I specified rifles, not all firearms, which is what was used in Sandy Hook and Aurora.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14107-fbi-more-club-and-hammer-homicides-than-rifle

How about the FBI's website... http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls ... what? you to effin lazy to do a google search?

I wasn't really presenting an argument for or against gun legislation, and in fact, my point in the article is to do what you're doing - to rationally approach and make efforts to fully understand what the data means without conflating it with emotion. Keep it up!

The White House did their due diligence to gather opinions.. Can I visit whatever fantasy land you live in, if you can make this statement without laughing about what you have just typed in this forum?

I'm sorry for sounding to mean on what I have responded to you but live in reality, please.

It is in no way dishonest to present the argument that way because the government is indeed trying to ban assault rifles. The fact that more people are killed by handguns and blunt objects that assault rifles is evidence that mayyyyybe we're getting a little too carried away with this debate. A few tragedies have occurred, yes, and they are horrible. But the people that committed them are crazy and unstable. Pass legislation against those that don't have any place owning guns, which are the crazies and the felons. Also, why not begin evaluating to see whether or not people have problems? Reagan took a lot of money out of mental health institutions in the 80's, and the money has never gone back. Those kids that grew up in that era are now wrecking havoc. Five people committing mass murders is horrific and I'm saddened by it just as much as the next man, but to restrict the rights of the rest of the people - and it is a RIGHT - is just plain stupid, and un-American.

@Santana James

How right you are! There has to be a direct correlation to these handful of mass murders, and a major decrease in mental healthcare. I say that because most of these crimes were committed by people with a history of mental health issues.

These new proposed laws will reduce the ammunition in the magazines carried by the crazies (and 99.999% every other sane, law-abiding citizen). Frankly, I would rather have the people with mental health issues get the treatment they need, so they can contribute positively to society instead of being a burden.

Under these proposed laws, the crazy people will still be crazy, and will still have access to guns. Not to mention, they can walk into a home improvement store and purchase a few items to concoct their own weapons of mass destruction.

The solution to these problems does not lie in gun control.

@Roger,why didn't obama or others like politicians from the Democratic Party speak out on all the shootings and killings in black and hispanic communities not only in Chicago which had I believe 500+ deaths and other big cities in America,and then obamas last escapade bringing children on while he signs paper on gun-control,its seems obama is playing the race card on us White law abiding citizens who believe in owning a gun legally,how do we know that obama and his boy holder who let his Dept. let thousands of automatic weapons get in control of the wrong people,like the killing of the BP Agent and possibly the weapon used in colorado or Conn. how do we know,or when the Democratic congresswoman got shot in Arizona and others killed obama and his posse blamed people like Sara Palin,Glenn Beck,Bill O'Reilly,Russ Limbaugh and others from the right,or how about the shooting at Ft. Hood when the Muslim killed American soldiers,and obama said lets not jump to conclusions,well Rodger??? Start reading Nazi Germany 1930's,there are a lot of similarities happening in America that happen back then.

The reason statistics are being represented as Rifles vs. Blunt objects is because this current, idiot controlled, white house is pushing for a ban on ASSAULT RIFLES. The comparison is to point out how stupid this administration really is.
And of course more murders are done by handguns. It is the weapon of choice of gangs. Do you think they will turn in their guns if a law restricting them is passed? There is already a law against murder that they pay no attention to. They will still get guns, just like they get drugs. The ONLY thing a gun control law will do is disarm law abiding citizens and make them easy targets for gangs and a tyrannical government... The latter being WHY we have a 2nd amendment.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Other guns trump every other weapon in any year. Don't need snopes for that. My Glock will trump a blunt object too. I prefer it over your shovel.

GlockG22Shoots40s, pretty sure you just a better argument for taking AWAY YOUR gun than letting others keep theirs...

Concise and Correct!

You do realize far more of our rights were taken away under the "Patriot Act" than anything to do with the Second Amendment, right?

The slippery slope of deteriorating rights is certainly a concern for many, and understandably so, considering how the PATRIOT and NDAA has rendered the 4th and 14th amendments moot.
The president did sign an order allowing the CDC to do studies on the causes of gun violence (which was illegal for them to do for the past 17 years). And though it wasn't the president, the aftermath of his orders resulted in this:
http://gamepolitics.com/2013/01/16/new-video-game-labeling-bill-introduced-today-congress#.UPhoHidkiSr

"This is great watching the anti-gun folks shift into attack mode. (and when that neighbor comes back with a hammer & a chain saw? . . . if that deranged neighbor knows I own a gun and will defend myself, he may just choose a different neighbor to mess with)"

You have been watching too many Texas Chainsaw movies. How many killers actually try to attack people with hammers and chainsaws?

If your neighbor wanted to do harm, it would more likely come from a gun. If your neighbor knows you have a gun, he/she would figure out a way to harm you when you werent near your gun.

@Logansdad

JG is not watching too many Texas Chainsaw movies. He, like most others, got is data from the FBI website. Here's a link.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

While the FBI does not have a column for chainsaws, it does have a heading called "Blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.)" So while the reference to chainsaws might be in jest, the hard facts that hammers kill more people than rifles in violent crime is accurate and correct.

You are right about one thing. Anyone out to harm you will do so in any manner they can. Gun, knife, or common hardware store supplies.

Bad link Mr. Lib... but how a bout this one. http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/10285-fbi-stats-show-more-guns-less-crime

or even this... http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

Okay, only to belabor this exact point, not to take a side, except logic's...how many NEIGHBORS kill each other with...well, anything? Meaning, is there a statistic stating this, or just the base numbers about the various weapons? How many people, especially on this board are really worried about their ACTUAL neighbors? NOT people from other places, the ACTUAL people on their block?
Thought so...can we now get back to things that might happen in reality more than a handful of times a year...and are also not the instances being targeted by any governing body anywhere in the country.

This is the real issue. Why are the illegal guns being tolerated and even ignored when in fact they commit most of the murders? Responsible gun owners do not perpetrate drive-bys, "trap" killings or I would hazard to guess armed robbery, home invasion, bank robbery, etc. So yes let's just ignore all of that and make sure the mentally ill can'r get thier mitts by banning certain guns. We need more options than jail for the mentally ill and we need to get serious about early release and suspended sentances for people who cannot behave in a sane way in society creating a danger for everyone else.
Perhaps the legislators need to work on laws, ordinances, exucutive orders and the like that makes progress in taking the weapons away from those who choose a life of crime.

Well said!

And of those deaths how many would be affected by the legislation proposed? How many were with an "assault weapon" or involved the firing of more than 10 rounds from one firearm?

The proposed legislation is aimed at a statistically tiny problem.

Incidentally, if you want to talk data, what about the lawful uses of firearms by civilians? What about the success in 49 states of concealed carry of firearms by 8 million trained, licensed, law-abiding civilians?

I wonder if the number of people killed in Chicago from 1979 - 2010 is also more than the deaths in som eof the above mentioned wars.

