I wholeheartedly agree with you, Larry. We may never know why this nutcase committed this heinous spree. There may always be questions about how we could have or should have been able to prevent it. There are those as you say that have ideas that range from reasonable to the obscene. I support the 2nd Amendment. I would never support mass murder.
Former Governor Huckabee, a Fox News pundit, expressed his opinion that the shooting was caused because America “removed God from our schools.” He also said gun control would not stop school shootings of this nature “unless you change people’s hearts.”
I'm sorry, Governor - but you are way off base. As far as I know, God has never been removed from school, just the requirement to have a mandatory prayer. Children are free to believe in God, Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny if they want to, it just isn't forced upon them. With our cultural diversity we are more of a melting pot than ever, and Government - including schools - don't need to dictate what Americans believe.
Safe schools - hell, a safe America - is going to take a concerted effort on everyone's part to make responsible gun control legislation, responsible mental health programs and policy, and a dynamic interactive set of programs between the police and school systems to make a difference.
We can make things better, and we must!
“Freedom is the will to be responsible to ourselves” - Friedrich Nietzsche
Larry my sentiments exactly
Perhaps the whole root of our trouble, the human trouble, is that we will sacrifice all the beauty of our lives, will imprison ourselves in totems, taboos, crosses, blood sacrifices, steeples, mosques, races, armies, flags, nations, in order to deny the fact of death, which is the only fact we have.
-- James Baldwin,
Oh and to those religious please take note of what your leader stated about PRAYER.
But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
This is why we have failed
By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
It is a generational thing chasing the mighty dollar and buying off the kids WE ALL ARE GUILTY of doing so.
THIS IS WHAT BOOMERS MOST OF US HAD IN SCHOOLS
and what a friend posted just yesterday on her facebook page.
"Just thinking how awesome my high school was. A pool, really great gyms (4), an amazing auditorium with balcony, orchestra, several bands, jazz bands, choirs, drama, forensics, many sports not offered at many other schools. We even had a hand bell choir. We were so richly blessed for a mid to low income community. To my alma mater: West Leyden"
Yet when the 80's came around we started cutting those things.
The greatest generation built it for us we tore it all down for our gain boomers this is what we left our children.
It breaks my heart they have to live this way because of our generational greed.
"I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Without them you become a third world nation
If the parents of baby boomers are "the greatest generation" I would say boomers should be renamed "the most selfish generation."
Seen so many have a "me first" attitude that is more about personal greed than about civilization or society.
Kind of a bummer of a post so close to Christmas...
I don't think 'we' have failed or that 'we' are all guilty - you can jog down that road if you want to, I'm not. You are free to choose what you believe in or don't want to believe in, that is the beauty of our nation.
The 'greatest generation' taught us the values that make us a great people and great nation. Now, one can argue that we continued to overstep our bounds after the threats of WWII, but the fact remains that the world is a better and more prosperous place because of the greatest generation. The 'baby boomers' for the most part continued the legacy of their parents, but because of the richness of our nation and diversity of our cultures, things were never as hard as they were their parents. So, the 'boomers' got lax in passing the good of the greatest generation down to the post-baby boomers.
If you want to place blame - let's look at the institution that is really responsible, our government. You can debate all day and until the cows come home, but Washington DC and the generation after generation of political professionals are the root cause. They got away from the Constitution and what the founding fathers envisioned to become the creators of unsustainable debt and an entitlement philosophy that has crushed the greatest nation on earth.
It isn't generational greed, my friend. It is government greed and irresponsibility.
"Give a man a fish and he won't starve for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he won't starve for his entire life." - Proverb
I read in today's paper that some Elementary school in Texas has allowed Teachers and other "Responsible" adults to carry concealed weapons to school. What the hell is wrong with people??
Bull153 is right about one thing- government is to blame. Government is to blame for allowing these weapons to proliferate, allowing regulations to laps, and putting greed and selfishness infront of the live and wellbeing of citizens.
I would say not as much as some people might claim, Larry. There are unique circumstances where what seem abnormal and abhorrent to some may be an effective measure somewhere else.
The primary job of a teacher is to teach, and a school administrator to manage. Yet we still train teachers the Heimlich Maneuver and CPR, even when schools have nurses and portable defibrillators. We train our teachers to evacuate in case of fire and have fire hoses and extinguishers available in every school even though we have well trained fire departments. We expect our teachers to be able to protect and save our children and provide them with the tools and training to do so. Sometimes things happen that they are not trained or equipped for, but still these teachers died trying to save their students. The NRA advocates armed guards in every school, that is excessive. We need to look at the entire problem - one solution is NOT going to work for every situation.
One of the reasons the sky marshal program is so effective is that no one knows how many or who these people are. They are well trained and equipped to deal with a hijacker at 20,000 feet inside a pressurized tube. It is unfortunate that none of the planes used on 911 has sky marshals. School resource officers and uniformed security officers may well be effective under some circumstances. Perhaps some armed teachers would be too.
Not every teacher should be armed. Not every school should have armed teachers. But there is room for discussion about some teachers, teachers who are ex-military or ex-law enforcement being allowed to have a firearm at school. I know the principal at Sandy Hook confronted an armed gunman with nothing but her body. We'll never know if having an armed trained person there, either an officer or teacher, might have made a difference.
Before I completely condemn Texans for their policy, I would like to know what safeguards are in place. We know one of the reasons they allow it is that the school is isolated and far from law enforcement services. They may be close to the border and having to contend with smugglers and cartel members. There are safe and sane answers out there, and as I said from the beginning, there needs to be a comprehensive push for stopping firearms violence. Responsible armed people may be one element that should be considered.
"The fight for sanity in our gun safety laws is not by any means over. In many ways it's just beginning." - Michael D. Barnes
Columbine had two armed guards, didn't seem to help there. Throwing more guns at a gun problem just doesn't make sense to me.
The answer Manteca came up with sounds like a starting point at least...random visits by on duty police officers. Couldn't hurt, I guess.
On the day of the shooting, Columbine High School had one armed community resource officer and one unarmed school security officer on campus.
I don't agree that exploring having properly trained and equipped people in a position to be able to intervene in a school shooting makes no sense. We MUST look at all potential solutions because what may seem to make no sense in one environment may just be the best solution somewhere else. I've said before this is going to require much more than a one-size-fits-all resolution.
Columbine was the tragedy that made law enforcement re-evaluate their SWAT tactics and response plans. Even though an armed officer was present, there was no comprehension of what was actually happening. The police were criticized for waiting too long, but they were operating under a false assumption that they were dealing with barricaded subjects and not mass murder/suicide.
Law enforcement, school districts, and communities have reached out to try and solve school shootings. You point out school resource officers, they are a valuable first line of defense. They get to know the kids, the kids learn to trust them, and many potential Columbine copycats have been thwarted. Every police organization in the US now has plans and procedures for active shooter situations. They are practiced often and training updated. No longer will officers wait for a SWAT team, they will react and intervene upon arrival once shots have been fired. This is one legacy of Columbine.
One of the most favorable solutions is intervention. By making detection of potential threats by mentally ill people a priority, we can stop shooters before they get a gun. We can do more, by restricting access to firearms through responsible legislation. There is much that we have to do, and we must not waiver in our commitment to never have another Sandy Hook... never again.
“Power is no blessing in itself, except when it is used to protect the innocent.” - Jonathan Swift
Bull153 Ever since the 80's when boomers took control of our government, they called it the Reagan revolution YUPPIES and it was then we were told to hate government and unions.
Reagan was our first elected fascist president who busted unions and made you hate government with his 9 words..............".I am from the government I am here to help" WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT...........then we have his made up the caddie driving welfare queen LIE and he did not blow that wall down either. It was coming down with our without St Reagan. But St Ronnie could do no wrong Iran/ Contra is just another thing he got away with.
