Connecticut

[Prospero]

Eighteen little children killed today in the worst school massacre in American history. Together with eight adults. A man with a handgun.

Will it change anything/ Will America's slavish obsession with guns be challenged by this slaughter of the innocents?

C'mon all you gun fans. Are you celebrating your freedom to bear arms tonight?
Tell us bewildered Brits about how its "people not guns that kill people."

But it won't change anything will it? The NRA lobby is too powerful.

[robertlouis]

Eighteen little children killed today in the worst school massacre in American history. Together with eight adults. A man with a handgun.

Will it change anything/ Will America's slavish obsession with guns be challenged by this slaughter of the innocents?

C'mon all you gun fans. Are you celebrating your freedom to bear arms tonight?
Tell us bewildered Brits about how its "people not guns that kill people."

But it won't change anything will it? The NRA lobby is too powerful.

All too sadly I have to agree.

In the meantime, different incident, same dialogue...

[Willie Escalade]

Nope...nothing will change...

[trish]

Just a selection of the three most high profile shootings in the U.S. in the last week:

http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/3101251-74/loughrey-police-state#axzz2F49vfisJ

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/11/oregon-mall-shooting/1762473/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/nyregion/shooting-reported-at-connecticut-elementary-school.html?smid=pl-share

[irvin66]

Oh my god that is just sick! :ignore:

[bimale69]

not to get political, but you can bet all the right-wing hatemongering assholes like fred phelps, pat robertson, ted nugent, glen beck, rush limburger, and the rest of their ilk will be spewing more of their ignorant BS about this being staged as an obama gun-control coup like the last couple of mass shootings.:soapbox

[flabbybody]

Nope...nothing will change...
I don't agree with your post Willie.
I saw the President's reaction to the gun murders of these 20 babies. The days of the NRA are numbered. Their hold on blocking gun control legislation has ended today.

[trish]

Twenty three school kids were injured by an attacker in China today. The attacker carried a knife. NO ONE WAS KILLED!
PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE MOST EFFICIENTLY WITH GUNS.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia/china-knife-attack/index.html

[robertlouis]

Here's the challenge put out by Prospero in rather more provocative and dare I say it more confrontational terms.

It would be good to get some responses.

[beandip]

Almost without exception since 1996 all "school shooters" have been on prescription drugs. Ya know....the new faddish ones prescribed for ADD and such bullshit symptoms / nonsense. Well, gee, read the side effects of these drugs which PERMANENTLY alter your brain.

The drugs come before the guns. But no, we'd rather have some intellectually lazy knee jerk lib-tard reaction and spout off about guns.

Yea.....ban guns.

Oh yea, "spoons made me fat"

What a dearth of vacuous minds......................................

[beandip]

Gun crime soars by 35%

(UK Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz2EtMRMP2a)) – The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.
With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: “These figures are truly terrible.
“Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offences.

______________________________

why yes, banning guns works so well.

“The only word for this is failure: the Government’s response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

[fred41]

Unfortunately little children are correct: Monsters do exist.
But they're not in closets or under beds...they are all around us...they look like us...they act like us (well..not always)...but they are monsters.
How else to explain killing little children. Kindergartners. Absolute innocents.

There will be no justice served, either for punishment or revenge.
...because this monster killed himself. Unfortunately that was not the first thing he did, but the last.

I am not a religious man, at least not for a very long time. I no longer believe in a "God"...or that Jesus was his son...or in heaven and hell.

But I hope the parents of the dead children do, because that is the only solace they may have - believing that their small and innocent children are now in heaven.
...and that the monster is being punished in a medieval version of hell (perhaps something from a Bosch painting)..at least until their anger dissipates (if it ever does).

We'll learn more in the coming days about what happened and perhaps some of the underlying reasons.
...and we'll have discussions on gun ownership...and perhaps the proper treatment of the mentally ill...
and how to handle monsters.
Dialogue on these matters is a good thing.

...but right now this is just really, really sad.

[maxpower]

Almost without exception since 1996 all "school shooters" have been on prescription drugs. Ya know....the new faddish ones prescribed for ADD and such bullshit symptoms / nonsense. Well, gee, read the side effects of these drugs which PERMANENTLY alter your brain.

The drugs come before the guns. But no, we'd rather have some intellectually lazy knee jerk lib-tard reaction and spout off about guns.

Yea.....ban guns.

Oh yea, "spoons made me fat"

What a dearth of vacuous minds......................................


I think you need to look up the definition of "dearth." Or "vacuous."

[robertlouis]

Gun crime soars by 35%

(UK Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz2EtMRMP2a)) – The Government’s latest crime figures were condemned as “truly terrible” by the Tories today as it emerged that gun crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.
Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.
Unadjusted figures showed overall recorded crime in the 12 months to last September rose 9.3%, but the Home Office stressed that new procedures had skewed the figures.
With new recording procedures taken into account the actual overall rise was just 2%, the Home Office said.
Shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said: “These figures are truly terrible.
“Despite the street crime initiative, robbery is massively up. So are gun-related crimes, domestic burglary, retail burglary, and drug offences.

______________________________

why yes, banning guns works so well.

“The only word for this is failure: the Government’s response of knee-jerk reactions, gimmicks and initiatives is not working and confused signals on sentences for burglary will not help either.

The figures you quote are ten years old.

Have a look at the table below and check where the US stands in respect of ownership and homicide, then check England and Wales. Scotland, the other component of mainland Britain, had no firearm homicides for the period shown.


Gun homicides and gun ownership listed by country

The Guardian 22 July 2012

Where are the world's guns - and which countries have the highest rates of firearms murders?


The Aurora shooting has re-lit the arguments over gun control in
the US.

How does the US really compare on firearms? The world's crime figures are collected by the UNODC through its annual crime survey. It has a special section of data on firearm homicides - and provides detailed information by size of population and compared to other crimes. It is not a perfect dataset - some key nations are missing from the data, including Russia, China and Afghanistan. But it does include the US, UK and many other developed nations.

The Small Arms Survey is also useful - although it is from 2007, it collates civilian gun ownership rates for 178 countries around the world, and has 'normalised' the data to include a rate per 100,000 population.

It shows that:

With less than 5% of the world's population, the United States is home to roughly 35–50 per cent of the world's civilian-owned guns, heavily skewing the global geography of firearms and any relative comparison

So, given those caveats, we can see which countries have the highest ownership rates for firearms - and which have the highest gun murder rates.

