Here we go.....all the liberals on here spewing venom at law abiding gun owners. Get a life and direct your venom at the root cause mental health and criminals.

Wild Thing..?

more gun control will not stop the nut cases, young gansta in the hood from getting guns, as a society we will punish the law abiding , in a vain attempt to control the non law abiding.

I need to know for sure!.... come on now Wild Thing. Really BCWC?

How about a TV ad from one of the 1.5 million persons who successfully use a firearm in self defense annually? (Data from United States Dept of Justice)

Why didn't she propose a law to keep firearms out of the hands of nutjob liberals (the people who actual commit these heinous acts) while she was in Congress?

@ johntho

Excellent attampt to deflect the root cause of this issue. Let us all just just keep on ignoring these people who have mental issues, that should preclude them from even having a gun.

I'm back again1

Controlling guns means keeping the violent offenders from getting them and putting them in jail, someone said last week that the gun prosecutions under this administration are down 40% of that of previous administrations shows that they are not really committed to fixing the problems

==================

Yeah...the always infamous "someone said...", but nonetheless. Attached is an exert from an article written about the NRA's claim. At least take a few minutes in an attempt to get some context before you go about making blanket statements.

"It's true that the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported an increase in violent crime in 2011 (from record lows the year before), but that increase was attributed almost entirely to a rise in simple assaults: which specifically means no weapon was used. But according the FBI, "all four of the violent crime offense categories — murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault — declined nationwide when compared with data from 2010." Different areas of the country have seen different experiences, but on the whole, the most violent offense continue to decline."

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/12/fact-checking-nra-press-conference/60261/

Yes, Gabby.

Good for you.

Preventing millions of law abiding citizens with no criminal records who are legal gun owners from purchasing more evil inanimate objects will surely prevent untold thousands of deaths.

And we all know that criminals are just crying out for gun control - they've been waiting for restrictive laws to set them straight!

Now let's just ignore statistics and tobacco deaths.

I'm back again1

If the gun laws don't work (which is the talking point)

They are not enforced that's why..And we need to work on spending cuts there is a serious problem in this country when welfare recipients are paid more for doing nothing, that our soldiers are for risking their lives

=========

Yeah...sounds like many of the farm subsidies when they are paid to not farm on their land. While many of them put other forms of business on their land to make money all the while playing poor farmer role while they drive their SUVs to the bank cashing those Government checks.

Nice to see your outrage is spread across the spectrum of our 'spending problem'...

A headline and a topic sure to bring out the rational best in everyone who contributes...

I'm back again1

but on the whole, the most violent offense continue to decline."

True as the personal ownership of guns continue to increase, hmmm more guns in the public hands and crime goes down along with your argument

==================

So earlier you post it is a lack of enforcement as the cause to the issue and now everything is heading towards complete resolution because more people have guns? Got it. I guess taking one of the more high profile places in the news today, your answer that more guns will bring the peace applies to Chicago how again?

Do you know you have an 85% more chance of killing someone when you drink & drive. And that percentage is stopping all the alky's from driving. Okie dokie. Please stop serving laced koolaid

kaybee - True, but I can point out its ridiculousness and misplaced intentions and efforts.

There are more effective ways to save more lives; unless you don't care about the lives lost in other, shall we say, less sensational or 'agenda forwarding' ways.

I'm back again1

Allen,

Chicago just like schools and court houses are "gun free zones" they will always be areas where someone with a gun will go to commit their heinous crimes, not in areas where some one may actually be able to defend themselves

===========

Now granted 'news' from the media is only as good as the stories they choose to cover, but with that said, can any one point to all these stories of scenarios where disaster was averted by gun carrying citizens from themselves or in defense of others? It is often casually thrown out there, the '..only if...' condition. For all of these law abiding, open carry, concealed carry folks out there, they never seem to be in the right place at the right time to avert anything.

@Johntho

Perhaps it is time to register all guns who owns them

never gonna happen, and, besides, how do you plan on getting the criminals to cooperate? This is just punishing legal gun owners and I for one would never submit to it.

Why didn't she propose a law to keep firearms out of the hands of nutjob liberals (the people who actual commit these heinous acts) while she was in Congress?

Umm...you don't really understand the difference between a liberal and a libertarian, do you? Let me guess, you also think that Obama is a Marxist, a Communist and a Muslim, all at the same time.

I'm back again1

Allen,

Bing "the armed citizen" it happens all the time, NBC, CNN will only focus on incidents that further their agenda

==========

My error. I should have clarified my question better. I forgot the woman, some type of lawyer who was at the congressional hearings the other week. She gave the testimony about the 'piece of mind' that a scary gun was allegedly giving a Mother alone in a house of 4 children who was being attacked by 4/5 men etc. Her argument was that this 'Mother' was in need of a scary gun with an ability to put 100 holes in her home to successfully ward off 5 grown men.

I get that there are websites devoted to coverage and moments where people successfully defend themselves using their firearm. I am there. I am happy for them. What I don't see, are conditions where extended clips and advanced, high-powered weapons were the successful factors in these conditions. That is what I am looking for.

we lose an average of 86 people per day to gun deaths

Isn't that just Chicago on a good day? 85 of those are probably criminal on criminal. Betcha more are saved a day.

Do you know you have an 85% more chance of killing someone when you drink & drive. And that percentage is stopping all the alky's from driving. Okie dokie. Please stop serving laced koolaid

So what exactly are you trying to say here? How exactly is this supposed to work? We shouldn't worry about a single gun death until all drunk driving has stopped? Or what? Please explain.

Just ask the Germans who registered their guns with Hitler...

And? Please explain? Because Hitler did not restrict guns. He actually required gun ownership.

Source: http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html

From that article:

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.

If we are going to look at Hitler, then let's take a close look. Does that remind you of someone today? Let me repeat from the article:

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave.

Know anyone today for whom the notion of banning firearm ownership is utterly alien?

LMAO!!!!!! Red head didn't have a comeback on the 'ban cars' comment (I'mbackagain1).... oh wow.... She opened her mouth and stuck her foot in it...

