backhouse you are full of crap, Gabby was the first one shot and the little girl was the second one....

More lib lies!!!!!

If it saves just one life it’s worth it.

What I don’t understand is why Obama will go out on national television and call for everyone to act, to be on his side to pass Gun Control legislation, but he doesn’t go on national television to address the nation and ask for the people to help to end gun Violence. Why won’t he come out and say to the nation that no matter what Congress passes it doesn’t work if the States and the people don’t help to make the country a safer place.

Isn’t this supposed to be a nation that was created by the people, of the People by the People and for the people, and our politicians serve us not the other way around?

Why doesn’t Obama go on national T.V. and say;

“We will look at what we can do to strengthen our gun laws to make sure guns are not ending up in the hands of criminals and the mentally ill but you do not have to wait to act. You have the power to reduce gun accidents and gun crime by acting now to learn proper gun safety and storage. We could be doing things now like instituting the Eddie Eagle Program to teach k-4^th Graders simple gun Safety;

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.

You could be going online and finding out the best way to secure your firearms for what makes sense for your situation.

We could be requiring conflict resolution teaching in school to teach our children how to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence. Isn’t that supposed to be part of the Safe Schools initiative so kids can feel safe at school and not bullied, etc?

You could be calling on your States and legislatures to Comply with the NICS system and report convicted criminals, people deemed mentally unstable, report people convicted of drug violations, etc.

If you are the victim of a robbery and your guns are stolen report them to the Police so that Law enforcement will know there out there and you are no longer liable if that gun is used in a crime.

There are many, many things that as Citizens of the United States you could be doing now to help curb gun violence in the U.S..

You don’t need to wait for Congress to act or an Executive Order for something to be done.

This country is found on the Principle that the people are intelligent and capable of determining for themselves how our government should work and what our laws should be. This country works when people are involved and taking responsibility for it. Ask yourself are you doing what you can to prevent gun violence or are you just waiting for the government to do something about it?

Here’s a website with xx information on what you can be doing now. It covers proper gun safety, safety rules you can teach your children when they see a gun, how to properly store weapons when they are not in use, etc.”

Why is it that ending gun violence is only a Legislative issue and what matters is what they can get passed and turned into law and not about citizens themselves taking a role in our society?

There are millions of gun owners and groups that would be more than happy to help make the country safer and help reduce gun violence. Lawful gun owners do not want guns in the hands of criminals and don’t like gun violence anymore than you do. They do not like seeing children killed by guns any more than you do.

Instead of attacking lawful gun ownership, trying to limit their rights and making them the scapegoats every time a psychopath with a gun kills a child, why aren’t you asking law abiding gun owners for help?

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now,"

But we'll DESTROY the Constitution just for grins..........

How about we enforce current laws and throw some bad guys behind bars!!

You know Feisty, this was already tried, back in 94. The ban was shown to have no effect on shootings or violent crime, none. The data is there, liberals refuse to even look at it because they favor policy over science.

If it saves just one life it’s worth it.

Then ban pools. These kill more children than assault weapons.

If the ban keeps one law abiding citizen from protecting themselves then the blood is on your hands.......

It was just dumb luck that he dropped the 2nd magazine. You cannot definitively say that the result would have been any different had he only had 10 round mags.

Well if it was the 13th bullet if guns were banned period the 1st 12 peoele would still be alive right? Of course he may have decided to strap a bomb on and drive in there sucide bomber style. Just think we could just ban murder by any weapon and the problem is solve no more killing.

If it "saves even ONE life"...... 54,000,000 so far........

Mountainlady; sorry but the stats do not show you right, you are less likely to be killed by the so called assault weapon than a knife, a stick, a rock, bare fists, a car or almost anything else in the world, the so called assault weapon is responsible for less than .0001% of all gun related deaths in America!!!!!!! Less than 360 rifle deaths in the US in 2011 and that includes all rifles including those called Assault weapons, shotguns, bolt action, semi auto and all.....

Quit listening to the lies that make you scared of guns, do some research on your own, go the BI site and look at how many deaths happen in America and how they happen, you will see that most of all this hype is just scare tactics.... There is even one moron on this site trying to say 50,000 people are killed with guns, that is a lie!!!!!!

The facts are gun deaths have decreased by more than 50% while gun ownership has increased by more than 100% so quit believing the lib lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One other thing your comment about the majority of people want gun laws is not all that right, it depends on who took the pole and even then 1000 people do not represent the majority no matter how many answer yes or no, it depends on where the pole is taken also and then the best is 67% want some type of background checks and only 37% want the so called assault weapons ban!!!!

The reason mass murders are mass murders is that mass murders can fire lots of bullets at lots of people in a short time span.

If we can remove the tools that allow lots of people to be killed in a short time span, isn't that a good thing?

After all, the only purpose of large ammunition magazines and assault weapons, just like the only purpose for machine guns, is to kill lots of people quickly.

Why should we make it easy for a mass murderer to be a mass murderer?

The Biden bottom line amounts to "we know it won't do any good, but we are doing it anyway".
This is why government never gets much done. What it is doing really doesn't work other than to make those that support the actions feel like they accomplished something.

I wish we could just put it to a national vote in a special election. Apparently, many members of Congress are scared to death that they will be voted out if they support gun laws, or afraid the NRA will no longer slide money under the table to them or pump funds into their re-election campaigns, so let the people bypass Congress and just hold a special election.

After all, there are only around 4.2 million NRA members, and many of them have said they think we need reasonable gun laws as well.

Let's go ahead and put it to a popular vote. I know of no U.S. citizens who fear the NRA or its bullying tactics.

I would be willing to go with the people's vote.

Well...mountainlady,

I'm certainly glad that you can tell what we need and don't need!! Here we were wandering all of our lives waiting for some liberal to tell us what we need and don't need! If you are SO concerned about saving lives, why don't you concern yourself about that pesky woman's "choice" thing that ends up killing thousands of unborn children every year.

Why should we trample the rights of many due to the actions of few. Especially when it wont make any difference on the outcome.

garrie... Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to stats about all innocent people killed by guns in the US and not just assault weapons. However, your statistics are not any more accurate than mine. Sadly the NRA has bought off or shut down any meaningful research into gun violence in the US for the past 40 years. They want to make sure no one has the accurate numbers. Maybe you should stop believing everything in your NRA handbook. What I usually do is take the numbers from both extremes and find a middle ground and hope that I'm pretty close. When I do that the number of people killed by guns in the US is still rising. Just read the headlines. Every single day more dead. You can't even walk down a street in America anymore. Whoever has the guns, it is the EASY availability of these weapons that has created the tragedy in this country. Limiting at least the type of weapon used at Newtown might give the rest of us a chance. By the way... you're probably going to blow out your exclamation point key if you keep using it the way you do. Just saying...

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

I think that is first true thing Joe or anyone associated with this administration has ever said.

Nothing THEY are doing will... alter a mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year

That is because they are doing all the wrong things. How about we remove HIPAA restrictions to allow better access to mental records? (for background checks) How about we allow the temporary commitment of mentally unstable people like Adam Lanza instead of having to wait for the Court to pull the lead out?

How about we treat things that are illegal like they are illegal? Illegal Immigrants?, Illegal drugs? Illegal possession of a gun? How about we start executing 3rd time offenders of these Illegal acts?

How about we do away with all the Government Programs whose unintended consequence is the destruction of the traditional family? How about we make 'Dad's' relevant again?

How about we study the problem, You liberals are always going on about how we need more Government Research into things like this, well instead if rushing to ban guns, let's find out which guns, and how they are doing the most damage and address that issue?

How about we let the teachers who want to, (I have 2 sisters-in-law willing) get training and let them carry? One armed guard verses 4 or 5 teachers, who, by the way, ARE ALREADY ON THE PAYROLL.

I have said it before and I will say it again, liberalism must be a result of brain damage.

I am trying to think of a time when there was a massacre at a gun show or a shooting range.

From 1918 until 1934, any one in the US could order and have shipped through the USPS, a fully automatic sub-machine(Tommy Gun w/30 or 50 round magazine), BAR (High power machine gun w/20 magazine) or even a M2 .50 cal. Belt fed machine gun, no questions asked. Where were all the spree shootings then (other than criminal gangland)?

It was not uncommon to walk into a local hardware store and buy a case of Dynamite to remove tree stumps. If easy access to deadly weapons is the measure of a deadly society, why were things like the "Bath School Disaster" not regular occurrences?

NO, the only thing that has changed in the last 50 or so years is the Secular Progressive agenda has wove its tentacles into society. Family is irrelevant. Dads are irrelevant. Males, especially white males, are irrelevant or even 'need' to be marginalized. Morals and Personal Responsibility are irrelevant.

My point is, since the 60's and the Liberal Progressive march toward hedonism in this country, with the rise of the welfare state, abortion and easy divorce, discipline in this country is gone. There are no consequences. No longer are men being raised by fathers. And how do you become a real man, if you don't have one to show you the way? Granted it isn't always successful, but it seemed to be more successful than the alternative.

Drug overdoses and brain damage linked to long-term drug abuse killed an estimated 37,485 people in 2009, the latest year for which preliminary data are available, surpassing the toll of traffic accidents by 1,201. And the number is likely to rise as the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [ABC News.go.com] Where is the outrage over this?

More children die in a month from abuse, and neglect, mostly at the hands of those on welfare and drugs than by guns in a whole year. Yet you people scream "Ban the Guns, Ban the Guns". And my guess is less than fifty people(and except for these rare instances, ZERO children) are killed each year with a so called "Assault Weapon", yet this is what you go after? THAT IS STUPID!!!

Is there anything in the Proposed legislation that would stop another Adam Lanza? NO! I have read nowhere that parents can commit their Adult children (or anyone for that matter) for observation while the process for complete institutionalization takes place. This is why Adam Lanza was able to, and the MOTIVE behind the rampage, go to his mother's house, kill her and take her firearms. She was unable to protect herself and other because YOU GD LOW LIFE LIBERALS, GOT YOU PANTIES IN BUNCH OVER THE MOVIE "ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST", AND MADE IT ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE INSANE PEOPLE TO BE COMMITTED TO HOSPITAL.

Emotionally compromised thinking people are driving this debate. And there is no rational argument that can be made to dissuade them from this destructive path.

Or is it your idea that only the Government (police) gets to keep You should Google "Cop kills 'wife', 'ex', 'girlfriend' etc. Or "Police Corruption". There are several studies done, you can Google that too, that shows there is a lower incidence of crime among CCP holders, than the general public and the police in some cases.

But you Love Obama, don't you? He will change America, won't he? He will make it better, right? That's why you Love Obama, right? He gets it.

The German people Loved Hitler too, and for the same reasons (and many German people still loved him at the end of the war, and they blamed the Generals for letting Hitler down, “It was not Hitler’s fault” sound familiar). I didn't necessarily like Romney, but I could respect him. A leader should be respected, not loved. Loving your leader can lead to some very dire outcomes, (ask the folks of Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and Germany)

One should substitute the words "The Jews" for the words "The Rich" or "The 1%ers" and see how that chant works out. Is that a little too close to the mark? Oh that's right, can't happen here, this is America. That's what the Jews in Germany thought too.

Why do I need an “Assault Style Rifle”?

Can you tell me when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? YouTube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on YouTube, "Exploding Pumpkins") But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout, I do believe their motto, “Always be prepared”. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)

"The intelligence of a people is inversely proportional to the size of city and the length of time spent there in". Robert Reedy 1980

“To paraphrase Chairman Mao: Freedom and Oppression are dispensed from the END of a gun. Which END are you on?” Robert Reedy 2008

And to the right-minded people here, remember to vote up those you agree with. Or add a Kudos or a Ditto as a comment.

Deal Don, please write up your solution..........

Mountainlady: I do not use the NRA stats I use the FBI stats and they account for every death in the USA, are you saying they do not keep an accurate count? I will believe them over any lib poll or lie!!!!! You are falling for the lib agenda of telling every shooting in the news to get their agenda across, it is a perfect propaganda set up, play to the fears!!!!!

Sorry again though the FBI states that gun deaths have continued to decline, by 50% over the past ten years, I beleive them over any news agency that has an agenda to scare the public into doing what the libs want done!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IXLR8

I'll go with Biden's plan.

In 2011, 323 murders were committed with a rifle
Since rifles may incude things other than semi automatics we can assume the number is somewhat lower for the gun types that would be banned as a result of the proposed legislation. So how can 1,000 lives be saved if that many people aren't even dying a year? Biden is just appealing to emotions instead of actually referring to facts. If these POS politicians really wanted to do something about gun violence they would end the failed war on drugs.

silverton-2953905

I wish we could just put it to a national vote in a special election. Apparently, many members of Congress are scared to death that they will be voted out if they support gun laws, or afraid the NRA will no longer slide money under the table to them or pump funds into their re-election campaigns, so let the people bypass Congress and just hold a special election.

After all, there are only around 4.2 million NRA members, and many of them have said they think we need reasonable gun laws as well.

Let's go ahead and put it to a popular vote. I know of no U.S. citizens who fear the NRA or its bullying tactics.

I would be willing to go with the people's vote.

#1.19

Basically they call that an Amendment to the Constitution. If you feel so adamant about it, Why don't you get off your butt and organize an Amendment committee. Carry Nation did that once, and you see where it got us. A little thing Called the Chicago typewriter became famous over that Amendment. Gee, violence in Chicago, imagine that?

Yeah, there are about 4 and half million NRA members. There are between 60 and 80 million gun owners.

Made up of both Republican, and Democrats, (of Federalists, as I call them now, not that you probably understand that) who are very politically active, by the way. So, yes, Those Representative are right to be fearful. The last "Assault Weapons" ban had no measurable affect on crime, do you think it will be any different this time around, and if so HOW?

But my guess is, you have no understanding of the Constitution. I am guessing you think all our Rights are granted or stem from it.

garrie... and everyone else while I'm at it... You are witnessing a little piece of history here because this doesn't happen often. I followed up on your FBI information and I must apologize. I was WRONG about the statistics. Understand that I am rarely wrong (lol) but I am willing to admit it when I am. I will endeavor to get the proper numbers out there. However I stand by everything else I said. The headlines (on all channels, not just nbc) show death after death after death. They also show people frantically buying every gun they can lay their hands on. Read some of the posts from these people... sound just a little psychotic? Add that to the arrogant (and crazy looking) Mr. LaPierre spouting off to the world and it creates a definite impression that America will soon be an armed camp. I don't want to live like that. A majority of Americans don't want to live like that. It is threatening. Don't like the results of the election? Get your red hot AR-15 here! As long as gun owners are willing to be represented by extremists like the NRA the rest of us are going to be trying to get our country back from the gun culture. Those of us who do not believe that more guns is a solution to anything have rights too.

PS: FBI stats do not include accidental shooting deaths that occur in gun owners homes, mostly children.

Typical lib gun confiscation argument: We have to do something. It won't stop the criminals from shooting anyone but we will punish the law abiding citizens anyway and strip them of their Constitutional rights.

