The 2nd does not necessarily include having high capacity killing machines. It is also proven a universal background check is not a bad idea for all gun sales.What are you afraid of? Reality? -- or are you one of those that really should not own a gun?

Than it is time to change that.

@Svein - Change the laws to restrict or deny these weapons and only those who do not abide by laws will have them. There should be a cross reference for mental illness when processing a gun permit, etc. Be George Washington. Every freedom loving American needs to stand up and be heard.

Erin C,
George Washington did not quite know about the current social structure and availability of killing machines. The cross reference and background check should be on ALL who wishes to buy guns. This would reduce the criminal's and mental's ease of buying. Yes every freedom loving Americans should be heard, even those that oppose your thought on our liberal or rather non-existing gun laws. Freedom loving Americans; the Americans that understand that freedom come at a price. That price does not include slaughter of children.

The killer did not "walk right in" to the building. He forced his way into a school that had major security measures already in place.
Time and money needs to be spent on getting help for those who have mental health and NEED help.

glass doors with with a buzz in feature are not major security measures, and most schools don't even have that.

JR: "and most schools don't even have that." That's right - they don't.
The school was prepared enough for what it felt it needed to be. I would consider a buzz-in/visual confirmation system pretty major security compared to the lack of security at the schools in our neighborhood.

Comparatively better than nothing. I am not sure what your point is.Is it that we shouldn't prsue better security measures? Schools and politicians deciding they are prepared enough is the biggest problem here. Put up a sign that says gun free and chase laws to make the penalties rougher on people who have a gun on school premises. Those measures work real well when the guy just busts through the glass shoots up the place and then shoots himself. Hey how bout we make it illegal to shoot yourself after mass murder so you can e prosecuted after?

My "point" is:
"Time and money needs to be spent on getting help for those who have mental health and NEED help."
That's all.

I don't dispute the fact that we can make our schools safer but what about all the other places our kids hang out, our soccer fields, our playgrounds, our shopping malls? If the shooter can't get into our barricaded schools, then they will go to our playgrounds and our soccer fields. That isn't to say that we shouldn't put measures in place to lessen the risk of our children being harmed in our schools but it isn't a solution to the underlying problems nor is leveling the playground with criminals by arming the masses. "If you can't beat them, join them" is not a solution, it's selling out. If we have come to the point whereby "selling out" is our only option, then shame on us for letting society get to that point and by all means, hand me a gun, I am ready for battle. But, I'd like to believe, perhaps naiively so, that we are better than that. There are a multitude of reasons for violence in our society; the arsenal of weapons that are made readily available, inadequate background checks and registries, an inadquate mental health system and holes in controls meant to keep guns out of the mentally unstable, violence going mainstream in our daily lives with the programming we watch, the video games we play and the music we listen to, the breakdown of the family unit and sense of community, subversion of morality and the culture of bullying. Why are we looking for just one solution when there are a multitude of causes? It's like treating all diseases with the same drug.

I think that is well said community Member. Treat the whole problem from all sides. Look at he problems in our culture, what we consider entertainment and why, take a serious look at metal illness, and even consider new fair gun regulations that might be useful to keep the guns out of the wrong peoples hands. If we could just get the radicals removed from the equation like Feinstein maybe people who are actually interested in solutions and efforts to curb the violence could actually get things done.

So true

@Marsha - If we go back to the weapons from 1791, let's also go back to the technology. How's that working for you??

apparently you support only having the same amendments that were in it too...no vote for you marsha...
Internet/social media was not on the list as far as the first amendment either...

You're grasping at straws Yomammy and Erin. If literal interpretations of ANY of the amendments, inclusive of the first and the second amendments, leads to absurdities that put public safety at risk then common sense needs to prevail and we should exercise the right our forefathers gave us in the first amendment to petition the government for change and put policies in place that minimize that risk regardless if the weapon is a large capacity assault rifle, the internet, social media or otherwise. It's common sense not rocket science.

Hey Marsha:
They didn't the Internet in 1789, so using your argument we suspend the 1st Amendment and let government control our speech on the Internet.

My vote and the internet/technology isn't killing anyone. The issue is assault weapons

Marsha:
You say, "My vote and the internet/technology isn't killing anyone. The issue is assault weapons." Thank you for proving my point. Just as the inanimate gun doesn't pull its own trigger, the inanimate 1s and 0s that make up computer code and turn into words don't kill people either -- it's THE PERSON behind the gun and the words that do the killing. And if you don't think words can kill -- heaven help you. So, let's be consistent and either ban both or ban neither.

P.S. Citizens could own cannons in 1789, does your original comment mean that we get those back too?

Who are talking about a "ban"?? It is just some control - Frankly, some people need some control!

@Svein - The lawmakers are talking about a ban of certain weapons (larger list than in the past - which didn't help with crime) and clips that hold "too" many bullets. Not control. Or maybe they are working for complete control... There are many people in our country that drive cars that are not legally allowed to do so. There are laws and controls in place that say they can't, but they still do. There are laws that say we are not to steal or kill. Bad people still do it. How do you suggest we control every single person's actions? We are a nation of free people where the vast majority of us abide by the laws. We regulate everything and yet things still go wrong. Don't "control" my freedom any more please.

Erin- Putting contols in place minimizes the number of people that break the law, so should we just not bother or put less contols in place because there are those that will break the law? Absurd interpretations of the 2nd amendment right infringed upon the freedom of 20 children, how has your freedom been infringed upon?

Erin C,
So in your thought process: because some people break the law we may as well not have any law? Did you really think through your post or is that just NRA talking points. Even you may admit there are people that should not have guns (and VERY few should have or need military style killing machines.) You certainly have your freedom, but do not forget so do I. My freedom includes having a different opinion than you!

you are right....

What exactly is a high capacity weapon, and what is the reason people always get in a bind s to how many rounds fit in a magazine.

Protect yourself against the government?? Are you talking about your government you elected?? Why are you still here?? Maybe you should check out some other countries that may be more amiable to your thought process.

I would think it is not only a right, it is a necessity. Through the elections we give the right to exercise lethal force to the government. Only if we have the ability to take that right back, are we free, since only than can we actually enforce a withdrawal of that right in case abuse of that right is taking place. It is naive and historically proven to be poor judgment to think that all lawmakers will obey the law and not use or abuse their power against the people, when given the opportunity. You may trust the people in power today, but what about the next set and the set after that?

Exactly.

Am I missing something here Yomammy? We do ban all of those things, did you know there were laws against all of those? We ban them with our laws and people break the laws???? And if your argument is exactly that, people commit crimes and people break laws, then by that logic we should have no laws, that ought to do wonders for social order. Maybe we should just cut to the chase and ban people altogether, problem solved. Laws act as a deterent and they do their job but we need to continually, in a forward moving fashion, update those laws so that they are consistent with the CURRENT culture of our society. It is crucial in ensuring a more peaceful existence for all of us.

point is--criminals dont care about "laws", existing OR new feelgood ones...

Thank you Nicholas!

Nicholas, So because I have a different opinion than you I am a crazy Liberal? What do you call yourself that prefers no rules or laws? (and please do not say "patriotic")

"large capacity assault weapons"
Thats your liberal left media with an agenda right there. Most lefties have ZERO clue what the differences are, or proper naming of guns.
3/4 of them are only promoting specific gun bans because 1. it sounds scary, 2. its black.

Amen yomammy!

Community Member, well said!

Yomammy, I am a free thinker and my opinion belongs to me not to "liberal left media with an agenda right there"??? Excuse me if I am not a weapons aficionado and I apologize if I don't know the correct names and spellings of the arsenal of weapons that are made available to the general public, had I known there was going to be a test I probably would have studied, actually no, I wouldn't have studied because it DOESN'T matter as the point is there is absolutely NO need for any civilian to own a weapon, regardless of what you choose to call it, regardless of what color you choose to paint it, that can shoot multiple rounds and kill in masses within seconds. The only thing that is black and scary is narrow-minded people who lack flexibility and tolerance to breadth of view. The only way to make smart and responsible decisions is to consider all points of view as a possible solution to a problem and given this is multi-faceted problem it needs a multi-faceted approach towards a solution. Seriously, stocks of antacids must be through the roof with all this regurgitation of the 2nd amendment right going on!

A friend of mine once said, "A true defender of liberty defends someone's right to do something you don't like, always." I truly believe that, and live my words. I, for one, don't like the government taking away anyone's rights, as the people of "the government" are simply citizens as well. They don't have a right to take away mine, just because they have a title.

Also, we live in a republic, not a democracy.

What's one person's "right" is another person's safety concern. I have the right to drive a car, but that doesn't mean I get to pull an Abrams tank into my driveway.

As to "republic" vs. "democracy", I'm not sure there's a distinction between the words.

Lorri, I do appreciate the sentiment of your friend's statement but even better words to live by might be "A true defender of liberty defends someone's right to do something you don't like as long as defending that right doesn't harm another". The United States is a representative democracy, which granted, is a type of republic. With the Seventeenth Amendment, which took effect in 1913, the senate is now elected directly by the voters, not appointed by the state legislatures, thus making the national government a democratic republic.