Chicago just like schools and court houses are "gun free zones" they will always be areas where someone with a gun will go to commit their heinous crimes, not in areas where some one may actually be able to defend themselves

Don't get your point. If anyone is going to work hard enough, they can kill lots of people. al-Qaeda has already proved that. What we also know is that make it easier to use a gun during a moment of rage or depression, and a gun will be more likely to be used during a moment of rage or depression.

This is pretty much obvious. Your argument applies to the extremes. You are right, "there will always be." The idea is reduce the numbers of "there will always be."

Hitler had all guns registered then when the time was right he confiscated them ALL, An unarmed society is a vulnerable society

And do you seriously think that with today's technology and the weaponry available to the US government, you have the slightest chance?

The 2nd Amendment became obsolete when the Supreme Court outlawed private ownership of aircraft carries and nuclear weapons. If a US President became corrupt and wanted to take out an armed rebellion, you can bet that he won't be coming at you with a gun of his own. He will be coming at you with an ICBM and he will evaporate you, your petty little gun and your neighborhood as well.

I'm done arguing with you,

That's because you HAVE no points left. I am pleased to note you are at least intellectually honest to realize this.

there are 2 year olds out there that are more intellectually engaging than you are.

But unfortunately, you cannot resist a fit of pique.

If nuts like not so fine-stein get their way she will create millions of new non-law abiding gun owners

And manly chest-thumping. We are all very impressed by your testosterone, I am sure.

Gabby Giffords has lost what liitle respect and compassion I had for her. She can take her "Twinkle, twinkle, little Star......" behind out of here and keep her mouth shut. She is nothing but a tool of the anti-gunners that is to be trotted out at every opportunity to tug at the heart strings of the Left here in America. She and her stupid a-- husband are truly pathetic and are to be looked down upon since they are so solidly against the United States Constitution.

peteMT

"Yes, Gabby.

Good for you.

Preventing millions of law abiding citizens with no criminal records who are legal gun owners from purchasing more evil inanimate objects will surely prevent untold thousands of deaths.

And we all know that criminals are just crying out for gun control - they've been waiting for restrictive laws to set them straight!

Now let's just ignore statistics and tobacco deaths."

Oh my, yes, whistling pete! What a point!!! Why in the world would we ignore tobacco deaths when the subject is gun control!!!???

Having an "off" day or are you really this simple-minded? I'm sure the focus would be on tobacco deaths if those 6 and 7 year olds at the last mass death scene had died of lung cancer... But since they didn't, people like you need to leave necessary actions up to the adults.

we lose an average of 86 people per day to gun deaths

Isn't that just Chicago on a good day? 85 of those are probably criminal on criminal.

No, actually, the most gun deaths are with the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

Source: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/national/states-with-most-restrictive-gun-control-laws-have-lower-gun-related-deaths-study-finds

Betcha more are saved a day.

This is probably one of the most talked about and least likely scenario. If guns are readily available, do you seriously think that criminals will hesitate to use them?

It might be true that the one thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, but then it is also true that the one thing that stops a good guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun.

This isn't the movies. Good guys don't always win if they just happen to carry a gun.

Chuckzul, the easy answer is to lock them up, and if you don't comply, you will become a criminal. I have no problem with locking up people that won't comply with as simple a law as registration of all guns. Responsible people will comply, those irresponsible people such as yourself will be locked up, where you belong in a cage, and where you can do no harm to anyone. Your choice.

Duh!! Of course it's the extremes, the rest of us "gun nut" don't run around shooting people. what a wiff

And? Go on? Please explain how making guns readily available in a situation where there is a moment of rage due to verbal conflict ensures that guns will NOT be used?

(BTW, weren't you going to stop arguing with me because I am so immature?)

like I said...bringing out the best in everyone!

I will make a deal with the liberal left..

Since I am actually looking at purchasing a 9 mill glock, and a shot gun for the house.

I WILL Register my guns with the Federal Gvmnt, the day after it is Federal Law to show Valid ID when we cast our vote in any and all elections..

Deal?

Had Gabby not been shot and had brain damage, I doubt she would have made this ad. She always was a very strong supporter of the Constitution.

Had Gabby not been shot and had brain damage, I doubt she would have made this ad. She always was a very strong supporter of the Constitution.

And? What does that have to do with responsible gun ownership? She and her husband owned guns before she was shot, and they still do.

I WILL Register my guns with the Federal Gvmnt, the day after it is Federal Law to show Valid ID when we cast our vote in any and all elections..

Deal?

Let me get this straight; so you think that it's all right for people to die in gun violence, so long as they have to show ID to vote? Or what, exactly?

Bryon, one thing that these so called law abiding citizens that say they won't comply with the law don't realize is a good guy with a gun will and does become a bad guy with a gun, with one inappropriate squeeze of the trigger.

No, actually, the most gun deaths are with the states with the least restrictive gun laws.

Whew good news now will you please tell that to Chitown I know it's not a state but......

I'm back again1

Allen

You can say anything you want because it, is and was chest thumping patriots like me that give you the freedom of speech

=================

Um, no disrespect, but I served this Country as well in the Army in the 90s and I'm not even a Citizen, but rather a Permanent Resident of the US. I've been so for 30+ years. I've fought for others to have the right to vote and/or hold public office, when I, myself don't get those privileges...so at face value, if you want to 'compare', one might argue, I gave more than you, because every right you believe you fought for, you got to enjoy.

I don't owe you anything, nor have you given me anything and when anyone who serves try to 'use' their service as a trump card of sorts to belittle others, than you didn't 'serve' for the otherwise noble reasons you portray.

I'm back, what difference does it make, except in the little mind of a gun nut, who pulls the trigger. It is still 86 more gun deaths then happened in, lets say Canada since they are close. Guns or rather the easy access to guns which by the way YOU contribute too is the problem. Not the cure.

