judiciary. As chief executive, the President's job is to enforce ALL of the laws.

There will be no lawsuits for the President's refusal to enforce the laws. The only mechanism to try and punish a sitting President for violating the Constitution or the law is impeachment. The Congress Who Can't Shoot Straight can't pass a budget; impeachment is impossible, justified or not.

Horatio Bfor 3 years ago

"Curtis D. Bennett, of Lawrence, Kansas USA, was a military pilot and served as a captain in the Marines during the Vietnam War in 1968."

Just a quick Google.

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

Sergio is a lousy, rotten spammer posting lousy, rotten spam.

msezdsit 3 years ago

The same hypocritical republican congressmen/women (and some dem-wits) that make a huge ridiculous witch hunt vendetta out of their manufactured bs against Holder are the same Republicans that are responsible for not closing the loopholes in gun laws that allow automatic weapons to be sold to the mexican drug cartels and criminals that are responsible for a massive amount of murders and violence. They are also responsible for underfunding the ATF to further insure that the ATF can't do their job.

If they were genuinely concerned about american guns "walking" across the mexican border than they should be more concerned about the loopholes that allow the mass quantities of automatic weapons that are legally crossing the border. The fact that the congress is willing to make a huge deal over few weapons and completly endorse the mass quantity of weapons crossing the border tells you they really aren't worried about violence associated with the weapons but rather creating a huge political vendetta to waste taxpayers money and ensure they don't take care of the business they were elected to do. Send them home.

All the talk about how automatic weapons are not responsible for criminal activity in the US is BS, but the real issue is how many Americans in border patrol, ice, and law enforcement are being threatened or killed by these legal american automatic weapons the congress endorses.

KSWingman 3 years ago

There are no automatic weapons (machine guns) being legally sold to Mexican drug cartels from any source in the United States. There are no "loopholes" allowing automatic weapons (machine guns) to legally cross any borders. There are no law enforcement officers being threatened or killed by lawfully owned American automatic weapons (machine guns).

None.

Nada.

Zero.

And automatic weapons (machine guns) have no responsibility for criminal activity, being inanimate objects. People are responsible, specifically criminal people.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Well, wingman, you are 100 percent categorically wrong on all counts. You are to willing to believe your self supporting propaganda. The guns are purchased legally and sold to the cartels and loopholes in US laws allow this to happen everyday all day long. Do some homework or just keep believing your self serving fantasies.

KSWingman 3 years ago

Automatic weapons (Class 3 machine guns) are regulated by the National Firearms Act (26 USC, chapter 53). To buy a Class 3 machine gun, you must have pre-approval from the ATF and your local law enforcement official (police chief or sheriff). Each sale of a Class 3 machine gun is recorded in the NFA Registry The purchaser must pay a $200 tax on transfer. Legal export of Class III machine guns requires an additional permit from the US State Department.

Average market price of an M16A2 is $10-15,000.

Class 3 weapons are not being sold lawfully to Mexican drug cartels. You would do well to educate yourself on the difference between an automatic weapon and a semi-automatic rifle.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Well, you good at quoting how it is supposed to work except until the loopholes are closed it will continue to not work.

KSWingman 3 years ago

Name the "loopholes" which allow the lawful sales of machine guns to Mexican drug cartels.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Well for one, the loopholes that have allowed gun sales by unlicensed individuals to individuals without background checks, any documentation, any identification , or recording serial numbers of the weapons.

RoeDapple 3 years ago

Still NOT machine guns!! Why so confused?

KSWingman 3 years ago

Since all (meaning 100%) legally owned machine guns are recorded in the NFA Registry, and the owners are specifically approved by ATF to own them, how are they "unlicensed"? And given the penalty for transferring a Class 3 machine gun without ATF approval is 10 years in Federal prison, what loophole do you imagine exists to make an undocumented transfer legal?

msezdsit 3 years ago

Didn't say the transfer was legal, the gun is legal and given that the seller is unlicensed and no information is taken, checked, or recorded its hard to say what is sold.

KSWingman 3 years ago

This morning you said, "The guns are purchased legally and sold to the cartels and loopholes in US laws allow this to happen everyday all day long." Now you're saying the machine guns are NOT purchased legally.