Reagan the COMMUNICATING TOOL for GE to get people to avoid unions at all cost and here we are 50 years later and GE pays no tax and is Non Union. They moved to places like Texas to avoid a living wage and screw people out of Jobs in other places. I know a few people who were screwed by them this way.
Now thanks to him and the repeated lies, we hate both unions and the government which are both the representatives of WE THE PEOPLE. They are us and this is what we have become look in the mirror.
I know you older boomers hate to be told you screwed up but you did big time and then took the rest of us along in your downfall. I am a boomer but I was not one of them out protesting this or that I sat and watched it all unfold on my TEEVEE I was to young to join along.
Here in lies the problem it was a GENERATIONAL thing and they called them
Yuppism... is not definable entirely by income or class. Rather, it is a late-20th-century cultural phenomenon of self-absorbed young professionals, earning good pay, enjoying the cultural attractions of sophisticated urban life and thought, and generally out of touch with, indeed antithetical to, most of the challenges and concerns of a far less well-off and more parochial Middle America. For the yuppie male a well-paying job in law, finance, academia, or consulting in a cultural hub, hip fashion, cool appearance, studied poise, elite education, proper recreation and fitness, and general proximity to liberal-thinking elites, especially of the more rarefied sort in the arts, are the mark of a real man.
It also states this which is a LIE it never faded.
"It first came into use in the early 1980s and largely faded from American popular culture in the late 1980s"
They still spend like they are rich just look how many people in that age group lost their homes because they had to have the biggest and the best.
Have more guns around kids make sno sense. Period. Ed of discussion.
The fact is the more someone is around guns, the more likely they will be harmed by a gun. This is supported by hundred of studies and simple probability.
We are trying to mitigate violence Bull153, not propagate it.
Wow, must have been quite a party last night. I think you enjoyed the 'refreshments' in excess. Other than the fact you don't care much for Ronald Reagan... well, you don't make much sense.
I can see the in*fluence you have on TheSovereign... or the in*fluence he has on you. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into your whole 'It is all St. Ronnie's fault.' shtick. But that's me, you probably think Jimmy Carter was a wonderful president and Bill Clinton an honorable chief executive.
Please continue to believe and support your position. You are entitled to it. I just don't agree, and believe that Ronald Reagan had more honor and integrity than the other two mentioned here combined.
"Americans need to call on Boomers, in their next act onstage, to behave like grown-ups. And there is no better way for them to do this than to guide young people to lives of greater meaning, effectiveness, and purpose." - Eric Liu
You are kidding, right? More of your 'expertise'?
The fact is that to solve gun violence, we need more than just a gun ban, or a limit on access. We need a partnership between the health care system, the education system, and the justice system. One solution will not work in all cases. You would think that an 'expert' such as yourself would recognize this.
Coming together with multiple options to develop a well thought out and all-encompassing plan of action is hardly propagating violence. Your narrow minded and uninformed diatribe does, however, propagate stupidity.
Seems when you have nothing to say, you just try and personally attack the poster. I'm not sure wat you are trying to prove with your attacks other than your immaturity.
Also, both hypocritical and IRONIC for you to laud Reagan at the same time in other blogs calling for more metal health support in this county. It was Regain that DESTROYED mental health support in the United States.
Do you even know ANYTHING Reagan did? Or, are you just repeating the blind "Reagan worship" that is so popular with the EXTREME right wing?
Also, please try and respond without attempted insults at either me or midwestgirl. That is unless you would like to prove my point at the beginning of this post correct.
Every major police department and law enforcement association I know advocates LESS GUNS! You don't have to take my word for it, ask any of these groups:
· Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
· Fraternal Order of Police
· International Association of Chiefs of Police
· Major County Sheriffs’ Association
· National Association of Police Organizations
· National Latino Peace Officers Association
· National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence
· National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
· National Sheriffs' Association
· National Troopers Coalition
· Major Cities Chiefs Association
· Police Executive Research Forum
These groups all advocate for stricter gun control laws, harsher penalties for gun offenders and less guns PERIOD regardless if they are legal or illegal. This is why a majority of Police hold "GUN BUYBACK" programs where one can turn in a gun for cash with no questions asked.
You can continue to try and personally attack me or my qualifications. But, I don't see how your imaginary perception of my qualifications changes the simple fact: LESS guns directly correlates to LESS gun violence.
Fredo, I stand corrected, one armed and one un-armed... still didn't help.
By the way, I kind of edited my post some after confusing myself while reading the original... getting old is hell... :-)
I've given this idea about trained armed policeman or trained guards in the school ALOT of thought,and its not the first time it has been brought up in discussions over the years.
Larry I agree teachers shouldn't be carrying guns they're not qualified,although they will act as human shields often to protect the lives that they teach.
I'm starting to lean in the direction of"what will it take to protect our children at all cost in the world we live in now"
How effective has gun legislation in the past worked,it hasn't seem to work well enough because if children keep getting murdered something is still not working.
I'll go along with legislation to ban assault weapons all semi and automatic guns,stricter licensing(yearly renewals),limiting ammunition,tracking high risk individuals through data bases,etc but in the end I'm not convinced this will be enough.I also advocate mental health reform,the people who do these crimes have to be either mentally ill,or pure evil.It's true they're people out there who's sole purpose is to harm others and its usually the most vulnerable.
The vision of an armed guard at schools is troubling,but the vision of all the people who are dying in schools is more troubling.
What can ALL be done in a combined effort that can assure our children are safe at school.
Because I admit I fear that we will see more of these Sandy Hook's again and again unless something drastic is done.
The President who is openly advocating gun legislation which I believe is "just and fair" and his own daughters are protected every single day by secret agents who will at any moment use lethal force to protect the Obama children.
And this is with the knowledge of the President by his authority and as it should be.
Some might say"well this is the President of the United States therefore his children are targets"true yes,but NOW I might say that OUR children at ALL schools are potential targets because they are at school and are the most vulnerable there.Schools are chosen because the most vulnerable reside within those walls and the killers that do this know that there is no line of defense between them and those children,this is why they are chosen by these individuals what other reason could it be.
If a Presidents children must be protected from unknown treats,so should the possibility be that ALL school children should be.
Our children are no less at risk this has been proven.You don't think that some wacko is going to go after the school that the Presidents children go to,why because its heavily guarded.
I know that many are against this kind of thing and don't want to see guards at schools,but it should not be totally dismissed as something that might be investigated along with ALL the solutions being examined.
It might take a combination of many things to make up a single solution.
Guns will remain on the streets long after legislation removes many,and they will continue to be accessible to all the wrong people.
Someone else pointed out that the Presidents children enjoy full time protection...someone else even pointed out that the President himself enjoys full time protection... of course they do, it's the President and his family. That is one of the responsibilities of the Secret Service.
The budget for the Secret Service is somewhere around 1.5B. I don't think anyone would support the hiring of an extra policeman for every school plus backups. Who would pay for that? How about armed guard at Theaters and Restaurants? It is just not financial feasible on any level.
Maybe we should do like Israel does where the army patrols openly all over the country? Is that what we really want? I agree there is no magic pill but we have to start somewhere and I think we can start with assault weapons, large capacity clips, rein in the gun free-for-all at gun shows along with enforcing current background laws and mental health cure enhancements.
You don't think that Schools are being targeted?
Theaters, restaurants yes have all been effected but not like schools.
Who would pay for that is just one more issue that could be explored along with others .Cutting military is an option since we have a sincere threat right here against children "who more needs to be protected ."
We shall see in time if gun legislation will be enough, in my opinion we will need everything and then some.
Children are our most valuable treasure anything and more is not enough when it comes to protecting them.
"I just don't agree, and believe that Ronald Reagan had more honor and integrity than the other two mentioned here combined." - Again, just another opinion void of fact, but then, meets expectations.
