An Adult Conversation About Guns?
ProudProgressive
2012/07/21 01:23:15
The opinions expressed in this article are those of its author, not your humble poster, but I agree with the central question it poses - CAN we have an adult conversation about guns in this country any more???
Article excerpt follows:
An Adult Conversation About Guns
By Darcy Burner
July 20, 2012
Earlier today, a gunman walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where people were watching the midnight showing of the new Batman movie. He fired gas canisters into the crowd, and then opened fire. At least 12 people are dead and 59 people are injured. My heart and prayers go out to all of them.
On the day Gabby Giffords was shot, I was picking up my son Henry from a lesson when I got the text message saying there had been a shooting. I'd campaigned with Gabby in 2006. Henry didn't understand why I'd stopped getting into the car and started crying.
Walking back from a haircut the other day, I passed Café Racer, where on May 30th a gunman walked in and killed four people.
It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.
On January 17, 1989, a gunman in Stockton, California walked onto a playground and opened fire, killing 5 children and injuring 30 more.
On July 1, 1993, a gunman in San Francisco walked into a law office and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 6.
On April 20, 1999, two gunmen in Columbine, Colorado walked into their high school and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 21 others.
On January 16, 2002, a gunman in Virginia walked into a law school and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On July 8, 2003, a gunman in Mississippi walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 8.
On March 21, 2005, a gunman in Minnesota walked into a high school and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 5.
On November 20, 2005, a gunman in Tacoma walked into the mall and opened fire, injuring 6.
On March 25, 2006, a gunman in Seattle walked into a party and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2007, a gunman in Utah walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 4.
On April 16, 2007, a gunman in Virginia walked onto the Virginia Tech campus and opened fire, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others.
On December 5, 2007, a gunman in Nebraska walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 4.
On December 9, 2007, a gunman in Colorado Springs walked onto a church parking lot and opened fire, killing 2 and wounding 3.
On February 7, 2008, a gunman in Missouri walked into a city council meeting and opened fire, killing 5 and wounding 2.
On February 14, 2008, a gunman in Illinois walked onto a college campus and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 17.
On June 25, 2008, a gunman in Kentucky walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 1.
On January 24, 2009, a gunman in Portland walked up to a nightclub and opened fire, killing 2 and injuring 7.
On March 29, 2009, a gunman in North Carolina walked into a retirement home and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 4, 2009, a gunman in a suburb of Pittsburgh walked into a fitness club and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 9.
On November 5, 2009, a gunman at Fort Hood in Texas walked into a medical center and opened fire, killing 13 and injuring 29.
On November 29, 2009, a gunman in Lakewood, Washington walked into a coffee shop and killed 4 police officers.
On January 7, 2010, a gunman in St Louis walked into a power plant and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 6.
On January 12, 2010, a gunman in Georgia walked into a truck rental place and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2010, a gunwoman in Alabama stood up in a college faculty meeting and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On August 3, 2010, a gunman in Connecticut walked into a warehouse and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 7, 2011, a gunman in Ohio broke into his girlfriend's house and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 1.
On September 6, 2011, a gunman in Nevada walked into a pancake restaurant and opened fire, killing 4 and injuring 7.
On October 5, 2011, a gunman in Cupertino, California walked into a quarry where people were working and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 7.
Sadly, I could go on.
But the numbers don't tell the stories. These were people. Rachel Scott was a 17-year-old aspiring writer and actress who wanted to change the world through small acts of kindness. Dave Sanders was a 47-year-old teacher and girls basketball coach who was shot and killed while trying to evacuate students. Cassie Bernall was hiding under a table praying. Jack Berman was a lawyer who founded a program to help homeless people find housing. John Scully died while shielding his newlywed wife with his own body. Drew Keriakedes and Joe Albanese were musicians with wicked senses of humor. Every one of the hundreds of people shot in the incidents I list above had dreams and aspirations, laughed and cried, had friends and neighbors and parents.
As a country, though, we have not had a real conversation about guns in many, many years. The National Rifle Association (NRA) threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation. As a consequence, our country has not discussed assault weapons – which have no use except killing large numbers of people in massacres like the ones I've listed. We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence. We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don't have to reload. We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be.
Enough.
It's time we took steps to stop the mass killings.
It's time we had an adult conversation about guns in this country. The NRA can go to hell.