Which is it?

msezdsit 3 years ago

You base your entire stance on semantics. There are guns being sold legally in the US that in turn become the largest contributor of weapons used not only kill in the mexican drug cartel's wars but even more tragic are being used against our border patrol officers, Ice, and local law enforcement all along the borders. No amount of semantics on your part changes or fixes this or brings back any of the lives lost. Keep up the good talk though.

KSWingman 3 years ago

If it's a matter of semantics, you are the one engaging in it- poorly. Over and over again, you have talked about automatic weapons being legally sold to Mexican drug cartels. You are incorrect. Several people here, including me, have explained your error to you- that's not semantics. I recommended that you educate yourself about the subject- that's not semantics. You tried to move the goalposts from "automatic weapons" to "guns", which is a semantic exercise.

Admit it- you screwed up and you got caught out. You'll feel better for it.

msezdsit 3 years ago

The facts are, as I have posted many times on this thread, that there are weapons being sold legally in the US that are supplying the drug cartels and drug runners and are involved in the deaths of many criminals as well as our border patrols be it ATF, ICE, local law enforcement and or volunteers. I'm glad that you are finally admitting this.

While I have commented on the the political vendetta being waged by the do nothing republican congress, I will pass you onto them with your ironclad assurance that they are wrong. Based on your post after post, at least you and I can agree on that.

msezdsit 3 years ago

" People are responsible, specifically criminal people."

Yep, same old propaganda, A person with nothing but their fists will cause a lot less carnage and death than that same person can with an automatic weapon.

KSWingman 3 years ago

If you think "people are responsible for their own actions" is propaganda, you should be kept away from sharp objects- they might jump up all on their own and hurt you.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Actually I am pretty careful around sharp objects but your comment has nothing to do with the fact that a person can cause a whole lot more carnage with an automatic weapon than they can with a sharp object. That is the "point" you think you can cure with your rhetoric and you can't.

KSWingman 3 years ago

It's a good thing you are careful around sharp objects, given that you don't believe yourself to be responsible for your own actions.

And a person can cause a whole lot more carnage with a 5 gallon tank of propane than with a machine gun, under the right circumstances.

My point is, as it has been all along, that it is the person who is responsible, not the inanimate object.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"Gun laws would prevent shooting sprees?"

Probably not but if it helped reduce the increasing frequency of these shooting sprees it would be well worth the ink. Its kinda like voting, if we just make it a little harder to vote than not as many people would be able to vote. That analogy works for the republicans for voting and they should at least be consistent and apply it to automatic weapons.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

WRONG! There is no 'increasing frequency' of mass murders. You're simply pulling things out your butt. Is that you Glenn Beck?

http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/murder-violent-crime-rates-are-declining/

msezdsit 3 years ago

Hey crazy, how is it that you can predict the future? Crystal ball. Your massaged statistics aren't bullet proof. I know, lets have a few more mass murders so you can downplay their significance. Oh, they really didn't happen, just look at the statistics.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

I'm not predicting anything and I'm not ignoring the fact that a crazy man with a gun killed a lot of people either. I'm simply proving your blatantly false statement, "if it helped reduce the increasing frequency of these shooting sprees", wrong. The frequency of 'shooting sprees' is not increasing.

As a matter of face, the violent crime in the USA has been steadily decreasing for the last 20 years. The rate of mass murder by firearm in the USA is not increasing despite your wishful thinking. "The United States experienced 645 mass-murder events — killings with at least four victims — between 1976 and 2010, according to Northeastern University criminologist James Alan Fox. When graphed, these incidents show no obvious trend. The numbers go up and down and up again. The total body count: 2,949." http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/colorado-shootings-add-chapter-to-long-unpredictable-story-of-us-mass-murder/2012/07/24/gJQAK6Xe7W_story.html

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch, isn't it?