A lot of people are giving many ideas a lot of thought since last week's tragedy. People are realizing that no one solution, be it banning guns or armed guards, will effectively work. As I have been saying from the beginning, and most rational people agree, the solutions have to be based on a concerted effort by all to find realistic and responsible ways to protect innocent people. As long as there are idiots like the head of the NRA wanting to turn schools into armed camps, or those who want to ban firearms despite the 2nd Amendment, we'll keep having Americans suffering preventable firearms deaths.
The best defense is when the criminal doesn't know who or how something is defended. Non-uniformed armed school resource officers, specially trained school staff, and improved and effective gun control legislation are some solutions that should not be dismissed out of hand. Neither should the be seen as a panacea that solves the issue by themselves.
You mention President Obama's children and their Secret Service protection. Secret Service protection extends beyond the first family, you may be surprised at the number and level of protection that they provide to our government. Not only are the President's children attractive targets, but so are the children of wealthy business leaders and entertainment figures. You better believe that private security that rivals the Secret Service is bought and paid for daily to safeguard these kids as well.
We may never be able to totally eliminate gun violence despite our best efforts, but we must try. It must be a balanced effort involving all aspects of the issue and not a one-size-fits-all approach. Then, maybe we can 'mitigate' the violence.
“Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.” - Jeff Cooper
You are right, such protection as the President's is expensive. No one wants to turn our schools into armed camps. Theaters and restaurants can't afford such security. Who wants to enjoy a romantic candlelight dinner with an armed guard standing ten feet away?
It is heartening to see us come together and discuss such an important issue with logic, common sense, and reason. We all seem to agree on many levels and we all want our children safe.
I feel like a broken record, but I can't stress enough we cannot fixate on a single solution to such a complex problem. Israel has armed patrols all over the country because they are perpetually at war and the threat there is a daily fact of life. Our circumstances are totally different. As you say, we need to ban some weapons types and high capacity clips, enact responsible gun control legislation, and involve experts and leaders in the education and mental health fields.
“I am responsible. Although I may not be able to prevent the worst from happening, I am responsible for my attitude toward the inevitable misfortunes that darken life. Bad things do happen; how I respond to them defines my character and the quality of my life. I can choose to sit in perpetual sadness, immobilized by the gravity of my loss, or I can choose to rise from the pain and treasure the most precious gift I have – life itself.” - Walter Anderson
I don't believe one is required to have a plethora of facts to express an opinion - Just look at Hoffman's trash!
“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde
All I'm saying is that all options should be brought to the table and explored open minded ,I believe also no one thing will be the answer,but more then likely a totality of ideas will bring us closer to a answer.
People should not automatically dismiss ideas at this point,somethings now that seemed implausible before are starting to look more necessary,Maybe not desirable but necessary.
I agree... Believe me, I agree!
“Opposition is a natural part of life. Just as we develop our physical muscles through overcoming opposition - such as lifting weights - we develop our character muscles by overcoming challenges and adversity.” - Stephen R. Covey
The thing is, we have to start someplace. There is no magic cure-all pill. What we can't do is run out of the bunkhouse, jump on our horse and ride off in all different directions...
It'll be a sad day for this country if children can safely attend their classes only under the protection of armed guards., Eisenhower, 1957
Here we are Boomers we did such a great job in taking control of things. Look in the mirror we have been running the show.
He also stated this and we did not listen and why we are now #1 at WAR within our borders and beyond.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eisenhower was a real conservative. Why the current GOP idolizes the extremist Reagan as opposed to Eisenhower is beyond me.
So what's next, should we worry the right to privacy may end
Just wondering how something like this might be the beginning of all sorts of problems some dark and ominous and one that closely resembles discrimination
Someone said you choose to own a gun in NY your information becomes public
The thing is many people probably never give it much thought about that record or looking it up
And doubtful many Criminals had this knowledge but wow now they do all those registered gun owners are now as easy to follow as the yellow brick road...
If people "don't think" before they buy a handgun, this is a hard lesson learned. Also ANYONE can contact the New York Pistol Permit Bureau and get a list of all the permits - names and addresses - for EVERYONE that has a handgun permit in the State of New York. This is just HANDGUNS. Shotgun and rifle owners are omitted from this list.
Again, it is the LAW in the State of New York that handgun license holders names and addresses be part of public record. Chiding a newspaper for making public information more easily available seems silly. If you really have a problem with this, it is really the Pistol Permit Bureau that you should be angry at.
You mistake anger for "fear of what's next "
You know the difference.
You're always advocating rights of people
You chide Manteca Bulletin all the time for about everything but thats fine because they're crossing a line on what you believe is right in your opinion but someone else has something to say regarding the NY paper and it's "silly "to blame the paper
Well silly to you ok, your entitled to think that all this public record information would have been just as easily accessible before it was released in the news article I can't say it wasn't accessible that's not the point and I don't think you see the difference
These people are being singled out because they either own a gun or are registered they now have been put at a risk as well, and privacy has been abused here as well.
I don't expect you to ever understand what I believe has happened with this news article or what I fear may result from it
It's only my opinion after all
PUBLIC INFORMATION is just that - information available to ALL the public. A newspaper should be able to publish any and all public information it so chooses. This is called a "Free Press" and essential to a democratic society.
Now, for the real issue, if you don't like that handgun owner personal information is PUBLIC RECORD in the state of New York, then that is an issue to take up with the State of New York.
AGAIN, I don't see how privacy was abused given that the handgun permit holders AGREED to have this information made public when they applied for their license. If they didn't read or understand the full implications of registering for a handgun license in the State of New York how is that the fault of the newspaper?
You can believe whatever you like, I have never believed in censorship. Making public information private is one thing, telling a newspaper some public information is off-limits to print is a slippery slope.
No, you moron. What is low class is placing thousands of people at increased risk from harm for no reason. The people who were identified are not as worried about becoming victims, they have a legally obtained and registered means of defense. What I am worried about are the people NOT on the lists, the ones that now, thanks to the irresponsible reporting of the News Journal, everyone knows who DOESN'T have a registered handgun to protect themselves.
I know, maybe they have a shotgun or rifle, but I damn sure would rather know who in my neighborhood has an AK47 or M-16 or even more important, who in my neighborhood is a gang member or felon who was arrested for gun violations. If the News Journal wants to do something to protect the public, how about they start there?
A list of convicted child molesters living in my neighborhood would make it safer. A list of handgun owners sure as hell doesn't. But feel free to keep plying us with your expertise and experience. I think it is pretty clear who has it and who doesn't.
“Knowing a great deal is not the same as being smart; intelligence is not information alone but also judgment, the manner in which information is collected and used” - Dr. Carl Sagan
Did you also happen to notice that NBC's David Gregory, in an attempt to score points with the anti-gun crowd, confronted the NRA's Chief Executive on Meet The Press while holding an empty 30 round magazine for an assault rifle. The show is taped in Washington, DC.
There is one slight problem. The Washington DC police are investigating Mr. Gregory because possession of high capacity magazines, even empty ones, is illegal. In an update, there is a claim that while the Washington Metro Police denied Gregory permission to use the magazine on his broadcast - supposedly the program had gotten permission through the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. You know, the same folks who brought you 'Fast and Furious' and other wonderful antics.
I get so disgusted when the liberal media tries to do anything possible to paint the right as evil. I am not a fan of Mr. LaPierre and don't agree with his stance. Confronting him with an illegal magazine on a national broadcast shows how far the media will stoop for their story. I don't think Mr. Gregory should go to jail, but I think he should pay a fine and be placed on probation from committing some other stupid stunt, like asking undercover officers how they deal with drug trafficking while holding up a kilo of blow...
Tongue in cheek intended.
“Everyone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.” - Unknown
Mr Gregory wants his ratings higher, more attention well he may get that attention just not what he asked for if authoritys find he willingly violated the law.NBC was told NO ,but like many media outlets they think they can say and do as they wish
Never ceases to amaze me what the media will do
You again use aggressive language in your posts and lack of actual knowledge of the laws of New York State , along with a major confusion as to the difference between public and private information really makes you seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.
