FACTS - again - tell a different story than your opinion here. There is a FACTUAL positive correlation between increased murder rate in states with less restrictive handgun ownership laws. In other words - places where it is easier to get a handgun, there are more murders. That is not an opinion, that is a fact based on empirical evidence. Please find my sources for your further reference below:
Hepburn, Lisa M. and David Hemenway. "Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature." Aggression and Violent Behavior. Vol. 9, 2004: 417-440.
National Research Council of the National Academies, Committee on Law and Justice. "Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review." The National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2004.
Everyone has a right to own a gun, but the Constitution says nothing about bullets. Pass a law that says no one is allowed to possess more than one bullet. That should be enough to protect yourself with. If you miss, then you can beat the attacker with the butt of the gun like a hammer. Dual purpose weaponry, two lines of defense.
Since the Constitution says nothing about the bullets, just arms, then why cant we possess the Tazers that cops have? They are guns that shoot probes attached to wires that shoot a couple hundred thousand volts through you instead of a hunk of lead. Wouldn't we be saver as a society of the only "guns" allowed and still be Constitutional would be these Tazers? There would be no more drive by shootings, but yet someone breaks into your house, you shoot him, then zap him, and the cops come and take a living, but shaking, criminal to jail. You are safer, and you feel vindicated that you protected your property without the guilt of knowing you ended a life.
I know, crazy talk, right? Did you know that in the State of Wisconsin, they have a recently new law that say you can carry a gun into a bar. Its just that it can't be loaded. They needed that law? The good people of Wisconsin need an empty side arm to protect themselves? Wouldn't a hammer do just as well, and there is no mistaking whether it was loaded or not? If everyone in the bar is carrying an empty side arm, how does anyone feel more protected with the side arm knowing everyone else's gun is empty as well?
I'm telling you, Tazers for everyone. Just think about how much fun it will be watching all the idiots zapping each other! I am cracking up just thinking about a gang fight with Tazers. Or all of the drunks with side arms (Tazers) in the State of Wisconsin when they all get to zapping each other. I could watch that for hours.
When all is said and done..the gun was only the instrutment by which these terrible acts were commited. The fundemental cause of why the young man chose to deal with his problems or situation is the root of why these 2 poeple are dead. I agree that violence, particularly gun violences is running rampant and out of control. This crime is different than say being shot for a gold chain or while at a bank atm. Which is much more frequent than it was many years ago it seems. I jokingly told a friend of mine, I will not longer go into Stockton until they run out of ammo! Which unfortunately, is not going to happen anytime soon.
It will be debated endlessly whether people should have or not have guns "legally "
People who are against ownership will say No, the ones for it will say yes. Each will have reasonable points to support what they believe.
But in the end it really won't change anything because there is more illegal gun ownership then legal. People who might lose the legal right to own guns will most likely obtain them illegally, and for the criminals who are bound and determined to hurt someone will get the weapons they want because everything shows that obtaining guns illegally is not that hard to do .
The laws can be changed even more to make gun ownership stricter,or strip guns from legal owner's and in my opinion it'll change nothing guns will still be out there. I honestly don't know what the answer is
I do like TheSovereigns idea "Tazers " all the way. Lol
"Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embr*acing confrontation rather than avoiding it." - Bob Costas
So true. Look at the current Manteca situation with Officer Moody choosing to shoot and kill an unarmed Ernesto Duenez Jr. Look at Florida with that Zimmerman character hunting down and killing an unarmed boy.
A wide majority of guns used to commit crimes come fron guns that were purchased legally at one point or another. One example - many are stolen from the homes of legal gun owners.
If handguns were not available, they could not be stolen or acquired so easily by actual criminals. Therefore, if people seriously want to stop violent handgun crime, it makes no sense allowing private citizens to own handguns.
Good morning crimeriddendump
stopping legal ownership nor any other strict measures will never stop handgun crimes, therein is the problem. If that it were just that simple, but it isn't.
People will always find ways around owning guns be it illegally or any other way.
I'm "somewhere in the middle "part of me for, part of me at odds regarding gun ownership (legally)
But the one thing I believe firmly is guns will Always be available for those that wish to have them.
I appreciate sarcasm as much as anyone. Ha...ha...
Tasers are not consider 'arms' any more than swords and bowie knives are. Besides, Washington would only allow 'solar powered' green tasers, so you could only defend yourselves on a sunlit sunny day... in a bar, they'd never work... or at night. Ha...ha...
Any responsible gun owner knows that using a firearm for defense has to meet strict legal requirements. If I took a life legally defending myself or my loved ones, I wouldn't feel guilty. If you think you would, maybe you shouldn't own a firearm. Many, many people choose not to own firearms, and that is just as responsible as someone who does.
I'm not familiar with the Wisconsin law, but I understand they have a lot of sportsmen. Perhaps, and it is just speculation, people don't want to leave firearms in their vehicles (so bad guys won't steal them) so like expensive fishing gear, people may want to keep that expensive handgun, rifle, or shotgun in their view. Many bars don't have windows to the outside, so it would be hard to watch a parked car, even if you were able to find a parking place right in front. This way, they can enjoy a beer and not worry about their guns being stolen.
"Just think about how much fun it will be watching all the idiots zapping each other!" - So people who want to responsibly own a gun are idiots? You obviously don't have a clue about responsibility if you think replacing a firearm with a taser will result in uncontrolled electronic zapping of everyone... That is just ridiculous!!! If you really want to see people blasting away at each other, go watch a paintball tournament. All the bloodshed you could ask for and no one gets hurt...
“There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is.” - Isaac Bashevis Singer
Sure it might not stop, but, it will HEAVILY mitigate it. That is a fact supported by data collected by two experts in the field that I sighted in the first comment on this blog.
I have no problem with longer barrel shotguns or appropriately powered hunting rifles.
I can appreciate your dilemma. There are many people who believe in our freedoms and the right to own firearms, yet are concerned at the violence that involve firearms.
In my mind it boils down to responsible gun ownership. The bad guys will always find a way to get a gun, so restricting my right to own one does not make the world safer for anyone else. Heck, the US government was providing weapons to drug dealers for crying out loud! If you want to do some gun control, start with the clowns who thought up that plan!
There are those who will point to England and say they have less gun violence and their police are not armed. To a degree that is true - but it has been that way in English society forever. No one told the English to turn in their guns that they'd owned for hundreds of years. English Police are now more often armed that before because of the terrorism threats. To try and instill the English system of gun control here is ridiculous.
Those who point to Officer Moody and George Zimmerman as examples why gun ownership shouldn't be allowed are being deceptive and disingenuous. First of all, Officer Moody was on duty and a sworn police officer when he shot a citizen, a shooting that still has not been ruled unjustified. UNTIL the investigation is OVER, people cannot claim Officer Moody did anything wrong. George Zimmerman has claimed self-defense and the trial in Florida has NOT been held, so just as in the Manteca shooting, one CANNOT claim any wrongdoing on Mr. Zimmerman's part until the trial is OVER. They can keep beating that drum until their hands hurt, the fact is in one case a duly armed police officer using a firearm on duty has nothing to do with a private citizen owning guns, and in the other, no determination of wrongdoing has been made.
I am a responsible gun owner. No one else is going to tell me I am not and I don't have a legal right to own my firearms - NO ONE!
“It is a right and duty of the wise ones to purify the strong by teaching them their duties and to strengthen the weak by teaching them their rights.” - Subrahmanya C. Bharati
Your statement about British Police is simply not true. You even contradict yourself in a two sentence span. First you say British "police are not armed" followed immediately by "English Police are now more often armed." WHICH IS IT BULL153? You can't seem to make up your mind and quickly change your tune based of whatever point your trying to make in the moment.