It's quite possible that carrying a gun may increase the chances that your right to life is assured. The only way you'd be safer not carrying is if you're prone to shooting yourself.

It's also quite possible that an assailant toting a gun might take away his right to life, depends who's the quickest draw. My bet is on the assailant as he is privy to his evil plot, the victim however is not. There are a multitude of ways to assure our personal safety that do not involve carrying a gun.

So, Smokin Joe, you are saying that all people who care to go to a movie theatre, shopping mall, school.... or teacher who addresses any classroom in the United States must be armed, locked, loaded and ready to fire. This is your alternative solution to mass murder or death by gun violence? Is this where the argument ends with NRA supporters; really? I have heard this logic over and over again since Dec. 15, 2012.

Today is the 2 year anniversary of the Tucson shooting. There was an armed citizen present at the outdoor event, and he was not success stopping the shooter.

Eric, if you are going to speak to homicide, you need to get your facts correct. Per the CDC's NVSR volume 61, Number 6 dated October 10, 2012 there were a total of 15,953 homicides in 2011. Of those 11,101 were committed by firearms. Also in 2011, 40,239 died as result of drugs. All 56,192 were tragic and all had people who cared about them.

In 2012, 532 people were murdered in Chicago using firearms. Many were committed by gangs, all were illegal. Chicago has among the most stringent gun laws in the United States and they didn't stop the massacre.

Here is my question to you: why did the events in CO and CT make the National News and not those in Chicago? Racism, ad dollars, or is it the excitement one gets from a snuff film?

Murder is a felony and many of the drug deaths involved a felony somewhere along the line, think heroin or crack. Felons cannot legally own guns in the USA. Drug gangs import most drugs. They also import guns including fully automatic weapons. Drug Cartels have a lot of resources available to them. When guns are banned bad guys will still have them, just not you or me.

Speaking of an "Individual's right to "LIFE", according to Planned Parenthood's 2010-2011 Annual Financial Report, they performed "333,964 Abortion procedures". In other words they MURDERED 333,964 DEFENSELESS children legally.

As to YOUR right to life, if someone wants to kill you they will find a way with or without a gun. Good Luck with that. - Hank

No Julia, the words you're trying to put in my mouth aren't mine. Eric asked if he was required to carry a gun to "assure his right to life" implying that he'd be safer without the constitutional protection for firearm ownership. It's a tough enough situation without doing the liberal stomp.

You aren't seriously trying to imply that Hitler and the holocaust would have been stopped by an armed population. That is utterly ridiculous. Hitler was voted into power by a people who bought into his message of hate and fear and exclusion. Sound like any group you know?

Michele, I may disagree with Obama and his followers too, but in no way can you equate them with Hitler and his followers.

Read your history. Hitler never did "win" any elections. He elbowed his way into power and then used thuggish political tactics to suppress his opposition. Would an armed population have slowed him down? I think so. Would the Nazis have had to change tactics with those they slaughtered if they knew them to be armed? I think so. There were a lot of people in Germany in the late 30s who wanted him stopped, but were powerless. Would it have stopped him? We'll never know.

Excellent comment Mr Kruse.

Cameron Kruse, I'm not arguing your point; it is a valid one. But I want to suggest that many people do not think of their weapons as tools, but objects of power. I also believe that training with weapons that are only meant to kill human beings lowers thresholds in people. It becomes a more acceptable idea.

I agree, there is no one cause for the culture of violence in our society and therefore there is no one cure. We need to look at all the possible causes of violence in our society and address them accordingly with the primary goal being public safety.

Exactly how long is does it take to "follow the process" when amending the constitution? I am a healthcare professional and rules and processes are crucial to saving lives, yet sometimes we find ourselves skipping a rule and not following the process because if we didn't a life would be lost. The textbook tells us what we should do under ideal circumstances however sometimes, real life dictates otherwise. Is it not the responsible thing to do to "violate the Oath of Office" if you feel upholding it puts public safety at risk?

So we should have no laws because people will break them anyways? That ought to be good for social order and the fabric of our society ... way to think that through. It's a pretty sad, not to mention scary day in this country when our only solution is to level the playing field with criminals.

THE LAWS ARE ALREADY THERE "MEMBER".
Why dont we enforce them better....Give REAL punishment to violent crime.

The problem with having laws that nobody follows is the disresespect it breeds for all laws. Laws need to reflect society in order to be obeyed, and our society celebrates violence. Listen to any political race and they all talk about how they'll "fight" for us, never about how they'll improve things. Take a look at what's popular on television. That our nation was born out of violence and civil disobedience makes it that much tougher to change our societal viewpoints, which is what needs to happen before there's much chance of celebrating non-violence.

Yomammy, I am well aware that the laws are already there and we can certainly do a better job of enforcing them but since that wasn't Duane's argument but yours, I simply pointed out, in response to Duane's argument, that just because criminals don't follow current laws, it doesn't mean there is no point in making new laws. Laws, though not 100% effective, act as a deterrent and putting laws in place that are in keeping with the current culture of our society is crucial if we want to maintain some semblance of social order and yes Yomammy, doing a better job of enforcing those laws is something to consider before we resort to disregarding our personal ideologies and stooping down to the level of criminals in an all out battle of the quickest draw.

Long, but excellent. I will share it. Thank you for posting.

Thanks for posting Jiminy. I think the key thing to realize here is that we are all on the same side. Ultimately, what we all want is a safer and more peaceful society and the only way to get there is with an open mind that is willing to consider all points of view, even those that are in opposition to ours. Without doubt, the article posed some very valid points that have made me think but to be perfectly honest it is so hard to wrap my head around the idea that the only possible solution to this problem is leveling the playing field with criminals. We engrain in our children not to "stoop down to their level" in reference to wrong doers, yet our reality may be that doing so is the only thing that will keep our children safe? I'd like to think we are better than that but perhaps we are not and I am just clinging to a utopian ideal. Do we have no hope for society? Are we just a lost cause? I sure hope not.

Bad Guys will always be with us. No serious person doubts that.

I see no shame in "leveling the playing field" in the sense of not giving the Bad Guys unnecessary advantage, by disarming the law abiding.

I also see no shame in self defense. That's not "stooping".

I see your point Donald and certainly do not see self defense as "stooping". What I see as "stooping" is pushing aside our ideologies so that we can compete with criminals, it just is, whether we choose to go down to their level or we are being forced to go down to their level, we are pushing our personal ideologies aside in the face of danger because we may have no other option but to. Ideally, we don't want there to be a need for armed guards in our schools, it isn't something we strive for as a society but if our children's lives are at risk and we have exhausted all other options that are in keeping with our personal ideologies then we may have no other option but to "stoop" down to the level of criminals, level the playing field and fight fire with fire. We may be at that point, I don't know but I certainly hope not and I am certain that it isn't anyone's first choice as a solution if there is an equivalent solution out there that allows us to keep our personal ideologies in check.

It is an odd ideology that rejects violence to keep people safe. What do you think our military does? I like the old quote (source uncertain): "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

Unless and until the Bad Guys no longer exist, and are willing to do violence to us, we will can respond respond, or let the Bad Guys win.

No one seriously suggests that Bad Guys are extinct. (though some seem to think they are no longer present in official roles - http://greateralexandria.patch.com/blog_posts/the-madness-of-gun-ownership-597bf20b)

Those are the facts. We must deal with the world as it is.

Where exactly did I say that I oppose violence to keep people safe? In fact, if you actually read what I wrote, I said just the opposite. What I did say however is that if we can assure public safety without violence, would that not be our first choice? I can't imagine why it wouldn't be. We don't throw our soldiers into battle without first looking for a more peaceful solution than the front lines. Maybe we have exhausted our arsenal of peaceful solutions to violence in our society and guns in the hands of civilians is the only way, I don't know but please don't crucify me for hoping not.

For those who believe that the 2nd amendment protects a vital right, taking away their guns IS violence.

No one is taking away your 2nd Amendment right, just as no one is taking away your 1st Amendment right when, in the interest of public safety, limitations are put on your freedom of speech, such as banning the divulgence of state secrets. The 2nd Amendment right is not an absolute, it is subject to government regulations, just as it was in the Colonial days and just as it is today. Like most rights, the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it isn't interpreted to mean that one can carry around any old weapon they like, anytime they like, wherever they like, just like you cannot libel or divulge state secrets when exercising your 1st Amendment right. No proposed legislation is saying ban ALL " Arms", leaving you empty handed, you still have the "right to bear arms", maybe just not the ones you want to "bear". Your "right to bear and keep arms" is intact but reasonable regulatations of the manufacture, sale, ownership & possession of firearms, even of those firearms that "are commonly used at the time", are necessary to ensure public safety. I don't know if the data supports that proposed changes will ensure a safer America and elementary logic tells me that it cannot. If we impose changes, what would the crime rate have been without those changes, higher, lower, the same? There is now way of knowing unless we clone society and do a side by side analysis, at best, we are left with making an educated guess. Smart and responsible decisions are made with an open mind.