This is a state's rights issue. This is THE LAW in the State of New York. This is not the newspaper's fault for publishing public records, it is the State of New York's fault for MAKING THEM PUBLIC!! Do you fundamentally not understand the difference between public and private information? In California, this information is PRIVATE! If a California newspaper did the same thing, that newspaper would be in HUGE TROUBLE for violating the privacy of these people. However, since this happend in New York - where this information is PUBLIC RECORD - there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the newspaper did.
Again, if you have a problem with how New York keeps handgun registrations, take it up with New York, not the newspaper. The is NEVER anything wrong with publishing PUBLIC information.
Talking down to the entier ATF and calling the media "liberal" does not help your claim of being a moderate. Seems almost like talking points from the fringe right.
In 1996 the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland prompted a massive restriction on handgun ownership in the UK. SIXTEEN YEARS later, there has not been another incident of mass shootings with handguns in the UK. This is called RESULTS. One cannot deny the statistic - LESS guns directly correlates to LESS gun violence.
20-children are DEAD Bull153!!! If you call trying to prevent future tragedies by limiting weapons designed to kill as many people as fast as possible a "stoop" then you have absolutely proved my point; you care more about guns then you care about children. Sad to think anyone would care more about a hobby or a basic possession than the life of another.
Congratulations! You've been awarded the hardheaded ignorance award for 2012. NO ONE is disputing the newspaper's right to publish the list under the 1st Amendment. For your benefit I will repeat. NO ONE is disputing their right. What reasonable people are disputing is their irresponsibility. I gave you some examples of items that were legal to publish but caused harm. You've ignored them, just like you ignore the basic question I have asked twice now.
What benefit is gained by publishing the information? How does that make our children safer, you moron? I have shown how it is harmful, so now go ahead, tell me why it is beneficial.
We agree it is legal for them, to do it. It is equally irresponsible. That is a fact. So, stop ducking the issue behind 1st Amendment rights and answer the question... WHAT BENEFIT TO SOCIETY IS THERE BY PUBLISHING THAT INFORMATION! How does that make our children and our neighborhoods safer?
Rozemist gets it. Almost everybody else gets it. YOU DON'T GET IT, and probably never will.
Stop telling me what I care about. You don't have a clue. Tell us again what YOU have personally done to limit gun violence and save lives. Just one thing. You talk and talk. I didn't talk, I did. End of story.
“I believe that we are solely responsible for our choices, and we have to accept the consequences of every deed, word, and thought throughout our lifetime.” - Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
“To be a man is, precisely, to be responsible.” - Antoine de Saint-Exupery
I agree, the media is amazing. First they irresponsibly publish information that could cause harm, then a well known media figure commits an illegal act on national TV to try and make a point. Could he not have held up a large blowup photo of the large capacity magazine? The media is so high tech, it is a shame when they use a low tech attempt for impact and it blows up in their face. I guess they have been consulting with Hoffman... you know, the expert... Sorry, had to laugh.
I'm trying to find out where this is going, but I think NBC is pulling out all the stops to quietly bury the story. Can you say 'Oops!'.
“The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing.” - John Powell
Your aggressive and insulting language again does not help your case. Trying to personally attack me only makes your point seem that much less valid.
I don't see any examples given by "you" here of harmful public information. If I missed something, please correct me.
This newspaper provided a service to the people of New York to easily acces public records. Many websites do the same thing with the public records of Megan's Law and many do the same thing with the Police CAD systems and put realtime online maps of crime addresses with lookups for past crimes as well. Many still do the same with recent home sales putting the price payed for the home as well. Who decides what public information is "appropriate" and what is "inappropriate?" YOU?? If information is not appropriate for the public, then it should be PRIVATE! Period. Again, seems like you are taking out your frustrations here on the messenger - the paper - rahter then the actual issue - private v public information at the New York Pistol Permit Bureau.
Frankly, seems hypocritical of you to find no problem with other public information posted online and not handgun ownership. Just another example of a myopic gun owner thinking gun rights trump any other right ...
Where do you get your information from? Seems a bit ironic that you are talking about media irresponsibility while basing your opinion on rumor. There a many contradicting reports. There are some reports that say Gregory was given permission by both the ATF AS WELL AS D.C. Police.
How do you know which story is accurate? How do you know it was a real clip? How do you know it wasn't a TV prop? Seems easy for you to jump to conclusions here. Oh well. Seems like just another example of WIKI-ALITY as opposed to reality.
TMZ? No...is that reality?
I also don't know what you wanted me to read with your link it showed celebrity news, etc.
I get same way you do crimeriddendump
I read and follow the news that I hope is most accurate
How do you know what is accurate, what is not?
Are you sure any links you've provided are true past /present
Or is it that what someone else is reading about a subject doesn't match up with what you lean towards believing.
Where's your absolute reality site I'd like to get all my information there to.
Until you can provide that 100% proof site I'll go with my own researching.
However if you have a problem with sites that you feel
are not being accurate you could email them or write a letter and explaine your view on the matter.
The TMZ story was linked by FOX News' Greta Van Susteren as TMZ is breaking the news here. I figured posting the direct link to TMZ would be more appropriate, but I guess you are biased:
I never claimed to know what was accurate. However, you are hypocritically passing that same judgement here. All I said was " There a many contradicting reports."
For every site that says there was a violation, there is another that says NBC received permission from both the ATF and D.C. Metro. One more time: "There a many contradicting reports"
Perhaps you are OK with basing your opinion on rumor. I like to wait for actual facts first. Again, how do you even know the magazine was real and not a TV prop? How do you know this was not just an elaborate ploy to bring even MORE attention to the issue of gun control? Are you just assuming everything, or, do you have access to any actual facts? If so, please share! I would LOVE to read some actual factual accounts of this event as so far the only thing I have seen are rumors and second/third hand accounts.
I can see where this is going, and it won't work
I don't play these games..and you know this
Every comment moves closer to nothing.
We've both stated how we feel and voiced our views but it's starting to sound like the same comments over again, this is not productive for either of us so time for us to move on.
We shall have to agree we'll never agree
Have a Happy New Year
If you call wanting an actual first hand account "a game" then I guess you win!
Sorry to even bother mentioning that your "NBC was told NO" quote has not even been established as a fact yet.
Oh well, in Manteca opinion/perception seems to be more important than facts.
Once again I admire your self-control and reason. I wish I had it. Hoffman is only interested in one thing... his opinion. Anyone who doesn't agree with him is wrong, even when they aren't. You are wise to cut him off. He hates that most of all...
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.” - Buddha
You said "I like to wait for actual facts first." REALLY!?!? You mean like you waited for all the facts to come out before you labeled Officer Moody a murderer! Like you waited for all the facts before you accused the DA's office of covering up for the MPD and Officer Moody!
You are so much a moron I cannot believe it. You cherry pick your facts and statistics, you ram your 'expertise' down everyone's throats, and you expect people here to believe you really know something about the law, police policy, and firearms violence.
The fact is, you know squat! You are an out of town clown pretending to be experienced while all you may be good at is researching crap on the internet. You, Sir, are truly pathetic. Thank goodness the readers here can see it for themselves.
“Computers have enabled people to make more mistakes faster than almost any invention in history, with the possible exception of tequila and hand guns” - Mitch Ratcliffe
Your attempted personal attacks and foul, agressive, abrasive language would get you banned from any respectable blog. One thing I can proudly say is that I have never used foul language in any of my comments. Sad that the bar is continually lowered by your obsession with attempting to personally attack me.
If there is a rational point in your post above, please feel free to address it in a reasonable and respectful way. That is unless you want to continue to prove my point that reasonable discussion is beyond some here.
Did you even read your quote? Your quote seems to suggest that guns cause mistakes. A postion you have been adamantly against. Kind of ironic given the context of your above post ...
Oh, Hoffman, dear Hoffman... Maybe as crimeriddenhump you have avoided alleged foul language - but as Hoffman, you put my few transgressions to shame. You didn't just use foul language towards me, you were getting it on with the whole community. Come on, you 'member! Sure you 'member!