The key facts are:

• The US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world - an average of 88 per 100 people. That puts it first in the world for gun ownership - and even the number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer - 54.8 per 100 people
• But the US does not have the worst firearm murder rate - that prize belongs to Honduras, El Salvador and Jamaica. In fact, the US is number 28, with a rate of 2.97 per 100,000 people
• Puerto Rico tops the world's table for firearms murders as a percentage of all homicides - 94.8%. It's followed by Sierra Leone in Africa and Saint Kitts and Nevis in the Caribbean

The full data is below - what can you do with it?
Data summary
Gun murders and ownership

Click heading to sort table. Download this data
Country

% of homicides by firearm

Number of homicides by firearm

Homicide by firearm rate per 100,000 pop

Rank by rate of ownership

Average firearms per 100 people

Average total all civilian firearms

SOURCES: UNODC & Small arms survey
Albania 65.9 56 1.76 70 8.6 270,000
Algeria 4.8 20 0.06 78 7.6 1,900,000
Angola 34 17.3 2,800,000
Anguilla 24 1 7.14
Argentina 52 1,198 3.02 62 10.2 3,950,000
Armenia 13 9 0.29 52 12.5 380,000
Australia 11.5 30 0.14 42 15 3,050,000
Austria 29.5 18 0.22 14 30.4 2,500,000
Azerbaijan 6.5 11 0.12 115 3.5 290,000
Bahamas 61.2 52 15.37 98 5.3 17,000
Bahrain 0 0 0 18 24.8 180,000
Bangladesh 43.6 1,456 1.12 169 0.5 700,000
Barbados 40 8 2.99 76 7.8 21,000
Belarus 2.5 12 0.12 79 7.3 710,000
Belgium 39.5 70 0.68 34 17.2 1,800,000
Belize 52.3 68 21.82 62 10 29,000
Benin 137 1.4 120,000
Bermuda 0 0 0
Bhutan 115 3.5 22,000
Bolivia 119 2.8 260,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina 24.7 18 0.48 34 17.3 675,000
Botswana 102 4.9 87,000
Brazil 70.8 34,678 18.1 75 8 14,840,000
Brunei 0 0 0 137 1.4 5,400
Bulgaria 29.7 51 0.67 88 6.2 480,000
Burkina Faso 149 1.1 148,000
Burundi 145 1.2 200,000
Cambodia 36.7 187 1.44 109 4.3 600,000
Cameroon 119 2.8 340,000
Canada 32 173 0.51 13 30.8 9,950,000
Cape Verde 96 5.4 9,500
Central African Republic 153 1 40,000
Chad 149 1.1 109,000
Chile 37.3 353 2.16 59 10.7 1,750,000
China 102 4.9 40,000,000
Colombia 81.1 12,539 27.09 91 5.9 2,700,000
Comoros 127 1.8 11,000
Congo 122 2.7 100,000
Congo, Dem Rep 33.2 248 1.56 137 1.4 800,000
Costa Rica 57.3 201 4.59 64 9.9 430,000
Côte d´Ivoire 124 2.4 400,000
Croatia 34.7 17 0.39 26 21.7 950,000
Cuba 4.4 27 0.24 104 4.8 545,000
Cyprus 26.3 5 0.46 6 36.4 275,000
Czech Republic 11 20 0.19 38 16.3 1,600,000
Denmark 31.9 15 0.27 54 12 650,000
Djibouti 119 2.8 22,000
Dominican Republic 65.5 1,618 16.3 99 5.1 450,000
East Timor 177 0.3 3,000
Ecuador 68.7 1,790 12.73 142 1.3 370,000
Egypt 69.1 453 0.57 115 3.5 1,900,000
El Salvador 76.9 2,446 39.9 92 5.8 400,000
England and Wales 6.6 41 0.07 88 6.2 3,400,000
Equatorial Guinea 29 19.9 100,000
Eritrea 169 0.5 20,000
Estonia 3.9 3 0.24 65 9.2 123,000
Ethiopia 174 0.4 320,000
Fiji 169 0.5 4,000
Finland 19.8 24 0.45 4 45.3 2,400,000
France 9.6 35 0.06 12 31.2 19,000,000
Gabon 46 14 190,000
Gambia 157 0.8 123,000
Georgia 13.3 24 0.55 79 7.3 330,000
Germany 26.3 158 0.19 15 30.3 25,000,000
Ghana 174 0.4 80,000
Greece 34.9 29 0.26 23 22.5 2,500,000
Grenada 0 0 0
Guatemala 84 5,009 34.81 49 13.1 1,650,000
Guinea 145 1.2 110,000
Guinea-Bissau 129 1.6 25,000
Guyana 61.3 85 11.46 45 14.6 110,000
Haiti 164 0.6 190,000
Honduras 83.4 5,201 68.43 88 6.2 500,000
Hong Kong 0 0 0
Hungary 5 7 0.07 93 5.5 560,000
Iceland 0 0 0 15 30.3 90,000
India 7.6 3,093 0.26 110 4.2 46,000,000
Indonesia 169 0.5 1,000,000
Iran 79 7.3 3,500,000
Iraq 8 34.2 9,750,000
Ireland 42 21 0.48 70 8.6 360,000
Israel 11.7 6 0.09 79 7.3 500,000
Italy 66.7 417 0.71 55 11.9 7,000,000
Jamaica 75.6 1,080 39.4 74 8.1 215,000
Japan 1.8 11 0.01 164 0.6 710,000
Jordan 38.8 26 0.49 58 11.5 630,000
Kazakhstan 12.5 210 1.34 142 1.3 200,000
Kenya 86 6.4 740,000
Korea, North 164 0.6 130,000
Korea, South 1.7 14 0.03 149 1.1 510,000
Kosovo 30 19.5 415,000
Kuwait 18 24.8 630,000
Kyrgyzstan 8.3 28 0.54 156 0.9 45,000
Laos 145 1.2 71,000
Latvia 4.6 5 0.22 32 19 280,000
Lebanon 36.5 31 0.76 28 21 750,000
Lesotho 122 2.7 47,000
Liberia 13.2 17 0.43 129 1.6 51,000
Libya 40 15.5 900,000
Liechtenstein 100 1 2.82
Lithuania 2.5 6 0.18 160 0.7 135,000
Luxembourg 42.9 3 0.62 41 15.3 70,000
Macedonia 62.5 25 1.21 20 24.1 490,000
Madagascar 157 0.8 150,000
Malawi 160 0.7 92,000
Malaysia 13.4 64 0.24 133 1.5 370,000
Maldives 62.5 5 1.63 85 6.5 21,000
Mali 149 1.1 143,000
Malta 0 0 0 55 11.9 48,000
Mauritania 129 1.6 50,000
Mauritius 2 1 0.1 44 14.7 180,000
Mexico 54.9 11,309 9.97 42 15 15,500,000
Moldova 3.3 8 0.22 83 7.1 300,000
Monaco 0 0 0
Mongolia 1.4 3 0.11 126 1.9 50,000
Montenegro 21 23.1 150,000
Morocco 101 5 1,500,000
Mozambique 99 5.1 1,000,000
Myanmar 111 4 2,000,000
Namibia 51 12.6 260,000
Nepal 13.3 84 0.3 159 0.8 205,000
Netherlands 30.7 55 0.33 112 3.9 510,000
New Zealand 13.5 7 0.16 22 22.6 925,000
Nicaragua 42.1 338 5.92 77 7.7 395,000
Niger 160 0.7 93,000
Nigeria 133 1.5 2,000,000
Northern Ireland 4.5 5 0.28 25 21.9 380,000
Norway 8.1 2 0.05 11 31.3 1,400,000
Oman 17 25.4 650,000
Pakistan 57 11.6 18,000,000
Panama 75 569 16.18 26 21.7 700,000
Papua New Guinea 145 1.2 71,000
Paraguay 56.1 466 7.35 37 17 1,000,000
Peru 50.8 757 2.63 33 18.8 750,000
Philippines 49.9 7,349 8.93 105 4.7 3,900,000
Poland 7.1 35 0.09 142 1.3 510,000
Portugal 33.8 44 0.41 72 8.5 900,000
Puerto Rico 94.8 692 18.3
Qatar 16.7 1 0.14 31 19.2 520,100
Romania 1.3 5 0.02 160 0.7 160,000
Russia 68 8.9 12,750,000
Rwanda 164 0.6 58,000
Saint Kitts and Nevis 85 17 32.44
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 30 6 5.49
Saudi Arabia 7 35 6,000,000
Scotland 93 5.5 280,000
Senegal 125 2 230,000
Serbia 33.1 45 0.46 5 37.8 3,050,000
Seychelles 96 5.4 4,600
Sierra Leone 87.7 128 2.28 164 0.6 34,000
Singapore 5.9 1 0.02 169 0.5 22,000
Slovakia 11.2 10 0.18 73 8.3 450,000
Slovenia 15.4 2 0.1 47 13.5 270,000
Solomon Islands 0 0 0 174 0.4 1,800
Somalia 66 9.1 750,000
South Africa 45 8,319 17.03 50 12.7 5,950,000
Spain 21.8 90 0.2 61 10.4 4,500,000
Sri Lanka 21.1 291 1.48 133 1.5 300,000
Sudan 93 5.5 2,000,000
Suriname 48 13.4 60,000
Swaziland 86 6.4 72,000
Sweden 33.9 37 0.41 10 31.6 2,800,000
Switzerland 72.2 57 0.77 3 45.7 3,400,000
Syria 112 3.9 735,000
Taiwan 15.9 128 0.56 106 4.4 725,000
Tajikistan 15.6 15 0.22 153 1 65,000
Tanzania 137 1.4 550,000
Thailand 39 15.6 10,000,000
Togo 153 1 60,000
Trinidad and Tobago 72.1 365 27.31 129 1.6 21,000
Tunisia 178 0.1 9,000
Turkey 16.9 535 0.77 52 12.5 9,000,000
Turkmenistan 2.4 5 0.1 114 3.8 180,000
Uganda 10.5 280 0.87 137 1.4 400,000
Ukraine 4.5 100 0.22 84 6.6 3,100,000
United Arab Emirates 24 22.1 1,000,000
United States 60 9,146 2.97 1 88.8 270,000,000
Uruguay 46.5 93 2.8 9 31.8 1,100,000
Uzbekistan 133 1.5 1,200,000
Venezuela 79.5 11,115 38.97 59 10.7 2,850,000
Vietnam 52.9 834 0.99 128 1.7 1,100,000
West Bank & Gaza 72.4 105 2.95 118 3.4 125,000
Yemen 2 54.8 11,500,000
Zambia 11.7 28 0.35 68 8.9 230,000
Zimbabwe 65.6 598 4.78 106 4.4 400,000