It's a tough situation when the reaction is to "do something" even though what needs to be done is not apparent. Does anybody really believe that there's something new that will fix this that hasn't been considered before? Sometimes the adult thing to do is nothing. Unfortunately, we have the Rahm Emanuels of the world who can never let a good crisis go to waste. More restrictions will likely be enacted, which will do nothing to improve the situation, but will allow the politicians to strut and preen. Hopefully the unintended consequences will be minimal.

You are completely right Smokin' Joe, something shocking happens and our immediate response is to do something, we want to make things better, NOW not later. Granted, often under these circumstances we act in haste, the good old knee jerk reaction because ultimately, our inner core is good and we want to take away the pain, NOW. I don't intend to be morbid but let me give you this scenario (obviously removing access to emergency personnel); Your child is in cardiac arrest, you have never been trained in CPR and have no idea what to do. Remembering, you have no access to emergency personnel, are you going to:
A) Do nothing and hope they don't die
B) Do something, hope you do it right and they live
C) Wait until you become trained & certified in CPR and then do something at which point your child is dead?
The greatest chance your child has of living is if you do B, they still might die but at least they have a shot. Sometimes, doing nothing or waiting to know what the right thing to do is, has more dire consequences then doing something and hoping you do it right and granted, to your point sometimes it doesn't.

1st amendment: "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;..."

2nd amendment: "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The courts have been very clear, and wisely so, that the Congress has _no power_ to decide the content of speech, or to regulate it except in very narrow circumstances. The logic is that once Congress has the _power_ to choose what speech is acceptable, and what is not, then Congress is "abridging" this freedom.

In like manner, the US Supreme Court in "Heller" held that the right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Given that, the exceptions should be very narrow, akin to "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre". With firearms, giving the Congress _power_ to choose what guns, when and how they are sold, and so forth is clearly "infringing" a fundamental, individual right.

That said, the idea that such limitations being suggested will yield "public safety" are specious, as outlined repeatedly in these comments. "Gun control" makes people feel good because they "did something". Real "Gun control" is usually a disaster.

This article makes the point: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

That's a pretty strained analogy CM. So your B option includes passing a law prohibiting cardiac arrest and registering children?

Ok, that's an odd deduction, are you saying that gun regulations are equivalent to killing you? Is the proposed gun legislation premeditated murder? And children are registered SJ, birth certificates, SSN, registered for school, registered for sports, all I ever do is register my kids for stuff! The analogy is in reference to acting or not acting when you won't know the outcome until you've acted and making educated and responsible decisions given that knowledge whilst at the same time recognizing no matter what option you choose you could be screwed.

depends on what "registered" is to you
EVERY time you buy a gun from a dealer or FFL, you have a background check and you have to put the rifle/gun serial # on the form.

DONE! Quiet as a mouse!

CM:
Since you're going to be quiet, I hope you get this last post from me.
I truly hope you are right in thinking that America will never have a tyrannical government from which its citizens will need to protect themselves (however Obama has a good start with all those executive orders) and that we are never again forced to defend ourselves on American soil. But history being what it is, will be repeated, and our citizens WILL be forced to defend themselves to preserve our God given rights protected by the Constitution.
When that time comes (or if a bad guy breaks into your house and the cops are not just outside your door), I hope you have a big gun and a few BIG magazines.

So long all my gun-toting, second amendment protecting friends, this has been enlightening and entertaining, but I'm signing off.

God Bless America!

Jiminy Cricket: Toodle-oo, Stromboli.
Pinocchio: Goodbye, Mr Stromb...
Jiminy Cricket: Shhh! Quiet! Let`s get out of here before something else happens.

How about you begin Dave, by not being so judgemental and actually posting something productive that serves to educate us stupid people, not criticize? That being said, so glad that you were entertained this evening by the ignorance and stupidity of those who have opposing views to yours. Our job is done, that is exactly why we were here this evening to entertain you, as we certainly weren't here out of care and concern for the safety of our children. Hilarious indeed!

I think out point "member" is that its really sad to see a group of people trying to change the constituion of the US, based upon false facts, immediate feelings, incorrect assumptions, and general lack of knowledge of the subject.

I'd be glad to community member, thanks for the response. I was hoping I'd hear from someone. You seem intelligent, you are able to use sarcasm effectively, good for you. I am by no means entertained by this thread. Before you jumped the gun and basically accused me of having no concern for our children, it's quite the contrary. That my friend, or foe, whichever you prefer is the actual topic at hand. Which you so blindly deviate from with your opinions on what you like to call "assault weapons" or "killing machines". There is a gun problem in this country no doubt. We should be looking at protecting our children, we agree on that. Adding more laws does nothing to protect our children, I don't feel as though I should have to explain this to you. If you cannot figure that out all on your own, and see that all you are pushing towards is a pile of useless action then I have nothing more to contribute. You are right I contributed nothing to this thread in my first post. Every attempt I make trying to get people to look outside the box on this topic fails. So why contribute?

Please reflect back on my statement Dave, I in no way accused you of not caring about the safety of our children. I simply pointed out, that everyone posting on this forum, inclusive of you, educated and otherwise, was doing so because they care about the safety of our children and they simply don't deserve to be attacked because their opinion opposes yours, regardless if they are bumbling idiots or not. I did however state, as did you, that you were entertained by our apparent collective stupidity. I never once claimed to be an expert on the matter nor have all the answers, in fact, if you read my comments you will see that although I do have an opinion on the matter, albeit, maybe a foolish one, I am open to looking at all the data and considering all the options that will ensure the safety of our children, inclusive of leveling the playing field with the criminals if that is our only option. If you have all the answers Dave, stop wasting your time in forums and take your fight to Washington. Why are you on this forum anyways? If you don't feel it necessary to explain the "obvious" to a bunch of idiots who can't "figure it out for themselves" because they are apparently trapped in a box, what do you have to contribute? Again, why are you on this forum? To point out how stupid everyone is but you? When the safety of our children is on the table,, EVERYONE should be thinking outside of the box, not just the apparent bumbling idiots.

Heck Bill, Bloomberg's already working on banning soda pop, why stop there? It's amazing how many of our liberties others are willing to give away for our own good.

That is correct community member, the thing to look at is types of guns, handguns are 6200 while assault weapons are way lower, people think this is about assault rifles but its really about politics. Here is a great read with great stats showing how areas that have more people with permits to carry have less crime!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/28/assault-weapon-is-just-a-pr-stunt-meant-to-fool-the-gullible/

Hey Smokin Joe, I think we should ban doctors (lol) look at these stats.
-- There are 700,000 physicians in the United States.
-- There are 120,000 accidental deaths in the United States caused by physicians every year, and the accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.
-- There are 80 million gun owners in the United States.
-- There are 1,500 accidental deaths from guns every year, regardless of age group, and the accidental death percentage per gun owner is 0.0000188.

Bill, there are stats out there but rarely do stats, such as the ones the basic ones the FBI post, tell the whole story due to variables. Inferring a causal connection based on mere correlation is false cause. Stats do not always take into account demographics or socioeconomic factors that are thought to influence the rates of violent crime. FBI stats show declining violence in America overall but is that due to increased gun ownership or to initiatives in the war on drugs, terror and poverty, changing social climate, people being more responsible about personal safety, better proactive police tactics and enforcement of laws, people going out less due to the recession lessening exposure to potential violence, improved anti-gang violence and anti-domestic violence initiatives, homocide rates being down due to advancements in emergency medicine? There are just too many variables to come to an absolute conclusion as to whether or not stricter gun contols affect rates of violence or not using basic FBI stats. There are more in depth studies out there that over the course of decades have taken into account a multitude of variables when drawing conclusions, many of which show little to no correlation between gun sales and crime, in essence, more guns no effect, less guns no effect. Though, I admit I have done it, throwing around a few basic FBI stats for or against shouldn't be basis for an opinion, one way or another. Regardless of sides, we all need to keep an open mind.

Your right on when you say this. "in essence, more guns no effect, less guns no effect"

There are already to many guns in the world, if someone wants one, they will get one! With 3d Printing improving as fast as it is, it won't matter what law they put in place, people will be able to print them in their living room!

Yes, I'm not looking to hide or misconstrue any of the facts however accurate they may or may not be. We can all " bend" facts and cite sources that suit our cause but I have no interest in doing that. I just want the most accurate, concrete, solid data out there, that takes into account all the possible variables so the most educated decision can be made with the end goal being the safest existence possible in the most peaceful way possible and just to be clear safety trumps peaceful.

not according to the US Supreme Court. Recent "Heller" decision held that 2nd amendment is an individual right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

ohhhhhhhh...noooooo.. pills are "for the children"....cant touch that topic...

Hitler enacted a new gun law in 1938, the NAZIs were already in control, they had been since 1933. The Nazi's already had control of every aspect of their daily lives, so even if the Jews did have weapons, they likely would have no way of coming together and revolting. That's not to say that having weapons wouldn't have helped but to suggest having weapons would have prevented the Holocaust isn't accurate either. It isn't appropriate to reference the Holocaust, as current proposed changes to legislation do not call for an all out weapons ban against anyone but more importantlly, it is NEVER appropriate to reference the Holocaust to make a political point, it is extremely disrespectful to the millions of the lives lost.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It is absurd. It is willful blindness.