Also, I don't think you know the definition of deceptive or disingenuous if you think the examples of Moody and Zimmerman are not applicable. The FACT is that two UNARMED PEOPLE were KILLED by the HANDGUN of an ARMED person. There is no argument there. If Moody used NON-LETHAL foce instead of pulling the trigger and asking questions later, Duenez would probably still be alive. If Zimmerman left his gun at home, the chances are that Trayvon Martin would still be alive today.
You can call it whatever you want there are two young men that I list above that are DEAD today because someone "embraced confrontation rather than avoided it."
I believe that people who think owning a gun small enough to fit in a pocket with over a dozen rounds is more important than the lives of innocent people are shortsighted cowards.
"What I do know, and firmly believe, is that desperate people will find a way to accomplish a desperate act regardless of the laws in place."
So are you saying laws don't matter? If not isn't it our moral responsibility to make crimes more difficult to commit by making the implements of crimes harder to obtain?
What about bans on some chemicals? Are you against these existing laws as well?
Found this question on the internet.
"After you have disarmed all of the law abiding citizens, how do you plan to even the playing field by disarming the criminals?"
That is a good question...
Debate/Can stricter gun control laws decrease the rate of crimes involving guns?
Should we ask the Canadians how they did it? In the united States, 5 people out of every 300,000 are victims of handgun violence. In Canada, the number Handguns were involved in more than half (52%) of the homicides in the U.S., compared to 14% in Canada.
Again, all facts. Canada recently enacted tough handgun las and the results are telling.
That is one of the arguments that has gone on and on in relation to gun control since the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. There are no easy answers, but I stand firmly for the right of law abiding citizens to own and possess firearms.
People can spout statistics from this study and that study from 8 to 10 years ago all they want. I can find just as many statistics to counter theirs. It depends on who you want to believe - a liberal study from some university or the statistics gathered by the FBI and Department of Justice.
What no one who wants to ban gun ownership can say for a fact is, will we all be safer if only the police, military, and criminals have guns? I don't think so, but I can't prove it either.
We don't need more gun laws, we need to enforce and apply the ones we have. With the nation's lousy economy, people who should be in jail are being released. What good does a 'use a gun, go to prison' law do when violators are NOT imprisoned. What good does taking away a rancher's guns do when your own government supplies firearms to the smugglers and criminals on the rancher's land?
Anyone who says laws don't matter is an idiot and just spoiling to spark an on-line confrontation. Laws do matter, and should be properly enforced. But we don't need to create new, harmful laws or take away law abiding citizen's rights in the process.
Three times as many teens are killed by vehicles than by guns. is anyone really suggesting that we ban cars! The point is, guns do not kill people, people kill people. If desperate enough, a person doesn't need a gun. A knife, a car, a baseball bat, or a pillow can be equally lethal.
"There are no dangerous weapons. There are only dangerous men." - Robert A. Heinlein
"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it." - Clint Eastwood
It seems my first suggestion was overshadowed by my Tazer concept, but why would it be ridiculous to control the bullets and not the guns. That way, when the well regulated militia gathers for their monthly drills, they will be issued ammunition to go with their unregulated personal firearm.
If each bullet was limited, or extremely expensive, people would think twice before shooting a $100 bullet and possibly missing what they were shooting at. People tend to take better care of expensive items, and they may not want to use the bullet and then not have it anymore. It could become the new "bling", a bullet hanging from a gold chain around ones neck.
The world is more than black and white, there are many shades of grey that has not been considered yet. Throwing out ideas are where big ideas come from. The people in Congress are not throwing out ideas, they are throwing out ideology and the media is feeding the beast for a story.
There are several condadictory items in your above post:
"we don't need to create new, harmful laws or take away law abiding citizen's rights in the process."
What about the PATRIOT ACT that you lauded in another post? That has taken away "law abiding citizen's rights" and yo say it is a great thing. Why would gun control be different?
Second, "Three times as many teens are killed by vehicles than by guns." While true, I ask how many of these actually used the car WITH THE INTENT TO KILL? I would wage a very, very, very small minority. On the other hand, the ONLY REASON to use a handgun on another person is intention to kill. I really don't see anyone using a gun to get to and from work every morning.
While a "knife, a car, a baseball bat, or a pillow can be equally lethal" Look at the STATISTICS!!! How many people were killed in the United States by handguns each year? Now, how many are killed by pillows?
Finally, "I can find just as many statistics to counter theirs." Oddly enough, I don't see any FACTS that you have posted. I posted TWO sources that support my position that the availability of handguns results in more gun violence. Please show the study that shows the opposite of what I contend. I would really like to see it.
On page A-8 of today's Manteca Bulletin, there is an article about an elderly (73 years old) man in Macon, Georgia who shot a woman (65 years old) to death because she accidentally bumped his motorized wheelchair with her car when she was entering a gas station pump bay. The woman stepped out of her car after the "bumping" and approached the man in the wheelchair who then "pulled a handgun and fatally shot her". I don't know whether this man had a criminal past or not, but he has turned himself into a criminal now. The point is, not all horrible gun tragedies are the result of terrible actions by known criminals, although many undoubtedly are. The most shocking are by seemingly "normal" or "regular" people who, for some reason, snap and having access to guns, decide to use them. Yes, there are many different ways to kill people, but guns that are created to do specific damage, are frequently the weapons of choice. Knives are often used in food preparation, woodcarving, or for skinning freshly-killed animals (deer, rabbit, etc.) Pillows are mostly used for sleeping or neck support. Garden hoses are used for irrigation and cars for transportation. They can be used to kill, but that is generally not their acknowledged purpose. But a gun is specifically designed to shoot bullets - whether those bullets are aimed a paper targets, animals, or humans. I support strict gun laws because owning a gun, much like driving a car, should be a responsibility and an earned privilege, not an automatic "right". Common sense tells us that some people SHOULD NOT possess guns. I am not for banning all guns, but restricting the types manufactured and sold. Current bans on certain types of guns must be better enforced. I don't think, in our gun-culture country, that we will ever eliminate guns completely, but we can certainly re-educate the public about the true statistics (how many guns used by people other than police, security professionals, or soldiers actually save lives as opposed to the number of accidental gun deaths or "crimes of passion" in the heat of the moment?) I believe that the NRA, instead of harping on the fear of "taking our guns away" which leads to extremists stockpiling weapons and ammo, must be the lead advocate for responsible gun ownership. It should promote the idea that gun ownership is an exclusive privilege to be obtained by those qualified to possess firearms who have demonstrated competency in completing gun safety classes and background checks. Of course there are illegal channels to obtain guns, but if gun ownership was viewed as more an exclusive privilege rather than the "right" of any citizen, maybe this would be tolerated less and the channels might dry up. Does the average citizen who can obtain a gun permit get as much training with weapons as a police officer or soldier? If not, why not? I believe the "entitlement" philosophy as in "it is MY RIGHT to own a gun" could be part of the problem. Sincerely, Karen
I enjoy sarcasm as much as anyone... but you are kidding, right? One bullet on a gold chain? Gangsters would be strangling people left and right just to fill a magazine...