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

http://philebersole.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/murder-violent-crime-rates-are-declining/

Be safe, and have a great day!

msezdsit 3 years ago

" I'm simply proving your blatantly false statement, "if it helped reduce the increasing frequency of these shooting sprees",

Crazy, you need to read my comment, the word "if" means just that, "if" it helped reduce the increasing frequency of these types of mass murders. I din't say it definitely would nor am I agreeing with you that it wouldn't. have a great day as well.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

I understand the word "if". The two words I've been focusing on here are "INCREASING FREQUENCY". There is no "INCREASING FREQUENCY" of mass shootings in the United States of America as you implied with your original comment... Sorry I wasn't able to convey my point more clearly. Adios amiga.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Oh, excuse me, these murderous events are all happening right on schedule. Got it. There's that crystal ball again. Your massaged statistics are historical by nature and have no real bearing on what the future brings, er, except for you I guess. You have no way of knowing they may or may not occur with "increased frequency"

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

Stating that these events are happening at an "increasing frequency" means that you've examined the data and found a definite trend. You obviously have NOT examined the data and refuse to acknowledge the data when it's presented to you. Massaged? Please, I didn't pull it out of my butt--it comes from a reputable source. Are people today really this dumb? We need to license breeding...it's the only way to save this country. Don't bother responding, as I've no time to continue bickering. Have a nice life.

http://www.amazon.com/Mass-Murder-United-States-History/dp/0786431504

msezdsit 3 years ago

You still have no way of knowing whether another shooting spree will occur once or ten times or hopefully not at all in the next week, month,or year. No amount of statistics can tell you this either. If one deranged individual decides to go on a killing spree but they find it difficult to obtain a weapon, even if only temporally, then that delay saved some lives. The longer this person is delayed the more chance they have of being outed and thus the spree averted and lives therefore saved. This being the case, the more difficult it is for these people to find a weapon the more of a chance we have to prevent the shooting spree. It is really not nearly as complicated as your making it out to be, crazy. Buying time while people are still alive is more beneficial than after they are deceased. Thus explaining my original comment that you have struggled so mightily with.Have a good day and keep your eyes on that rear view mirror.

RoeDapple 3 years ago

msezdsit why don't you go purchase a Class 3 firearm this afternoon then come back and tell us all about it. You are obviously the poster here who doesn't have a clue about firearms.

msezdsit 3 years ago

Well, roe, I am not going to go out and purchase a weapon today or any day for that matter even though I also support people being able to protect themselves and their property- I just think it can be done without having to own an automatic weapon.

RoeDapple 3 years ago

No, because you are only here to troll, nothing more.

But while you're here, please tell us all about the "fully automatic" firearms that can be purchased legally at the gun stores. I and I'm sure many others would be very surprised at what's available.

beatrice 3 years ago

Certainly you oppose the laws making fully automatic firearms illegal, correct? I mean, take away automatic weapons and you end up with the ATF going door to door collecting everyone's guns -- it is the next step, after all.

Which, of course, is not true

The point being, that limiting access to certain levels of armament does not mean stripping people of their rights to protect their homes. Having the discussion about extended clips and magazines is not about about banning guns, as the comments from some here would suggest. It is very possible that limiting access to these items could save lives, don't you think?

RoeDapple 3 years ago

bea, you call for "reasonable" gun restrictions yet by your own admission your preference would be total ban/confiscation. To that end, reasonable restrictions only become a step in the direction you ultimately would choose. A high capacity ban would then evolve into a ban on any weapon that holds more than (x) number of rounds, then more than one round, then any working firearm. To me that means you and those who would take firearms and the associated hardware should be stopped cold. No matter how many restrictions (uninforced, as are most of them) get added to the books, there will always be another "bea" saying,'We need more reasonable restrictions!"

labmonkey 3 years ago

Bea, you are employing the same argument those who want to ban partial-birth abortions and late term abortions use. You may roll your eyes at bringing abortion into the discussion, but you have to see that the same, slippery slope argument is made with both issues.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

You seem to think that everyone has an automatic weapon...they are very rare. And as previously pointed out to you (and you refuse to believe) they are very highly regulated. Most people have SEMI-automatic weapons. At least understand the subject matter at hand before interjecting your henny-penny-the-sky-is-falling nonsense. Please.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"No, because you are only here to troll, nothing more."