The Holocaust is HISTORY. You think we should bury history and never compare it to current events? We want to pretend that history cannot repeat? We want to pretend that our mistakes can be erased out of some misguided respect for the dead?

There are many, many museums in Europe that display the vicious brutality of the Nazis. They ALL make a political point, which is that Germany was an advanced, sophisticated, educated, "multi-cultural" society prior to the 1930s, and they ended up perpetrating enormous evil. The POLITICAL mistake of giving the Nazis power must NOT be repeated. This is a GOOD thing. I visit these museums.

How and why the Nazis came to power - whether human weakness, blindness or evil - must be understood and REMEMBERED, because we don't want to repeat the POLITICAL mistakes of the German nation.

We learn history to make sure we learn from our mistakes. Willful ignorance of history is stupid, not virtue.

You know Donald, that is really unfair. OF COURSE, the Holocaust is history. OF COURSE, there is NO denying a people of their history. OF COURSE history CAN repeat itself and OF COURSE, we must learn from the "mistakes" of our predecessors to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, it is the greatest form of remembrance. But to use scare tactics like indicating we may end up like occupied Germany if we allow gun legislation to pass, using PARTIAL historical references to the Holocaust, like a weapons ban, is nothing more then propaganda and does nothing but push aside the memory of those who have passed to push political interests. I find it ironic that those who are opposed to gun legislation accuse those who are for it of using the recent mass shootings to push political interests by invoking panic about the "big, black, scary guns" we are handing to crazies yet somehow using the Holocaust is different? Whoever, could have predicted either? Both are extreme and both are crazy and both occured for a MULTITUDE of reasons, we don't just pick and choose the reasons we want to suit our interests, WHATEVER they may be. IRegardless of your viewpoint, let us not forget that we all want the same damn thing, a more peaceful existence for our children.

Whatever Community....I have BEEN to a concentration camp...seen the ovens seen the gas chamber, seen the shooting ditches. A truly moving experience. My point is that we must never allow a evil govrenment to take control of a (the) people again like that.
Dont give me that crap about being disrespetful. Another go-to tactic of the left to try and make people feel bad about something to further their agenda. (usually white-guilt angle)
I am not about revolution...its just the fact that a armed society helps prevent one.

The most peaceful place on earth in the grave. While we are up walking around, there will be conflict, and we have to deal with it.

Every historical reference is "partial". Criminals and despots take multiple steps to achieve their goals, and we must be watchful of all of them, lest they achieve their goals while we are "asleep at the switch".

Disarming the populace is a favorite of those despots and criminals. Powerless victims are the best victims.

Comparisons to history are reasonable and relevant.

Yomammy, what makes you think that I haven't visited those places too? The Holocaust was tragic and sickening and no one ever wants to see that happen again but having an opinion or visiting a concentration camp does not give anyone the right to infer that the Jews would have been against the proposed gun legislation nor for it. It simply is not our place to do so. I am open to dialogue and looking at ALL the NON biased facts, not partial facts that look to suay opinion using fear because someone believes their way to be the right way. I have an opinion on the matter but I'm not narrow-minded, I CAN change my opinion because my opinions belong to me, NOT to a political party! I don't like guns, I don't like violence but that doesn't mean I am willing to risk the safety of my children for my dislikes. What I want is maximum safety, the most peaceful way possible. It is up for debate how we get there and we won't know until we've been there.

Donald, whenever did I say that historical comparisons were not reasonable or relevent? Drawing comparisons and drawing conclusions are two very different things.

"Disarming the populace is a favorite of those despots and criminals. Powerless victims are the best victims."

Informal fallacies Donald, the Straw Man, "vote against gun control, because those in favor of gun control believe that no one should own ANY TYPE of fire arm.” That's distorting an opposing view to make it easier to refute. Proposed gun regulations DO NOT "disarm" the populace, they regulate the "armed" populace.

That is simply not true.

Disarming the populace is often the explicit agenda of the "gun control" crowd. That is what was done in Britain, and Austrailia. The BBC link I have cited indicates that such a policy does exactly what I suggest - it makes those so disarmed better victims for the Bad Guys. ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

Even assuming that the goal is not total disarmament, all of the "gun control" measures proposed make it more cumbersome, expensive, and difficult to acquire weapons and ammunition. That IS disarming the population - by degree. It says that the government can choose - through regulation - who may, and who may not be armed, on some much broader basis than permitted today.

Let's just say - for argument - that some political group comes into great disfavor. Is it possible that they might be declared unfit to be armed?

This is not a road we want to travel. Responsible citizens with powerful tools are a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

The fact that some people drive drunk is not an excuse to make it difficult for ME to buy a car.

It ABSOLUTELY IS TRUE Donald

Department of Justice Crime Survey England and Wales
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_273169.pdf

Between 1995 & 2012 there has been a steady decline in violent crime in England & Wales. In 1981 there were 2071 incidence of violent crime, in 2012 there were even less, 2051. There was a rise in violent crime shortly after the gun ban in 1993 but suggesting a correlation is false cause as incidence of violent crime has been on the decline since 1995. In 2002, around the time of the article you cited, there were 1047 homicides, in 2010/2011 there were 551, nearly half of that in 2002, guns are still banned. Lets also not forget that the police in England are no where near as armed as the police in the USA are, they don't routinely carry firearms but a baton, a taser and a torch (flashlight) yet despite having only a bat to wield against criminals their homicide rate is substantially lower than ours. I have lived in England and I can tell you first hand, Noddy isn't nearly as imposing to a criminal as the local Sherriff yet England's homicide rate is 1/4 of ours. I find it interesting that the article you cited was from 2001 but fail to cite more current reports that show a decline in violent crime in England/Wales, with a violent crime rate lower than it was back in 1981(prior to the ban) and that you fail to note that the E/W homicide rate is at it's lowest in 30 years, but I guess you couldn't note that if your looking at data from 2001.

Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC)

http://aic.gov.au/documents/0/B/6/%7b0B619F44-B18B-47B4-9B59-F87BA643CBAA%7dfacts11.pdf

Homicides on the decline since 1996
Asssaults were on the rise 1996-2002 but have had small variances up and down since 2002.

As far as Australia goes, numbers alone do not establish cause and effect, they may highlight a possible correlation that could be due to a number of different factors but do not dictate it. Australians have never had the constitutional right to own guns, access to guns has always been somewhat restricted, so we can't assume the majority of Australians were armed before the ban. 644, 000 guns were bought back, only an estimated 1/5th of the stock firearms, legal guns were still in circulation despite the ban. Also, let's not forget that in 2000 the Australian Government accused the NRA of falsifying government statistics, claiming that violent crime had increased since the ban. Daryl Williams, Federal Attorney

“I find it quite offensive that the NRA is using the very successful gun reform laws introduced in 1996 as the basis for promoting ownership of firearms in the United States,”

Dr. Adam Graycar, director of the Australian Institute of
Criminology
“What we’ve got here is an American group with a heavy gun culture - guns figure very significantly in crime in the United States - trying to transpose that into Australia. There is no comparison.”

Donald
"The fact that some people drive drunk is not an excuse to make it difficult for ME to buy a car."

If you are going to draw the car/gun comparison, the car being the gun: are you forgetting that there are very strict regulations on the manufacturing and importation of cars that affect the types of vehicles made available to you for purchase and that you must, by law, REGISTER your car and renew license plates ANNUALLY. Are you forgetting that there are very strict regulations on who can drive a car. Just because you bought a car, doesn't mean you can drive a car, there are very strict licensing laws. You must pass a written and field test to drive a car, you must not have any medical or visual conditions that might impair your driving. You must RENEW your licence regularly. You must have insurance. Their are laws regulating the types of vehicles you can drive based on licensing class. There are laws regulating how you can drive that car i.e speed limits etc and in fact, in MN you must also certify the type of driving you engage in, inter/intra state. There are laws regulating what you can fuel your car with. In 2008 the Department of Transportation reported 250 million cars REGISTERED in the USA, how many guns are registered in the USA? If you're going to draw the gun/car comparison then the gun (car), the gun owner (car owner) and the bullets (fuel) are grossly under-regulated by comparison.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
http://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/Homicide_statistics2012.xls

2011 Intentional Homicide Rate per 100,000 as per UNODC

USA 4.8
Canada 1.6
UK 1.2
Australia 1.0
Switzerland 0.7

Look at our neighbor, Canada 1.6 compared to our 4.8, there are more guns in the hands of civilians in the USA, they are better equipped to defend themselves then civilians in Canada, therefore more guns = more homicide. Look at Switzerland, all households are LEGALLY REQUIRED to own a gun and their homicide rate is barely reportable whilst ours is 4.8 yet gunownership rates are about the same but let's not be silly and draw the Switzerland comparison. There is some relevance in drawing comparisons but there are also hazards to cross country comparisons for obvious reasons; culture of society, laws and how they are enforced, police presence & how well they are armed etc.. The gun control debate needs to be won, not on the conditions in England, Australia or Switzerland but on the conditions in America.

Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/gun-violence-public-health-approach/

Jan 7, 2013,
Press Release Harvard School of Public Health

"strategies to reduce gun violence might include things like mandatory gun safety classes, penalties for violators of gun safety laws, reduced magazine clip sizes, and restrictions on rapid-fire firearms"

Jan 8, 2013
Harvard Expert Forum on Gun Violence - Webcast
http://theforum.sph.harvard.edu/events/gun-violence

Laurence Tribe, Professor of Constituitional Lawyer, Harvard
"Most people don't know that a gun in the home, in terms of well documented data, is more likely to result in their own death then to result in their own self protection"

http://www.vpc.org/studies/bloodmoney.pdf
WHO's VOICE DOES THE NRA REPRESENT?
Where does the NRA, a VERY wealthy and powerful lobby in Washington, get their funding from? Members, including "Business Alliance" members, merchandising, wealthy right-wing donors, domestic & foreign gun and ammunitions manufacturers, "Corporate Alliances"? Does the old adage; "figures never lie but liars sometimes figure" apply when the NRA presents itself as the voice of gunowners in America? Who really funds the NRA & who's voice do they really represent? Does money talk? Is the NRA the self-proclaimed "oldest civil rights organization” that it claims to be or just a high-profile trade association for the gun industry? Although the NRA likes to portray itself as the voice of gunowners in America, is the NRA working in Washington to "protect our freedom" or to keep gun and ammunitions manufacturers in business? Does arming every school in America as the NRA suggested (that worked well at Colombine) equate to more gun sales, increased safety for our children, both or neither? Should the NRA be the loudest voice in Washington in regards to gun regulations or the 85 people that die every day from gun violence that can't speak for themselves from the grave? The 2nd Amendment can be a sword used against us or a shield used to protect us and REASONABLE and RESPONSIBLE gun regulations can ensure that the voices of those from the grave can be heard, SHIELDING our children from gun violence in America.

Got it CM, violent crime has dropped in all of those nations that regulate firearms. You might mention that violent crime has also halved in the U.S. since the 1990's.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1
While we don't have the homogenous citizenry of most of the other countries in the world, violence is still trending the good way and recent events are more of an aberration than a new normal.
Something needs to be done is always the cry, unfortunately what ends up being done rarely has any influence on the problem. I'm more of the "knowledge shall set you free" type, and while the Swiss model wouldn't work here, universal firearm education would do way more to mitigate the problem than counting the shells in my magazines. Maybe Harvard actually has a clue for a change.

Smokin' Joe- You are absolutely RIGHT, Harvard does have a clue for a change! Along with education did you notice they also recommended "reduced magazine clip sizes, and restrictions on rapid-fire firearms"! Bit confused though with the "something needs to be done" cry statement that results in "actions being ineffective". The problem is gun violence and guns getting into the hands of the wrong people right? So how are criminals getting these guns? See RECIPE FOR AN ILLEGAL GUN. Given this recipe and that CRIMINALS are turning LEGAL guns into ILLEGAL guns, doesn't it only make sense that criminals can only turn ILLEGAL what we make LEGAL? And considering 50% of criminals get their guns from someone who has purchased them LEGALLY, gun CONTROL laws then CONTROL what we put in the hands of at least 50% of the criminals. If criminals aren't buying their guns through straw purchases from their besties they are likely buying LEGAL guns from CORRUPT dealers who don't do background checks and follow rules or through private or gunshow dealers who don't do background checks and sometimes don't follow the rules. Let's do the math, (A + B + C = D) Gun CONTROL laws CONTROL the types of weapons we put into the hands of criminals and gun CONTROL laws CONTROL how easily we put them into the hands of criminals therefore D = You're right we couldn't possibly have any CONTROL over the problem of gun violence in our country! WRONG!

SJ- Yes the crime rate has been going down and praise the Lord! Thank goodness for the settling crack cocaine market, increased incarcerations, the aging population, data-driven policing and improved technology with surveillance cameras that criminolgists attribute the decline to!

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/justice/us-violent-crime/index.html

And SJ I do OF COURSE realize, that you could say the same for those other countries too. They are all developed nations with a progressive society, looking for new & better ways to make daily life better & safer. So given this, let's assume decreasing crime rates are due to the factors stated in the previous post such as better policing. If all those countries are putting those measures into effect, it doesn't explain why the USA has a significantly higher overall crime rate and why the USA has a significantly higher homicide rate: 75%( England), 79% (Australia) & let's throw in Canada just for the fun of it at 67%? What do they have that we don't? Thought bubble. Light bulb. Speech bubble ... STRICTER GUN CONTROLS! Yes, I know, not going to be a hypocrite ... post hoc ergo procter hoc ... but doesn't it kind of make you wonder why Canada, England & Australia, all with stricter gun control laws, have less overall violent crime than we do and homicide rates 70-80% lower than the USA? Since your "right to bear arms" may not be protecting you quite as well as it could be, to be on the safe side, I'd take some Mylanta (preventative for when you start REGURGITATING the 2nd Amendment Right in plight of your cause) and fight for full access to the arsenal of weapons the US government has access to so you can not only better fend off the murderous criminals but protect yourself from the TYRANNICAL government that YOU elected!

That's some kind of convoluted logic there CM. So because criminals steal guns, we should restrict guns from those who can legally possess them? That's the same kind of garbage that penalizes you for leaving your keys in your car.
You cannot have it both ways, if laws work as you claim they do then those who steal your guns should be in jail. Suggesting that guns should be restricted because people will steal them implies that our police can't protect us, and therefore maybe we need to protect ourselves. Are you becoming pro-gun?

Smokin' Joe
11:03 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
"That's some kind of convoluted logic there CM. So because criminals steal guns, we should restrict guns from those who can legally possess them? That's the same kind of garbage that penalizes you for leaving your keys in your car.
You cannot have it both ways, if laws work as you claim they do then those who steal your guns should be in jail. Suggesting that guns should be restricted because people will steal them implies that our police can't protect us, and therefore maybe we need to protect ourselves. Are you becoming pro-gun?"

Read this Smokin' Joe

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

Whatever are you talking about SJ?? Stolen guns account for a very small percentage (10%-15%) of the guns used by criminals. The other 90% of criminals are acquiring guns for the most through straw purchases (someone buys a gun LEGALLY on their behalf) or they buy guns from corrupt FFL's or gunshow loopholes. They can do this because of inadequate gun regulations. Gun laws determine what is made available to the criminal and gun laws determine how easily guns are made available to them, directly or indirectly through the Strawman. Police protection isn't the issue, inadquate gun regulations are the issue.

Again CM, adding more regulations that we can't or won't enforce will do nothing to solve the problem.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 40 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from friends or family and another 40 percent obtain their firearms from illegal sources on the street. Less than 8.5 percent of criminals obtain their firearms from straw purchases. http://www.dontlie.org/FAQ.cfm

National Gun Victims Action Council
http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/

Both are secondary sources, so I don't know which is more accurate but that wasn't the point I was trying to make. Guns in the hands of criminals start out LEGAL & one way or another they end up ilLEGAL. Since most guns used in crime start out LEGAL, it's only rudimentary math that the 2nd Amendment dictates what we put in the hands of criminals & how easily we put them there. This causes so many other problems. Mexican cartels supply our youth with drugs then take their profits & buy guns. Our youth in essence are buying guns for Mexican drug cartels. We make it so easy for these cartels to get guns they can't shovel drugs into our kids mouths fast enough. Why is it that because some IRRESPONSIBLE people are making meth out of cold medicine a law is passed to make some cold medicines an OTC Schedule V CS making it harder for me to buy yet we somehow don't see a problem with LAX gun laws pumping drugs into our youth like gasoline. Gun violence is a NATIONAL problem it's time to come out of the middle class hunting cabin in the woods & realize that while you're out hunting deer in your cozy, little corner the Mexican drug cartel are hunting down OUR youth in places like KILLER BLOCK in TERROR TOWN. Look it up, it exists, it's only a 6.5 hour drive away and it's an ever expanding Midwest problem. Will we be the next TERROR TOWN? We need to stop making it so easy for these cartels to access guns and we need to stop putting such powerful weapons & ammunition in their hands.

HER hands!!

Dian, you are completely right. There are a multitude of problems that lead to gun violence, of which, inadquate gun regulation is just one. There are cavernous gaps in our mental health system, we just cannot afford for them to get any deeper or we will never be able to dig ourselves out. There is no one solution to the violence in our country and it will take generations for measures to take effect but they will only take effect if we put them into effect. Today is just too late, tomorrow even later, the time to act is NOW!