In deepest sympathy,
- Darcy
Article excerpt follows:
An Adult Conversation About Guns
By Darcy Burner
July 20, 2012
Earlier today, a gunman walked into a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, where people were watching the midnight showing of the new Batman movie. He fired gas canisters into the crowd, and then opened fire. At least 12 people are dead and 59 people are injured. My heart and prayers go out to all of them.
On the day Gabby Giffords was shot, I was picking up my son Henry from a lesson when I got the text message saying there had been a shooting. I'd campaigned with Gabby in 2006. Henry didn't understand why I'd stopped getting into the car and started crying.
Walking back from a haircut the other day, I passed Café Racer, where on May 30th a gunman walked in and killed four people.
It's time we had an adult conversation in this country about guns.
On January 17, 1989, a gunman in Stockton, California walked onto a playground and opened fire, killing 5 children and injuring 30 more.
On July 1, 1993, a gunman in San Francisco walked into a law office and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 6.
On April 20, 1999, two gunmen in Columbine, Colorado walked into their high school and opened fire, killing 13 people and injuring 21 others.
On January 16, 2002, a gunman in Virginia walked into a law school and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On July 8, 2003, a gunman in Mississippi walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 8.
On March 21, 2005, a gunman in Minnesota walked into a high school and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 5.
On November 20, 2005, a gunman in Tacoma walked into the mall and opened fire, injuring 6.
On March 25, 2006, a gunman in Seattle walked into a party and opened fire, killing 6 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2007, a gunman in Utah walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 4.
On April 16, 2007, a gunman in Virginia walked onto the Virginia Tech campus and opened fire, killing 32 people and wounding 17 others.
On December 5, 2007, a gunman in Nebraska walked into a mall and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 4.
On December 9, 2007, a gunman in Colorado Springs walked onto a church parking lot and opened fire, killing 2 and wounding 3.
On February 7, 2008, a gunman in Missouri walked into a city council meeting and opened fire, killing 5 and wounding 2.
On February 14, 2008, a gunman in Illinois walked onto a college campus and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 17.
On June 25, 2008, a gunman in Kentucky walked into a factory and opened fire, killing 5 and injuring 1.
On January 24, 2009, a gunman in Portland walked up to a nightclub and opened fire, killing 2 and injuring 7.
On March 29, 2009, a gunman in North Carolina walked into a retirement home and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 4, 2009, a gunman in a suburb of Pittsburgh walked into a fitness club and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 9.
On November 5, 2009, a gunman at Fort Hood in Texas walked into a medical center and opened fire, killing 13 and injuring 29.
On November 29, 2009, a gunman in Lakewood, Washington walked into a coffee shop and killed 4 police officers.
On January 7, 2010, a gunman in St Louis walked into a power plant and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 6.
On January 12, 2010, a gunman in Georgia walked into a truck rental place and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 2.
On February 12, 2010, a gunwoman in Alabama stood up in a college faculty meeting and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 3.
On August 3, 2010, a gunman in Connecticut walked into a warehouse and opened fire, killing 8 and injuring 2.
On August 7, 2011, a gunman in Ohio broke into his girlfriend's house and opened fire, killing 7 and injuring 1.
On September 6, 2011, a gunman in Nevada walked into a pancake restaurant and opened fire, killing 4 and injuring 7.
On October 5, 2011, a gunman in Cupertino, California walked into a quarry where people were working and opened fire, killing 3 and injuring 7.
Sadly, I could go on.
But the numbers don't tell the stories. These were people. Rachel Scott was a 17-year-old aspiring writer and actress who wanted to change the world through small acts of kindness. Dave Sanders was a 47-year-old teacher and girls basketball coach who was shot and killed while trying to evacuate students. Cassie Bernall was hiding under a table praying. Jack Berman was a lawyer who founded a program to help homeless people find housing. John Scully died while shielding his newlywed wife with his own body. Drew Keriakedes and Joe Albanese were musicians with wicked senses of humor. Every one of the hundreds of people shot in the incidents I list above had dreams and aspirations, laughed and cried, had friends and neighbors and parents.
As a country, though, we have not had a real conversation about guns in many, many years. The National Rifle Association (NRA) threatens the career of any politician who so much as opens the conversation. As a consequence, our country has not discussed assault weapons – which have no use except killing large numbers of people in massacres like the ones I've listed. We have not discussed the fact that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without any background check, even if they have a history of criminal violence. We have not discussed the expiration of the ban on large clips, which allow shooters to kill more people in a shorter time because they don't have to reload. We have not discussed what a sensible, rational approach to regulating guns in our country might be.
Enough.
It's time we took steps to stop the mass killings.
It's time we had an adult conversation about guns in this country. The NRA can go to hell.