Allen, you're full of excrement!

people ask....what is the justification of a 30 round magazine?

but....what is the justification of a 10 round magazine? If you can't hit your target in 1 shot, why did you get to try again? Stupid logic, isn't it? What difference does it make how many rounds it holds?

....................guns aren't the problem.....no one blamed the light saber in Star Wars for deaths.

Jeremy-960164

I will make a deal with the liberal left..

Since I am actually looking at purchasing a 9 mill glock, and a shot gun for the house.

I WILL Register my guns with the Federal Gvmnt, the day after it is Federal Law to show Valid ID when we cast our vote in any and all elections..

Deal?

=====

You might want to be slightly more thorough in your thought. The argument has not been about the ability to vote with no accountability as to who that voter is, it has been about altering the rules of voting and in my cases making certain "valid" State issues IDs not sufficient forms of identity

Notwithstanding, seems a curious coincidence that States with GOP Govs and State Legislatures have more into altering voting laws w/o evidence of voting laws being broken, but little to no effort in dealing with gun laws when there is overwhelming evidence of a gun issue.

ozzieyo1-7277359

Allen, you're full of excrement!

============

...and you say that why? What are you challenging?

@clflan2-1:

What a disgusting attitude! Your "right" to a hunk of death-metal is more important to you than a human life.

Watch out for your karma, buddy.

JERSY GIRL 1

Had Gabby not been shot and had brain damage, I doubt she would have made this ad. She always was a very strong supporter of the Constitution.

Gabby has brain damage. What's your excuse?????

@ Feisty

Thats right, I did re-register. I don't have anything to hide, just felt better about the new name I did re-register under. I feel much better aligning myself to Zappa's name, as I love how most people who have listened to his music thinks he was a druggie. Funny what misperceptions can do to some people. Kinda like gun control, huh? You happy now? lol

Allen, Just an opinion like everybody else on here.

ozzieyo1-7277359

Allen, Just an opinion like everybody else on here.

=====

Nice. You make a statement with the intend of demeaning someone and when asked what your basis is you bust out with it's your opinion.

I guess I never realized that that wasn't as evident to everyone on here...thanks

Hey Byron Raum

Seems like the fighters in Afghanistan survived a long time with simple guns against the US and all its arsenal. So yes I believe the people have a good chance, and you forgot the will of the Armed Forces to fire on its own people would be in question.

jw101

people ask....what is the justification of a 30 round magazine?

but....what is the justification of a 10 round magazine? If you can't hit your target in 1 shot, why did you get to try again? Stupid logic, isn't it? What difference does it make how many rounds it holds?

....................guns aren't the problem.....no one blamed the light saber in Star Wars for deaths.

===========

No they didn't, but you had to train rigorously to be a Jedi to get that light saber. You didn't see everybody with one.

And with that, I guess that means you have no problem with Fast n Furious either...guns aren't the problem.

guns aren't the problem.....no one blamed the light saber in Star Wars for deaths.

Well, pffft! Of course not, silly! It was the Death Star that caused all the problems!!

Returning to reality for a moment...

What is a gun for? In simple terms, it is a tool of death. It has no other use.

@ Feisty

You're telling us that there is no record of anyone getting into a vehicle drunk intending to kill people? I totally believe you. No one would ever do that

While I understand this is and emotional issue given the current microscope given the gun issue I just have to ask since when has more law done anything to prevent crime? Rational thought should always overrule emotional mood swings other wise we have dangerous people roaming the country.

What is needed is change minds and a willingness to protect others lives above our own. This will never happen as the comments made by both political sides on this blog.

The Democrats think they should be the only ones to decide who can and can not own guns and the Republicans feel everyone should have a choice. Just asking which side seems more controlling and nasty? You choose.

chick binder - so...

...by your posting, not all lives are equal?

Is that it?

A child is more valuable than an adult that dies in another fashion?

Or does a child's death sell more copy?

You quote 87 gun deaths a day, how many do you think are by law abiding gun owners and how many are by thugs or mentally ill?

100% of the gun deaths are by thugs or the mentally ill, every single time. If the person doing the killing wasn't classified as a thug or mentally ill before the incident, they become one as soon as they pulled the trigger.

I do not advocate that everyone should have a gun. The majority of gun owners have gone through background checks. In this country we need to stop codling the mentally ill, no they need to be exposed to the general public for what they are the politically correct in this country have protected them enough. Now I'm done with you I need to get to work and pay for the $55,000.00 per every man, woman and child this government has heaped on to our backs with it's outrageous spending over the last decade

How very interesting. Allow me to express personal contempt for you and your debate tactics. You ask a question, and when that question is answered and your stance is shown to be completely hollow, you abuse the answerer as being immature.

The bottom line is this: you don't have a stance, you don't have any solutions. You are just grumbling and chest-thumping. You are just a hater.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow the people the ability to fight by against a tyrannical government.

A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]

B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]

D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase “well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]

E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.

F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

*********

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

• (1) Look at the enumerated powers of the federal government;
• (2) Look at the express limitations on federal power as set forth in the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments;
• (3) Ask yourself, where does the federal government get any power at all to regulate firearms?
• (4) Ask yourself, why don’t the high school and college textbooks devote any time to the history, philosophical basis and practical meaning of the Second Amendment?

And then consider that law students and future lawyers likewise have received precious little education about the Second Amendment.

Realize, too, that the judges know just about as little. Then imagine how little the average American knows — based on the average public school coverage of the Constitution.

The protection of our sacred right of self-defense against both petty criminals and oppressive government — the right of civilians to keep and bear arms — is in your hands.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm

The Democrats think they should be the only ones to decide who can and can not own guns and the Republicans feel everyone should have a choice.

Not really. The Republicans feel there should be no laws, that everyone should be able to decide who is a bad guy and have the right to off them.

To quote the patron saint of the gun lobby, Wayne La Pierre, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The simple problem is that the Republican ideal works great when you are living on a homestead surrounded by hostile Indians and the nearest help is hours away, or everyone lives in a small town where all the good guys know each other. It doesn't really work in a densely populated society where neighbors don't always know each other.