The problem isn't solely mental illness and it NOT guns!
We need to seriously look how our society has changed over the last 75 years - 100 years. Where has personal responsibility gone? Why is everything about how it makes us "feel" rather than calling things right and wrong? Our children are being raised as a bunch of narcissists because they've been told they are the best and brightest, and can do nothing wrong. They don't lose at little league, they all get ribbons -- even though they placed 28 out of 30 in a competition; aren't reprimanded or given consequences in schools but are rewarded for "good behavior" (think IGH schools' new discipline program (and in school, kids know they have more rights than teachers)); are permitted to treat adults like they're equals; and are treated as mini adults when in fact they are little kids dressing and acting like adults but with immature and incomplete brains. And best of all, they're permitted to watch the trash that's on TV and in the movies such as disrespectful teens lipping off and being sarcastic to adults, and playing video games where they kill each other just to pop back to life seconds later. (Note: this doesn't even address the judicial system's "slap on the wrist" attitude toward crime.)

It's tough saying no to bad (dare I say, evil) TV, video games, and movies and to teach kids to show respect, etc., but it has to start! It's not just kids -- but it must begin with each of us.

Excellent point Jiminy, losing used to be part of life, everybody did it at one time or another, and everybody pretty much learned to deal with it. Most of us also had our hands slapped as little kids by adults who refused to put up with our crap.
No more, now losing is so rare that when it happens it's soul crushing for these kids. They've gone for so long being told that whatever they want to do is okay that they are totally self-focused and have never developed any empathy for others. Where there are no intermediate consequences we end up with horrific results, and we wonder whether limiting the number of bullets in a magazine will fix everything. It's almost as though these kids are still trying to find out how far they have to go before someone will finally tell them "no."

Jiminy, I would agree with much of what you said and though completely relevant, we need to look further outside of middle class suburban America to places like Englewood. The children living on Killer Block in Terror Town Illinois are not going to little league and getting blue ribbons, instead they are at the funerals of their mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends. We have a broken American family that leaves many children, especially those in Chicago, lacking a sense of belonging, leading them to seek that belonging in gangs. There is no respect for authority because there is no authority. There is concentrated poverty in these gang infested neghbourhoods where dealing drugs becomes their lifeblood. Failed policies. No jobs. No education. No sense of purpose. Hopelessness. No way out. Kids are being raised by drug dealers and being born into gangs. The gun violence and murder rate in Chicago is staggering and horrific. Kids that once tossed a ball back and forth are now tossing guns back and forth. We need to look outside of our own neighborhoods and see how gun control is affecting the entire nation, not just our comfy, cozy little corner. Something has got to be done to get these guns out of the hands of our children and they are OUR children. It will not be one thing, it will not be two things, it will be a multitude of things and it will take time but to do nothing ... is to kill another child.

Thanks for the great quote. Times change, technilogy changes, but people never do....

So eloquently stated Mr. Adams though the 2nd Amendment "right to bear arms" does NOT give you the right to purchase 6000 rounds of ammunition online and FOUR guns in a matter of weeks. You have TWO hands, most people CAN'T fire a gun with their feet in defense of their person.

CM:
Where does the Constitution say you DO NOT have a right to 6000 rounds and four guns in a matter of weeks? If there were such a limit, what would be acceptable? 3000 bullets and 3 guns? 500 bullets and 2 guns? 75 bullets and 1 gun? 2 bullets no guns? Any limit would be arbitrary.

Sadly, you seem to take arguments to the extreme -- shooting with your feet? Only someone in the circus might attempt that. So, why would a person want multiple rounds and multiple guns? Have you ever thought about proficiency practice? (that takes a lot of ammo.) How about using different tools in different settings? (You wouldn't use a revolver to go trap shooting.) 500 rounds (per weapon) for a weekend defense training course isn't unusual. People shoot 100s of bullets just to make sure they are good citizens and well practiced. What's wrong with that? Wouldn't you rather have them practice than not?

You seem to be so adamantly anti-gun -- how much experience do you have with firearms? If you've never fired one, maybe you should -- it might open your eyes and take away some of the fear.

CM-you are very frustrating GUN CONTROL, GUN CONTROL... IHO GUN CONTROL is to hold on with both hands, aim, breathe, and pull the trigger. As far 6K rounds being too much, I say that is not nearly enough. I don't want someone that doesn't practice and not familiar with a firearm anywhere near one. Those people ARE NOT safe. IN ORDER to be proficient and safe you need to practice.

You state that you want Assault rifles and hi-cap mags banned. What next, singleshot shotguns? You state strict gun control works, what about Mexico? They have very strict gun control laws? The BAD GUYS shoot whoever gets in their way. They leave the victims very visible as a reminder too.

I am guessing you are an educated woman, possibly someone that would have reasonably good discussion over a pot of coffee. Progressives are taking our rights away incrementally. I leave you with Martin Niemoller's quote, because first they are coming for the 2nd amend, then the 1st...they have already taken your privacy in the affordable healthcare act. Once you are disarmed, you are merely a lamb to slaughter.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

Molon Labe - hank

ohhhhh 6000 rounds....the HORROR!!!!
6000 rounds of .22 would fit in a single ammo can....
big whoop-- you ever go to the range? back in the gook ol days, a 1000+ rounds at a range day would not be unhead of.
Funny part of all this is that you now have people hoarding ammo. I would suspect because of all this BS gun ban talk, more people than EVER have multiple thousands of rounds. (thanks Obama/Biden!...the two greatest guns/ammo salesmen EVER)

Yomammy- How insensitive and disrespectful. 6000 rounds was and still is a HORROR for the victims and families of the Colorado movie theater massacre.

You forgot about buying it from your government....

Are you mocking me Smokin' Joe? Are you talking about the same government that you are restricting with inadequate gun regulations?

Me? Mock you? Hardly ever would I do such a thing. Just talking about the bunch of guns our regulators sold out on the streets in Fast n Furious. Yeah, like I really trust those bozos to solve the gun problem.....

Don't even get me started on the deadly Fast and Furious. I am well aware that the government let those weapons walk, killing thousands of people this side of the border and south. Gun trafficking and drug trafficking were the reasons for that absurd, totally insane plan (I know, there are other conspiracy theories) but guns and drugs are a huge problem and again whatever weapons we make legal for us, we hand to the criminals, the ease with which we are allowed to acquire weapons, the ease with which criminals are able to acquire weapons. All I hear is "give an inch" it will lead us to absolute powerlessness, the "slippery slope" but what about the other side of the spectrum. I am far more afraid of being taken over by El Chapo, the most wanted man in the world, then I am a tyrannical govenment. And if you think for one minute that your 2nd Amendment right is going to protect you from El Chapo then you're crazy but go ahead and hand his cartel powerful weapons and ammunition with your kids drug money and LAX gun laws but be prepared because your cozy little corner, may not be so cozy one day. Our government let guns walk but so do we every day with our LAX gun laws and regulations.

Personally I have no desire for anthrax spores, and don't really consider that a firearm, but you can certainly possess them if you wish as they're freely available in the environment. Suitcase bomb? Again, not my cup of tea, but I really don't care if you have one as they're pretty easy to make from household chemicals with instructions off of the web. Nuclear stuff is impossible to get unless you're hooked in with the real bad guys, which kind of shows the result of regulating this stuff.
Now a SAM? That I can see a use for, considering it'll be fairly doable to hijack our own overflight drones in the next year or two. I'd never have an opportunity to use it, but I never go 160mph in my toy either, and I'd still rather have it than a mini-van.

Fortunately, as an open society whose collective safety and order is bounded in part through laws, regulations and a legal system that puts reasonable controls (YMMV) around the rights of its citizens to balance those rights against the public good, the vast majority of us disagree with your "live and let live" attitude about arms of any type.

In the name of public safety, we perform thorough security checks and take protective measures at airports to prevent the carriage of arms onto commercial airliners. That runs contrary to the broad interpretation of the right to carry arms implied here, but is accepted by all as a reasonable means to ensure the "rights" of an individual don't run contrary to the safety of the whole. Same for speed limit laws and drunken driving regulations with cars. Same with the arrest of Americans here at home suspected of plotting terrorist actions through the use of homemade bombs, nuclear devices or what have you. Simply put, even the Supreme Court, while ruling that the 2nd Amendment is not in fact limited to militias, has also stopped well short of finding that it extends protections to ANY sort of firearm or other arms that one might imagine those protections to be afforded for.

The reality, though, is that all of us on here know this. We know full well that the public safety, even our own regardless of what arms we carry, can and will be compromised at our own peril if Constitutional protections are interpreted without boundaries,

and without regard to the public good. Any of us can make all of the tough, "go for it" statements we want, but history has proven time and time again that all of us want and demand some measure of fair and reasonable protection under the law (be it through contracts, property protection, food safety regulations, or what have you) that extends beyond the loosest construct of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If that SAM is on your neighbor's house, pointed at yours 24/7, it simply isn't good enough to say "well, that his right and I just have to live with it". Nor is it acceptable for me to make it right by torching his house on my own in the name of my own safety.

If this was about anyone fully taking our rights to bear arms, banning all guns and/or imposing an unreasonable and unaffordable tariffs (or discriminating against me as a gun owner) on arms, I would be out in the streets with you until those rights are restored. We should demand protection under the 2nd Amendment. But as the Courts have already found, and as we see in nearly every other aspect of life, this really isn't about a concrete protection, and those who seek gun control should be afforded an open mind and the ability to seek reasonable measures to better protect the safety of the public whole without compromising the rights of the individual. That this really boils down to my wanting to have a certain gun or certain magazine, while masquerading as a Constitutional argument, is beyond obvious.