done with you roe

Mike Ford 3 years ago

The Gun Law of 1934 dealt with the prohibition of automatic weapons to the public as a reaction to Bonnie and Clyde raiding National Guard armories and taking Thompson tommy guns and Browning BAR's and cutting the barrels short for ambushes. Most automatic weapons are insanely expensive to acquire which should be gun control enough. Class III weapons licenses require quite a bit of background work. Even the Sons of Guns people on TV have screwed up keeping track of auto weapons with the ATF and had to transfer the operation of their Baton Rouge shop to one of the gun crafters in shop to keep everything going. I would profile against over educated young White men whose academic failures make them want to lash out at the world that they felt pushed them and created an audience in their heads (delusion) that would reinforce the concept of failure and make them lash out at random people because their failures made them feel invisible and doing insane things like Aurora and Northern Illinois shootings a couple of years ago. I'm an educated gun person, a Democrat, a gun snob. I have no use for the end of the world race war armageddon GOP NRA members. If the NRA went legit and stopped trying to recruit old caucasian closeted bigots I'd llsten to them. I enjoy the historical gun stories on the NRA channel that's on some outdoor cable networks. Leave the politics to the armed race war proponents and deal with the history of firearms and collecting instead. Wow....an angle to expose the GOP for the fear mongering they do....I hope a Democrat is listening and has a backbone.....

labmonkey 3 years ago

Again... you call others bigots when you are the most racist person, by far, on this site. If a white person said the things about any minority group you say about caucasians, they would be disappearded like that. How the moderators let you remain on this site baffles me.

tbaker 3 years ago

If firearms, including those with multi-round magazines, were really as dangerous as the author suggests, then by that logic there should be millions of gun crimes and accidents involving firearms every year, and those numbers should be increasing in relationship to the total number of guns and gun-owners because this number has steadily risen over the years.

In reality, gun crime and accidents have steadily dropped in relationship to the number of guns, and all the while gun sales have dramatically increased and more states have liberalized laws dealing with the carrying of guns in public, so where is the corresponding spike in gun violence Mr. Bennet?

You should resist the urge to recommend the typical knee-jerk “Big Brother Knows Best” Nanny State solution. This is not easy, especially with this topic because the emotional, gut reaction people think of as "common sense" is wrong because it is easy to assume that more gun control will result in less crime becuase it seems obvious. Your letter is a splendid example of this unfortunate thinking. The truth is counter-intuitive Mr. Bennet. Do the research and you’ll find that guns are used 5 times more often to stop crime than to commit crime – and that doesn't count police use or the deterrent factor of criminals knowing their intended victims might be armed. Guns are used by private citizens to stop criminal activity some 2.5 million times a year. Gun owner fire billions of rounds each year, but firearms injury accident numbers keep going down as a percentage of all the guns in circulation and are at record lows. Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country yet has had over 250 murders this year giving it one of the highest murder rates per-capita of any city in the country. Statistically, you’d be safer in Kabul.

Gun control laws only “control” those people inclined to obey the law in the first place – the law-abiding. There is not a scrap of evidence to support the idea that tough gun restrictions on law-abiding gun owners is going to make a bit of difference. See the 2003 and 2004 studies done by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and the National Academy of Science concerning the efficacy of gun control laws on stopping gun-related crime. It will open your eyes.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-gun, everyone is entitled to their opinion and no one is forcing you to own a gun (like they do in some countries), but at least be against failed government policy with the same enthusiasm. I don’t need to be a Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran to tell you one armed citizen in that Colorado Theater could have made a huge difference. That’s just common sense. Shame on anyone who thinks needlessly restricting our constitutional liberties with ineffective failed policy so they can “feel” better is a good idea.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"I don’t need to be a Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan veteran to tell you one armed citizen in that Colorado Theater could have made a huge difference. That’s just common sense. " baker

I don't need to be any of that either to be smart enough to know that two or three hundred armed freaked out terrified individuals in a Colorado theatre all firing guns would have resulted in a lot more people being shot and a lot more injured or deceased individuals. That, baker, is just common sense.

tbaker 3 years ago

No, what you wrote is pure assumption and hyperbole. Since you like employing the hypothtical, try this one:

Lets pretend you were in the theater that night, and you had a loaded handgun on you. You had a licensed concealed-carry permit which means (especially in Colorado) that you have been trained and demonstrated proficiency with the gun to a state-licensed instructor. Now pretend you are speaking to the relatives and friends of the murder victims who have recently discovered that besides the pyscho shooter, you were the only other person in that theater with a firearm on that terrible night. What you are saying in your post is that you would be more than happy to tell them you were too freaked out and terrified to draw your weapon and feared that in such a state you may end up hurting other people.