[robertlouis]

Hmm. That didn't work too well. Here's the web link.


http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

[broncofan]

We've discussed this before. People do awful things and certainly someone driving to a school and blowing away little children had to have a mind filled with malice. But he also had to have the means to do it. When guns are not within reach it takes more than malice to commit a crime.

Someone who is out of control with anger or who hates the world cannot go to their local school and start mowing people down unless they can get their hands on equipment designed to take life. Now we may find that not all of these attacks could be prevented with better gun control but it stands to reason that some of them could. Some people would not kill if they could not easily come by the means to do it.

Hopefully we have this conversation more often in this country and on intelligent terms. Either that or we listen to those like Beandip who have no sense of decency, no understanding of cause and effect (see his unthoughtful and vague comments about psychiatric meds) and are basically political deviants who don't mourn for dead children but fear they may be used as an excuse to take away their beloved armaments.

[robertlouis]

We've discussed this before. People do awful things and certainly someone driving to a school and blowing away little children had to have a mind filled with malice. But he also had to have the means to do it. When guns are not within reach it takes more than malice to commit a crime.

Someone who is out of control with anger or who hates the world cannot go to their local school and start mowing people down unless they can get their hands on equipment designed to take life. Now we may find that not all of these attacks could be prevented with better gun control but it stands to reason that some of them could. Some people would not kill if they could not easily come by the means to do it.

Hopefully we have this conversation more often in this country and on intelligent terms. Either that or we listen to those like Beandip who have no sense of decency, no understanding of cause and effect (see his unthoughtful and vague comments about psychiatric meds) and are basically political deviants who don't mourn for dead children but fear they may be used as an excuse to take away their beloved armaments.

Great post Broncofan. :iagree::iagree::iagree:

As for Beandip - if he's happy to compare US gun homicide rates with the likes of Colombia and Vietnam, that's up to him. But surely the more valid comparisons should be with stable western democracies, not rogue or dysfunctional states.

[broncofan]

Great post Broncofan. :iagree::iagree::iagree:

As for Beandip - if he's happy to compare US gun homicide rates with the likes of Colombia and Vietnam, that's up to him. But surely the more valid comparisons should be with stable western democracies, not rogue or dysfunctional states.
I agree. I think the comparison would be to countries with similar social structures, similar gdp per capita, but without every other person running around with guns. The comments about the psychiatric medications are also very unhelpful because he does not mention which ones he objects to. Lithium for bipolar disorder? Anti-psychotics for schizophrenia? Anti-depressants for depression? Stimulants? First of all many of these medicines lower rates of violence and the use of stimulants in those with ADHD do not appear to be associated with violence unless there is a co-morbidity like bipolar disorder or unless they are misused.

I think anyone with a conscience who has ever worried that they could lose control understands intuitively the nature of the problem we're dealing with. The more distance you put between an unstable mind and the means of taking life, the safer everyone is. The problem is that death is too easy to procure!

[Ben]

Eighteen little children killed today in the worst school massacre in American history. Together with eight adults. A man with a handgun.

Will it change anything/ Will America's slavish obsession with guns be challenged by this slaughter of the innocents?

C'mon all you gun fans. Are you celebrating your freedom to bear arms tonight?
Tell us bewildered Brits about how its "people not guns that kill people."

But it won't change anything will it? The NRA lobby is too powerful.

I consider myself of the left. But I'm opposed to outlawing guns.
Anyway, President Obama would have to come forward. He, as the President, would have to lead the way.
But the gun lobby is very strong in America, it's very powerful. You'd have to tackle that. (My cousin is English. He doesn't think anyone should own a gun or guns. So, we've had deep debates about the issue. Again, I'm not opposed to gun ownership. But we certainly have to address some deep social problems.
Michael Moore pointed out that Canada has more guns per capita. So, what's going on? Is it the culture? Inequality? Lack of public health care?)

[Ben]

Obama Tearfully Mourns Children Killed in Sandy Hook Mass Shooting

Obama Tearfully Mourns Children Killed in Sandy Hook Mass Shooting - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH7gIdjuqiE)

[Prospero]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Good points, well made.
We've discussed this before. People do awful things and certainly someone driving to a school and blowing away little children had to have a mind filled with malice. But he also had to have the means to do it. When guns are not within reach it takes more than malice to commit a crime.

Someone who is out of control with anger or who hates the world cannot go to their local school and start mowing people down unless they can get their hands on equipment designed to take life. Now we may find that not all of these attacks could be prevented with better gun control but it stands to reason that some of them could. Some people would not kill if they could not easily come by the means to do it.

Hopefully we have this conversation more often in this country and on intelligent terms. Either that or we listen to those like Beandip who have no sense of decency, no understanding of cause and effect (see his unthoughtful and vague comments about psychiatric meds) and are basically political deviants who don't mourn for dead children but fear they may be used as an excuse to take away their beloved armaments.