I just hope the left wing sychophants on these blogs are the first disarmed sheep gunned down by the criminals they didn't stop from getting guns. I mean hey we have to do something, right?

Typical lib gun confiscation argument: We have to do something. It won't stop the criminals from shooting anyone but we will punish the law abiding citizens anyway and strip them of their Constitutional rights.

Typical right-wing gun nut: you missed the point completely.

Tim. Zathrose is a dumbed down version of McCain and we all know how unfortunately dumb he has become. Zath's comments are based on silliness and his/her hatred of all people smarter than he/she is - which is practically everyone - except those liberals on this site!

"Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now," Biden told reporters Thursday afternoon after he spent over an hour lunching with Democratic senators at the Capitol.

LOL......

Now Mr. Biden is playing with both ends of the stick:

1. Ban guns, that will eliminate mass murders.
2. Ban guns, that will NOT fix the problem.

Wow, and he is "interested" in a 2016 run.

Sounds similiar to the Federal Reserve: MORE stimulus will decrease the unemployment rate, ooops, MORE stimulus did nothing but inflate the dollar.

Don, educate me. What are the five key points of Bidens plan? I think Biden is backing down as he actually thinks he has a prayer at President which is very remote at best. I would like to know how he thinks legislation will stop the randon killings by thugs and people who do not abide by the law. Please elaborate.

Gun bans will not work.

It's the finger that pulls the trigger that needs to be fixed.

Biden and Obama both know this.

There are millions of weapons magazines and ammunition in the US.

You will never be rid of them.

Get trained and get armed.

Flowers do not go in gun barrels in reality, bullets do.

Just be law abiding, safe, and protect your home and family.

Gun laws do not work.

New gun controls won't likely end shootings

I am not a friend of Mr. Biden, however, no truer words were spoken to this thorny issue.

Thank you, Sir.

@ rradiko #1.30

10 PRO-GUN MYTHS, SHOT DOWN

By cutting off federal funding for research and stymieing data collection and sharing, the National Rifle Association has tried to do to the study of gun violence what climate deniers have done to the science of global warming. No wonder: When it comes to hard numbers, some of the gun lobby's favorite arguments are full of holes.

And the Federal Government is the only source of funding for research? Well, in all fairness, I guess for a dope smoking hippy Liberal Communist, that is probably a true statement.

And the data they were collecting was the personal data of gun owners. Perhaps, you would be comfortable giving over you personally data to the Government in relation to your posts on these vines? Perhaps being required to have a permit to post your opinion, or write something negative about a Government Leader? After all, the pen is Mightier than the Sword.

-----------

MYTH #1: THEY'RE COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: No one knows the exact number of guns in America, but it's clear there's no practical way to round them all up (never mind that no one in Washington is proposing this). Yet if you fantasize about rifle-toting citizens facing down the government, you'll rest easy knowing that America's roughly 80 million gun owners already have the feds and cops outgunned by a factor of around 79 to 1.

Sources: Congressional Research Service (PDF), Small Arms Survey

In numerous interviews in the past Feinstein, Biden, and numerous other Senators and Representatives, Including Barry Obama, have called for or said the would support the outright confiscation of guns. Just Google, Feinstein confiscate guns interviews

-----------

MYTH #2: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE—PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

FACT-CHECK: People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. The states with the highest gun ownership rates have a gun murder rate 114% higher than those with the lowest gun ownership rates. Also, gun death rates tend to be higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership.

Sources: Pediatrics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

And people who live in cities have a higher propensity to be dope smokin liberals. Crime rate among CCW holders is lower than the general public (at least in Kansas) and in some cases is even lower than police officers. (at least in New Orleans and Florida) several sources, including the Wichita Eagle.

-----------

MYTH #3: AN ARMED SOCIETY IS A POLITE SOCIETY.

FACT-CHECK: Drivers who carry guns are 44% more likely than unarmed drivers to make obscene gestures at other motorists, and 77% more likely to follow them aggressively.
-- Among Texans convicted of serious crimes, those with concealed-handgun licenses were sentenced for threatening someone with a firearm 4.8 times more than those without.
-- In states with Stand Your Ground and other laws making it easier to shoot in self-defense, those policies have been linked to a 7 to 10% increase in homicides.

I would like to see your source on that. See above, and also
www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

-----------

MYTH #4: MORE GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CAN STOP RAMPAGING BAD GUYS.

FACT-CHECK: Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 30 years: 0
Chances that a shooting at an ER involves guns taken from guards: 1 in 5.

CCW holder Nick Meli, is reported to have stopped the Oregon Mall shooting. see others: gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

Google concealed carry holder Oregon mall shooting

-----------

MYTH #5: KEEPING A GUN AT HOME MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: Owning a gun has been linked to higher risks of homicide, suicide, and accidental death by gun.
-- For every time a gun is used in self-defense in the home, there are 7 assaults or murders, 11 suicide attempts, and 4 accidents involving guns in or around a home.
-- 43% of homes with guns and kids have at least one unlocked firearm.
-- In one experiment, one third of 8-to-12-year-old boys who found a handgun pulled the trigger.

We will leave suicides out of this debate. People who commit suicide, will find another way. Accidental shootings account for 606 deaths in 2010. A number that needs work for sure.

In 2001 96 children under 14 died of poisoning from household products. CDC

In 2011 119 children under 12 died from accidental or incidental gun shots. According to FBI Stats,

And more kids than that die from abuse and neglect. read my post above.

-----------

MYTH #6: CARRYING A GUN FOR SELF-DEFENSE MAKES YOU SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2011, nearly 10 times more people were shot and killed in arguments than by civilians trying to stop a crime.
-- In one survey, nearly 1% of Americans reported using guns to defend themselves or their property. However, a closer look at their claims found that more than 50% involved using guns in an aggressive manner, such as escalating an argument.
-- A Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater.

Again, reference the data pertaining to the Incidence of Crimes committed by CCW holders.

Are the people in these studies, from Philadelphia, thugs from a bad neighborhood, or are they good citizens?

-----------

MYTH #7: GUNS MAKE WOMEN SAFER.

FACT-CHECK: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
-- A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 7 times if he has access to a gun.
-- One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun that women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

Were the women in these studies armed? The argument you make here is a non sequitur. Just because these thing take place in states with higher gun ownership, does not mean these women had arms themselves. You, yourself point out that gun ownership is by women id only 20%.

-----------

MYTH #8: "VICIOUS, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES" DESERVE MORE BLAME THAN GUNS.

FACT-CHECK: So said NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre after Newtown. So what's up with Japan?

Per capita spending on video games: United States $44. Japan: $55.
Civilian firearms per 100 people: United States 88. Japan: 0.6.
Gun homicides in 2008: United States 11,030. Japan: 11

Sources: PricewaterhouseCoopers, Small Arms Survey (PDF), UN Office on Drugs and Crime

Again another non sequitur. Japan is a monolithic culture, and is fairly highly disciplined. They have beer vending machines, just like soda vending machines here, open to the public. Just how well do you think that would go over here, when we can't even have cigarette machines.

And it is not the video game by itself, millions of kids play the games, and millions of kids are just fine. It is the combination of a lack of good parenting, along with a mental instability that is the trouble.

-----------

MYTH #9: MORE AND MORE AMERICANS ARE BECOMING GUN OWNERS.

FACT-CHECK: More guns are being sold, but they're owned by a shrinking portion of the population.
-- About 50% of Americans said they had a gun in their homes in 1973. Today, about 45% say they do. Overall, 35% of Americans personally own a gun.
-- Around 80% of gun owners are men. On average they own 7.9 guns each.

If your math is correct then there are 873,600,000 guns in this country, which according to most estimates is off by about 300% better check those facts again.

Gun owners make up about 20 to 25% of the population, each owning about 4 or 5 guns. That's 60 to 80 million gun owners, and about 300 million guns.

-----------

MYTH #10: WE DON'T NEED MORE GUN LAWS—WE JUST NEED TO ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.

FACT-CHECK: Weak laws and loopholes backed by the gun lobby make it easier to get guns illegally.
-- Around 40% of all legal gun sales involve private sellers and don't require background checks. 40% of prison inmates who used guns in their crimes got them this way.
-- An investigation found 62% of online gun sellers were willing to sell to buyers who said they couldn't pass a background check.
-- 20% of licensed California gun dealers agreed to sell handguns to researchers posing as illegal "straw" buyers.
-- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has not had a permanent director for 6 years, due to an NRA-backed requirement that the Senate approve nominees.

-----------

Even the Washington Post give Obama 2 Pinocchios for the 40% of gun sales number. The actual number based on that data is between 14 and 20%

>>

See what I mean about studying the problem before you go off half cocked and do something stupid, like violate a man's Rights?

The biggest MYTH.

Guns are the problem.

The less distribution of guns will eventually result in fewer stolen and illegally sold guns. Documented registration of transferred used weapons will further diminish the ability of recorded criminals to acquire them. Keeping 'em out of the hands of the mentally unstable is the conundrum. Determination of acceptable balance among all individuals, is, at best, highly inexact, even with today's most advanced measurement tools, and is generally given, based upon subjective bias rather than objective principals of relative oddity, unless the oddity is of course, an obvious debility, with such, generally suffering prohibitation of gun access under present statutes and responsible caregivers. Don't know how we can legally go much further, other than to limit, or prohibit certain gun types, which really is more symbolic than substantive.

The biggest myth - guns have nothing to do with the problem!

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.

I am a 57 year old male from Washington state who enjoys deer hunting. I incurred severe fractures to my right radius and ulna (forearm) many years ago resulting in a permanent decrease in forearm rotation from the normal 180 degrees to about 90. I am unable to properly hold and fire a rifle or shotgun in either right or left hand models without a pistol grip.

Can you tell me how a pistol grip or thumb-hole stock (both specifically banned in Sen. Feinstien's bill) by itself makes a rifle or shotgun significantly more deadly or dangerous?

Do you have any recommendations as to how I, and the thousands of other people with disabilities similar to mine, can continue to enjoy our sport and second amendment rights?

I have sent these questions to both Sen. Feinstien and Pres Obama, but have not received an answer.

Can any of you supporters of Sen. Feinstien's bill provide a serious answer?

DumbFarmBoy you need to remove "Dumb" from your name. You are most definitely not dumb:)

Thank you for taking the time and dispelling radicals supposed Gun Myth dispelling post.

Maybe instead of making a Law to ban weapons Congress should focus on a Law to ban all Ammo.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun. I took the standard but-stock off and put on an adjustable stock with a Pistol grip.

It shoots the exact same caliber of rounds, 12ga, as it did before I changed its furniture. It functions the exact same way, its still a pump action shotgun. It still holds the exact same number of shells as it did before I changed the stock.

Feinsteins new laws would make that shotgun illegal. Why, because now that it has a scary looking stock its somehow more deadly than it was before?

I can take the scary looking stock off, and put the standard stock back on, and guess what? It would be legal, and yet it is still the exact same gun, its action would still be the same, it would still fire the same ammo, and the number of shells it can be loaded with would still be exactly the same.

Who said there are any guarantees in life?

Death and taxes, grow up and put on your big boy pants.

Murder has been around since the first monkey threw a rock, that said, mass murder will continue to happen unless we take a look at the under lying factors that cause these horrible crimes.

60yrs ago you could walk into a hardware store and purchase a gun no questions no background checks, and a stick of dynamite to go with it. Before we could have guns, full auto, Thompson guns delivered to your home via mail.

However these mass murders were few and far in between, if anything the amount of firearms per populace has gone down , so then ask yourselves what is the change. Perhaps the degradation of our cultier, the attitude that our civil rights and our civility towards each other has been slowly eroded.

That and popping our children full of pills that inhibit things such as self preservation and impulses may be a lil downer, just a thought, but that's physics and the way molecules affect neural connections in the brain(reality). That is way past you nuts to understand so I'll keep it simple.

Crime rates have fallen (but are still much higher than before the 1960s spike) because we put so many people in prison. It isn't because some people have less propensity to commit crimes. Guns are similar. Gun violence has declined because more people who commit gun crimes are put in prison, and for longer terms. I doubt there is much that can be done regarding gun control that will improve the situation. Biden, though something of an idiot, has hit the problem, unintentionally.

What this administration and its liberal Congressional allies have proposed is to, as Feisty so stupidly put it, "do something". But Biden isn't alone is admitting that what they intend to do will have little, if any, positive effect. The reason is pretty straitforward. Guns aren't the problem. If guns were the problem then we'd probably see lots of girls or young women going on shooting sprees. We don't. If guns were the problem we'd probably see a whole bunch of weekly church goers shooting people up. We don't. (btw...I'm an atheist, so don't give me some crap about being a religious nut). If guns were the problem we'd probably see middle-aged married fathers out shooting people. But, you guessed it, we don't.

Our problem isn't guns. Our problem is the culture we have created. And we have INTENTIONALLY created this culture. Welfare rules that required fathers to be gone from the home? We did it. Abortion rules which, essentially, place value upon a life in terms of your utilitarian value of it? We did it. And education system which has, despite the claim above that we don't have "conflict resolution" programs, focused on ending conflicts with equal parts responsibility rather than tell Child X that he is wrong, and why? We did it. Easy divorce so that moms and dads can split up and Little Bobby can more easily feel abandoned? We did it. And the list goes on, so long in fact that one more salient point can be made about it.

Had we merely done one, or two, or even 5 or 6, of the dumb social policies in the list, then it would matter probably very little. But there is a reason we cannot talk about any of our social pathologies which lead isolated and disconnected young men, people often highly educated (in the case of mass murderers), as well as people fairly ignorant (the illiterate class of young men we send to prison every day for more mundane violent acts)...Each of the cultural phenomenons that we can talk about, save for guns, has been advocated and backed by American liberals. And we all know that liberals are creating a nirvana, not hell on earth.

One last, major point...If guns were the problem, then why were gun violence rates so much LOWER prior to 1964 (and that year should make you wonder what happened and why to cause violence to begin skyrocketing) when gun availability was even higher, and prior to 1934 you could even buy fully automatic machine guns and have them shipped right to your front door through the USPS? People used guns less, and for some profound reasons. Liberals will never seriously discuss those reasons.

I see Biden opened his mouth again so he could insert his foot all the way to his knee this time. I like people who spout facts with NOTHING to back them up.

If the government really wanted to reduce gun violence, they would look at their own statistics .

FBI/DOJ Uniforrm Crime Report is published annually. It is online and you can read it.

It shows that between 49 - 90% (Depending on location) of ALL illegal gun crime is committed by GANGS. If they really wanted to make an impact, that is where they would start. (Why do they not do that? Could it be votes?)

How about we all come together for GANG CONTROL?

OK, progressives and hoplophobes argue against that.

Lunky, gmta.

"The visual image of those 20 innocent children being riddled with bullets has, has absolutely, not only traumatized the nation, but it has caused-- like the straw that broke the camel's back."

What visual image, we never saw anything? Also, where's all the brass?

@rradiko

People with more guns tend to kill more people—with guns.

Which is essentially the same as saying: guns don't kill people. People kill people. Thank you for proving that point.

mountainlady:

The Constitution has been flexed throughout its history to adjust to changing times and what more than 200 years of democracy has taught us.