Think. Reason, and then ask yourself if you honestly believe things would have turned out much worse in that theater had someone in the crowd stood up and shot back at this pyscho. If you are interested in common sense, this would be a good way to apply it.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"No, what you wrote is pure assumption and hyperbole. Since you like employing the hypothtical, try this one:"tbaker

Come on baker, talk about a heaping helping man size dose of assumption , hyperbole, and hypothetical, your post takes the cake.

This wasn't an organized event (other than the shooters lead up). It was dark and very confusing including canisters set off too minimize visibility and air quality. I don't think it is any stretch of the imagination to consider that if all the people in the theater had a gun that any or all of the people in the theater could have had some confusion over who they were supposed to shoot. No one knew how many shooters there were or that this person was the only one. I can tell you if I was in that theatre, I sure wouldn't have wanted every person to be brandishing a firearm and I stand by my comment that if they did there would have been more casualties as well as injuries. Who or how many people would you have shot ? OK, lets say your in the theatre

Someone standing next to you has a gun and you don't know that they aren't going to shoot you. If you paused to think about it they would get the jump on you and you would be dead. So, you play it safe and shoot them first. Now someone saw you shoot that person and figures their next so they shoot you. Sorry, baker, your scenario got you carried out on a stretcher and a funeral.

tbaker 3 years ago

You made it abundantly clear you'd rather run for your life then defend yourself and others and will make the most absurd assumptions you can conjur up to justify it. Go ahead and stand by your comment, and I'm fine with that. The world has three kinds of people Msezdsit, Wolves, Sheep, and Sheepdogs. It takes all three. Embrace it. Baaaaa.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"You made it abundantly clear you'd rather run for your life then defend yourself and others and will make the most absurd assumptions you can conjur up to justify it." baker

No, I made it abundantly clear that your hyperbole was just that, hyperbole. You are unwilling to accept that there is another side, a down side, r to your perfect little story that ain't so perfect. How come no one did what you pretend would have averted this entire tragedy?

tbaker 3 years ago

There is no downside for a fact. What there is a possible downside given a great deal of assumption. There is also an upside that requires zero assumption: someone shooting at the mass murderer would have been better than no one shooting at the mass murderer.

msezdsit 3 years ago

nope, you still refuse to accept the fact that when you think your assumption all the way through, a lot of people shooting off guns in a dark frenzied theater would be an even worse disaster ruled by only chance.

tbaker 3 years ago

I have thought it through. Regardless if it was one, or a dozen people shooting back at the mass murder, it still would have been better than zero people shooting back at the mass murderer, dark and frenzied all you want. Even if someone was hit by friendly fire in the chaos that would still be better than the murderer being able to continue his rampage and kill more, but I've already said this.

It just occured to me I shouldn't be too hard on you. You are displaying the characteristics of a typical human which is nothing to be ashamed of. When faced with mortal danger, 99% of people run for their lives. It's hardwired into your brain from birth. The thought of defending themselves even if they have the means to do so is not the first natural reaction. The military spends months and months of intense instruction to train that natural tendancy out of people, and you really don't know if it actually worked until the first time the bullets fly. At least you admidt you would run. Most people on this blog would beat their chest and strike a Rambo pose, but would trample you to get to the door in real life. It takes a long time and a lot of expereince and a lot of self confidence in your abilities and strong proficiency with your weapon to be the one that stands and fights. Its not second nature for 99.999% of the population. Fear and panic is what has saved our species from extinction for millions of years.

