No fan of Republicans am I, but that was a ridiculous statement.

Look, this kind of malcontent is everywhere. In time when we lived in small towns, the authorities who decided who could legally have a gun had a good idea who should and shouldn't have one (yes, even back into the 1700s there were laws in most states/colonies about drunkards, criminals and spiritually and mentally defective being prohibited from having a weapon). Anyway, now we don't even know our neighbors. Guns were also once expensive costing almost a year's salary for a laborer. Today they are cheap and numerous. Applying the rules of the 1700s to our situation today is ridiculous. So, yes, even I - who is a shooting enthusiast - think that more regulation of gun ownership is a good idea. I will never belong to the NRA. They do not represent my beliefs.

This is why i call myself independent, just so i don't open my mouth and say something completely stupid. That said...lol...koreans are human, with many levels of beliefs, kinda like the rest of the world but this guy wasn't acting out based on his social background, but his mental illness and lack of social skills. I doubt his cultural background had anything to do with this.

The title is kinda misleading: it's not that he can't "deal" with women, it's that the way he chooses to deal with them can get One the death penalty.

One Goh, the former student accused of shooting dead seven people at a small Christian college in Oakland, Calif., was consumed by an inability to get along with women, according to a report.

But yet decided to go to nursing career which predominately are women. Talk about setting themselves up for failure. It's like saying that he hates the cold and the snow but yet decide to become a ski instructor. wow just wow.

BLS-744646, that's just plain idiotic!

different, I agree 100%. I have quite a few guns and love to shoot but really the ease that fruitcakes can obtain guns is ridiculous. The NRA is playing politics to get money from fanatics and don't care how many are killed by guns in the hands of the mentally challenged. I don't know much about this One Goh but I do know there was no way that George Zimmerman should have been allowed to carry a gun. His history screamed of a person that was a keg of dynamite with a short fuse and it was only a matter of time before he killed someone yet Florida did nothing to remove him as a threat to the public.

Certainly guns don't kill people just as dynamite doesn't kill people either but you cannot buy dynamite without a permit showing the need for it and paranoia is not a valid reason to buy a gun. In fact it's a good reason to not allow the person to buy one.

Another problem is the transfer of gun ownership outside the legal gun shop. People can sell their gun to any Tom, Dick, or Harry without running them through a background check and not be responsible for any crime that is permitted by the use of that gun. Since there is no title or registration required for ownership of the gun it can change hands a hundred times before it's used for a crime. Yet any attempt to have any control of ownership is met with extreme if not radical resistance by the NRA. We're not talking about denying people the right to own a gun, just to make them responsible for the gun and the transfer of the gun to someone else. They will put a man behind bars for having marijuana but do practically nothing to someone that has a gun without going through a background check. That's ludicrous.

differnet

Look, this kind of malcontent is everywhere. In time when we lived in small towns, the authorities who decided who could legally have a gun had a good idea who should and shouldn't have one (yes, even back into the 1700s there were laws in most states/colonies about drunkards, criminals and spiritually and mentally defective being prohibited from having a weapon).

I'm not sure in which century you last purchased a firearm but in the three decades or so since I've been buying them, I've had to fill out a BATF Form 4473 which addresses the points above plus several others. Of course, you can take your chances & lie about it but I've seen people turned down. Also, the dealer has discretion in whether or not to sell to an individual if he feels there's something not quite right. I've seen that happen as well.

Too bad you don't like the NRA. They are the ones pushing programs like "Three Strikes" & "Eddie Eagle". They are trying to keep firearms violations by criminals from being plea-bargained out of sentencing. They are fighting for the law-abiding citizen, even casual shooters such as you.

"This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services," Well, that's it in a nutshell. Could not have said it better. America 2012.

Problems with women? Good...then he'll have no issues in prison. And we'll have no issues once we strap his miserable posterior to a gurney.

May God bless the victims of this brutal, senseless tragedy.

@BLS...

Just remove the "L". There we go...

I actually find it somewhat amusing now that this nutter gets captured we have a news article saying he was a loser with the ladies.

It should be done more often. Whenever they get captured, run stories about how they are bad in bed and smell horrible etc.

Seaside Killer: Tiny Weiner

California Conman: Has Mommy Issues

Oceanview Strangler: Total Wuss

But I think Americans need to understand that different people all over the world have different manners and their manners don't make them anti-social.

PJ - Ever hear the phrase "When in Rome..."? Goh is in the USA. It isn't the responsibility of people in this country to change to suit him. It is his responsibility to adjust to our society if he wants to live here. He killed seven people and injured three. No one does this because he is politely asked how he is doing. The guy is a nutcase.

BTW, you were extremely rude to the Australians for not responding to their polite inquiry as to how you were doing. You were visiting Australia. It was your responsibility to adapt to their ways as much as possible, not to be a snob.

"This is America, where you can get a gun easier than mental health services." Priceless. As though guns and mental health services have anything at all to do with each other. As though guns kill people. I for one would be much more afraid of all the idiots out there if I did not have a gun.

One more thing: when are Americans going to quit segregating each other according to race? All I hear is African-American, Korean-American, etc... aren't we ALL Americans here, regardless of race? Does it really matter what country the guy came from? Perhaps he was even BORN here instead of migrating. An American did this, plain and simple. And he'll have plenty of time to work out his issues in jail, I'm sure.

First off, I think this guy was just a nutter. There is no helping someone predetermined in their endeavor to be stubborn and angry. But,

ABC - I agree with you, and what you quoted from above as well. People SHOULD try to accomodate someone who is unfamiliar with our culture the best they can, and to facilitate their assimilation. When someone from another culture comes to America, we aren't supposed to eradicate their culture.... we mix it into the pot. That's the beauty of this country.

Now the person coming to the States should make efforts to assimilate as well, it's the polite thing to do. When I travelled, I did my best to learn what little bit of the language I could muster and research the history and culture of the place, the faux pas, etc.

Most people in other countries enjoy that, even if it's poorly spoken, because it's polite. The only exceptions for that rule it seems is France and sometimes America. Americans get pretty snobbish and mocking if someone is unfamiliar with English. Such @sshole ethnocentric behaviour only discourages immigrants from speaking and learning English.

I had a feeling this string would head in this direction...Bluelake, I saw the same quote, though I don't think my take on it will be the same as yours.

"This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services," she said.

OK, I agree with the post earlier that stated the NRA is making it really easy for nut-cases to get a weapon. I don't see any problem with the regulations that were adopted under Clinton in the 90s relating to the mandatory waiting period-5 days is not unreasonable, as long as you get law enforcement to monitor it.
That said, GUNS don't kill people, this guy is an idiot who looked at his issues with women, AS THEIR FAULT, not his. There was no cultural issue here, I have a hard time relating to what women want, but I haven't seen it as anyone's but my mental perspective. My shyness is my issue, not the women who find it awkward. I have never had the perspective, nor can I even wrap my mind around the state of mind this guy had, to even consider blaming someone else for his inadequacies.
The unfortunate part of this is, unless he had been diagnosed with some type of mental defect or committed a crime, any background check would have still allowed him to buy a gun.

All that I can say is what a chicken @!$%# way to do things because your feeling were hurt when is society going to step up and deal with these kind of people. It seems that anymore if someone looks at you wrong and it hurts your feelings just go out and kill anybody you see. Let's stand up and deal with these wreidos. Maybe these are the people who should be in afganstan fighting a sinceless war instead.

Shuklack - made me giggle!

If our news organizations would quit putting these freaks out there after they commit these crimes we might just see less of them. Some of these insane people just want to be noticed. From now on when a person is captured doing such a terrible thing they should refuse to publish a picture or name them. Just call them what they are "insane". Lock them away with no publicity at all.

Maybe it's time for a new law.

By the way, I am a life member of the NRA and proud of it. I say anyone who commits a crime with a weapon should receive the harshest penalty on the books. I do not think for one minute that I am alone in my thinking amoung NRA members.

The issue of guns in America needs to be discussed in a fair and balanced manner. Since most of the authors on this thread are obsessed with the offensive use of guns in the commission of crimes, I invite them to consider the defensive use of guns in the prevention of crimes.

According to The National Self-Defense Survey, the defensive use of guns is about three to four times as common as criminal use of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there are approximately 2.5 MILLION incidents of defensive gun use per year in the United States. A similar national survey conducted by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the findings of the National Self-Defense Survey.

Moreover, according to crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey, victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all.

To summarize, if gun possession among law-abiding citizens tends to reduce crime, then reducing such gun possession is not a social good.

Maybe I misread, but didn't the article say he was an American Korean - meaning he was born here in America? Therefore, he should know American customs. Leave his Asian roots out of it. He was American! He was just another nutjob who got his hands on a gun and took his frustrations out on innocent people. Heritage has nothing to do with it.

dman, we in Montana have plenty of guns, but it's incredibly rare that any of us use them to shoot each other. Explain that.

When you take the people's guns away, you leave them ripe for the picking. Here, on the other hand, people rarely break and enter into other people's homes. Know why? Cause in Montana, you never know who has a gun under their pillow waiting for you. But our gun-related crime rate is low low low! I think it has to do with our culture of being comfortable around guns, as well as being much more polite and respectful to others than most American society seems to be. Maybe.

Rhonda.....that just says that much more has to be done to keep guns only in the hands of law abiding, responsible people. Problem is the NRA and gun groups fight any control whatsoever and thus makes cheap guns available to anyone. Responsible gun ownership is not the problem. Note the NRA support of assault weapons, armor piercing rounds. No one is saying take guns away from responsible people, but we can't have every nut case and emotional disaster packing a firearm wherever they go.

Therefore, he should know American customs

Well, not necessarily. 'Hyphenated Americans' (as John Wayne put it) can refer to a naturalized citizen, as well as someone born here. It's not necessary, we are indeed all just Americans. But in some cases it's appropriate when trying to understand someone's cultural background. Hyphenation is overrused, but it has its place in vernacular.

I was assuming he was only naturalized because of the earlier reports of language problems, and that he was attending a school for Korean speakers, and that he was attending nursing school at his age. I know it may not be the case, but it sort of sounded like what an immigrant might do instead of someone who was born here and came up through the public school system.

Workerbee1-

Your last sentence is right on. When did everyone turn so angry and rude? People always talk about how gun violence is low in Canada - that's because people there (like in Montana) are nice, polite & respectful...

WorkerBee1, I picked up on the same quote:

"This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services,"

I do believe in the right to bear arms, including guns. But its not just a governmental problem, but a social one, that people will just pick up a gun before they see a therapist. That would be true, in all likely hood, even if it were free to see a therapist!

That's what is more f-cked up about America than its guns. By the way, for all the anti-US people, please keep in mind that your country of Utopian comparrison is, of course, no where close in scale of population, no matter which one you want to pick.

China is more violent (and just because you don't report crimes, doesn't mean they don't happen, China), Russia is more violent. They also suffer from the exact same problem of making it easier to get a gun than to see a therapist. Let's not even get into the extreme examples of most countries in Africa or the Middle East, including the ones with money (Israel).

The only part I agree with is we could do better for ourselves as a country. I don't give a rat's *ss about some other country, because I live here. Owning a gun is fine. Using it to solve problems quickly, is super dumb.

I felt horrible for all involved in this tragedy when I heard he was picked on for poor English... but, now knowing that the school was founded by a South Korean and that he is not remorseful whatsoever for what he did... he deserves no sympathy for the lives he senselessly took. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

I can't deal with women, but I deal without them.

@ABC don't even talk about when you go to Rome. Keep that BS with you since your ancestors wherever they went decimated entire cultures. So @!$%# off.

You don't know nothing about how much i have adapted or not. So don't make wildass guesses.

Maybe I misread, but didn't the article say he was an American Korean - meaning he was born here in America?

From what I heard in a radio news report last night, he was born in South Korea and had become a U.S. citizen at some point...assuming that the report was correct and that I heard and understood it correctly!