Yes, the Constitution has been flexed throughout its history, but only with another amendment and that's not what's on the table.

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.

Doesn't anyone understand the words "shall not be infringed"?

silverton-2953905

I wish the NRA would quit trampling on our First Amendment Rights of Freedom of Speech.

Every time a rational person speaks up about reasonable gun laws, they are shouted down, villified, bullied, and often cursed by the NRA and the fanatic right-wing for speaking their opinion.

#1.22

I wish the Democrats/Liberals would quit trampling our Second Amendment Right of Self Defense.

Every time a rational person speaks up about reasonable gun laws, they are shouted down, villified, bullied, and often cursed by the Democrats and the fanatic left-wing for speaking their opinion.

And the Liberals twice interrupted LaPierre's Press Conference.

David-2319136
SS immons117, u are a moron. Maybe you are a fan of Hitler's. The Nazi agenda is nothing at all like what the Kenyan Muslim O'bama has ever proposed. #1.7 - Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:39 PM CST

David-2319136

Umm Calyps, Bush was informed during the photo op, AND SAT THERE DUMBFOUNDED. Not that it has anything to do with anything now aside from showing right wing hypocrisy. #1.8

voxrationis

You want to debate the Right? Might as well find a rock and do the same. They don't know enough about most issues to debate or they have these rigid positions that overrule any debate before it has even begun. That's why we call them extremists.

Sailcat-2064101

When will that terrorist organization, the NRA, finally concede the obvious need for rational gun control in the US? How many more of our nation's children must be sacrificed on the altar of the Second Amendment before even the most selfish and immature gun enthusiast agrees that we need to have a mature public dialogue on regulating gun ownership? The time has come to ignore the whining of the right wing lunatic fringe and to act decisively to regulate gun commerce and firearms ownership.Sailcat-2064101

So, the kidnapper is a psychopathic paranoid schizophrenic who harbors insane fantasies about the government? He sounds like your average NRA member, doesn't he?

Shall I go on...

I have some guns it might seem like a lot to some, but they are all locked up in a thick safe 24/7.

As a gun owner I think it your responsibilty as a gun owner to have your guns locked up at all times.

and as for 10 day back ground checks I'm ok with that I dont have anything to hide.

More "biteme" bull@!$%#. The old fool knows that if they actually do get a gun ban it will do nothing to prevent shootings and the people will blame the dumos so he now hedges his bet. Libtards.....................

So we are back to the idea of limiting the size of magazines. Before you, in your hysteria and paranoia, declare yourself for such an action, tell me: exactly how many rounds am I going to need to defend myself the next time I am attacked? If you are honest, you will admit that you cannot have any idea how many rounds I will need to defend myself next time. And yet you want to limit me to some number picked out of a hat, if the selection process was that rational.

You cannot tell me how many rounds I will need and you cannot, and probably would not, protect me.

In the latest LA riots ethnic Koreans, small business owners and shopkeepers, were targeted for murder. Many were murdered: men, women and children and the murderers were never brought to justice. Many more are alive today because they had semi-automatic rifles with the standard 30-round magazine. Because of that sized magazine they were able to fire warning shots without eliminating a significant portion of their capacity to defend themselves and their families. The lives of those rioters were saved also since the first rounds could be warning shots and not shots to the chest of a rioter.

And more guns have been sold in the last month then in the last three years how many of those people do you think have a gun safe?

Ah, the typical liberal logic. Let's pass more laws that will not "fundamentally alter or eliminate" the exact thing we are attempting to alter and eliminate. By the VP's own admission, the proposed laws will only affect law abiding guns owners. You know, the ones who have had NO RESPONSIBILITY for any of the mass and/or gang slayings by the mentally unstable individuals gang bangers. Gotta love those liberals.....all show, no brains.

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said

But the 2nd ammendment was designed by James Madison to ensure that citzens of the Republic could defen themselves from an over bearing central government.

Biden is right so why suck the life from the people as the government likes to do. What would make a difference is to get the left wing media to stop dramatizing all of these shootings. Lives from all the follow up shootings would of been avoided. The media has blood on it's hands and so does the left liberal radicals who can't focus on a real solution but instead chooses to focus on symptoms of which many have little or no real affect on the cause of the crime itself.

There are so many guns sold on the streets that you have to change the law of the law breakers not the law

abiding citizen because guns are not going away .

Vice President Biden is probably correct in stating the gun laws will not have an effect on the rights to own a firearm aka A GUN, or bring the gun death rate down. Anti Gun People WANT a complete gun ban with sweeping confiscation collecting all 320,000,000+ guns in America. Alright, let's say it Is Done and No One except cops have guns and, Of Course, criminals. Anti Gun people feel that the SHEER AMOUNT of guns in America, Easily Gotten Hold Of, is the Basic culprit Enabling the criminals, nutjobs and people having gone off The deep end, as in 'Catcher in The Rye", resulting in gun killings. Added to that is the "States Rights" factor, approved gun lists, which amounts to selective firearm ban..OK Say these lists finally outlaw 95% of new guns offered for sale, As in what happened with prohibition, People are going to obtain guns Illegally, as they did with Alcohol, because Americans are Aware of the Fact that our legislators are Not concerned with America and Her People, But ONLY their own comfort and profit, which is why America is in the MESS SHE IS IN AND causing so many people to "get a gun for self protection". Foreign Manufacturers who are eager to see an American Gun Prohibition so that they can very easily and profitably sell their weapons on a black market. They CANNOT Be Stopped from Making and selling guns around the world. Added to that gangs and the criminally insane are going to get a gun anyway, American or Foreign Made. So the Best Action to Take?? Well, a GOOD start would be a continuance of the States "approved for sale" gun lists which slows down the large amount of guns being made. Another is the creation of An American Universal national HealthCare System and Effective Psychiatric OutReach Teams with "Examine and Retain" Authority IN ADDITION to Setting Up and RE OPENING ALL the State and federal Mental Hospitals Across America which were closed down by Big Pharmaceutical Corporation's legislative Servant Politicos. Both sides can be seen as valid, Just as having a National Healthcare System and ReOpening The Psychiatric Hospitals to Collect the DANGEROUS NutJobs are as collecting All The Guns, Which Won't Happen.

The better idea is to make sure that these insane people are kept off the streets with no access to guns. But if it is done by the feds, then I say no way Jose. These are the same people that our country needs protection from. It is better for the states to run the whole show. at least the states have shown some credibility in being responsive to the will of the people, unlike the federalis. The federalis are interested in only maintaing their power with lip service to the rule of law.

The act of eroding self preservation by limiting ones capacity to do so , erodes the value of ones life.

Eroding the value of ones life, the lives of there family and loved one, allows for the elimination of these lives.

In affect your saying my life and the lives of my family are limited not by my capacity to protect them,but by the value you have placed on them.

If and when later you and yours chose that they are forfeit for whatever reasons you will have in effect set a standered to allow for you to take them.

theyre taking our freedom away one at a time.its always well intentioned and to save us.how sad so few have ruin everything for so many

Biden: New gun controls likely won't end shootings

Yep, we know Joe. So why are we doing all this nonsense worrying about "assault weapons" when 99% of Americans have no idea what they are? Why are we worrying about magazine clip sizes?

Because this is just more government incompetence and pandering. Its emotions dictating behavior rather than policy. Knee-jerk reactions are always wrong. They fix nothing, cost us a lot of money and need to be fixed over and over.

"But there are things that we can do, demonstrably can do, that have virtually zero impact on your Second Amendment right to own a weapon for both self defense and recreation that can save some lives," he said.

YESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are things we can do. Demonstrably.

It's called an education.

The causes of homicide are multifactorial. The biggest contributors are violence, crime, drugs and poverty.

We have already waged "wars" against all these social tragedies, and we have failed miserablt. What makes us think adding a "war on guns" will fix anything?

The only thing that is a common denominator with all these problems is education. We must fix our illiteracy problem and the rest of these problems will dramatically improve. Being stuck in the ghetto will never fix our crime, violence, drug and poverty problem.

We have pumped tens of TRILLIONS of dollars into these wars and nothing has significantly improved. All these issues not only affect our social problems they dramatically impact our economy and ability to fix our massive debt.

Go ahead, play your useless political posturing games regarding gun control, your all know nothing will change until we have the will to fix our education system so we can allow our children a safe and prosperous future. An education system that pulls as many as possible out of poverty, crime and apathy. It also allows us to educate ourselves about the warning signs and dangers of mental health problems which dominate these mass murder tragedies.

@ Backhouse were you there counting the rounds and watching to see where they went? there are also 3,000 deaths a day that's 3,000 a day in the US, that's out of the 16,934 accidents that happen every day in the US, and I don't see anyone attempting to fix that problem, why? you want rifles assault type weapons that are responsible for less then 330 per year cars nail 3,000 a day, where is your head? Hammers kill more people then Rifles, that's just a fact, I don'tlike it my self but that is the way it is ban cars! then guns wont be able to get around that will save thousands. just ban rifles then thousands will still die. guns are low on the list when it comes to people losing their lives. cars are way up there at about 16+thousand a day in accidents, think about that then look at the other things that cause problems you do your homework and you will see guns are at the bottom of the lists. lets deal with things at the top. the first on the list from the top is People... you freak out about 1 fatality and pay no attention to 3,000, then 20 blows you away and 3,000 go unnoticed is it the media!!! wake up things are worse then you think, do the math!!! then ask yourself why is the VP going in circles on this???? and what is really motivating the president???? its not a dream world you seek! its a freaking nightmare around the corner you need to avoid.

So many derogatory references to 'libs', 'the left' - so few derogatory references to 'cons', 'the right'. Curious. Seems 'the libs' and 'the left' are far less inclined to point fingers at imaginary groups, lose their temper in an instant, or throw tantrums. This should be good.

Wow - so the person put in charge of heading the US's anti-gun violence committee basically says all the debate this past month, all the tax money spent, all the time wasted, was for nothing. But hey, at least you tried. Thanks.

Let's focus on America's REAL problem which is the economy. Enough of these stupid partisan distractions...

David Noah

DumbFarmBoy you need to remove "Dumb" from your name. You are most definitely not dumb:)

Thank you for taking the time and dispelling radicals supposed Gun Myth dispelling post.

#1.46

It is a self deprecating moniker based on the stereotypical view most of these liberal, city monkeys have of those of us who come from rural backgrounds. Most of whom fail to comprehend their complete and total dependence upon those same "country bumpkin, redneck, backwater types" who supply them with food.

Thank you for the compliment and the comment. Keep up the good fight.

SDN

So many derogatory references to 'libs', 'the left' - so few derogatory references to 'cons', 'the right'. Curious. Seems 'the libs' and 'the left' are far less inclined to point fingers at imaginary groups, lose their temper in an instant, or throw tantrums. This should be good.

#1.72

Did you read my post @ 1.56? And those were the nice ones.

Careful which kettle you call black.

They admit it. Fascist controls over our freedoms will not prevent mass shootings. The alternative reason...they are anti-freedom and want to disarm the American people. Do not disarm!!

rgsdca1965

I have some guns it might seem like a lot to some, but they are all locked up in a thick safe 24/7.

As a gun owner I think it your responsibility as a gun owner to have your guns locked up at all times.

and as for 10 day back ground checks I'm ok with that I don't have anything to hide.

#1.57

And you are probably going to be Ok too. And I wish I could afford a nice big fireproof safe for my guns too. (more worried about fire than theft)

Do you have kids at home? A safe is a good idea if you do, regardless, I do not. But here is the problem. Let's say they make it mandatory to lock up all guns. And you have kids at home. Let's say a guy breaks in, sees the safe, and proceeded to put a knife, to your kids neck, would you open the safe? Knowing you will probably die if do, or gamble you might still make it out alive, knowing those guns will be used in another crime? Or is it better to have one at the ready to defend against such an improbable attack?

I have nothing to hide either. And I am Ok with background checks. Provided there are means available to readily correct any mistakes or errors, I have had some issues with the system in the past. My problem comes with the Government keeping this data for future reference. I am not paranoid, I just don't trust the Government and there is no telling how that data will be used in the future. Just look at Social Security, and the issues with Identity Theft. Your SS number was never meant to be a form of ID.

"You are falling for the lib agenda of telling every shooting in the news to get their agenda across, it is a perfect propaganda set up, play to the fears!!!!!

What, exactly, does reason look like? What does hysteria look like? What does paranoia look like?

"it's the libs'!!!!!!! "it's the libs'!!!!!!! "it's the libs'!!!!!!! "it's the libs'!!!!!!! "it's the libs'!!!!!!!

Well, yeah. Washington is a blue state and Mt. St. Helens blows up. Don't you guys get it?!!!!!!

I pray to God this guy is a troll.

dumbfarmboy: I don't recall calling anyone black.

You've shown 5 examples of your assertion, I'm hardly inclined to list the dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of alternative derogatory epithets posted here. 'gerry' alone, in his posts, dwarfs your list of examples.

I can both read, and count. I expect you can as well. People that attempt to support their agenda with clearly numerically inaccurate assertions only serve to support the opposite perspective. If you must lie or deceive to support your cause, perhaps you should review your vision of your cause.

I do recall saying 'this should be good'.

looks like the FIBber has a new avatar: Horns on O. All in all I'd say that was quite appropriate...

The law won't stop shootings, but it will make the left feel good about themselves as happens on the vine here frequently enough--lot's of slobbering liberal group hugs...

If the proposed gun laws are about saving lives, then all possible means of violence must be banned. That includes cars, baseball bats, gasoline, knives, axes, pick axes, shovels, and so on. A government published handbook lists items that occupational troops must restrict citizen's access to so that they are prevented from make their own weapons and munitions. Those items are found in stores and homes. Anyone intent on violence will find a way to commit it. In the news today was a nunchuck attack in a New York subway. A 72 year old woman was beaten to death in her home. The list goes on and on. A mentally stable person can pass a background check today, something snap next week, and they go on a rampage. Remember 9/11? Box cutters and aircraft killed over 3000 people. Not too many years ago, a man with a grudge against the IRS flew his single engine plane into the IRS building in Austin, Texas.

If this proposed legislation is about gun control, or gun bans, then it is misguided and provides a stepping stone to limit or restrict person freedoms as defined by the Bill of Rights. If you are up on U.S. history you will know that Lincoln used executive orders to suspend freedom of speech and habeas corpus tto prevent Maryland from seceding from the Union, despite nothing the the Constituion that prevented that action. Unfortunately, he had a liberal Congress as a result of the secession of southern states so he had carte blanche to take whatever actions he wanted. Also, the Republican party at that time was the liberal party.

I love the argument "you don't need an assault rifle for self defense". That's laughable. First, you do know that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, right? Second, who are you to tell us what we need? How is defending your house with an AR-15 any different than defending your house with a handgun or shotgun? How is target shooting with an AR-15 different than with a handgun or other non-black rifle? Your argument is laughable and classifies firearms on appearance, rather than function. My son's .22 rifle is black, has a pistol grip, detachable magazine and an adjustable stock. Yep, guess that's an assault rifle too. This is getting ridiculous...

zathrose:

"I just hope the left wing sychophants on these blogs are the first disarmed sheep gunned down by the criminals they didn't stop from getting guns."