The sad thing about the whole debate is the brain dead rascists being whipped into a frenzy by the NRA with complete and udder lies. Obama is not some fascist,communist,socialist,nazi, Merica hating Muslim. He is a man who is genuinely concerned about this country.
I just want to say "hey dipshits", the NRA and gun/ammo makers are laughing all the way to the bank as you imbeciles snatch up every available assault rifle in preparation for Obama's Muslim takeover of America.
And the pathetic thing is that if ever confronted by an "armed felon" you would do one of three things 1) crap youself 2) shoot yourself in the foot 3) completely miss, said felon, and wound some innocent person two blocks away as your bullet crashed in to his house.
But by all means, PLEASE,PLEASE,PLEASE keep posting on this and other sites. That will keep you small peckered piss ants from killing some innocent person with an errant bullet.

@Hugh

Do you have data to backup your statement?

Unbeknownst to many, guns have the capacity to stop crime/murders -- often without being fired. Here are some examples:

http://www.wrn.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holder-thwarts-assault/
http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/12/16/gun-owner-confronted-oregon-mall-shooter/

In fact, the FBI says that more guns actually equals less gun related murders

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2009/1223/More-guns-equal-more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.

Accidents will happen, gun related or not. Murders will happen, gun related or not. People will stop crime whether they are armed or not. But FBI found that more gun sales equaled less crime.

Interesting observation, Sheila. I think the answer comes down to one word: lobbyists!

On the one hand, no one seems to be lobbying against the government nullifying the 14th amendment with the NDAA, but then, that doesn't affect businesses anywhere - no food chains, no BigPharma, no banks, no NRA... just the rights of the individual where no money is involved.

Or another reason.. You voted in individuals that don't care for your individual freedom to choose for yourself.

Your rights but do not try and eliminate the rights of others because you choose not to exercise them or you do not like those rights.

It's called freedom that most likely someone else has defended or sacrificed for you to have and your giving it away.

Ah, but you are mistaken...it is still lobbyists and money...just that in this case there is/was competition for/with it. The insurance companies that pay out on those sick/injured or dead people, especially the young ones (who have paid very little in premiums) are huge contributors to Congress...and they hate pay-outs...so, sorry Metabolife of other various entities affected.
This is America, so the first thing you should ever do is look ever deeper for who can make money off a situation, usually BOTH sides of a situation.

You hit the nail on the head, we need idiot control, not gun control.

Ray, any sort of city wide control will never work. As long as you can go to next door town and do whatever you want that regulation is doomed.
Create extra work and more checks and balances will avoid that at least some idiots get guns they are not supposed to have. It's not perfect but it's better than current no man's land we have today.

Liz H. - I don't think anyone will ever try to convince you that they hunt with an Uzi, it's just not practical. I also believe that if you want to own an Uzi LEGALLY, its going to cost you a lot of money and time to jump through the hoops to acquire your Uzi.

How many people are killed, murdered or life lost due to hammers, blunt objects or other instruments that are not guns? Last time I have heard this statistic, it was a large number that surpassed guns.
But we can sell those to any person or "idiot" on the street with no questions asked.

So Brian,
What do we do here? Have background checks on every person for every transaction of anything that could be a weapon?

You are looking into this issue to deeply because from several reports of one of these shootings, the assailant was denied to purchase weapons (i.e. guns) from responsible gun owners and weapons dealers.

Howdy, MikeK... Hypocrisy is a repulsive pill to swallow. As a life-long rebel, it is indeed something I've raged against for years. Even so, on the national level, I think that introducing tangential hypocrisy is a serious roadblock for getting anything resolved. When we have any hard conversation, I think that focused perspectives are the most productive. While we do need frames of reference, effective analogies, and precedent setting allusions, we also need to be careful of redirecting that initial focus that is needed for resolution.

Please, you have it backwards. Conservatives try to ban abortion all the time and most of them are in favor of no gun control laws.

"The government and police cannot control our lives. No law or rule will ever stop a person from making a bad choice. Our quality of life is being destroyed by all these ridiculous rules."

So I guess your quality of life is being destroyed by the ridiculous law that outlaws drinking and driving. Is your quality of life being destroyed because you can't drive 80mph down a residential street? Is your quality of life being destroyed because you can steal from a store?

"All the misinformed people are crying to their politicians and police but not realizing the consequences."
Banning certain types of guns is not taking away your right to bare arms. Requiring background checks on gun purchases is not taking away your right to bare arms. So who is really misinformed?

@ Oswego res- nice post but consider what it is like in the naked city! While the gangs proliferate their drive by's and assassinations in Englewood and the West Side, the response of the CPD was 1200 retirements ( can't blame em) followed by 100 hires by the Emmanuel administration. During the final days of the corrupt Bankster cowardly Daley's and the current bankster admin the number of patrolmen on the street are at a all time low while contracts to insiders and nepotism is at a all time high,There were more than 40 City and St Police attending the festivities of a HS basketball game aka killing field at - Chgo St a neutral area between local maniac factions, all part of the Wars for DRUGS, TERROR and Zionist assassins.The jinned up fear by the media includes the full Monty network of mind control MK Ultra throw in (BANKSTERS-Big Pharma-Insurance, Chemical-Oil-Coal AMMOLAND laughing all the way to the bank, Hellibrton, Fox, Oxy cotin Rush etc) They supply the cash VOICES in the head as well as the poison. The so called uninformed and or misinformed crying to the pol's and cops are just victims who simply were unaware of the ingredients in the KOOL AID. They are not all birthers and climate change deniers but represent the majority of MURKA society because of their choice of sources of disinformation and misinformation, the solutions are simple enough no more wars for Drugs-terror and either Empire the Murkan and ERETZ YISRAEL.

Well, Stephen, while humanity is certainly a depressing bunch at times (I prefer to see us as more wondrous than angry and out of control), it is data that allows us to see problems clearly so that we may make rational decisions. We need to get away from "guns are evil" versus "from my cold dead hands" arguments because there is nothing more than emotive opinion involved.

This perception has do do with media BIAS, not the lack of incidents. Look at coverage of the 2002 school shooting in Virginia. Only a tiny fraction of media outlets mentioned that the civilian students who stopped the shooting were ARMED.

Professor Gary Kleck has found that Americans use firearms more than a million times per year to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property.

A ban on assualt type weapons is not the first step in taking away all of you guns. The courts have been steadfast on this issue and will never allow that because of the 2nd Ammendment. While the 2nd Ammendment gives us the right to bear arms, it doesn't do so without limitiations. Even our freedom os speech has limitations.

Your two examples support the right to bear arms, but it's interesting that in both cases a handgun was used for that purpose, not an assualt-type weapon.

"Assault type weapons" are functionally no different than semi-automatic rifles which have been around for 100 years. The difference is they look mean and have things like bayonet lugs or flash suppressors- things which do nothing to make it more deadly. Unless you are alleging a rash of bayonetings.

Stones,
It always amazes me when people say things like "The courts have been steadfast on this issue and will never allow that because of the 2nd Amendment." like the courts will never allow our rights to be taken away.
We have already lost some of our rights under the 4th amendment, thanks to the Supreme Court, when they ruled that sobriety checkpoints were a blatant violation of the Constitution, however, it was only a little one and the end justifies the means.
Using that type of thinking, as long as the end justifies the means, any of our rights can be taken away, but only if people that think like you allow it to happen.
Look at the Patriot Act and some of the rights we have lost because of it.
We are losing our freedoms with more frequency and in widely different areas from what we can consume, to how we are allowed to travel, and now to what guns we can or can not own and you think that the government and courts will not allow it?
They are the ones doing it!