What part of my rational point that you lied when you say you prefer to wait for actual facts yet you called Officer Moody a murderer from day one didn't you understand? How do you dodge that, you liar?
Please take a look at the definition of sarcasm... once again it goes waaaaayyyyyy over your head.
More crap from our 'experienced expert' on correctional canteen services and consultation for refuse removal... keep it up, clown. You are only fooling yourself.
“Never contend with one that is foolish, proud, positive, testy, or with a superior, or a clown, in matter of argument” - Thomas Fuller
Chalking your comments to "sarcasm" while at the same time pilling on the same insulting language as before and insisting on using names that are not mine show a complete lack of maturity. Combine this whit your "three stooges" routine and it is clear that you have no intention mitigating your immaturity.
Feel free to re-word your posts without the aggressive and immature language. Prove me wrong! Show me that you are capable of maturity and I would be happy to have an actual conversation with you.
I would be THRILLED if you proved me wrong and grew up. As before, I won't be holding my breath ...
Riiiiight!!!! Keep smoking that high grade stuff. Start telling the truth. Maybe then someone may actually consider that you have something worthwhile to offer. Otherwise, you just keep on fooling yourself, 'cause you ain't fooling anyone else!
"I'd be thrilled if Hoffman admitted who he really is and would quit lying to everyone." - Bull153
Hello Bull153, If you so admire rozemist's restraint ("self control and reason") which is indeed enviable, perhaps you should try to emulate her. Calling crimeriddendump "crimeriddenidiot" and "moron" is very juvenile and does not lend credence to any point that you are trying to make. Frankly, the "threat" you see that somehow criminals are going to keep tabs on who has a handgun and who doesn't seems weak to me. As crimeriddendump noted, in New York this is PUBLIC INFORMATION so anyone with the desire to find out who has a registered gun could easily do so, whether the newspaper published the names or not. Yes, the newspaper made the information even more accessible, but a determined criminal could obtain this same data base, if he or she chose to do so. As you, yourself acknowledged, lack of a registered handgun does not necessarily mean that the homeowner has no weapon of any sort, since rifles and shotguns are supposedly exempt from the public records law. I suppose a criminal could be thinking, "I'll only rob houses where there are no handguns and take my chances that the homeowner doesn't have a shotgun, rifle or some other means of defense" (alarm system, guard dogs, etc.), but that seems far-fetched to me. Also, guns are NOT the ONLY way to feel safe in one's home and a lack of guns in the home does not automatically make one's house a target for criminal activity. Ownership of weapons may give you peace of mind, but not everyone relies on that sort of weaponry for security. I understand rozemist's point that privacy seems to be a fast disappearing concept, but crimeriddendump is correct that the newspaper was not irresponsible in publishing names that are readily available to public access. Do you really believe that owning a gun should be kept a secret? Personally, I think knowing who had guns in their house could be beneficial to parents of young children who might be more reluctant to let their children play at a neighbors's house where a gun was present, without first contacting the gun owner and making sure the weaponry was secure and could not be within a child's reach. YOU are a responsible gun owner who locks up his weapons, but not all who own guns maintain the high standards and accountability that you expect of yourself. Guns, per se, are not the problem, but much like mixing certain chemicals that singularly present no problems but combined cause a toxic reaction, the combination of guns and IRRESPONSIBLE people is a lethal mixture. The issue is not banning all types of guns, but instead making gun ownership accountable to safer standards and recognized reasonable behavior. You can challenge crimeriddendump all you want to, but the name-calling weakens your arguments by making you seem childish and thus less reasonable. Rozemist stands her ground and defends her position and opinions without succumbing to nonsense or incivility. Very admirable, indeed. Sincerely, Karen
I don't need you to tell me what I should or should not emulate. I've tried it every which way and no matter what I do, someone wants to find fault. Fine. I don't care if it doesn't lend credence to you. You can take me the way I am or chose to ignore me, it doesn't matter to me. I know my credibility, everyone else can judge for themselves.
You miss the point. You don't see it as a threat. I do. We already have problems with criminals who scour the obituaries and funeral notices to hit the homes not only of the deceased, but of the relatives attending the funerals. I've suggested in the past that the newspapers limit the information given out to death notices and obituaries, but leave out the funeral details. The families can notify people, it doesn't need to be made public. The same goes for newspapers that print the location of group homes, or rehab facilities in neighborhoods. Some people have no issue with them, yet others who suffer from the NIMBY virus create problems when there are none in order to sanitize their neighborhood. It isn't so much knowing who has handguns as it is knowing who doesn't. Self-defense handguns are usually kept close at hand and loaded, while shotguns and rifles are not. If I am a criminal, I'm going for the house that has no dot. By the way, no criminal is going to file a freedom of information request with all the required information and leave a paper trail that is going to be able to be used at trial. Haven't you ever watched 'Perry Mason' or 'Law and Order'?
We will have to disagree here. You say it is legal and responsible. I say it is legal and irresponsible. What neither you or Hoffman will answer is what benefit was gained by publishing the information? How does that make our neighborhoods safer for our children? Since Hoffman is so worried about military style weapons, explain how knowing who has handguns helps prevent another Sandy Hook?
In California such information is not public. Why do you think that is? In the state that has the strictest gun control laws in the US, they see no benefit in releasing that information. Why do you think NY lawmakers are trying now to change the law in NY and make that information NOT public. It is no one else's business if I own a firearm or not as long as I comply with the laws of the state I am in. If I am concerned about letting my child play at a neighbor's house, I am going to be more worried about whether he is a convicted felon, a drug dealer, or a child molester. I'm going to talk to him. I don't need a newspaper telling me he has a gun when I can ask him. I'd never let my child visit anyone I didn't know and never until I determined it was safe.
It is my opinion that the newspaper was irresponsible. You of course are welcome to feel otherwise and you can also decide for yourself who is and who isn't 'reasonable'.
“Prejudices are what fools use for reason.” - Voltaire
You CONSTANTLY using a name other than my screenname is absolutely arrogant of you and proves you don't care about reality - only your biased opinion. Please refrain from using that name if you would like to be taken seriously.
You also say KarenPearsall dis not provide "benefit was gained by publishing the information." Please re-read KarenPearsall's comments as she very vividly give the example of a parent concerned about their kid playing at a friend's house that has a gun. I think it is important to fully read a post before commenting and you must have missed that part or you would not have ask KatenPearsall "How does that make our neighborhoods safer for our children" when she already answered. Especially odd since you bring up the point in your ill informed following paragraph.
Speaking of that paragraph Bull153, Massachusetts , Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey and DC all have far stricter gun laws than California. Again, making blanket statements that are not true do not help your case either.
Finally, you seem to ignore the whole argument of publishing public information and are saying "well, it might be private soon ... " as your new argument. It still does not change that this information is public TODAY!
Newspaper published information that was public, was properly obtained, had a benefit to the community. Tell me again why that is wrong? Seems it's wrong just because "You Say So!"
I must say thought, aside from my first point above, you posted a nice, rational response. Baby steps. So now, all you need to do is refrain from the name calling and you are on your way to being a more productive contributor here!
I look forward to you posting more items like the above and hope you can remove the last of your aggressive, confrontational commentary from your posts.
I hope we can have more rational conversations such as the above. You are clearly able, now let's just hope you continue to be willing.
Hoffman, you are nothing more than an arrogant condescending ass that only wants an argument. Other people can agree to disagree, but you want to fight until you get your way like a petulant child.
You don't take hints. I don't like you. I have no respect for you. I don't believe anything you say. You have made false statements and been deceitful for as long as you've posted here. You feign indignation when you are identified by a past identity. Whose fault is that? I'm not the one who posted as Hoffman, biased, try thinking, and all the others. I'm not the one who was banned, so by all rights you have no business even being here. I wish you would do us all a favor and go blog somewhere else. You are a clown who is a legend in his own mind. I don't want to play your games anymore. I would have thought by now you would have figured that out.