In deepest sympathy,
- Darcy
Read More: http://crooksandliars.com/darcy-burner/adult-conve...
However I am more and more, as I get older coming to realize that there is a difference between being a pacifist who does not support war (but does support the troops) and violence and the use of guns in both of those circumstances verses protecting ones own safety and the safety of their loved ones.
I think that each and every adult should own a hand gun.
Should be trained and qualified to use it.
The conditions required to purchase said hand gun would be
Apply for a Federal Gun and Concealed Carry License
Wait for 180 day waiting period
During said 180 day waiting period a federal level Background check is run, just like the one you must pass to work at an airport.
Successful completion of 6 months of random Drug and Alcohol testing.
Minimum 100 hours of hand gun usage and training at a federally approved firing range.
Observe a video recorded autopsy on an annonymous individual who has been killed by a gun. (Some may find this condition a but distasteful but I feel it is necessary to make people SEE AND UNDERSTAND the power of what ANY GUN CAN DO)
If you pass all of the above requirements w...
&
However I am more and more, as I get older coming to realize that there is a difference between being a pacifist who does not support war (but does support the troops) and violence and the use of guns in both of those circumstances verses protecting ones own safety and the safety of their loved ones.
I think that each and every adult should own a hand gun.
Should be trained and qualified to use it.
The conditions required to purchase said hand gun would be
Apply for a Federal Gun and Concealed Carry License
Wait for 180 day waiting period
During said 180 day waiting period a federal level Background check is run, just like the one you must pass to work at an airport.
Successful completion of 6 months of random Drug and Alcohol testing.
Minimum 100 hours of hand gun usage and training at a federally approved firing range.
Observe a video recorded autopsy on an annonymous individual who has been killed by a gun. (Some may find this condition a but distasteful but I feel it is necessary to make people SEE AND UNDERSTAND the power of what ANY GUN CAN DO)
If you pass all of the above requirements with out a problem Then by all means please purchase a hand gun.
Maybe a .9mm with either a standard 15 round clip like a Sig Sauer, upwards of $2500.00
http://www.discountgunsales.c...
or an 8 round .38 special Like a S&W; .38 $ 1600.00 and up.
http://www.panteraguns.com/wi...
NEITHER OF THESE OPTIONS IS CHEAP SO You really need to be committed to self protection to spend this kind of money.
For personal protection, you don't need a long barrel or an AK47assault weapon.
In addition the laws regarding What, When, Where, How Many and How Frequently You Can Buy, Needs to be centralized in to one singular Federal database..... That one thing might have prevented Friday's massacre more than any one other thing that people with 20/20 Hindsight are claiming would have prevented this unimaginable tragedy.
It's so much easier, to beat, lynch and burn out your "inferiors" . . . if they've first been legally disarmed.
Beyond your desire to leave the poor helpless against criminals; do you honestly believe that those who commit rape, robbery and murder would obey the new gun control scheme you propose? Why wouldn't they simply *IGNORE* your idea?
Let's see what *FACTS* tell us about your claim:
The police seldom arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns.
And if a police officer should actually NEEDED a gun for a call, doesn't logic suggest that the victim the call was made for, needed a gun as well?
Here is something important you need to learn: *THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS*:
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.
But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
But it doesn't stop there, here is just a few examples of what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability...
Let's see what *FACTS* tell us about your claim:
The police seldom arrive in time to even arrest a suspect, much less USE their guns.
And if a police officer should actually NEEDED a gun for a call, doesn't logic suggest that the victim the call was made for, needed a gun as well?
Here is something important you need to learn: *THE POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUALS*:
“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989
This means that if you want protection from violent crime, for you and your loved ones; it’s up to YOU and YOU ALONE to provide it.
But ask yourself this question, in your heart of hearts: Why should a cop risk his life to save something so insignificant (your life or the lives of your loved ones), that even the owner is unwilling to protect it?
But it doesn't stop there, here is just a few examples of what the courts have ruled:
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
I made a statement about the results of an over zealous gun loving society and you attempt to educate me on the roll of law enforcement. Without even looking, I would imagine that the X V. Y cases cited above are strictly the results of law suits against police for failure to respond either on time, or appropriately to intervene to protect one from harm or death.