Your folks must be proud. Wonder what God will think about your sentiments?

SDN

dumbfarmboy: I don't recall calling anyone black.

You've shown 5 examples of your assertion, I'm hardly inclined to list the dozens, scores, perhaps hundreds of alternative derogatory epithets posted here. 'gerry' alone, in his posts, dwarfs your list of examples.

I can both read, and count. I expect you can as well. People that attempt to support their agenda with clearly numerically inaccurate assertions only serve to support the opposite perspective. If you must lie or deceive to support your cause, perhaps you should review your vision of your cause.

I do recall saying 'this should be good'.

#1.79

"That is like the Pot calling the Kettle, black". A proverb from the days when pots and kettles were used in open hearth ovens, and both were covered in black soot from the fire.

It is used to describe hypocrisy.

I was merely pointing out, that while you were perhaps correct, that on this particular vine, the Conservatives, may be a bit more disparaging of their liberal counter parts, the same is not true on other vines. Some are down right vitriol, mean spirited, and personal.

And I am sure I can find dozens more if I deigned it important enough to, but I don't. Suffice it to say both sides, myself included, are guilty.

ngiotta

I love the argument "you don't need an assault rifle for self defense". That's laughable. First, you do know that an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle, right? Second, who are you to tell us what we need? How is defending your house with an AR-15 any different than defending your house with a handgun or shotgun? How is target shooting with an AR-15 different than with a handgun or other non-black rifle? Your argument is laughable and classifies firearms on appearance, rather than function. My son's .22 rifle is black, has a pistol grip, detachable magazine and an adjustable stock. Yep, guess that's an assault rifle too. This is getting ridiculous...

#1.82

Why do I need an “Assault Style Rifle”?

Can you tell me when the end of civilization will be? When the solar flare will strike? Youtube "Doomsday Preppers" I am not that paranoid. My guns are for putting deer meat in the freezer, and stress relief. (while you on Youtube, "Exploding Pumpkins") But seriously, do you know when the NEXT meteor is going to hit? While never a Boy Scout I believe their motto, “Always be prepared”. I am not going to wait for FEMA to show up. (They have such a wonderful track record)

The AR platform is a wonderful hunting rifle system. I have one AR lower with a .243 Win. SSM upper for prairie dog(heavy barrel bench gun)and was trying to get 3 more AR uppers; 6.8mm for deer, .50 Beowolf for wild hogs and .223 for coyotes and just plinking(or for the end of civilization and killing "Zombies"). One firearm, 4 useful guns. It was cheaper to go this route until the liberals got their panties in a bunch.

If nobody needs an AR-15 for personal defense, then why pre-tell, did the Department of Homeland Security request 7,000 AR-15 PDW just last week?

By the way, PDW is a term they coined "Personal Defense Weapon." So which is it, Feds? Is the AR-15 an assault weapon (no) or is it a personal defense weapon? I believe DHS answered that for us last week.

I'm suddenly starting to like the NRA's add about government security...apparently the AR-15 is good enough for them, but not good enough for us - the hypocrisy is astounding.

"New gun controls likely won't end shootings"

Duh, inanimate objects don't kill people the military industrial complex, sick people and corrupt politicians do!

Farmboy I sleep with a 40cal and as for a guy with a knife or a gun hebe dead.

e

rgsdca1965

Farmboy I sleep with a 40cal and as for a guy with a knife or a gun hebe dead.

e

#1.88

"but they are all locked up in a thick safe 24/7." Then they ALL ain't locked up safe are they. ;-)

No, I have come across others who would have us "lock 'em up", "secure them" or other wise render them useless as home defense, and I was merely pointing out that while it may help a little, there are holes in the plan. And I would not subject myself or my loved ones to such holes.

But I whole heartedly agree on gun safes, to keep guns safe from fire, or out of the hands of errant children. I grew up with guns, and learned early on their dangers and the need to respect them. I just recommend them to those who can afford them, I would not ask that they be a requirement.

And REMEMBER, secure your safe to the house. A couple guys broke into my brothers house and tried to steal the whole safe. They got it out into the yard, but evidently couldn't get it loaded or were scared off. Not sure how they intended to get it open, it has 12 pins holding the door, and to cut it open, would destroy anything inside. Oh well, drug addled idiots do stupid things.

Nothing we're going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to 1,000 a year from what it is now

Perhaps we should test out the administration's new ideas on gun laws in Mr Obama's hometown of Chicago to see if they make any difference.

I'm a packin..you're a packin..everybody knows we're a packin. Its pow pow..whoo hoo..everybody knows..it all comes down to the fastest draw we know. You were a packin..I'm still a packin..gave you flowers on ya coffin..but I'll stay a packin of course..its the only life we gotta know!

Get All-state life insurance...you're in good gangs with All-state insurance.

Feisty:

You are a babbling idiot. You just reveal the depth of your stupidity with every comment you post.

Apathy and doing either the wrong thing, or a useless thing all have the same value, i.e., nothing. Doing something that achieves nothing, saves no one.

It's just an expensive and pointless knee-jerk reaction that in the long term, is nothing more then a nuisance for good folk applying for a gun permit.

Why don't you try focusing your limited intelligence on the details of the Newtown shooting and see if you can determine what actually caused the shooting, and then propose a remedy, OK big mouth?

Lukas Hope

Maybe instead of making a Law to ban weapons Congress should focus on a Law to ban all Ammo.

Better check the recent decisions by the SCOTUS. Your ass hole government can't ban ammo, Ace, or any other equipment 'normally' used by legal gun owners, which means magazines normally used in all firearms at this point. Your "shoot from the hip" gun-grabbing politicians will enjoy a very long legal battle after all is said and done. Ass Hole Cuomo is intent on spending his state's money on litigating too. Well what the Hell? He's a God damn lawyer I guess. I'd trust a Used Care Salesman before I'd trust that ass hole with my rights. He never mentioned a person's or a family's right to protect themselves. All he could spew was crap about "sportsmen" and "target shooters." Never ONE God damn mention of a person's right to defend their family or protect themselves as an individual. HE is just the kind of self promoting Glory Grabbing Politician everyone needs to look out for.

Multiple choice:

Choose the correct statement:

A: Atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

B: The NRA is aligned exclusively with 4,000,000 American sportsmen and is in no way beholden to US arms manufacturers.

C: Neither is true.

D: A & B are both true.

Atomic bombs don't kill people, people kill people.

Please go here and educate yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

Then please feel free to post something intelligent.

rradiko #1.30 - http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

DON'T YOU SEE SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOUR POST.

In, 2012, motherjones was going to close, the Democratic National Committee gave them $50,000 to stay open.

You want to discuss Japan like an adult:

1. How about starting with the fact that Japan is a series of Islands, you commit a crime, were are you going to run to. That is a PRIMARY Deterrent against Crime, same with the Island Nation of England and the Islands of the US State of Hawai'i.

2. The Japanese Yakuza control all Organized Crime at Japan, you do any Criminal Actitivty Organized or Not without their permission YOU and anyone you are associated with (your Family, Relatives, Friends, etc.) end up "Missing".

3. The Introspectiveness of Japanese Culture, being so crowded the only Private time many have is looking inward at themselves.

4. There is also the Buddhist Religion as people that would rather pour gasoline on themselves and light themselves on fire in Protest before doing others any harm.

5. After the horrors of the Aftermath of World War II as Devistation of a Extinction Level, two Nuclear Bombs; and the even worse US use of Incendiary Bombs creating Firestorms that burned Cities to the ground, sucked the oxygen from bombshelters, and following massive starvation.

6. The Surviving Japanese of WWII became Extreme Pacifists, including abandoning their previous Centuries Old Culture, starting with the destruction of Samurai Swords that had been in their Families for Centuries. All weapons of anykind (including knives over a certain length) were made Illegal by the US Military Government of the MacArthur Plan, this only increased the influence of the Japanese Yakuza, the US Failed to understand the Culture of the Samurai; as fact they were the local Police, instituting Laws and Enforcing the Laws to protect the people (part of their Rule of Bushido) and not the Literal Western Definition of "Way of the Warrior", but, as the Soul of Japan; just like Sushi is NOT raw fish, and Sashimi is raw fish (American Collegiate Dictionary stating Sushi is raw fish). An example of the Extreme Japanese Pacifism was sending unarmed Japanese Defense Force Engineers to the United Nations Mission Iraq (Operation Iraqis Freedom).

7. The Japanese Culture of Respect, including sometimes Respecting others (even complete strangers) before themselves, this can be seen when the Japanese wear surgical masks when they have colds as not to give others their colds.

8. There is also the self imposed Personal Responsibility. This is why many Japanese commit suicide after failing a school placement test, as to not disgrace their Family, their Family name or be a burden to their loved ones.

You want to learn the Basics about Japan, Japanese, go watch NHK. http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/

Read their literature or watch their movies, these tell you alot about the Japanese thought processes and culture both previously and current as the young Japanese have forgotten their past and many adopted Western Culture.

The Western Culture as stated by Vice President Biden: Biden Blames Violence on 'Coarsening of Our Culture'

“This isn’t just about guns,” Biden said on Thursday at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. “It’s about the coarsing of our culture.

“Yes, that’s what I said, the coarsening of our culture, whether it’s with video games or movies or behavior,” Biden said.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/biden-blames-violence-coarsening-our-culture

This Western Culture being ostracized at Japan by the older Japanese (still extreme pacifists). Many of the current (young) relearning the previous Japanese Culture even learning how to use hashi, as many Japanese never learned how to use "chop sticks", only learned forks and knives or eating with their hands (fast food); the older Japanese used to use the lack of the young Japanese being able to use hashi as a put down joke to mock the young Japanese.

Do you want to discuss as an adult the rest of the Propaganda from motherjones.com that you posted.

Roberto-2597350,

This is Newsvine's "Get Smarter Here".

Your argument is nothing less than a BIG Steaming Hot Load of BULLSH!T.

Relook your argument pertaining to Atomic Bombs.

Your extremist illogical non factual emotive opinionated argument does not work for anyone with cognitive skills.

IXLR8

"If the ban keeps one law abiding citizen from protecting themselves then the blood is on your hands......."

What a riveting point!!... Do tell us just how the proposed ban keeps a law abiding citizen from protecting themselves... We're just giddy in anticipation of the scenario!!...

Looks like all you have to do to start a scared little sissy convention is collect dues from them while assailing their effeminacy with frightening lies and distortions...

No one this easily swayed and controlled due to the weakness of their own minds should be around any weapon other than their own open hands for a good slap-fight with hair-pulling.

Interesting, I have looked up all the articles on NBC news in the past few days, and its Guns this, Guns that. Where are the reporter inquiries and research into the real issues that are affecting millions more of Americans than Guns?

Such as, the fact that Jobless Claims are rising, and the Economy is shrinking in the United States. Also the budget is still not balanced, and we are still giving millions of sacred taxpayers dollars, and taxpayer funded weapons of war to Muslim Brotherhood countries like Egypt.

Is this the FORWARD you voted for? Distract Americans with petty 2nd Amendment constitutionally protected Americans citizens rights, while their country goes to heck in a hand basket around them?

All the while the GOP is suspending the debt ceiling and working on balancing the budget, and passing 50 billion dollar aid for areas affected by Sandy. Is that 50 billion dollars of taxpayer money going to the help the people that are struggling through the winter?

I did read an article on MSN money as how to get more Social Security Benefits. Wow, and FORWARD we go......

And now, an interesting combination of both: gerrymandering for more Republican districts, then splitting the vote by district. So now we can see more repeats of the election of 2000.

Republicans nowadays feel the mantra of "government is evil" so strongly, they have set out to prove it by governing like piles of @!$%#. All they do all day is sit around and stink up the place.

If you have to have a background check to buy a gun then you should have to have a background check to vote.

Thinking long; that would not be acceptable to libs, then the dead and the illegal border crossers could not vote for them!!!!!!

If I have to go through a background check then everyone should, if you do not want to go through one then do not ask me to!!!!! If we just do them once a year then everyone will be cleared, why not it will make it easier for the government to track our every move!!!!!!!!!!!

That is total BS. As a private citizen, I can sell a gun to anyone I please. How would I do a background check? Sorry, you can't just call up the ATF and request it. Plus, the info required is protected under the privacy act, etc. etc. Problem, yes. Solution, make sure you know who you are selling to. Personally, I will never sell my guns, give them away, or otherwise. Sorry, I am already controlled enough by the current laws. ATF and State police checks to purchase. Find a way to make it easy to do and not cost a dime, and you may have an idea. If the check is to keep people safe, then it should be free. What happens when the nut job is standing in your house, the check comes back negative, and he grabs your gun. Sure, you have all of his identifying info, but you just got shot and he burns the info on the way out. Just please give up. This will not work anymore than more laws wasting our taxes.

seeking you are so funny, NOT, you and all of you ignorant libs have proved you are not the smartest in the group, you cannot even do simple research to see that you are being made fools of!!!!!!

I know plenty of ignorant people on both sides but I also know that if you did some real research you would see that five of the most recent mass shootings have been done by Democratic supporters not right wingers!!!!!!! That includes most shootings since most shooters are those on welfare and living in the ghettos!!!!!!!! and they back the democratic party!!!

99% of law abiding gun owners do not commit crimes with their guns so why punish them, go after the criminals and that will stop the majority of gun violence and gun related deaths!!!

I would be willing to bet you and most of your lib buddies could not pass a background check let alone get a Secret security Clearance!!!!!! So you just keep on lying and believing what your handlers tell you and I will believe the truth not made up lies!!!!!!!

I like how all of you libs start calling people names and become hateful bigots when the truth comes out, typical lib call names and try and push your agenda any way possible even lie, make fake numbers up and anything else imaginable!!!!!

gunner-3867236

That is total BS. As a private citizen, I can sell a gun to anyone I please. How would I do a background check?

I hope you realize that guns passing from the hands of private citizens to criminals is a major reason why criminals have guns. Let's let the legislators decide how the background checks will take place before you criticize the plans.

Oh BULL Crap, fool

Actually, if we can move forward from the name calling etc., garrie got me interested in fine tuning my grasp of the statistics and, while it's true that the NRA has successfully bought off or closed down most gun violence research for the past 40 years, there's some stuff out there. There are stats to back my original statement and I'll take back my apology.

Violent crime rates have been falling in recent years, but the number of people killed by firearms in the United States remains high. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.

A study in the Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery found that the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Among the world’s 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids

I have to thank garrie for getting me started. These are certainly numbers to be proud of. Oh, and about garrie's little thing with the exclamation point.... seems like his finger gets stuck on the trigger...oh I mean key.

You can find and cherry-pick all kinds of statistics, MTNLady. (Of the five wealthiest countries who speak English as a secondary language . . .)

Look at government statistics. Take out the suicides if you want a fair analysis, or don't. (Japan has no private ownership of firearms, but the highest suicide rate in the world.)

