Some one prbably made a Political joke and the other party said FU and shot the SOB, yep, those people in TX don't like political jokes ...

I'm getting a mental image of guys in Bermuda shorts and tank-tops, with big 6-shooters strapped to their leg and cowboy boots.

Rich; so you have met my brother in Austine, TX.

Anymore Texas jokes people? I know yall must have something else up your sleeve.

Notsojingo - I bet you were so proud when you thought up the byob line huh? haha.

Guns aren't the problem at all, it's the idiots who get a hold of them and throw temper tantrums because someone says
something that hurts their itty bitty feelings. People can't handle anything anymore, look at some people wrong and they will do what they can to get ahold of you just because " nobody will do that to me ".

VERY few people now days can have an argument and walk away letting it go. People don't forgive anymore, they stay bitter and build up the hate inside them, then they snap and thats how you get alot of news stories. Insult someone around their friends and you got a big problem coming. It's the way of the world anymore. People are cry babies, guys claim to be " Men " but honestly they are little boys with a temper problem.

In a few short hours you should have alot of people talking about the NRA, ban guns, gun control. Same ol repeating bull @!$%# that comes with every story to do with a gun. Should also see the famous troll/loser, you know... " Ban All Guns ".

Lets go guys.

Ban handguns.

@TexasLaw Guns aren't the problem at all, it's the idiots who get a hold of them

exactly it's called gun control but how dare I even mention such an un-American thing

"Bibles & Handguns for all"

Thanks for not letting me down Takenaka. Wouldn't be a party without you.

RE - Nobody said Bibles and Handguns for all, dummy!. You're so silly :). ( What does bibles have to do with this anyways? )

Gun Control doesn't work, BUT as long as you are positive then anythings possible right? You'll get my guns when the bad guys have no way of getting their hands on one. Till then, keep up the fight! Better get alot of Aspirin though, I can only imagine the kind of headaches you'll encounter on your journey!.

And real quick here, while I truly cannot stand those who jump on the ban all guns wagon train, if you seriously hate guns or want gun control, then do something about it. While I think most of you are idiots for numerous reasons, I still say go out and do something about it, I am all for standing your ground for what you believe in. I don't support it at all but that's besides the point.

If you truly feel so strongly about what you say, you truly in your heart hate an inanimate object instead of the person firing, and are tired of these stories... Get off your butts and go make something happen, commenting on here won't do it.

"You can't plow a field simply by turning it over in your mind." - Gordon B. Hinckley

@TexasLaw it was my quote, not having gun control ( not ban ) works so well ! think a little bit about (bibles & handguns) for all it's not a hard metaphor to understand

would you like me to explain the difference between control & ban ? or maybe highlighted text compared to "" or have I "Dumb it down" enough ?

I get the Metaphor, promise I do. And I very very much grasp the difference between control and ban, thanks for offering to explain it in simpler detail but I won't ask you to waste any more time then we are at the moment.

Let's talk intelligent shall we?. Give me your ideas for Gun control. If you were in control and lets say you could make it happen. Sell your idea to me.

My wife & I were caught in middle of dozens of vehicles on way to this"party" on Sat. afternoon. People chasing each other on hiway, running each other off road, weaving, brake-slamming, etc. These folks acted as if they were daring others to defy them. Very dangerous situation...911 would only say they were "aware" of the situation...not surprised it turned out this way in the end. I am CHL holder; however, any responsible person would have known this would not be a situation to over-react; notify law enforcement, hope for best, get out of area. Just thank God we decided not to go to beach like we planned.

TexasLaw,

I don't believe you'll really find a reasonable debate on "gun control" or "gun bans," from this thread.

IMO ( at least from what I see on these posting threads anyway) ,,the general feeling from many posters , is that if some one is against guns ( as you mentioned inate object) then no one should be allowed to have them.

I'm also not impressed with the "bibles& guns for all" comment that was posted which was silly and doesn't really make a "selling point for debate . , I'd also love to hear his/her ideas on "gun control"

TexasLaw,

Gun Control doesn't work, BUT as long as you are positive then anythings possible right?

Except of course in the other G20 countries that have a fraction of our gun violence.

But if you watch FOX then any "facts" are possible right??

Charlie and others....do you honestly think that the shooter voted in any election or is a card carrying member of the NRA...I would venture to guess that any who chose to shoot another at a beach party is neither a voter or individual who pays dues to the NRA.

I guess it would have been better if they got beat to death with a hard cover bible and then the leftest could call for a ban on bibles.

If guns kill people, do pencils misspell words?

"Guns aren't the problem at all, it's the idiots who get a hold of them and throw temper tantrums..."

Okay, so until we can outlaw idiots, let's make it much harder for them to get guns.

If I"m invited to a gathering, and I know folks with guns will be there, I'm not going. The problem is not the people there...it's the guns, so, yes, guns are a problem for many of us.

Idiot !! For liam 1161783

wtfjes66: It's okay to relax a little bit, takenaka is okay with rifles, just not handguns, and always pops up to say so. I, personally, would kind of miss not seeing that little "ban handguns" post that comes up every time because I have come to expect it. Anyway, it's not one of those ban all guns scenarios, save your energy for someone who will involve him or herself in a verbal to-the-death battle with you, because takenaka won't.

Btw, I think the real problem here is the alcohol and who-knows-what drugs at the party that make some people act very stupid and irrationally in anger when drunk. No one should ever have a gun - or knife for that matter - with them when drinking, that only spells out disaster.

I guess in Texas it's normal behavior to bring a gun to a beach party.

Funny how everyone hears Texas and thinks "good ole boys" and "cowboys". Got news for you, Texas, especially Houston has it's share of gangbangers of color. It wouldn't surprise me if they were involved in this somewhow.

liam

Good old boys, try again.

Texas Beach Party is an annual black event put on by a fraternity. It has been going on for years and always has the same results. They used to have it in Galveston until they were banned.

http://txbeachparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cu6rcp.jpg

Steve: Black Fraternity??? Shhhh, don't tell them the facts, gets in the way of their stereotypical Guns, Texas and Bible bashing. So sorry to have those busted 'hate ons' quashed, but...they don't really care about facts, they have this Pavlovian response system hardwired into their itty bitty brains.

COmommy

re-reading my post it does sound like I went over the top a bit, was not my intention. Perhaps Takenaka makes those posts just to watch others reactions.......if so I hope it was entertaining.

I agree most posters here do not want to enter into an honest and openminded discussion....they want to state an opinion, make an abusive statement towards someone who has a different opinion and move on. Sad because these forums could be so much more than that. I enjoy a healthy debate that respects others opinions.

You certainly could control Guns from coming into a beach area?, What a concept..Their not allowed here in the Rocky Mountain National Forest..We dont seem to have much problem with it, all is well.

Re gun control, in the 1930s, America was concerned about the amount of violence done by gangsters with machine guns. Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was confirmed in the National Firearms Act of 1968. Do we have a problem today with people using machine guns to kill, in any significant numbers? no

So, gun control is indeed possible. We could do the same thing with hand guns.

would you like me to explain the difference between control & ban ?

I can tell you this much: Legislation starts out as 'gun control' and evolves into a 'ban'. And what is banned is only one shy step away from what isn't covered by the ban, so the possibility of the ban being expanded in the future is very, very high.

Another proud moment for the NRA.

Not! Given the age of the partygoers, I'd bet a cow and two chickens that not a one of the people on the beach was an NRA member. I don't think I ever recall meeting any NRA members who were under the age of 40 in recent years.

Oh, I forgot - it's not really guns you want banned it just a means for you to exercise YOUR WILL OVER OTHER PEOPLE RIGHTS.

That's about the size of it...although, of course, they'll never admit to it and they'll make counter accusations against you for even mentioning it.

Btw, I think the real problem here is the alcohol and who-knows-what drugs at the party that make some people act very stupid and irrationally in anger when drunk. No one should ever have a gun - or knife for that matter - with them when drinking, that only spells out disaster.

Now these are the words of someone who knows what she's talking about!

what party...why wasn't i invited...

Lusitania....

You might want to check your facts. It has been LEGAL to carry firearms in National Parks since 2010.

I guess all of those legal firearms owners are causing so much mayhem in the parks now, they must be war zones. NO??? Uhmmm... whouda thunk it. Legal firearms owners AREN'T gangbangers or drug dealers tryin to bust a cap on someone.

This was a black thang, ya'll wouldn't understand!!!

It's hilarious reading liberals comment on this. Here's a classic callous comment from one of them:

Except of course in the other G20 countries that have a fraction of our gun violence.

Yeah because gun control has worked so well in Obama's Chicago and Washington DC, brainiacs.

Anyway when there is a stabbing in America, how come the same liberal left doesn't have much to say? Why are they so emotional over guns but silent when someone gets stabbed to death or beaten to death or even run over on purpose by a car? They just don't seem to have quite as much to say over those kinds of death. But guns, oh boy! That will get their emotions going! We gotta ban all guns because a few punks out of the population do bad things with them!

Oh yeah, and they were pretty quiet after Obama's Fast And Furious insanity that dumped thousands of assault rifles into the hands of illegals in an attempt to point fingers at gun dealers and use as an excuse to punish legal gun dealers. His main dog washer, Attorney General Eric Holder, made a mockery of Congress investigating the action. You can bet if Bushie had dumped weapons on the illegal market the liberals would have called for his resignation and every major DNC news biased media from MSNBC on up would be running the story at the top of their headlines nonstop 7x24.

Finally, how come we aren't shown pictures of the event? I'd like to see if these were actually a bunch of bona-fide wild west gun slinging Texas cowboys/rednecks as some allege here vs. some other group of people.

the TiGor....good post

davey-526272.......you make a good point but the ban you speak of was for fully auto weapons (actually a little more to it than that, but to the point here), which are not as readily available today except for those with special licenses. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871, but I believe the NFA of 1934 was one of the first challenges faced by them. They weren't as well organized as they are today - today they understand better what could happen....little steps! With todays 4.3 million members (declared - guess at the additional numbers of supporters) I think it would be a very hard sell to propose any serious gun control legislation....but not saying it couldn't happen thouogh.

The Arms Control proposal now being sponsered by liberal gun control advocates in the U.S. and abroad at the UN and supported there by Hiliary Clinton is one such "back door" attempy at gun control and I can forsee a major battle here if it reaches a vote at the UN - no American citizen, I fervently hope, would want another country telling the U.S. what to do with our private citizen gun ownereship. After all we are Americans with our own roots, history and culture, we won't allow anyone outside our boarders to have control over us. Look at Switzerland - a very safe country - they actually give each citizen a rifle when they reach their age of majority - now that's a truly enlightened country.

Exactly, XDm9mm. The reason Lustitania isn't hearing of any gun violence in the National Parks is because the people carrying guns in the National Parks aren't there to commit crimes. They are there to camp and site-see. You would never know those of us who carry guns as law abiding citizens are carrying unless trouble arises...

is one such "back door" attempy at gun control and I can forsee a major battle here if it reaches a vote at the UN - no American citizen, I fervently hope, would want another country telling the U.S. what to do with our private citizen gun ownership

Clearly you don't know the emotion-driven liberal left in this nation very well.