Seriously, you don't seem to get it. Guns are regulated, they have been. So is ammunition. Try and buy a handgun in California - you need a criminal history check, be over 21, and wait 10 days to pick it up after purchase. You can't own magazines for guns unless they hold 10 rounds or less. You can't own a fully automatic firearm. You can't own a machine gun, bazooka, grenade launcher, or artillery piece. You must be over 21 to purchase ammunition. If you own a gun and have children you must keep it locked up and unable to be accessed. Guns and ammo are regulated, and to restrict ownership of ammo is just as silly as banning firearms since the criminals will get ammo just like they get guns. Laws are for law abiding citizens, criminals don't give a damn about laws.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. Instead of filling jails and prisons with non-violent offenders (tax cheats, forgers, thieves) how about ENFORCING the current firearms laws like 'Use a gun, go to prison' and gang enhancements. If a dirtbag is locked up he damn sure can't shoot anyone.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones
Any violent death is tragic... with today's technology news reports fill the air from all over the US almost instantly. A teen shoots himself while handcuffed in a police car. A man beats his wife to death with a baseball bat. A commuter is pushed in front of a subway train. An animal control officer trying to rescue pets from a foreclosed home is shot and killed. Deputies trying to evict a man are gunned down. We live in a violent world, humans have a penchant for violence, and until we evolve into peaceful, compassionate beings, there will be violence. Banning handgun ownership will not prevent handgun violence.
I didn't decide what rights I have - they were determined by our founding fathers. Yes, back in the day every house had a gun and it was used for two reasons - hunting food and self protection. But today, while we no longer have to hunt for our daily sustenance, guns are still required for self defense. Now we have laws, judicial systems, and the police. But when the police aren't there, who is going to protect my family and my home? I WILL. You are right, ownership of a firearms comes with great responsibility - and there are (or SHOULD be) severe sanctions for misuse.
You do realize that the NRA is the greatest promoter of gun safety and education in the country? They have national programs with certified instruction to teach gun safety and responsible ownership. Everyone gripes that the NRA is just a political tool for 2nd Amendment advocates, but that really is not what the NRA is about. In California, to get a hunting permit you must complete an approved safety course - and the NRA is the organization that provides these courses.
The average citizen does not need as much training as a policeman or soldier to be responsible and safe. The average citizen doesn't carry his weapon around and doesn't need it to do their day to day job. The degree of training should match the need. Training is available, and many citizens take advantage of it. But the average citizen is not going to respond to an armed robbery call, conduct a night reconnaissance mission into enemy territory, or hunt for an escaped armed criminal.
Part of the problem is, and always will be, that while a majority of gun owners are responsible, there are a few who have no business owning a squirt gun much less a lethal weapon. Until a method of determining who they are can be developed, we can't and shouldn't punish everyone for what someone might do.
" ... the right to defend one's home and one's person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law." - Martin Luther King
Our "founding fathers" also "decided" that some people should be slaves. Over time, the country GREW UP and realized that maybe that was not such a good idea after all. The founding father were not infallible as you seem to be suggesting.
"Banning handgun ownership will not prevent handgun violence." No one says it will prevent it. Everyone says it will SEVERELY MITIGATE IT! This is supported by actual empirical data rather than whimsical opinions.
"guns are still required for self defense." NO THEY ARE NOT!!! There are DOZENS of non-lethal self defense items available such as pepper spray, and stun guns. Your notion that guns are "required" is archaic.
As for training, it would seem Officer Moody had training and that did not prevent him from using his handgun to shoot and kill and unarmed man.
" we can't and shouldn't punish everyone for what someone might do."
Again, The PATRIOT ACT does just that and you have celebrate the effectiveness of The Patriot Act more than once. Ironic how you feel we should " punish everyone for what A TERRORIST might do." But not punish everyone for what YOU DO. Seems like a major double standard.
Bull153, it really seems you only defense for owning handguns is that "you like it." That is NOT a very good defense when scientific empirical evidence shows that handguns make us less safe.
On the same day that the Kansas City football player shot his girlfriend and then himself, somewhere else a man beat his wife to death with a baseball bat. Jason Whitlock and Bob Costas focused on our 'gun culture'. Most of the conversations here have been about our 2nd Amendment rights. What people should be talking about is domestic violence and stopping killing women whether by guns or pillows.
Yes, a gun was used in a horrific manner. Yes, two people are dead by gunfire. But the lady who was beaten to death with a baseball bat is just as dead as this football player's girlfriend. Shouldn't we be asking how our system failed BOTH?
From what I read, his employer was aware of the domestic problems this football player was experiencing. The team had even provided counseling for the couple. They must have recognized that football, being a violent sport, might be contributing to the issue. In California, there are laws that take away firearms from people involved in domestic violence. I'm sure other states have similar laws. What I would like to know is this. If the team knew the player was having problems, enough problems to get involved and get him counseling, why wasn't his potential for violence addressed and the guns removed?
This guy had friends. He was out with them the night before this tragedy. None of his friends, who must have known some of his problems, intervened. His mother surely knew the couple was having problems. She lived with the player and knew he had guns. Yet even she did nothing to intercede in the events that led up to the murder/suicide.
We talk about 2nd Amendment Rights. We talk about gun control. We talk about gun tragedies. We also need to talk about violence in the home. We need to address environments where people get so angry that they can shoot their significant other nine times, or beat her to death with a sports implement. Let us solve domestic violence. Then we can move on to other issues like the right to own and possess a gun.
(I'm sorry for the duplicate post. I mistakenly posted this on crimeriddendump's blog.)
I agree, domestic violence is terrible and the public should be more aware of the issues. However, I find it disingenuous for you to be suggesting this course of action while at the same time seemingly denying the major issue here - there are TWO PEOPLE DEAD. These people both died from a handgun like 15 THOUSAND others did and as over HALF A MILLION people were injured with in 2006 according to the FBI.
Oh, and it would help for you to know the details of the event before making such blatantly false assumptions. Saying "None of his friends ... intervened" is absolutely FALSE. Saying "she did nothing to intercede" is ALSO FALSE, and COMPLETELY UNTRUE!
Are you aware of what Jovan Belcher said in the parking lot of Arrowhead Stadium to Chiefs' General Manager Scott Pioli? No? About how he "had to kill himself" because when he murdered the mother of his child he was "not there" and then knelt down, made the sign of the cross and took his own life? Seems he made TWO brash split second decisions that ended the lives of two people. Both of these situations could have been ver less likely to have been accomplished if not for a gun.
A week after pro football player Jovan Belcher murdered his girlfriend and then committed suicide, another tragedy has befallen the National Football League.
One Dallas Cowboys player is dead and a member of the team is in jail. Defensive lineman Josh Brent is charged with intoxication manslaughter after he flipped his car in a pre-dawn accident that killed practice squad teammate Jerry Brown. No, a gun wasn't used but one player is still dead and the other's life and career is ruined.
There is no doubt that people make bad choices. Intoxication mixed with a vehicle or a weapon often causes horrible outcomes. Drinking alcohol is legal - driving while intoxicated isn't. Owning a firearm is legal - using it to murder someone isn't. Alcohol sales and use is regulated. Firearms sales and ownership is regulated. Still, both are misused and people die. Do we ban booze and guns?
What people seem to miss in these tragedies is personal responsibility. There were people who could have intervened, preventing these terrible acts. But ultimately the responsibility rests with the individual - the individual - who chooses to drink and drive or violently use a gun.
We don't need more laws - the ones we have are designed to provide reasonable protection. We need more responsibility - from individuals, from family, from friends, from co-workers, and from acquaintances. Intervention may have prevented these horrific acts. Personal responsibility certainly would have.
"Nobody ever did, or ever will, escape the consequences of his choices.” - Alfred A. Montapert
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say” - Martin Luther
Amazing how with this you say "We don't need more laws" yet you completely support the Patriot Act. Which one is it Bull153? You can't have it both ways!
Also, good point, we have banned drinking and driving. It is VERY illegal. I would say owning a handgun should have the same illegality attached to it. Very correct of you to remind us that simply holing a drink while behind the weel is illegal.