Just asking which side seems more controlling and nasty? You choose.

I have. We need to stop living the 19th century.

CHALLENGE TO AMERICANS

As you read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights:

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact.

I have a right to be able to sit in a movie theater, go to a shopping mail, be at work, or wherever I choose, lawfully, without having to worry about getting shot by a thug or a mentally ill person with a gun.

Rational thought should always overrule emotional mood swings other wise we have dangerous people roaming the country.

Agreed. Too many of them are currently roaming the country armed to the teeth, paranoid, angry, careless, trigger-happy and/or suicidal. It's insane and it needs to change.

What is needed is change minds and a willingness to protect others lives above our own.

Exactly. Add to that a willingness to put responsibility above rights when life and death hangs in the balance.

The Democrats think they should be the only ones to decide who can and can not own guns and the Republicans feel everyone should have a choice. Just asking which side seems more controlling and nasty? You choose.

Democrats are not attacking Second Amendment rights. The MAJORITY of Americans support universal background checks, and that includes Republicans AND NRA members.

Getting shot in the head by a lunatic does not make you an expert on gun control. Actually, I would think it would make you quite biased.

Gabby, we applaud you in your quest to bring this nation to civilization. I join you.

"GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE" but they sure help.

@Byron (1.86):

That's a great post. But we should also include, as well, all gun owners who, simply and merely because they posses a firearm, are much more likely to use it against innocent others.

@ George R.F.:

I love your comment.

Here we go.....all the liberals on here spewing venom at law abiding gun owners. Get a life and direct your venom at the root cause mental health and criminals.

yep, mental health and criminals. AND THE EASE WITH WHICH THEY CAN OBTAIN GUNS!!

How about a TV ad from one of the 1.5 million persons who successfully use a firearm in self defense annually? (Data from United States Dept of Justice)

no, those "statistics" are NOT from the DOJ, they are from the National Self-Defense survey from Gary Kleck (and FSU) in 1994 and claim that guns are used 2.5million times per year for self-defense (that is every 13 seconds).

These #'s are wholly unbelievable, and there are many inherent flaws in that study, not the least of which is the fact that they are SELF-REPORTED incidents (which tends to skew the numbers higher) are are extrapolating to a 300 million person population from approximately 5,000 survey responders (which ALSO skews the numbers higher due to rare occurrences).

Just want to add myself to the list of people here who thank Gabby and Mark for their effort in getting common sense legislation through Congress.

Common Sense! LOLOLOL

When someone wants to break into your house and steal what you have worked hard for, and the criminal is brandishing a gun and intends to kill you and anyone else that stands in their way by use of an illegally possessed gun, you'll wish you had some way to defend yourself.

Just last night we waited for 45 minutes for local police to respond to an attempted break in!

The would be thieves ran when they heard me rack a round into the chamber of my 8 shot Remington 870. Somehow I dont feel safer giving up my right to defend myself and my family.

Here's a link to the survey study:

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

My personal favorite part is that Table 3C, "Type of crime defender THOUGHT was being perpetrated."

yeah...

Just last night we waited for 45 minutes for local police to respond to an attempted break in!

The would be thieves ran when they heard me rack a round into the chamber of my 8 shot Remington 870. Somehow I dont feel safer giving up my right to defend myself and my family.

Where the hell do you live, Montana? Seriously, when my house actually WAS broken into last year, two patrol cars were there within about 90seconds of my ADT alarm going off. And do you really expect people to believe that your house was broken into JUST LAST NIGHT, the perfect time to jump into the gun control debate on this thread?

This is why "self-reporting" survey's like the National Defense Survey by Gary Kleck are unreliable, because of bunch of people report "thwarting a burglary" when it was really raccoons in the garbage can...

Gabby was shot by a left leaning loon, enough said.

Let her. The more Giffords promotes the gun grabbers anti-gun agenda, the more she squanders her sympathy factor. She's showing the country exactly where she stands and that she's comfortable promoting unconstitutional laws.

The socialist's have always harbored a desire to disarm the American people, and this current anti-gun push has absolutely nothing to do with Newtown or any other shooting, except to provide cover for their true agenda.

Only the really stupid don't see this.

@ stopfreeloaders DUDE!! We don't want the public to know about that!!!!! sshhhhh ;-)

None of this garbage matters one bit.. Unless you plan on voiding Constitutional amendments and starting a Constitutional civil war it is all a non issue.. The exact meaning of the first 10 amendments are as clear as day and are described by the authors of the document in great detail.. Just because some forked tonged politician wants to put a spin or interpretation on the document does not make it legal.. Feinstein is a political weasel and has been attempting to trash the Second amendment for a very long time.. She says one thing then words her bill in a manner that allows for wide interpretation.. Any and all infringements to the First and Second amendments are direct attacks on our liberties as a free citizen.. Misleading statistics and sob stories along with the ever present knee jerk guilt trips like " those neanderthal inbred stupid gun nuts don't care that this could save even one child".. Sorry but barring a very small number of subhuman thinkers the vast majority of firearms owners are very sad that children die for any reason.. So come down from your liberal social club high and see reality..

#####

US High in Gun Ownership, Low in Murder Rate

Several reports on gun ownership around the world clearly refute the
assertion that the abundance of guns in the United States leads to a high rate
of firearm homicides.

Americans are the biggest gun owners by far, with an estimated 270 million
civilian firearms, in addition to those used by law enforcement and the
military. That’s according to the Small Arms Survey of 178 nations conducted by
the Switzerland-based Graduate Institute of International and Development
Studies.

In sheer numbers of civilian firearms, the No. 2 nation, surprisingly, is
India with 46 million, followed by China (40 million), Germany (25 million),
Pakistan (18 million), and Mexico (15 million).

The United States also leads in gun ownership rate, with about 88 firearms
per 100 people, according to the most recent Small Arms Survey compiled in 2007.

That is far ahead of No. 2 Yemen, which has 55 firearms per 100 people.
Switzerland is third with 46 per 100 people, followed by Finland (45), Serbia
(38), Cyprus (36), Saudi Arabia (35), and Iraq (34).