Ten...being that I live near there I can personally attest that it was absolutely "some other" group of people. The media soes not like to report on facts though, just speculation and imagination.

At least show a picture of the wet T-Shirt contest.

OK, for all you uninformed idiots that ant to blame this on "redneck Texans" and "gun nuts"...this was more a case of black-on-black crime than anything else. However, the media will not say thet at all. Why, you ask? Because it does not sell thier idea of what they want you to buy...plain and simple.

I understand the point people make about gun control. If less people had guns, then these arguments would end in a few black eyes instead of someone dead.

But that train left the station a long time ago - there are way to many guns in circulation now. So at this point, I would prefer to have a gun of my own so if I come across one of these scumbags at least I have a fighting chance.

Thanks Sabin. I did a little research and found out that it was not a bunch of Republican Texas gun-hugging rootin' tootin' yeehaw cowboys. Chalk it up as yet another emotion-driven liberal failure of divulging the terrible truth.

"Facts...are stubborn things." -- John Adams

And once again we have to suffer through the liberal chants for gun control. Never worked.....never will.

That train left in the 1700's when our forefathers fought in the American Revolution. You seem to understand the 2nd Ammendment.

Please don't forget guns are illegal in Chicago guns are illegal in Mexico. What is it anti-gun people don't understand about that. Your Dem leaders have Brain washed you people and they're laughing at you for helping them make a S**T load of money. That's right, there's a lot of money to be made fighting the 2nd Amendment. RICHARD (TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S GUNS BUT MINE) DALEY paid his lawyer friends millions upon millions over his 22 years as mayor to fight the 2nd amendment they laughed all the way to the bank and still are. Chicago politicians want the violence in Chicago, if there was no violence they would have no reason the fight the 2nd amendment therefor no way to justify paying their pals the money they do.

This is true with all Dem politicians across the country, they're all doing it AND YOU'RE HELPING THEM GET AWAY WITH IT. Yes, there needs to be changes, I'm pro gun in case you haven't figured that out yet, there has to be back round check's done when purchasing a firearm and it should be law that you own a gun safe but people will complain about government forcing you to buy something so we'll just say if your gun is used to commit a crime and it was not locked up in a gun safe you should be held responsible, if guns were locked up these kids wouldn't be shooting up their school's, people start being more responsible when it comes to your firearms, so by that logic you're helping the Dem's make a case to fight the 2nd amendment so they can pay their pals, start locking up your guns please. And if you borrow a gun to someone sorry about this but you're just plain STU**D, I would never give someone a gun to use, lets start being smart.

10tacle

"Clearly you don't know the emotion-driven liberal left in this nation very well."

Actually, I learned a while back (won't say how far back though lol) not to underestimate anyone. And in the liberal mind, I am especially careful - at the same time I understand the mind of a politician up for election....they will pander and say most anything to get votes but with 4.3 million members and counting in the NRA I don't think there are a lot of them who have the solids to go against that large of a voter block - I take that back they may try once......and the NRA is only the tip of the iceberg.

I just wanted to thank alot of you for showing up, and for not letting me down, AND for saying exactly what I knew you would say.

Oh in pure Texas fashion... YEE HAW!!!!!!. You folks don't hate Texas. Most of you have never even been, even if you have it's probably never been more then a short trip through in which I'm sure nothing at all happened too you. I love seeing "adults" act like children. Erm... YEE HAW!.

I don't hate Texas, yes have been.

Would never return due to current lax gun laws.

You are likely just as happy not to see me darken your door.

Yet, many feel as I do.

EATSNAILS

I don't believe for one second that people wont go to Texas because of their gun laws, I'm sorry but that one just isn't going to fly. If you prefer you're welcome to come here to Chicago and visit our beautiful south side where there are all the gun ban laws in the world.

A lot of drinking and a lot of weed. Through in a few idiots and there ya go. Some people are getting visions of Bermuda shorts and six shooters. Since this was south of Houston i'm getting the image of something that was transplanted from New Orleans to Houston a few years ago.

This must be the Texas equivalent of: "Black Spring Break" in Daytona Beach

...no cowboy hats or boots...just gold teeth and gangbangers

"NAACP in the house, Y'all"

Liberals trying to blame rightwingers for what their black Democrats do in rightwing states...again.

Hmm, it was in Houston, and a guy named Alante Wade, aylontay, says

“There was a lot of drinking and a lot of weed".

Yeehaw! No...more like Yes We can.

Every time black Democrats make the murder or gun violence stats look bad in a southern state, the liberals try to blame the white rednecks for it. Don't think so. It's the Democrat areas with most the murders.

If you don't have a Democrat representing your district in Congress, your murder rate is low.

I'm getting a mental image of guys in Bermuda shorts and tank-tops, with big 6-shooters strapped to their leg and cowboy boots.

No, try rejects from the last Fiddy Cent video

Notsojingo - I bet you were so proud when you thought up the byob line huh? haha.

Glad to make you laugh. Having just spent a month in Houston recently, it is apparent that many Katrina 'refugees' have stayed right outside the sharp border found down the road from the Museum district. It is very sad and ugly all at the same time.

And as in everywhere I travel, there is the have areas and the have not areas. Clearly visible upon entry into either one. Only the one gun death sure has garnished a lot of commentary, but facts remain facts, and I am still certain, especially after viewing the above provided link to the 'Party', that I would have no interest in attending.

SXSW, Yes. Something as similar to Miami Beach's Memorial Day Party as this appears, No.

Miami Beach Memorial Day Weekend violence leaves one dead ...

Sorry if I put my spurs in your saddle...haha. I'm sure you're not too thin-skinned to appreciate a little humor...even if at your state's expense, and if I never mentioned race, creed nor color. Both my Sisters graduated TCU(Go Horned Toads!), and those with money in TX are doing great. Otherwise, I only go there when I must. The Oil Money greases the Wheel.(Pun Intended), and many those with the cash are pretty nose-in-the-air. Oh Well. (clanking my cow bell in support...haha.)

Don't Mess With TexasLaw.

There I go again. haha. Yee Haw

Have a Glourious Easter Sunday, Sir!

I just wanted to thank alot of you for showing up, and for not letting me down, AND for saying exactly what I knew you would say.

Yes, that is the pattern. First there is gun violence, overwhelming violence committed with a hand gun. Then the news story, and then Pro Hand Gun people telling us that hand guns are good!!!

It makes perfect sense, in bizarro world.

Have any of you Pro Hand Gun people noticed how many more news articles there are about hand guns used by bad guys to cause death and misery, than there are about good guys using their hand guns to save the day? That's because people use hand guns more to cause trouble than to solve problems.

And please, don't blame the Main Stream Media for slanted, biased reporting. The stats support this. There are many more murders committed each year with hand guns than there are justifiable homicides.

Sure, most hand guns will not be used in the commission of a crime. Sure, most hand gun owners are legal and will not kill anyone. If I had to make a guess, hand guns are mostly not used. Folks just keep them around, unused. The second most common use of hand guns is crime. Hand guns used in self defense or protection comes in third.

Hand guns cause so much trouble. It's not terror, but it is terrifying. Yet, not that many Americans own hand guns. Fewer still carry them in public. IF we were smart, we'd think of a way to decrease the number of hand guns in our society. We might decide to classify hand guns as a Title II (class 3) weapon under the National Firearms Act. You get to keep your hand gun!! But you will be making America a much much much safer place in the future. For example, in the 1930s, Congress was so concerned about violence done by gangs with machine guns that they raised the requirements for owning a machine gun, making it more difficult to get a machine gun. Do we have a lot of violence caused by people with machine guns today? No. The NFA worked!! Do you lose any sleep at night because you cannot own a machine gun? No! (I hope). Do we need more machine guns in our society today? No!!! This is the wonder that the Congress in the 1930s gave us today. What a gift!

Let's do the same thing now with hand guns.

Re gun control, in the 1930s, America was concerned about the amount of violence done by gangsters with machine guns. Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was confirmed in the National Firearms Act of 1968. Do we have a problem today with people using machine guns to kill, in any significant numbers? no

davey-526272.......you make a good point but the ban you speak of was for fully auto weapons (actually a little more to it than that, but to the point here), which are not as readily available today except for those with special licenses. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871, but I believe the NFA of 1934 was one of the first challenges faced by them.

Okay, guys...

...First off, yes, America was 'concerned' about the amount of violence done by gangsters with machine guns. Only because the relative handful of gangster shootouts with Thompson submachineguns were well publicized and even figuratively glorified in the newspapers of the day. There were no legal restrictions on Thompsons at the time, but there were definitely economic restrictions on them! The fact that one would cost you $250 in the mid-1920's was a very substantial restriction on who could purchase one. You could buy a very nice late model used car for that princely sum back then, and a new car didn't cost too much more than that. The Thompsons were meant for sale to the US Government, who was buying weapons freely when the Thompson was designed, but had completely lost interest in them by the time they were ready to be delivered as WWI had ended. Thompson had contracted with Colt's Patent Firearms to produce about 15,000 'Tommy guns', a limited quantity were purchased by the US War Department, bootlegging gangsters who were raking in millions of dollars were buying them for their 'boys' to battle each other with, but that was about it. No one else could afford to spend the money on a gun that had no real utility value to it. You could get a serviceable example of most anything else (rifle, shotgun, pistol, or revolver) for $50 or less back then. The US Government finally bought them and shipped most of them to Great Britain on the eve of WWII, and a lot of them never even made it there thanks to German U-boats.

The reason there were so few submachine gun shootings was because there were very few submachine guns in circulation in the 1920's. I'm thinking there might have been a hundred or so in private hands, but even that may be a stretch. The real CONCERN was the bank robbery gangs of the early 1930's, such as the Dillinger Gang and the Charles 'Pretty Boy' Floyd gang. They are not known to have bought the submachine guns and other higher end weapons they used. Instead, they robbed the police and National Guard at gunpoint with common shotguns. Nobody stocked Thompson submachine guns, because they were too hard to sell. They were a special order item. As the various robbery gangs were all notorious and desperately wanted, they were constantly on the move and while they may have had the money after a couple of 'jobs', they weren't stupid enough to order a Tommy gun and either wait or else return to take delivery of it!

The NRA is known to have actually PUSHED for the NFA, as all of the weapons it places a $200 excise tax on had very little usability for a legitimate user and they realized how much damage could be done by the wrong people getting their hands on them. Submachineguns, like short barreled rifles and sawed off shotguns, are not suitable for proper hunting and gainful target shooting with any of those is a total joke. They're okay for making a lot of noise and obliterating a target placed in front of them, but that is little more than 'screwing around' with guns and anyone who has the money to waste on doing that shouldn't have any trouble buying a $200 tax stamp.

Okicize; the fact you don't know the typical reaction people have to weed compared to booze, speaks volumes about your over all knowledge. If they were consuming both - it wasn't the weed that brought out their violent side.

Houston had a huge Black population long before Katrina displaced South-eastern residents - and it's the manipulation by the local governments that is preventing them from returning to their homes... seems those Blacks lived on prime realestate that Whites have coveted for years.