RoeDapple 3 years ago

It seems the shooter had no problem hitting those he shot at through a smoke filled room . . .

msezdsit 3 years ago

Nice job baker. Thats just one big paragraph of name calling thinly veiled by you anointing yourself as the all assuming authority (which your not) because you aren't big enough to admit that the the results would have been left completely up to chance if one or all the movie-goers just pulled out weapons and started shooting them. You think you could predict the outcome and you can't. So you patronize your self on how the military trains people. Newsflash baker, the theatre was not expected to be a war zone and most people didn't go to the movie prepared for one. The only way your scenario would work is if armed security officer(s) could have taken this guy out. Most people, weopons or not, would probably not fired at them. Your solution to guns is more guns. You completely made up how I would have reacted if I was in the theatre and that you certainly don't know. I think they call that talking out your a...........

As you advocate, when everyone is walking around with their weapons and an attitude anticipating a situation such as this one, they will be a bigger problem.

tbaker 3 years ago

I was being sincere.

People who carry guns don’t carry them because they are afraid to / not prepared to use them. One armed citizen would have made a huge difference in that theater. You can’t acknowledge this obvious fact because it doesn’t fit with your world view, and you are clearly struggling with some self-confidence and inferiority complex issues as well. Good luck.

msezdsit 3 years ago

"you are clearly struggling with some self-confidence and inferiority complex issues as well. Good luck."

As usual people like you who have to resort to statements that, aside from being completely false, have no point and contribute absolutely nothing other than to show how immature you are.

DillonBarnes 3 years ago

These threads are getting repetitive, so I'll just say this...

Magazine, not clip...

Bye!

RoeDapple 3 years ago

Here you go msezdsit, your typical m-16 for sale. At $27,000! Nobody, NOBODY, would go through a criminal background check (required) to buy this then sell it to someone across the border for the (going?) price of what, $1,000? Instead of believing the dung you read from the typical gun control site, try doing some research on your own.

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/m16?set=66&sz=800x600

RoeDapple 3 years ago

And read this while you're at it.

How to Own Class III Weapons Basic Guidelines

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc?set=02&sz=800x600

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

According to data compiled by Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections, guns killed an average of 4.92 victims per mass murder in the United States during the 20th century, just edging out knives, blunt objects, and bare hands, which killed 4.52 people per incident. Fire killed 6.82 people per mass murder, while explosives far outpaced the other options at 20.82. Of the 25 deadliest mass murders in the 20th century, only 52 percent involved guns.

Mike Ford 3 years ago

labmonkey....sorry telling the truth offends you.....who needs to stir racial animas to sell guns? White people. I went all over Tulsa, Oklahoma looking for an old school gun shop with antique guns and odd guns and the like last summer. I grew up with a father that taught me history by searching for certain antique guns in those kinds of shops. Topeka Pawn and Gun Shooters Supply on Kansas Avenue in Topeka was one of these shops. We started collecting guns we found there. Instead of finding those kinds of guns we found a suburban gun shop with an NRA poster on the counter stating the "Greatest Gun salesman ever". President Obama was the feature on this poster. What race uses the picture of an African American President to sell guns? White people. I went into a local pawn and gun shop on 6th street and I saw all kinds of assault weapons that were now on sale due to the ban being lifted. Who allowed the ban to run out? President Obama. This was in 2009. People purchased guns and ammo for the armegeddon.....did it happen......no.....I rest my case.

labmonkey 3 years ago

One, the assault rifle ban ended in 2004, not 2009. Two, did you try to purchase ammo after the 2008 election? I had a very hard time purchasing 9 mm ammo just to go target shooting at the Bullet Hole. Gun sales have gone through the roof since Obama's election, hence the sarcastic poster.... it has nothing to do with his race. Three, if you are having trouble finding the antique guns you want, you aren't looking hard enough. Olathe Gun Shop has a HUGE selection of antique shotguns and rifles. Four, your comment history (including this comment I am replying to) speaks volumes about your racism. Again, if I were to make the comments about any minority group you make about white people, I would be banned.

Crazy_Larry 3 years ago

Fire and explosives are the weapons of choice of most mass murderers. The infamous murders at Frank Lloyd Wright's home at Taliesin (Spring Hill, Wisconsin) which did not involve guns, but did involve arson and an ax. The Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people. No guns were used.