Hello Bull153, If crimeriddendump is correctly quoting the player as saying he "had to kill himself" because of murdering his girlfriend, I'd say her took the ultimate personal responsibility. This only multiplied the tragedy, however. Responsible gun ownership should be the goal here. I am not advocating for NO ONE to have guns, only that the process should be more selective and discerning. Although I am aware that the NRA does sponsor gun safety and education classes, it can do much more, in my opinion. If that organization spent HALF as much money as it uses to lobby Congress, I think personal accountability, necessary knowledge of the correct and safe handling of firearms, and ways to recognize situations where tempers rise, control is slipping away and gun use should be avoided, rather than viewed as a plausible solution, could all be more effectively promoted. Sincerely, Karen
Hello 44Magnum, You are right that domestic violence is a significant problem. However, it victimizes both men and women, although the cases where the male is the victim do not get the same media attention. Guns are not the ONLY weapons of violence, but unfortunately, they are too often the preferred method of expression. I haven't heard of drive-by knifings, or drive-by baseball bat beatings or drive-by pillow smothering, or home invasions where the homeowners were threatened with a garden hose or a car or a pot of hot coffee, although each of these things CAN be used to deadly effect. Because our country does have an undeniable fixation or fascination with guns (think about your screen name choice, for example), guns are what many of us focus on when we look to curb domestic violence or violence in general. Sincerely, Karen
Please find below a comprehensive writeup in the Washington Post:
Here are some key items from that piece:
"moments after fatally shooting his girlfriend, the Kansas City Chiefs player leaned over her in their master bedroom, apologized and kissed her forehead."
"In the parking lot of the practice facility at 1 Arrowhead Drive, Belcher encountered Chiefs General Manager Scott Pioli. Belcher stepped out of his Bentley with a gun pointed at his own head. 'I did it,' he said, 'I killed her.' "
“I was trying to get him to understand that life is not over,” “He still has a chance and let’s get this worked out.’’ - Summary of what Chiefs Head Coach Romeo Crennel said to Belcher
“Guys, I have to do this. I got to go. I can’t be here.” - Final words of Jovan Belcher
A tragedy the very well could have been avoided if not for the easy path to violence one can get only from a handgun.
Something I didn't know was that it's not state wide mandatory that people who own guns Have to report if their gun is stolen.
Now a responsible gun owner would not hesitate to report it immediately to the police, but the truth is they're "irresponsible gun owners "and I couldn't begin to reason why a legal gun owner wouldn't report a theft of a gun.
I think laws need to be put into place that All guns stolen have to be reported within a very short time span, if not then legal consequences can be imposed on the legal gun owner.
You'd report a stolen car, if your house got robbed, wallet stolen so why on earth would Anyone not report a gun stolen
What you call 'ultimate personal responsibility' I call cowardice. Not only did he deprive his daughter of her mother, he denied her a father as well, then left his own mother to clean up his mess. He traumatized two of the people he respected. I would have had much more respect and would believe he accepted personal responsibility had he laid down the gun and faced his crime in court. It still would be a tragedy... but his daughter might have had a father to support and guide her in the future. Personal responsibility? No - cowardice. He would have been much more responsible had he recognized his problems and taken steps to place his guns where they couldn't be used in anger. That would have been responsible.
The NRA does promote firearms safety, although we will probably disagree on the amount. Laws restricting possession of firearms and mandating their removal by law enforcement in domestic violence have been on the books for years. In California it has been a requirement since 2003 that persons owning or purchasing handguns obtain a state handgun safety certificate. One must demonstrate knowledge of the legal requirements in California, safe handling, and proper loading/unloading of a firearm with a state certified instructor.
California Handgun Safety Certificate FAQs
The fact is, while there are laws that are designed to restrict the misuse of firearms, there are no easy or one size fits all solutions. Our laws are constantly being reviewed and revised, that is fine. There is only so much you can legislate - personal responsibility is the ultimate deciding factor. There are those who misuse guns out there, I realize. But a majority of legal gun owners are responsible gun owners.
“I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.” - Robert A. Heinlein
“We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities.” - Bill Maher
You are right, there is no state mandate for gun owners to report the theft of a firearm. There are Federal laws for licensed gun dealers to report thefts, but each state is left to its own devices as far as gun owners are concerned.
After a bill requiring mandatory reporting was vetoed by the governor in 2006, another bill (AB334) was introduced in 2007 with a five day reporting requirement. It didn't make it into law. There is currently another attempt at mandatory reporting (SB 1366) that requires owners report the theft within 48 hours.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean when you talk about 'irresponsible gun owners'. Are you saying that a gun owner who has a firearm stolen and doesn't report it is irresponsible? If so, I agree. Just because there is no mandate to report it, there are all sorts of liability issues associated with the misuse of a firearm. Failing to report a theft just puts you square in the middle of litigation if someone is injured by the gun. It is a common sense thing - just like reporting your car or credit cards stolen. Those can be misused and leave you liable as well.
There are already laws that hold gun owners accountable for their firearms. One is the proper and safe storage so that children and other unauthorized people can't get access. Children shooting other children with a gun that wasn't properly secured is inexcusable. Another is the mandatory removal of firearms from homes involved in domestic violence.
Under the Brady Act, there are nine cases in which it is illegal for a person to own or possess a firearm.
California Attorney General Firearms FAQs
You are 100% right when you say it is irresponsible NOT to report the theft of a firearm. From my experience, most legal gun owners are responsible... and there are plenty of theft reports to prove it.
“As human beings, we are endowed with freedom of choice, and we cannot shuffle off our responsibility upon the shoulders of God or nature. We must shoulder it ourselves. It is our responsibility.” - Arnold Toynbee
Yes I was saying not reporting theft of a gun is " one of those reasons that put a gun owner in the irresponsible category " and I also meant it's like anything else you have good and bad, responsible and irresponsible. There are some people who should never own a gun under any circumstances but they do.The Irresponsible gun owners make it tough for the responsible one's because then it becomes the focus of gun ownership period.
As I stated before people will always get access to guns even if more and more laws are enacted there are just too many ways for criminals to get guns on the streets, internet, thefts, how ever a person wishes to go about it and how determined they are.
I would like to see All states make it the Law that stolen guns have to be reported this makes it one small step easier to trace the weapon before it might end up in a crime somewhere.
How does cowardice excuse this? If this "coward" as you call him DID NOT HAVE A GUN, he would not have been able to commit his acts of cowardice.
"From my experience, most legal gun owners are responsible" MOST!!! How does that excuse anything! Hey Bull153, MOST US Citizens are not terrorists, yet we have the Patriot Act. MOST flyers in the world just want to get to their destinations and not hurt anyone, yet we have TSA. MOST Gun owners being responsible (because you say so) seems almost proof positive that ALL are not. Therefore, by the same logic as Patriot Act and TSA, we should take all the guns away or create prohibitively restrictive laws against the use of these weapons.
You can't apply a set of logic to your arguments for the Patriot Act and TSA and then immediately discredit that same logic when it applies to guns. As I said before, either you can't have it both ways.
Hello Bull153, I do not condone suicide in any way, but since YOU brought up the issue of personal responsibility, it does seem to me that recognizing the enormity of one's actions and deciding to act as one's own judge, jury, and executioner is not necessarily an "act of cowardice". I see it as the actions of an anguished man who felt, due to his loss of control resulting in his girlfriend's death, that he "deserved" to die. You call him a coward for his suicide, but YOU are not in his shoes, experiencing the torment he faced when realizing what horrible thing he had done that in no way could be undone or rectified. To surviving friends and family members, the suicide of a loved one seems a selfish act, but it is hard to comprehend the depths of despair that drives a person to such an extreme action. Logic and reason persuade us to live to fight on, but we are not always able to recognize this through the fog of depression or anguish. That football player did a terrible thing by killing his girlfriend and himself, but there is the likely chance that when he killed himself, just as when the argument with his girlfriend escalated to murder, he was not thinking clearly and was in torment. His suicide tells me that he bitterly regretted killing his girlfriend, so I can extend him some compassion and recognize this for the tragedy it is. Labeling this as "cowardice" seems totally lacking in any empathy or understanding. When we are not in the heat of the moment it is easier to recognize the better course of action. As far as the football player raising his daughter, I don't know how effective his parenting could be from a jail cell. It would appear that his mother would be left to bear the major responsibility of raising his daughter anyway. I do agree with you that suicide is a burden on those left behind and that true responsibility would be to have chosen not to reach for a gun, in anger, in the first place. But his action of suicide, in my opinion, is him taking ultimate accountability for his terrible choices, so overwhelmed by his guilt and remorse that he could not recognize or accurately process the trauma that killing himself in front of others would have on them.