So there are no Black cowboys, no Hispanic cowboys either? You watch too much John Wayne, Black cowboys and miners were huge in settling California. At least 90% of the horse owners here in Tucson are Hispanic... the bubble some of you live in has become toxic.

If you can't make fun of your own backyard - then don't make fun or rag on others. I make fun of Tucson (my home) all the time, it like all other parts of the world has room for improvement. You do know that PRIDE is the biggest sin of all, don't you?

Ok, so who brings guns to a party? Really now people, get a grip.

What I've learned at Newsvine in the last two days;

Blacks can't be cowboys.

Blacks can't wear Bermuda shorts and tank-tops.

Only Blacks kill other Blacks, no exceptions (disregard those Tulsa arrests).

The harder conservatives try and justify their hate - the deeper they dig their own grave.

Yah drain, that was the image the liberal was trying to paint at the top: Black cowboys with bermuda shorts and six shooters saying Yeehaw.

Sure, that was it. Not white rednecks. No, of course not.

Man, why are you Democrats so violent? I thought you loved peace and all. Practice your gun control beliefs, practice them.

The only way to solve this: Ban people.

It's the only way.

TiGor, you seem to be saying 1) there was no need to place restrictions on machine guns, and 2) it's OK to have restrictions on machine guns.

Have any of you Pro Hand Gun people noticed how many more news articles there are about hand guns used by bad guys to cause death and misery, than there are about good guys using their hand guns to save the day? That's because people use hand guns more to cause trouble than to solve problems.

you have no idea what you are talking about...I know many individuals who own handguns and I can't seem to recall any of them using them to cause trouble

However, I can tell you that my own brother used a gun to protect himself when an eighteen year old black male attacked him as he was trying to steal my brother's car from right in front of his residence in central Florida a while back

perhaps the problem is not "Pro Hand Gun people" - as you refer to them - after all......

drainbramage: so you 'learned' all that on newsvine? That explains a lot. Guess you are an exemple of 'selective' learning. It's gratifying to see that you are putting aside your agendas and keeping an open mind in your educational quest.

SIOBHAN

I bet everyone wonders what SIOBHAN means LOL. People dont ever guess it's a name, I'm Irish, there are a few SIOBHAN in my family, Happy Easter to you :o)

Drainbamage......

Blacks can't be cowboys?

Don't tell that to my old cop buddy Bob.

TiGor, you seem to be saying 1) there was no need to place restrictions on machine guns, and 2) it's OK to have restrictions on machine guns.

Your assessment is correct.

At the time, there really wasn't a need. The NFA was, if not necessarily 'knee jerk' legislation, more of a 'feel good' kind of thing. It was basically a solution to something that wasn't really a problem.

The Prohibition era gangsters were pretty much washed up after 1) Capone's organization dominated the scene 2) Capone's organization was no longer functioning efficiently after 1929-30 for a number of reasons, including public disdain for the St. Valentine's Day massacre, Al leaving the Chicago area, and finally his arrest, conviction, and sentencing, and 3) the repeal of Prohibition. The gangs had been into other things, like extortion, prostitution, and gambling before prohibition, and still had those, along with some branching out into narcotics, but Prohibition was what really made them 'zing' and with it gone, they pretty much lost their fire. Most of the 'soldiers' of the gangs were dead, permanently wounded, or in prison by the time Roosevelt was elected. Others basically got sick and tired of the violence and many, you could say, just became 'too old' to keep living that kind of lifestyle.

The robbery gangs didn't get started until about 1933 or so when the Great Depression was in full swing. They acquired a few Thompson submachine guns. A very few. Dillinger stole one from Sheriff Holley at Crown Point, Indiana, along with her (yes, Sheriff Vivian Holley was a she) new V-8 powered Ford. Crossing state lines with her car is what got the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Investigation (wasn't the FBI until 1935) involved in pursuing the Dillinger Gang. The gang also robbed two Indian State Police armories of a bunch of 'goodies', including handguns, bullet resistant vests, rifles, ammunition, and maybe another Thompson or two.

Would a $200 tax on the purchase of a new Thompson through a hardware store or sporting goods dealer (usual sources of firearms in those days, weren't too many real 'gun dealers' back then) have had any impact on the Dillinger Gang? I don't think so.

Now, there were a bunch of aspiring hoodlums out there who would have loved to get their hands on a Thompson. Lots of gangster movies of the era depicted them, naturally. But such a weapon was a 'top of the line' kind of tool of the trade, and not what the little guys start out with. They started out with what they had or could readily get, which was mostly rifles and shotguns, and pistols or revolvers usually were a second step for after a successful holdup or two.

The Thompson is highly overrated. I'm familiar with them, and as firearms go, they're a real beauty. Very nicely manufactured, assembled, and finished. They are definitely fun to shoot! They are, however, rather clumsy and awkward, and they are quite heavy for their size. They are hard to aim accurately in semi-auto, so the select-fire feature allowing them to be switched over to full automatic is pretty much necessary for them to be useful as a weapon. Even then, they're just a tiny step above a pistol in terms of ballistic performance and range. For their intended purpose, which was clearing out trenches in France, they were more than adequate. For anything else, eh, not so much. A Winchester '97 with decent buckshot loads would come very, very close to doing what a Thompson could at about a tenth of the cost. By the time WWII came around, the submachine gun was more or less obsolete, and the only real reason they were used at all was because they were available. The .30 Carbine, M1 was a better combat weapon in all respects, and it wasn't even intended to be an actual combat weapon.

Would there have been an honest-to-God need for legislation like the NFA of 1934? Probably. Not sure when that need would have come along, but I'm guessing it would have been sometime after WWII when a number of military firearms from around the world were being imported into the US. I'm pretty sure somebody would have taken to misusing any submachineguns that might have been imported. We were having some problems with the Puerto Rican nationalist types in the early 50's, including an attempted assassination of President Truman. I imagine those guys would have liked to have had Sten guns, MP-40's, or whatever else instead of the pistols they had when involved in the shootout with the Secret Service. I'm pretty certain that by 1968 we'd have seen something significant had the NFA of 1934 not been enacted.

You could definitely say that submachine guns need some oversight. Legitimate uses for them are very few, mostly just exhibition type use. Nothing wrong with that, but that's a fairly limited legitimate use. They would definitely appeal to unlawful users very much more than regular repeating firearms would. I've always felt the $200 tax was a bit steep, but the licensing and registration requirements for those have always struck me as reasonable. Since there are so relatively few NFA weapons out there, it's not much of a burden on the Treasury Department. How they'd manage the same thing with handguns is beyond me. If they would have started in, say, 1850 or so, it wouldn't be such a bear. Right now, there's just too many handguns that have come and gone to track them all effectively. Most all are serial numbered, many production records are available, but how would you know which ones are no longer with us and which ones are out there but haven't been registered? It'd become a real zoo in short order, and with many of the older models especially, it would always look like the registry was quite lacking.

Notsojingo-I thought the byob line was great! Hope you had a great Easter also.

Thanks stonepipe! It was and is! Happy Easter!!

However, I can tell you that my own brother used a gun to protect himself when an eighteen year old black male attacked him as he was trying to steal my brother's car from right in front of his residence in central Florida a while back

With so many hand guns, of course there will be some legitimate defensive gun uses. I congratulate anyone who is able to defeat a bad guy, regardless of how they do it.

Right now, there's just too many handguns that have come and gone to track them all effectively.

There are a lot of them. Maybe too many to track. But you do see the problem that hand guns cause. #1 murder weapon, easy to get. What can we do to maximize the chance that a hand gun will be sold to a solid citizen, and not an anti-social, potential criminal?

drainbramage there is nothing wrong with Tucson, south sixth and miracle mile are great areas to hang out in :)

There are a lot of them. Maybe too many to track. But you do see the problem that hand guns cause. #1 murder weapon, easy to get. What can we do to maximize the chance that a hand gun will be sold to a solid citizen, and not an anti-social, potential criminal?

Davey, we're pretty much on the right track there. Could it be 'better'? Yes. But from a practical standpoint, what we've got is about as good as it gets, all things considered.

Here's a couple of finer points to ponder:

Why don't we, on BATFE Form 4473, ask the prospective purchaser, "are you purchasing this handgun for the express purpose of using it to commit a felony?". After all, we do ask if the prospective purchaser is a number of other things, such as a convicted felon, subject to a restraining order, a lawful citizen, if they've ever renounced their citizenship or been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, etc. To the best of my knowledge, unfortunately, while it's 'okay' to ask if a person has been convicted or adjudicated in certain ways, apparently it's a bit trickier to ask what they're going to do with it. Otherwise, they'd be doing it! I'm thinking it probably constitutes either self-incrimination or possibly some sort of entrapment, and this is assuming that the person isn't just going to lie about their intentions in the first place. Short of mind reading, how do you verify something that hasn't happened yet?

Along a similar vein, straw purchasers is the biggest problem. It happens a lot along the border with Mexico. It happens everywhere else, too. It's been going on in my state for a number of years. Usually, what happens is that a black man and a white woman, usually blonde, show up at a gun retailer's counter looking at handguns. They don't want to talk to the dealer or clerk, they're just looking. He points to one, and they leave. About a week later, she comes in by herself with a freshly issued Permit to Acquire a Pistol or Revolver from the county sheriff's office. Sure enough, she asks for the pistol (virtually always a 9mm automatic, it seems) that he pointed to. She may fake some interest throughout the sales talk, but no matter what, she 'wants' THAT gun. She fills out the form 4473, including attesting that she is the actual purchaser and that the gun is for her own use. She passes the National Instant Check System hotline call, no sweat, since she has no record.

Technically, the clerk or dealer can refuse her. But, as the dealers I know point out, it's not quite that simple. One problem is that if he tells her to leave, he may be looking at a discrimination lawsuit, and unless he had good security camera footage of the both of them in a week or whenever before, he'll have to be sharing his observation with a judge and hoping said judge buys it. Word getting around town can be bad for business, too. Naturally, it will be exaggerated to make the gun dealer or clerk look like the bad guy who is sexist, racist, a jerk, or whatever. If the woman is turned down, the man who was really wanting to acquire the gun may beat her to a pulp for not bringing it back with her. The man may also just come in himself, possibly with some friends, and help himself to the gun, either during or after business hours. They may do a 'smash and grab' job to the display case, or they may rob the place outright.

The consensus is that about all you can do is sell her the gun, then drop a line to the authorities and let them know something seems amiss. The catch is, they can't really do anything about it. There's no real proof that a crime was committed, and she's got a clean record, or else she wouldn't have been issued the permit to purchase the gun. They probably have NO idea who the guy is, as he's likely not even been in town a month yet. They'll make a note of it, and if she gets pulled over somewhere locally in the near future or a call for service is requested for her home address, they'll be sending extra backup. Should either happen, however, odds are very good that the man - and his new handgun - either aren't with her, or are long gone. If they ask to search her car, and don't find a gun, there isn't much they can do. There's no guarantee that she even knew who he really was, either. She may have a name he gave her, but that's about it. She can say he just took off one day, and, gee, she can't seem to find her new gun anymore. He might have stolen it! Or she can claim that he had her do it and threatened to hurt her if she didn't or if she told anyone. Back to square one, really. You could try to pursue a case with her, but the cow is already out of the barn.