About the guns and mental health services, yes, if you go to someplace where you might expect to purchase a firearm, you can start finding them right around $100. You won't be getting much, (well used, rusty, probably rather antiquated, may not be especially usable) but that's about where they start. Can you get an appointment with a psychiatrist or other therapist for $100 these days?

I'd say that to get a serviceable modern firearm, you're realistically looking at roughly $300-600. Now, granted, a lot of us these days can't spare that kind of money to buy a gun, so 'cheap' as a trait is questionable. But, if you can come up with the scratch, you buy a gun, and it's paid for. On the other hand, what's one appointment with a therapist going to do for you? Not much! You'll be asked to book another appointment in the near future. And another after that. And another after that. As the old saying goes, the day the money runs out is the day that you're 'cured'! By that measure, I'd say that a gun is certainly more affordable for most people than an indefinite amount of hour sessions of talk therapy will be in the end.

Years ago, I thought seriously about going into that profession. Unfortunately, I learned very quickly that while there is much need for mental health professionals, there is not so much demand for them. The people who really need them just can't afford to pay a doctor to spend hours upon hours helping them sort things out. As an economics professor of mine once asserted, no matter how much an eight year old boy may want a Porsche or Ferrari, he can't buy one, so he represents zero demand for either. I'd say that sums up the situation with mental health services fairly well. Therapy can become as large a money pit as anything out there, and the average person just doesn't have the wherewithal to enter it.

BLS-744646 is just an example of the kind of mindless, bigoted hatred, that exists among Liberals today. This is what happens when you bow down and make enslave yourself to an ideology, rather than relying on actual, independent, critical thinking.
As to One Goh, he's obviously deranged. He probably wasn't always this way, but people change over time. Once again, people here miss the point. The firearm isn't the problem. The person is. He could have committed these killings by means of a vehicle, a blade or starting a fire. Forget the weapon. It's immaterial to the results. One killing is just as heinous as five. It's not about quantity. Sometimes people lose control, and do bad things. It's just that simple.

Too bad you don't like the NRA. They are the ones pushing programs like "Three Strikes" & "Eddie Eagle". They are trying to keep firearms violations by criminals from being plea-bargained out of sentencing. They are fighting for the law-abiding citizen, even casual shooters such as you.

Don't bother. No one wants to hear that the NRA is against illegal gun ownership, or that most gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons.

Besides, they have to blame someone to negate personal responsibility.

@BLS-744646..........."Koreans are notorious Republicans. I don't blame guns. I blame their Conservativeness."

Your statement is a perfect example and proof positive that liberalism is truly a mental disorder. Even though your comment has been collapsed, I hope everyone takes the time to open the comment so they can be reminded just how liberals think. Instead of blaming the disturbed person that did the shooting you blame everyone and everything except placing responsibility where it belongs. According to you the reason those seven people are dead is because One Goh was Korean and they "are notorious Republicans." And since he is Republican his conservativeness is also to blame for the deaths. You really need some serious medical attention. I understand they have some new medications that really work for many types of mental diseases. You really are an embarrassment to yourself and to your fellow liberals. That is really saying something because it takes a lot to embarrass a liberal about their political views.

Maybe it's the twisted culture that makes billions over billions by selling movies that advocate violence, and rap that worships it in their lyrics. 'Gun control'? Think again. Guns are the perfect scapegoat to allow Hollywood and the music industry to keep raking in insane profits.

I don't know many people who can deal with women but everybody don't go around knocking them off.

Goh: I haves mental issue dat don lets meh "gets along" wif wimen.

Translation: Mommy finally weened meh at age 5 so I could go a-schoolin' AND Iz NOT HAPPY WIF DAT. Sumbody sends meh a Waaaambulance!!!!!

Loser (rolling eyes)

So, yes, even I - who is a shooting enthusiast - think that more regulation of gun ownership is a good idea. I will never belong to the NRA. They do not represent my beliefs.

Just as they now have alternative groups to the AARP, there needs to be an alternative to the NRA. That would be a group that advocates the 2nd Amendment and responsible gun ownership, but that isn't bat@!$%# crazy about it, and that is all for reasonable regulations. OTOH, we have to be glad he didn't have a homemade bomb instead and kill hundreds of people.

All I hear is African-American, Korean-American, etc... aren't we ALL Americans here, regardless of race?

Good point. Anyone can just look at the photo and figure out he's Korean (who usually look distinct from other people from the Far East), but there is no point mentioning it in the article unless ethnicity is actually pertinent, as in the Martin/Zimmerman case, for example. The only other time it should be mentioned is when the criminal is still on the loose, in which case a full description is useful as well as the phone number of the local police station.

He can't deal with women.... neither can the rest of us ;)

Unfortunately, I learned very quickly that while there is much need for mental health professionals, there is not so much demand for them.

I suppose it depends on where you live, but many if not most counties have such services available on a sliding scale which can often go down to "free". Medicaid pays for psychiatric services and meds but just like a private insurer, they may balk at paying for anything that's still under patent, even if it's the only thing that might be effective for that particular patient. If your doctor goes to bat for you, you might win the battle, eventually.

Another possibility is the closest university, particulary if they have a medical school. Well supervised graduate students can work with you, also on a sliding scale. I did this for awhile and was paying only $25 a session, on a family income of about $40,000. That would give you three to six months for the price of a gun! :)

Do you know what you do with a Mad Dog, you shoot them. Most Humane thing to do, not like what he did. He hated his Mother for what ever reason??? Poor guy wasn't takin his meds???

Somebody above said that we can't MAKE mental patients take their meds............

Sure we can. Commit them; Strap to a bed; Stick an IV in their arm. VOILA!

Here in minnesota we have pretty relaxed gun laws and its easy to get one i have 4. We also have really low numbers of violent crimes per capita and exeptionaly low numbers per capita of gun crimes. Califorina actually has pretty strict gun control laws and way out does minnesota in gun crimes so aparently there laws havnt worked out to good for them.. I think it has more to do with a culture then a law.

Too bad you don't like the NRA. They are the ones pushing programs like "Three Strikes" & "Eddie Eagle".

NRA president:

“[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners — they’ll say they left them alone...In public, he’ll remind us that he’s put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn’t pushed for new gun control laws… The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he’s actually been good for the Second Amendment.

It’s all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country. Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled... President Obama and his cohorts, yeah, they’re going to deny their conspiracy to fool gun owners."

When the leader of your organization is a conspiracy theory, tin-foil hat wearing, nut-job... that organization loses all credibility. But by all means, keep pushing your "massive Obama conspiracy".... Ohhhhhhh, look out. He's gonna get you. Be verrrrrry scared. (cue scary music)

God damn conspiracy theorists and their retarded ideas.

Maybe these are the people who should be in afganstan fighting a sinceless war instead.

You see how that works out for us when they start randomly killing people. This is not the type of person I want representing my country. Nor would I want someone's kid fighting along with a nutcase like this guy. I understand your wish to make this guy cannon fauder, but he isn't worthy of a military position.

IndieParty

God damn conspiracy theorists and their retarded ideas.

Yep, both the tin-foil wearers that want to arm everyone & the b*stards that want to disarm everyone.

This guy obviously has major mental issues but the liberals are always looking for situations like this so they can blame it on the gun, as though the gun has a life of it's own and fires at random. It's the crazy person holding the gun that's at fault. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws around and look what is happening with the drug cartel down there, and now the violence is spilling over in to America on our southern borders. If they ever succeed in disarming America we are going to be in the same situation that Mexico is in right now. When England disarmed their population, crime went up, not down.

Just as they now have alternative groups to the AARP, there needs to be an alternative to the NRA.

They're out there. Gun Owners of America is the first one that comes to my mind. They're just not as big as the NRA is, and haven't been around as long. The NRA dates back to 1871, founded, I understand, by Union veterans of the Civil War who were rather appalled at the startling lack of shooting ability demonstrated by many of the volunteers and the relative handful of conscripts fighting for the US of A.

The Second Amendment prevented or kept a legal impediment from keeping individual citizens from possessing, maintaining, and being proficient in the use of arms as a national security asset. What the Constitution could not do was ensure that everyone could have one and a supply of ammunition. What ultimately happened in many larger families was that a man might well have several sons who were of what is generally considered to be 'military age', but only one musket or fowling piece amongst them. Hence, usually only one son would be attending drill with the local militia, or at least one at a time. If they could ever reach a point of prosperity where they could afford to each have a weapon, they'd be set. Problem was, in those days, you'd be fairly well established before you could even afford a musket or (especially) a rifle. Until then, you used the 'family' firearm. After then, you shared the one you bought with your sons until they were grown and could afford their own. And so on...

Similarly,

I suppose it depends on where you live, but many if not most counties have such services available on a sliding scale which can often go down to "free". Medicaid pays for psychiatric services and meds but just like a private insurer, they may balk at paying for anything that's still under patent, even if it's the only thing that might be effective for that particular patient. If your doctor goes to bat for you, you might win the battle, eventually.

Another possibility is the closest university, particulary if they have a medical school. Well supervised graduate students can work with you, also on a sliding scale. I did this for awhile and was paying only $25 a session, on a family income of about $40,000. That would give you three to six months for the price of a gun! :)

Yes, it depends on where you live. Many more remote and less densely populated areas just do not have this resource available, no matter who was paying or how much you could afford. There just isn't enough money available (in the form of cash-flow) to keep a practicing psychiatrist or similar professional afloat.

If you're not paying for your own therapy, someone else is! If you don't have much of a tax base in a given area, the available funding for these programs can be very scant. There may be many people who desperately need to see someone, but either the professional isn't anywhere nearby, the transportation to the nearest university is a huge issue for many, or for whatever the reason, some of the people don't realize they need help ('lack of insight') or outright refuse to go even though they know they should.

Various programs do help many people. Unfortunately, there are way more people who need help than there are professionals to help them or even taxpayers willing to pay for it.

We also have really low numbers of violent crimes per capita and exeptionaly low numbers per capita of gun crimes.

Of course you do. So do we. It makes sense that crime is higher in areas where the criminals know they will probably have the upper hand with the only gun. If they know there is a really good chance they will be shot by their intended victim, they won't take the chance. But the people that want all guns to go away have to ignore things like this; it doesn't fit their agenda.

There will be, of course, much less crime in areas that are sparsely populated, and much more crime in densely populated areas.

In the hinterlands, most rural dwellers have lived there all their lives, or at least a good portion of their lives. People tend to know most everyone else in these areas. If one commits a crime and is seen, identification by a witness would generally be rather easy. People also tend to not want to commit 'random' crimes against people they know, if they can help it.

Life is much different in the big cities and in populous areas where people constantly move about and one generally does not, nor is expected to, know or pay any attention to their neighbor.

Many more remote and less densely populated areas just do not have this resource available, no matter who was paying or how much you could afford. There just isn't enough money available (in the form of cash-flow) to keep a practicing psychiatrist or similar professional afloat.

I realize that if you choose to live in a remote area there is less of EVERYTHING, from medical specialists to private schools to restaurants. Yet, as the TiGor says, there is less crime in rural areas. I disagree that city people don't know their neighbors, though. We certainly most of our immediate neighbors just like everyone else. I know all of my non-student neighbors; the neighborhood is so close to a couple of major universities that there is a constantly changing bunch of college studens and I admit I don't know most of them, but they are harmless. However, we have little cime, partly because of the students because they are up and about at all hours, making the neighborhood less attractive to criminals. (In a "group house" there is usually somebody home. Also they have nothing to steal because they take their laptops to class with them.) Contrast this to some yuppie neighborhood where everyone is at work and they have nice stuff--a thief's paradise.

Modern psychiatrists don't do much more than prescribe medication and do checkups. All of the meds they prescribe can also be given and supervised by any primary care physician. It is preferable to have a psychiatrist, but it isn't really necessary. Actual therapy is done by therapists, clinical social workers and the like, people whose salaries are far lower than psychiatrists. If we had the will, we could have facilities in every county in the US at least on a part time basis.

They are part of the issue. I'm for gun rights, but it's too easy for criminals and crazies to get guns.

You got it in a nutshell Rev...