I further agree with you that statistically most legal gun owners are probably responsible people. It is how to get guns out of the hands of the irresponsible ones that is the dilemma. And even a normally responsible person can have moments where he or she is overcome by anger or anguish and is not thinking clearly. Having easy access to a gun in those times is dangerous, indeed. Also, crimeriddendumps' point about the Patriot Act is a valid comparison, in my opinion. Sincerely, Karen
This country faces many issues. Domestic violence and abuse of firearms are among them. Perhaps domestic violence against men doesn't gain the same attention as against women simply because there are fewer cases against men and fewer cases reported. The fact is that domestic violence (no matter WHAT the weapon) is inexcusable and a major factor in deaths in this country.
Firearms may be a preferred method of expression as you say, but do you know the weapon most often used in domestic violence? Hands. Do we restrict ownership and use of hands? Do we make people register their hands? Do we require people to lock up their hands so they aren't abused? This is just as silly as your 'drive-by pillow smothering' analogy.
I am and have been an avid sportsman for many years. I own several handguns and a number of firearms. I enjoy target shooting but gave up hunting a long time ago. I also learned survival in the military. I have been trained to defend myself and kill in other ways than a gun. I accept the responsibility of gun ownership just as I accept the responsibility of safely operating my car. I obey the law. You can rest assured that I am not going to misuse my weapons. If you want to say I am fascinated by guns because of my nickname, fine. I suppose you could claim 'crimeriddendump' has a fixation on dirtbags and lowlifes, then. Or you could claim 'TheSovereign' is hung up on royalty. I doubt either is going to commit a crime or stage a takeover.
My position is simple. You can take away the legal ownership of firearms and confiscate every gun legally owned in this country. Even so, domestic violence and gun crimes will NOT be substantially affected. You can quote all the statistics you want. It is my opinion, an opinion shared by many other legal gun owners across the country. Since the inception of our great nation we have permitted gun ownership. I personally find no compelling reason to change that now.
Hello 44Magnum, I have never claimed to want to "take away the legal ownership of firearms and confiscate every gun legally owned in the this country". You are setting up a false "straw man argument" that insists those who stress gun safety or question the need for EVERYONE to own guns automatically want to take firearms away from EVERY SINGLE PERSON. That is not the case. As far as domestic violence, do you know how many men or women are beaten to death by hands or fists as opposed to dying from gunshot wounds or other weaponry? Of course no one should be physically assaulting their partner, but the issue of domestic violence is only one part of the gun control issue. I didn't mean to insult your choice of a screen name, only to point out that its reference to gun culture probably has some particular meaning to you. Sorry if you were offended. TheSovereign explained the origin of his screen name previously (nothing to do with royalty) and crimeriddendump's tag is a dig, I believe, at the city of Manteca for its perceived faults (in the eyes of the poster). I do not question your sense of responsibility or accountability with your personal possession of firearms. I do want to point out the lethal nature of guns, even in the hands of supposedly "responsible" citizens. I read in the Modesto Bee today about a father from Pennsylvania who accidently shot and killed his seven year old son with a handgun. He took his handgun and rifle to a gun shop to sell, but the store didn't buy used guns. He loaded the rifle into his truck and when he was getting in the driver's seat, gun in hand, the gun discharcharged, shooting the boy in his chest. He died at the scene. The father thought the gun was empty, but there was a bullet in the chamber. I remember reading about other such accidental gun deaths years ago. I never grew up around guns but my husband, who did, had explained to me that even though a gun could appear empty, there could still be a bullet in the chamber so the weapon is actually still loaded. The thing is, if as Bull153 contends, gun owners are educated in safety and proper handling before getting guns, why didn't the father know this fact? What a horrible tragedy! Sincerely, Karen
If you are for the Patriot Act and TSA, why are you against handgun regulation? The position that Patriot Act is valid reason to give up rights because we MIGHT catch terrorist , yet we cannot have more handgun regulation because it would infringe some people's (your) rights is hypocritical to say the least.
How can you say that they hypothetical removal of handguns would not substantially impact crime when there are HUNDREDS of actual scientific studies that say the exact opposte? I listed two such studies in my first comment in your blog here.
"You can rest assured that I am not going to misuse my weapons."
Really, so "YOU" get a pass because "YOU SAY SO?" What about me and driving with a cell phone? I should be allowed to drive with a cellphone in my hand because " rest assured that I am not going to misuse" my cell phone. I have a perfect driving record so I should be exempt from seatbelt laws too ...
Honestly "44Magnum" your whole domestic violence distortion is just disingenuous garbage. If you actual cared about domestic violence, you would be familiar with Senator Frank R. Lautenberg's DOMESTIC VIOLENCE GUN BAN (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)) and his - and other people that ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE - comments that there needs to be MORE GUN CONTROL to mitigate domestic violence in the future.
In summary "44Magnum", your domestic violence distraction is hollow and insincere, your straw man argument about hands is pointless as hands do MANY things where as a gun does ONE THING - KILL. It would seem the only reason you want to keep handguns is "you like them." FIFTEEN THOUSAND people dies last year from handgund. Three thousand dies in New York and you threw away basic civil liberties we have had in this country since its inception - and are PROUD of it. How many more dead people from handguns would it take before you cared more about them than your pointless vanity?
I apologize. I did not mean to infer you specifically wanted to confiscate every firearm. The 'you' was intended to be the generic public.
We are going to have to agree to disagree. It is clear to me that you seek stricter gun control laws while I contend there are adequate safeguards in place. Please tell me if I am mistaken on your position. Only a loony like crimeriddendump appears to believe that only by taking away everyone's right to own and possess legal firearms will the nation be safe from domestic violence.
I don't know how many domestic violence victims are beaten to death. I also don't know how many are electrocuted, poisoned, or run over by cars. It matters little to the victim. What needs to change is the system. Until we renounce violence in any form people will find a way to injure and kill each other, whether a domestic partner or the poor guy in the local 7-11.
No apology needed, I was not offended. I am a proud gun owner and chose my tag. Others choose theirs for their own reasons. Some choose many many tags. It doesn't matter.
The events in Pennsylvania are indeed tragic. I don't know how long this man owned guns. I have no idea his level of training. I do know how long I've owned guns and I know my level of training. EVERY time I handle a firearm I do it the same way. I NEVER assume it is unloaded. I make sure it is not pointed at anything that could be harmed until I verify it is unloaded. It is what responsible gun owners do. This father became irresponsible the minute he picked up and walked out with his gun without verifying it was unloaded. That is what happens with irresponsible gun owners. Now he'll have to live with his irresponsible behavior the rest of his life, as well as any legal sanctions that come forth. It is tragic.
I stand by my position. I stand by my opinion. You can agree or disagree, that is your decision. I still personally find no compelling reason to change that now.
I can see why Bull153 prefers to ignore you. Insulting people and being condescending is not the preferred method of engaging in a meaningful discussion.
I never said I was against handgun regulation. You keep using that tactic of telling people what they are for or against when they have been perfectly clear with their statements. Misstating their position does not strengthen your position. There are hundreds of laws on the books about firearms, sales, and possession. I am fine with them.