As far as handguns being the number 1 murder weapon, that isn't true everywhere. Where I live, there are very few handgun killings. There are a good number of stabbings and strangulations, and shotguns and rifles seem to be the firearms of choice. Hammers, bats, shovels, and frying pans keep coming up as murder weapons, and last year a guy decided it was time to bury the hatchet. Unfortunately, it was in someone's head. People use what they've got at hand when the urge to kill strikes them, and in these parts, it's usually not a handgun. There's enough handguns around, just not in the hands of people who are homicidal maniacs, that's all.

Hell, this is the USA. What would a party of adults be without some shooting? Always need at least a few wounded. A better party though, will yield several wounded and 1 or 2 dead. Gwad!

davey- question for you? what is the most armed country in the world? based on guns per household....answer- switzerland

what country consistently ranks in the lowest 3 for violent crimes (especially involving guns)? answer- switzerland.

coincidence? hardly.

the real issue of this murder has already been mentioned above....lets just say it wasn't good ole texas cowboys doing the shooting..."know what i'm sayin' yo?"...like the libtards want us to believe.

amazing that msnbc didn't provide these facts.....hahahaha, i fell out of my chair on the last one, of course msnbc will not print the full picture because it doesn't fit their agenda.....now, let's go hang the "white" zimmerman guy! what? msnbc says he is white!

@mcb-2773914

When you speak of "gun control" and the prospect of reducing gun violence thru said gun control just remember this; Drugs are controlled, some are illegal and carry very stiff penalties for simply getting caught with, yet even though they are "controlled" they are EVERYWHERE and then some!!!! So exactly how is it that duplicating something, that has been as big of a disaster as the "war on drugs", is actually going to make things better?

They make Vicodin and percocet at factories that have better security than fort Knox yet these "controlled" drugs are virtually everywhere and are being used and sold all but openly on the streets and in our children's schools!!! So just exactly how in the hell is a government agency supposed to "control" something when they can't even "control" what they already "control"???? I have got to hear the answer to this!!!!!

Davey,

I got to thinking about something I read many years ago, and thought I may well be able to find it online. Sure enough!

This is excerpted from a 1932 article by Philip B. Sharpe about the Thompson Submachine gun that appeared in the Police Science section of the Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law, published by Northwestern University of Chicago:

At the National Rifle Matches at Camp Perry, Ohio, back in August, 1920, there appeared a strange looking weapon. It was neither rifle nor shotgun; pistol nor revolver. It had two odd-looking pistol grips with finger grooves in the forward surfaces. It had no buttstock. The user held the weapon on his hip by firmly grasping the two grips and squeezed the trigger.

That same year the new gun was adopted by the New York Police. The first move in making, the Sub-Machine Gun internationally famous had started¾a move which has steadily spread until, with the start of 1932, several hundred police departments in the United States and Canada are equipped with the weapon which has made history in law enforcement.

The few Thompson guns which have fallen into the hands of law breakers are much more in a minority than law enforcement executives believe. For nearly two years, it is safe to state, probably not one of these guns has gone astray, due to an entirely new sales system which will be explained later...

...Every effort has been made to make the Thompson gun available only to properly constituted authorities. In past years sales were handled through many large sporting goods dealers; the burden of determining the integrity of a purchaser thus falling on the dealer's shoulders. Experience has taught the makers of this weapon that such a policy is greatly abused, corrupt employees making sales to emmisaries of gangdom and falsifying records to make the transaction appear "regular." A new policy now in force will eliminate these troubles.

Police Departments, sheriffs and District Attorneys' forces, penitentiaries, prisons and jails, responsible banks, and bonded armored truck despatch services may purchase the various models and equipment. However, sales are no longer made through jobbers, dealers, or agents. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation has made the Federal Laboratories of Pittsburgh, Pa., its exclusive distributor. This Corporation sells direct to the above mentioned agencies only after proper investigation of the buyer. Purchases are made on officially signed orders from chiefs of police, mayors, city purchasing agents, or officials occupying such capacities in their localities. Papers must be signed, certifying that neither the weapon nor any of its accessories may become the property of an individual.

This new arrangement prohibits a sheriff from purchasing a sub-machine gun and taking it with him when he retires from office. For the gun is sold to the department only. This also applies to any other purchasing organization.

No private individual may purchase a Thompson gun. There are no exceptions.

In other words, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation has carefully regulated the sale of its products, assisting law enforcement agen- [Page 1114] cies in two ways-giving them a gun which will promptly settle an argument with a law-breaker; and preventing these portable machine guns from falling into improper hands.

I do not believe I had mentioned it earlier, but a full four years before the National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed, sales of Thompson submachineguns to the general public were stopped, on the company's own accord. They realized that the bad publicity the sensationalized misuse of their product certainly wasn't helping matters, and that legitimate users would shy away from it even further and the people who shouldn't have them would only covet them even more.

Ironically, some of the 15,040 Model 1921 Thompson guns were converted to an autoloading (semi-automatic) only 'carbine' configuration in an effort to sell more of the many thousands of guns still in the warehouse after seven years. Excepting some foreign and a few government (US Marine Corps, US Postal Service) sales, law enforcement agencies were buying most of the guns that were being sold, and they'd collectively purchased maybe a thousand or so in the end. The usual order was one Thompson submachine gun for the department, period. By 1927, Auto-Ordinance, the company that marketed the Thompson, was figuring out that a large number of law enforcement agencies just didn't want their cops armed with machine guns! Thus, the M1927 carbine. And they still didn't seem to sell. I imagine if service revolvers and 12 gauge riot shotguns weren't enough, the Remington Model 8, Winchester Model 1907, or even the Winchester M1894 would be very suitable rifles...again, for about 1/10 the cost of any variation of the Thompson.

I thought that might be some more useful background info for you regarding the National Firearms Act of 1934 and how relatively easy it was to implement with a very small number of fully automatic firearms in private ownership versus millions of handguns over the past 160 plus years.

Davey, we're pretty much on the right track there. Could it be 'better'? Yes. But from a practical standpoint, what we've got is about as good as it gets, all things considered.

I disagree.

As far as handguns being the number 1 murder weapon, that isn't true everywhere.

It is true for the entire US and for states where it is easy to get a hand gun. Just look at this (is it easy to get a hand gun in Arizona?)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

TexasLaw had this to say:

And real quick here, while I truly cannot stand those who jump on the ban all guns wagon train, if you seriously hate guns or want gun control, then do something about it. While I think most of you are idiots for numerous reasons, I still say go out and do something about it, I am all for standing your ground for what you believe in. I don't support it at all but that's besides the point.

If you truly feel so strongly about what you say, you truly in your heart hate an inanimate object instead of the person firing, and are tired of these stories... Get off your butts and go make something happen, commenting on here won't do it.

Okay--you want me to hate the person firing rather than the gun. Fine--so what about the person who killed the little Amish girl while he was cleaning his weapon? What about the little third grader whose gun went off when he tossed his backpack down, shooting another little third grader? What about the toddler who shot and killed his mother? What about any number of little children who have shot and killed their playmates? What about any number of suicidal people who have shot and killed themselves in a fit that might have passed quickly if they hadn't had the gun (people who slit their wrists or take drugs are a lot more likely to survive).

Am I to hate the people who completely unintentionally shot and killed someone, or am I to hate the little children who really had no idea what was going to happen with the gun? Am I to hate the people who, in their own confusion, picked up a gun impulsively, pointed it at their heads, and pulled the trigger?

A gun is a handheld cannon. Get your head around that, friend. It is a dangerous thing, like any cannon--how about the one that misfired for Mythbusters, and they are extraordinarily lucky did not kill someone? Cannons are dangerous--handheld or not--and some of us would rather that there were fewer of them, and certainly fewer in the hands of irresponsible idiots.

We.already.have.gun.control.

Any law that lets people carry a concealed firearm after applying for and being granted permission is a gun control law. Any law that is designed to keep track of firearms when they are created and then shipped and then sold is a gun control law. Any law that requires parents to keep firearms out of the hands of small children is a gun control law. Any law that prevents convicted criminals from purchasing or owning firearms is a gun control law. We.already.have.gun.control.

Have I sufficiently explained at this point why I think you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer? You are telling us to get off our fannies and do something that we have already done. You are claiming that a handheld cannon isn't dangerous by itself and therefore not something people can "hate." And, apparently, they cannot hate the existence of biological weapons, nuclear weapons, or even nuclear power plants that are near fault lines.

Yes, a person can hate an inanimate object if that inanimate object has some capacity for harming them or their family members. And, no, it doesn't necessarily take intentional human action to make the weapon dangerous. An unexploded land mind is still dangerous. Long after the person who planted that mine is gone--it is still dangerous, and one can hate the thought of the thing and the thing itself while understanding that the person who planted it really only meant to do something beneficial (like stopping Nazis).

If you are too limited to hate anything other than people--fine. I hate injustice. I hate hypocrisy. I hate intentional stupidity. Yes, I'm capable of hating both a concrete object and an abstract concept--but, generally speaking, I don't hate people. I hate what they do--but I don't necessarily hate them (with some exceptions--don't have a lot of warm fuzzies about Ted Bundy).

Funny, but I once read this book that told me I was supposed to love the sinner (and forgive the wrongdoer) but hate the sin (or the wrong). What was the name of that book again . . . ?

Okay, Davey...

You disagree, huh? What, you don't think it 'could' be better?

Seriously, you tell me what else could be done that will:

1) Actually be useful and effective

2) Not be a costly burden on the US government

3) Not be struck down as unconstitutional or a violation or infringement of anyone's civil rights

I'd be very interested to see what you suggest. Just about everything that isn't already being done is either untenable, impractical, or does not pass legal muster. And that doesn't count the things that can be done to create a lot of hassle and get law abiding citizens to jump through a bunch of hoops but have practically ZERO effect on the criminal element of society who circumvent gun controls.

If it was easy, we wouldn't still be discussing this 45 years after the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed.

It is true for the entire US and for states where it is easy to get a hand gun.

I live in the middle of the US and it's not particularly difficult at all to get a handgun if you've got a few hundred dollars, no criminal record, and aren't afraid to show up in person at the Sheriff's Office to fill out an application for a Permit to Acquire Pistols and/or Revolvers and hand it back with $5.

It doesn't get too much easier than that! Yet, a police lieutenant I know would tell you he takes quite a few knives from people on the street, but seldom any handguns. The last handgun murder we had here was several years back and it involved people who weren't from here and weren't planning to be here a month later. The county to the north had a shooting death ten or fifteen years ago, when someone was killed with a rifle. A suspicious death occurred about five miles from where I'm sitting right now, just across the county line, and it was a case that was truly 'messed up' with some kind of perversion, but I think the gal drank herself to death and the guys in the house did somethings to her while she was just barely alive. Another adjacent county had a .22 rifle killing that was somewhat a domestic dispute, though I suspect someone experimenting with hallucinogenic drugs may have been the real cause. That was only the second murder that county ever had, the first one being in 1898. The city I live just outside of is the area 'hotbed' of crime, and like I said, handguns seem to be the least used homicide weapon...like maybe every 5 to 10 years. We're maybe one homicide a year, but they're stabbings, strangulations, bludgeonings, and just about everything else. Definitely more vehicular homicides than outright murders.