Tired, I guess I see it as limits on our rights as opposed to losing them. It's a changing world with terrorists and lunatics reeking havoc and we're trying to limit the damage they can do.

When you're not allowed to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, is that taking away your right to freedom of speech or just limiting your right?

Why aren't we allowed to yell "Fire" in such a manner? Because it can create havoc and result in people being hurt or possibly killed. And believe it not, the same thing can and does happen when someone opens fire in crowded theater.

Hey Stones,
In case you weren't aware, opening fire in a crowded theater is already illegal.

Gee, Ernie is it really? Apparently the sarcasm was lost on you.

Stones,
It is a changing world, I just don't like when the changes involve taking away my rights.
You mention the 1st amendment in your response, so I'll go with that one. Here is what the 1st amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I see nothing in there about yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. If I was to do that, I would be subject to arrest just as if I had pulled a fire alarm when there was no fire. That is, if what I say causes people to be killed or injured, I would be prosecuted for the deaths or injuries just as if, by pulling the fire alarm, people were killed or injured, I would be prosecuted for those deaths or injuries because yelling FIRE is, in fact, a fire alarm.
I do see the part that says "the right of the people peaceably to assemble". This right has been taken away as people are no longer allowed to protest in an area where someone under secret service protection is going to be. So, if I wanted to protest at the RNC or DNC, I would not be allowed to. I would not have to do anything wrong and I could be peaceful, and still be arrested for my protest.
So there goes the 1st amendment. The 4th and the 14th have taken big hits too, and now it is the turn of the 2nd.
Can you see the pattern here?

Nice listing of unsubstantiated "facts". Please provide reliable links for verification, and a picture of your tin-foil hat. Yes, things are changing, and for the better. Evert decade more people have access to technology and medicine. Every century the rate of infant mortality drops while more diseases are eradicated. You're pessimisim is a sign of an ongoing disorder that is actually based in confirmation bias. To quote a woman who knew all of the stats that you've regurgitated,"Study it out".
Sorry, gotta go spend some more time laughing at your inept attempt at doom mongering!

Olddeegee,
While you may not believe it, that does not mean it is not true. Here are the facts:
#1. http://www.fbi.gov/foia/privacy-impact-assessments/iafis-ngi-interoperability-1
#2. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/germany-bring-home-gold-stored-us-france-205249881--finance.html
#3 I could not find anything to substantiate this claim, however, there is a recent house bill to ban internet sales of ammo.
#4 http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/oct/14/un-global-food-crisis-warning
#5 http://www.forbes.com/sites/abrambrown/2012/09/27/u-s-economy-appears-weaker-than-feared-q2-gdp-durable-goods-much-lower-than-forecast/
#6 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/surge-demand-food-stamps-united-states/story?id=14231657
#7 http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment
So there you go, Olddeegee, I gave you sources for the first 7, you want the rest, get them yourself.
Seems that things are changing but it sure looks like Eric Blair was correct on most of what he posted.
You may want to check things out before you start with the "tin foil hat" references.
You are a great example of what's wrong with this country.

Not even close. Each of the links that you provide are far more textured than your claims. Let them hoard gold. The US still has more gold than the rest of the world. 1.4 million gang members in a country of over 300 million? Really a threat (where's my sarcasm font?). Limiting the availability of weapons WILL have an affect on any real damage these clowns can inflict.
Abram Brown's opinion piece is just that, a journalistic exercise in amassing limited facts to back a tenuous point.

Your ability to come up with these weak points solidifies my original summation; your entire cabal is a self induced victim of confirmation bias.
Enjoy your hateful oblivion while the rest of us get on with actually attempting to improve the lot of the world and the US.

Shouldn't you guys be out hoarding doomsday supplies somewhere?

Olddeegee,
I guess that when the FBI posts the facts, they are not good enough for you. When Forbes post the facts and they don't fit your views, you ridicule them.
When these facts are easily obtained, but they show things that you don't want to see, you will continue to argue.
You do not post anything to dispute them, you just resort to name calling and insults. This is typical of people with your close-minded way of thinking.
Your reply to Eric asks for links to substantiate the claims that were made, I provided links from the FBI, ABC News, Forbes, and more, yet you call them "weak points".
Please provide links that prove them wrong, or are you just arguing for the sake of argument?
I do not live in "hateful oblivion" and I see little evidence of you "actually attempting to improve the lot of the world and the US."

“Tired of the B.S.”, Ignore that fool. I've seen them many times just doing their low wage job as a paid Troll. Easy to spot. Their job is to divert and discredit while contributing nothing worthwhile. Like usual this one isn't very good at it.

Nice research Eric. I'm not a troll, I vote, and I mean what I say. Your needing a weapon to complete your personality is no real concern of mine, yet I feel a need to at least remind you that we're not laughing with you.

Olddeegee,
I see that once again your response is to insult. when will you post the links to dispute what Eric has said? If you make the case that he is wrong, I can respect that. However, when all you do is make cracks about doomsday and people laughing, all you are doing is proving his points, at least to those that realize that you have not got anything other than insults and name calling.

Missed your meds I see.

No kidding, Cheryl! My most recent near miss was a jogger who was dressed head to ankle in black; his shoes were orange. That was very nearly not enough, as he was practically invisible. And somehow we drivers are the jerks in the situation. Nonetheless, "there ought to be a law," needs to remain no more than an amusing quip.

60% of all the guns used in chicago deaths are from Indiana. Indiana has some of the loosest laws...

Straw purchases are still a felony in Indiana. Sounds like an enforcement issue.

COB,
Those numbers (60% of guns from Indiana) don't match any of the information that I have found. Could you provide a source that shows that shows this to be true?
Everything I have seen shows that almost half of the guns used in Chicago come from Chicago suburbs, with less than 20% coming from Indiana.

Logansdad - My question is, what gun control laws does Aurora have beyond the normal Illinois laws? Seems like that would be an argument against strict gun control? (Chicago HAS strict laws--> lots of gun deaths; Aurora DOESN'T have strict laws--> no gun deaths)

Logansdad,
I, for one am eagerly awaiting your reply to snwbdrny about the gun laws that were used in Aurora that were so successful in stopping people from killing each other.
We can use those same laws to stop the gun violence in the rest of the country.
Please tell us what "special laws" were passed in Aurora that worked so well and I will get on your bandwagon 100%.
If they had no "special laws" that kept them from having any gun related murders, then why do we need more laws?
Maybe you have an answer, but if you did, I'm sure that it would have been posted by now. So, I challenge you to let us know, what were the laws in Aurora that worked so well and how were they different than the laws in the rest of the state?

What the heck is a TPARTY MISINFO shill?
You make no sense in any of your postings and until you make some sense, I will do as most on the Patch already have and ignore your posts.
This will be the last time I respond to you or your posts as I have no idea what you are talking about.

I get Butch's posts, he has a lot to say, it all makes sense to me.
thanks Butch

When does Coyote whacking- stacking season start in your neighborhood?

Seriously, someone please explain to me why getting your toes sucked on feels so good!

Blah Blah Blah just answer my question!!!

This report shows the worst of bought and paid for politicians. This is where Americans are being screwed. Notice no comments from the gun nuts as it's hard tu refute the truth about this industry of death.