[fred41]

Just read in the papers that the mother owned these guns (photo taken from NY Daily News). Some things differ slightly depending upon what paper you read, but they all seem to agree that Adam Lanza either had Asperger or some other type of Autism. He was - "Socially awkward..extremely shy...etc.etc."...many people that knew him and were not surprised it was him...

My question would be "Why on earth would you keep weapons like this around a boy like that"???!!!

[Silcc69]

After the tragic shooting and subsequent deaths of 27 people, 20 of whom were children, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., many are examining the debate between groups who are for stronger gun control and those that support the right to carry firearms.

Key players in the debate include several politically active groups that have spent years exerting influence in Washington.

The National Rifle Association accounts for about 60 percent of what gun rights interest groups spent on lobbying in 2011 and the first three quarters of 2012. The other gun rights advocates include the Gun Owners of America; the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms; The National Shooting Sports Foundation; Safari Club International; Boone & Crockett Club, a group that aims to preserve a "hunting heritage"; and The Ohio Gun Collectors Association.



The NRA alone has spent more than ten times as much as gun control interest groups on lobbying in 2011 and the first three quarters of 2012.

Since 2006, 15 different organizations have mentioned the words "gun control" in their lobbying reports. Smith and Wesson, one of the nation's largest firearms manufacturers, has done so most frequently, mentioning the term 115 times. The National Rifle Association has the second-most mentions at 68.

For gun rights groups, 2012 was the most active election cycle since 2000. They contributed a total of $3 million to candidates, 96 percent of them Republicans, through mid-October. That also makes 2012 its most Republican election cycle, with 2000 and 2002 close behind with 93 percent of contributions going to Republicans.

By contrast, gun control groups contributed less in this election cycle than in any cycle as far back as OpenSecrets has data (1990) -- again, through mid-October. After campaign spending peaked in 2000 with $581,000, politicians only saw $4,000 from gun control groups this year. All of those recipients were Democrats: Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), losing candidate Lori Saldana (D-Calif.), and Sen.-elect Tim Kaine (D-Va.) The interest group is made up of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Violence Policy Center. None of those groups are active enough to warrant their own pages on OpenSecrets.org.

Top recipients of money from gun rights interest groups included presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio), Sen.-elect Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Senate candidate Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.). Tea party Republicans like Michele Bachmann and Allen West were high on the list, as well.

The NRA by itself had made more than $1 million worth of campaign contributions in the 2012 election cycle as of mid-October, almost all of which came from the group's political action committee. It gave about $720,000 to federal candidates and $342,000 to PACs, political parties and outside spending groups.

According to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, donors associated with the NRA have heavily favored Republicans in contributions since the 1990 election cycle with an average of 83 percent of their money leaning right in the last two decades. In the 2012 cycle, 89 percent of the NRA's contributions went to Republicans.

Top recipients from 2012 are Reps. Steve Fincher (R-Tenn.) and Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) who received $9,900 each. Ohio Senate candidate Josh Mandel (R) got $9,450, and Reps. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) and Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and North Dakota Senate candidate Rick Berg (R) also received $7,450 each. Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Id.) and Wisconsin Senate candidate Tommy Thompson (R) each took in about $7,000 from the NRA.

The NRA also gave GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney just shy of $6,000. The Center for Responsive Politics has no record of President Barack Obama receiving any NRA-associated donations greater than $200 this cycle.

Some of the Democrats who received contributions from the NRA include Utah Rep. Jim Matheson ($6,950), Michigan Rep. John Dingell ($5,000), Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross ($5,000) and Georgia Rep. John Barrow ($4,950).

Smith and Wesson gave about 96 percent of its $22,750 in contributions to federal candidates as opposed to PACs or other groups. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) got $7,000, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) received $2,000 and California Rep. Buck Mckeon got $1,000.

On top of the NRA's contributions, the group also made about $17 million in independent expenditures in the 2012 election cycle. About $11.4 million was spent opposing Democrats and $5.9 million was spent favoring Republicans. The group spent most of its millions on two candidates: $8.9 million against Obama and $3 million supporting Romney.

In congressional races, the NRA dropped about $588,000 in favor of Indiana GOP Senate hopeful Richard Mourdock and $344,000 on Senator-elect Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) After Obama, the group spent the next most opposing Democratic Sen.-elect Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) with about $753,000. It spent $511,000 against Virginia Sen.-elect Tim Kaine, also a Democrat.


A Sig Sauer was one of the guns found near the body of the alleged Newtown shooter. Image via flickr user Burns!.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/12/gun-control.html

[irvin66]

I do not know how the gun laws are in the U.S., but to ban firearms is perhaps a bit easy solution, stricter gun laws is perhaps the way to go.
Then you have more control over legal weapons. but the problem is all the illegal guns, how can we control them? :roll:

[Prospero]

Statistics....

[iagodelgado]

Michael Moore pointed out that Canada has more guns per capita. So, what's going on? Is it the culture? Inequality? Lack of public health care?)

The stats presented earlier say 30.8 guns per 100 Canadians, 88.8 guns per 100 in US.

[maxpower]

Well, hey...here's what idiot extraordinaire Mike Huckabee had to say about this tragedy. Apparently we all just need to be praying more. Always nice to hear from the Arkansas brain trust. :roll:


Huckabee Says Connecticut School Massacre Occurred Because We ‘Removed God From Our Schools’ THINK PROGRESS By Igor Volsky
Former Arkansas governor and GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee attributed today’s deadly massacre in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut to the lack of God and religion in public schools.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/14/1339971/huckabee-says-connecticut-school-massacre-occurred-because-we-removed-god-from-our-schools/?mobile=nc

[beandip]

For the mentally challenged and intellectually lazy here....

I offer this: (note, Statist shit bags and lib-tards don't even bother reading this..._) EABODADIAF!