I make no stand against gun ownership. I am fully aware and capable of using both handguns and rifles. Never used a shotgun before. I uphold and respect the needs of people to protect themselves from someone equally armed bent on criminal activity. I am saying, if you would listen, is that the cause for gun ownership has gotten out of hand and has thus proliferated to unwieldy proportions and now we have the sort of repeating mass murder events as seen recently in Co. The checks and balances are not working and the current spate of laws are ineffectual. It is not a matter of enforcement as the NRA would have us believe, it is a lack of sophisticated and well planned coordination between states and the Feds to track excessive gun purchases, ammo purchases. It is not an assault on rights, whi...
I made a statement about the results of an over zealous gun loving society and you attempt to educate me on the roll of law enforcement. Without even looking, I would imagine that the X V. Y cases cited above are strictly the results of law suits against police for failure to respond either on time, or appropriately to intervene to protect one from harm or death.
I make no stand against gun ownership. I am fully aware and capable of using both handguns and rifles. Never used a shotgun before. I uphold and respect the needs of people to protect themselves from someone equally armed bent on criminal activity. I am saying, if you would listen, is that the cause for gun ownership has gotten out of hand and has thus proliferated to unwieldy proportions and now we have the sort of repeating mass murder events as seen recently in Co. The checks and balances are not working and the current spate of laws are ineffectual. It is not a matter of enforcement as the NRA would have us believe, it is a lack of sophisticated and well planned coordination between states and the Feds to track excessive gun purchases, ammo purchases. It is not an assault on rights, which I debate is actually relevant today. (BTW, you did not respond to this assertion I made)
Those that support gun ownership in any form or amount act like kids in a candy shop. You can never own enough, smacks of paranoia and distrust of government and others. Is this really the way we want to live and responsibly possess weapons?
I understand perfectly! "It is so easy to pick you" cowardly Anti-Freedom bigots out- Your cowardice is like a BIG EMPTY SCROTUM hanging around your necks.
You state: "I made a statement about the results of an over zealous gun loving society and you attempt to educate me on the roll of law enforcement."
No, you present examples where *UNARMED* people counted on the protection of the police, because in their ignorance, they didn't know that protecting them was *NOT* the job of the police.
You state: "Without even looking, I would imagine that the X V. Y cases cited above are strictly the results of law suits against police for failure to respond either on time, or appropriately to intervene to protect one from harm or death."
That's because the police had no duty to even respond to their calls for help, and the courts simply confirmed that fact.
You state: "I make no stand against gun ownership."
But in your ignorance of the subject and what you believe, you actually *STATE* a stand against gun ownership when you state: "I am saying, if you would listen, is that the cause for gun ownership has gotten out of hand and has thus proliferated to unwiel...
I understand perfectly! "It is so easy to pick you" cowardly Anti-Freedom bigots out- Your cowardice is like a BIG EMPTY SCROTUM hanging around your necks.
You state: "I made a statement about the results of an over zealous gun loving society and you attempt to educate me on the roll of law enforcement."
No, you present examples where *UNARMED* people counted on the protection of the police, because in their ignorance, they didn't know that protecting them was *NOT* the job of the police.
You state: "Without even looking, I would imagine that the X V. Y cases cited above are strictly the results of law suits against police for failure to respond either on time, or appropriately to intervene to protect one from harm or death."
That's because the police had no duty to even respond to their calls for help, and the courts simply confirmed that fact.
You state: "I make no stand against gun ownership."
But in your ignorance of the subject and what you believe, you actually *STATE* a stand against gun ownership when you state: "I am saying, if you would listen, is that the cause for gun ownership has gotten out of hand and has thus proliferated to unwieldy proportions and now we have the sort of repeating mass murder events as seen recently in Co."
This is INDEED making a statement *AGAINST* gun ownership when you say: "proliferated to unwieldy proportions and now we have the sort of repeating mass murder events" specifically when your emotion-based examples all involve only *UNARMED VICTIMS*
As for your statement: "I am fully aware and capable of using both handguns and rifles. Never used a shotgun before."
This is totally irrelevant to the subject.
You state: "The checks and balances are not working and the current spate of laws are ineffectual."
This is one of your few correct statements.
The laws against gun possession fail, because, well dog-gone-it, those willing to commit rape, robbery and murder, they just ignore the gun control laws as well! Look at all the Local, State, and Federal laws the Columbine murderers violated before they ever hurt anyone.
You state: "It is not a matter of enforcement as the NRA would have us believe, it is a lack of sophisticated and well planned coordination between states and the Feds to track excessive gun purchases, ammo purchases."
But in each example you want can give: The *VIOLENT CRIMINALS* ignored the laws against assault with a weapon as well as the laws against murder, the Colorado shooter, even *TOOK A GUN* into a place that had *SIGNS* that specifically *FORBID GUNS*!