Olddeegee,
Are you seriously looking to The Daily Show for your information? You would also look to an actress for unbiased information on gun control?
How would you respond if I asked you to use Fox News for your information? What if I said to use Rush Limbaugh as your unbiased source?
Of course no one takes this seriously, not even us "gun nuts". What a fool you are turning out to be.
By the way, still waiting for you to post the links that prove that Eric Blair was incorrect in his earlier posting on this thread, but all I have seen from you is......nothing.

Tired of (your) BS. Did you watch it? Of course you didn't or you'd be quoting from the report. I listen to Limbaugh, mostly filled with disgust, but I listen. I watch Fox (Shep Smith is their only on air personality that deserves any attention), Mark Levin is a weaselly little liar, I know because I listen. Boortz, Hannity, all of them spout unbelievable BS, but as a truly informed voter, I listen to all viewpoints. So, whatever you do, you backward looking anachronism, don't upset your confirmation bias by letting your mind consider opposing views.

Old dg
I do consider views other than the ones I subscribe to. The problem is that most of the views that I don't follow are put forth by people like you. All of your talk about listening to different views is just that, TALK. You would not know an opposing view if it bit you where the sun don't shine. You are one of the folks that debates by voicing your view and if I or anybody else does not happen to have the same belief, you label us as "gun nuts" or "spouting unbelievable BS" or "backward looking anachronism". You are hardly open to any other opinion other than the ones that were furnished to you by the main stream media.
By the way, I am still waiting for the links that show how incorrect Eric Blair was in his earlier post. Other than name calling, though, you have provided.....NOTHING.

Who am I to disagree with a reasonable posting such as Olddeegee but do u really listen to the King of Hillbilly heroin and Fox? I could not bring myself to do it no matter the reason nor any civilized American.
Now as long as u are there may I suggest u get Dennis Kucinich spin because he was hired after the Turd Blossom (karl rove) melt down.
Turdie thought he had OHIO rigged and did until anonymous patched the DIE BOLD voting machines they had rigged just as they did in 2004 and 10.
. Roger Ailes the NEO GOP boss of Fox hired Dennis Kucinich in a 3-4 year contract after seemingly getting rid of the toe sucker Morris and Rove but Dennis who lost his seat in a primary when he was put in another Dist with a strong incumbent was getting a lot of support nation wide to run against Spkr. BONER, Ailes then gave him a offer he couldn't refuse, it is chump change to them all to keep BONER SPEAKER, and now with Dennis under contract they rehired TURDIE and Dennis safely under contract for at least one election cycle the orange skinned boner is safe they think.

So John, How many people have been killed in a theater, mall or school with a potato gun? Banning metal, copper, etc., can you come up with a dumber analogy?

Stones,
How many people were not killed at a school or at a mall because a law abiding person with a gun was there to stop the killer? How many children at Sandy Hook would still be alive if there was somebody like Carolyn Gudger at the school? These numbers will never be known because there is no way to know for sure how many were saved and the media never reports stories like Carolyn's like they did for Sandy Hook.
Sorry to see that you have started with the insults like so many others.

Tired, you're right, we'll never know the answer to your questions. But I'm pretty sure we know the answer to my question about potato guns. Likely zero.

Where are the insults?

Stones...they took your asking for a 'dumber' analogy personally...not for the factual question you intended it as.

@Gerard are u sure the attack took place? I mean shootings go on daily in Englewood especially against kids and they seldom use baseball bats or wrenches not to say it is not done! I say again ban SAT night SPECIALS and open up more enterprise zone factories in the Hood for AMMOLAND AND RABBI laughing all the way to the bank!

OH Colin C...how dare you make sense...you will now be ignored by people who are defeated by logic in lieu of fear and uniformed opinion...sorry to break this to you...though you probably have encountered this before, especially if you have posted either on this topic or on this forum.

Colin, I don't know if anyone getting shot is a hoot, but at the gun shows, it's certainly ironic. Speaking of gun shows, Roger Simon's syndicated column yestery had an interesting note on them, the entire column is in the link below as well:

"Having a background check for people who buy guns at gun shows is not a unique abridgement of personal freedom. Their personal “freedom” is already abridged. And by gun shows, I know this because I have been checking the websites of gun shows, and a lot seem to have the same rule: no loaded guns allowed.

“No loaded firearms and no loaded magazines are permitted in any Crossroads gun show,” one site said. “Your personal safety is our No. 1 priority while you are at the show.”

Personal safety? I thought loaded guns created personal safety."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/leave-the-presidents-kids-out-of-it-86294_Page2.html#ixzz2IcvSKhxb

You can equate automobiles with guns when it is made legal to sue gun manufacturers. The laws pushed by the NRA put the gun industry in an insulated position that no other product has. Stop comparing unless you truly want to equalize them so gun manufacturers can be fined or jailed for practices and results that would put other industries CEO's behind bars for selling a dangerous product.

Rudy, simple difference, cars were not manufactured to kill. Killing is the primary purpose of guns. especially certain types.

Rudy...little tip for you...NEVER...EVER...use wikipedia as a credible 'source'...EVER!
Totally undermines your point, no matter how correct...

If If a product is used accidentally or performs in a manner it's not supposed to (misfires or is accessed by an unauthorized user), you can sue the manufacturer for not designing the product with safety features to prevent injuries or death. Not so the gun industry due to laws enacted under NRA supervision. That is not a level playing field. I'm not anti gun, but I am pro-regulation. I'm not saying that these types of lawsuits win or that they are all legally valid, but with anything but a gun you can sue a manufacturer. I think that that gives them an unfair advantage over other manufacturers.
Similar to the tax situation, if penalties are greatly increased, if more loopholes are closed and enforcement of existing law as it is written is allowed to proceed unfettered, then many problems would be minimized greatly. There is no cure-all, but it can be much better.

Collin, We will have to agree to disagree. I feel the Democrats are WAY too powerful in Illinois and many other parts of the country now! They have run this state into the ground! When they can give the people that voted them into office free housing, free food, free phones, and free medicine why work. Also why would they vote any other way. When someone tells me they are a Democrat I automatically assume they are lazy and want something for nothing. I have personal pride and work ethic that seem all too lacking in today's society. I know not all Democrats are lazy. It still shocks me when people that I know work hard every day for their money tell me they are a Democrat? I thought they all just stood there with their hands out waiting for the rest of us to provide for them! I guess that includes protection!

Rudy...if you think Democrats are too powerful (which in Illinois, they certainly are), I hope you vote, and if really concerned, have worked for candidates to change that. Keep in mind that places like Texas have overwhelming majorities of Republicans, and not every Democrat can just move out, as I'm sure is the case with many Illinois Republicans. Whole swathes of the South, in fact, are quite 'red'...and, thanks to the glory of gerrymandering, will remain so despite the GOP being outvoted in many congressional districts. (You want a constitutional rights convsersation, try reading up on THAT topic...)
Mostly, keep in mind that for the majority of our history, we have had gun laws supported by a majority, despite the 2nd Amendment.
Also, keep in mind that as a mostly minority party in the US (slimly, mostly, but still a minority at this point), the GOP is either putting itself further out of the mainstream or content to be the future Whig Party...