You have to live in a hole not to know that a deranged young man shot up a school yesterday morning.
In the aftermath there are the predictable calls for bans on all guns, bans on most guns, and bans on, well, anyone other than you and your hired goons (aka Mayor Bloomberg) having a gun.
Hysteria does not produce good results. Indeed, evil men often wait for conveniently-timed hysteria to do unspeakably ugly and evil things under cover of public demand that they conveniently exploit. There are hundreds if not thousands of banksters freely roaming the land today who are free under precisely this rubric; men and women (but mostly men) who would under any rational legal system be rotting in prison right now but for Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke locking Congress in a room in the dark evenings of 2008 and threatening that the end of the world would ensue if he was not given plenary power to do whatever he thought necessary. He even came with a convenient three-page document that would grant him that power. Ultimately Congress only gave him part of what he asked for, but as is almost always the case when someone claims he is going to do something under mass-hysteria conditions he is lying, and intends to do something else.
Such was the case with Hank Paulson, who we now know had "changed his intent" to buy toxic assets (his original claim) before Congress voted on the proposal and yet didn't tell Congress of his changed intentions, misleading the body intentionally by omission.
You're still paying for the result today in the form of ridiculous unemployment, food stamp recipients going off the scale, gasoline and other necessities nearly doubling in price and the inexorable health care cost ramp continuing. All of this is happening because instead of addressing the causes of the crisis and jailing the malefactors responsible the executive used the hysteria generated by Lehman's failure to shove a law down Congressional throats.
Now let's look at what we know about the Connecticut shootings -- and unlike many commentators I will clearly delineate that which we now can state confidently are facts, that which is a reasonable conclusion from those facts, and that which is speculative in character at this time as sufficient information is not available to refute or support such a position.
We'll start with the guns. They are reported to have been legally owned by the shooter's mother (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/15/at-least-26-dead-in-shooting-at-connecticut-school/) and included a Glock pistol, a Sig pistol and a .223 caliber rifle. The rifle has been reported to be a sporting variety commonly used for target practice or hunting varmints; if the make and model reported are correct it is indeed a hunting variant (it has a fixed stock as hunting rifles typically do, no flash-hider on the front or other "scary looking" but immaterial cosmetics, etc.) Sig makes extremely high-quality (and commensurately expensive) pistols; Glock of course makes highly-reliable and well-respected weapons as well. A little-known fact about Glocks is that for many people they "point" funny due to a different grip angle than most other pistols; some people find them very difficult to shoot accurately for this reason. That may be why the mother owned both (she may have bought one and not liked it, then bought the other.) The rifle was found inside the car the shooter drove and since he never came out of the school building once going in it must be presumed that he did not use that gun in the school assault. There is nothing particularly-remarkable about the weapons used in this assault; they are common guns used lawfully by millions of Americans for hunting, target practice and defensive purposes.
Of note is that the shooter could not have legally acquired the pistols, as he is not 21. Federal law requires one to be 21 years of age before purchasing a pistol at retail. In this particular case, however, it doesn't matter whether he was 21 or not as he didn't buy any of the weapons involved; they were lawfully purchased by his mother who the assailant murdered prior to assaulting the school.
In other words the shooter effectively stole the weapons used in the assault. We do not know at this point (and may never know) the exact order of events in terms of his acquisition of the weapons but what we do know factually is that he murdered their owner, ending her ability to report the theft or to resist what he intended to do with them next.
That is, there was no "gun control" violation involved in this assault. The bad guy did not obtain the weapons through lawful means and he also did not (legally or not) circumvent the background check system by, for example, buying them privately from someone (the much-maligned "gun show loophole" that people talk about but is almost-never actually implicated in an assault.) Rather, the assailant removed the weapons from their lawful owner through, either directly or indirectly, the crime of murder.
As a retired school teacher with no reported criminal history, there was utterly no reason to prevent the mother from owning these firearms for perfectly reasonable and lawful purposes, such as paper-punching or self-defense. Being divorced -- as a single woman -- she had every right and reason to be armed for defensive purposes, particularly in her own home.
So now let's turn to the assailant and his choice of targets. The first murder, that of his mother, was the predicate act he undertook which allowed him the access to the firearms he then transported beyond the boundary of lawful possession and use. The decision to commit murder, once taken, was the predicate act that laid waste all laws that would otherwise bear on the subject matter.
You cannot stop bullets with paper (laws); by definition laws only impact the actions (or inactions) of law-abiding individuals. Once someone decides to commit a capital felony (irrespective of whether life imprisonment or death is the potential sentence) all considerations of legal sanction have been discarded and become inoperative.
Put another way there is no punishment that enhances a life sentence, nor one that enhances a sentence of death. Once the remainder of one's life is to be spent behind bars or they are to suffer the death penalty all additional offenses they choose to commit are free of sanction, as society has exhausted the available remedies they can apply for that person's behavior.
This is the overriding reason that "gun laws" or any other sort of proscriptive legal sanction are utterly worthless once a person has committed their first homicide.
Next, we'll look at the school itself. The shooter didn't walk in (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324481204578181214172789922.html?m od=WSJ_Home_largeHeadline), he broke through a window to enter the building. The school appears to have been appropriately secured on a physical level, although obviously the glass broken through was not armored. What was missing was someone -- anyone -- in the building with the means and willingness to present effective resistence to an armed criminal intent on murder. From all reports the staff did what they could, having no defensive weapons and no locks on the classroom doors, to mitigate the assault -- they turned on the PA system so everyone knew there was an attack in progress and the teachers barricaded themselves as best they were able. At least one teacher was shot and wounded through her door while (successfully) preventing the gunman from entering her classroom.
There are many who argue that we can prevent these assaults via strict gun laws, starting with the effective if not complete voiding of the 2nd Amendment.
But the historical record on this point is clear; governments murder far more people, ignoring wartime, than do thugs. The predicate act of every government that undertakes such an activity is to disarm the population. This was known back in 1776 and is the reason for the Second Amendment. Those who believe the founders were wrong need only look at the next 200+ years of history to see that they were absolutely right -- over 200 million people have been shoved in the hole by government outside of acts of war and every single time they disarmed the population first.
Further, those who argue for gun laws need only to look at drug prohibition for a nearly 100-year unbroken record of failure. You can get drugs in prison, which is proof positive that any law that man passes can be (and will be) corrupted and circumvented. Fast and Furious anyone? How many Mexicans have we shoved in the hole by our own law enforcement officials circumventing the very laws they are sworn to uphold?
To restate for much-needed emphasis there is simply no means to prevent someone from committing a second or subsequent capital offense with a piece of paper -- a law. Laws do not stop bullets and the threat of sanction is meaningless once you reach the maximum available sanction; any further threat of criminal sanction is immaterial since you can only give someone one capital or life sentence in fact, no matter how many you impose on paper.
There is thus one, and only one, means to deter those who would commit a second or subsequent murder -- a visible, obvious and known risk that they will be unable to complete their second or subsequent offense because they are stopped by the immediate application of deadly force to their person.
Consider this: Why is it that we never hear of these sorts of murderous rampages taking place in a police station? After all, if you're a murderous thug the cops are the ones who will arrest you and deliver you over to the courts where you will be tried, sentenced and then eventually imprisoned (or given the needle.) Logic dictates that you would thus assault those who would arrest and try you for your crimes, in an attempt to neuter their ability to do so.
The reason these thugs do not, as a rule, assault a police station is that they know full well that everyone in the place is armed and will resist -- that while they may through the element of surprise manage to shoot one or two people the odds are nearly 100% that doing so will lead to the immediate termination of their assault via return fire.
Before you argue otherwise let's look at the recent events, shall we? The movie theater in Colorado posted a "gun free" sign. Ditto for the mall. And, of course, under federal law schools are "gun free" zones -- the government, along with gun-banners, assert that paper (laws) "protect" against bullets. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324296604578179801831200978.html?m od=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories)
But the law only applies to and is followed by law-abiding citizens, and as I have irrefutably shown above, once someone commits their first murder there is no law that can add to their punishment since they have already elected to suffer the maximum available penalty.
Therefore, the logical place for such a person to commit a mass assault, where the odds are highest that they will be able to murder the maximum number of people, is to select a location to target where the odds of lawful defensive use of force are minimized -- or non-existent.
This is why the assailants choose movie theaters or malls that are posted "gun-free" zones -- and schools.
Occasionally, however, their plans go awry. For instance, in Oregon. (http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html)