Guns ARE the issue here. There will always be mentally unbalanced people who want to kill. With a knife or a bat, they can harm a couple of people. But give them a gun, and now you have a massacre.

Which one of the items on your list was designed to kill? Guns have only one designated purpose.

And if we ban all guns...California would still not have any mental health care since they're bankrupt (not to mention corrupt). California needs to recognize reality and allow good lawful licensed folks to carry concealed firearms on campus, as do other states that don't permit it. It simply serves to ensure more death.

I'm not being disingenuous...I just don't agree with you.

This is the WORLD.

Where you can find a baseball bat or a knife too.

Guns are NOT the issue here.

Guns ARE the issue, especially their ready availability to anybody, for any purpose.

The next few points are both so simple and so obvious that they scarcely need repeating, but they seem to beyond the comprehension of most of the NRA crowd:

• Neither knives nor bats can outrun a faster person, or injure a person who is more than a few feet distant. But nobody can outrun a bullet.
• A crazy man, armed with a bat or a knife may be able, if motivated, and reasonably athletic, to attack and either kill or injure several people in a public place. A crazy man who is merely ambulatory can kill anybody with 10 yards of himself and kill scores of people, as did the Virginia Tech shooter (April 2007), or the San Diego McDonald's shooter (July 1984).
• Except in a martial arts movie, NOBODY armed with but a knife or a bat, is capable of killing as many people as did the shooters in these incidents.
• The statement "Criminals will always obtain guns", is only true in the U.S.A. because there are so many guns at large in our society. The gun may be illegally in the criminal's possession, but in 99% of the cases, it was originally manufactured and sold legally. Eventually a certain number are sold to, stolen by or other wise transferred to a criminal.
• In Europe, where gun laws are strict and strictly enforced, one hears of multiple shooting events maybe once a year. In the U.S., they are virtually a weekly occurrence, so commonplace as to almost cease to be newsworthy.

So make of these points what you will. I've come to the sad conclusion that for the hard-core, gun rights advocate, his [or her] beliefs are based not upon fact, but a deep, emotional commitment, somewhat akin to religion. Rational arguments do not sway them.

What?? Another shooter with anger management issues!!!

Clearly it is time to move against putting guns in the hands of not just criminals, but any body whose been treated for anger management issues.

Guns are no more the issue than planes, trains, or automobiles. Any one of these things can be a weapon to a madman.'

I'm curious, Bruce, how would your average madman use a train or a plane to kill? An automobile? Yes, it could be so used by anybody with a driver's license. But to use a train or a plane requires specific skills most people do not possess.

Al Qaeda used planes to carry out their attacks. But these were members of a terrorist organization, who were sponsored and trained to make their attacks. This One Goh, does not strike me as somebody capable of commandeering a plane, or bombing a train. He was just capable enough to obtain load and use a gun.

You do see the difference?

California needs to recognize reality and allow good lawful licensed folks to carry concealed firearms on campus, as do other states that don't permit it. It simply serves to ensure more death.

3 gold bars - The murder rate (per 100,000), in California in 2010 was 4.9 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/cacrime.htm).

In Florida, a 'Will Issue' state since 1987, the murder rate for the same year was 5.2 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm).

In Texas, a 'Will Issue' state since 1995, the murder rate for the same year was 5.0 (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm).

Three large, urbanized states, each will illegal immigrant and illicit drug issues. Yet California, a 'May Issue' state has the lowest murder rate.

How come, 3 gold bars, how come?

So what did he use then if not a gun. Give that guns do not kill crap a rest. Anyone with a mental health issue can go out and buy a gun. Keep being a ;ackey for the arms industry. I am not anti gun I am for gun control for all of our sakes. Night before last five people in my city got shot Last nigh two. In england they have complete gun control and do better.

Agreed, guns do make it much easier for madmen to kill. The ease of availability may as well encourage them to take the kind of action that they normally wouldn't. People die because of this, and that's a tragedy.

But I am not willing to give up my right to arms because crazy pos's like this guy might use one to go on a shooting rampage now and then. F that. Crazy trashpiles like Goh here don't get to determine what freedoms I can and cannot have.

Guns didn't make him go crazy. Maybe it would be wise to look at the real problem, not the tool he used to act-out his problems.

PleasedToMeetYou... Won'tYouGuessMyNameLOL... HEY D MAN!!!!!!!!!! Ever heard of 9/11????????????... lol. You DON'T need to know how to fly a plane OR operate a train to control it. S

Are you serious? Without instrument rating as pilot, nobody could navigate a hijacked plane, fly it hundreds of miles off course and into a building. And if I am the pilot you can put a box cutter to my throat and it won't make me fly the plane into a building. Since I'm dead either way, why would I comply?

I'm still wondering how you think One Goh would have commandeered a plane or a train to attack this school, or how he would have used a car to target the school administrator.

Those demanding that my safety, by disarming me, be compromised because of the UNLAWFUL behavior of another can shove it.

Well, I've given you statistics do demonstrate that society at large is not

...

//This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services," she said.//

Again instead of taking charge and and leading others to personal responsibility a liberal mayor puts blame on someone else or something political to take a tragedy and the inevitable storms of a world plagued with the co existence of Gods providence and sinful nature, and side tracks the sin part, the murder part and turns into something else. This time it is not a "hate" crime it is a behavioral thing. Listen if this guys in a christian atmosphere and not sensing the presence of God and not practicing the forgiveness of sins and not coming to the high priest which is enormously outside the realm of religious organizations than this group of Christians failed to their job and the Lord will be holding them accountable more so. And for anyone concerned about the issue of "hate" and you want to bring Jesus into it, you need to have the proper context and actually listen to the whisper of Our Lord Savior and Creator Jesus Christ who is One with the Father- ALL murder is bad, there is no prejudice or murder that is "more" harmful or criminal. Murder is murder and justice often with mankind who inherited sin will fail us, it is mostly about mercy and grace/forgiveness , these are more than psychological sciences and behavioral issues they are Divine in and of themselves form heaven and unnatural for mankind(so no religions or Christian labels will help you out with that) they are quite unlike justice and fairness. Mercy is the only Way...we all turned form God and are naturally disobedient to God , without Christ and the shed blood and knowing who God is and what His "holiness" is that His heavenly righteousness died for us to carry us despite the natural disasters and despite the co existence of sins, He allowed for us to exist and live and learn to love even though evil (weed with the wheat) may harm the ultimate growing crop He would not reverse the world and lose the root of all that will come to fruition at the harvest of true life, . America needs not to wake up to liberalism and the political correctness but rather wake up to the proper theology of what Christ and the power of forgiveness of sin and the mercy of God and Jesus full of grace and truth. Not religion but rather the relationship with the Lord Himself, instead of judging this guy people should have been praying and loving on him not making fun of his speech and inadequacies seems everyone knew , so they will be held ultimately at fault because they proclaim to see and they proclaim to know God in some capacity according the label of the school especially.

This is awful once again, until people realize the Holy SPirit is a free gift and continue to wallow in false religions and the security of a label they will miss the precious gift of salvation and the "real" Way.

Sorry about all this , to all involved, we all need to pay more attention to those around us and forgive all our enemies and trust God and understand the clinical problems better to make a difference and help those in need and not be childish and snicker. sin is the issue and God has a plan..to all those connected to the tragedy i pray you find peace and reconciliation.

Guns are easier to obtain than mental health treatment and automatically the guns are the issue. Maybe mental health treatment needs to be easier to obtain? Blades and blunt instruments can kill a few, guns can kill dozens. Fertilizer, household chemicals in the right proportions and recipes readily available on the internet can kill hundreds. Are you going to try to take away my right to gardening too? If one purposefully plowed a car into a crowd he could kill dozens too depending on the size and velocity of the vehicle. Want to take my right to drive next? Guns get outlawed and make the left wing all happy and cheery. What do you think is going to get smuggled in to the United States alongside all of the coke and other drugs? Supply and demand people. It's not a tool that's evil or causes harm, it's the intent behind it. And if guns are outlawed laws will have guns.

"Guns are not the issue"

I guess your child wasn't killed yesterday

Guns didn't make him go crazy. Maybe it would be wise to look at the real problem, not the tool he used to act-out his problems.

By that logic, shuklack, we should allow private citizens to also have hand grenades and rocket launchers too. After all, in the hands of lawful citizens they are just tools which will be only used to prevent crime.

If you say that you feel safer carrying a gun in public places, I have no rejoinder. You are the best able to assess the degree of threat present in the world you inhabit. I can say that in 50+ years of living, I've never had or had need of a gun, and have only once heard of somebody using a gun to prevent a crime, and he was only suspicious of criminal intent, and displayed his gun.

Most never have the need to use or resort to deadly force while in public places, and if such an event occurred, the likelihood that you would be able to outdraw and out shoot your assailant, who has the choice of both the time and place of his attack, seems small to me.

The Second Amendment is what it is and should not be ignored or explained away. But this belief that better arming the public will reduce crime flies in the face of both logic and statistics.
In the U.S., similarly urbanized states with relaxed gun laws do not show lower crime rates than states with more stringent laws. New York and California both have lower murder rates than Texas or Florida. Massachusetts' murder rate is half that of Arizona's.

Western Europe with its strict gun laws has a fraction of the murder rate of the U.S.

Canada's murder rate is also a fraction of the U.S. rate.

So, are all these guns making us safer, or less safe?

Will198

"Guns are easier to obtain than mental health treatment and automatically the guns are the issue. Maybe mental health treatment needs to be easier to obtain?"

Great question, Will. Perhaps we can have it both ways, gun rights and mental health care. The problem, you see, is those pesky teabaggers and their Republican poodles who don't want to make health care available to everyone.

We need to have ourselves a country and as tax paying citizens we should have a right to health care throughout our lives no matter what. The physical and mental well-being of citizens is much more important in building a succesful country than simply having guns.

Fertilizer, household chemicals in the right proportions and recipes readily available on the internet can kill hundreds. Are you going to try to take away my right to gardening too?

Be serious.

To begin with , fertilizer has a legitimate, non-lethal use in our society. And the ability to find a recipe on the internet does not guarantee the ability to build, secret and detonate a bomb.

The recipe for such bombs may be readily available, but are beyond the imagination of most mad men. There is evidence that Amy Bishop once attempted to send a bomb to a work colleague. The bomb, if sent by her, never detonated. But she when faced with denial of tenure, a virtual professional death sentence, she was quite able to obtain a gun a fatally shoot some of her colleagues.

If she could not obtain a gun, those people would likely all be alive today.

Many right wingers are afraid of guns. They also think their political party is against them also. Well in the open that party may want to appear that way but bhind closed doors they are many times worse. here are some facts to show you the really do nothing to keep guns away from the dangerous people.

As of 2010, federal law does not prohibit members of terrorist organizations
from purchasing or possessing firearms or explosives

Between February 2004 and February 2010, 1,225 firearm and three explosives
background checks for people on terrorist watch lists were processed through the
federal background check system. Of these, 91% of the firearm transactions and
100% of the explosives transactions were allowed

Under federal law, individuals who have been convicted of a felony offense that
would typically prohibit them from possessing firearms can lawfully possess
firearms if their civil rights are restored by the requisite government entities Meaning if you are rich or know some important people.

It's just plane rubish that guns are easier to get than healthcare. it's just the politicians in CA trying to fan the flames.

By that logic, shuklack, we should allow private citizens to also have hand grenades and rocket launchers too.

That's a strawman dman and you know it. Of course there is a reasonable expectation that one wouldn't be allowed to obtain military grade assault weaponry for their high level of killing power. Which is also why I'm against extended magazines for handguns. Those have no real self-defense application or even militia application... they are unrealistic for anything other than killing lots of unarmed people at close range.

After all, in the hands of lawful citizens they are just tools which will be only used to prevent crime.

That's just silly.

I can say that in 50+ years of living, I've never had or had need of a gun, and have only once heard of somebody using a gun to prevent a crime, and he was only suspicious of criminal intent, and displayed his gun.

You have been most fortunate. Not everyone is so.