Oh, just re-read your post, sorry...a bit more...
As a centrist, I have to say that while you might be offended by individuals looking for a handout, I am with you...but when you, or others say they are Republican, I wonder what company they own and which handout from the government they get.
If they do not own a company or run one, at least, I REALLY wonder why because the majority of the uber-wealthy in this country are the most conservative people and THEY are the ones that enjoy all the tax-breaks that allow themn to pay less in taxes than you or I, and THEY are the ones reducing your wages and cutting your and my benefits, and THEY are the ones telling you to it is Tv's fault. (Guess who runs the networks...old white guys who are the most conservative of them all...Jack Welch ran NBC for years, Les Moonves-Sumner Redstone...Rupert Murdoch pays Seth MacFarlane!) So for the average middle class American that is being run into extinction, keep in mind who is doing it to you, and it isn't unions (lowest membership by percentage of population in decades), it isn't Tv, it isn't anything or anyone but the people you think are your friends. They do not CARE about you...they care about themselves, their families (probably), their friends (maybe) and their money (for certain). All of the rest of us are just little disposable cogs in their machine. We mean nothing, regardless of what we look like or who we vote in. They just want the power and money to live how they want.

Whats your point nick.... hannity told you to scratch and you asked where?

This is a perfect example of the way that some people misuse statistics in order to mislead others.

It is true that the FBI states that more murders were committed with blunt objects, including hammers, than rifles.

But of course we are not talking about just rifles. We are talking about firearms.

Last year nearly 100,000 people were injured or killed by firearms in the US.

There were 12,664 murders. 8,583 were committed with firearms. That is nearly 68% of all murders were committed with guns.

So, an honest comparison is 8,583 gun murders against 605 by blunt object.

It does not matter in the slightest that the bullet that kills someone comes from a rifle, a pistol, a shotgun, or something else. The victim is just as dead.

Please, can we have an honest and rational discussion here?

The point is almost all the restrictions are targeting long rifles which aren't nearly as dangerous as hand guns. Try and conceal a AR 15 in your pocket. The problem is and remains Mental health. The guns don't create the problems the mentally ILL with a gun are the problem. Blaming the Gun is like blaming the Automobile for drunk reckless drivers. How come all you preachers don't blame the car for auto deaths shouldn't they be illegal too. How about blaming the planes for the 911 attacks? I don't personally own any assault type rifles but any freedom taken from me is a mistake.

Rudy, you're right, mental health is a big part of the problem and this debate. The fact of the matter remains, if they don't have access to these weaopons, we wouldn't have these mass killings.

The comparisons with planes, cars, hammers or whatever inantimate object you want to come up with is simply off-base because all of those items are tools with a real and other purpose than killing. It's really and old and tired argument that doesn't hold water.

How many guns went out by themselves and attacked anything or anybody on their own? I Thought so IT IS ZERO (0 if you can't read) stop blaming the tool! Start holding people accountable for their actions!

Patch61

If you want to talk about data, check out this link. It's to an FBI report that indicates more people were killed by blunt objects than rifles. More people were killed by fists and feet than rifles. 5 times more people were killed by knives. What should be banned in light of this data? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

For the record, I was not moving the discussion away from guns. I am looking at this with an objective viewpoint. I believe that banning high capacity magazines will only give people a false sense of security. It doesn't take long to change a magazine. And frankly, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure, hence my bringing up the mental health topic.

If you'd like to talk about specific data, in 2010, 2011, 2012, please present it to me, and I'll be happy to give you my thoughts.

Patch61,

I found some more figures for you. This info was lifted from Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics

It's a long page, but if you scroll towards the end, there's a heading called "Statistics" and just under that there's a subheading of "Effects of Gun Control Legislation" Here are some facts.

Twenty percent of U.S. homicides occur in four cities with just 6% of the population—New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Washington, D.C.. Chicago has, and DC had until 2008, effectively complete bans on handgun ownership & use for self-defense. New York does allow handgun ownership, but only with the approval of city officials. Post-2008 DC allows handgun ownership, but has no provision to carry. Detroit had a similar policy until 2001, when the city's law was preempted by a new state law making Michigan a shall-issue state for concealed pistol licenses

New Jersey adopted what sponsors described as "the most stringent gun law" in the nation in 1966; two years later the murder rate was up 46% and the reported robbery rate had nearly doubled.--The reason they enacted these laws was because the crime rates were increasing rapidly in the first place.

Patch61, would you like to discuss these facts? I would have copied and pasted more, but I ran out of space.

I agree Colin we are immoral all the more reason to keep my guns. In our country its legal to kill unborn babies who have done nothing wrong. I have little sympathy for the living that are ok with killing babies. Every man for himself we obviously do not value life what should you expect? IMHO

My sentiments exactly Blackhawks Fan Go! Hawks!

I agree cars aren't designed to kill yet they kill more of our children every year than guns do. Please put the TV (MSNBC) away 26 people died needlessly because ONE whacko went crazy! Yet you wish to punish millions for his deeds. 90 people die every day in America in vehicle accidents hardly a peep on TV? Seems the Lemmings will focus on what they are told to. Good dog now go sit in the corner!

Chronicles - Considering the existence of crimes such as vehicular assault and vehicular homicide, don't you agree that there's at least a minimal ground for comparison, thus making your insulting assertions moot at best?

Tobias, I would say no because killing is not the intended use of cars and planes. While yes, bad things can happen when someone irresponsible is behind the wheel of a car, cars and planes are just modes of transportation. There really is no comparison on any level.

Stones - As with many comments here that missed the point of the article (or ignored it), declaring an argument to be of a moron when the argument is that X is the cause of thousands of deaths per year, and is used for homicides and suicides, and Z is the cause of thousands of deaths per year, and is used for homicides and suicides, is not only an outright denial of relative context, but is also an offensive judgment that furthers no validity. Accepting that there is a correlation is important in establishing points either way. Take for instance the fact that there are between 3 and 4 hundred (http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/import/fmvss/index.html) standards for vehicle manufacture, but there's nowhere near as many standards for gun manufacture (http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf). Additionally, many vehicles are not road legal - it's the same idea as banning more dangerous guns. So, when this argument is brought up, the interpretation of the comparison cuts both ways. To fail to acknowledge this is to lose ground - even shoot yourself in the foot. To resort to insults... well, that's just acting a jerk to no productive effect.

Tobias, first off, I didn't resort to insults. Lets look at using vehicles as an example. As I pointed out the biggest difference between them and guns, is vehicles are a mode of transportation, which is what they are designed for. Guns, for the most part are designed to kill (both humans and animals), some more efficiently and more rapidly than others.

As you pointed out, vehicles are faced with many safety regulations. All of which are good and save lives. You also point out that some are not road legal because they don't meet the safety requirements, therefore making them more dangerous which supports the argument that some guns are more dangerous than others and should be banned as well. How does this cut both ways? There is a clear difference between the two.

As an example, if I wanted to harm or kill you and I am 300 feet away, would you prefer I was in a car trying to run you down in the street or would you prefer I'm pointing a high powered gun at you that can fire off 30 rounds in a matter of seconds in a very precise manner?