It's only reasonable, huh? Afraid of terrorists? Strip at the airport, at least for now it's only at the airport, and let some neanderthal feel up your wife and kids. Afraid still? Give up your right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. After all, it is called the Patriot Act, and the government is on our side, right? Afraid of nuts? Give up your right to protect yourself because that's where all of those dangerous guns come from. It's all reasonable, right?
You don't like the idea of me having a SAM. CM doesn't like the idea of you having a semi-automatic. Who decides what's okay? Reasonable people? Whether or not your majority thinks it's reasonable all depends on whose ox is being gored today.
I've no real desire to own a SAM, and if someone pointed it at my house 24/7 that would be an entirely different issue, but as CM laughs about that inch turning into a mile thing, there actually are those who do want that entire mile.

Jason's comments are well taken. Few rights are truly absolute. Few priorities are absolute. (as with CM's "ANYTHING for the safety of MY child")

The discussion should be about these priorities and the reality of the proposals. Principle must be our foundation,and must be followed. The Rule of Law is absolutely vital, and we compromise it at our peril. That said, life is full of tradeoffs.

Unfortunately, discussion often degenerates into something else, where facts are sparse, and common ground cannot be found.

I value the conversations I can have with those who disagree with me who are willing to drill down and figure out exactly what values and priorities we hold that drive us to disagree.

http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/simple-logical-questions

I agree Donald. I too appreciate openmindedness in debate, and think it is the one vital missing ingredient far too often in Washington these days.

Even in what was proposed today by the President, I see great promise in taking exactly the opportunity you suggest from this starting point. For instance, in no way were semi-automatics targeted by these proposals. That is an important line drawn. On the flip side, closing the gun show loophole WAS proposed, an important (in my opinion anyway) and nearly universally supported step that can be taken to tighten control of who gets weapons, how easily, and whether checks (like mental health warnings, terror watch lists, etc.) can be easily circumvented. From the people I've talked to on every side of the 2nd Amendment issue, I've found precious few, if any, who disagree that we just might all be better off without the ability for any old anyone, regardless of mental health, knowledge, intent or other factors to "legally" obtain just about any type of weapon, without any of us being the wiser.

Say what you want about this President (and I think we all have a lot to say), but I am actually encouraged by what I saw and heard today. These proposals appear to be reasonable, in my opinion, and an excellent and concrete starting point for a broad discussion on a package of steps that can be taken to improve our collective safety without trampling on the Constitution.

The 23 executive orders are not very useful or interesting. I will have a blog up on that subject later today or tomorrow.

http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/comedy-tragedy-or-threat

That said, the popularity of a proposal is seldom a measure of its wisdom. The "gun show loophole" is not so easy to close, unless you presume that *ALL* guns will be tracked, and *ALL* transfers will be federally regulated.

This is a case where it may well be desirable to deprive miscreants of weapons, it is not possible to do so via this sort of lawmaking, without making my gift of my old .22 to my son a federal offense.

My point is that these proposals have to be thought though, and the costs weighed.

http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/simple-logical-questions

Always.

There's no doubt that the president has proposed reasonable actions. Restrict a couple of things that only the extreme gun proponents care about and add a couple of government positions while throwing some swag at more taxpayer funded studies on violence and society. Even toss the NRA a bone and offer to pay for a couple of security guards here and there. Hard to argue with any of that. Of course it won't do much to actually prevent the next disaster, but that really wasn't the point of this charade anyway. At least the government is "doing something."
The only thing that actually surprises me here is Obama's semi-conciliatory tone. Either he's actually trying to build a concensus here or he's worried about the NRA.

Vices. What's the old adage Donald? "If opportunity doesn't knock, build a door”? Milton Berle I believe. Since you appear to back I had a question for you about this "closing thought" you posted earlier:

"I put my faith in my fellow citizens, not in the officials who purport to protect me from them. I would much rather trust my neighbors and hold them to high standards, than to mistrust them, and give officials power to force them to behave as I would want. I can't give officials power over my neighbors without giving them power over me."

My question for you is this:

Where do criminals live? I'm sure the community of Sandy Hook put "faith" in their "fellow citizens" and "trusted their neighbors". And what about the children of "Terror Town" Illinois? They have no neighbors to "trust", so who should they put their "faith" in?

I'm not really sure about your continued fascination with Chicago and "Terror Town" CM. What happens there is horrific, although to say that it's unexpected would be a stretch. When people don't see a way out of their crappy lives after years and years of broken promises they can get violent. The "City on the Make" has been the cesspool of corruption for the nation for decades. Chicago could very well be a portent of things to come nationally unless we're able to get our house in order. Maybe another reason behind the scenes to get to full gun registration?
Hard to believe this country would ever elect a ward heeler from Chicago to the presidency not only once, but twice.

Smokin' Joe I never said it was "unexpected", we all know that Chicago has a dark and sordid crime history long preceeding the days of Al Capone and like any other major city is riddled with crime. However, just becsuse something isn't "unexpected" that does not make it acceptable. As far as it being a "fascination" goes, not a noun I would use, the tone is hardly dark enough, what does however fascinate me is that whilst children are dodging bullets shot by their "neighbors" on their way home from school someone else can be sipping tea in their white suburban neighborhood with their faithfull, trustworthy neighbors being none the wiser, thinking life is just grand. Too often we don't look outside of ourselves and see how decisions that don't affect us affect others, there is not enough compassion in this world, there is not enough care and if I have to mention Terror Town a thousand times more, to give just one person pause for thought I will. It angers me to no end that someone like Donald has the gall, has the nerve to even suggest for one moment that my words would ever imply killing another child to save my own, he has crossed the line and has violated all the rules of basic human decency and clearly is someone who would be well served to get his head out of his bottom.

I do not seek to get CM mad at me. I only point out that when she says she would do ANYTHING, that necessarily includes things that even she would admit she would not do. She now says that I was right. I think she now agrees that there are some things she would see as unacceptable, even in defending her child.

This is my point. There are always tradeoffs, and those tradeoffs are often hard. We value many things that are often in conflict, and when writing law, we have to be very careful that we don't over-react.

One addition Smokin' Jo in answer to your question:

"Who decides what's okay"?

I think the dead children should decide what is ok, if only they could speak from their graves...

We're not two Donald, I'm not "mad at you", I don't even know you, nor do you know me. And for the record MY words were: "Nothing is more important to me than the safety of my child" NOT " I would do ANYTHING for the safety of my child", there is clearly a difference, so your point is really redundant in response to my statement. However, when making a point, one can do so, as you clearly demonstrated above, without making such dark and disturbing correlations that in my opinion, based on your previous posts, were made to not only make a point but to question another's character and their ability to think rationally. I would have far more respect for you and for your opinions if you did not resort to using such vices that are so typical of most politicians.

Sipping tea CM? I moved to a nice suburb for several reasons, the foremost of those was that it would be a safe, decent place to raise my kids. Good schools, plenty of space for the dogs, the American Dream I grew up expecting. I also expected to work for it, and we also chose not to have kids until we could afford to raise them.
The majority of my neighbors have the same priorities, and we get along pretty well, even though we are not all white as you seem to suggest. I make no apologies for where or how I live, as you say, we make sacrifices for the good of our kids.
You also seem to suggest that we need to do something about those who raise kids in crappy neighborhoods. What is it that you'd like us to do? Don't you expect that their parents have a duty to raise them in a safe place? If they can't get the Chicago PD involved then they ought to camp out at Rahm's place until he gets the message. It's certainly unacceptable to have kids getting killed. Or is your point that Chicago's strict gun laws aren't really acheiving what was expected? If that kind of garbage were happening in our neighborhood and the police couldn't stop it there'd be an exhibition of gun control suburban style.

Yes SJ, hot tea with milk and 1 lump of sugar please. Lots and lots of words, I'm not good at self-editing and that Tolstoy warning isn't going to stop me, I've outsmarted the great writer with multiple posts! That said, in reply, we have no control over the advantage or disadvantage to which we are born, there are so many children who begin their lives at the lowest of lows. Yes, there are those who excel despite the odds but that is not necessarily the norm. A culture of good family values, getting a good education and working hard makes all the difference and that is severely lacking in these gang infested neighborhoods of Chicago and various other cities across the nation. It isn't a question of feeling guilty or apologizing for what you have and others don't, anyone who works hard and makes good decisions deserves to reep the benefits. To me it is not a about guilt or apologizing but about compassion, about citizenship, about humanity. Every child deserves to grow up in a nice suburban neighborhood with a sense of community, with good schools and a sense of safety but more importantly, every child deserves to grow up with a sense of hope for their future. How can there be a sense of hope in the presence of violence inside and outside of the home? How can there be a sense of hope if your mom and/or dad is a heroin addict, a dealer, a criminal, incarcerated, a murderer? Many of these kids are

born into gangs, "blessed" into them like baptisms, "blood drops". Many who aren't born into gangs are "recruited" at a young age, many at the elementary school level. Absolutely, parents have a responsibility to properly look after and raise their kids and absolutely they have a responsibility to make good decisions that ensure the safety of their child and a responsibility to make decisions that ensure a bright future for their child. That is so obvious and so basic to most of us but what happens to those kids when their parents don't do the obvious and don't do the basic, whose responsibility are those children now? The solution to ending the cycle of violence requires more than just relying on parent's to do the right thing because clearly so many are not. When the former executive director of the Cook County Department of Corrections says; “These kids don’t expect to live a full life,” how can we say it's their parent's responsibility and not ours? There were over 400 school-aged children shot and over 60 school-aged children murdered in Chicago in 2012, largely by their "neighbors", how do you end the viscious cycle when the culture of violence is perpetuated by the very people who are being victimized by it? Easy access to more guns? That makes no sense to me nor does having over 300 million guns in circulation with few measures in place to ensure accountability and responsibility by the user or the seller

but how do you get a hold of that now, start from scratch? Gun violence is so much bigger then these horrific mass shootings and there is not one drug that will cure all the diseases that cause it. It may not be curable but certainly we can do something to lessen the symptoms? Anyways, it has come time for me to bid adieu but despite our difference of opinion it has been reassuring to see people take a stand for what they believe in, as resignation is the greatest killer of all.