Go figure.

Well, why don't you just tell me which state you live in?

it's not particularly difficult at all to get a handgun if you've got a few hundred dollars, no criminal record, and aren't afraid to show up in person at the Sheriff's Office to fill out an application for a Permit to Acquire Pistols and/or Revolvers and hand it back with $5.

I think it would be good if all states had those requirements.

Seriously, you tell me what else could be done that will:

I still believe that the only practical step to take now is Title II classification for hand guns. Yes, people will have to wait a while before they are approved. But you know, that's life in the US. Some people wait for years before they get their Green Card. They will simply have to wait for years before they get their hand gun permit.

Remember, my goal is to reduce hand guns. Making people wait is just fine. In a few decades, when there are fewer hand guns, the process will go faster :-)

In the meantime, everyone who has a hand gun now will get to keep theirs. In the run up to the law's implementation, I'm sure there will be a big rush to buy hand guns. Fine. The Last Hurrah. After that, expect a lot less access to legal hand guns. Our children and children's children will thank us for making them safer, just like we can thank our grandfathers for making us safer by keeping machine guns out of the hands of most citizens. I am so happy that anyone cannot go to the local gun store and buy a machine gun.

When there are fewer hand guns, it will save thousands of lives every year.

Here I sit with my cheeks a flexin'....Givin birth to another Texan

Beanathome, you are quoting Gandhi not the Bible

Davey,

Well, why don't you just tell me which state you live in?

I'll let you take a guess on that one. It's situated between two rivers, has a population of about three million, and it's name is adapted from that of a native tribe, though it is often said to mean 'this beautiful land'. The geography is mostly rolling hills, and it does tend to get very windy up here, making it a great place for windmills.

Sound familiar yet?

I still believe that the only practical step to take now is Title II classification for hand guns.

Believe what you wish, but refer back to:

1) Actually be useful and effective

2) Not be a costly burden on the US government

3) Not be struck down as unconstitutional or a violation or infringement of anyone's civil rights.

That strategy, unfortunately, does not jive with any of those criteria. At this late date, it is of very dubious value. It would take massive amounts of manpower to administer in anything approaching an efficacious way so as not to be a total waste of resources, and it won't be long before it is figured out that some people appear to be unfairly getting their tax stamps issued in, say, the 90-180 days it now takes, while other people, who may be of a certain perceived minority due to the color of their skin, the ethnicity of their last name, their religion, or possibly even their gender find they are receiving theirs in more like a year or two.

The only legislators who would want their name on something like this would be those who are about to retire or go down in a scandal. It's nearly a sure-fire way to not get reelected. If it was to pass, I doubt you'd find the same $200 tax applied to the pistols and revolvers as you would to the NFA firearms, which are considered to be 'offensive' weapons as they are primarily useful for attacking other people with, but not very useful as a personal defense weapon or especially as a sporting arm due to poor handling and usability characteristics. This is why handguns were not included in the NFA back in the 30's - too legitimately useful. If anything, the $5 tax stamp for what is referred to as 'Any Other Weapon' would apply. The A.O.W. tax is for anything that isn't a machine gun, short barrel rifle or shotgun, or a sound signature suppressor (silencer), or critical parts of any of those, but still falls under the NFA somehow. A rifle with a bore larger than .60", a 'cane gun', a 'zip gun' (pen that shoots bullets), smoothbore pistols firing shotshells, and other such oddities fall in this realm.

Generally, when the Federal government gets bogged down with something like this, instead of holding everything up, they let it go. When the NICS hotline first came in, it sometimes got very slow. They'd put a transaction on hold for a brief amount of time until they could get a response from the system, but after a certain threshold was reached, the policy was to just let the sale proceed and if it later came back as a 'bad' sale, they'd deal with it after the fact. Not too long ago, when the price of gasoline went way high, the BATFE, I understand, started telling people applying for license to distill their own motor fuel alcohol to just go ahead and do it as long as it was for motor fuel only and none would be consumed. So many applications were inundating their offices they knew they'd not be catching up anytime soon.

just like we can thank our grandfathers for making us safer by keeping machine guns out of the hands of most citizens.

Our grandfathers couldn't afford machine guns while they were being sold to the public from 1920-1930. That's why there were so few, years before any legislation restricting them came along. Most of the various machine guns in the hands of private citizens and corporate entities today were built during or after WWII and all of those are under the provisions of the NFA.

Your idea could work...if this was 1862 instead of 2012. Of course, at that time, Southern gentlemen were desperately trying to keep ex-slaves from getting their hands on revolvers and firearms in general, and the US was doing everything in its power to keep the rebel Confederates from accessing any kinds of weapons, too. The Europeans were more than happy to do what they could to make them available, however. There really is nothing new under the sun.

Davey your idea's will not work at all,

I still believe that the only practical step to take now is Title II classification for hand guns. Yes, people will have to wait a while before they are approved. But you know, that's life in the US. Some people wait for years before they get their Green Card. They will simply have to wait for years before they get their hand gun permit.

Remember, my goal is to reduce hand guns. Making people wait is just fine. In a few decades, when there are fewer hand guns, the process will go faster :-)

1. This will not stop any criminal from aquiring a gun that wants one. If you think so see what has happened in Australia since there ban on guns, Also i see the ban worked great in Chicago, no guns there are there.

2.It will make it harder for people to protect themselves in there own home., i sure hope you dont think the police can or will actually protect you. No they will write the report and call the coroner to pick up your body.

3. AND THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON it will b e a direct violation of the constitution, it will prevent you from being able to keep ARMS if you cannnot buy them for years.

4. I find it utterly amazing so many of you want it to be instant and easy to kill a child through abortion yet want to prevent someone from being able to defend themself, cause the police will almost NEVER arrive when needed in time.

I'm old enough to remember the WWI surplus rifles you could buy. They were in 55 gal. drums packed in grease $10 each. They were mostly springfield 303's.

Wrong rifle Enfield not Springfield. If it was a Springfield 303 it would be worth some money they only made 3 mockups before the US stopped the contact to the British.

I'm old enough to remember the WWI surplus rifles you could buy. They were in 55 gal. drums packed in grease $10 each. They were mostly springfield 303's.

Now, THAT I'd like to have been able to see.

Not all that long ago, and perhaps even today if you look in the right place, steel en-bloc clips meant to hold eight .30 US Government cartridges together for insertion into the US Rifle, M1, were available as new-old-stock kind of surplus, sealed in 55 gallon drums. I have never seen rifles sold in steel drums, however.

Packed in grease, whether heavy ordnance grease or Cosmoline, yes, I most certainly have seen THAT. In fact, I use Shipmate brand marine grease as ordnance grease to protect steel parts and tools from rusting. It never really dries and is always a bit sticky, but it cleans up very nicely and is a light tan color, just darker than Vasoline. Certainly not staining like lithium or wheel bearing grease!

$10 each was before my time. But I'm well aware than in those days, that was a princely sum for many and a lot of folks, even if they had the $10, couldn't afford to spend it on a high powered centerfire rifle.

Springfield .303's I'd really like to see!

The US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903, 'Springfield', I'm very familiar with. I own and thoroughly enjoy an excellent specimen that was one of the last of the double heat treat models, rebuilt with some Remington parts after early action in WWII, presumably by one or more Marines in the Pacific.

Perhaps what you recall are the US Rifle, M1917's, sometimes referred to as an 'Enfield' or more commonly as an 'Eddystone'? They were based on a design meant to replace the British Short Magazine Lee-Enfield .303 caliber rifles until the outbreak of WWI put that plan on hold. The design intent was to move to a .276 caliber cartridge, but we built our version of the 'P-14' rifle as a .30-06 like the '03 Springfield, and the ones the British fielded I believe were either .303's or else .30-06's we supplied them, though that may have only been the Home Guard during WWII. I recall they painted a red stripe on them so they knew to use the .30-06 US cartridges and not their own .303 fodder in them.

Some of the P-14/M1917 developments showed up in the British Rifle No. 4, Mark I when it arrived to supersede the SMLE/No. 1, Mk. III circa 1939. I have a No. 4, Mk. I built in the US by Savage Arms and marked 'Property US Government' even though it's a .303. Nice rifle, though the combat sight never was my favorite. (Love the Springfield '03's sight, though!) One of the Parker-Hale ones would be very nice, but with the two groove barrel, I'm not sure it'd be all that much of a help. Making any old .303 shoot well is always a bit of a trick, and that's the challenge I enjoy with that old rifle.

I certainly remember Enfield rifles being available for sale around $80 or so, but that's as far back as my personal experience with old 'mil-surp' rifles goes.

That strategy, unfortunately, does not jive with any of those criteria.

Oh please. Now you are a constitutional scholar?

It's nearly a sure-fire way to not get reelected

I do recognize that there is a lot of support in America for hand gun ownership. Even though relatively few Americans own hand guns, and fewer want to carry them in public, there certainly is a very vocal, committed, and highly organized constituency that supports hand gun ownership. (Given how little benefit hand guns are to the society as a whole, I see a tremendous opportunity cost for this fanatic hand gun support. Imagine if this energey was channeled into something useful and productive, something that benefitted the entire society? anyway)

Our grandfathers couldn't afford machine guns while they were being sold to the public from 1920-1930.

Maybe, but I have a feeling that if the machine guns were not covered by the NFA, a lot of Americans would want a machine gun. A lot of people would have them. Today. And that might spell trouble.

Your idea could work...if this was 1862 instead of 2012.

Title II classification for hand guns still makes sense to me. Even if it were only a first step. You see, I believe that hand guns are a net negative in the society. Yes, most hand gun owners don't do much with their hand guns. As so many have said, they will never use their hand gun to defend themselves. (They just like to have one.)

But every year, 10,000s of innocent people will be killed and injured by someone with a hand gun. How can you look at the familes of those victims and say, 'this is the way it has to be'? If members of your family were killed by a hand gun murderer, would you still support hand guns?

Murders with hand guns vastly outnumber justifable homicides with hand guns. Kellerman noticed that the people who showed up in the emergency rooms with gun shot wounds were shot by their own gun, or the gun of a friend or acquaintance far more often then he saw criminals shot by law-abiding citizens who successfully defended themselves with their hand gun. Hand guns are the #1 murder weapon in the US, by far, year after year.

So, I think it makes sense for America to reduce the number of hand guns in circulation. TiGor, you only see obstacles to this. C'mon man, take off your NRA hat for a second and help me think of ways to do this.

OK, in the current environment, it's difficult to restrict individuals from possessing a hand gun. One way to make it difficult for people to get a hand gun would be if the price was high. How can we get the price up? How about putting quotas on the manufacture and import of hand guns. Dry up the source. That will drive up the price. The 2nd amendment says nothing about freedom to manufacture hand guns. Nice and legal. Any other ideas TiGor?

Oh please. Now you are a constitutional scholar?

Let's just say I'm quite familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America. I have sworn to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, enough times in my life that it would be senseless not to know exactly what it means.

Murders with hand guns vastly outnumber justifable homicides with hand guns.