Now go a little further and look at VIOLENT CRIME RATES for the countries. You'll notice that there is a correlation between gun ownership and lower viollemt crime rates. Is it more important to you to reduce gun deaths even if roberries, violent assaults and rapes increase?

You can find government statistics through the FBI/DOJ and UN/European Committe websiotes.

You progressives tend to trust the government, why not use their numbers? If you are intellectually honest?

Ya think maybe the 87% of those "kids" were gang banging criminals?

don97524

I hope you realize that guns passing from the hands of private citizens to criminals is a major reason why criminals have guns. Let's let the legislators decide how the background checks will take place before you criticize the plans.

Let me guess, we're supposed to wait for them to pass a bill so that we can see what's in it. Because I've heard a lot of talk about background checks but no one has yet to make any effort to explain just exactly how that is going to work.

Harbinger - I don't have a problem with background checks. We do those already. What I have a problem with is this: Everyday, convicted felons fill out background checks with false information in hopes they can slip between the cracks and get a firearm. Usually they don't succeed. By falsifying the background check form they have committed yet another felony. Yet the BATF nor the FBI ever attempt to arrest these douchebags, let alone actually prosecute them for committing this felony even though the gun dealer has all the evidence necessary to convict them. We have all these laws in place now, but nobody wants to take the time and trouble to enforce them. Criminals don't obey laws. They are like disobedient children that know their parents aren't going to make them mind. It's worth the risk. The system is broken. The only people that are going to obey any new gun laws are the people that are obeying them already. The bad guys don't care what new laws they pass. They weren't abiding by them in the first place. That's how they got to be known as "bad guys" in the first place.

As a "private citizen" gunner, you could "try" to sell a gun to anyone you please, and be breaking about 10 Federal Laws. But you don't seem like the type who lets that bother them much. I am a gun owner also, and I firmly believe that SOMETHING needs to be done, to keep guns out of the hands, of ANYONE, whether felon or mentally unstable or whatever, to prevent something like Sandy Hook from EVER HAPPENING AGAIN!!!!!!!

We already have background checks. We just don't want a registry. I don't know about other states but at our gun shows in Texas they do background checks. My opinion on personal sales, let's do background checks. Citizen A wants to buy a gun from private citizen B, then go to a local FFL dealer (they are everywhere) pay him $20 to run a background check and if it is approved then sell the gun to citizen A. They have to show their drivers license to do a background check and if they are a felon then they don't pass. If pass and let someone else have the gun then it is illegal. Maybe not perfect plan but a lot better than nothing. Plus if the gun is used in a crime and they look up the serial number and track it to you then you have proof that it was sold and to whom. As far as stopping the gang bangers. Make the laws tougher for them not your average law abiding citizen. Use a gun in any crime, mandatory 10 years sentence. Kill someone with a gun, mandatory life sentence without a chance of parole or the death penalty depending on what state you are in. Here in Texas it would be the death penalty. I would think this would help but of course not always. Just my two cents!!!

blueinut49 What would those 10 federal laws be that you are talking about? It is not illegal for a private citizen to do a private sale according to any federal law. There might be some state laws in certain states but not federal. Before you make such a false claim you might want to investigate what you are saying.

One more reason America has become so complicated - there are two entities, the "good guys" and the "bad guys". EVERY time the good guys create ANOTHER law, the bad guys find a way to circumvent it. Background checks becoming mandatory will form a new enterprise - someone who provides false documents that will clear a check. We already have quite an industry of false driver's licenses, phony Social Security numbers, so forcing a background check will bare the names of the good guys, but not the bad guys. We even have illegals who use someone else's SS#, pay taxes to the IRS, but the IRS turns their heads, and keep the money, because the illegal will never be able to collect. When that illegal becomes legal (thanks to oblabla), what do you think will happen when they get too old to work? Many will not change their SS# - probably won't even think about it. The IRS gets richer (I would LOVE to know where THAT money goes!), the illegal/legal gets poorer, the taxpayers pay more to support them.

The Biden/Feinstein Columbine shooters, the Aurora colorado theatre shooter, the sandy Hook School shooter, the Fort hood shooter all had one thing in common, they were all Democrats and they are taking lives and giving theirs to take our rights. Like a suicide bomber does.

So here it comes again. Everyone who has a gun is paranoid, and there is your mental illness, but it is a Reality Based Anxioty, and there is another mental illness. So who determines who can own a gun, A Democrat psychology Phd.Candidate, like the Aurora Colorado Theatre shooter is.??

All the mass Shooters are Registred Democrats or are children of Liberal Democrats.
The Sandy Hook school shooter did kill his own mother to get her guns.
You Democrats say a lot of terroristic things on these threads.

If you think that 40% of all gun saled do not perform a backround check you were lied to.

the number is more like 4%

The Biden/Feinstein Columbine shooters, the Aurora colorado theatre shooter, the sandy Hook School shooter, the Fort hood shooter all had one thing in common, they were all Democrats and they are taking lives and giving theirs to take our rights. Like a suicide bomber does.

So here it comes again. Everyone who has a gun is paranoid, and there is your mental illness, but it is a Reality Based Anxioty, and there is another mental illness. So who determines who can own a gun, A Democrat psychology Phd.Candidate, like the Aurora Colorado Theatre shooter is.??

All the mass Shooters are Registred Democrats or are children of Liberal Democrats.
The Sandy Hook school shooter did kill his own mother to get her guns.
You Democrats say a lot of terroristic things on these threads.

If you think that 40% of all gun sales do not perform a backround check you were lied to.

The number is more like 4%.

You've got a point " imagoodshot" criminals don't obey laws. The unspoken point is that criminals emerge from the fabric that makes us human. It isn't just confined to the slope browed, sinister looking guy in the picture. We make laws as a form of majority agreement as to how we will live with each other fairly, but fairness lacks opportunity and profit, and the biggest profitable risks are almost always criminal. The proof is in the sentiment for the pro-gun faction that the claim is if the gun control laws are enacted, they dare the government of the people to take them from them. It's a law they will not follow. Our laws have always been decided in courts based on reasonableness. Why presume that these urban shootings are not reasonable? Why won't people defend their right to kill their domestic terrorist enemies who threaten them with death?

I have purchased 6 weapons, handguns, shotguns and rifles in the past few years and have had a background check on every one of the purchases. All you have to do as a private citizen is take the weapon and the person who wants to purchase it and go to a licensed gun dealer, pay the fee for the background check and the dealer can do the transfer paperwork for you. It's not free but that is the way to do it. I don't sell any weapon without the person having a background check. I don't want it to still be registered to me if someone does go on a shooting spree.

Could my $135.00 government issued "T.W.I.C." card be used as a substitute for a back round check.??

This is not about guns.. This is about CONTROL.!

Some of us are worried, psychotically I might add, that any day now, brown shirts will come to get their guns. I'll give each and every NRA member $1 million the day that happens.

Some of us are worried that the Republican Party, at the direction of the Rove's and Koch's of this nation, will destroy the elective process through bribery, misinformation, and gerrymandering.

The former is nonsensical at best, a paranoid delusion at worst. Judging from many of these posts, the 'civil war', the 'insurrection', and the gun battles can't begin soon enough. They could have all of these fantasies fulfilled by joining the military. For whatever reasons, they've chosen not to.

The latter is a reality - a very concerted effort, funded by billions of dollars, by those that want to establish political control of this nation that cannot be challenged by the citizenry at the polls. The problem seems to be that hysteria, from many quarters, is the real threat to this nation. More and more hysteria, as seen in these posts, and less and less reason. We aren't going to solve our problems at the gun show - we're going to solve them at the polls, with intelligent and informed voters.

Our recent elections saw a few dollars from millions of people elect a President, rather than millions of dollars from a few people. Make a note.

however: speed limits DO reduce the NUMBER of fatalities.

laws against drunk driving DO reduce the NUMBER of fatalities.

laws mandating seat belt use DO reduce the NUMBER of fatalities.

laws that make access to firearms capable of MASS KILLINGS out of the hands of the general public WILL reduce the NUMBER of fatalities at each of these now inevitable incidents.

we prohibit dynamite, grenades, bazookas, 50 caliber machine guns, stinger missiles, plastic explosives, land mines, all because of their lethality. large magazine assault rifles are in the same category. just because they are a firearm doesn't give them an automatic pass.

mpa: "You progressives..."

If an undocumented immigrant attempts to buy a rifle and the instant background check indicates that he cannot, does he get arrested? I am betting that he does not, and if he did they would give him a college scholarship and admittance ahead of some law abiding white male US citizen.

garrie: "I like how all of you libs start calling people names..." Could this be more hypocritical? Is it that difficult to grasp? If so, we have more of a thinking problem in this nation than a gun problem.

Gang-bangers aren't criminals, they're part of the citizens militia that everyone says every other citizen is a member of, archangel54. And I support their 2nd Amendment right to be armed against tyranny and all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Why do some people keep defending those tyranny police officers taking the citizen militias guns away in Chicago, build monuments for the tyranny police after they have been resisted by the citizen militia and call it law and order, yet decry Barack Obama in the same breath and call it fascism?

SDN -

Yep. I differentiate between Dems/liberals and progressives. Many Dems/liberals believe in the 2nd Amendment, and many are, in fact, gun owners. I have yet to meet a self-professed progressive who does either.

mpa: Would be more than curious to hear your definitions of 'liberal' and 'progressive'. Seriously.

mpa-4893349 Actually there is no cherry picking involved. The NRA has managed to buy off or close out almost all studies of gun violence in the US for the last 40 years. There are very few statistics that can be trusted that are left outside of the NRA Handbook. I chose the FBI and a respected journal of medicine in hopes that even diehard gun huggers like you might pay attention. I repeat, READ THE HEADLINES! More dead every single day... every day. Gun murder in the US is a daily terror. How long will this go on before we get a sane response from gun owners? How long before the rights of the majority of Americans who don't own and don't want guns are recognized in this country? Keep your guns if they make you feel better about the world but start being accountable about the culture you have helped create.

Attention all posters, no matter which side of the debate you are on. Feisty Redhead made the first comment on this article and had more than 30 responses to her comment as well as multiple votes of approval. As of yesterday afternoon Feisty's comment along with all the responses had been deleted by Newsvine. Feisty's comment did not violate the so called "code of honor". Newsvine not only allows people who disagree with a comment to "collapse" that comment and all it's responses but they also delete comments along with their responses for unknown reasons. This sounds a lot like censorship to me. Apparently enough people complained that Feisty's comment and responses were restored but I would warn anyone who posts through Newsvine to make sure that your opinion is allowed to be heard. This is not the way to run a blog.

There are other blogs, Lady. Perhaps you can follow Feisty there instead.

Feisty is blithering Marxist. If she is gone for good, then these message boards will be better for it. She brought nothing to the discussion.

Problem is 40% of all gun sales do not require a background check. There are no background checks if you buy your weapon at a gun show, nor are there background checks for private sales. Felons and others ARE taking advantage of this. Remember for EVERY gun that is used to in a crime was first purchased or passed off by a lawful gun owner.

Hey, you know what, if you can pass all the background checks, nobody's trying to take away your right to purchase a gun.

There are no background checks if you buy your weapon at a gun show, nor are there background checks for private sales.

...and polling data says the overwhelming majority of NRA members FAVOR universal background checks. Wayne LaPierre and NRA "leadership" do not.

If you buy a gun from an FFL dealer at a gun show there WILL be a background check and a phone call to the ATF. And other than your ass, where do you people keep pulling the 40% number from?

Joe, Phoenix AZProblem is 40% of all gun sales do not require a background check. There are no background checks if you buy your weapon at a gun show, nor are there background checks for private sales

The 40% myth is from a small survey (251 people) over 20 years ago during the Clinton Administration before the Brady act created the NICS background check system.

All licensed dealers must run a background check when selling a firearm whether at a Gun show or not.

Private sales are not regulated.

Educate yourself.

Do you really think that everyone is going to pay the government to do a background check when they go to sell their firearm to someone????? The answer is NO!!!! There is no way to insure that all guns are sold with a background check unless you make everyone who bought a firearm to check in annually and that will never happen... and how do you suppose we pay for them background checks?

the main reason why most are not done properly now is there are not enough law enforcement personnel to do it!!! I guess we will need to hire a few thousand more FBI agents to do background checks, More feds, more money being spent and all so libs can feel better, because the facts are the real criminals who are responsible for the majority of all shootings are not going to have any background checks to buy their illegal firearms!!!!!!!!!!

This is all about a school shooting, (sorry it happened) by a lunatic!!! The facts are they only account for maybe 5% of the actual shootings that go on, the majority of all shootings are done by gangbangers and they do not buy guns legally!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone who doesn't do a background check should be arrested and prosecuted. That will stop some people who shouldn't own a gun from getting one.

If the only way you can get a gun is to get a background check done, then part of the problem is solved. There will always be guns stolen but that number is miniscule as opposed to individuals who sell guns without any check done.

What about private sellers? How is the seller supposed to do a background check?

So we have the man power to go out and make sure all gun sales have background checks but not enough man power to go after all of the criminals on the streets????? Where is all of this manpower coming from? How do you propose them insuring this? Do they now get to just walk into your house anytime they want to look for guns? I guess that 4th amendment does not matter either, lets get rid of the first while we are at it!!!!!!!

You people need to start thinking!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope everybody realizes that universal background checks are unenforceable without universal registration. Unless there is record of who owns what there is no mechanism to track what has changed hands.

Joe in Phoenix -

Evidently you haven't been to gun shows much.

I went to a gun show this past weekend and purchased a gun. Guess what? I had to have a background check done! I have the paperwork to prove it.

Now, would you like to try another liberal lie?

Joe, You are wrong all sales by vendors at gun shows require a background check. Do a little research before you make stupid comments.

You all really need to educate yourselves on the laws for firearms transfers, in responsible states It is quite easy and possible to do a background check on a private party transfer. It's called going to an ffl and providing the required documentation at which time, the dealer takes care of that background check. There is a small fee and will transfer that firearm out of The sellers name and into the buyers. Specifically, a handgun.

Oh yeah and don't think of telling me I don't know what I'm talking about, I own a gun store in California and you have no idea the paperwork, requirements we jump through to BOTH buy or sell a gun,

Joe, Phoenix AZ

Problem is 40% of all gun sales do not require a background check.

This is a misleading statistic. People who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon have already had a Federal background check. So in most states a gun shop need only check with the state to see if the permit is still valid.

There are no background checks if you buy your weapon at a gun show

Not true. If you buy a gun from a dealer at a gun show, he is required by Federal law to perform the same exact background check that he would perform if he was conducting the sale at his place of business. However, background checks are not required for gun sales between private citizens. The fact that it is taking place at a gun show does not make it any more or less sinister than if you ran an ad in the classifieds to sell your gun in the paper. Same thing, except the newspaper doesn't carry the stigma that the media have plastered the gunshows with, with their BS "gunshow loophole" propaganda.