Stones - Unless you are also Chronicles of Bob, I never suggested that YOU resorted to insults. I was responding to the Chronicles post in regards to the insults - again, my point is being missed here: my responses surrounded the idea that using insults wouldn't get anyone anywhere. Do you care to defend Chronicles of Bob on that front? I don't imagine so.
You did, however, seek to validate his assertion that there was nothing to see here folks when comparing guns and cars "on any level." And now that I showed you with data that there is something to see there, you're saying that obviously there's something to see there since it supports your opinion. The point here is that if you jump at an argument from the other side and simply declare it totally invalid - which it obviously wasn't - you miss out on an opportunity to turn the debate on its head and send the argument back the other way, creating a wider and more detailed context from which we can make better decisions. Had I been persuaded by you that there is no level on which auto deaths and guns are comparable, I would not have been able to create an argument that suits your position with data to boot rather than "No, that's dumb, your argument is invalid." Which is more effective?

This would be a good regulation

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/

Just because its a tool (much like yourself).

hahahaha

Yea,
that is right, all those gun owners don't need any regulations.They are safe reliable and all so trustworthy.
http://www.wral.com/private-gun-sales-at-gun-show-on-hold-after-three-hurt-in-accidental-shooting/12000843/
http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2013/01/security_guard_leaves_gun_unat.html#incart_river
http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/local_news/oh_medina/a-man-was-shot-at-the-medina-county-gun-show-saturday-afternoon
http://www.wishtv.com/dpp/news/local/marion_county/man-accidentally-shot-at-gun-show
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/19/us/north-carolina-gun-show-shooting/index.html
Can you imagine showing all that responsible gun ownership on GUN APPRECIATION DAY. I would laugh, If I could just stop crying.

I can appreciate evolutionist views also. As Darwin proposed only the strongest survive! If you are dumb enough to shoot yourself your probably doing society a favor. I am not opposed to letting the Herd thin itself out for the greater good its unfortunate that they take the good with them sometimes. JMO

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/ ... speaking of responsible gun ownership...

Butch, you should consider changing your handle to Rain Man.

Patch61

The CDC has info regarding cause of death and injury. However, I am unsure where to find any concrete data on how many people were "shot at".

2010 Data
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf

Death by Accidental discharge of Firearms: 606
Death by Intention self-inflicted (suicide) : 19,392
Death by Assault (murder): 11,078
Death by Discharge of firearm, unknown intent: 4,908
Injury by firearm (people shot): 31,672

2011 Preliminary data
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf

Death by Accidental discharge of Firearms: 851
Death by Intention self-inflicted (suicide) : 19,776
Death by Assault (murder): 11,101
Death by Discharge of firearm, unknown intent: 222
Injury by firearm (people shot): 32,163

What would you like to discuss here?

On a side note, how is my providing a link to the FBI site considered not providing data?

Apologies if this link has been posted before. Too many responses to search through them all.

You can see homicide trends at the attached link:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

Gun deaths overall are down 15% over the last five years. Rifle deaths are down 29% in the same timeframe.

"When someone is accused of drinking and driving SEVERAL times, they get their license taken away."

Yes that is right. Over the years laws on drunk driving have gotten stiffer and the number of drunk driving deaths has decreased.

But yet those in favor of guns seem to continue to believe the answer to mass shootings and gun violence is to allow more guns. Just think what would happen if we give more alcohol to those that love to drink and drive.

Logansdad -
"Over the years laws on drunk driving have gotten stiffer and the number of drunk driving deaths has decreased."
I would argue that you can't make that assumption since over the years the cars are MUCH safer.

"I would argue that you can't make that assumption since over the years the cars are MUCH safer."
Unless a car can drive it self to get a drunk person home, a car is still dangerous and can kill when you have a drunk driver behind the wheel no matter what the increased saferty measures have been installed in a car.

You do realize that's satire, right?

Chuckles ~ Yes Stones but I couldn't resist!!!

"Who's to say that the individual can't get more alcohol? My point is that those who are irresponsible with alcohol and guns, etc., most likely always be that way! With the logic here, you would advocate taking alcohol away from all citizens, or at least implementing more laws on alcohol!"

Yes there will always be irresponsible people. However no one is saying the answer to drunk driving is to pass out more alcohol? No one is trying to make alcohol illegal. Those in favor of more gun laws act as if their rights to own a gun are being taken away. You will still have your right to own a gun, just not the gun you may want to own.
Just like with free speach, you are not allowed to say anything you want at anytime.

@Phil C, ask yer Congressman( if u have one )stop funding the WARS for TERROR-DRUGS, Ammoland and BANKSTERS, we can fund all 51 states Including ERETZ YISRAEL) and rebuild our infrastructure, health care for all PART E, keep Tinley and add more mental health facilities with proper staffing and keep open and build more prisons scheduled to close for Bangers-Adult bangers, corrupt pol's anyone using his gun in a crime a auto 10 year sentence more serious more time, for murder -drive by hit or miss reinstate the death penalty.
Then our elected government can get real and begin prosecuting corrupt pol's and Wall street banksters and for their looting the treasury and Helliburton and Blackwater for the same offense it is all a lesson in futility because there is no priority in anything that makes sense it would if we went a step further legalizing HEMP it would eliminate the debt-deficit and keep the aquifers clean and clear but because of no one making a law wants to hold up a mirror on put in harm's way their future as a Lobbyist aka unindicted criminal, so we have stupid meaningless arguments and cite data and stat's that idiots who cannot define what a Militia means cite as a source.

@Butch: If you want to make a point try using less cliches i.e, "wing nuts", Rep Yahoo, New Tea Party moron". It's 2013. These progressive phrases are silly & outdated. Regarding gun control, we are protected by the Second Amendment. If you don't agree with the Constitution then move. Places like North Korea, Cuba and China sound lovely, especially for those that embrace marxism.

@Butch; The NRA is not responsible for gun deaths. The rhetoric against peaceful, law-abiding gun owners is out of control. This is a result of propaganda spread by progressives. Further, please cite the NRA members responsible for deaths of innocent children & or adults. Ooops! That's right. YOU CAN'T. This is all about Progressive Elite's ongoing culture war against Americans they do not like and has nothing to do with saving lives. Take Chicago as an example. The most strict gun laws in our nation yet Chicago posted 509 YTD murders. How are the strict gun laws working for the windy city citizens? BTW, were you appalled that so many guns were present at the Inauguration? Yeah. That's what I thought. Hypocrite!

"Guns" at the inauguration have nothing to do with the gun debate. If you claim that there is propaganda by the progressives, then there is just as much by the right... There is no attack on responsible gun owners. The president has repeatedly stated this. It's the hate that comes from the right, twisting everything that is said. Just like during the elections.
Just because gun laws are strict in your mind, does not mean they are effective or the right ones. The logical sode of the debate, which consists of most normal people is that we need better laws, enforce the ones that we have, and make them national. In addition attack mental illness and educate folks better.

@DJP GOOD POST I agree the Rabbi from Ammoland wins hands down

DJP, I don't know whether or not the Sandy Hook's mother was an NRA member or not. But she was an avid gun owner and she is hegely responsible for the killings because shae allowed her mentally unstable son access to her guns.

As far as the inaugaration, what does that have to do with anything? The President and his family need to be protected, no matter who he or she is.

@Butch: What defines the Tea Party vs. the Occupier Movement?

NaperDad - That news reporting was ill informed, it seems. Video showed police removing a shotgun from Lanza's car. That reporting occurred the day after the tragedy, when information coming out was still inaccurate - the investigation is still ongoing today. No news source has verified that story since. And this article came out yesterday:
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Sandy-Hook-Gunman-Had-4-Guns-State-Police-188031071.html

"Police said they found a Bushmaster .223 caliber model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round clips, a Glock 10-mm handgun and a Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun inside the school."