But when it comes to the firearm homicide rate, the United States doesn’t
even make the top 25.

According to figures collected by the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and
Crime through its annual crime survey, 9,146 Americans were victims of a firearm
homicide in the most recent year. That translates to a rate of 2.97 firearm
homicides per 100,000 population, only the 27th highest rate in the world.

The highest rate by far can be found in Honduras, 68 homicides per 100,000,
followed by El Salvador (40), Jamaica (39), Venezuela (38.9), Guatemala (34),
and Colombia (27).

For America’s neighbors, the rate in Mexico is 9.9 per 100,000, and in
Canada, 0.5 per 100,000.

It is interesting to note that not only does the United States have a
relatively low homicide rate compared to its gun ownership rate, but
Switzerland, which ranks third in the civilian gun ownership rate, has only the
46th highest homicide rate, and Finland, with the fourth highest ownership rate,
is 63rd on the list.

“The most obnoxious liberal talking points on guns involve the idea that
guns, in and of themselves, cause gun violence,” writes CNS News commentator
Stephen Gutowski. “In other words, more guns must mean more gun violence.”

But in light of the ownership and homicide figures, he observes: “More guns
do not, in fact, mean more gun violence. Guns can be, and commonly are, used in
a responsible manner, especially here in the United States.”

Gabby is a well meaning, and I'm sure quite the sweetheart. However she is a traitor to her country and a raging hypocrite.

She cannot tell me that if she had been in possession of a gun on that dreadful day, and were able to take a clear shot at the Ritalin-crazed freak who initiated the attack that she would not have done so.

She needs to take another look at the Constitution she so cavalierly swore to support. Words and Promises mean things Gabby.

have sensible "SCUM CONTROL" &"scum bans" ban the scumbags behind the trigger,not the gun

drowning grover....gotta call bull defecation on your post.....absolutely. cops arrived in 90 seconds? my arse! not unless there was a donut shop on your street.

i live in an upper middle class neighborhood and recently saw two youths (guess what? they were also illegals...proven once they were caught by selling the stolen goods on craigslsit....but that doesn't matter to the ignorant left, as the left feels there is no illegal problem but that's a whole different topic.....or is it?) anyway, the youths were casing the hood. they broke into a home 4 doors down from me but i had already called the cops when i first saw them, yep, i profiled and as always was right....anyway, 30 minutes later the cops show up....criminals gone, long gone.....

no way in hell did the cops arrive at your house within 90 seconds...90 minutes? maybe, seconds, no way.

@Byron Raum "The 2nd Amendment became obsolete when the Supreme Court outlawed private ownership of aircraft carries and nuclear weapons. If a US President became corrupt and wanted to take out an armed rebellion, you can bet that he won't be coming at you with a gun of his own. He will be coming at you with an ICBM and he will evaporate you, your petty little gun and your neighborhood as well."

I thought we already covered this, but you must be slow and special to not understand I guess. WTF do you think is going to happen if a revolution breaks out moron? That all the people are going to get in one big group (target) moron? Only you would be that f***ing stupid.

What would happen is all the Army, Navy, Airforce, and Marine bases would be "safe" for any troops still allied with our government. Anytime they went off those bases (just like what happens in other countries) they would be in danger of being attacked or ambushed. We would end up starving out the government because they would run out of food, ammo, gas, bombs, etc. without "people" to resupply them. There is not enough troops to instate marital law across the entire country 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.

I wonder how many would defect if our government started nuking its citizens. Like I said you must be slow, special, and have way to much time on your hands to sit here all day and post the same BS over and over again on every "anti gun" report.

"100% of the gun deaths are by thugs or the mentally ill, every single time."

Out of context, but hey moron if they can get illegal drugs from other countries why can they not get illegal guns smuggled in WITH the drugs too? Not like we are the only f***ing country that makes guns moron. I mean WTF is so hard to understand? The people you want to keep guns from are the ones who "deal" in illegal goods ALL THE TIME. How are you going to prevent them from getting a gun moron THAT IS THE QUESTION. Why is it in countries that outlawed guns criminals still have them? If cannot answer those questions then STFU.

I wonder why the Giffords STILL own guns. Gun beats knife, gun beats rock, gun beats, paper, gun beats, scissors, guns beats hammer, gun beats bat, etc.. They are all TOOLS nothing more. Being shot to death may be less painful compared to "death" by some of those other tools btw. I would take getting shot to death over getting beaten to death any day.

"If anyone is going to work hard enough, they can kill lots of people. al-Qaeda has already proved that. What we also know is that make it easier to use a gun during a moment of rage or depression, and a gun will be more likely to be used during a moment of rage or depression."

Why do you morons WANT to piss people off, push their buttons, etc., AND EXPECT not to suffer any consequences for it? Does it really matter if someone uses a knife, bat, hammer, etc. when it takes 12 minutes for the police to show up on average, MOST crimes are single incidents and "mass" incidents are so rare it is not even funny. Most people do not just up and "decide" to kill a bunch of people for no reason unless they have a death wish.

Over half of your "87 gun deaths" a day are from SUICIDES, or people that "wanted" to die anyway. They would and could find some other way to do it. Not hard to sit in a running car with the garage door closed or to drink some f***ing posion now is it? How many lives could we save by lowering the speed limits? Yet you jacka$$es do not want to talk about that. You know cars a tool that is used for transportation yet they kill more people each day then tools made for self defense that equalize physical size advantages. Remove all the tools that equalize and it will come down to who is the biggest and strongest like it USED to be. People would start taking more steroids then they already do.

I am tired of reading and answering your stupid comments, there is just to much BS to respond to.

DrowningGrover....