Joe, you do have to have a background check at gun shows, as far as private sales, Federal law prohibits you selling your firearm to an individual that does not live in the same state you do, so some private sales do not require them. I'm all for requiring private sales to go through background checks, it would be easy to do as many do it today already. Many people that sell guns take them to FFL dealers and sell them on concinement, you can pay them a few bucks and they will do the check for you, it is happening today, just not required in some cases, but any ban will have no impact and is meaningless.

Hey I got an idea...have background checks at the door of gun shows. It will solve two things: No one who buys a gun would be illegally purchasing one and it would sure cut down on the crowd inside the gun show that I have to deal with just to move around.

Okay, here's an observation from someone that has attended nearly every gun show in Jacksonville FL for the last 15 years, and a few in other cities nearby- If there were 300 tables at a show, there MIGHT be 5 private sellers. And each of those sellers MIGHT have about 6 guns for sale, and those are usually really old, priced really high, and/or rather undesirable. They are typically grumpy old dudes that won't like you if your pants are droopy or you are wearing a Fubu shirt, get it? I really don't see them as the illegal gun traffic kingpins they are being portrayed as. How many mass shootings have been carried out by someone with an engraved nickel-plated Colt Single Action Army?? (For you haters, that's a revolver)

Beat me to it. "My fellow citizens, with your best interests at heart and not my political future I propose to pass many laws and much regulations that will not work but will sound good and feel even better" Joe "I shall return in 2016" Biden. Pffft.

Let's see...Liberals want you have a background check to prove who you are to buy a gun, but they don't want you to prove who are to vote...

The Biden/Feinstein Columbine shooters, the Aurora colorado theatre "Batman" shooter, the sandy Hook School shooter, the Fort hood shooter all had one thing in common, they were all Democrats and they are taking lives and giving theirs to take our rights. Like a suicide bomber does.

So here it comes again. Everyone who has a gun is paranoid, and there is your mental illness, but it is a Reality Based Anxioty, and there is another mental illness. So who determines who can own a gun, A Democrat psychology Phd.Candidate, like the Aurora Colorado Theatre shooter is.??

All the mass Shooters are Registred Democrats or are children of Liberal Democrats.
The Sandy Hook school shooter did kill his own mother to get her guns.
You Democrats say a lot of terroristic things on these threads.

If you think that 40% of all gun sales do not perform a backround check you were lied to.

The number is 4%.

Harry Reid doesn't have to worry about re-election for four more years, but he does want to be Majority Leader till then. All those Dem senators from red states, would be gone after voting in a weapons ban of any sort. Harry knows that and that such a 'fall on the sword' would be useless..the House is NOT passing any bans of any sorts. Harry will talk, even promise BHO the moon, but Harry will do nothing that risks the title 'Majority Leader'.

Very intelligent and reasonable post, FrankH. Thanks for writing it.

There is nothing like repeating something ("assault" rifle ban") that had no effect the first time and expecting different results. Those guys in the middle east seem to do quite well with homemade bombs and manufactured AK-47 rifles against the government as did the people in Vietnam.

Are you really trying to compare the Syrian army with the U.S. military machine?

So you support pistols that commit about %80 of the gun deaths in the country (in

But you oppose assault rifles which cause about %3 of the gun deaths in this country

... sorry but I don't get it.

Anyone who thinks owning the latest version of a military small arms weapon will help overthrow the government will most likely get taken out by a tank, aircraft, mortar, you get the point.

Yeah well tell that to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seem to be having a great deal of success taking out our troops with low tech equipment like homemade bombs and AK-47's. True that they are losing overall, but still, they are causing significant damage. Look at Syria, Libya and Egypt, the people of those countries quite successfully rebelled against their militarily superior leaders.

According to the last census in my area (Clark County NV) there are approx. 2 million people living here. %49 of them are gun owners. That is about 1 million armed citizens in southern NV alone... and we tend to be a liberal leaning county. Imagine what those numbers must be in a place like TX! I don't care how many tanks, aircraft or mortars you have there is a certain overwhelming power in numbers.

Assuming that the entire military was to follow orders and attack US citizens, there are about 1.5 million active duty soldiers in the US and another 1.5 million in reserve. You underestimate the American People if you think that a force of a mere 3 million people... even in tanks and airplanes... would have any significant chance of holding back a significantly large, nation wide, uprising.

I don't think such a scenario is likely... but I think that the argument that a rebellion wouldn't work because the military has access to better technology is... wrong.

Right you're a gun owner and enthusiast like Barry Soetoro is a skeet shooter.

And you forgot the other common denominator in all of the shootings they were plum LOCO!

I could care less whether you or any one else sees a purpose for them, I enjoy target shooting with them, I kill coyotes with them and I enjoy hunting with my 7.62x51 AR model with a 5 round mag... They are lighter and are very accurate to shoot with.... I use it for both Elk and Deer and it is totally legal to hunt with them so quit with the ignorance of they cannot be used for hunting many people use them for hunting!!!!

IF we felt that so-called "assault weapons" would be the end......

IF we felt that limiting magazine capacity would be the end......

IF we felt that better background checks would be the end......

Then we MIGHT feel differently...... except Washington has NEVER shown they honor their limitations

Whether it is Constitutional limits, legal limits, or moral limits..... DC CANNOT be trusted....

And THAT is why I need weapons, magazines & ammunition to protect against all enemies both foreign AND domestic.........

And THAT is why I need weapons, magazines & ammunition to protect against all enemies both foreign AND domestic.........

That's your problem, pal.

The fact of the matter is that there just aren't enough drones or tanks for people hiding behind every corner. Our and the former Soviet Unions experience more than proves that out. No amount of technology or might can defeat a determined enemy. Even Vietnam proves this too.

I don't care how powerful you think the government is, it isn't all powerfull, nor can it sustain itself against relentless opposition, even the biggest have been defeated or neutralized by organized guerrilla forces.

Frank... I agree that some reasonable measures should and could easily be taken. That said, on your charge that the Newtown shooter used an AR-15, how do you explain the FACT that there is video of an LEO removing the AR from Adam Lanzas trunk? Kind of hard to shoot it from there isn't it? Especially while shooting oneself in the head with one of the 4 handguns that were found inside the school with the above mentioned offender.

FrankH-1860605

I do not need a 30 round magazine for my sport shooting and it's really hard to sleep with an AR-15 under my pillow, I much prefer my 380 derringer.

Ah yes, the classic "as long as it doesn't affect me" argument. How generous of you to decide to give up a few of the rights that you don't use anyway.

FRANKH====== You left out the other 2 things the Tucson and Newton shootings had in common----- both were committed by crazy people. Crazy people , likely to commit such acts should be incarcerated. If these two had been , the mass murders would never have happened.

So it's ok to keep what you like and you'd agree to getting rid of what I like? What a hypocrite. I happen to use my AR for hunting. I also happen to hunt in southern Arizona. There is no magazine restriction here. No, I don't need 30 rounds to hunt a 4 legged Coyote. Unfortunately, as history has shown, there are the 2 legged variety in that area and 30 rounds may not be enough. Did you know that from the border 60 miles into Arizona Americans are warned not to go into that area due to drug movement? IT"S AMERICA and we can't go there. You keep what you want and I'll keep what I want ok?

What they all had in common was mental illness

Really Frank, 3 rounds is all you need to protect yourself? Try telling that to the young mother in Georgia who recently shot a home invader. She had a 6 shot revolver. She missed once and shot him in the face 5 times. He walked away to his car and was soon pulled over by the police. Lucky for her and her kids he didn't know she was out of bullets.

How about a lot of police shootings where multiple cops are shooting at a single gunman and they end up shooting 30, 40, 50 or more times to bring him down. Like that shooting in NY where 9 bystanders got hit and the police shot more than 20 times to stop the gunman.

Try telling that to a Viet Nam veteran where 50,000 rounds were fired per every enemy that was killed or in WW2 where it was around 8000 for every enemy killed.

You're pretty good if you only need 3 rounds to stop any threat. Would that be for one assailant or two or three? What if there were four? Would you ricochet a round off of one bad guy and take two out with one bullet?

The Biden/Feinstein Columbine shooters, the Aurora colorado theatre"batman"shooter, the sandy Hook School shooter, the Fort hood shooter all had one thing in common, they were all Democrats and they are taking lives and giving theirs to take our rights. Like a suicide bomber does.

So here it comes again. Everyone who has a gun is paranoid, and there is your mental illness, but it is a Reality Based Anxioty, and there is another mental illness. So who determines who can own a gun, A Democrat Psychology Phd.Candidate,like the Aurora Colorado Theatre"batman"shooter is.??

All the mass Shooters are Registred Democrats or are children of Liberal Democrats.
The Sandy Hook school shooter did kill his own mother to get her guns.
You Democrats say a lot of terroristic things on these threads.

If you think that 40% of all gun sales do not perform a backround check you were lied to.

The number is 4%.

Wish people would understand this is not about you shooting rabbit for stew , or pop cans while you get drunk with your friends , its about protection , and not just from gang members and peoples stupid teenagers , its about protection from our Government , our Army and our Police , so we can rise up and fight if need be , to keep us from being slave to tyranny again .... Do any of you remember a thing called the Revolution ? Do you know why we fought it ? We have rights to these weapons so we can be on equal footing against a well armed Government or hostile police force , or a invading enemy , or Aliens ..

Id be more willing to ban guns so people couldnt kill animals than the bs reasons they have now !

First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists

and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me -

and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.

The German anti-Nazi activist,

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Change Jew to "assault rifle".

Change communists to sniper rifle

Change unionist to hunter.

Get the Idea now.

I've posted this before on other columns, but...BHO like or hate him, IS NOT A COMPLETE IDIOT. Burning down the store is not his or any other American politicians idea of a good week. He wants that presidential pension & perks. With the way he's been screwing with the military lately, you think he goes to bed thinking 'yeah, the Marines love me'. Again, NOT AN IDIOT.

Besides, more scary to the cops & military than the citizenry with hi-powered rifles, is all those cellphones posting their pics on the 'traitor against the people' websites. Imagine spending every day of the rest of your life, waiting for the kids of the citizens you murdered to grow-up, find you, and kill you painfully in revenge. Yeah, I can really see American troops and cops backing up BHO with that sort of reward awaiting them.

Not believable, read a book about AFTER the last Civil War.

FrankH says "assault weapons are really not hard to define".

Diane Feinstein's bill (you have to go to her web site to read it, the site for Congress doesn't have it up yet) has more than 100 pages of brand names that are either explicitly banned or explicitly not banned. If you need a 100 page list by brand name to define what is banned then it's a lot harder to define than you seem to think.

Does this mean that I can take my pistol down to the 'hood', and sell it, legally, out my car window to anyone that comes along?

Frank: Brilliant. Reasonable. Responsible. Civil.

Any and all of these qualities are wasted on those that love their 'inanimate' (guns don't jump into people's hands) metal objects. They've either never possessed these admirable qualities, or gave them up to fear, false bravado and sense of security.

phil:

Before you initiate your insurrection, consider the facts that;

The Mujahideen in Afghanistan was the recipient of $40 billion in cash and weapons from Saudi Arabia, and, you guessed it....the US, to support their fight against the Soviets. When the Soviets left Afghanistan, they left billions of dollars of state-of-the-art weaponry behind. A far cry from Kalashnikoff's and Molotoff cocktails. They are, and have been, fighting on their own, very familiar turf, against troops from half a world away.

The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were supported logistically and militarily by China. Nothing resembling a ragtag band of neighborhood Black Ops wannabe's. The same 'local turf' advantage applies here as well.

Where do you think the Syrians acquired RPG's, heavy machine guns, anti-tank weapons, mortars etc? Not your local gun show. Ask Iran.

You guys are in a state of full-blown paranoid hysteria. You are the threat to this nations security and democracy. Your kind is just another of a long list of men that never grow up - the KKK, skinheads, Aryan Nations. Your fantasy that the US, indeed North America was ever Northern European 'white' is absurd. The Western Hemisphere was discovered by the Spanish and the Portuguese.

If you ever actually pull together the courage to mount an insurrection, you can count on the above noted sources for weapons - they would be more than eager to support your, and their, cause. Own it.

@ SDN

May as well add the ACLU to that list of threats to America's security, Mr. Genius

jay: Like I said.... Seems I've struck that nerve again - like fish in a barrel.

A compelling one-liner? Hardly.

And how would you be able to recognize 'genius' if you saw it?

Excellent SDN and Frank. The vote instead of armed insurrection will keep us a government of the people,which we still have, and the point that Libya insurrectionist as well as several of the others got material help from U.S. arms. I worry every time we do that, that we haven't again succumbed to the "Castro Syndrome.' Supporting bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians was probably the biggest mistake since Castro, maybe even bigger. Saddam Hussein was also on our support list to harass Iran. I hope we don't see something like it again in Libya or Egypt.

Mr. Lee: Thank you.

What scenario will unfold if a national referendum passes that bans 'pseudo-assault' weapons? I fully realize what a large 'if' that is. Personally, I'd trade my weapon for the right to vote in a New York minute, if it came to that.

Some of us fail to realize that the exercise of free elections controls everything with respect to what goes on here in the US. The government doesn't have control of the voters - the voters have control of the government. That fact seems to have been lost in the hate and rage over one of the 27 Amendments to the Constitution. If we elect someone that doesn't serve their constituency well, they can be recalled. Simple. Toss the losers. Some of us prefer civil war. Most of us have more maturity and better sense.

Or, perhaps we should just let the pseudo 'black ops' element have whatever weapons they want. In time, their all-consuming rage and paranoia will wane, and we'll all be a lot safer. Or, alternatively, we'll become a nation of cities like Mogadishu, Juarez, Medellin, Peshawar. Cities where everyone is armed, and the living conditions and personal safety are.....what?

This is a nation of laws, not of weapons - yes, even if your personal choice of hero's are Seagal, Swartzeneggar and Stallone.

roodles: 5 head shots from close range and he drove away? Credibility is easy - fantasy, conjecture and nonsense don't qualify.

SDN-

You guys are in a state of full-blown paranoid hysteria.

We are debating our rights with closed-minded people like you on the internet. Paranoid people (I assume) would not post their thoughts (fears?) on such a medium. I go to work every day, interact with strangers, government employees, military, and possibly criminals (I have no way of knowing). Why am I not hiding away in my prepper bunker (I don't have one), eating MRE's (okay, I have a few), aiming my AR at the door?

Or, perhaps we should just let the pseudo 'black ops' element have whatever weapons they want.

I have stated this many times on many threads- we are not asking for MORE, your side is asking for LESS.

The problem is the ready access to guns that allows for impulse killing of large groups of people.

Quit deflecting the problem.

newday,

So it is all the guns fault and no fault goes to the person that pulls the trigger, I see. Ok, I will accept that when the news media reports on a case of a gun climbing out of the gun case and going and shooting a bunch of people with no help from a wacko person or what ever you want to call them.

I really think it is the people who actually pull the trigger, therefore, I blame the people.

Now, I also believe we should do all we can to keep guns out of the hands of those "wacko people"

And I will accept your premise when someone can point their finger, say "bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

And a WHOLE bunch of people fall down dead.