The Second Amendment is what it is, and should not be ignored, or explained away. But this belief that better arming the public will reduce crime flies in the face of both logic and statistics.

I don't subscribe to that belief. I just simply don't think it will make that big of a difference on the large scale, and sacrifices of safety must be made in order to maintain certain freedoms. Most murders are done by career criminals, these lone crazies are only a small fraction of the overwhelming majority of gun deaths in the United States. The career criminals will get weapons, one way or another. The US just happens to be filling that demand (and weapons are indeed one of our major industries). If the US stops filling it, someone else will. There is no doubt about that.

Trains make wonderful weapons; the hard part is getting your victims to lay on the tracks.

One of the few voices of reason on the subject of guns. Dman, you are THE MAN. You have made really good points and I am not sure why the pro-gun people even bother with the illogical debates.

Barabas, what is your point? I am worried about you. Where was the all mighty Jesus when these people were being killed?

I never heard people with baseball bat or knife killing 5-10-20 people like cockroaches.

I can't think of even one crime with a fully auto capability.

Really? It happens relatively frequently, especially with illegally modified AK's. Legitimately owned Class 3's are usually not involved in crimes, because a person has to register it and the tight controls just wouldn't make sense for a criminal to get the weapon legally when the same killing power can be accomplished illegally. Also, less deadly firearms often serve the intended purpose just fine. Try robbing someone with a grenade and see what happens, lol. Because of NFA, there are also much more strict punishments in owning/transporting such weapons without following the proper regulations - this gives the government an increased ability to put criminals away for very long times if they are caught doing so.

But, if there were no restrictions on class 3's and they were as easily obtainable as your everyday firearm, you can bet your ass that these occassional nutters would get much higher body counts.

Restrictions are there for good reason, and I support controls on weapons. But an outright ban I absolutely do not support.

I sure hope that gun is captured and locked away. Life without parole for that gun.

There are NO restrictions for Class III weapons except the tax. If you can legally buy/own a firearm you can buy a machine gun, dude

There is a tax and registration process that the owner must go through - as well as for dealers and manufacturers. There are additional restrictions when transporting Class 3s across state lines as well. You can't just walk into a walmart and buy one. That's the point.

If you want to turn the argument to "illegally" owned firearms no matter what the class we aren't talking apples and oranges anymore, are we?

I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that Class 3's usually aren't involved in many crimes? Yes, I know that and said that. You said 'full auto' though originally, so I corrected you on that - full auto weapons are indeed involved in numerous crimes. I then explained why illegally modified full-autos are preferred over legally owned Class 3's by criminals and gangs.

And legally vs illegally owned firearms are more like comparing apples to spoiled apples. They all come from the same tree.

dman - A murder rate of 4.9, 5.0 and 5.2 are essentailly the same when the margin of error is taken into consideration, Einstein. All you are doing is stating that the murder rate is essentially the same from one state to the next, regardless of the gun policy in each state.

@PleasedToMeetYou... Won'tYouGuessMyName

if you can legally purchase a firearm you can legally own any class III weapons. All the Feds ask is you pay the $200.00 transfer tax. How many crimes have occurred by these weapons? I can't think of even one crime with a fully auto capability.

I can name one-- the bank robberies in California in the 90's that ended in a violent shootout. The perpetrators were wearing full body armor and had more firepower than the responding officers, which were armed predominantly with handguns. Both suspects were shot and killed. Here's the wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

That being said, this was an isolated incident. FBI's statistics on the matter show that full-auto weapons are used in less than 1% of all gun crimes (I think the figure is somewhere around .01% but I'm not sure).

@PJ

I never heard people with baseball bat or knife killing 5-10-20 people like cockroaches.

Then you haven't been paying attention to the news out of Asia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_school_massacre

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1988758,00.html

@Shuklack

It happens relatively frequently, especially with illegally modified AK's.

No it doesn't. Check the FBI crime statistics. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, mostly small calibers (.38 is the most common, if I recall).

Restrictions are there for good reason, and I support controls on weapons. But an outright ban I absolutely do not support.

I can agree with that.

@Donn

I sure hope that gun is captured and locked away. Life without parole for that gun.

LOLZ!

@dman (and others)

Firearms are used more frequently to deter crime than they are used to commit them-- by an order of twice as often or more. Consider this:

Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5,340,000 violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2008. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 436,000 or 8% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

So, 436,000 crimes committed with guns vs 989,883 crimes stopped, prevented or otherwise deterred by civilian use of firearms. Seems that the statistics do in fact support the argument that guns can and do prevent crime.

Read more here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

For additional anecdotal evidence, check out the crime statistics for Kennesaw, GA-- the so-called "Gun Town, USA."

Guns are no more the issue than planes, trains, or automobiles. Any one of these things can be a weapon to a madman.

You can't be serious. Which one of these things is not like the other? I'll give you a hint, 3 of them are modes of trainsportation and 1 was designed and manufactured with one intent: to kill.

The issue of guns in America needs to be discussed in a fair and balanced manner. Since most of the authors on this thread are obsessed with the offensive use of guns in the commission of crimes, I invite them to consider the defensive us of guns in the prevention of crimes.

According to The National Self-Defense Survey, the defensive use of guns is about three to four times as common as criminal use of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there are approximately 2.5 MILLION incidents of defensive gun use per year in the United States. A similar national survey conducted by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the findings of the National Self-Defense Survey.

Moreover, according to crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey, victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all.

To summarize, if gun possession among law-abiding citizens tends to reduce crime, then reducing such gun possession is not a social good.

Another thing, dman, with respect to your statement about knives/baseball bats being less lethal @ comment 2.9 -- you've made the same mistake that so many people make when looking at this issue. You've narrowed your perspective to only take into consideration the assailant, rather than the victim. That is to say, you've made the (correct) observation that if this guy had only been armed with a knife or blunt object, he would not have killed as many people, but you fail to follow the line of reasoning to its obvious conclusion: that those 989,883 people who stopped a crime with a gun (see my comment @ 2.34) would have been less likely to succeed had they been armed with a knife or blunt object.

You see, a firearm is "the great equalizer" -- its the only weapon that's going to make a 100 lb woman stand on equal footing with a 190 lb male who's trying to attack her. If she was wielding a knife, it is extremely unlikely that she would be able to overpower her attacker-- it is far more likely that the assailant would take the knife (or baseball bat, hammer, etc) and use it against her due to the simple and inalienable fact that a 100 lb woman is going to be weaker than a 190 lb male, assuming the same level of fitness. Your argument basically rehashes "Might Makes Right" where the stronger person will ultimately come out the victor in all scenarios. Frankly, that doesn't sit well with me. I'd rather like to see more stories like this one:

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/04/9948522-911-to-teen-mom-who-killed-intruder-protect-your-baby

In your world, she (and probably her baby) would have been raped and killed. As it is, she was able to respond to force with force and came out the victor. Without a firearm, this would not have been the outcome.

No it doesn't. Check the FBI crime statistics. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, mostly small calibers (.38 is the most common, if I recall).

Well I'd agree that the vast majority of gun crimes are done with small caliber handguns, that's common sense.

I was just saying that crimes with modded full-auto weapons do definitely occur, and although a small percentage in the great majority - it's still frequent enough in context to which I was responding.

I'm also curious on the FBI's statistics regarding this, do they even consider modded weapons to be full-auto for record purposes? Or would illegal mods fall under a different category?

dman-353357

In the U.S., similarly urbanized states with relaxed gun laws do not show lower crime rates than states with more stringent laws. New York and California both have lower murder rates than Texas or Florida. Massachusetts' murder rate is half that of Arizona's.

Wow, I could make a wonderful fruit salad with these apples & oranges. "Murder rates" are not the same as "murders by firearms". According to the FBI's Unified Crime Report , Table 20 Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2010, California (that liberal bastion) is the big winner in firearm murders over Texas (you know, the Wild West), 1257 to 805. In fact, it's the winner for the whole U.S. Florida, for whatever reason, is not on the FBI list so a comparison to New York is not possible at this time. MA & AZ don't have the same geography or demographics so I'm not sure how a valid comparison can be made other than a number.

To begin with , fertilizer has a legitimate, non-lethal use in our society. And the ability to find a recipe on the internet does not guarantee the ability to build, secret and detonate a bomb.

Ever hear of target shooting or the Olympic Biathalon? Of course they don't broadcast that on TV because that portrays the use of firearms in a positive sporting manner.

The recipe for such bombs may be readily available, but are beyond the imagination of most mad men.

Ask Timothy McVeigh or your typical Middle Eastern Terrorist.

The statement that guns are easier to obtain than healthcare is preposterous. Will and Olias: are you telling us there are no doctors in your area that are taking appointments or that the hospitals are all closed? Is it easier to purchase a handgun in Chicago or DC from a gun store than to schedule a check-up with a physician? Really? Or are you referencing "paying" for healthcare, which is an entirely different animal. Last I checked, payment is required for both doctor visits and firearm purchases.

@shuklack

I'm also curious on the FBI's statistics regarding this, do they even consider modded weapons to be full-auto for record purposes? Or would illegal mods fall under a different category?

I'm not sure... I believe (on the report I viewed, which I admit was over a year ago) they categorize "assault weapons" together, regardless of full-auto or semi-auto capability (modded or not) and they still only accounted for less than 1% of all gun crime... I may be mistaken. You might find some useful info here:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/FIFC.PDF

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/misc/AWBrief.pdf

http://www.amfire.com/statistic.asp?page=9

http://www.amfire.com/statistic.asp?page=4

http://www.amfire.com/statistic.asp?page=10

From these documents, it seems that the FBI lumps "Assault Rifles" and "Military Style Firearms" together, regardless of selective fire capability.

Unfortunately many more will die from crimes like this. We as nation are bound by the greed of few and we will never hold accontable people responsible for keeping crazies and guns seperate.

Planes, trains, automobiles and fertilizer can kill more people than one gun can.

But guess what we do with these things?

We regulate them!

We control their use. We require training and licensing before you can operate a plane, train or automobile. We have books full of rules about their use. And we monitor their use. And if you buy a large amount of fertilizer and don't happen to own a farm, expect a visit from ATF.

And these are things with legitimate, non-deadly uses.

But if we tried to regulate guns the way we regulate airplanes, the gun fetishists would start blubbering about how we're coming to take their guns away.

Guns don't kill people, but people with guns kill people who otherwise wouldn't have been killed.

We have to stop the nonsense.

What we should do is say, you get to keep all the guns you have, and you can buy any used handgun you want. But we should ban the manufacture or importation of new handguns temporarily.

In a generation, law abiding gun owners who take care of their handguns will still have their handguns, but the vast majority of criminals and petty thugs will not, through having them confiscated during arrest, or ditching them in the river, or failing to take care of them.

Guns are no more the issue than planes, trains, or automobiles. Any one of these things can be a weapon to a madman.

True. Even easier are homemade bombs, which don't exactly take a genius to make. (Timothy McVey managed.) Far more people are killed in car crashes than from gunshot wounds, and there are a LOT of people who shouldn't be driving and many of them know it. I voluntarily do not drive because of some vision and neurological issues, including a form of night blindness and a total inability to judge distances no matter how much I try. I once had a night-restricted driver's license and actually allowed it to lapse deliberately after too many near crashes. Yet public transportation is under attack an losing its funding all over the country, even in big cities. That is just as shameful as handing out guns to every schizophrenic or bipolar person who may even be in an obvious psychotic state even when making the purchase.

Again folks, this goes back to the LACK of Gun Controls, Gun Regulations, Background checks, waiting period. This is another example of someone who should never had gottin a GUN period. Just think if he had a larger magazine for the gun (S). Remember, republicans are for guns. Big Money in Guns, NRA supports the Republican Party. Another sad story of 18 yrs old Boyfriend, shoots Girlfriend (15) in Mouth and kills her, they were just playing around with unloaded gun??? Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!

@WMG - thanks for the examples. Now think this way - if those deranged men had access to guns - how many more would've been killed?

Since the didn't have guns, so many more lives were saved.