You call IndustrialStrength's claim that there was an attempted breakin just last night as suspicious. OK, I'm calling YOUR claim that the cops were at your house within 90 seconds of ADT alarm going off suspicious also. I had ADT also and it takes more than your 90 seconds for them to call back to your home to verify if everything is OK. Had 1 fire and 1 break-in and fastest response time was 22 minutes. Neighbor called me at work and I beat the firetrucks there from 12 miles away. And the (attempted) break-in....the cops showed up 20 minutes after the call to "take my statement". BTW, I had already put the burglars in the road without having to fire a shot. But I could have had they been more persistent.

Just wanted to point out that Byron Raum's link providing the alleged proof of his argument that Hitler did not confiscate guns comes from a Neo-Nazi hate rag called the National Vanguard that is about as credible as Byron is.

Thank goodness reasonable gun laws are on the way. Let's just hope they will be enforced.

I talked to a man yesterday who I have known for years. He is the CEO of bank, and an avid Republican and gun enthusiast who owns multiple weapons. He laughed when I asked him what he thought about universal background checks. He said there were NEVER any background checks done at the guns shows where he lives in southern Missouri, and no law will ever change that.

"...where we pray..." ?

Best of luck in recovery GG. Do you pray GG? Lest we forget, you're a Dem. Which means you and yours are the flag bearers of killing kids. Every baby that is killed while squirming in the womb is at the hands of onumbnuts and his ilk. You may be a nice person (I don't know) but lets not get all sanctimonious about life when your "side" is killing kids left-and-right for the sake of convenience. Lest we forget, you champion men laying with men. Care to throw out any other parts of the Bible for convenience GG? You a Christian GG? Thought not...just another "plug" to try and sway folk.

I pray you heal well...and leave the country alone. Go be a florist or something :)

Capt,

What you makes you think that every person who votes Democrat is pro-abortion and anti-Christian?

I am a professing Christian, am anti-abortion (with exceptions), and voted for Obama.

You may fit into a neat little box somewhere yourself, but don't go putting your narrow labels on people you don't know.

LOL!

You would think that Gabby would be more concerned with the issues we have of the mentally ill instead of guns....they guy who shot her was KNOWN to be mentally ill and under treatment. Sure, he used a gun but he could have just as easily ran around stabbing people.

The problem isn't guns...the problem is people. It's just that simple.

If we are advocating that the mentally ill be denied their constitutionally protected right to bear arms, I'd like to see the mentally ill barred from voting. If they can't be trusted with an inanimate object, they sure shouldn't be trusted with helping shape the policy, direction and moral imperatives in our society. I think we should also bar those too stupid to own guns from voting...you should have to pass an IQ test to get a gun and/or vote.

The problem is mental illness AND lax gun laws.

silverton-2953905

Capt,

What you makes you think that every person who votes Democrat is pro-abortion and anti-Christian?

I am a professing Christian, am anti-abortion (with exceptions), and voted for Obama.

You may fit into a neat little box somewhere yourself, but don't go putting your narrow labels on people you don't know.

Because the Democrat/liberal ideology is diametrically opposed to everything Jesus taught...? You may profess to be a follower of Christ's teachings but if you vote Democrat, you are just kidding yourself.

Jesus put some pretty narrow labels on people that claimed to be His followers....He said that they would be called workers of iniquity and turned away from entering Heaven.

As an atheist, I don't care if you believe in Christianity or not...but don't pretend to be a Christian. If you vote Democrat/liberal/progressive, you are no more Christian than Fred Phelps. Jesus never taught His followers to champion human/civil rights or socialism. He told people to do His work, bear witness to His love and be examples of His love to others and to keep God's laws. You can't do that and be a liberal.

AmericansForTheRemovalOfIllegals,

Since you are so concerned about Jewish people, your name choice is interesting.

Seems like Hitler's Third Reich felt that it should be illegal for Jews to own not only guns, but property, businesses, their owns lives, etc.

Quit acting like you care about people. You aren't fooling anyone.

And to J R Browenstein,

This may come as a severe shock to you, but a person can vote for a candidate and not agree with 100% of that Party's policy. As the old saying goes, if you want to vote for someone who agrees with you 100% of the time, then you should consider running for office yourself.

And please don't lecture to other Christians about Christ. You are obviously not qualified.

Jared Loughner, as a man with KNOWN mental issues, should not have been able to get a gun to begin with.

Stop claiming that an inanimate object that REQUIRES a living, breathing human actually use it is the real problem.

MENTAL ILLNESS + LAX GUN LAWS = INNOCENT PEOPLE DYING

MORE PATHETIC LIBERAL/PROGESSIVE EXPLOITATION OF POOR GABBY GIFFORDS!!!!!

This is just more political pandering like the circus the anti-gun, anti-Freedom, anti-Liberty, anti-Second Amendment, anti-America Libbies put on in Chicago this past weekend for Hadiya Pendelton. This was an even more pathetic sensationalism as Moochelle Obama had to be there. Along with the usual Chicago hypocrite cabal such as Rahm Emanuel, Bobby Rush and of course Jesse Jackson the media frenzy was nauseating. This poor girls burial was delayed for a week just so it could be used to promote the Libbies ideologies.

Poor Gabby Giffords was also paraded out in front of Congress last month with her opportunist husband Mark Kelly. This poor woman should be continuing her rehabilitation. We all know she was shot by a Liberal lunatic and she has made a dramatic recovery.

Perhaps the unwashed masses on the Left should have Gabby make a Pro-American Medical system video to thank the best health care system in the world. Too bad Obamacare and its criminal IPAB will destroy it just to promote a convoluted Liberal/Progressive ideology.

Take a look at how this Country was formed.The Gov did not forge West and set things up. They gave land away and sent everyday people West to do the work of establishing a Government out West.

There were many times the only law that some understood , was the POINT OF A GUN.

Sorry to say it still holds true today. Until we as people change, the POINT OF A GUN is all they will understand.

Even the feds acknowledge that registering guns is the very first step to confiscating them. Back in 1986, legislation introduced in 1979 to ban federal registration of guns by a Democrat and a Republican became permanent law. Yeah, that's right. Current law prohibits federal agencies from keeping records on those who pass background checks. Even when a serial number from a recovered weapon is provided to the ATF, employees there have to look through boxes and file cabinets full of paperwork from gun stores that have closed. They can't put the information from all that paperwork into an easily searchable database.