The problem here is mental illness and improper upbringing. If we actually put money and effort towards helping people with mental illness instead of just shoving pills down there throats and throwing them in a corner. In areas with heavy gang influence, we need to do more in those communities to try to help kids from gangs and getting parents involved with there kids.

These are the root of the problems, not guns.

Yeah and I'll accept your line of thinking when a gun jumps up off the table by itself and starts shooting.

None of those that Fienstein used for a backdrop did that did they?

newday, there is no sense trying to have a conversation with someone that just hates guns and has no interest in any solutions that make sense. If you are just so against guns, and it looks like that is the case, I can accept that. Have a good day.

What that means is you can't answer the premise I present. I don't hate guns, I live in the middle of hunt country.

But quit deflecting the problem.

The problem is guns.

Do reflect on that, and have a nice day yourself.

Gun violence could be greatly reduced by three simple actions without limiting the rights of the law abiding under our Constitution:

1. A large % of homicides are committed by criminals on parole or probation. This is exemplified by the recent case in New York where a man set his home on fire in order to lure firefighters out so he could murder them with his guns. This man was a convicted murderer out on parole. He had murdered his grandmother with a hammer and was paroled after only serving 17 years. If individuals such as this were to required to serve their entire sentences the murder rate would fall significantly.

2. Mass killers are usually all psychotic and their condition has been know to many for weeks, months or years before they murder. The trend since the 1970s to release these people from treatment or not to force them into it must be reversed. In short the power of the state to identify and detain the dangerously psychotic should be restored and used. This action alone would have prevented the Tucson and Newton mass murders.

3. All who use guns in criminal endeavors such as assaults , robberies , domestic disputes should be subject to mandatory prison sentences of 25 years with the entire time to be served before release. This would drastically reduce the use of guns in crimes committed by these groups.

we should also prosicute all members of said households with felons and guns in them who dont report this to athorities, most cases have people in house who are aware of the weapons and aware their babies daddy just got out tha pen !

We should also proscute the family members of the mentally ill who keep their demons under wraps , and perhaps the Doctors who diagnose them and let them walk out of their offices , mothers and fathers of gang members caught with guns , or ones that have killed should be held to the same fate as their demon seed , parents should be held accountable for the crap they raise and release on society , violent criminals should not be realsed early , and stiffer penalties attached to them .. Government help / assistance should hinge on such facts as well , your kid gets arrested for gang violence , affiliation , or caught with a gun , no more free ride ...I gurantee you remove the spoons from peoples mouth they will watch their children better , you leave a gun out for your child to play with , you should be the one on trial !

They don’t stand any real chance of coming out on top in a battle against our military

This is disturbing that you can even see our Government having reason to send our Military against the Citizens of this Country.

Maybe it's talk like this that has those people thinking that way.

Joe: more lib lies... You do not like guns, you are an anti gun lib and you have proved it on many other posts, it is the new lib tactic, claim to be a gun owner that wants more gun laws inacted.... Change your name for the polls and now all of a sudden the lib polls say more gun owners want gun laws and those pesky scary so called assault weapons banned!!!!!

Your numbers are also all made up, There were never 50,000 gun related deaths in America not even close to the numbers you claim.... You might want to read the FBI stats not the anti gun UN stats then you will get the truth not lies!!!!!!!!!! It is funny that you would use the UN instead of the FBI to tell your lies... It is also a fact that over the past 9 years gun related deaths have gone down by more than 50% even though gun ownership has increased by more than 100%!!!!!!!!

The truth always gets in the way of those lib lies don't they!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Garrie - sorry but you don't know me. Why is it that when someone (like myself) expresses a different point of view think they are lying. Not that you care and not that you will believe me but... I grew up in a small town in Missouri farming community about 45 minutes north of Springfield MO. My father and I used to go deer and turkey all the time. I got my frist gun a .22 rifle at the age of 12, followed by a 12 gage shot gun, then several deer hunting rifles. I have since move to Phoenix so I no longer hunt but I still own a few weapons. I do find it funny however, how so many people (like yourself) think that when someone like myself sees the advantage to strickter background checks and tighter control of weapons you instantly think we are "anti-second ammendment", a "lier", a "fraud", or what other words you chose to toss out. Believe what you want. I don't care. You should note however, that I did state how I was rather ambivalent about the assualt weapons band and the reasons why I do NOT view them as all time scary weapon of all times. But what ever dude. Think what you want.

Thinking long term - "This is disturbing that you can even see our Government having reason to send our Military against the Citizens of this Country. Maybe it's talk like this that has those people thinking that way."

No, that was not what I said - and I think you know that. I personally don't think the millitary will fire on citizens. But apparently many of the "I need my gun to possibly fight the government" / "that is why the founding fathers designed the Second Ammendment for" people do. Why else would same say such things unless they think that this is a possiblity?

Well Joe you was on another site about gun laws and you were all anti gun and let it be known you had no use for guns that is why I said what I said.

I find it amazing that you think that anyone should decide what law abiding citizens should have, when no one wants to go after those who commit the majority of all gun deaths in America, the criminals!!!!!!!!!

Do you think they are going to do background checks?

I do not agree with any more laws until the ones we currently have are enforced, no more new laws will fix anything if they are not enforced either so why bother!!!!!!

I am sorry but the gun deaths have been going down but if you watched the news the lib agenda is making it sound like it is going up, the only place gun deaths are really out of control are the cities where they have the strictest gun laws!!!!!

According to the FBI the gun related deaths have decreased by 50% while gun ownership has increased by 100%, that goes against the anti gun thing!!!!!

One last thing, the 2nd ammendment is not just about hunting, it is about self defense and defending the nation..... It gives the rights to the people not the government!!!!!!

garrie - I stated "Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths." From my UN stats. The FBI stats for the same year are (directly from the FBI website):

Of the 12,996 murder victims in 2010 for which supplemental data were received, most (77.4 percent) were male.

Of the homicides for which the FBI received weapons data, most (67.5 percent) involved the use of firearms. Handguns comprised 68.5 percent of the firearms used in murders and nonnegligent manslaughters in 2010.

67.5% of 12,996 of the homicides FOR WHICH THE FBI RECIEVED WEAPONS DATA = 84474.4

My number 11,078 - their number 84474.4 = a difference of 2,630.6 Remember "for which the FBI recieved weapons data". So some stats are admittedly missing from thier figures.

For more info click on the "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8" Here is the link for that if you need it.

What you will also find is that homicides have only decreased by about 14% from 2006 - 2010. Not the 50% as you claim. So who is lying now?

Sory my links did not go through. Here they are again.

Okay....so my links are not going through. Go to the FBI website click on "Crime Statistics" in the top navigation bar. Then click on "2010" in the body text. Then click on "Homicides" under "Offenses Known To Law Enforcement". The first bullet under "Overview" will give you my figures. A little further down click on "Expanded Homicide Data Table 8" in the body text to get to the other figures I presented.

Joe lets look at the actual FBI numbers

Summary:

• Murders total – 13636
• Murders with handguns – 6452 (47.32%)
• Murders with rifles – 348 (2.55%)
• Murders with shotguns – 418 (3.07%)
• Murders with unknown firearms – 1928 (14.14%)
• Murder with knives or cutting instruments – 1825 (13.38%)
• Murders with other weapons – 1864 (13.67%)
• Murders with hands, fists, feet etc.. – 801 (5.87%)

Summary of the 2009 crime statistics – HERE

List of Murders by state and types of weapon used – HERE

Notice how there is not a so called assault weapons number? Because it is combined with all rifles it is so low!!!

I will also find where the FBI stats show that the gun related deaths have gone down by 50% over the past ten years also, just give me a minute!!!!

Here are the stats from the government from 2000-2009 if anyone is interested:

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0310.pdf

Of the 30,470 firearm-related deaths in the United States in 2010, 19,392 (63.6%) were suicide deaths, and 11,078 (36.4%) homicide deaths.

According to the FBI 665 of those homicides were justifiable. (i.e. Self Defense), just FYI.

This is a nifty web site: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain

Also, who cares about suicide deaths in the overall gun control debate. People kill themselves with guns because it is easy and readily available but are you suggesting that, absent a gun, a person who wants to kill themselves isn't going to just find another way? (Pills, strait razor\knife, hanging, jumping off a bridge, walking in front of a bus... the list is almost endless)

I would like to see gun safety training classes for all permits. This may help reduce ‘gun accidents’. I would also like to see permit renewals were you have to have a current permit to sell or buy a gun – even for private sales – we have to give notice to the DMV when we sell our car don’t we. This may help keep reduce gun trafficking and will definitely establish a data base of gun serial numbers which can be used in tracing a gun used at a crime.

That's not a bad idea, I think a little education goes a long way. I am all for people being allowed to own an assault rifle, but I think if you want to own a military weapon, you should have to go through a similar training program that the military goes through.

.in a fight with our military you will need more than an AR-15 to offer
up any amount of true resistance.

That is very true, and after said revolt were to get underway I am sure that more than enough military equipment would be spread out on both sides. But I would much rather face a unit of soldiers armed with M16's with a simi-automatic weapon like an AR-15 than a snub nosed .38. True that an M16 is a better gun to have than an AR-15 but... it only takes one shot to kill someone.

They don’t stand any real chance of coming out on top in a battle against our military and the likely hood of them using it in this capacity is almost nil.

Oh I really doubt that... take a lesson from history, the last civil war was the bloodiest conflict in our history. A 2nd one would be just as devistating. And next time it wont be North vs South it will be Red states vs. Blue states. You would be surprised at the impressive arsenal some of these rednecks have accumulated. Fully automatic weapons are not illegal everywhere in the US. I certainly hope I never have the chance to find out which one of us is right.

None of this is going to ‘take your gun away’

I agree. The odds that any significant gun control legislation is going to come out of this congress is negligible... much less the confiscation of guns from the people. Confiscation of all guns from the people would require a constitutional amendment... A Constitutional amendment requires said amendment to pass with two thirds majority in the house and senate. It then needs to be ratified by three fourths of the states... good luck with that!

garrie - Incidentally, just so you will know, the information I gather the first time is from the UNODC website. This is how they state they got the data:

The backbone of the 2011 Global Study on Homicide, UNODC Homicide Statistics is a collection of statistical data on intentional homicide (unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person). The dataset covers 207 countries and territories and provides data on homicide levels, trends and contextual characteristics drawn from a variety of national and international sources relating to homicide.

All existing data sources on intentional homicides, both at national and international level, stem from either criminal justice or public health systems. In the former case, data are generated by law enforcement or criminal justice authorities in the process of recording and investigating a crime event. In the latter, data are produced by health authorities certifying the cause of death of an individual.

Criminal justice data were collected through UNODC regular collections of crime data from Member States, through publicly available data produced by national government sources and from data compiled by other international and regional agencies, including from Interpol, Eurostat, the Organization of American States and UNICEF. Public health data on homicides were mainly derived from databases on deaths by cause disseminated by the World Health Organization (WHO).

See Joe we can use our brains to prove that this anti so called assault weapons ban is a scare tactic from the libs and the lib news agencies!!!! It is amazing what you can find when you do some research now isn't it.... I am still looking for the one I got my other numbers from but it is not as easy to find as it was before, I hate when that happens.

I know that most of the numbers are a little off on some sites and after reading most of them it has to do with the way they are collected, unfortunatley some have an agenda. I just want the truth to be told about firearm related deaths so that everyone quits making it sound worse than it is!!!!!

I am tired of the lib news and their propaganda to scare everyone into believing that so called assault weapons are killing millions, they are not!!! If they get the proposed ban through even my 22 will be outlawed and considered an assault weapon because I put some plastic pieces on it, that is bulcrap!!!!!

After reading some of your posts I see that you are not quite the anti gun lib I thought you were and I apologize for that!

I still do not agree with gun bans though and sorry but I never will, I enjoy my firearms and the only time I have ever taken a life is when my country put me in a war zone and I did my job, so I do not agree with punishing law abiding citizens, if they just went after the criminals they would cut the gun related deaths down a whole bunch!!!!

I honestly believe the reason gun related deaths have over the past ten years come down is more law abiding citizens have them so there is fewer unarmed victims for the criminals!

garrie - I find it amazing how you or anyone thinks it is okay to not have stong background checks for every sale, including private sales. Because with thousands of homicides a yeare is proff positive that we have many many irresponsible gun owners. I am sure you are not one, and I know I am not one. Even though you don't believe me about being a gun owner. So why fight a background check? I think that is the very least we can do to at least try to mitigate such violence. Even it stops ONE murder over 10yrs. It made a very real diffence to that individual. And you never know the life saved may be your own or someone you know. I do not view background checks as even remotely infringing upon second ammendment rights. It is not as if you will be denied a gun if you come up clean - only if you cannot pass the background check.

garrie - "this anti so called assault weapons ban is a scare tactic from the libs and the lib news agencies!!!!" While I agree that the "ban" is a scare tactic by some. I don't don't see it as a Liberal vs Conservative.

garrie - thanks for the appoligy. Truthfully, I don't think we are really that far appart on some things. Yes we view things differently but I think our type of conversation is exactly what this country needs. I believe we both want to see less violence in our society.

garrie - my biggest concern is background checks for all. I would also like to see a ban extended clips. I see no real legitmate reason for anyone to have them - or at the very least you should have to have a permit to have or sell them - that I could agree with.

Garrie,

The FBI does not actively collect gun violence statistics. They are provided on a voluntary basis by individual jurisdictions, which tend to be incomplete.

If you look at the CDC's numbers, however, they are more complete and generally support the numbers that Joe posted in the original note. For example, whereas the FBI reported 8,874 gun homicides for 2011, the CDC reported 11,078.

That's a big difference - 25%.

As for reporting by the media, it is quite apparent that most Americans are unaware of the severity of the gun violence problem in the U.S. On average, every day since the beginning of this century, 85 people in the United States are shot dead with a gun, 25 of them homicides, 8 of them children. 85% of the children in the world who are killed with a gun die in the U.S. Every day for 13 years - that's around 400,000 people. Even though violent crime overall in the U.S. has been in decline, gun violence has remained steady since 2000, as fewer and fewer people own more and more guns. The number of guns in the U.S. has increased but the number of gun owners has declined as 20% of gun owners own 65% of the guns, and the U.S. which has 5% of the world population owns 50% of the worlds guns. Gun violence is a huge problem in our country. Every other industrialized country in the world has stricter gun regulations and gun violence rates that are a small fraction of ours. U.S. gun violence statistics can ONLY be favorably compared with third world countries.

If anything, the media has been under-reporting this problem, and for far too long.

Joe, Phoenix AZ Under the 2nd Amendment you are entitled to bear any arms. No government official can limit the type of weapons you arm yourself with, the Constitution is the highest law of the land and it gives you the right to bear arms. Any attempt to regulate or control your right to bear arms is treason, ignore it and hold the person/s who commit the treason accountable for treason. The very purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that "We the People" have more power than "They the Government". Protect it.

Arg726,

That's not true. DC v Heller, 2008, says so. The government can restrict ownership of firearms and regulate them without violating the 2nd Amendment.

tim-2799493

Not true? You don't know what you are talking about. Look it up. Don't ask me to post my facts like all these other douche bags ask everyone to do. Internet is filled with information.