I am once more going to attempt to ignore you. If we were on a phone the next sound you'd hear is my hanging up on you.
I think I am suffering from deja poo... It's the same crap from Hoffman over and over.
“The truth, of course, is that a billion falsehoods told a billion times by a billion people are still false.” - Travis Walton
Hello crimeriddendump, I have a suggestion for you (not the same thing as TELLING someone else what to do, a distinction that seems to escape Bull153). Since Bull153 is obviously unwilling and unable to respond to you in a civil manner, why not cease to engage him in direct confrontation? You could still make a point about the content of his posts or his opinions without engaging him on a personal level. If you want to focus on ideas and concepts, rather than personality flaws, I think that could be the way to address a problem that otherwise seems to have no resolution. I don't always agree with you, but find that you often have thought-provoking posts. But these back and forth nonproductive exchanges with Bull153 detract from the topic at hand. Please consider this. Sincerely, Karen
I do know the distinction between 'suggesting' and 'telling'. I apologize for my misstatement. I have tried on many occasions to be civil with Hoffman to no avail. I am left with two choices. I could emulate rozemist (and have not been successful) or I can do what I feel is in my best interest and let everyone else either (a) ignore my comments, (b) agree with my comments, or (c) disagree with my comments. I can only control myself and my actions.
I've tried to ignore Hoffman's insane rants and condescending garbage before, and with little success. I will try again. It is a little like being infected, you keep taking the anti-biotic until the virus is killed off. Hoffman just refuses to die off.
I am what I am and I accept responsibility for my comments and posts. I would be very happy if Hoffman took your suggestion to heart and left me the hell alone. He should have realized and I have been very clear that I don't have any respect for his opinion or his comments. Since I can't ban him, the best I can do is try, once again, to ignore him. It is the Hoffman thing to do.
“Snow and adolescence are the only problems that disappear if you ignore them long enough.” - Earl Wilson
“It is a pleasure to give advice, humiliating to need it, normal to ignore it.” - Unknown
Interestingly enough, what is being displayed by this one poster seems to be a microcosm of extreme right-wing politics at a national level. The current extreme right wing makes similar argument pertaining to people they disagree with by saying either directly or indirectly " I don't like you. I have no respect for you. I don't believe anything you say." How can the TeaParty be proud of the gridlock and economic problems they have caused at a national level with their inability to reason or compromise? Same here, how could this one poster look at the bullheaded, immature comments here and be proud? I don't get it. I'm not sure if the fringe-right wing attracts the immature and obstinate, or, if their brand of politics cultivates it.
What have the results been from TeaParty obstructionism and immaturity? I don't see how anyone gains anything when one side put its fingers in its own ears (so-to-speak) and refuses to listen to anything that does not originate from themselves. How is that progress? How is that democracy? How could any group of people be so close-minded?
The common thread seems to be the TeaParty. Sad that it would seem the TeaParty movement has brought out the worst in its membership - both nationally and locally.
Lucky for everyone, the TeaParty is fading fast. Hopefully, the juvenile mindset displayed in the aggressive comments of one poster here, and that same mindset of all the TeaParty types on a national level, will fade with it.
Here we are a couple of days before entering a new year. There are a bunch of challenges to be met locally, nationally, and around the world. The 'fiscal cliff' looms hours away - and our politicians still can't get their acts together. I hate politics...
I hate lawyers even more. I'm finding it hard to find the words to properly express my disgust for money hungry legal opportunists looking for a payday based on tragedy. Just like the idiot who is trying to ride the Duenez shooting to a fat payday, Attorney Ivan Pinsky is seeking permission for a $100 million lawsuit on behalf of a student who survived the Newtown, Conn., school shooting. Pinsky said the student has been traumatized by the killings and accused the state of failing to protect students from "foreseeable harm."
What I want to know is how in the hell this moron can make such an assertion. How were the actions by this mentally ill shooter 'foreseeable' by the State of Connecticut? He is not interested in the trauma this child suffered! What about the trauma all the responders suffered? How about the trauma all the rest of the students and staff suffered? What about the whole community? All this idiot sees is dollar signs. I might have a bit more respect if he were to file a suit against the responsible party... the estate of the shooter. Of course, he's dead and doesn't have 100 million bucks. If Mr. Pinsky waits, perhaps he could sue the estate after Michael Moore makes a sequel to 'Bowling for Columbine'. Maybe Mr. Moore could call it 'Shuffleboard for Newtown'.
Speaking of insanity, I am amazed at the frenzy to purchase assault rifles and ammunition in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy. Assault rifles are sold out across the country. Rounds of .223 bullets, like those used in the AR-15 type Bushmaster rifle used in Newtown, are scarce. Stores are struggling to restock their shelves. Gun and ammunition makers are telling retailers they will have to wait months to get more.
This is madness... rather than trying to address fewer weapons and banning types that have been abused, morons are stockpiling guns and ammo as if expecting an invasion from Cuba or Mexico. The 2nd Amendment shouldn't be a license for sheer stupidity.
On a final note, the LAPD held a successful gun buyback event. They exchanged vouchers for groceries with citizens who surrendered their firearms. Among the pistols and rifles that were turned in were a couple of military LAW rocket tubes. These pose no harm since they are a single use item and the necessary projectile and hardware were missing, but it was a nice gesture to turn in a couple of 'souvenirs'.
LAPD officials remarked they were happily surprised that 166 weapons were simply surrendered without taking any vouchers. Gee, guys, I'm not. It was a golden opportunity to get rid of that stolen weapon or the rifle just used in a murder or drive by shooting. These events are marketed as 'no questions asked' but to claim a voucher there is usually some type of log or sign in. You know before they are destroyed, every weapon will be checked against case files to see if any are evidence. So of course, a number were surrendered without vouchers. It is the criminally smart thing to do.
“I think we may class the lawyer in the natural history of monsters.” - John Keats
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful.” - Anton LaVey
Bull, I don't know the specifics on the rules considering the "Guns for Vouchers" project, but I would think even if someone wanted to turn in a gun and not accept a voucher, there would still be the same paper trail as there was for the acceptance of a food voucher. Anyway I hope the program was run smarter than that.
As for people stockpiling up on assault weapons and ammo, those are just people who either think the men in black are coming in black helicopters or are just stocking up to sell those weapons for a profit later. Normal people don't act that way....I hope... :-0
When it comes to the buy back programs, it really does depend on who is doing the program. In California, it varies from agency to agency but there is tighter control than I've seen elsewhere. When they say "No questions asked" it usually means they won't pursue where or how you obtained the weapon, but to satisfy Federal guidelines they usually do ID the individual. This often leads to false ID being presented, or the agency just accepting verbally who a person is.
When a weapon is found to have been stolen, if it is a legal weapon to own, attempts are made to locate the owner and offer the option to recover the weapon. When one can be tied to a crime, it is examined forensically for evidence of the suspect responsible. There is a certain level of trust given to the local citizens, if they thought they were being tracked by turning in a weapon, they may be less inclined to do so. Hence the 'no questions asked' policy.
Years ago agencies with such programs would sometimes sell weapons that were legal to the public to generate revenue, but at least in California, that practice stopped and all guns that are not returned to their owners after being stolen are destroyed. much to the displeasure of gun enthusiasts. I recall in one instance we had a matched consecutive serial numbered pair of .45 Colt revolvers with ivory handles that were surrendered after the owner passed away. They were worth quite a fortune, but were cut up and melted just like the pile of 'Saturday night specials' we had.
I agree about the 'hoarders'... it reminds me of the doomsday nutcases who are stocking up for Armageddon. I believe in disaster preparedness - we have our emergency supplies of food, water, blankets - but like many things, there are those who go to the extreme. Normal people shouldn't, and usually don't, act that way.