@ Big E

Ever hear of target shooting or the Olympic Biathalon? Of course they don't broadcast that on TV because that portrays the use of firearms in a positive sporting manner.

That's like claiming that NASCAR proves that cars aren't designed and intended for transportation.

You're reaching, and it shows.

I have been in the military for 24 years and have owned weapons for longer than that, I can assure you that even WE don't have that many "fully automatic" weapons. Our M16 and M4 Carbine are "Burst" only. There are some older weapons still in some inventories, but they are few and far between.
Extended magazines are not used by anyone outside of local law enforcement within the US DOD. Some special forces entities have special applications, those are extremely isolated. Interestingly enough, we cannot use 20 or 30 round magazines in the 9MM we are issued. They are not allowed. I've been in combat zones, and we use the basic 15 (9MM) and 30 (M16/4) round magazines. The lowest level, fully automatic weapon is the M249 SAW, belt fed, though it has a carry configuration that is serviceable, but not light. Most are considered "Crew Served" and are mounted on a tripod or a vehicle.

Dman,
I applaud your enthusiasm, but you are a little off the mark. If we take weapons out of the hands of average citizens, then you have no defense against people like George W. and Karl Rove who would have liked nothing better than to have a subserviant population they could intimidate. They could rewrite regulations that keep soldiers like me out of your homes, controlling what you do and how you think...would that be a better prospect for the society you would rather live in?
Yes, controls on who and how weapons are sold to, is a must. A comprehensive data base to track people with legal and mental issues. There will always be loopholes and people like this loon will still be able to purchase guns.
Texas and Florida are conceal and carry states, California is not, yet the percentages listed above are still within 3 tenths of a percent of each other...can you explain that?
By the way, if you exclude "criminal on criminal" nearly as many violent crimes are committed with the common Kitchen knife.

RonB-2677686

@ Big E

Ever hear of target shooting or the Olympic Biathalon? Of course they don't broadcast that on TV because that portrays the use of firearms in a positive sporting manner.

That's like claiming that NASCAR proves that cars aren't designed and intended for transportation.

You're reaching, and it shows.

Really? Far more ammunition is expended for legitimate & recreational purposes than for criminal ones. The vast majority of firearms manufactured are used lawfully. That they can be used for evil deeds is an unfortunate situation but not one is the firearm's fault. We seem to be okay with the fatalities & injuries from motor vehicle accidents but we have to because without our vehicles, our lives would be rough...or would they?

I would claim that NASCAR is a valid outlet for legitimate use of motor vehicles, although you can't run a race car on a public road. Your analogy makes no sense.

Making something illegal only moves gun sales underground with a high cost to the taxpayers, prime example A number 1 is the war on drugs. So you go ahead and ask your saviour government to outlaw or regulate guns as much as you want, not going to happen. People have been killing people and will be killing people. The primary reason behind the constitutional right to bear arms is so that the government doesn't overstep it's athority and start packing people into box carts for "relocation". To reduce crime we need to help each other and treat each other with respect.

They could rewrite regulations that keep soldiers like me out of your homes.

During times of war soldiers have the right to enter homes, and we are always at war.

shuklack - A strawman argument is attributing an argument which was never made. I dd not. I merely followed the logic or your claim, that the incremental safety a gun offers you outweighs the tragedy of random spree shootings such as this recent one in Oakland.

If this is true of hand guns, then it is equally true of fully automatic assault weapons, hand grenades or flame throwers, and, the 2nd Amendment does not qualify or limit the types of arms to which citizens are entitled to arm themselves; it only says right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

Guns didn't make him go crazy. Maybe it would be wise to look at the real problem, not the tool he used to act-out his problems.

Speaking of "Stawman Arguments", I never said that guns made this man go crazy, I said possession of a gun enabled this madman to do far more damage than he could ever have managed with a knife or a bat.

After all, in the hands of lawful citizens they are just tools which will be only used to prevent crime.

That's just silly.

No, it is manifestly true. If I possess a fully automatic assault weapon, I'm fare better equipped to defend myself against either an armed or unarmed assailant. If you don't wish to end up in a gun fight armed only with your fists, you should also want to avoid ending up in an exchange of automatic weapon fire, armed only with a snub nose 38.

That's why we equip our military with such weapons.

I can say that in 50+ years of living, I've never had or had need of a gun, and have only once heard of somebody using a gun to prevent a crime, and he was only suspicious of criminal intent, and displayed his gun.

You have been most fortunate. Not everyone is so.

I was not just speaking of my direct experience, but of that of my friends, family and coworkers over 5 + decades. I'm certain there are people out there who have been confronted by a criminal and successfully used a gun to defend themselves. But if they were as numerous as gun-rights advocates claim, I would think I would have heard one or two anecdotal stories in all this time; it is something people do tend to talk about.

Wow, I could make a wonderful fruit salad with these apples & oranges. "Murder rates" are not the same as "murders by firearms". According to the FBI's Unified Crime Report , Table 20 Murder by State, Types of Weapons, 2010, California (that liberal bastion) is the big winner in firearm murders over Texas (you know, the Wild West), 1257 to 805.

Well, Big E, you don't supply the link to your numbers. But accepting your figures at face value, and assuming your are speaking of the total number of firearm murders, you should keep in mind that, according to 2010 estimates, the population of California is 37,253,956 while the population of Texas is 25,145,161

So logically, you would expect California to have a higher total number of fire arm murders, even if the rates are roughly the same.

805 murders in a population of 25.1 million comes out to about 3.20 firearm murders per hundred thousand people in Texas.

1257 murders in a population of 37,2 million comes out to about 3.37 per 100,000 people in California, which is roughly the same.

Second point: a murder is a murder, regardless of what weapon is used to commit it. If gun possession is such a deterrent in Texas, why is its murder rate, by any means, lower than that of California, not slightly higher?

Why does Texas have a slightly higher overall rate for violent crime (450.3 per 100,000 in 2010) than California (440.6 per 100,000 in the same year)? The difference is only slight, but shouldn't it be markedly lower if gun possession and permits to carry concealed are such a crime deterrent?

Ever hear of target shooting or the Olympic Biathalon? Of course they don't broadcast that on TV because that portrays the use of firearms in a positive sporting manner.

These are derivative activities. Guns were not invented so people would have something to shoot at targets any more than the automobile was invented so that people would have something to drive around in circles for 500 miles in Indianapolis.

Enjoy your fruit salad.

Dman,
I applaud your enthusiasm, but you are a little off the mark. If we take weapons out of the hands of average citizens, then you have no defense against people like George W. and Karl Rove who would have liked nothing better than to have a subserviant population they could intimidate.

Militaryman, no doubt about it, which is no doubt why democracy is so rare in Western Europe, where gun laws are stringent and gun possession rare. One keeps hearing stories of the tyranny of the Queen in England, or of Franco in Spain.

Or is that all wrong, the queen but a ceremonial head of state, England a parliamentary democracy, and did not the Fascist government of Spain give way to democracy in the 1970s without a single shot being fired?

And are not Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands ruled by long-standing, representative democracies?

Am I right, Militaryman? And if so, why is it you feel an armed citizenry is so necessary to democracy here?

Texas and Florida are conceal and carry states, California is not, yet the percentages listed above are still within 3 tenths of a percent of each other...can you explain that?

...and that is my point, that if all the ballyhooed deterrent claims regarding democracy were true, then Texas and Florida should have markedly lower crime rates than either New York or California, not slightly higher?

...and if guns are not a crime deterrent, then all the "will issue" and "stand your ground" laws seem nonfunctional to me.

To you?

I'm certain there are people out there who have been confronted by a criminal and successfully used a gun to defend themselves. But if they were as numerous as gun-rights advocates claim, I would think I would have heard one or two anecdotal stories in all this time; it is something people do tend to talk about.

Hang out at a gun range sometime. Hear some stories. Just because you surround yourself with people that likely don't own guns and probably share similar beliefs about them as you do doesn't mean that your little slice of the American pie is representative of the entire country. My best friend kept some hoodlum from mugging him by simply displaying that he was armed-- no shots fired, no additional confrontation: the guy just walked away.

If you want stories of guns being used in self-defense, try 1911forum.com or another firearms forum. Most people who have used firearms in defense of their life or family are frequently advocates for life and tend to be found on those sorts of forums.

And those numbers I threw out at comment 2.34 were gathered by government think tanks, the FBI and other reliable sources-- they weren't just pulled out of my ass. Read more here:

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I do not hang out with people based upon their political or social beliefs. Yet not only do I not hear such stories from any of my friends, coworkers and acquaintances, nor do I hear them speak of circumstances where they wished that they had a gun.

As to your statistics and studies, I've heard before of studies such as "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.", by By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, which claims statistical studies prove that slightly less than 1% (.09%) of U.S. households experience defensive use of a firearm in any given year.

That is 1 out of every 100 households, every year. Unless the same households are involved every year, between 1960 and 2010, something approaching 50% of all American households must have experienced such an event, even allowing for some households being victimized multiple times, one would still expect 20 or 30% of all households to have been affected.

Such incidents should be common everyday occurrences, such that almost everybody has experienced such an event, or knows somebody who has.

They are not.

So, without stronger evidence, regarding how Kleck and Gertz compiled their statistics, I do not believe that 1% of U.S. households experience the need to use a gun for self-defense in a given year. It is just not believable.

Leaving aside the validity of your numbers, what your numbers do not address is why neither Texas, nor Florida have lower rates of violent crime than New York and California, both "may issue" states, without "stand your ground" laws with similar demographics, featuring large urban areas, and problems with drugs and illegal immigrants.

Yet Florida and Texas have slightly higher, not lower violent crime rates.

Why?

Where's the benefit from all these gun carrying citizens?

I've asked these questions several times now. How about an answer?

The differences between the states is marginal at best (4.9 vs 5.0 per capita is not a particularly moving difference-- I would posit the same question in reverse, why are NY and CA's per capita violent crime rates so high if their gun control methods are supposedly working?) and need I remind you that Stockton California was on Forbes' list of top ten most violent cities in the country? So was Springfield, Ill-- both cities without will-issue and stand your ground laws. Meanwhile, Kennesaw, GA, which has a city ordinance that all households keep and maintain a firearm, are over 25 years murder free and have a much lower crime rate than surrounding cities. We can pick and choose and prove nothing.

Anyways, according to this graph, you may need to rethink your argument -- California is listed before Texas with 5.8 vs 5.6 per capita murders in 2008.

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/f389fab6bc6611de87af000255111976

This clearly illustrates that there is enough fluctuation year-to-year that a state's individual gun laws are not necessarily having any significant impact on murder deterrence. You're going to have to look more closely at the socio-economic issues that they are dealing with, prevalence of gang activity and other factors. Your argument attempts to simplify things that are not (and never will be) simple.

For example, a lot of people tout England's gun control laws for their low murder rate, but they can't explain why England's murder rate was lower than the US even before they had any meaningful gun control laws on the books. (And also are stumped by the fact that overall violent crime is actually higher in the UK). The obvious answer is that it's a cultural difference and those differences cannot be simply defined.

In any case, I was serious about my suggestion to visit a gun range and hear some stories. They're out there, FBI crime statistics clearly illustrate that fact. If you can't seem to find any, that means you're not paying all that much attention. (I might also point out that many people avoid talking about traumatic experiences unless directly asked about them-- despite your earlier assertion that "it is something people do tend to talk about.")

The differences between the states is marginal at best (4.9 vs 5.0 per capita is not a particularly moving difference-- I would posit the same question in reverse, why are NY and CA's per capita violent crime rates so high if their gun control methods are supposedly working?)

You're missing the point, wmg. Gun right advocates are continually claiming that the freedom to own and carry firearms will bring down the crime rate. But if one looks at notably similar states, one sees no such affect. Moreover, if one looks at comparative rates of improvement, one sees that New York State experienced a much greater reduction in its rate of violent crime over the last 20 years, than did either Texas or Florida.