"He was working on his rifle," said Meli. "He kept pulling the charging handle and hitting the side."
The break in gunfire allowed Meli to pull out his own gun, but he never took his eyes off the shooter.
...
"I'm not beating myself up cause I didn't shoot him," said Meli. "I know after he saw me I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Indeed the shooter did shoot himself next, despite having multiple additional unarmed people available near him to continue his rampage, along with additional cartridges, once he unjammed the gun.
Why?
He saw the man who, despite a sign claiming that there were no guns in the mall, was in fact armed and able to return fire. The assailant's illusion of a free-fire zone where all the people he wanted to shoot were free from the risk of returning fire had been dispelled; had he elected to shoot another unarmed and helpless individual the odds are good that he would have exposed himself to being shot as he would have had to move in a fashion that would have given the CCW holder a clear shot at him.
As such he elected to take his own life since he knew, at that point, that he no longer had the ability to continue to murder people without reprisal.
Nick Meli saved lives with a gun. He did so without discharging the weapon as occurs more than one million times a year in the United States; his mere display of the weapon broke the illusion of a risk-free target zone for the shooter. Without that citizen firing a shot by the mere display of his gun the shooter's calculation of risk and reward changed, and he elected to kill himself rather than continue his rampage.
You won't hear this reported in the media, of course. Nor will the screaming left, who prey on emotion rather than facts, take an analytical look at these events. Indeed, I was puzzled when it was first reported that the Oregon shooter elected to shoot himself after his weapon jammed. That act made no sense standing alone; he obviously un-jammed his weapon or he couldn't have shot himself with it, so why shoot himself rather than continue his rampage in a mall full of unarmed people? He was not at imminent risk of capture by law enforcement at that moment in time, and it did not appear from original reports that he had come into the mall targeting a specific person or persons -- that is, all reports were that he was randomly shooting people rather than trying to assassinate someone with whom he had a grudge.
It therefore made absolutely no sense that he would shoot two people then choose to kill himself absent the risk of his own imminent demise.
We now know that it was precisely the risk of his imminent demise that led him to change his course of action and self-terminate his assault, and that it was the mere display of a weapon by a citizen who was willing and able to defend innocent life that made the difference.
In short, guns are not the problem. Deranged people are a serious problem, but even the seriously-deranged are capable of some level of logic. They choose the targets of their assaults predicated on the likelihood that there will be meaningful resistance offered, and when that calculation turns out to be incorrect they are either stopped or take their own life as they realize their mistake.
There are still serious questions surrounding this assault that I do not yet have sufficient facts to opine upon. For instance, was the shooter on psychotropic medication? If so, why do we continue to allow the peddlers of such drugs to sell them in the United States despite black box warnings -- self-admitted warnings -- that they can and do cause suicidal and homicidal rage? Why do we refuse to deal with serious mental illness and the warnings that those people exhibit (such as the shooter at the movie theater) in a forthright and honest fashion?
There are things we can do about this problem, but they have nothing to do with gun laws. It is already illegal for a person to buy a firearm if they are mentally incompetent, but if we refuse to bring someone before a judge and have them declared incompetent the problem isn't the law -- it's us and our refusal to face facts. In the specific case in question, however, the shooter did not buy his firearms, he took them and murdered their owner. In the recent mall shooting in Oregon the firearm was also stolen.
No law is effective once a person decides to commit murder; all lesser laws, such as those against theft, are immediately rendered immaterial. At that instant in time the only option that will materially change your odds of being a victim are to increase the odds that the nutcase hellbent on murder will meet with someone willing and able to stop him or her in lawful defense.
And most of the time that defender of your life, whether it is you or someone else, will need a firearm to do so.
More "gun free" zones -- and more gun laws -- will only serve to increase the number and effectiveness of murderous rampages.
With guns or without.
You can only falsify this assertion when we see police departments become the successful targets of such assaults.
Hell will freeze first.


http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=214954

[beandip]

Yes Fred, the legal drug pushers should have given Adam more (legal) drugs.

[beandip]

You dummies targeting the NRA are a riot. They've been ineffectual for over 15 years.
If you don't know what I mean....then you're hopelessly clueless and HolyShit the joke is on you.

[fred41]

Yes Fred, the legal drug pushers should have given Adam more (legal) drugs.

Why are you addressing me? There was nothing in my last post about medication that I could find.

My last post merely questioned the judgement of the mother keeping weapons around this man...and in fact (according to witnesses so far) taking young Adam to the range to fire them.
Listen, I realize that parents don't always see their children for what they are,but the man did fit a bit of a profile growing up. Even if she was completely blind to that, don't you think there should have been a tiny little voice in the back of her head that piped in "little Gummo is different than the other kids...he seems to be developing the personality of a typical tower killer. Hmmm, maybe it would be wise to not teach him how to fire all these cool guns I have....better safe than sorry as they say"...
Instead,she seemed to have dismissed that little voice in her head with a "Naaaaaah,...he's harmless...he's my little angel. Here kid, blow away these targets...it's fun."
She payed for that mistake with her life. Unfortunately so did two handfuls of small children and three lady's - one of whom was a brave ,pretty young lady who will never get to marry and have kids of her own...Oh Yeah, all of this a week before Christmas.Nice.

Well, we all make mistakes don't we?

[Ben]

Over 80,000 Sign White House Petition Calling For Gun Regulation Bill In Just 24 Hours: (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341921/over-80000-sign-white-house-petition-calling-gun-regulation-bill-in-just-24-hours/)

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/15/1341921/over-80000-sign-white-house-petition-calling-gun-regulation-bill-in-just-24-hours/

[beandip]

Yes, we need to ban guns. We should do the same thing we do with drugs. Ban them. the problem will disappear overnight.

We have a WOT. Working wonderfully.

We have a War on Drugs...... ditto.

Ask these dudes....
hahahahahahahha

http://www.bestgore.com/beheading/chainsaw-beheading-video-sinaloa-cartel-members-decapitated-mexico/

and I find it hysterical that Oblabla, up to his eyeballz with Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder in KNOWINGLY shipping guns across our border to Messico "Fast and Furious".....cries gdamned crocodile tears for the victims of this mass killing.

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/

Hypocrisy defined.

[trish]

Outlaw theft and only outlaws will steal. Outlaw murder and only outlaws will murder. Also there will be fewer thieves, fewer murderers and there will be a legal framework to curtail the activities the thieves and murderers. That's the whole point. Let's stop enabling murderers. It's time to significantly regulate firearms.

[beandip]

Yup, worked so well with drugs. I guess sarcasm is lost on you.

"Outlaw theft and only outlaws will steal. Outlaw murder and only outlaws will murder. Also there will be fewer thieves, fewer murderers..."

You're a riot. Seriously.

Your top cop is already working on the "legal framework".

Who knew the Nazi SS was part of the Oblabla admin...? From the illegal gunrunner (across international borders no less) in charge....


Attorney General Secretly Granted Gov. Ability to Develop and Store Dossiers on Innocent Americans

In a secret government agreement granted without approval or debate from lawmakers, the U.S. attorney general recently gave the National Counterterrorism Center sweeping new powers to store dossiers on U.S. citizens, even if they are not suspected of a crime, according to a news report.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder granted the center the ability to copy entire government databases holding information on flight records, casino-employee lists, the names of Americans hosting foreign-exchange students and other data, and to store it for up to five years, even without suspicion that someone in the database has committed a crime, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story.