“The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well.” - Joe Ancis
Then building on that last point of yours; would you support a system that tracked this to detect unusual activity? This would be similar to the drug laws that track Sudafed.
I noted today that the question on the MSN homepage was "Do you support what the newspaper did?" This was in relation to a New York area newspaper publishing the names and addresses of registered handgun owners in two New York counties. While not illegal, the paper has been criticized mightily for publishing the information.
Of some 226,000 responses so far, people are overwhelmingly against what the newspaper did. 84% of the people responding did NOT support publishing the names. It appears that common sense and privacy are still valued over the people's 'right to know'.
I think it was a bad move motivated only to shame legal gun owners. There is nothing newsworthy or in the public interest served by the actions of the newspaper. In fact, the third county in which the newspaper tried to obtain the information is refusing to provide it. Good for them, I say. When there is an issue between two laws, then it is up to the entity that is responsible for the information to determine what is in the best interest of the people. Then it becomes a matter for the judicial system to determine if the safety and privacy of legal gun owners outweighs a freedom of information act inquiry.
We'll have to wait and see, but it appears that 84% of the people have their heads on straight.
“It is easier to make certain things legal than to make them legitimate” - Chamfort
Online polls are not statistically meaningful. Regardless, I find your here hypocritical given your defense of officer Moody and how you quickly dismissed public opinion in that case yet now seem to feel it trumps actual law.
So which is it Bull153? If there was an online poll where 84% of the people said Moody should go to trail, would that sway your opinion in that matter? I doubt it.
As an aside to the controversy of the newspaper's publishing the names and addresses of gun owners in New York, it seems even some of the more famous and prolific burglars of our time agree that what the newspaper did was asinine...
---“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” said Walter T. Shaw, 65, a former burglar and jewel thief who the FBI blames for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s.---
---“They just created an opportunity for some crimes to be committed and I think it’s exceptionally stupid,” said Bob Portenier, 65, a former burglar and armed house robber turned crime prevention consultant.---
---Frank Abagnale, who was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in the 2002 film “Catch Me if You Can,” and is perhaps the most famous reformed thief to ever earn a legitimate living by offering the public insight into the criminal mind, called the newspaper’s actions “reprehensible.”---
Even crooks think the newspaper was wrong... and they are the beneficiaries of the information. Stupid is as stupid does, I guess.
“For most folks, no news is good news; for the press, good news is not news.” - Gloria Borger
MANY people agree that Officer Moody should not be employed by the MPD and should face trial for his role in the death of Ernest Duenez Jr. So since you site "popular opinion" for this completely legal situation, how do you feel about the same popular opinion wanting justice for Duenez and his family?
Again, you seem quite hypocritical here to be so "law and order" in regards to a minority being killed by police, but, ignore the same laws when faced with something that you actually care about and instead talk about popular opinion. The same popular opinion you ignore in the Duenez case. That is hypocrisy plain and simple.
Either way, you seem to just ignore that the newspaper printed legal public information. You simply don't care because it goes against your "gut"
Double standards and hypocrisy seem to be increasingly popular with TeaParty types. Sad that they seem so eager to protect guns and so hesitant to protect the victims of gun violence.
It sickens me how some continue to try and spin this horrible tragedy into making gun-owners seem like more of the victims here than 20 murdered first-graders.
Absolutely disgusting that some could be so selfish.
Do you find it as ironic as I do that the newspaper that outed all the legal handgun owners has hired armed security themselves? I wonder what they are afraid of???
“Fear can keep us up all night long, but faith makes one fine pillow.” - Unknown
For someone who claims to have such an extensive law enforcement background, you seem to not have a grasp on the difference between legal and illegal.
- NY Newspaper publishing PUBLIC RECORDS: LEGAL!
- A blogger posting the home address of the publisher: ILLEGAL!
- Someone sending "white powder" to an NY Newspaper: ILLEGAL!
There are people making loads of violent threats against the newspaper. One would think the prudent thing to do if someone was making violent threats would be to be prepared incase such a threat is realized.
Again, seems like basics here. Odd that someone that wears suposed law enforcement credentials on his sleeve would question armed protection at the same time as not getting the difference between the legal and illegal.
Observing human nature its often a truth that some who would wish to deprive others of certain rights will want those rights for themselves
It's not a truth for all but unfortunately a truth for many.
Having said that and to the subject of threats being made to this newspaper I'm sure they anticipated there would be lunacy amongst some people in the public and were prepared by hiring people for protection probably from the time they outed that article.
I do hope that people who are making threats will stop and carefully consider there action's this type of behavior is never a solution.
I never agreed with what the paper did (even if it was legal) but threats of violence by crazies is wrong.
There is no excuse nor any place for making threats against a journalistic enterprise simply because one disagrees with their position or action.
While reprehensible, their actions were legal. I hadn't known about the threats against the newspaper - they are outrageous.
I agree they should NOT have published the information, there is more potential for harm than good, but it is even more reprehensible to threaten the fourth estate for it.
We agree, threats of violence from ANYONE against the paper is wrong.
“Nothing good ever comes of violence.” - Martin Luther
Now you are saying you didn't know about the treats when you posted a link discussing these threats?
I'm confused as you seem to say one thing and then quickly say the opposite.
Hopefully Tuesday will bring some real actionable items to the table to help mitigate violence in the future.
All Tuesday will do is give Joe Biden the opportunity to come forth with another of his famous gaffes. The meetings he held are nothing more than a dog and pony show. It will be an opportunity for the Obama administration to take actions that they have already decided on unilaterally without consideration of the people's will or what will actually be effective. One week of meetings is not going to resolve the critical issues of mental health and gun violence. Anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish and naive.
And how exactly do you know that these meeting were"nothing more than a dog and pony show??" Where you there? Do you have some information that the public does not?
Or are you just assuming your imagination is the same as reality again?
Magnum, I take it you don't approve of the actions being taken by the Obama Administration in response to gun violence in America, what I take as a ban on Assault weapons and large magazines of over ten cartridges. What do you propose as an alternative?
He does have any alternatives. Somehow, he thinks this country is the only one that has people that have a mental illnesses, watch television, or play videogames and the massive number of guns in the US as compared to anywhere else in the world has nothing to do with anything ...
These folks are now faced with another tough decision. What do they do with the school building where the shootings took place? Rebuild it and keep it as a school? Tear it down and build a park and memorial? Sell the land and relocate the school somewhere else? Whatever the decision, it should be and must be made by the people in Connecticut without anyone else's input. They suffered the tragedy, they must find the most acceptable solution.
Questions for that poster are answered substantially quicker if you just ask Bull153 right off the bat. Saves him the trouble of logging out and back in again ...
I almost spit the water I was drinking all over my monitor there!
Thanks LarryBacca for posting the funniest thing I have read in a long, long time.
New York legislators are touting their recently passed gun control laws as a positive move to control gun violence.
Unfortunately, they were in such a hurry, they pulled a Nancy Pelosi. You know, you have to pass the bill before we can find out what is in it... Too bad they are more concerned with appearing good to the media rather than passing an effective law.
Some of the ridiculousness in the bill consists of limiting magazines to 7 rounds. What genius figured that out? So now some crazy only can shoot seven people before reloading rather than ten? Talk about stupid. They don't even make seven round magazines! So, the law say it is illegal to load more than seven rounds in a ten round clip. How in the hell are you going to enforce that nonsense!
There is no exception for law enforcement. So technically every office on duty is breaking the law since the standard load for a police issue Glock, for example, is 14 rounds. Oh, that's right, they are OK if they only load seven rounds.
This is asinine stupidity at its worse. This is meaningful and thoughtful gun control? Give me a freaking break!
D18 - ICRD
“There is nothing so asinine that governments will not proclaim it as official doctrine.” - Unknown
“We must dare to think about unthinkable things because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.” - J. William Fulbright
In a response to C_N in another blog, I spelled out things that the President could have done rather than sign 23 meaningless Executive Orders.