Ex:

• New York Viiolent crime rate in 1992: 1,221.1 per 100,000.
• Texas Violent Crime rate in 1992: 806.3
• Florida Violent Crime rate in 1992: 1,207.2
• New York Violent crime rate in 2010: 392.1
• Texas Violent Crime Rate in 2010: 450.3
• Florida Violent Crime Rate in 2010: 542.4

Twenty years ago Texas had a much lower rate of violent crime than did New York. Florida's rate was roughly equal.

In 2010, New York as a markedly lower rate than either Texas or Florida. They did it without liberalizing the gun laws, and without passing "stand your ground" self defense laws.

So, tell me again why permits to carry concealed are so vital to public safety.

Sources:

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

Incidentally, by my sources, Detroit MI, not Stockton CA is statistically the most violent state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

...and Michigan has been a "Shall Issue" state since 2001.

This clearly illustrates that there is enough fluctuation year-to-year that a state's individual gun laws are not necessarily having any significant impact on murder deterrence. You're going to have to look more closely at the socio-economic issues that they are dealing with, prevalence of gang activity and other factors. Your argument attempts to simplify things that are not (and never will be) simple.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove with the above paragraph. You need to give some concrete reason as to why New York State has had better success through traditional law enforcement methods, than has either Texas or Florida. All three states have large urban areas, gang activity, drugs and illegal immigration issues.

What is the difference?

Why haven't guns made a difference?

In any case, I was serious about my suggestion to visit a gun range and hear some stories. They're out there, FBI crime statistics clearly illustrate that fact.

Show me the actual FBI statistics for the defensive use of firearms, not some derivative study, and I'll reconsider my position. I'll say again, if 1% of U.S. households have occasion to use a fire arm to prevent a crime every year, then stories of such incidents should be as commonplace as are stories of car breakdowns.

I don't have to hang out at an auto garage to here stories about seized up engines and flat tires. Why must I go to a shooting range to hear about defensive use of firearms?

Why must I go to a shooting range to hear about defensive use of firearms?

Because you're obviously not finding them in your day-to-day life. Also, as I said before, people aren't prone to talk about traumatic experiences. If you don't like the prospect of walking into a gun range, then try talking to your local PD.

What is the difference?

NY has predominantly compact, urban environments. Texas has a lot of wide open spaces utilized frequently by drug smugglers. I should also point out that Texas borders one of the most violent cities on earth, Juarez Mexico. Texas and Florida are both direct conduits for drugs and human trafficking from Mexico/South America-- there are differences--you're just ignoring them. For example, you still haven't given any reasonable answer as to why Chicago, Ill. with some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, is still routinely one of the most violent-- if your gun control "one fits all" method worked, why hasn't it there? What's the difference between NY and Chicago that make the same approach provide different results? The answer, as I have contended (and most sociologists would I agree, I think), is that there are different socio-economic factors at play that will influence the results. What's the per capita jobless rate in NY? and TX? and Ill? You're taking a complex issue and trying to simplify it-- but you can't (at least not honestly).

Another thing, the following states are "Shall Issue" states-- most of them have castle doctrine or other self-defense laws on the books:

Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Vermont has unrestricted constitutional carry.

I think you'll find that any review of these states will show widely varying degrees of violent crime-- an obvious indication that socio-economic factors and demographics play a much larger role than you're willing to concede.

Consider Vermont-- the completely unrestricted state. Violent crime per capita is 130.2 per 100,000 residents. Compare that to New York, one of the most restrictive states: 392.1 per 100,000.

(That's using the site you linked to above).

Also, this:

Incidentally, by my sources, Detroit MI, not Stockton CA is statistically the most violent state.

Neither Detroit, nor Stockton are states-- they're cities. Also, I never said that Stockton was the most violent city-- I said that it was in Forbe's top 10 most violent city list. Detroit was also on the list-- at #1. Ironically, and contrary to your assertions, Forbe's #1 for Safest city in America? Plano, TX. (To be fair, New York, NY was #10).

Because you're obviously not finding them in your day-to-day life. Also, as I said before, people aren't prone to talk about traumatic experiences. If you don't like the prospect of walking into a gun range, then try talking to your local PD.

To begin with, that is my point, these stories do not get told in day to day conversations, and, contrary to your assertion, many people do talk about traumatic happenings in their lives, particularly when they triumph over some threat or mishap. They talk about successful car sales negotiations, about the women [or men] they're involved with, and their daily traffic woes.

Why would somebody not talk about having thwarted a crime through the legal use of a firearm?

NY has predominantly compact, urban environments. Texas has a lot of wide open spaces utilized frequently by drug smugglers.

Well, that is just not true. New York State, not New York City, is a mixture of large urban centers and wide stretches of rural areas dotted with small towns, much like either Texas and Florida. Like Texas and Florida, New York State, by virtue of having the largest port on the east coast, also is a conduit for drug smuggling and illegal immigration.

Moreover, crime rates are HIGHER, not LOWER in urbanized areas.

...and, as I showed statistically, in 1992 New York State had much higher rates for all forms of violent crime than did Texas. Today its rates for violent crime is significantly lower. I hate repeating myself, but given that both states present a similar mix of urban and rural environments, face similar issues with illegal immigration and drugs, why has New York State done so much better in reducing crime?

What's the per capita jobless rate in NY? and TX? and Ill?

As of Feb., 2012:

Texas: 7.1%

New York: 8.5%

Illinois: 9.1%

Florida: 9.4%

from http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

-- there are differences--you're just ignoring them. For example, you still haven't given any reasonable answer as to why Chicago, Ill. with some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, is still routinely one of the most violent-- if your gun control "one fits all" method worked, why hasn't it there?

Well, you are now dragging Illinois into the discussion. So be it.

From the same source (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ilcrime.htm), here're the comparative numbers for violent crime in Illinois:

In 1992: 977.3 (worse than Texas).

In 2010: 435.2 (better than Texas)

Nice example.

To be clear, I've never claimed that simply restricting gun ownership will reduce crime. Many nations, such as Mexico, have very restrictive gun laws, and plenty of violence. But in Mexico, law enforcement is both corrupt and inept, and drug cartels and gangs can pretty much do as they please. What I do contend is that enabling all citizens to carry arms can not be shown to reduce crime. To support this, I've shown you comparative statistics for roughly similar states. In return, you have cited imaginary differences [NY has predominantly compact, urban environments. Texas has a lot of wide open spaces] and speculative questions [What's the per capita jobless rate in NY? and TX? and Ill?], which, when investigated do no support your position.

Neither Detroit, nor Stockton are states-- they're cities.

Yes, I am well aware of this fact. You, not I, are the one who picked Stockton as some type of indictment of California and its comparative safety. I tossed Detroit into the mix to illustrate that one cannot just look at one urban center to comprehend the safety of an entire state.

Consider Vermont-- the completely unrestricted state. Violent crime per capita is 130.2 per 100,000 residents. Compare that to New York, one of the most restrictive states: 392.1 per 100,000.

Nice, yes lets compare a small rural state, where many people still do not lock their doors at night with the third largest state (by population), with the second or third largest city, whose lawlessness was proverbial in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, lets compare the experiences of a state which had more cows than people until the 1960s with the state which brought us incidents like the murder of Kitty Genovese, or the vigilantism of Bernard Getz, and inspired such movies as Death Wish and The Out of Towners.

In 1992, Vermont had far less violent crime (109.5) than either Texas or New York, and in 2010 it still has far less violent crime (130.2), but you'll note the trend, though slight, is up, not down.

Sorry, you've yet to show me any evidence that all these "Will Issue" and "Stand Your Ground" laws do anything to promote greater safety on the part of the public.

Nice, yes lets compare a small rural state, where many people still do not lock their doors at night with the third largest state (by population), with the second or third largest city, whose lawlessness was proverbial in the 1960s and 1970s. Yes, lets compare the experiences of a state which had more cows than people until the 1960s with the state which brought us incidents like the murder of Kitty Genovese, or the vigilantism of Bernard Getz, and inspired such movies as Death Wish and The Out of Towners.

At LAST you acknowledge that there are socio-economic and demographic differences that influence any given states violent crime-- that has been my contention all along. New York is not Texas. California is not Florida. There are 39 states with shall-issue or unrestricted firearms carry laws and plenty of those states have seen their violent crime drop as well-- my point was that restrictive firearm laws are not solely to be credited for lower crime rates. In NYC, for example, they increased their police presence into formerly "crime-stricken" neighborhoods and began a controversial habit of "stop and frisk" (which is under constant constitutional scrutiny as a potential violation of 4th amendment rights). Sure, you can lower crime rates dramatically-- but at what cost to freedom? How many rights must be violated to reach your goal? I've always favored the view espoused by Thomas Jefferson:

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

And I'll leave it at that.

At LAST you acknowledge that there are socio-economic and demographic differences that influence any given states violent crime-- that has been my contention all along. New York is not Texas.

I've never denied it. What I have said and continue to say is that if the freedom own and carry firearms was such a deterent to crime one, one should see markedly lower crime rates in states with such laws, than in simlar [not identical], that have more restrictive laws.

Texas is, of course, not New York. But the two states do have striking similarities in terms a highly urbanized population, immigration and drugs. Yet New York has done a better job in reducing its crimre rate than Texas. To date you have not come with a single valid reason why this is so.

In NYC, for example, they increased their police presence into formerly "crime-stricken" neighborhoods and began a controversial habit of "stop and frisk"

Good, you acknowledge that the efficasy and presence of police plays a strong part in prevening crime. Your point on the use of "Stop & Frisk" tactics is valid. But use of this tactic does not invalidate all of the success New York City has had in reducing its once horrendous crime rate.

Well, you and I were the only two left in this discussion, and I suspect that you have left.

So I too will leave this discussion where is is, and wish you a pleasant evening.

You as well dman. Nice conversation.

A rapist just held an entire house full of college women hostage here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago.

His weapon of choice? A knife.

Guns may make crimes like assault or murder a little easier, but that doesn't mean that they constitute part of the actual problem of murder any more than knives or gasoline or baseball bats or anything else used as a weapon contributed to the crime.

I Googled that story, stonedog34, and I couldn't find any reference to it.

Well can we agree that those receiving anger management should't be permitted to have a gun. Let them have a baseball bat. Sure theis guy would' have killed less with that. Angry people shouldn't shouldn't have guns.

3 Gold Bars? I agree with you whole heartedly. You don't have anger management issues do you? Then all power to you.

It makes me wonder why so many people posting are pro guns. It's pretty scary out there walking around never knowing who has a "concealed" weapon.

Never heard of Jonestown Mcb? All he needed was koolaid. What about Susan Smith who killed her two sons? All she needed was a car. The list goes on and on.

Sabina, I'm not pro gun. I myself personally have never owned one and have no desire to. But what I am PRO for is the right to have one if I so desire.

It amazes me to think that the "Anti-gun" fanatics want to strip away rights from legal and responsible citizens and thus leave them in the hands of the criminals. While there will always be tragedies such as this one, they are not the Norm.

Do you honestly believe that if guns are made illegal that will keep guns from the streets? Will it make you feel safer that the only concealed weapons out in public are those Illegally purchased?

Has the "War on drugs" Kept drugs out of our lives? Of course not. A "War on guns" won't do any better.

It amazes me to think that the "Anti-gun" fanatics want to strip away rights from legal and responsible citizens and thus leave them in the hands of the criminals>>>

I haven't seen anyone post anything even close to what you are implying. People are looking for a sane, reasonable way to deal with the 2nd Amend. as it is being defended by those who keep insisting someone is trying to wrestle all their guns from them. You don't seem to understand what is being said.

Unfortunately we live in a dangerous world. I hope and pray that I never need to use my CCW to defend my self or my family. Although, it is very reassuring to know that I posses the means to defend myself in a life threatening situation.

Never heard of Jonestown Mcb? All he needed was koolaid. What about Susan Smith who killed her two sons? All she needed was a car. The list goes on and on

Janine, you are incorrect if you make reference to Jonestown, Guyana. The people in Jonestown community were held at gun point and forced to drink the poisoned Coolade. They were surrounded by armed guards and that's the reason why so many people drank it. Those who refused, were shot. Doesn't look good for guns now, does it?