I wonder if those twenty little schoolchildren and their six teachers understood the POINT OF A GUN that sprayed bullets into their innocent bodies.

As for searchable databases, if they work for fingerprints and DNA matching, why not for guns as well?

Should not be a problem, except for those who are afraid of being found out.

My only point in my post above is that current law prohibits federal agencies from keeping records on those who pass background checks.

According to what I have read, even President Obama's proposals do not change this, though there are folks who are skeptical about whether or not he will again use his executive privilege and sign another executive order. It is also understood that criminals do not get their guns from a gun store, but rather from another source such as the black market or someone buys it for them. Children do not get guns from a gun store. Children, and mentally ill people for that matter, gain access to guns that are kept in an unsecured location. It does not matter how many laws are on the books if they are not enforced. Although many say that there are over 20,000 federal and state laws regarding gun control, I am dubious as to the veracity of that. But crime is already against the law. If someone uses a gun to commit a crime, it should be punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless. Letting someone off "light" because it is a first offense is stupid.

One of the problems is that the Attorney General's office has consistently refused to prosecute and imprison convicted felons. Gun registration would have no effect whatsoever for criminals because it violates their fifth amendment rights.

One would think that strict gun laws would stop the violence, but the cities with the most gun violence are those with the strictest laws, Chicago and Washington, DC. Roughly 44% of all criminals who commit a crime using a gun in Chicago have their cases dismissed. Why is that?

I found this article on Forbes and it points out how our politicians are using children to pass gun legislation. It is informative from the point of view of a person who, by her own admission, is scared of guns, but is glad that some women are comfortable using them to defend themselves. We want to protect children, but using them this way is just wrong. It is up to adults to have discussion and come up with something that works to keep all innocents as safe as possible. Those teachers and children in Newtown understood only that someone was firing a gun where a gun should not have been; in their school. A gun obtained from an unsecured location and in the hands of a mentally unbalanced individual, who now, thankfully, is dead. No law would have stopped that.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/carrielukas/2013/01/18/using-children-to-pass-gun-laws-is-grotesque-and-childish/

She has become the "poster child" for the Obama administration in an effort to remove our 2nd amendment rights.

Under the Obama "watch," we MUST NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

kkwilson,

Nonsense.

Nobody wants to do away with the Second Amendment.

Get over it.

EekEek,

I agree that gun laws need to be enforced to do any good.

In some states like Virginia, you can be criminally insane and walk into a gun show and buy a gun without any background check.

silverton-2953905

If the participial was armed, it may have never had happened

What about all 300 + children in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Obama has killed with Drone strikes?

Oh it ok to do that cause they are below the corner of the Earth you cannot see.

effing get real

correct that to principal

Now do an image search on Google for children killed by drone strikes. Do you see the two faces of obama now?

mj899,

If you want to talk about two faces, let's talk about Wayne "the Warlord" LaPierre, and how he is inciting everyone to stockpile assault weapons and magazines to protect us from the enemy when he had his family doctor write a letter stating he has a nervous disorder to dodge the 1969 Vietnam draft.

I think that qualifies as the biggest irony in this whole gun debate.

Seems that Mr. LaPierre would have been chomping at the bit to go to war against America's enemy and shoot some of those big military guns he claims he loves.

When someone wants to break into your house and steal what you have worked hard for, and the criminal is brandishing a gun and intends to kill you and anyone else that stands in their way by use of an illegally possessed gun, you'll wish you had some way to defend yourself.

Get a security system and a dog.

Get over your fantasy that a gun makes you safer. Statistically, you are less safe if you own a gun.

If someone breaks into your house brandishing a weapon, the only way you can defend yourself with a gun is to wear one in a holster at your hip, and be prepared to draw and kill the intruder instantaneously.

That happens a lot... in the movies.

What about all 300 + children in Pakistan and Afghanistan that Obama has killed with Drone strikes?

What about the tens of thousands of children Bush killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Were you proresting their deaths? Or was it OK because Bush was a Republican?

Get a security system and a dog.

You really are clueless.

And, you have NO right to tell anyone else what they "need" or "don't need" regarding firearms.

Owning firearms is a RIGHT...not a priviledge. It is not some vague, undefined "human right"...it is a clearly and specifically constitutionally protected right.

Ffs, a woman's right to an abortion is a protected "sacred cow" among liberals yet it only exists because of a subjective interpretation of a vague portion of the Constitution regarding individual privacy...and liberals foam at the mouth at the very mention of ANY infringement upon the right to have an abortion. Yet, when a CLEARLY protected right is up for discussion...then it's up for "debate".

f'ck all you liberal id!iots.

Getting shot in the head by a lunatic doesn't make you an expert on gun control. I would actually think it would make you somewhat biased.

coravenfan

excellent point well taken

Death of a common Sense,Yes she found her cause but I'd have more respect if she had of advocated for mental healthcare in this country.Mental illness that was untreated is the crux of why she was injured and others were killed.We have strict laws in California but that does not stop the thugs. Pelosi lives in a high rent district so she has never been exposed in her life to felons doing drive by shootings with stolen weapons.

I'm curious what people think about when gun policy and the constitution as written and verified by the Supreme court was the opinion of the framers that an armed civilian population is better for the nation as a whole.

Does it fall under "Freedom isn't free"? Is it from old people out of touch? Is changing the constitution a better way than the ridiculous amount of resources and cultural divisions caused by a relatively minor social issue (The national fiscal policies are much more dangerous to the nation than gun ownership.)

I say minor as there were about 2.5 million deaths in 2010. All gun deaths represent less than 1/2 of 1%.

Would changing the Constitution of such a strongly felt right by a large segment of the population be essentially like breaking a contract to many of them. Justifying rejection of a government that no longer protects them from the passions, fickleness, and vagaries of the public as is the strongly stated purpose of the Constitution framers?