Whereas previously the law prohibited the center from storing data compilations on U.S. citizens unless they were suspected of terrorist activity or were relevant to an ongoing terrorism investigation, the new powers give the center the ability to not only collect and store vast databases of information but also to trawl through and analyze it for suspicious patterns of behavior in order to uncover activity that could launch an investigation.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/

[trish]

You're afraid of the gestapo! Permit me to cackle like a bean-dip-for-brains internet troll: HAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Now let's see what material items we've outlawed and how well it's worked:

DDT, a few farmers might still have some stockpiled, but it's no longer threatening populations of wild birds and amphibians (a few other pesticides should probably be banned as well).

Surface to air missile launchers. Yeah, a few collectors in the U.S. may have some stowed away in their basements, but very few dare use them.

Methamphetamine. Yeah, like alcohol during the prohibition, it's all over the place. Like alcohol, it's easy to cook up with a few items you buy at your pharmacy. And like alcohol, there's a dopamine driven demand. Like alcohol, it's addictive. Unlike alcohol, almost everyone, after a fairly small exposure period, becomes addicted.

So what do we learn? Some substances can be successfully controlled and others spread like wildfire. Some substances require significant technology to construct, and some can be cooked up over your kitchen sink. Some items we can walk away from without turning back, and others are universally addictive.

Without doubt, semi-automatic weapons enable murderers...murderers of children. We've seen it happen this week. We saw it happen a hundred times over the last two decades. The NRA enable murderers. Anyone who stands in the way of reasonable firearm regulation enables murderers.

[fred41]

Very good speech by our President just now.

[Odelay]

Very good speech by our President just now.
I agree. Obama is often very good at these moments, like his speech after the Tuscon shooting.

Fred, if I am remembering correctly, you've self-identified as conservative. I have to say I have always found your views to be balanced and well reasoned. And there aren't many conservatives who have a good word about Obama.

[robertlouis]

Very good speech by our President just now.

I agree too, it was a fine speech and every bit the measure of the man I believe Obama to be.

But is it empty rhetoric or will your President have the courage of his convictions to seize the mood of the moment and finally start the long, painful march to end America's gun madness?

Our friend Beandipshit is clearly an idiot and a malicious one at that, but there's no doubt that he articulates a widely-shared view in the US, where the right to own guns is seemingly more important to many than the right of innocent children not to be murdered. And the mental health aspect is a complete red herring. Sane or insane, this would not have happened if his mother hadn't kept assault weapons around the house. End of.

[fred41]

I agree. Obama is often very good at these moments, like his speech after the Tuscon shooting.

Fred, if I am remembering correctly, you've self-identified as conservative. I have to say I have always found your views to be balanced and well reasoned. And there aren't many conservatives who have a good word about Obama.

I agree. Obama is often very good at these moments, like his speech after the Tuscon shooting.

Fred, if I am remembering correctly, you've self-identified as conservative. I have to say I have always found your views to be balanced and well reasoned. And there aren't many conservatives who have a good word about Obama.

Thank you very much.

His views might differ from mine in a fiscal sense...but he's often excellent at what he does...plus my social views were probably never that conservative in a National sense...though locally they might have been (I do live in N.Y.C.).
I also realize that because of my time on this planet (I'm fifty),my experiences through the years have changed my views many times over. This will often happen to most people unless they are static robots.
Also he is my President.
I didn't vote for him...
but he is my President...and though it's not that important -for the most part -I'm quite comfortable with him as our leader.

I wasn't born here and although I know it sounds corny to some of the cynics among us..I love this country. Like many of us - I didn't always have the greatest experiences here..but that's just life and I love it nonetheless.
...and I think we often do a pretty good job at choosing a President...all things considered
...that's my opinion anyway.

I'm rambling anyway.thanks Odelay.

[fred41]

I agree too, it was a fine speech and every bit the measure of the man I believe Obama to be.

But is it empty rhetoric or will your President have the courage of his convictions to seize the mood of the moment and finally start the long, painful march to end America's gun madness?

Our friend Beandipshit is clearly an idiot and a malicious one at that, but there's no doubt that he articulates a widely-shared view in the US, where the right to own guns is seemingly more important to many than the right of innocent children not to be murdered. And the mental health aspect is a complete red herring. Sane or insane, this would not have happened if his mother hadn't kept assault weapons around the house. End of.

I think there will be a Bill at the end of all this.
I'm not sure that it's going to satisfy everyone -the many members on this site do all have differing views on the level of gun control in this country.
but I think something will become enacted.
As for his mental state...I don't feel it's a complete red herring because under normal circumstances it isn't so unusual to have some type of firearm in a home where the youngest member is twenty...a man by most standards.
...but he wasn't a normal man by most standards.
...and I don't think she needed so many weapons either.
Maybe she was stupid and took a gamble.
Problem is...she wasn't the only person that payed by that gamble.

[robertlouis]

This link provides objective and factual evidence about levels of gun ownership and deaths from firearms.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

[VictoriaVeil]

I think there will be a Bill at the end of all this.
I'm not sure that it's going to satisfy everyone -the many members on this site do all have differing views on the level of gun control in this country.
but I think something will become enacted.
As for his mental state...I don't feel it's a complete red herring because under normal circumstances it isn't so unusual to have some type of firearm in a home where the youngest member is twenty...a man by most standards.
...but he wasn't a normal man by most standards.
...and I don't think she needed so many weapons either.
Maybe she was stupid and took a gamble.
Problem is...she wasn't the only person that payed by that gamble.


if there is a bill the NRA will have it struck down as unconstitutional. Sigh.

[buttslinger]

Unfortunately it's not common sense, or the pleas from cops, or debate that gets real action taken on gun restrictions, it's events like this that move millions of gun-numb Americans to attention.

We probably see 10 people killed every night on prime time family TV, but even one of Dino's slasher flicks wouldn't put something like NewTown on film, the actions of one unbelievably messed up kid are going to legislate sane gun laws. Kind of a pathetically backward way to run a Nation.

[robertlouis]

Unfortunately it's not common sense, or the pleas from cops, or debate that gets real action taken on gun restrictions, it's events like this that move millions of gun-numb Americans to attention.

We probably see 10 people killed every night on prime time family TV, but even one of Dino's slasher flicks wouldn't put something like NewTown on film, the actions of one unbelievably messed up kid are going to legislate sane gun laws. Kind of a pathetically backward way to run a Nation.

I agree. But if it succeeds, good. Means and ends.

[Ben]

The Connecticut massacre and America's estrangement from reality

http://www.aljazeera.com/mritems/imagecache/89/89/mritems/Images/2012/10/17/20121017145330240734_9.jpg

Belen Fernandez is the author of The Imperial Messenger: Thomas Friedman at Work, published by Verso. She is a contributing editor at Jacobin Magazine.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/12/2012121713401092628.html

[Ben]

Media Exploits Mass Shootings:

Media Exploits Mass Shootings | Think Tank - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn6sQP55EBs)

[Ben]

Dogs Sent to Newtown to Comfort Grieving:

http://news.discovery.com/animals/dogs-sent-to-newtown-to-comfort-grieving-121217.html#mkcpgn=rssnws1

[robertlouis]

Media Exploits Mass Shootings:



This isn't exactly the point you were making, Ben, but the rush of TV in particular to interview the kids and their parents within hours of the tragedy turned my stomach. There's no decency or decorum any more.

[fred41]

This isn't exactly the point you were making, Ben, but the rush of TV in particular to interview the kids and their parents within hours of the tragedy turned my stomach. There's no decency or decorum any more.