Mass murder without guns:

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Man With Sword Slays 2, Wounds 12 on N.Y. Ferry : Retired Police Officer Stops Him With Gun July 07, 1986

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

RoeDapple 3 years ago

Poor tuschie . . . must be awful to be driven by hate to the point he can't see the good around him . . .

Mike Ford 3 years ago

poor roedapple ignoring reality when you have nothing to add to the conversation..... courageous? in going after those who have the courage to redirect the conversation to the subject cowards convieniently ignore.....fluffy good news instead of reality.... what purpose you serve.....

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

The subject that tuschie never ignores is tuschie. (from a source)

skinny 3 years ago

If guns cause crime, all mine are defective. Ted Nugent

beatrice 3 years ago

Well, maybe not ALL are defective. Read all about Ted Nugent pleading guilty for shooting bear: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/why-ted-nugent-pleading-guilty-alaska-bear-case

Mike Ford 3 years ago

labmonkey......an April 19, 2009 yahoo article speaks of President Obama not renewing the assault weapons ban.....research much????? it took me forty seconds to find this information typing in Obama doesn't renew weapons ban. I already knew about the Olathe gun shop. We have a Winchester Model 61a and a lot of older 22. cal plinking rifles from there. Secondly it's not racism unless you're oblivious to Kansas History. Lawrence is on Kaw, Shawnee, and Delaware land and the city itself was settled by the Kansas version of Sooners who settled the Lawrence area before the ink was dried on the 1854 Shawnee Manypenny treaty. Stop supporting historical land thiefs if you don't want to hear the truth.....

labmonkey 3 years ago

Perhaps he is not pushing for renewal of the ban that ended in 2004... but the ban ended in 2004. Why do you do some googling.

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

tuschie, the Europeans are not all going to get back on the Mayflower and leave you to be le bon sauvage.

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

The Mope remembers how the Democrats got spanked after the scary weapons bill passed in 1994. As dim as his instincts are, he doesn't want a repeat of that while he is still running for office. ( .......... from .......... a 20th Century.......... source .......... )

RoeDapple 3 years ago

Federal Assault Weapons Ban

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Here you go tuschie . . .

In "bold" for your reading convenience.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision.

(Oh, and I did it in 20 seconds)

labmonkey 3 years ago

Now Roe... how is he going to learn if you have to google for him?

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

The first day it was legal, I went dashing out and bought one of the full capacity pistol magazines marked "LEO only".

Mike Ford 3 years ago

April 12, 2009

Obama and the Democrats appear to have lost all interest in a ban on assault weapons or any other legislation cleaning up loopholes in America’s gun laws even though killings are on the rise and gun violence continues to escalate around the country.

White House officials admit support for a new ban isn’t there and the President isn’t willing to take on another losing battle with Congress.

Although information on banning assault style weapons remains on the White House web site, sources within the Democratic party say the issue is dead and unlikely to be revived in the near future.

"It’s over," a Democrat strategist admits. "The gun nuts have won…again."

yeah the nuts won again......and how many more will die?

roedapple....look in the right place?

RoeDapple 3 years ago

What part of "expired on September 13, 2004" are you not comprehending? Your source only states that the White House has lost interest in the ban on assault rifles (meaning semi-auto sporting rifles that happen to look like military weapons) and then continues the lie that gun violence is on the rise. Sorry tuschie, your hatred blinds you once again.

"Despite increases in gun sales, gun crimes continued to decrease in the United States for the fourth straight year in 2010, according to the FBI." (from a source)

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

Somebody forgot that attribution thing. Plagiarism is killing the planet.

Flap Doodle 3 years ago

Meanwhile, in Communist China: "A Chinese teenager has killed eight people and wounded another five in a knife attack in the country's northeast. The official Xinhua News Agency said the attack took place Wednesday night in Liaoning province. It did not immediately give any other details in its report Thursday, such as the ages of the victims. Violent crimes are growing more common in China. There was a string of knife attacks against schoolchildren across the country in early 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50." http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/02/china-teen-knife-attack.html

RoeDapple 3 years ago

Knives don't kill people, people kills peo . . . .

Commenting has been disabled for this item.