Have we as a society become so unsophisticated that all that is needed are dog and pony shows with pretty lights and music for us to ignore the lengthy writings of soul searching and research by the Framers of the Constitution as to balancing the needs of government, people, and individuals?

I do not advise unlimited civilian armament. But the Constitution and the supporting opinions by the framers of it clearly felt it necessary to arm the public to be a credible deterrence from both foreign and domestic oppression.

All the best to everyone, may you all soul search and try to make peace.

We were threatened with attack/death many years ago and my wife was home with 3 small children while I was 70 miles away working.. My dispatcher called me and told me of the threat and said she called the local sheriffs dept.. They called my wife and told her until a crime actually occurs they do not care and she should get a gun and be ready.. If the guy shows up and forces his way in then shoot him and call us back and we can clean up the mess.. Good thing we have a means of defending ourselves as she sat there with the neighbor and a loaded 1911 45acp.. Found out the guy killed himself by over dose and he had a club and a knife with him.. Could be the pills kicked in before he could carry out his threat but who knows.. We will never give up the right to defend ourselves for some idiots who think safety can be legislated.. We know that is false security and there will always be wackos out there no matter what.. If Obama would put the full weight of the system on these gang bangers and lock them up in a gang village and let them kill each other I would be happy with that as the crime rate would fall dramatically..

If the Washington idiots mess around anymore with the Constitution all the people who are the silent majority will wake as the sleeping giant and $hit will hit the fan.. His Communist agenda is about to blow up in his face because there is 100 million non voting silent people who are being poked and are waking up grumpy..

Has anyone noticed that Obama made a few Unconstitutional appointments and even though the federal court 3 judge panel has called him on the carpet for it this has not made front page news??? I wrote a letter to my representatives and senators asking WTF is going on or have we stopped using the US Constitution and elected Obama king..

Only when America gets serious about gun control will these tragedies become rare again. Anyone saying gun control wont work, is misinformed, or lying.

Criminals should not be able to buy ammo. Right now they can, at any store that sells it. A firearms license system would end that. No license, no ammo, or any other gun related item. This would allow for periodic check-ups on gun owners.

A gun registry. Tracking guns is the ONLY way to put a stop to black-market sales. Every gun sold from the day the law goes into effect, should be registered. And the name or the license holder put to every gun and box of ammunition sold. If those items are found in the hands of bad-guys, then the registered owner has questions to answer.

Gun owners should not be able to buy ammo for any gun not registered to them. This would encourage people to register guns already owned, that are unregistered. Any unregistered guns found by police, should be confiscated. There should be regular amnesties to allow people to come forward and register, if they didn't right away. The object should be to get people to register, not seize guns.

Close all the loop holes in the law. 100% background checks for all sales. Gun owners having a license would help private sellers check their buyers. And they could take the buyers license number for registration purposes. The seller should be responsible for informing the authorities they have sold a gun, and supply a record with the license number of the buyer on it. The buyer should have X number of days to register their new gun.

These simple steps would put a huge dent in the illegal firearms trafficing business. Needing a license to buy ammo, would disarm most criminals almost immediately. An illegal gun without ammo, cant kill anyone. By tracking guns and ammo, the black-market would also dry up. Badguys would be way less dangerous.

Legal law abiding gun owners are not the problem. Its bad guys and mentally unfit people with guns that are the problem. Bad-guys don't have 2nd amendment rights.

Make gun owners be responsible. If Adam Lanzas mother had been required to keep her guns locked up, and not been allowed to train her mentally defective son how to use them, those kids at Sandy Hook might be alive today. If she was a law abiding gun owner, she would have complied with those rules.

Leaving an unlocked lethal weapon lying around for a kid to get ahold of, or a thief to steal, should be an offense.

Registration: I can see that.

Background checks: ...isn't that already the case for most buyers? How would you cover private sales?

National database: no way. That could easily be used by the government to confiscate weapons.

Close gun purchase loopholes: Not a bad idea, but again, how to enforce?

Law abiding citizens aren't the problem. What do you propose there?

Part of the problem is that the Supreme Court has already ruled on at least one aspect of gun registration. In Haynes v. U.S. (1968) the court decided in an 8-1 decision that because of 5th amendment protections against self incrimination, felons could NOT be compelled to register their firearms, and therefor could not be punished for having an unregistered firearm.

@Pete

We already have registration of firearms. When you legally buy a firearm from an FFL, he takes down your name, address (from your drivers licens or other legal documentation), and serial number of the weapon. This legally ties you to that weapon, so people who are on this "registration" thing need to stop as it already takes place. What loop holes? every gun show I've ever been too has had licensed FFL's selling weapons. If you are referring to private sales, there is no way in hell to ever enforce that. If I want to sell my AR to my ax wielding murderous neighbor, there is nothing to stop me from doing so. Simply not going to happen.

chuck. You don't know that many gun sales occur through private sales AT GUN SHOWS, do you? That's an easy way for criminals to get guns! Pay cash, and no questions asked.

Herron,

You really have no effing idea what you are talking about do you? Again try to enlighten me as to how you regulate PRIVATE sales whether they are a gun show or not. I am not for criminals having guns, just the opposite. I want guns to remain in the hands of those legally entitled to have them. And you really don't know me so let me clue you in, I'm a Persian Gulf War combat vet and have seen some crap that would scare the hell out of little bed wetting boys like you. As to Obama, I couldn't give rats a$$ who's in the WH. Obama is a nobody to me personally. You seriously need to limit your comments on things you know something about.

chuck - indeed, for I have bought from FFL's legally and with a perfect record have had no problems.

I have bought a gun from a close friend for cash which was completely legal.

Apparently in CA to legally sell a firearm as a private sale you need to do so in the presence of an FFL and there is paperwork.

Again, not a problem for law abiding citizens.

Ah, but that pesky criminal element.... no matter the party affiliation, I've yet to see anyone pose a plan to tackle that.

Cash for guns?

Crack for guns?

Food for guns?

Welfare for guns?

I do not have the answer.