As for Susan Smith, she is hardly a good example for anything. She locked the babies, a 3-year-old and a 14-month-old in the car and drove it in a lake.

This can't be compared with an adult who takes a gun and goes on a shooting spree.

Good reasoning, mcb-2773914

What is everyone so afraid of? I wonder...

It makes me wonder why so many people posting are pro guns. It's pretty scary out there walking around never knowing who has a "concealed" weapon.

You must be new. Unfortunately, MOST Americans are gun nuts. Of course, most have never traveled outside of the US and have no idea what it's like to be able to walk streets at night and not have to worry about someone putting a gun to your head for no reason. Ignorance is bliss.

I don't agree that "most" Americans are gun nuts. Perhaps if you live in a rural area it could seem that way, but in cities and even suburbs the average law abiding person does NOT own a gun unless he hunts or likes going to a shooting range. Even if a man wants a gun, usually his wife won't allow it into the house because she's rightfully afraid of the children getting ahold of it. We're too well aware that it just takes ONE careless moment when you forget to lock it or whatever. Getting a gun just for protection is ridiculous. Consider that real cops practice regularly at shooting ranges and are well trained. This is not true of the average elderly person who goes out and buys one. I'm someone who was the victim of a home invasion when I was in my late twenties. I escaped without harm by using my head, not deadly force. (I told him in my limited Spanish that I had mucho dinero and cocaine in my lingerie drawer, than ran out of the apartment screaming while he looked for this nonexistent loot. He ran out of the building out of another door.)

The perp was never caught, and I ended up moving into a roommate situation, but it's better than ending up dead.

Has the "War on drugs" Kept drugs out of our lives? Of course not. A "War on guns" won't do any better.

Excellent point.

Cain didn't even have a gun, so what is all this talk?

Sam Adams said : "Of course, most have never traveled outside of the US and have no idea what it's like to be able to walk the streets at night and not have to worry about someone putting a gun to your head for no reason. Ignorance is bliss."

Au contrare dear Sam. In the town I grew up in, most everyone has a gun. I grew up in a rural town, "small" by most people's standards, but a pretty decent sized town considering my home state. Anywho, I would go walking around late at night, we're talking close to the curfew of 12:30 am and I NEVER had to worry about getting shot. That's because the only thing people shoot around there is deer, fowl, rabbits and freaking annoying coyotes.

There was a knife standoff once, though.

And I've also traveled Europe. I did have to watch my back at night. I was cornered by a guy in a store in Paris (NOT the store owner) and luckily when one of my friends noticed and came up, he ran out of there in a flash. And when I went to Rome, one of the ladies I was traveling with was almost abducted by a guy. So yeah. So much for that theory.

His troubles WITH women outside prison will be nothing compared to his troubles AS a woman in prison...

His pic does show a somewhat chubby face. In the joint, they like the plump ones the best, so he's gonna be some lifer's lover. Maybe they'll even share him. Hope he knows a good proctologist. ;-)

Looks like Zimmerman, eh?

"He can't get along with people," Delariman was quoted by the newspaper as saying. "If you say, 'How are you?' he'll say, 'Why? Don't I look OK? Did I do something to you?' "

Just an aside--many folks who have English as a second language have difficulty with idioms and certain phrases. Many take them verbatim. His reply to "how are you" is not uncommon. This does not mean he's not dangerous or violent; it just means that his perception of English phrases is not the best.

"If you say, 'How are you?' he'll say, 'Why? Don't I look OK? Did I do something to you?' "

Whether you study another language from a class or a book, they always teach the common phrases. I believe this person was born in the United States, so English would be his first language anyway. OTOH, I have known 5th generation Americans who also responded in a crazy manner to this sort of question. If you say, "I'm okay" they will demand to know why you are "ONLY okay." If you say "good morning" they will snap "What's good about it?" I have a psychotic teenage son who is like this. It can also be seen in people with Aspergers, autism, paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and just plain being what is commonly known as an A-hole. I wonder if the college offered him psychiatric services and counseling as a student instead of just giving expelling him, which is probably why he chose THAT campus for his killing spree.

....yes, it must be frustrating when women won't be subservient towards you and do whatever you want. You obviously feel violently angry at them when you have to treat them as human beings... poor, poor you. Your last name isn't Sodini, is it?

No person shouldbe able to carry a gun without a lot of training,the stand your ground law is fine ,but don't stand your ground going out looking for trouble

I'd like to see everyone required to complete a serious training program prior to their being able to buy a gun. There simply are not enough qualifications currently required for the average person to own firearms.

A while back I visited a shooting range and all of a sudden a handgun started hopping around all by itself! The darn thing then popped a loaded magazine into itself and began shooting all over the place! Luckily, no one was hurt or killed, but I got so scared that I cringed very hard, and the next day I had to go to a chiropractor to get uncringed! True story!

And have them screened for anger management issues too.

Maybe some of you wanting all this training and such should read the constitution. Guns are a fact of life in america, deal with it. If we start requiring training and permits to exercise ones second ammendment rights, maybe we should do the same for the other ammendments. This way stupid people couldn't voice their opinions in a public forum, and the police could just barge into your house at any time because you didn't qualify for fourth ammendment protections.

Your constitutional rights were put there to tell the government what they can't do. If you have to apply for a permit from the government just to exercise your rights the constitution is meaningless.

look into the crime statistics on gun violence in the UK and Japan both islands where guns are illegal yet criminals still get them. How does that work?

The other Amendments don't lead to killing people.

culheath

2) The high proliferation of guns is directly coupled to and serves to maintain the American fetish for violence.

Fail, due to baseless opinion. Despite the "proliferation" of firearms (3.7 million manufactured to 5.5 million per ATF's Annual Firearms Manufacturers And Export Report) in the U.S., the number of firearm murders has steadily decreased from 2006-2010 per the FBI Unified Crime Report Expanded Homicide Data Table 8.

And everyone who gets a gun should be given a lifetime supply of Celexa. Would that help MrPerryRice?

Culheath, the 18th amendment led to killing people.

And have them screened for anger management issues too.

Easier said than done. If they have no assault convictions, few people would admit that sort of thing.

Give it a rest with the anti gun BS......if you outlaw guns, do you not think crazy people would still be able to get a hold of one? Be realistic. I say hang this guy from the nearest tree or put him in front of a firing squad. If the punishment fit the crimes committed in this country, I can guarantee you, our crime rate would drop drastically. Plain and simple!

The main problem with all the gun control suggestions is this. Any maniac can get a gun on the street. Even if he was denied buying from a legal source. Banning guns will never keep the fanatics from getting them. One way or another.

The experience of European and Canada cultures says different. Of course a maniac could get a gun, but with gun control it would be HARDER to do. At today's level of gun control almost anyone with cash or something to trade can EASILY acquire a weapon.

MrRighteous

Culheath, the 18th amendment led to killing people

A fair point...but let's not forget that was one of the reasons we got rid of it.

MrRighteous: Nope; If you have anger management issues, you don't get a gun.

even most american men have problems with women because they grow up in a hypocritical country where even the slightest nudity is forbidden but porn and strip clubs and sexual advertisements are allowed.

what do you expect? if you are brought up in such a closed environment, you can not deal with anyone, especially of the opposite sex... and in the states there are so many gay and lesbian perverts and children are taught thats normal... what a mess.

Harold, trust me. You will NEVER understand women. Just when you think you know, we change the rules.

hehhe, Deal with it.

"Who doesn't have issues with women?"

51 percent of the population who are women.

Youre right Tracey, never heard fo women having problems with other women, real or imagined

@TraceyS - HA, I'm a woman and I always have problems with women. Now gay men, we have a blast!

even most american men have problems with women because they grow up in a hypocritical country where even the slightest nudity is forbidden but porn and strip clubs and sexual advertisements are allowed.

Huh? How can there be strip clubs if nudity is forbidden? How can there be magazines like Playboy? Many people walk around their own home naked and never get arrested unless they forget to close the blinds. Many even (gasp) sleep in the nude!

Men have been having trouble with women and vice versa since we came down from the trees, or since Adam and Eve if you prefer. That's because we are very different from each other for reasons including sociobiology and physiological differences. You say there are no instruction books, but actually there are many wonderful books that you can consult. Avoid the ones that suggest men and women are totally fungible because it's just not true and will just make the situation worse. Some authors I recommend include Hugh and Gayle Prather, Gary Smalley, Rabbi Smuelly Botech, and Dr. Laura Schessinger. There, that's two Jews, a Christian, and two nonsectarians, all of them in long term, satisfying marriages themselves. Just for a start; there is no shorage of great relationship books.

Youre right Tracey, never heard fo women having problems with other women, real or imagined

You forgot the sarcasm tag. Even lesbian couples have problems, and I know gay male couples do too. In fact I knew a man who claimed to have been physically abused by his ex-wife, who then found a male lover, and he was beaten up by HIM.) Love relationships are inherently difficult. They are even more difficult for heterosexual couples because we don't always have the maturity to just accept and even delight in our differences.

Women aren't stereo systems, you ignorant turd. I know the last thing that would occur to you is to treat women like human beings. You are a pathetic little boy.

It wasn't just Jews who died in the Holocaust...anyone that the third reich found objectionable or questionable for any reason was doomed. Approximately 2,000,000 of the people killed were non-Jews. We tend to forget this; it was such a horrendous occurrence to all of humankind and its hard for the average person to comprehend the sheer numbers. It still amazes me that the world stood back and watched approximately two-thirds of the European Jewish community, along with others, be tortured and killed for such a long period of time before doing anything about it.

Sorry, I got my facts wrong in my statement above...not enough caffeine in the system yet, I guess. There were 6,000,000 Jews killed during the Holocaust, as well as 5,000,000 non-Jews.

I was about to say something about 2 million but I saw you corrected it. I know about the gays (pink triangles), gypsies, etc that died in camps. There was one big occasion where a group of Jews in Poland rose up to fight the German SS; they all died anyway but they managed to take a few with them. If everyone the Nazis later killed had been armed with assault rifles, their job would have been a lot harder.

I just checked: the number is 40,000. There are a LOT of people who not only shouldn't drive, but who KNOW this. Yet, show me a city that isn't drastically cutting back on public transportation when it ought to be expanded.

Is there any way to keep crazy people from getting guns without infringing on sane people's rights? I don't think there is.

Not when we consider gun ownership a sacrosanct, inviolable right that cannot be limited in any manner...which to my mind seems to be a fairly crazy idea in itself.

paganponderer

box cutters + airplanes + no guns = 9-11 + 3,000 dead

Yeah guns, on those planes would have been a great idea.

Government with most of the guns + Zykon B = Jewish holocaust + over 6,000,000 dead Jews

Does it matter who had the guns? It was organized violence instrumented by all sorts of firearms.

And while we're at it, lets ban cars because they kill over 30,000 people a year. Also lets ban alcohol (oops already failed in "Prohibition") and lets ban drugs because that will work, too.

The Strawman cometh... car accidents are not intentional, alcohol and some drugs lower the threshold for violence and make it more likely; the extremely wide spread presence of guns simply make it more convenient and thereby add to the risk.

No...let's just kill him and put him out of his misery. The world will be a better place without him.

As far as I'm concerned, drunk drivers intentionally kill and maim people too. They know how risky and dangerous is it to get behind the wheel DRUNK AND BELUSHED!... New word!

Car accidents not intentional? Have you ever driven in an area that is almost 100% liberal Democrat? I live right outside New York and witness Democrat after Democrat do things that are only done by people who have a total disregard for the lives of their fellow Americans. I have driven in conservative areas too, these things don't happen there at all. When you are engaging in activities that increase the amount of death on our roads, yes it is intentional. I would feel safer being on a road of .20 drunks than all Democrats, D.W.D is our #1 preventable killer, we need to just get Democrats to care about life like conservatives do and to can this elitist, narcissistic mentality of almost every Dem.

culheath

Not when we consider gun ownership a sacrosanct, inviolable right that cannot be limited in any manner...which to my mind seems to be a fairly crazy idea in itself.