"Police also searched Lanza’s car, which was in parking lot, and found an Izhmash Canta-12 12-gauge shotgun."

So, we may choose to believe a report delivered in the penumbra of chaos the day after the shooting, which would indicate a massive disinformation conspiracy in order to stir up a gun debate surrounding AR-15s (which kill far fewer US citizens every year than handguns), or we can choose to believe that it was a mistaken reporting, since corrected.

What happen was a dumb ass went in with a rifle and hand guns and slaughtered 20 little kids...
No, we don't know if better laws, better mental illness care or better education on gun saftey would have worked... However, the point is that none of the above are an attack on anyones rights. Preventitive measures are just that. They prevent future occurances. By their very nature we don't know how effective they are. There is no loss in trying.

I agree with Bob. If we wish to make decisions based on data, we need data to start with. Exceptionally dangerous weapons that can fall into the wrong hands - and have done so - do get regulated. There is a long history of this. If making a 30 round clip illegal could have an effect on mass killing efficiency reduction, then it's probably a good idea to try that out so we get some sense of it. Bans have been put into place and then repealed based on efficacy. No one is allowed to conceal and carry a bazooka either. Lives are worth gathering real data - so long as that gathering does not infringe upon rights (not that anyone seems to care that we've been losing our other rights) - and regulating clip size or enforcing universal background checks does not infringe upon 2nd Amendment rights.

None? Columbine had an armed gaurd. It doesn't matter whether he was out to lunch or out of the building. The killers wouldn't be aware of that but they were aware that the school had an armed gaurd and went ahead with their killing spree anyway.

Enough with the Hitler comparisons. It went from disarming the entire populace, when that was proven wrong, it went to the Jews were disarmed. If the Jewish population were still armed the terrible outcome likely would have been the same.

Stones,
Here you go again with your ill informed opinions.
You seem to think that two seniors at the high school would not have known that the only armed guard at the school was at lunch when they started their attack.
With the amount of planning that they did for their attack, it would seem to me, that they knew exactly when the guard would go to lunch. He probably went to lunch at the same time every day.
Look at what happened at the school that Carolyn Gudger worked at. This story did not make the national news like Sandy Hook or Columbine because it shows how well having an armed guard works, when a psycho with a gun shows up.
If you think that Hitler would have been able to exterminate 6 million armed Jews as easily as he exterminated 6 million unarmed Jews, you are living in delusion.

Stones - totally agree about Hitler comparisons. That does no one any good because it is the epitome of loaded statements and then some. I can't say the outcome would've been the same with armed Jews - there would probably be a lot more dead Nazis, but yes, it could have ended up the same... maybe the tactics would've been different. That aside, do you have some evidence that the Columbine killers, having attended the school they assaulted, would not know about the armed guard's schedule or habits? That seems like pretty basic info that any strategist would seek to ascertain. DJP fails in his/her argument by suggesting that the laws work and nothing else needs be done. Obviously, with the slaughter that occurred, SOMETHING didn't work. In my opinion, what didn't work was the security of the weapons in the owner's possession: someone who should not have access to such weapons should only find them locked and inaccessible. Adam Lanza did not have this impediment.

Tobias, no I don't have evidence whether or not the killers would know the armed guard's schedule. But there was one assigned to the school. Cool name by the way? Any significance?

Tired, here I go again with my ill-informed opinions? "seems to me" sounds a lot like an opinion to me. Carolyn Grudger is a fine example of when something worked out ok, but remember, she's not just an armed guard, she's a trained police officer. And fact of the matter is you would have no idea who she was if some crazed person didn't get a hold of guns and go to a school to try to kill a bunch of people.

And yes, I do believe the outcome would have been the same with Hitler. I didn't say he would have done it as easily. Remember, there was resistance. Has anyone seen "The Black Book"? Just a movie, but riveting and horrifying.

The video game arguement is beyond ridiculous!!!! How many people who watched Three Stooges hit someone with a pipe wrench?

@Neil i give a shite what can u contribute to the MENTAL ILLNESS and health issue and debate, u say the Dem's have shifted the focus ok on that what do u have to contribute on mental health and care since a ALZHEIMERS POTUS changed the entire paradigm on health and all care and the entire safety net ,what are your thoughts and suggestions?

Sexual chocolate ....

These guys are good!!!!

These guys are good!

McDonalds has been targeted. 21 people were killed and 19 injured in a San Ysidro, CA, McDonalds in 1984. The killer used several weapons including an Uzi.

Not sure anywhere is safe and it's been that way long before Sandy Hook.

I didn't mean McDonalds ever, I meant over and over and over again like schools.

@Chronicles: Shift the argument? When their firearms were stripped, Jews had no means to protect themselves thus what part of history is not factual Bobby? 2. A little known "fact" (don't melt on me now when you hear FACT) Sidwell School (where Chelsea Clinton, Al Gore III and Biden's grandchildren attend) was "armed" before Obama's children enrolled. So see, it's okay for these elite children to attend a private school where the tuition is $28K a year to be protected by armed guards but where is the protection for the poor students in the inner city? Who is watching out for them Bob? 3. If a certain gun is stripped that is just the start. See Bob, our government doesn't have a good history when it comes to implementing just "teenie tiny restrictions". Take taxes. Check how much they have increased since they were implemented. Remember, it was supposed to be .5%-- where are we now? You give the government an inch... and what happens next? That is the concern. And thankfully we had SMART people, not progressives, who thought this far ahead and knew citizens have a right to protect themselves!

I have played all the games you reference and they never even for a second made me want to hurt someone. Now if your argument is that violent images and situations can make someone mentally unstable want to harm someone then please try and remove all of those from our society. You'll be pretty tired and sleep deprived I'm sure. As for PTSD, are you seriously comparing what our soldiers go through to what kids experience in a game? My wife watches a lot of cooking shows, think she's as stressed as a cook in a constantly slammed restaurant???? Nice try, but your argument doesn't hold water!!!!

@MacMiller: Well said. Well written.

Yes because Republican ideas are always so well thought out. If a Republican legislator in New Mexico gets her way, women who have abortions after being raped could face jail time for "tampering with evidence." State Rep. Cathrynn Brown (R-Carlsbad) introduced a bill yesterday that requires rape victims to see their pregnancies through during the course of their sexual assault trial, or be charged with third-degree felony evidence tampering.

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about over-legislating on gun control.
When I said they passed it without reading it and that being "typical" for Democrats, I was referring to Nancy Pelosi's famous quote about the health care bill.
Of course, you responded like a Democrat by switching the point of the discussion from gun control laws passed to some law that a Republican has proposed.
If you would have taken the time to read the proposed law (I know it's hard to actually read it before you make a comment on it) you would see that the law says that it is illegal to get an abortion if your intent is to destroy evidence of a crime.
Here it is, just for you:
"Tampering with evidence shall include procuring
or facilitating an abortion, or compelling or coercing another
to obtain an abortion, of a fetus that is the result of
criminal sexual penetration or incest with the intent to
destroy evidence of the crime."
I guess I missed the part where it says that a rape victim must see their pregnancies through during the course of their sexual assault trial.
If, however, the rapist tries to force the woman that was raped to get an abortion, to destroy evidence, then he could be charged with another crime.
I guess that actually reading the law would have told you that.