“If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other.”
― Mother Teresa

CM, you ask in the middle of your essay: "how do you end the viscious cycle when the culture of violence is perpetuated by the very people who are being victimized by it?"
I hear there's a huge shortage of children available for adoption, and the government isn't shy about telling us in great detail how to live our lives. If their parents won't take care of them, find better parents.

I can see that your lack of knowledge on the adoption process is only surpassed by your sheer lack of sensitivity on the matter; children are not a commadity and adoption should not be seen as an industry. Oddly enough as with the right to bear arms, Americans also have the right to bear children. And oddly enough, as with protecting the right to bear arms, we also protect biological parents right to keep their children. Clearly, protecting both as absolutes poses a danger to the general public.
I understand the realistic reasons behind your unrealistic solution but come on SJ, let's be realistic!

You continually decry the murders of "our children" as the responibility of all and now you ask for sensitivity in solutions? Sorry, but a parent that doesn't give their best effort to see to the safety of their children gets no compassion from me. Children are removed from their homes and families for much less valid reasons than their lives being at risk all the time. Imagine how quickly this issue would be resolved after people began losing their children at the direction of Child Welfare. Think Rahm and his police depts. might feel some heat?

The compassion and sensitivity is for the kids SJ. "Protecting rights as absolutes poses a danger to the general public". What don't you understand? Exceptions to every rule ... if a parent is endangering their child they don't get to keep them. If you murdered your mom and are committed to a state hospital as mentally ill you don't get to legally obtain a permit to buy a gun, oh wait ... my mistake that's not an exception ... silly me.

Exactly and Amen.

Very nicely stated Donald.

Really Donald? I have read EVERY post, I have read EVERY link, I have researched BOTH sides of the debate to exhaustion. I have done this not to play "tit for tat" but to draw conclusions that I perceive to be educated and logical, though granted, may seem uneducated and illogical to others. I maintain a willingness to listen just in case uneducated and illogical I am because there is NOTHING more important to me than the safety of my child. I do not live in absolutes, I try to live by the Old Chinese Proverb: "The broad-minded see the truth in different religions; the narrow-minded see only the differences”. I have often presented both sides of stats, acknowledging they do not provide a complete picture and have REPEATEDLY stated the dangers of false cause usually in reference to "patterns of confusing correlation with causation" NOT by myself but by yourself or others. Project if you must. As you so eloquently pointed out in your "closing thought" laws and regulations can give us freedom & laws & regulations can take away our freedom.

"Unfortunately, this proliferation of laws and regulations comes at a high price - our FREEDOM. It is too high a price to pay." Donald

"A FREE society is by nature a more CHAOTIC and DANGEROUS society" Donald

The 2nd Amendment can be a sword used to harm us or a shield used to protect us, the challenge is finding a balance that ensures the latter.

I sincerely hope that the safety of your child is not the paramount, overriding priority of your life. If so, then you are a danger to the rest of us, because it implies that you would do *absolutely anything* to protect your child, including killing other children. I think we can agree that that is not what you mean.

There are tradeoffs in life. We value many things that are in conflict. The choices we make speak volumes about what we value.

The premise of our nation is that our liberty is God-given. Laws cannot give what is already ours. They can only limit, or suppress those freedoms.

Again Donald, unfair but somehow I am not surprised, it seems in keeping with your tone of voice, hopefully however, not your tone of character. And no Donald, we cannot agree, I meant exactly as I said, "NOTHING is more important to me than the safety of MY child". If you look back to my post dated 11:03 am on Monday, January 14, 2013 you will see exactly what I mean when I say "MY child".

"Something has got to be done to get these guns out of the hands of our children and they are OUR children."

I consider ALL children to be MY children Donald.

Informal fallacies seem to be a vice to which you gravitate so I will leave you with these three words:

argumentum ad hominem (Ad hominem)

You got it! “To say goodbye is to die a little.”
― Raymond Chandler

The right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the constitution. The so called "right to bear children" that CM dreamed up may be implied by parts of the constitution but isn't spelled out. Who wants to debate abortion again? If the purpose of a public forum is to share opinions and knowledge with the intention of building a consensus, then there simply is no point in doing so on a subject where there is no compromise possible.

There are issues in the Trib article, but none of them support changes in law. It looks like he got his weapons illegally (by lying on the application), and even that would have been caught except for bureaucratic mistakes. New laws will not eradicate lying.

My blog post applies:
http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/simple-logical-questions

Note the article here from 1999:
http://www.americanexperiment.org/publications/commentaries/conceal-and-carry

By the way - he did not get any "automatic" weapons from a local dealer.

I'd suggest that it's always about ourselves.
There are compromises available on second amendment issues that will satisfy the vast majority of the people while doing minimal harm, even though they'll do nothing about mass shootings. I see no compromise solution on the abortion issue which is why I choose not to get involved in that debate.

Agreed.

It is easy to pretend that we can make the world a safe place by simply declaring that dangerous objects can be made to not exist, when the reality is that it is the behavior of people that is dangerous. Controlling the objects per-se is easy, but controlling the people is not only difficult, but dangerous to the liberties of those who need not be controlled. Controlling the objects without controlling the people with the objects is fantasy.

SJ is exactly right. The conversation we need to have is how we square the desire for personal responsibility and liberty with the fact that there are those who cannot be left to "run around loose". That has always been a difficult conversation. we do ourselves no favors by ducking it.

That said, it is clear to me that "child-proofing" the universe (gun control, et al) is neither possible, nor desirable.

Those who are familiar with prisons know that a spoon can be sharpened and shaped by filing it down against the concrete into a deadly weapon. It's the people, not their tools.

CM-The three largest mass killings in US history had nothing to do with guns. Honesty will you also, ban propane tanks? I think 1 or 2 propane tanks opened up in a school with the doors locked shut then sparked would probably kill more than 27, it is not the gun, it is the nut with the tool.

Here are the three largest mass killings Al Queda 9/11/2001, 2606 - aircraft; Timothy McVeigh - 1994 Oklahoma city bombing claimed 168 lives. In 1927 Andrew Kehoe killed 45 people (including himself) and injured an additional 58 in a bombing at the Bath Consolidated School. This is still the largest school massacre in United States history.

Last thing, a nut in China slashed 22 children 12/14/2012. Used a knife.

You are too fixated on guns. What about Doctors? They murder many more children every year and do it legally. When you ban doctors, come talk to me about my guns.

I know this discussion isn't about abortion, but Dian asked how many earlier. Dian, Planned Parenthood admitted to 333,964 Abortion procedures for 2010 alone. Happy Roe vs. Wade Day. (only 40 years ago yesterday)

Hey, I thought you were going to be quiet as a mouse. Couldn't do it, could you?
-Hank

Henry, there are many reasons and causes for violence in our society. This specific article focuses on guns and violence. There are a multitude of weapons that can inflict harm on the masses, we know that but the real question at hand is not whether or not we can eliminate all violence, though that should always be a goal but whether or not we can lessen the amount of violence in our society. Mass shootings are horrific but as tragic as they are, the numbers killed in mass shootings pale in comparison to the number of gun related murders in this country annually. Reasonable and responsible gun restrictions are not meant to cure the "incurable" or meant to solve mental health issues but meant to LESSEN gun violence in this country whilst MAINTAINING the individual's "right to bear arms". Claiming gun regulations to be useless and unenforceable, as some have, whilst actively fighting to make sure that regulations are as ineffectual and as unenforceable as possible is blockading progress and somewhat nefarious. When we assess the value of an argument by subconsciously comparing it to our own opinions we fail to see the logic and the reasoning behind the argument and often resort to exhaustive hypotheses in defense. As I have stated before, there are many reasons and causes for the rampant gun violence in this country and because this is a multifacted problem, it needs a multifaceted approach towards a solution, stricter gun regulations are just a piece of the solution.

No you won't there all sold out.