Speaking of strawmen...

There are over 20,000 laws on the books in the U.S concerning firearms. The firearms manufacturing industry is one of the most heavily-regulated trades.

You should give a little thought & do some research before blathering.

I live right outside New York and witness Democrat after Democrat do things that are only done by people who have a total disregard for the lives of their fellow Americans.

Yeah that's not like a gross generalization or anything. So you're saying that over half this country care nothing about the lives of all Americans?

I mean, at least give us credit to respect the lives of fellow Democrats if you're going to be so blatantly partisan.

One problem is that it is nearly impossible to have another adult committed unless that person can be PROVEN to be a danger to himself or others. That is a very hard standard to meet because you cannot use hearsay like, "My husband told me he wants to kill himself!" unless the patient told it to a psychiatrist or therapist.

culheath:
A) Not when we consider gun ownership a sacrosanct, inviolable right that cannot be limited in any manner...which to my mind seems to be a fairly crazy idea in itself.

Obviously there need to be SOME limits, but I see some gun restrictions and some abortion restrictions as mere attempts to regulate to death something that is legal. I oppose abortion personally while supporting abortion rights being legal, but believe that the 2nd Amendment carries even more weight than "Griswold vs Connecticutt" and "Roe vs Wade".

B) Yeah guns, on those planes would have been a great idea.

Your "strawman" is talking about guns on those planes. Which I never suggested, although an armed sky marshal would have prevailed against box cutters. My point was killing thousands all at once as a result of using box cutters and an airplane--if a person is dedicated to mischief, they will find a way to commit it--the only question will be the ability of lawful citizens to look after their own welfare.

C) Does it matter who had the guns? It was organized violence instrumented by all sorts of firearms.

Yes, it does matter who had the guns. The Jews were mostly killed without guns, since the Nazis didn't want to waste bullets on them. They were mostly killed by Zyklon B. Had 6 million Jews banded together and had guns and the willingness to use them, it would have made it a lot harder for the Nazis to round them up onto trains for extermination in the camps.

D) The Strawman cometh... car accidents are not intentional, alcohol and some drugs lower the threshold for violence and make it more likely; the extremely wide spread presence of guns simply make it more convenient and thereby add to the risk.

The Strawman is ALL yours. The choice to underfund public transportation IS intentional. The choice to create a society with spread out suburbs, highways and automobile-petroleum dependency IS intentional. Making it easy for almost anyone to get and keep a license IS intentional.

200 years ago, Abraham Lincoln's mother died from milk sickness caused by cows eating a plant called "white snakeroot". THOUSANDS of Americans died from this arcane issue. THOUSANDS died from cholera outbreaks. The US as we live in it NOW is FAR less risky overall than it was 200 years ago, when the Bill of Rights was authored, yet we have much more encroachment upon the Bill of Rights from both liberals and conservatives. Thank you Patriot Act, NDAA 2012, Digital Millenium Act... I could take up a few paragraphs listing all the crap. If someone attempts a home invasion or such mischief and I don't have a Glock on me, I will fall back to the safe room I have, open my gun safe, and get out my 12-gauge.

When seconds count, the cops will be there in minutes. And don't get me started on how USELESS the authorities were during Katrina. In 15-20 years, when political systems and social order has imploded from a permanent economic depression due to liquid fuel shortfall (peak oil), the authorities will be even MORE useless and we will only have ourselves and neighbors to count on.

FactofTheMatter: “As for this
nut job who shot up the place and killed a bunch of people because his feelings
got hurt, just put him away somewhere forever.”

Fine, but that’s after he’s already shot up the people; but since he was a
known nut case in anger management, shouldn’t we have done something about him
having the ability to get the gun in the first case? Anger management people
shouldn’t be licensed for guns.

Sounds just like a black person, Always point the finger at someone else

How many of these nuts actively seek medical help?

How many who do go off their meds and hurt others?

This nut killed many. Most abuse family members.

Run like Hell away from any nut with anger management issues.

Dynamik, don't run like hell away from any nut with anger management issues. Shoot 'em before they shoot you.

I have anger management issues. Also, I wear t-shirts that have targets on them.

I disagree. Guns may not be the problem, but are certainly part of the problem and should not be dismissed altogether. A return to the "wild west" scenario you describe would likely result in more violence, not less.

The point is that by banning guns isn't going to prevent criminals to get a hold of one, only law abiding citizens are the only one affected.>>>>>

Jon,I don't advocate the banning of guns. I never have.

I don't advocate a ban either, but our leaders should be looking more seriously at how the proliferation is controlled: background checks, gun safety, no loopholes, etc. Freedom loving citizens who do not care to "pack" should not have to fear being shot in public.

taxpayer, you've hit the nail on the head!

Yeah, that's what we need. More weapons of death on the streets to make us all safer ?? Do you hear yourself !!

Funny how Mayor Jean Quan, an American of Chinese decent, had no qualms about making the memorial service a vehicle for her political views. What a ghoul!

"This is America, where you can find a gun easier than mental health services" -- Mayor Jean Quan

Dear Pleased to meet you? Why are you so against the President, have the republicans done anything for you lately. Job, more wages, benefits, health care, retirement, pension. All they have done is raise your Taxes, take away your rights to free health care, lack of better wages, benefits, etc. All for tax cuts for the Super rich, like Romney etc.

It's ridiculous to say that guns aren't part of the problem. Guns give otherwise weak, and weak minded people the ability to kill, they give them power. This man would not have been able to inflict the same kind of damage with a knife, a rock or a stick. He is clearly anti-social, so with a knife or any other non-projectile weapon, he'd have to get up close and personal with a potential victim. The gun gave him the ability to remain completely detached as he brought 7 lives to an end. Guns make cowards feel brave. Do I think there should be an outright ban? No, I don't. Guns do have many useful purposes like for law enforcement, hunting, war, sport shooting and so on. I do think, however, they should be banned from residential areas, schools, churches, most public places and anywhere that's not a hunting ground, a shooting range or a war zone. The second amendment was written within the context of a well organized militia for the defense of the nation because we didn't have an official military when it was written. Now that we do, gun ownership is not necessary for the average citizen. Look at the Trayvon Martin case for example. Regardless of who you think was at fault in that case, was it really necessary for George Zimmerman to be armed? Of course not, it was his duty to observe and report. But because that weak minded man had a firearm on him, he felt empowered to confront. The neighborhood watch had rules prohibiting firearms for a reason, because they didn't want anyone getting killed.

Cars have the potential to be deadly weapons, and for that reason, every state requires citizens to take classes on traffic safety, take visual exams and take both written and behind the wheel exams to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle. When those drivers are deemed to be incapable of operating a vehicle safely, whether it be because of a medical or mental condition or a record of unsafe practices, the license is revoked. Why is it that with most potentially deadly tools, like cars, trucks, industrial equipment ect, we require people to be trained to use them safely, but we don't require a single second of training to use a firearm? Even the military and police require safety classes before putting a weapon in the hands of a soldier or policeman. One thing police and soldiers get in addition to safety training, that the civilians don't get, is training on the appropriate times to use a firearm and also when not to use one.

All I am saying is maybe even bans wouldn't be necessary if we required people to be trained how and when to safely use firearms (and make sure they're not emotionally volatile, all police are required to pass psychological evaluations) before we give them a license to use them, just like we do with cars, trucks, heavy equipment, ect....

And blacks kill blacks in large numbers, Are they all mental?. if this was a black man they would be screaming to let him walk free..... MENTAL

I have a gun too, but I'd like to here you say that while staring down the barrel of a gun held by someone who has decided that you shall die.

" Automatic weapons are pretty much illegal nationally"

And the NRA fought that.

An armed society is a polite society.

An armed society is a paranoid and immature society.

I have carried concealed for nearly a year now. I hardly even notice my firearm. BUT... even with knowing that the likelihood of me EVER pulling it to defend myself or other innocent citizens, I know it's there in just in case it's needed.

There IS a certain level of peace and comfort knowing that everyday I leave my home. You call this paranoia?

Yep.

The world I enter when I step out of my door seems to be a lot less dangerous than yours. I'd rather live in mine and deal with the lions, tigers, and bears IF I ever run into them. Let's see it's been 62 years so far living in cities suburbs and ghettos without a sidearm. Must be lucky I guess.

And 300,000,000 people not dead or wounded.

No, I 'd rather point out that the vast majority of people (75% by your estimate) live their full lives unarmed.

Are you going to suggest that they can do so because of the 25% who are armed are somehow protecting them?

Aside from the gun that everyone is talking about, i think this man clearly has a mental problem, and they didnt recognized this man has a problem, they should have addressed it , and offer counseling. Mayor Quan saying that "guns are easier to find or that this occur anywhere in America" is i think if i can word this right, sort of trying to cover the problem . We know that the Korean community is a very tight nit group, when it comes to achiving in school and life this are people to look up, they should be as tight when they see one for thier own with mental problem. They know how to deal with when their people arent keep up in social life and educaiton.

They should be a bit more open and not be afraid of talking to people they believe have a mental problem, and not look away from the problem. This goes not just for school administrors but the everyday people that this man was in contact on a daily basis, a little heads up to a higher authorithy would or could have made the difference.

Everyone lost , the man who committed the crime, there is no excuse, but also his people who fail to recognized the problem and do something about and sadly those who lost their lifes. Major Quan dont blame the gun only, or that this can happen anywhere in America also send a message to the entire Asian communtity, in this country there are so much help for this type of problem.

Then you're an idiot.

"Gawd wants me to have a gun", "guns don t kill people", "that boy could have killed them with a spoon" are all the the NRA dunces can come up with. What they lack in intelligence is made worse by a total lack of morality. The proliferation of guns in America is the product of NRA lies. The NRA puts guns in the hands of people like this man and George Zimmerman. This is why law enforcement has contempt for the NRA. Please to meet you automatically assumes that gun control mean abolishment of the Second Amendment. This is NRA propaganda. The NRA wants guns sold freely knowing that guns are purchased for resale to criminals. That puts them in a conspiracy with the criminals to make American unsafe. They take an event like this one, create paranoia and encourage people to buy more guns. Watch the moronic responses to this post. We stopped Osama bin Laden so lets stop the more dangerous NRA.

Moe,

Bingo.

Moe -

Wow...just wow.

And I don't mean that in an adoring way as though I'm in awe of your "brilliance"...because I'm not.

Sounds like an introduction to a fiction novel. Let me know under what title it's published.

Democrats had a chance to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008, but liberal voters couldn't deal with a strong woman, so they went for a weak-knee man.

Road Warrior-252445

Democrats had a chance to nominate Hillary Clinton in 2008, but liberal voters couldn't deal with a strong woman, so they went for a weak-knee man.

bin Laden might not agree.

Culheath.

You could have given the order to shoot Bin Laden. He had no choice. How is Obama's leadership doing on the home front? Even liberals agree a Hillary presidency would be much better and an opportunity to get a liberal majority in the Supreme Court in her second term. Hillary definitely wouldn't be trying to act tough yelling at the SC justices before a ruling is made in weeks.

You could have given the order to shoot Bin Laden. He had no choice.

No I couldn't have , I'm not President and of course he had a choice, he's the President. In the end, it was his choice alone.

The rest of your politicizing...meh.

MaxineThomas...you forgot to mention your mom is a whore.

Pugiron wrote "Easier to shoot women than deal with them as equals? Republican."

You can be sure that most violent crime, including the smaller amount against women, is committed by those voting for the Democratic party.

Bin Laden was a slam-dunk decision. Nobody could turn that down.

Probably the only executive decision made by the current administration that had the support of the U.S. citizenry.

Republican? Try again. MEN.

Republican men see women as private property.

Democrat men see women as public property.

Radical feminists don't see women as property at all.

i think we should start deporting

Can we start with the most obvious bigots?

@!$%#in @!$%#s.

Talk to yourself on this one. You or your family ahead of you came off the boat too or did that part of history escape your mush noodles.