It's not just the media Rob...people in general are assholes.Look at the folks crawling into news interviews now who only had peripheral experience with the events - such as the psychologist who was all over the news this morning about the children on his lawn...etc...(in photos looking like he was tearing the hair out of his head)...he had to have contacted the media for them to even know who he was.
No dignity.

[maxpower]

All too sadly I have to agree.

In the meantime, different incident, same dialogue...


New & Improved! Now usable for all gun massacres!

[Willie Escalade]

The Five Lamest Excuses for the Newtown Mass Shooting

http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-lamest-excuses-for-the-newtown-mass-shooting/

1. Gun-Free Zones
2. Taking God Out Of Schools
3. Blame Hollywood
4. The News Media Caused This
5. Schools Teach Evolution And ‘How To Be A Homo’

:yayo:

[Willie Escalade]

More on those "reasons" from a different article. This is great...and has some reasonable truth to it.

http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/letter-from-a-liberal-gun-owner/
____________________

I am a liberal gun owner. I can outshoot my husband. For our first date, we ate venison and salad with wild mushrooms. I value my second amendment rights. I respect them as a part of America.

I am also a mom. My six and nine year old sons practice lockdowns at school. They have custom made cubbies to hide in that lock from the inside. I cannot help but wonder, why do we teach our children to be responsible to not get shot instead of teaching our gun owners not to allow children to be shot?

I don’t agree with gun prohibition. I have a gun in my closet and I have no intention of giving it up. Let me just say this, it is time for our conversation on reasonable gun control, and to aid the conversation I have created a list of 8 gun ideologies that have got to go. Let’s dive right in.

1). “But then only criminals will have guns.”

Today, and MSNBC commentator on the Martin Bashir Show reported that Gun owners are twelve to eighteen times as likely to die of a gunshot wound. So, if only criminals have guns, then only criminals will face that risk.

2). “If it wasn’t a gun, it would be a knife.”

Actually, fate granted us a random study of this on Friday morning. On the same day that twenty children were shot to death in Newton, CT there were 22 children stabbed in China. Not one of those children died. Given a choice between a semi automatic weapon and a knife, I pick knife.

3). “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Well, let’s look at the NRA’s statistics. In 2008 there were 592 accidental fire arm deaths. That is the equivalent of nearly 23 Newton Connecticuts. Remember those tears you fought back all day Saturday as you held your kids close? Multiply it 23 times, every year, for all those lost to guns that killed people on accident, for all those times that people didn’t kill people but bullets did.

4). “If only one of the staff members at the elementary school had a gun.”

This is just an offshoot of, “I need a gun for self defense.” There are only about 215 justifiable homicides with fire arms in the US each year, according to FBI statistics. That’s less than half of the 592 that die accidentally.

This means that the 350 million guns in America are more than twice as likely to kill people on accident as they are to be used as tools by people who purposely and justifiably kill someone in an act of self defense. I am not willing to take those odds in an elementary school.

In fact, Lanza’s first victim on Friday wasn’t just his mom, or his teacher, she was also a gun owner who was murdered by her own son with her own gun.

5). “The right to bear arms is to protect our citizenry from tyranny.”

I have trouble knowing how I ought to address this. Am I to seriously understand that you think that there is a particular point at which it becomes justifiable to take up arms against the United States Government? Even if I could take this as a reasonable argument, I cannot fathom any citizen, or even a group of citizens, who has the firepower to do anything but hurt themselves. How on earth does any gun compare to the military might of the US Armed Forces? Which weapon exactly, do I use to take down an MQ9 Reaper Drone? What handgun do I use to defeat an Active Denial System, you know… those tanks that emit waves of radiation that burn the top layer of your skin off… Which handgun will stop a tyrannical oppressor with one of those?

6). “We need guns for hunting, without them, we won’t eat.”

Let’s add this up.

$50 for deer license

$100 fuel

$100 clothing

$60 food

$ 75 ammo

$350 gun

4 days off work, missing $280 pay at minimum wage

$ 150 to process deer meat

$90 to run a deep freezer all winter

That makes $1265.00 to procure one deer for your family. If you get a lot of meat from a deer, say 125 pounds then you are paying roughly $9.88 per pound. Don’tcha think you could buy hamburger for cheaper?

7). “It is about mental health, not guns”

Let us assume a certain amount of truth in this. What if mental health troubles ate a common thread in gun violence, especially in cases of mass murder? Does that mean that mental health access and treatment will prevent mass murder? I don’t think so.

Even with easy access, and the availability of a cure we cannot ensure that a person who is sick enough to kill elementary children will seek help. In fact, many of these people are never even known to be sick except in bloody 20/20 hindsight.

8. “Any control at all is a slippery slope to full gun ban.”

This is an absurd argument. I, as a liberal, say the same thing when it is claimed that outlawing third trimester abortions is a slippery slope to complete ban of abortion. We have to be reasonable. We have to work on the actual problem at hand, dead first graders. The problem isn’t going away if we hide behind cop out arguments like the slippery slope. It can only go away if we all sit down, and honestly discuss solutions. Rhetoric, avoidance, blame shifting, faulty logic, and apathy have gotten us where we are today, with two children in caskets and 24 victims left to bury. If we as gun owners want to keep our guns, while ensuring the safety of our children, we must holster our fear of a slippery slope and put safety first no matter what.

[Ben]

Article by Glenn Greenwald...

Newtown kids v Yemenis and Pakistanis: what explains the disparate reactions?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/newtown-drones-children-deaths

[Ben]

Agree???????? Disagree???????

The NRA has more blood on their hands than Al-Qaeda - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YynTARvExIo)

[Ben]

We have to look at the whole arms industry.... I mean, why are we selling weapons to Saudi Arabia? Why?
I mean, are we really a "peace loving" nation???
And, too, maybe look at the whole gun glorifying movie industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWU6G0cUGJs

[scarecrow_from_Oz]

Was Sandy Hook a hoax?

[trish]

http://www.snopes.com/info/news/sandyhoax.asp

[plankton]

More people are kill by household hammers than guns. What about all the women and men and children whose lives are saved by guns. I guess they don't matter. So let's ban guns so we can get killed by knives or pipes instead. People using tragic deaths of children and other innocents just go further their idealology disgusts me. I guess liberals only want criminals and an all powerful government go have then. Because that always works out so well.

[trish]

More people are kill by household hammers than guns. This is sheer nonsense. Gun deaths are overtaking auto deaths. Are you telling us that more people are killed by hammers every year than by auto accidents?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html


What about all the women and men and children whose lives are saved by guns.Guns save very few lives, except in the imagination of would be vigilante heroes. If there is a gun in your home it is more likely that it will be used to injure or kill a family member or a friend than used integrally in the defense of an innocent person.


So let's ban guns so we can get killed by knives or pipes instead. The same day twenty odd people were killed by a gun toting teen in Sandy Hook, a 36 year old man attacked and stabbed 23 children in a school in Chenpeng Village China. NO ONE DIED.


People using tragic deaths of children and other innocents just go further their idealology disgusts me. It's the death of innocents by gun toting assholes that disgusts me.


I guess liberals only want criminals and an all powerful government go have then. Because that always works out so well.Liberal or conservative doesn't matter. It doesn't take a genius to see weaponry needs to be regulated. We don't want citizens to have easy access to biological, chemical or nuclear weapons. So a line already exists. It's just a matter of placing it to optimize both our safety and our freedom.