That would be because murderers kill people. That's what makes them murderers. Honorable citizens defending themselves aren't bent on killing someone, just stopping them from injuring or killing someone else. If merely apprehending someone with a firearm causes the assailant to run for his life or stop and put his weapon down and his hands up, then there is no need for anyone to be shot or killed. Successful outcomes of personal protection strategies involve averting confrontations, let alone allowing shootings to happen. Having to fire a weapon in self defense is a highly undesirable failure mode of a personal protection system, meaning that every other layer ahead of it failed to be effective. Not unlike your seatbelts and airbag being used as your car crumples around you because your defensive driving, top quality tires, excellent brakes, and superior suspension system weren't able to keep you out of harm's way. A gun, just like the restraint systems of a car, is that final safety net that is your last chance at survival when everything else has failed.

Kellerman noticed that the people who showed up in the emergency rooms with gun shot wounds were shot by their own gun, or the gun of a friend or acquaintance far more often then he saw criminals shot by law-abiding citizens who successfully defended themselves with their hand gun.

That's what happens when amateurish casual owners mistake firearms for toys and start violating basic safety rules with them. Similar kinds of things happen with people who own other serious machines fail to operate them with the respect they deserve. Vehicles of any kind come to mind, from motorcycles to boats to aircraft to common automobiles. I know a great many people who were complacent or thought it was fun to show off or screw off with a vast array of powerful tools and equipment who are either no longer whole... or no longer alive.

TiGor, you only see obstacles to this.

I see realities to this. That's what I do.

C'mon man, take off your NRA hat for a second and help me think of ways to do this.

I'm not a member of the NRA, so I don't have an NRA hat. I'm a member of another organization that frowns on any real degree of political advocacy or participation beyond voting. I do wear their hat. It has silver and black piping along the edges of its polyester and wool serge fabric, Shade 1620.

One way to make it difficult for people to get a hand gun would be if the price was high.

Most people I know are hard pressed to drop $500 on something that they're not going to use daily. They'll do it for a television or a laptop, and usually for a major appliance. The folks I know who are buying handguns around here actually use them on the weekends and enjoy them quite a bit, or else they're on their way to Law Enforcement Academy where you're expected to bring your own centerfire service-type pistol. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have been hired by a department who can loan one out to a new recruit for the next few months. The armored car service here doesn't issue them, either, but they'll at least give you an allowance that will get you something passable, even if not current. The reason more people here don't have handguns is because several hundred dollars is more than most of your dregs of society can afford to part with. The drug dealers always seem to have them, and have the money to buy them, but it's more of a status thing with them. They're always found with them when their house or apartment is raided, but they're not shooting each other with them. Other parts of the country that have historically been more prosperous and more unstable have a lot more old handguns out there - the population centers - and there are a lot on the black market, available to be purchased by those who make their livings on other black markets. Nothing like that in this neck of the woods, though.

How about putting quotas on the manufacture and import of hand guns.

The manufacturers already do that themselves, believe it or not. Just like any manufacturer does. Guns are very expensive to manufacture; they're not a highly profitable item like a lot of plastic consumer products we buy at Wal Mart and wherever are. There's not that many new guns being made in any given year, so scales of economy hardly come into play. The high quality metals required in firearms are costly, and the numerous machining, heat treating, and finishing steps are very expensive. Firearms manufacturers absolutely cannot afford to have unsold inventory piling up in a warehouse somewhere, so they don't just blindly crank them out. They only build or import what they feel they an sell. If the demand falls, they'll build fewer.

Dry up the source. That will drive up the price.

Drying up the demand will drive the price up even more as the overhead costs of manufacturing then have to be spread out over far fewer production units.

Eliminate illicit drugs, addicts of illicit drugs, and crime related to illicit drugs. Remove criminals from society, and crime will become almost nonexistent.

It will work very well until someone points out that most of the people removed from society are not white Anglo-Saxon Protestants.

The 2nd amendment says nothing about freedom to manufacture hand guns. Nice and legal.

No, it doesn't say anything about that. What it means, however, is that a citizen in good standing is equal to any other and that no one class of citizen is superior to any other in the eyes of the law. In this country, the military does not run the government. The police are employed by and work on behalf of the citizenry, they don't lord over us. There is no 'warrior class' in our society that runs the show. Through legal process, a citizen in good standing can own any small arm that a police officer or a soldier can. In reality, the 'special weapons' that are capable of automatic firing or have other esoteric features making them suitable for combat use are not owned by soldiers or law enforcement officers. They're property of the employer, virtually always a governmental agency, and issued for official use only in very specific circumstances. In fact, while a soldier or LEO could personally own a restricted firearm, they are rather universally barred from using it in their employment. Sometimes a handgun is personally owned and used on duty, but that's become quite rare. I sure wouldn't, myself. It's far less complicated to rely on the employer's hardware and it becomes more their worry and less mine. My own personal firearms are for off duty use only, and I can only use government owned assets while on duty. I prefer it that way. Hell, on base, servicemembers are usually banned from keeping personally owned weapons, anyway, and have to check them in and out of the armory just like the government owned ones. Why bother? In a lot of ways, a private citizen has it better than a government employee does in this area. Which is one of the things that keep America viable and why we haven't slipped into a military dictatorship.

That's what happens when amateurish casual owners mistake firearms for toys and start violating basic safety rules with them.

and

a citizen in good standing can own any small arm that a police officer or a soldier

and

Similar kinds of things happen with people who own other serious machines fail to operate them with the respect they deserve. Vehicles of any kind come to mind, from motorcycles to boats to aircraft to common automobiles.

You should not compare citizens with police officers. There is no requirement for a citizen to know how to use a hand gun, or how to handle it safely, or to react in a dangerous situation. We let just about anyone buy a hand gun. And, the more hand guns there are, the more death there is from hand guns.

You should also not compare hand guns with vehicles. We license and register and insure our vehicles.

Again, how can you say that we are doing as well as we possibly can? How can you look that murder victim's mom in the face and say, this is as it should be.

Hand guns do one thing very well, they turn ordinary confrontations in to deadly confrontations.

Everyday brings a new reminder for how foolish it is to let just about anyone get a hand gun. The recent shootings in Tulsa are an example. Mutant, highly defective humans got their hands on a hand gun and went looking for some nggrs to kill. They were hurting because one of their relatives committed suicide (I think it was with a hand gun), The suicidal lady was bummeed out because one of her relatives was killed by someone WITH A HAND GUN. (sorry for yelling like that :-)

So, what's wrong with this picture, TiGor? Are we really doing a good job by letting emotionally unstable citizens (in good standing, of course :-) have hand guns?

Davey,

I'm not comparing citizens with police officers. Police officers ARE citizens!!!

I'm also not comparing handguns with vehicles. If you were actually reading what I wrote, which I often suspect you do not, beyond just glancing over it, you would see that I pointed out that firearms, which like many things are dangerous when misused, can cause injuries and death when failure to use common sense and negligence get in the way. The point is that firearms of all kinds, handguns included, aren't the only dangerous machines people hurt themselves with. Not by a long shot.

The murder victim's mom understands that her son or daughter was killed by a murderer. Do you really think she'd feel any better if her child had been stabbed, strangled, trampled, bludgeoned, poisoned, hit by a car, drowned, was struck by lightning, buried in an avalanche, swallowed by quicksand, of died of heatstroke? From your post, one would get the impression you seem to think those are all somehow 'okay' or at least acceptable, but that the mere fact that handguns can conceivably be had by US citizens causes people to suddenly flip out like they're suffering from hypoxia or something.

As for the recent shootings in Tulsa, I have not heard what kind of firearm was used. As they were in a truck, it could have been anything. At 19, the kid responsible was too young to legally purchase a handgun or ammunition for one, but could have walked into the nearest Wal Mart with $200 and had a new shotgun in about a half hour, or maybe a pawn shop and done it for half the price. I knew the young man's fiance had killed herself, but they have not said what the means were. Women, in general, tend to swallow pills first and slash their wrists secondly, followed, I believe, by jumping. Men tend to shoot themselves. The young man's father had been killed by a black man, in a case of what the authorities were saying was a justifiable homicide. That means the kid's dad tried to injure or a kill a black man, who killed him before he could consummate the crime.

Nice of you to gratuitously assume that a handgun was used. But, honestly, that's what I expect from you. You're just that kind of guy. You're very agenda driven and objectivity doesn't work for you. I show you the other side of something, or point out that what you assert is universally true is not, and that's not acceptable to you. Not that there's anything wrong with that. It makes people who read this think, and that's why I enjoy writing.

Handguns do not turn ordinary confrontations into deadly confrontations. People who get into confrontations employ handguns to make them deadly confrontations. People who are honorable citizens avoid any kind of confrontation at all costs because they are a bad situation to be in. This goes double for people who are lawfully and competently carrying a handgun. Unless it's unavoidable, they stay clear of it. It's not their job to enforce the law, and the results of any kind of intervention going south make life difficult, uncomfortable, and expensive.

As for your question about whether we're really doing a good job by letting emotionally unstable citizens 'in good standing' have handguns, no one ever said we were doing a perfect job. It's government! What the hell do you expect? Are bad guys sometimes not convicted by a jury of their peers, even though they're guilty? Yes. Not often, but yes. Does the FBI always get their man? If they did, they wouldn't have a 10 most wanted list, would they? Does the US Postal Service ever lose or misdirect a piece of mail? It happens. Does the TSA always stop the terrorists and do it without anyone else noticing or being inconvenienced just a little bit? We've had some people with issues board planes and cause trouble, and no one seems to enjoy getting patted down, but no one is missing their flight as a result of the TSA in over 99% of the cases.

The whole precept to due process for citizens is it is considered better for a few to escape prosecution, conviction, or deprivation of their rights as US citizens than for one to be wrongly or unjustly stripped of their liberties. Unfortunately, virtually all of the cases where people are committing crimes with handguns are instances where the person has a criminal history where they've been arrested, released, rearrested, released again, ad nauseum. Not only did they generally have no legal right to have any kind of a weapon when they committed their crime, in times past, they'd have still been in jail for the first serious crime they committed, not on parole. It used to be that if you robbed a store at age 19, you wouldn't be back out on the streets before age 30. By then, most people would have generally learned it's not a good idea to do what they did.

Davey, here's my suggestion for you:

Why don't you write up some leaflets or handbills, kind of like the posts you put up here, print them out, then go out on the streets with them and try to convince people they should have no desire to purchase a handgun. Locate gun dealers in your area and go hang out around their door on a weekend and try to engage their prospective customers as they approach. I used to sell guns for a major retailer years ago, and I talked something like 38 people out of ordering a handgun through me. I sold one, to a good friend of mine, and I think I may have possibly fired more rounds from it than he did out here at the farm on occasions he was out to visit and shoot before he traded it in on something else. I didn't try to sway them with any kind of emotional argument or anything like that, I just visited with the folks for a bit, helped them sort out what their needs were, and it was very easy to convince them that a handgun was not the answer to their problem at the time. I sold a few .410 shotguns (more powerful and effective but easier for a novice to use effectively than any typical handgun) to people for $80, but mostly I steered them toward figuring out for themselves that $500 for a handgun would be much better spent on good doors, locks, motion detector lights, a dog, and other security measures that are an essential part of a total personal protection program. I didn't make a decision not to sell a handgun to them, I facilitated their decision not to buy one for the time being because it wasn't in their best interest.