I don't get a pass because I say so. The Constitution says I have a right to own and possess firearms. The law says you can't drive with a cell phone stuck in your ear or fail to wear a seatbelt. The law also says I have to be 21 to own a handgun and restricts how and where I can possess it.
You talk about disingenuous? Being familiar with Senator Lautenberg's position and view is NOT a requirement to care about domestic violence and its victims. Shame on you.
In summary, you are entitled to your opinion. It doesn't mean it is right. You have no idea why I own firearms. I enjoy target shooting. I like collecting them just like other people collect cars or coins. I like the ability to defend myself and my family from harm. How many people have died in traffic accidents? How many people have died of drug overdose? How many have drowned? Such deaths are tragic and for the most part preventable. You keep bringing up the Patriot Act. Answer this, what basic liberties have you lost - what can't you do today that you could do before 9/11? Law abiding citizens have lost nothing. Our country is safer. Your insults mean nothing. I am a responsible legal gun owner. Bull153 has the right idea.
I agree with you and have no issue with mandatory reporting laws for stolen firearms. It should be common sense to any responsible person, making it a law for those who are irresponsible should not have to be debated.
There should be little argument about gun ownership laws. Both federal and state laws exist to regulate the legal ownership of firearms. They limit the type and they limit to a degree who can own and possess such weapons. Responsible people have no issue with these laws. The problem arises when irrational people want to further restrict the legal and responsible gun owners. There is where I may differ with others.
"This battle for 'common-sense' gun control laws pits emotion and passion against logic and reason. All too often in such a contest, logic loses. So, expect more meaningless, if not harmful, 'gun control' legislation. Good news - if you're a crook." - Larry Elder
Yes, I called this football player a coward. You can say I don't have empathy all you want, but please don't accuse me of not understanding.
I have had the unfortunate experience on many occasions of dealing directly with suicides and those wanting to take their life. Every one that I was able to talk with said the same thing. "No choice... can't go on... hurts too much... not worth living." I rarely knew anything about these people, but in a few short minutes or even seconds had to convince them that suicide was NOT the answer. Each person and each situation was different. There is no one method that will work every time. Sadly, more often than not a person bent on suicide will carry out the act no matter what someone else tries to do.
Most times I was involved was after the fact. Cleaning up a bloody mess in the bathroom or watching the coroner take out a lifeless body that just looked like it was asleep. Sometimes there was no explanation. Sometimes just a note. Always there was family and friends asking "Why?". I had few answers.
The worst are those you deal with who haven't finished the act. The young airman on top of the base water tower threatening to jump because his girlfriend left him. The sergeant who holds a gun to his head because he gambled his paycheck away. The teen on the phone who overdosed because she is unpopular and won't tell you where she is. You feel helpless as gravity makes his grip on the rail loosen or the teen's voice gets weaker and weaker as you plead for her to tell you where she is. Sometimes you convince the sergeant to put down the gun - sometimes there's just an ear splitting roar.
Yep... I may not be empathetic, though I do understand. I'm sorry you don't like my reference to cowardice, but believe me, I've earned the right to have that opinion.
“Suicide sometimes proceeds from cowardice, but not always; for cowardice sometimes prevents it; since as many live because they are afraid to die, as die because they are afraid to live” - Charles Caleb Colton
Hello Bull153, I think that is possible to undergo many painful experiences or work-related incidents and still not fully understand them. We each have the right to express our own opinion, regardless of personal involvement or a lack thereof. I do not envy you your stressful experiences at all, but want to point out that you are mostly dealing with the tragic aftermath or situations where you may feel powerless to change an action. These personal experiences have naturally colored your perspective of suicide. I did not mean to suggest that you are unfamiliar with suicide, only that you may lack an understanding of the despair that leads to it. Being told the reason someone is contemplating suicide is not the same thing as actually understanding the mindset behind the words or actions. You are free to interpret suicide as you wish. I disagree with your assessment, although I can see how repeated exposure to the messy and heart-wrenching aftermath could evoke feelings of resentment and rage, rather than sympathy. Sincerely, Karen
Trust me on this, I understand suicide and the motivation behind it far better than most. Even mental health professionals have difficulty in determining the root causes of suicide, and factors that cause one person to pull the trigger and someone else not. No amount of training or number of seminars can guarantee a favorable outcome in each and every case. There are some situations that nothing can be done to prevent someone from killing themselves.
We will probably never agree on this topic - professionals don't always agree and they deal with it constantly. I am an uncomplicated person. I have my core beliefs. No one else has to agree with me. I have dealt with suicide far too many times. You are almost right about one thing though. Dealing with suicidal people, regardless of the outcome, does evoke strong feelings, feelings of helplessness and anger more than resentment and rage.
Policemen are about control. We take an oath and are given the power to exert control over society. Police officers can legally take a life if necessary. When you are dealing with an unreasoning person bent on harming themselves, they are in control. You try and wrest that control away. Sometimes you are successful - many times not. There is no set procedure. If someone tries to hit you, you are trained to grab that person, exert a control hold, stun him, strike with a baton - do something. With a suicidal person you have to wait. What works with one may not work with another. To spend time trying your best and doing everything you can think of to prevent a tragedy - then have the person die anyway is heartwrenching. You lost control. You were not successful. It makes you angry. It makes the person responsible a coward.
My perspective is forged by many cases and a life in law enforcement. It is mine. You are a compasionate person - you see more in people than perhaps I do. But I believe and will always believe that there are alternatives to suicide. I believe those that do not choose to seek those alternatives are cowards.
“When the blandishments of life are gone, the coward creeps to death - the brave lives on” - Marcus Aurelius
Feel free to correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but it would seem:
A hobby - traget shooting and collecting - and the perception of security - handguns for 'protection' - is more important than the lives of over FIFTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE here in the US.
Again, let me know if I missed something.
I have two followups regarding that:
1) Why would the Patriot Act and TSA regulations OK after 9/11 yet more gun regulations are NOT after the deaths of so many people?
2) How many people would need to die before you would consider guns to be a problem?
First question, I'm trying to clarify what seems like an obvious hypocritical stance on "your" part. And for the second, I would like to quantify your thinking on this further as many would consider one accident too many, yet you seem to classify the majority of handgun violence as "accidental."
Hello Bull153, You are right that we will probably not reach an agreement on our attitudes and feelings about suicide. You make a compelling case that the inability to prevent a suicide is heart-wrenching and anger-inducing. I would add frustrating as a further description. However, any lack of success that you experienced in preventing this tragedy does not make the person who takes his own life a coward, nor does it make you a failure. You mention control issues and how police "are given the power to exert control over society". Yet this authority only is effective with reasonable and rational people. You cannot exert control over someone who plans on leaving this world and no longer feels constrained by society's rules or who believes that the suicide option is the best or only one for his situation. It doesn't make the police officer a failure or the suicide victim a coward. Police may have recognized authority bestowed upon them by society or law, but we, as individuals, have our own sense of personal control and autonomy. We choose to give up some of this control to live peaceably among others (such as following laws), but we retain some personal responsibility and decision-making power. Some of your anger seems to stem from your acknowledged inability to "control" the suicidal individual, but life does not always fit into neat little rational packages and happy endings are not inevitable. Instead of being so angry at those you weren't able to reach, perhaps you can take some consolation in the lives you impacted in a positive way. Those you "lost" didn't kill themselves to personally defy you, they were just too far gone to be saved. You are spot on that this is a heart-breaking experience. I just don't see the need to make yourself feel superior by demeaning suicidal persons as cowards. It appears we are at an impasse here. Sincerely, Karen
Thank you. You bring a wise insight to the table. I understand what you are saying, it does make sense. There is much we do agree on. On one point we'll have to agree to disagree.