"4) Expand the requirement for a background check for the purchase of any firearm and a 7-day waiting period."
I think that closes the loophole. If you want me to be more specific, I think there should be a background check for every sale or transfer of a firearm, even between family members. Gun show sales should be held to the same requirements as any traditional firearms dealer. Private parties selling guns at gun shows must be required to go through a licensed dealer and meet the same requirements.
That answer your question?
D18 - ICRD
“Every sale has five basic obstacles: no need, no money, no hurry, no desire, no trust.” - Zig Ziglar
"How in the [heck] are you going to enforce that nonsense!"
Well Bull153, I thought most Police could count to 10. If there are 10 Bullets in a gun, it is illegal, 7, it's OK. Does not seem that hard of a concept understand.
As for Police, maybe7 rounds would be best after Officer Moody decided to unload into an unarmed person.
Also, Bull153's comment about closing the loopholes in gunshows is disingenuous as he was opposed to having a head of the ATF that would actual enforce and keep these background check records.
Oh well. Hypocrisy and double standards are difficult things to deal with.
Please tone down your language. You don't need to use such divisive and rude language in your posts. Continuing to do so diminishes any of your assumed credibility.
What actions? The Vice-President holds a week of meetings and gives a report to the President so he can author 23 meaningless executive orders that do little towards solving the problem. He talks about limiting assault weapons and magazine capacity, but he doesn't address Congress and give them a deadline. He assails the gun manufacturers and the gun owners, but doesn't even mention the violence that Hollywood produces or offers any suggestions about dealing with violent video games and those that are most likely to do harm.
So alternatives? I don't know what alternatives I can offer. I just know telling doctors it is alright to ask if I have a gun in the house is NOT an effective way to deal with the real problem.
A violent video game is a violent video game no matter who puts it out. The NRA is known for gun safety, gun training, and education - not violent video games.
Hypocritically, the NRA DID release a violent video game about one week after they more or less labeled them as the :root of all evil." Again, stop using your imagination to draw conclusions and try facts and reality, especially if you are going to pretend the NRA didn't do something it most certainly did.
If you would read the articles about the game you would find that it is not a violent video game, it is a target shooting game. Violent video games are Need for Speed; Halo4, Call to Duty Black Ops, Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch, and Resident Evil: Revelations. Those are filled with shooting, killing, blood and gore.
Just like the N_F_L and FIFA license games like Madden2012 and FIFA Soccer13, the NRA allowed the developer to license the game under the NRA. Apple determines the time frame and when they are going to release an application, so it is quite possible the developer submitted the app before the Sandy Hook tragedy.
In any case, the target range app is not a violent video game, not by a long shot.
For someone who almost loses his mind whenever your old identity of Hoffman is mentioned, you would think you'd show some courtesy to others. Now, I admit Ron and I are close friends, we see each other and talk every week, but while we share many of the same views and positions, we are certainly not one in the same.
You should remember the letter I posted to you last year when you were cyber stalking me and my family. Don't make me follow through with what I told you I'd do. Just use my screenname like you demand everyone else do, and we'll be just fine.
Funny, I didn't bring it up, LarryBacca did. That pesky reality again ...
"cyber stalking??" You are imagining things again.
"Don't make me follow through with what I told you I'd do."
One thing I have NEVER done is make threats against people here. You seem to have zero problem with such activities. Frankly, you should be kicked off any forum for making threats like you have above. Probably borderline illegal to make such threats over the internet.
You know what, you win.
I'm going to take a break. Your constant rude language and attempted insults are one thing, but you now threatening random people because you think they are me - when you have absolutely no idea who I am - is crossing the line in a major, major way.
I am against all violence. If it takes silence on this simple forum to mitigate potential violence you imply then so be it.
Now you resort to lying. You are the one who has called everyone here that isn't a regular 'Bull153'.
You deny trying to find out all about me last year by doing internet searhes and posting the results here in the forum?
Kicked off the forum for promising to follow through with appropriate legal action gainst you? Now who has a problem with reality?
Would you like me to post the letter I refer to for everyone to see, or would you like to just back off and behave like a normal person? It is your choice.
I didn't see your last post before posting my comment.
If it takes you taking a break to return these forums to some normalcy, then fine.
I made no threats, just a promise. There was no violence intended or implied. I will not be deterred by your paranoia.
If you take a break, I know many here will appreciate it. I doubt that will happen.
44, I took a look at the NRA "Bang" "Bang" target game. It allows you to choose your weapon, one of which is an Assault weapon. Granted it is not a "Violent" game where you kill other players but I have a hard time believing violent video games produce mass murderers. There are millions of people who play those violent video games all over the world. Wouldn't you think there would be more "Game Trained" Mass Murderers? I have not ever heard of a mass murderer who admitted he was driven to mass murder by a video game, have you?
Crime: In answer to your question, If bull is also 44 and 44 is also whomever, I would assume he uses a "Wheel of Fortune" type device or maybe a dartboard. Kind of like bull choose which imaginary country he was moving to if Obama won, which he did 332-206.:-) (He was trying for Rio in Brazil but a sudden gust of wind blew through his fortress of solitude which moved the map and his dart hit Australia instead...:-)
I never said violent video games produce mass murderers, but they do desensitize youth to violence, just like violent movies and TV. I'm not promoting censorship, but there is a need to address how such violence in games, TV, and movies affect youth.
The two shooters at Columbine were avid video gamers. Most mass shooters kill themselves so we don't have a chance to ask them how video games and movies affected them. Those that survive are not allowed to talk because their lawyers are trying to defend them. I believe there was one shooter who did admit that his skill at video games helped him when he went ballistic. In any case, the situation does deserve scrutiny just as much as mental illness and gun control.
On Saturday, a day where thousands of responsible gun owners showed up in droves in support of the 2nd Amendment's right to own firearms, there were three incidents at local gun shows.
At a Raleigh, NC gun show, three people were slightly injured when an individual's shotgun discharged as it was being checked prior to entering the venue. The owner was bringing it to the show to make a private party sale.
In Medina, OH, a gun dealer accidentally shot his partner in the arm and leg when he was opening a box with a firearm he'd just purchased from a private party at a gun show.
A 54 year old Indianapolis man shot himself in the hand with his own .45 caliber semi-automatic after leaving a local gun show there. No loaded firearms are allowed inside the gun show, so he was loading his gun after leaving.
These are three people who should have the guns taken away and never be allowed to own one. Safety with firearms is paramount, and all three of these people violated basic safety principles when handling firearms. You always make sure the gun is safe before handling, and you don't transport loaded firearms. You don't accept a firearm from anyone without checking it first to be sure it is safe. And you sure don't shoot yourself in the hand while loading a semi-auto unless you don't know what you are doing. Harsh? Perhaps, but we are doggone lucky that the injuries in these instances weren't more severe. People like these make it so much harder on responsible legal gun owners.
D20 - ICRD
“Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.” - Jeff Cooper
Video games don't produce mass murderers period.
The Assault weapons ban should be reinstated.
Cop killer ammunition should be banned.
Large capacity magazines should also be banned.
None of these affects 2nd amendment rights. NONE!!!
mmm... I have to go get some sleep. gotta get up early to watch the Inauguration. It's the second one for our President Obama, you know....:-)Oh, the score, in case anyone forgot, was 332-206..:-)
If anyone cares:
Seems Bull153 has major problems with honesty. While he claims to ignore here, he seems to have no problems sending attempted insults and rude language through the direct message system here. I say I'm leaving because of his threatening messages implying the use of violence and he just continues with them in what he wrongly assumed would be a more private forum.
This Bull153 or whatever he calls himself post to post here is nothing more than an immature bad attempt at a bully.
I'll now continue my break and laugh as it seems more and more people are getting wise to Bull153's disingenuous ways. Seems easier without me temporarily for everyone to see who is the real problem.
Hostility, threats and violence have no place in a rational discussion. Lately, this seems to be all Bull153 knows.