Maybe some face time with the gun buying public would be that energy you want to see channeled into something 'useful, and productive, and benefiting all of society' you mentioned earlier.

You'll probably accomplish much more that way than hoping and waiting for unlikely legislation to pass.

I'm from Texas, I'm pro-guns, but I think that there is a line that needs to be drawn. I agree with people that there needs to be sharper laws on gun CONTROL. I think that if anyone has a handgun, you're not using it to hunt animals, you are using it for protection, or "bad things". What's wrong with making everyone who registers for a handgun get a CHL? At least then, you have to go through a gun class which mentions a lot about safety. If we all have to take test to drive, why not take a test to get a gun. Stop issuing them to every person that has the money and clear record. I had to go through a hunting class just so I could shoot a deer. I never intended on shooting a human. Maybe if you required test, the "thugs" that seem to be the problem, will fail and not be able to get a gun. We all know what that means. Black Market sales go up, but if you take the guns away from the good guys, then all we are is scared of the bad guys.

I stand my ground. When using my gun, I will never point it at a human being, loaded or not without knowing first if I will be willing to live the rest of my life knowing that I killed that person. There is light at the end of the tunnel, we just need to work together instead of against each other.

Tigor, you post some good thought out questions & answers. You said guess what state you were from I picked Iowa, it's between 2 rivers, full of hills from the glaciers.

Thanks! That's what I'm here for.

Good guess, too.

Let's just say I'm quite familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America. I have sworn to support and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic, enough times in my life that it would be senseless not to know exactly what it means.

And thank you for your service :-). But I'm sorry, there is no connection between swearing an oath and being a constitutional scholar. You are trying to present yourself as an expert, in an area where people have different opinions. I mean, the justices on the supreme court do not often agree on the meaning of law. So, forgive me if I do not accept you as an expert on what is and is not constitutional.

That would be because murderers kill people. That's what makes them murderers. Honorable citizens defending themselves aren't bent on killing someone, just stopping them from injuring or killing someone else.

You are simplifying. Just because someone is a murderer does not mean that they intended to kill. When there is death from hand guns, how often is the killer charged with murder 1, murder 2, or manslughter? I've been reading the comments in news articles about hand gun deaths for some time now, and one thing that it is not unusual to see is a comment from a pro gun person, in effect, 'if I was ever in that situation, I would shoot to kill'. And they do. And your reference to honorable citizen seems curious to me. There is no test of 'honorableness' when purchasing a hand gun. Can you tell me more about this notion you have of honorable ness? How many Americans are honorable? Are they honorable all the time? Are there degrees of honorable ness? Is there a hand gun honorableness?

If merely apprehending someone with a firearm causes the assailant to run for his life or stop and put his weapon down and his hands up, then there is no need for anyone to be shot or killed

That is a pleasant thought.

Having to fire a weapon in self defense is a highly undesirable failure mode of a personal protection system, meaning that every other layer ahead of it failed to be effective.

Stand Your Ground baby. How about the Castle Doctrine? In America today, the trend is shoot first.

A gun, just like the restraint systems of a car, is that final safety net that is your last chance at survival when everything else has failed.

Where are you getting these ideas? Someone with a gun, hand gun or otherwise, is under no obligation to go through a check list of procedures before pulling the trigger.

Listen, I asked you this before, and you dodged it, but I want to ask you again. (figuratively, of course) take off your NRA hat for a second and help me think of ways to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from hand guns.

The point is that firearms of all kinds, handguns included, aren't the only dangerous machines people hurt themselves with. Not by a long shot.

True. But of all guns, hand guns cause the most death and injury. And the benefit of hand guns is dwarfted by the amount of death and injury that they cause. In my opinion. Looking at The Big Picture. Sure, many responsible citizens enjoy recreation with their hand guns.

The murder victim's mom understands that her son or daughter was killed by a murderer. Do you really think she'd feel any better if her child had been stabbed, strangled, trampled, bludgeoned, poisoned, hit by a car, drowned, was struck by lightning, buried in an avalanche, swallowed by quicksand, of died of heatstroke?

Now you are being silly. If, for example, the Tulsa murderers had chosen to do their killing by trampling their victims, they would not have been able to evade capture for as long as they did. They would not have been able to kill as many people. But because they used a hand gun (my assumption, want to bet that I am right?), they were able to kill more. And if people in our society do not see that, they maybe they deserve to be slaughtered, as they are being slaughtered now.

but that the mere fact that handguns can conceivably be had by US citizens causes people to suddenly flip out like they're suffering from hypoxia or something.

Honorable citizens who legally buy hand guns sometimes choose to end a temporary episode of depression or rage with their hand gun.

That means the kid's dad tried to injure or a kill a black man, who killed him before he could consummate the crime.

There was a confrontation, and the confrontation turned deadly because one of the people had a hand gun. I've been in confrontations before. Been in fights. Glad that no one had a hand gun. But maybe that is the spirit of the times today; if there is a confrontation, it needs to end quickly, even if it means somene dies. Hmmmm

You're very agenda driven and objectivity doesn't work for you

Now, now, play fair. For all your verbosity, for all your confidence and all the information you present (if I had time, i would fact check you), you do not waver in your position. I guess you have a position and I have an agenda. Nice.

Handguns do not turn ordinary confrontations into deadly confrontations. People who get into confrontations employ handguns to make them deadly confrontations.

Was that a useful distinction to make?

People who are honorable citizens avoid any kind of confrontation at all costs because they are a bad situation to be in. This goes double for people who are lawfully and competently carrying a handgun. Unless it's unavoidable, they stay clear of it. It's not their job to enforce the law, and the results of any kind of intervention going south make life difficult, uncomfortable, and expensive.

How did you end up as the spokesman for honorable people?

no one ever said we were doing a perfect job

No, no one said that. No one needs to say that, because it is impossible to do a perfect job. But we always need to strive to improve. So tell me, TiGor, how to we improve the way that our society deals with hand guns?

Unfortunately, virtually all of the cases where people are committing crimes with handguns are instances where the person has a criminal history where they've been arrested, released, rearrested, released again, ad nauseum.

"really?!? You have proof of this statement?"

Why don't you write up some leaflets or handbills, kind of like the posts you put up here, print them out, then go out on the streets with them and try to convince people they should have no desire to purchase a handgun. Locate gun dealers in your area and go hang out around their door on a weekend and try to engage their prospective customers as they approach

Oh for goodness sakes, I'm much too shy to do anything like that.

The whole precept to due process for citizens is it is considered better for a few to escape prosecution, conviction, or deprivation of their rights as US citizens than for one to be wrongly or unjustly stripped of their liberties.

Are hand guns a liberty? Hmm, well, it is a liberty that most people do not avail themselves of. Most people do not own a hand gun. Even fewer want to carry one in public.

You know, here's a funny thing. We live in a very safety conscious society. Drink and drive? ferget about that. Smoke cigarettes? There's a warning on the pack. Drink when pregnant? Spank your kids? Bring a bottle of water on an airplane? Drive without a seat belt? Ride a bicycle without a helmet? Snort, smoke, or shoot up your drug of choice? No, No, No.

In America, we tend to err on the side of safety. but, because our Founding Farters put some vague and controversial words in the constitution, our judges have deemed that we must suffer the catastrophe of hand guns. You want to know what a tyranical government is? It's a governmment that makes it real easy for just about anyone to get a hand gun!

Davey, that's great!

Really, this just gets better all the time. Seriously, I mean it.

For anyone who will ever be reading this, and trust me, someone will sooner or later...

But I'm sorry, there is no connection between swearing an oath and being a constitutional scholar.

Typical Davey. Had to jump right in marginalizing, berating, and denigrating me because I hold a point of view that isn't exactly the same as yours, didn't you? Apparently you feel that it isn't possible that I decided there needed to be such a connection and set out to fully understand what I was swearing to defend at the possible cost of my life. The way you put that, I'm doubting that your thanks for what I've had to go through to serve America is sincere. In any case, last I knew, a scholar is someone who is schooled or has studied in depth a given topic. I have studied the Constitution in classes and on my own. Like I said earlier, not learning exactly what I was sacrificing myself in a number of ways for would be foolish...like signing a contract involving insurmountable consideration without reading the fine print or retaining an attorney to review it from all angles.

You are trying to present yourself as an expert

Did I say I was an expert? No, I just said that I have studied the Constitution at length so as to be completely familiar with what it says and what it means.

in an area where people have different opinions. I mean, the justices on the supreme court do not often agree on the meaning of law.

Uh...that's why Article III of the Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court in the first place. The whole point of the Judicial Branch of the US Government is interpretation of the Constitution and the laws that Congress passes and the President signs as they are challenged.

So, forgive me if I do not accept you as an expert on what is and is not constitutional.

Sure, I'll forgive you. It's not like I'm making this stuff up, I'm just passing along what has already been ruled on in the past and telling you the way things are most likely to go in the future since legalities are so often evaluated by precedent.

You are simplifying. Just because someone is a murderer does not mean that they intended to kill.

No need to simplify, because it is that simple already. The very definition of murder is that the person who killed someone intended to do it. It wasn't an accident. It wasn't negligent. It was a person willfully doing something that any reasonable person would know will probably lead to the death of another person. If a jury can be convinced that they thought about it even a minute before they did it, it is first degree murder. If the defendant cannot be shown to have thought specifically about killing the victim but was engaged in an activity or had put themselves in a situation where they knew or should have known they would be likely to kill someone, then it is second degree murder. Manslaughter is where the negligence and accidents come into play, given that a reasonable person would expected to understand that their recklessness or carelessness in what they were doing or their failure to act accordingly in a situation where they were responsible to do so to prevent possible death could result in such.

I've been reading the comments in news articles about hand gun deaths for some time now, and one thing that it is not unusual to see is a comment from a pro gun person, in effect, 'if I was ever in that situation, I would shoot to kill'.

You see a lot of things posted by a lot of people on the internet. You of all people would know that just because somebody says something doesn't mean that they have any knowledge or background at all in it or that they would ever actually be in a position to do what they say they would do. After all, look at how you started your last post!

And your reference to honorable citizen seems curious to me.

Davey, if you don't understand what 'honorable' means nor can you recognize it when you see it, I'm afraid I can't help you there. Suffice it to say, one benefit of being an American is that your government, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, generally gives you the benefit of the doubt until such time as you prove that you do not deserve it. That is why people are presumed innocent until proven guilty, why the Fourth Amendment affirms your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by appointed authorities, etc. Is it foolproof? No. But I, and most everyone else, wouldn't have it any other way. This is one of the very reasons so many people immigrated to the US, because the government of their home country distrusted them so much for doing little more than just being born there. The most objective 'test', if you want to call it such, of whether a person is honorable would be their public court record. If a person does not have any listings as a defendant in any cases, the odds are excellent that they're an okay person. There's the old saying that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. Life is like that. If you're a sleazy individual who is always taking advantage of other people, trying to beat the system, and generally attempting to cheat your way to the good life, you're going to be getting charged with some crime of dishonesty (theft, fraud, forgery, etc.) before long or else someone is going to be suing you to recover damages. A person who is occasionally crooked might escape, but all the folks I know who seem 'dodgy' have a court history.