It's sad when people think their own personal possessions, or hobbies, are more important than the lives of others.
How many people need to die fron handguns until your "hobby" is no longer worth it? Obviously, it must be more than FIFTEEN THOUSAND. So how many need to die before you care?
You can't be serious with that picture you just posted!
That picture is absolute proof that you are not fully comprehending the magnitude of deaths from handguns in the US compared to other countries.
Feel free to divide the numbers given in the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence poster v/s your population numbers. This gives what most people call a PERCENTAGE. Just because there are MORE PEOPLE in the US does not mean there is less gun violence! That is just simple MATH!
Thanks for posting that picture though. Does a much better job of pointing out the immature position you are taking on gun control.
You obviously have no appreciation of sarcasm...
OK, you want to talk statistics? How about what country leads the world in rate of firearm homicides? It is Honduras with 68.43 per 100,000 population. The US doesn't even make the top 25 - we're 28th with 2.97 per 100,000. What country had the highest percentage of homicides by firearm? Liechtenstein with its single homicide by gun - 100%. The US was 25th, with 60%. The US does lead in one category - We lead the world in average of civilian owned guns per 100 people with 88. Yeppers, we're #1.
But consider this. Even with the world's highest gun ownership rate we don't lead the world in percentage of homicides or rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people. I'd say that for the most part Americans are a pretty responsible lot when in comes to firearms. It is my opinion that current laws are adequate and banning guns because of criminal's behavior and a few irresponsible people is NOT what this country is about.
These stats come from the Guardian, a UK based publication and hardly biased towards the US. Check out this article from July 2012 - and the statistics.
---For an unbiased look at armed violence and gun laws, country by country
---Gun Control Issues, Public Health, and Safety
...and you are welcome, although my sarcasm escapes you. My position on gun control is realistic, rather than your overblown emotionalism.
"I can prove anything by statistics except the truth." - George Canning
"Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable." - Mark Twain
First did you even read the articles you posted? Your article from the University of Utah says things ALLOT differently than what you claim it does. Here are some excerpts:
"Of all the firearm deaths [in] 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US."
"The number of firearms injuries remains high in the United States, compared with most of the rest of the world. Firearm suicide rates are strongly impacted by the rate of gun ownership. (Kaplan and Geling, 1998) "
"The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. ... For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998)."
"Having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). "
"Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005)."
"Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009)."
THIS IS ALL FROM YOUR ARTICLE BULL153!! So thanks for posting that article Bull153! Seems even your own sources contradict almost everything you say! I'm not sure what you were getting at with posting that ting since it more or less disproves all your positions.
Also, are you proud that the United States is with Third world countries and dictatorships in terms of gun violence? Also, do you not understand quantifiable statistics? According to your chart, the country of Liechtenstein is number #30 per-capita with its ONE killing.
I don't think the deaths of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE is something to be "sarcastic" about. You said in another blog "I've spent most of my life dealing with victims of violence .... I've had to deal with tragedy many times over." Now it would seem you think is is something to joke about? Which is it Bull153? Is the death of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PEOPLE a JOKE TO YOU?
I don't get your humor Bull153. For a person who claims to have " spent most of my life dealing with victims of violence " you certainly don't seem to care.
Yes, yes I did read them. How else would I have known what they pertained to? It is not 'my' article, it is 'the' article from the University of Utah. Just exactly what does it say differently than what I said it does, since my comments were from the Guardian article and references. You see, unlike you, I don't cherry pick data that only supports one side. I prefer to put all the relevant material out there and let the readers determine what is factual and what isn't. The readers are smart enough to see that some data is very old and out of date - while other data is more reflective. For example, you cite a 2003 study with an 80% death rate, while the more current Guardian data reflects 60% - gee, a reduction of 20%! Tell me what I have said that is directly contradicted... name one thing!
People are a lot smarter than you give them credit for and they don't need YOU to tell them what they should or shouldn't believe. I am proud that the US Constitution grants me rights - and I resent and will resist your or anyone else's attempts to take away my rights. Legal gun ownership IS NOT a bad thing. Irresponsible gun ownership is.
Frankly, I don't care what you think about my sarcasm - just like I don't care what you think about my service. The death of one person is no joke, let alone 15,000. Sarcasm is not humor - it makes a point. You don't get it - too bad. Everyone else seems to.
Perhaps it would do you some good to reread my original blog... you are so hell bent to prove me wrong you are missing the point.
Hopefully one of these days you'll realize that you are not the great crusader you make yourself out to be. This is just one more thing we will never agree about. So, I suggest you quit trying and accept that on the matter of legal gun ownership - we are and will always be at an impasse.
“The beginning of thought is in disagreement , not only with others but also with ourselves.” - Eric Hoffer
I don't think you understood the context of the articles. Here, let me show you: "Of all the firearm deaths in these 23 high-income countries in 2003, 80% occurred in the US." That is saying of all the firearms deaths of ALL THESE COUNTRIES, 80% were in the US. Where as the Guardian says that 60% "% of homicides [in the US were] by firearm."
These two statistics are apples and oranges. Please try not to confuse these things or else you will seem to not know what you are talking about.
Also, I don't see anyone that "gets" your sarcasm our your point. I stil don't.
There are many things, such as slavery, that were once not only legal but viewed as crucial and essential to the US economy. Where are these institutions today?
Enjoy it while it lasts ...
Today, we try and come to grips during this season of joy and happiness with events that defy understanding. Over the next days and weeks, more details will emerge surrounding the horrific crimes that occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. We will learn what happened, when it happened and to whom, but we may never know the most important issue - why it happened.
There will be time to debate. There will be time to argue. There will be time to propose solutions. The time is not now, now we must come together as a sane and caring nation to support and grieve with our fellow citizens as they deal with this mind-numbing catastrophe.
My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their families, the emergency responders, the law enforcement professionals, and all who have been affected by this tragedy. Let us keep them in our thoughts as we try and move forward.
"There's no tragedy in life like the death of a child. Things never get back to the way they were." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
With the tragedy that occurred today all those people killed, 20 of them little children I hope, no I pray that Mental Health legislation will be aggressively focused on. I realize that this will reopen stricter gun legislation, I dont know what new laws can be inacted that will help I dont have the answer 'but mental health legislation is very much needed and has been swept under the rug since Reagan was in office and changed things (and not for the betterment of mental health) .
People need to have more access to getting help you can't just call the police and say my child's acting strange, they won't do anything. In most of these incidents there's warning signs and people are just unable to get help they need .And if a person doesn't want help (or realize they need help) families are unable in most cases to force them to get help, so these individuals are lost and don't get the mental help needed that might prevent something terrible from happening.
Today's tragedy is heartbreaking, all those lives lost
We should hold them and their families and that entire community in our thoughts and prayers.If prayers are not something you do then just hold them in your heart and thoughts.
I'll post Mayor Blomebug's comments here:
"With all the carnage from gun violence in our country, it's still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. It has come to that. Not even kindergarteners learning their ABC's are safe. We heard after Columbine that it was too soon to talk about gun laws. We heard it after Virginia Tech. After Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek. And now we are hearing it again. For every day we wait, 34 more people are murdered with guns. Today, many of them were five-year olds. President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for 'meaningful action' is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership - not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. My deepest sympathies are with the families of all those affected, and my determination to stop this madness is stronger than ever."
We spend $750 billion a year to defend our selves from terrorists abroad, when the actual damage comes from terrorists who live inside the fence with us.
It is time for a national discussion as to how to address the violence that has included guns. Over reacting to a situation and instituting laws based on emotional response as opposed to a well thought out one that everyone agrees on is how we ended up with the Patriot Act. We need to address the cause of the issue and not just the effect.