Yes her bill was so well written she had to explain FURTHER that her bill was intended not hurt the woman that was raped, but rather the rapist. This only affects democratic women though, because apparently Republican uteruses can take care of the unwanted pregnancy without outside intervention.

It is not her fault that some people lack the intelligence to understand what was written. I did not think that the bill was that difficult to understand. I wonder how many people that could not understand this bill were like you and did not even read it.
The bill, whether you understand it or not, is meant to add to the punishment of the rapist.
This sidetrack does not change the fact of over-legislating on gun control. If anything, it proves that they are over-legislating so fast that they are being reckless and making mistakes instead of thinking the legislation through.

I apologize for being slow, and do appreciate you working with me. Can you please explain how an assault rifle ban and magazine limit would affect any nonmilitary person in the least? The second amendment has been stretched more than Joan Rivers face and is in no way timeless. When passed they never could have imagined the world as it is today!

I would be happy to help, but first, could you tell me what an assault rifle is? If you could explain what a magazine is, that would be nice as well.
Could you let me know if you have ever fired a gun? Owned a gun? Been around a gun when it was fired?
Have you read the 2nd Amendment? Do you understand what it means?
After you answer these questions, I would either be happy to discuss the issue of gun control with you or I will not. I do not want to get into a discussion with somebody that argues just to argue.

I'm an avid hunter and belong to a hunting club. Haven't found any game yet I couldn't take down with my shotgun. Ive had this same argument with the people of my club and have yet to get a response that directly answers the question. Now I'm not going to waste time with your request for definitions. I'm still waiting for your response to my applicable questions!

Tbs.... im not sure if you truly understand the meaning of the second amendment... no amendment is free if change... and unless its author was jesus, no one could of predicted how it should apply to the world of the futire...
There is no attack on the 2r nd amendment...

You are a hunter? What do you hunt? What kind of shotgun do you own? Where is your hunting/gun club? What is it called?

Basically, I'm calling B.S. on your claims. I don't believe that you have ever fired a gun as a hunter or at a range.

I will answer your question about "assault rifles". The problem rests with the currant definition that is being used to describe "assault rifles".
A true assault rifle is like the ones our military uses. It can fire fully automatic. Ask any soldier if he would rather have his assault rifle or if he would rather take an AR-15 into combat. 100% would keep the real assault rifle that they have and not take a semi-automatic "assault rifle" like an AR-15. So if we are going to talk about "assault rifles" lets do it.
Assault rifles are already legislated to the point that most people will never own one. The cost of getting a license to own an assault rifle is ridiculous and the time that it takes to get that license is in the neighborhood of a year, to give time to various law enforcement agencies for back round checks.
The semi-automatic rifles that you call "assault rifles" are nothing more than dressed up guns that look nasty to those that don't know any better. Just because they look like a true assault rifle does not make them an assault rifle.

It will come to no surprise to you, but I could give a shit what you believe. I'd answer ever question you ask and you'll still doubt me. Now that you explained concepts and definitions I already knew, please answer my question on why civilians need them! I know its a tough question, but considering you're the smartest guy on this blog you should no problem doing so. I never seen you avoid a direct question this long.....I must admit the anticipation of your answer will no doubt be better than you're answer.

I think he really wants to see your gun... I think he wants to see the length of the shaft and feel the power of the explosion... Wait, what are we talking about?

TSK TSK Lady Eagle #1 Fan. No swearing on the Patch!
You have not answered any of the questions that I asked, but I will answer the last question you asked.
People do not NEED many things, including these guns. Many people WANT them, just as people don't NEED a car that can go 200mph, but WANT them.
I like these guns because they are fun to shoot just like I like fast cars because they are fun to drive.
Just because a few idiots use things in an illegal way, why do I have to be punished for that?
Now, calm down, take a deep breath and try not to get too upset because I don't agree with you or your stance on gun control, or because I question your experience and knowledge about guns.

I never advocated for soldiers to protect our schools. And you did call DJP a dumb @$$. LOL....I guess you are one of "you guys" who twist and spin the arguments. AHHHHH........This is hysterical. Truly!!!!

No i called him dumb ass if hes going to use the jewish argument... its a dumb ass argument. He dosent need you to protect him. A gun owner who thinks the us government may take our guns and tyranny will rule is this sensitive? Wow you wont last really long when obama comes to take your rifle... pricless...

So when the popes mudered in the name of christ or when jack the ripper sliced womens throats they all played resident evil, watched texas chainssw massacre and downloaded some porn before killing?

And again, so let these people have jobs with guns in schools... how many unjustified shootings will we have?
Protecting high profile people, especially the potus children and the families of senators and such has nothing to do with this debate.

1)I WOULD LOVE ENTITLEMENT REFORM!!! 2)what did 2 unfunded wars do to our children's future? 3)When did a political party start suspending children from school? 4)Yes Dems vs. GOP pick your poison, but as a middle class man the dems care for me just a little bit more. Right now the GOP is a train wreck because their beliefs are out dated and catered to the super rich.

What the heck does this have to do with this topic? The election is over, lets focus on solutions that might better the country and make it safer.

Facts? You mean when confronted with a lack of understanding, no logic and moronic conclusions... Then yes, I'd rather call you a dumb ass...

My version of Nazi history???... You're hilarious... You don't have a clue what you are talking about... You repeat some nonsence you hear like a little bird... Like even if armed, they would have stood a chance...
Go stand a post and get back to me...

Really? Thats what i said.... many did survive... many fought, especially in Poland. The point is that, if armed they would have still been demolished. You act as if the berstien's had some tanks and machine guns out bac before tje nazis got there. entire militaries were destroyed in days... how would Jew's, who were unorganized, and just simple familis stand a chance?
The very claim you are making is ignorant.

Excellent point on the Warsaw ghetto uprising, that's why REP YAHOO wants neutron bombs and URANIUM DEPLETED squirrel gun ammo for the dismal swamp Militia!

The Polish Army once had the world's best cavalry...until they faced tanks. Assault weapons used by even decently trained citizens will NOT win out over a military bent on suppresion of that citizenry. If the military does NOT side with the government, the government will not be able to do whatever it is that extremist on the right fear. If the military stages a coup, it will still not matter, except that the 'people' and 'their government' will be on the same underweaponized side.
The basic fact is that no elected US government is ever really going to allow average citizens to own arms that could outpower the US military.
This is not something that helps me sleep better at night, necessarily, but it is a hard truth. So, in the end, high end weapons are just too pacify those that want to FEEL like they could make a difference. In anything near an armed revolt, the 'rebels' of today would be wiped out as soon as the military put on their boots.
Lastly, comparisons to Nazi Germany are laughable because the majority of the people were FOR the slaughter of the Jews...so the government was easily able to do a lot of crazy things. Our culture is so far away from that...in fact, it is often the racist, small-minded, xenophobes that are much closer to the Nazis, not the 'bleeding heart liberals'...

Easy Lady Eagle... Butch is a friendly... Don't let TBS get ya'all excited!

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are!
I guess you have to be some kind of special stupid to understand what Butch writes.
I'm glad Butch is one of your "friendlies" and somehow his facts make sense to you, because they sure don't to most others.

Wow tbs.... i didnt know republicans were so wound up all of the time...