However had the seventy unarmed victims, instead been *ARMED*, and had *SHOT THE POS* just 5 times each, there would be no need for a trial. (Yes he was wearing bullet *RESISTANT* armor, the gas mask wasn't bullet proof, and his armor *WILL FAIL* with multiple hits. 350 hit would have destroyed it.)
You state: "It is not an assault on rights, which I debate is actually relevant today. (BTW, you did not respond to this assertion I made)"
I responded to your comment, just as I wouldn't have responded, if you had made the equally valid assertion: "It's an indisputable scientific FACT, that the Moon is made of green cheese!"
Your assertion is a direct assault on Rights, and nothing more. Your ideas have been shown to do nothing to reduce crime, but instead *INCREASE* violent crimes.
Proof: Name the U.S. cities with *STRICT* gun control laws, *AND* a violent crime rate *LOWER* than the national average.
Each and every law you could suggest, would *ONLY* affect the *LAW-ABIDING*, who are not the problem.
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; what would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty - so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator - and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." --Cesare Beccaria
You state: "Those that support gun ownership in any form or amount act like kids in a candy shop. You can never own enough, smacks of paranoia and distrust of government and others. Is this really the way we want to live and responsibly possess weapons?"
And the cowardly Anti-Freedom bigot that support controlling guns, are just like aggressive pedophile sexual predators: none are too big or too small.
Proof: Name the guns that the Brady Campaign would support that *EVERY* household *SHOULD* own.
I'm sorry the truth make you uncomfortable.
Have a great life.
I do think ALL gun sales ( private and licensed) need to go thru a background check..
The rights of individual gun owners to possess unlimited amounts of weapons, ammo and capacity thereof must be tempered by the number ...
The rights of individual gun owners to possess unlimited amounts of weapons, ammo and capacity thereof must be tempered by the number of persons who's brains are splattered across movie screens apart from the feature film leaving survivors and families to deal with the aftermath racked with pain, death, damage, incapacity. The mentality and mind-set of a nation that glorifies the right to bear arms to destroy an enemy with criminal intent is, in my opinion, clearly tied to the desire to defend against a government that may seek to impose restrictions on rights and freedoms considered sacrosanct and untouchable. But the numbers and realities do not support this ethos. US government is not entering peoples homes on some sort of regular basis and if the gun lobby were so concerned with this sort of behavior, it ought to have put its foot down on the knee-jerk enactment of the Patriot Act. It is hypocrisy at its height. Individual rights over collective rights and safety. Philosophically something is grotesquely wrong when individual rights supersede those of a community.
Honestly I am for the reasonable right to own a gun. One or two. A clip or two to defend an intruder in my home or if given the authorization, to carry it and use it to protect myself and others if a circumstance such as that which occurred in Aurora. So far, I have never heard of a single individual citizen thwart a mass murderer with a weapon used against him or her. I have heard the occasional dispatching of an intruder by an armed homeowner. Not sure that serves as sufficient evidence to allow one to amass a not so small arsenal.
I personally only know about 35 people.
They are really nice for wild hogs.
The rest of your post is just poorly thought out emotion-based non-sense.
It only effected weapons that LOOKED like the big scary military weapons, it did not touch weapons that did not APPEAR like them, and those "non threatening" type weapons are just as deadly.
And contrary to popular belief, assault weapons have more use than "just killing large amounts of people" ask any of us that are into various shooting sports.
And I suspect that you are less interested in having an "adult" conversation about privately owned weapons than you are in hawking your position on banning those that you don't like.
(directed at author, not poster)
Was there more then that?
(Even though the Giffords shooting was *NOT* in a "Gun-Free Zone", there were *NO GUNS* there, except for that of the murderer.)
One of the folks, who arrived *AFTER* the shooter had been *DISARMED*, had a gun, but the shooter was unarmed by the time the armed citizen arrived . . . the same as law enforcement.
The one you are trying to lie and say "He was was *THERE* and he was *ARMED*!" *WAS NOT THERE*, until *AFTER* the shooting was *OVER* and the murderer was *DISARMED*
Until then he was in Walgreens.
Can you give *ANYTHING* to disprove what I have posted?
Not at all!
You are simply lying to those reading this post.
Post your supporting "evidence", and I will take it apart step by step, that will make clear that you are lying.
Your point was a baseless lie and you know that I'm correct.
Proof: Where's your supporting data?
You've made claims, so now post it already, so that everyone else can see that you are lying.