And for you other anti-gun freaks check this link out its 6 1/2 minutes long about Gun Control in Australia

https://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=fGaDAThOHhA

Arg726,

Under the 2nd Amendment you are entitled to bear any arms.

As I said, this is not true. Here is the relevant portion of D.C. v. Heller that specifically says so.

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”… We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”…

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority opinion, D.C. v. Heller, 2008.

So, yes, I do know what I'm talking about.

If you are going to quote statistics make sure all of your facts are correct and include all information. Yes, there were only 155 gun homocides in the UK but this is also a country where guns are COMPLETELY BANNED! See the problem with your statistics? Look at the population difference betweent the UK and the US, not even in the same ball park. Look at the number of violent physical assaults, the UK had ove 2500 last year, the next closest country to them was South Aftica and they had 1400. Comparing apples and oranges again. If you want to throw numbers out there compare 2 countries that don't have weapon bans. Per capita the US isn't even in the top 10 for gun homicides if you compare to all countries. Don't go by the UN statistics, they are trying to ban guns in the US too. Look at the FBI database for crimes.

The statistics for gun homicides in the U.K. are based on population - per 100,000. Switzerland, which has a very high rate of gun ownership but well regulated, has a gun homicide that is one seventh of the U.S. In other words, if we could emulate the gun regulations of Switzerland, we could potentially reduce gun homicides by 85%.

I agree, comparing violent assaults to gun violence is comparing apples to oranges and not relevant to this discussion. The only reason the U.S. isn't in the top 10 for homicides if you compare all countries is because the top ten (actually 13 - the U.S. is # 14), are all third world countries. Look at the list.

Finally, the FBI database is incomplete, because it is based on voluntary compliance from individual jurisdictions around the country. The CDC data is more accurate, and frankly, higher. Where the FBI showed 8,874 gun homicides, the CDC showed 10,078.

In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

tim, Arg, while it is true that the Supreme Court in Heller said that the government has power to regulate, that does not mean that the government has unlimited power to regulate, only that the court at that time did not want to go into what does and does not constitute acceptable regulation.

If an assault weapon ban passes, it will almost certainly be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We are not going to know if it is within the power of Congress to enact such a ban until the Supreme Court has ruled. So either of you saying that you know what the law is in this matter is presumptuous.

Also note that in the Heller decision, since a ban on military weapons was not before the court, the court did not address it other than in passing, the majority nonetheless felt it appropriated to mention that changes in technology did not void the prefatory clause in the Second Amendment. If the clause is not voided and the Congress is banning military weapons, then there is a very good chance that the Supreme Court will rule that an "assault weapon" ban is unlawful on that ground. But even worse, they may establish a precedent that allows a successful attack on the National Firearms Act, which if it occurred would result in a partial or total removal of the government's ability to restrict the ownership of machine guns, grenades, and other such.

Joe, first off, fairly good letter, but...

This right to possess a fire arm is not an unfettered right. Our Supreme Court has upheld banning weapons for felons and dangerous people. They have also upheld multiple gun restrictions by federal, state, and local officials. The right of possession, as determined by the Supreme Court, is for “protection” not over turning our government as some believe.

There always has to be common sense restrictions. Even free speech is not an unfettered right. However, the right of possession is not for personal protection, it is not for hunting, it is for the "militia". The founders did not want a standing army, they wanted a well armed, well trained populace, thus the "well-regulated" part. In those times, you could have a well-regulated clock or mind, the term "well-regulated" didn't mean government controlled, it mean well running, well working. The founders had just overturned a government through the use of personal arms, so it is easy to imagine that their thoughts toward a central government were not rosy. The people clamored for a bill of rights giving them the continued right to have arms so that if necessary, they could do it again, especially considering they were going to be under a new form of government. The founders didn't want a standing army. They didn't want a strong federal government, which is why they denied the federal government the right to collect money from the people. We've since created a standing army through necessity. We've amended the Constitution to give Congress the right to tax the populace, creating the bloated monster we have today. That makes it more difficult for the founder's vision of power to be with the people to remain true today.

Back then, the people's weapons were on a par with anything a government army could have; today, that isn't even close to be true. Does that mean we completely give up? No. Even a musket pistol can be used to "trade up" to the latest army rifle, by killing the owner. Having the latest and greatest assault rifle doesn't make you invulnerable. Even tanks can be commandeered, if you have weapons to kill their operators. And a revolution does not necessary mean us against the army. You can see from revolutions happening elsewhere, parts of the army side with the populace.

Passing reasonable gun control only makes since.

In today's world, it does make sense, up to a point, but we cannot lose sight of why the 2^nd amendment was written. It worries me when Biden and Osama try to assure us that the right to hunt and self protect will not be taken away, when the 2^nd amendment does not mention hunting or personnel protection. When the government intentionally tries to deceive the public, I get worried. No, I don't want anti-aircraft weapons. No, I don't have an assault style rifle, and I don't want one. I simply want our people to understand the thoughts of our country's founders and to not lose sight of the fact that even our government can go bad someday and to not give away our ability to do something about that. You may trust our government, I may feel that today's government is not completely evil, but what about 50 or 100 years from now? Can you say our government will always be "of the people"?

My favorite analogy form the other side of the issue is “we should ban cars because they kill people”. We let’s just look at this for a minute. To operate a car you need to be trained, possess a learns’ permit first, then graduate to a license. These licenses also have to renewed periodically and certain things, like ability to see, can hinder retaining a license. Not to mention - we have how many officers looking to keep our road safe and will issue you a ticket for wrong doing? – get enough of these and you lose your license. I would say operating a gun is as least as much a responsibility a driving. So don’t we have an obligation to ensure that they are being kept out of the hands of criminals as much as possible?

First, owning a car is a privilege. Owning a gun is a right. There is a difference. We used to have a poll tax, which was overturned because a tax on voting violated the right of some poor people to vote. Rights are special, and should only be denied for special reasons. For guns, the right to own and bear arms should only be denied to those who have demonstrated a desire to own and bear arms for a reason other than intended by the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms for the purpose of robbing or killing the innocent. So, denying a known criminal the right to bear arms is justified. If a person is unstable, denying him/her the right to bear arms, or even to have personal freedom, is justified from a public and personal safety aspect. Denying the just, honest citizens of the right to bear arms because they "might" misuse that right is the same as denying blacks the right to vote because they overwhelmingly vote Democrat; it is an unjustified, un-Constitutional act.

The argument of “well criminals are going to get them anyway” is very short sight and only surrenders to issue as unresolvable. I don’t buy that. Yes criminals may get them anyway – but we don’t have to make it easy for them and perhaps we could catch a few through strengthening background checks, gun registration and licensing. You don’t think so? Then I ask - Should we just start handing out extended clips like candy at a parade, to whom ever would want one, without any questioning or back ground check – that is just foolish in my opinion?

I, for one, am unsure why the NRA is against total background checks. My concern with background checks is not the check itself, but the waiting period. A person who feels they need a gun for self protection should immediately receive that gun. A right delayed can be a right denied, if that person is killed during the waiting period. Given that at least 14000 people are murdered each year, but only a few hundred are killed in "mass murder" instances, the waiting period is not justified. With today's technology, there is no justification for a waiting period.

I would like to see gun safety training classes for all permits. This may help reduce ‘gun accidents’. I would also like to see permit renewals were you have to have a current permit to sell or buy a gun – even for private sales – we have to give notice to the DMV when we sell our car don’t we.

Again, like the poll tax, this is unconstitutional, and no different from having to pass a class, or be able to speak/read English, or have a job, or pay income taxes, or have served in the military, in order to vote. You cannot place obstacles between an honest, law-biding citizen and a Constitutional right.

This may help keep reduce gun trafficking and will definitely establish a data base of gun serial numbers which can be used in tracing a gun used at a crime. I would also like to see the elimination of all magazines and clips of over 10 rounds – or at the very least you would have to apply for a permit waver to have them or buy them legally from the manufacture.

Tracking who owns what is the first step to confiscation, which is why this ability is denied, I believe, by law. And since few murders are committed by use of a full magazine, this limit would not solve much. It may result in a few less deaths each year, and it may not. In any case, the intent of the 2^nd amendment is not met by letting people have single shot pistols. A militia cannot be considered "well-regulated" as that term was used back in the 1770's in today's environment with out of date weapons.

None of this is going to ‘take your gun away’ nor should any responsible, law bidding citizen, gun owner have a problem with it (in my opinion). If you are not doing anything wrong why fear a system that tracks your guns. I am not going to use mine in the commission of a crime so what am I to fear.

There are those in government who would like nothing better than to eliminate every gun in America. You trust your government, I don't, not totally, and I have no idea what government will be in place 50 years from now. I have a nephew who had a son taken away because a government social worker took a dislike to him and accused him of child abuse over a spider bite, and in child abuse cases you are guilty until proven innocent. Register guns, and you give government employees the ability to take those guns away by labeling you unstable or unfit, even if you aren't. The battle to prove otherwise will be long and difficult. You trust your government; does that mean every single person in it?

Now for the ones who believe our Second Amendment is drafted in the Constitution by our forefathers because they wanted us to have the ability to overthrow our government. I don’t believe that is the case, but okay I will give in to this for arguments sake. So I ask - Why then can’t I have an RPG? I will need one in my fight with the government because I need a level playing field. Should my second amendment right also include
helicopters with Dillion Aero mini guns and rockets? What about surface to air missiles? What about predator drones or an M1 Abrams Tank with the all rounds to fire out the canon that I want? What about grenades or other ordinance? --- My point being….in a fight with our military you will need more than an AR-15 to offer up any amount of true resistance. Is our military supposed to be frightened by AR-15s now? Now some will say that our military may not have the “will” to shoot in a crowd of US Citizens if they have armed themselves and are ready to fight…...but wouldn’t the same be true if everybody brandished a Colt 45 pistol….or better yet….if they were un armed all together.

Let's see. Our country's founders had just overthrown their government by use of arms. And you are saying these same founders never conceived the notion, in the slightest, that they might have to do it again? Please, your letter sounds so reasonable, why go fail here? Would you, in this situation, create a government that couldn't be overthrown? Or would you do what they actually did, which was to create a country without a standing army, but with a well armed populace? Would you create an all powerful, all controlling government, or do what they did, which was to create a central government that had to rely on donations from the states for operating expenses and which was severely limited by a Constitution? Would you take away the right to bear arms so this government could never be overthrown, or would do what they did, which was to create a bill of rights specifically guaranteeing our rights to bear arms and to form a people's militia? Clearly, the founders did not trust their new government. They created a Constitution full of checks and balances to control a weak, almost powerless government, and assured the populace of their right form a formidable people's army. Power to the people!

As for RPGs and helicopters, the answer is yes, we should have them, as in we, the states. Back in the 1770's, the states had their own militias. And we should have them today. The people should have the best rifles available, and weapons above that should be readily available in state owned armories. After all, the 2^nd amendment doesn't say a "free people", it says a "free state". Back then, every state was different in culture, in religion, and it was the states versus the federal government. I doubt that everyone was for a single country and they didn't form a single country willy nilly, there was a lot of back and forth negation on state power versus federal power. The 2^nd amendment isn't just for the individual citizen, but also for the states themselves.

I will admit though that I am rather ambivalent to an assault weapons ban. I don’t care one way or the other. Most that buy them will not use them in a crime, but rather sport shooting. And the ones that think they will need it in their imaginary fight against the government are mostly harmless. They don’t stand any real chance of coming out on top in a battle against our military and the likely hood of them using it in this capacity is almost nil. They are just full of hot air and bravado. Let them have their fantasy. .

Given recent events which illustrate the ability of the many to overthrow the powerful few, I really don't understand this insistence that we are somehow different. Didn't Libya have warplanes, tanks, missiles, an army? And yet the Libyan government was defeated by an armed populace, who gained much of their arms from the military, and with help from outside countries. You think no one will help us? You think our brothers and sisters in the armed forces will stand as one against us? America is not like many other countries, where the soldiers are better off than the general population. Our soldiers are not slaves to the government. If anything, revolution here would be easier than in most countries, precisely because we are a free-minded people.

But extended clips or magazines in my opinion should be banned. No body “needs” one for hunting or sport. And if you feel you need one for your imaginary fight against the government I would just say….you should be a better shot.

Again, the 2^nd amendment does not mention hunting or sport. And, people, get this into your brain and live with it, it does not matter one bit what you think. I think only people who pay taxes should have the right to vote, and the more tax brackets they vote in, the more votes they should get, but the Constitution must be followed. Please at least try to read up on history, so you will at least understand why the 2^nd amendment was written and what it really means.

garry: Taking away your guns is hardly the biggest threat you're facing. Research hysteria, denial and paranoia. Talk to someone - get some focus. You sound like the people the NRA, the 'libs', the 'cons' and the sane are most concerned with. If you want people to fear you, you've succeeded. Time to find out why you want them to fear you.

Koey -

That "facist right-wing source", "Politco", actually has a good article on why the NRA does not support the background check at this time, and why they have reversed themselves - ineffectiveness.

If you wish to learn something, you Google "NRA supports background checks" and read todays Politico article on the matter. Or you can spout the progressive talking points.

Joe: "Joe: more lib lies..blah, blah, blah." Do you ever read beyond such an opening gaffe?

Oops! Looks like a story slipped past the editors before they could doctor it and recreate the news the way they want it to be and us to believe.

lol I love it.

We defend our Presidents-----------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our Congressman-------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our Governors ----------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our Celebrities ----------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our sporting events-----------------------------------------With guns

We defend our jewelry stores-------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our banks-----------------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our office buildings-----------------------------------------With guns

We defend our factories--------------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our Courts-----------------------------------------------------With guns

We defend our children at school -------------------------------------With a sign

That reads-----

THIS IS A GUN FREE ZONE

And then call someone with a gun if there is an emergency.

Excellent post here by MNJL170. I think you hit it on the nail head. Maybe people will give Wayne LaPierre (NRA Prez) a little more respect after reading this post.

inbetween-59501

I love the "we can jump em after the 10 round clip is empty" theorist. Or the one that your safer if they have a rifle versus a handgun. Bad theories.

You should see the "Run Hide Fight" video that Homeland security just released as a guideline to survive an active shooter.

Talk about out of touch with reality.

The Tucson shooter was stopped by an unarmed 61 year old woman because he stopped to reload his 33 round magazine, and dropped it. If he had only had a 10 round magazine, the 9 year old girl who was shot with the 13th bullet would still be alive.

On the other hand there were as many as four armed citizens with concealed carry permits there who were powerless to stop him.

Talk about out of touch.

33 round magazine?

I thought that was odd too, frankly, but that's what has been widely reported in several outlets - ABC, NBC, CNN, Time Magazine, NY Times, etc.... I had originally assumed it was 30...either way, that's not really the point.

tim ===== You don't know that! It's speculation. He might have loaded the next 10 round clip without difficulty and kept shooting. He might have fumbled it as he did with the 30+ clip but there is no way to know.