We're a divided, warring nation, violence is just a byproduct of these issues. Those who are not stable buy into the violent rhetoric that is read and heard, and they act.
We need to address the mental health of this nation. It could solve many of our problems.
We have a drug war going on and more people on drugs prescription and non than the rest of the world. They are just masking their problems and not solving them.
There usually is a sign prior to things like this but they are not addressed until after the fact.
Gun control can only do so much it is the person who is holding the gun that is the problem.
I completely agree with you midwestgirl
The root of the problem when these mass killings occur always gets pushed to the back completely ignored.We immediately start focusing on how this was done,what weapons were used,then revisiting the same talks of new gun laws all the while ignoring the root of the problem "why did this happen" "how did these individuals that carry these things out get to this point" ?
Almost always these people have a long history of mental problems and signs were visible along the way that something was wrong.
The brother of the young man who carried out Fridays killings said his brother had had mental problems ALL his life.
In my opinion our Mental Health System is broken and has been for decades.
"Freedom means taking care of our wounded - and we have dropped the ball. Everyone will now focus on the weapons - but I think we must be a bit more intelligent and add in that crucial component: angry depressed people snap and kill. We need to treat them before it happens."
Parents who seek mental health help for younger children are often faced with astounding obstacles .
Often know one takes the cries for help from the parents seriously .
Then there is the issue of can these parents afford to get Mental Health help,many insurances don't cover this.
President Obama’s Affordable Care Act I fear may not help the poor with mental illness since the Supreme Court ruled that states could refuse to accept the Medicaid expansion without losing their existing Medicaid funds.So for the States that opt out of this expansion poor people will be at risk,some will not qualify because of their income they won't be able to get Medicaid nor can they be eligible for the Federal subsidy to pay for insurance.
Bottom line is that many children with mental illness is not getting any treatment at all.
And these children grown up to be adults with mental illness,by this time the problem is by far a much harder problem to deal with.
New Mental Health Legislation needs to be implemented ,we have to have new approaches to Mental Health in the Mental Health clinics,Hospitals,Doctors,community's,schools,
and most importantly our Legislators have got to get their act together on this or we will continue to see events unfold just as it did Friday.It has become like some kind of an epidemic.
Until the root of this problem is addressed anything else done is just a band aid over a wound that won't heal.
Saying "There will be time to debate. There will be time to argue. There will be time to propose solutions. The time is not now" in this context here is disingenuous if not fully hypocritical. Saying you don't want a debate IS HAVING the debate. You are just arguing to maintain the status quo.
Further, putting your condolences in your "pro-gun" blog is frankly disgusting. and in horribly poor taste. If you really cared, I think a gun debate would be the LAST thing on your mind. Instead, it seems to have been the first.
You are right about one thing though Bull153; "the time is not now" to talk about gun violence. With TWENTY DEAD children - most of them FIVE years old - that time has long since past.
You must be assisting with someone's nativity scene because you are a perfect ass, Hoffman.
I spent three hours on the phone with a close friend in Connecticut who works for the State judicial system and lives 45 miles from Sandy Hook. I can assure you HE doesn't think my comments are disingenuous or hypocritical.
Why don't YOU try and be helpful, Mr. 'expert'... ...just shut up!
"The main goal of the future is to stop violence. The world is addicted to it." - Bill Cosby
“Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children.” - Sitting Bull
I think fixing out of control gun violence in this country is helpful. Do you not? I would seem so as you are just personally attacking for seemingly no reason.
The status quo will no longer do. It was over after Virginia Tech, it was over after Aurora and is is most certainly over now that there are twenty dead children because of a crazy kid and a reckless gun owner.
How long will it take before you feel it is "ok" to "propose solutions"? How many more dead children before you take action? We took action days after 9/11. People panic at the thought of a "swine flu." How many more gun massacres does this country need before we reach the level of response required by these horrific actions?
I don't see how anyone can think handguns and assault rifles are more important than the lives of twenty six-year-old kids.
By what stretch of the imagination can you claim I don't think fixing gun violence is 'helpful'. The status quo is not the issue. Neither is legal gun ownership. How do we identify and stop these mentally unbalanced individuals from committing horrendous crimes IS the issue.
It is not up to me to take action... it is up to all of us. There have been measures taken - crimes prevented. But there is more that needs to be done.
A nutcase is arrested in California after firing 50 rounds outside a shopping mall. An Indiana man is arrested and 47 guns confiscated after he threatens a school. Another plot to shoot and bomb fellow students in Oklahoma was thwarted. Nothing is perfect - but the system does work.
Look, I don't think unrestricted gun ownership is right. I don't have a problem with high capacity magazines and assault rifles being tightly controlled. I don't have an issue with mandatory registration. You have to have a license to get married and to drive a car or to fly an airplane. Why not have a license to own a gun, not just carry one concealed. Make the requirements to carry concealed even stricter. I am all for measures to make the world safe. I just don't agree that banning a citizen's ownership of firearms will make the world safer.
What about dealing with the criminals and the mentally ill? We arrest the criminals but let them out. Three strikes is a joke. Use a gun, go to jail has no teeth. Let's make the laws we have work before you try and create more.
We are on the same side here, we just differ on the method. I can excuse that based on your lack of real law enforcement experience. If you really had worked with those agencies in a law enforcement capacity and not just delivering laundry, stocking their canteens, or hauling out the trash, you would understand.
“I am in support of the NRA position on gun control.” - Bill Clinton
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ” - Vladimir Lenin
Your confrontational language at the end of your post makes your whole statements read as disingenuous. Please rephrase your rude attempt at insults and refrain from such comments in the future. Trying to insult me here will not work. All it does is makes you seem like a hypocrite.
If it maters, you seem to be assuming ALL law enforcement share your viewpoints. That is simply not true and acting like you speak for everyone is hubris.
I would like to respond to your other comments in your post. Please repost without the insulting language if you care to have a mature conversation.
I am simply being factual. You may feel insulted if you wish, I don't mind.
Just as you seem to claim, I am expressing an opinion based on my many years of actual experience. I speak for myself and the truth. Others are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves.
If you want to have a conversation, all you need to do is provide some substantiation that you have ANY experience germane to this issue. I'll be the first one to apologize if you can name one policy document you wrote on lethal force for a police agency, or one certified law enforcement course you took, or provide the job description for one law enforcement position you held. Until you do, I am going to continue to doubt your credibility and laugh at your experience.
“Be brave. Take risks. Nothing can substitute experience.” - Paulo Coelho
“Experience tells you what to do; confidence allows you to do it.” - Stan Smith
"I am simply being factual ... I am expressing an opinion."
Again, would seem you don't know the difference between FACT and OPINION as you even use the two words interchangeably here. Also, saying " I speak for myself and the truth" is incredible hubris on your part. Seem you feel your opinion is equivalent to the truth. That is absolutely not true.
Again, very hypocritical that you feel you can question anyone's claims yet you can make all the claims you like without similar substantiation. How do we know your claims are real? Only because "you say so," yet when I give my experience, you "laugh?" VERY HYPOCRITICAL!! I'm not providing you with any personal information on me Bull153 because frankly you seem overly obsessed with anything you feel is personal information about me and use it to attack me.
Also, I'm not sure what you point is in attacking me. Are you saying only "people like you" get to have strong opinions on the deaths of 20 children? That only people who are "approved by you" get to express opinions controlling the instruments used to murder elementary school kids?
I know this, every law enforcement agency I have EVER worked with in the United States and Australia have held BUYBACK programs for guns with NO QUESTIONS ASKED! They do this because all law enforcement believe that less guns makes for a safer patrol and therefore a safer jurisdiction.
I'm not sure what Police use served in that wanted MORE guns ...