That is a pleasant thought.

Good! Because that is what is legally and ethically correct and it's also the standard the courts hold a person who is lawfully armed to. You are allowed to use a reasonable amount of force to prevent your injury or death, or that of an innocent third party. In a nutshell, they won't let you get away with unnecessarily shooting someone, unless you have a lazy DA like the one down in the Sanford, FL area, who appears to be seeking excuses not to take on more caseload.

Stand Your Ground baby. How about the Castle Doctrine? In America today, the trend is shoot first.

So, you disagree that having to fire a weapon in self defense is a highly undesirable failure mode of a personal protection system, meaning that every other layer ahead of it failed to be effective? Gee, I thought that any statement including the words, "to fire a weapon...is highly undesirable..." would be one that you would concur with for some reason...

Where are you getting these ideas? Someone with a gun, hand gun or otherwise, is under no obligation to go through a check list of procedures before pulling the trigger.

They're NOT my ideas. I'm pretty sure they were not those of my many instructors and mentors through the years, either. They were just passing them along. But I guarantee that if a person shoots someone else and has explained to the responding authorities that it was necessary for the preservation of one's life and health, their understanding of precisely what they could justifiably do and what they could not justifiably do will be examined at length in court. Regardless about the sensationalized garbage you see in the news about 'stand your ground' laws, any claim of self defense is no free pass to injure or kill someone. Damned near everyone claims they acted in self defense, and most law enforcement officers find it insulting to their intelligence because it's usually very evident there was no 'self defense' involved. It's like going into a jail and taking a poll to see how many inmates were wrongly accused, falsely convicted, maliciously prosecuted, or framed. Just ask them! They'll tell you! Well over 90 percent of them will let you know they didn't do it. Funny how 'the system' doesn't seem to buy into that for some reason...

Listen, I asked you this before, and you dodged it, but I want to ask you again. (figuratively, of course) take off your NRA hat for a second and help me think of ways to reduce the number of deaths and injuries from hand guns.

And I'll tell you again. Not an NRA member, never have been, never will be, nor am I a member of any advocacy group, political or otherwise. I have no NRA hat. I wear hats of several organizations that are intensely apolitical. That is the nature of government. If you don't believe me, go work a government job sometime and see for yourself. There are some things that are just not tolerated, and being actively political in any visible manner is one of them. That'd be something akin to trying to tell your boss what to tell you to do.

the benefit of hand guns is dwarfted by the amount of death and injury that they cause.

Where on Earth do you live? Your posts remind me of the simulation film Merging with Motorcycles I had to suffer through in Drivers' Ed many years ago. Maybe you're familiar with it; it's the one where you're the only car on the road in a community that must be hosting a geeky equivalent to the 1972 Sturgis Rally. No other cars on the road but yours, and you're surrounded by people on Honda, Yamaha, and Suzuki single and twin cylinder motorcycles, every one of whom apparently is on their very first ride. Nobody knows what they're doing, they're making every conceivable mistake a motorcyclist can make right in front of you. Maybe they were all inebriated off their saddles? Well, if that's the only simulation you do before you start driving for real, I suppose that's what you're going to expect that life on the streets is going to be like for you. Actually, it's worse, in that you'll seldom see anyone do things that poorly so when you do finally encounter it, it will come as a surprise. It'd be easy to predict if it happened all the time, after all. But, sheesh, do you live in a public housing project wreaked by incessant gang warfare, or what? There is much, much more to the world than the ugly little slice of it that you apparently get to see all the time.

If, for example, the Tulsa murderers had chosen to do their killing by trampling their victims, they would not have been able to evade capture for as long as they did. They would not have been able to kill as many people.

Trampling? Hey, at that hour, if they could push, drag, knock a victim to the ground, they could jump and stomp on them all they wanted with little chance of anyone else seeing it. But for the Tulsa incidents, instead of trampling victims, I'd say it would be much more likely they'd have merely run them down with that old truck they were in (which they later set on fire). They could have committed many hit-and-run murders in the mostly deserted streets of northern Tulsa in the darkness of the wee hours of the morning before they were apprehended. Shots fired at least make enough noise that the whole neighborhood knew something was up, whereas simply hitting someone with a vehicle isn't loud enough to wake most people. Whether anyone would actually pay attention to gunshots or ignore them for fear of getting involved is another question.

And if people in our society do not see that, they maybe they deserve to be slaughtered, as they are being slaughtered now.

Davey, I'm dismayed to read that you feel that way, but strangely, I kinda' saw it coming, eventually. I really wasn't surprised that you would say that. I wasn't expecting it, yet it wasn't unexpected. Huh.

Honorable citizens who legally buy hand guns sometimes choose to end a temporary episode of depression or rage with their hand gun.

The key word is 'sometimes'. There's almost always a 'sometimes' in everything. I know of very few things that are absolute. Heck, we're even reaching the point that not even death itself can be said to be final with some of the things humankind seems to be within reach of. The fact that fully ninety percent of the people who legitimately own and use handguns don't injure or kill themselves or anyone else speaks for itself. I know many people who have and use handguns. After all these years, none of them have ever been accused of committing a crime with them. The people I have known who were criminals never used guns in their crimes, and the criminals around here who have used guns, I haven't known.

I've been in confrontations before. Been in fights.

I sure hope you've outgrown that phase, Davey. You wondered what an honorable citizen was? Someone who doesn't get in fights would be one definition!

Now, now, play fair. For all your verbosity, for all your confidence and all the information you present (if I had time, i would fact check you), you do not waver in your position.

The confidence and information is courtesy of countless hours of study and training. The verbosity is what it takes for my writing to be readable and entertaining. I wish you would fact-check me. You'd learn much more than I can share with you in the process! I wish you could take some of the same training I have been blessed with, with the same quality of instructors and mentors, if not the very same ones. But, why would I waver? A criminal investigator would tell you that by repeatedly interrogating a subject (not necessarily a suspect, by the way), the person who is making things up, who has something to hide, will 'waver'. Their story will change, or 'evolve', every time it is told. The person who is telling the truth has one story, and it does not change. I'm just telling it to you like it is, buddy. Take it or leave it, but I'm hoping you'll take at least some of it.

No, no one said that. No one needs to say that, because it is impossible to do a perfect job. But we always need to strive to improve.

I suggest you be very careful what you wish for when you're talking about government 'striving to improve'. That was being sought in Russia while Tsar Nicholas II's army was battling the Kaiserreichsheer during the first World War. 'Improvement' was being very actively sought in Germany during the existence of the Weimar Republic after the first World War. More familiar to most would be the 'improvement' that was demanded after 11 SEP 2001. Things get carried away very quickly when you try to combine 'government' with 'improvement'. Scary stuff results from that.

"really?!? You have proof of this statement?"

We all have the proof of that. Like I mentioned earlier, court records are public. Do a study of the next 10 or 20 murders, rapes, or other serious crimes reported in your area where the name and other identifying information of the perpetrator are released. You can often find these court records online, but otherwise go to the courthouse and ask to see their public record. You have the right to see it, as it's public record. Anyone can look at it, and every time a background check is conducted, someone does. In eight or nine of the first ten cases, or at least 16-18 of the first twenty, you're going to see that - surprise - the people charged with committing these serious crimes have been in trouble before. You occasionally will see someone who had never been in trouble for anything in their entire lives get arrested and charged with something significant, but the odds that it's a crime of violence aren't so good. That usually comes later, or else they go back to being a mild mannered adult once again. Most of the 'clean records' are of young adult offenders. If juvenile records weren't sealed, you'd discover much more than likely that they'd been in police custody time and time again for lesser things, but generally escalating in seriousness. That's the general pattern of human behavior.

Oh for goodness sakes, I'm much too shy to do anything like that.

Don't feel bad. I was actually held back in school for a year for being shy. You'd never know it today, though, and most people I share that with don't believe it, either. I love public speaking, and I am often selected to train and instruct new hires or novices in anything. But, seriously, if you can debate in the friendly atmosphere of Newsvine like this, just think of it as practice for debating with people face-to-face. Try it sometime. I think you'll like it. When you get really good, you can go into a gun show some weekend and try to forge allies from the folks in there. Just imagine, you could even rent a table, and promote your very own organization that bills itself as the diametric opposite of the NRA! That'd show everyone who's got guts, wouldn't it?

Now I'm being silly, Davey.

It's been fun. I love writing, it's second nature to me. You blessed me with an astounding opportunity to get my fix in for the day...maybe even the rest of the week. I've got chickens to feed and a house to build, but I wasn't going to let that stop me from taking a few minutes to acknowledge the time you spent replying to my post this morning.

By the way, what are you doing up at 0430? I'm up at three most days, but only because I'm at work from four o'clock onward. Otherwise, I'd sleep in until at least five...

Have a great day,

the TiGor

I love writing

You don't say?

I think what I'm saying has some sense to it. In a safety conscious society, we are required to make hand guns widely available. Most people don't want them, but a few people are absolutely in love with them.

When someone with a hand gun makes a bad decision and acts out with his hand gun, the result can be tragic, including lives ended and grief for those who remain.

Hand guns, the most commonly used murder weapon, are used when large numbers of people are killed. Recall Virginia Tech, Tuscan Arizona, and the Amish schoolhouse. I am affected by those incidents not only because of the death and suffering that were caused by the hand gun murderers, but because these incidents are bound to occur again, because hand guns are so readily available. Also, this gun culture we have makes us look crazy to people in other countries. I wonder how many good people (from countries that do not allow hand gun ownership) might have immigrated to the US but decided not to because of their fear of our loose gun laws? Would you think it was healthy for someone to want to immigrate to America, for the guns?

You understand that anti-social people and people who have no training to handle a hand gun can get hand guns, and how that may not be such a good thing. I want to ask you again, and this time I will not mention an NRA hat, because I do not want you to focus on the NRA hat, how can we do a better job, through legislation, to reduce the number of hand guns that are possessed by anti-social people and people who have no training to handle a hand gun?

Thanks, Davey.

I knew that you knew I loved to write. I just had to rub it in a bit.

I think what I'm saying has some sense to it.

I certainly never said that what you're saying makes no sense. If that was the case, I would be ignoring you. It's not even a bad idea, in fact, it's pretty good. It's just not practical and won't accomplish anything useful. On the other hand, there are a lot of things that aren't practical and don't accomplish anything useful out there, so don't give up hope yet.

In a safety conscious society, we are required to make hand guns widely available.

Huh? Now I have to ask you where you get some of your ideas from. What law requires that handguns be widely available? I'm not aware of any. In fact, I know of no law, ever, that required anything to be made available to anyone, excepting that a person must provide food and shelter to their dependents to the best of their ability lest they be guilty of neglect or denial of critical care, but that's a bit different. There is no law that says there has to be a grocery store in every town, or a gas station, and there are a lot of small towns around here where there aren't any, anymore. There's no gun dealers in a lot of these places, either. No one can compel someone to open a business, they can only regulate what someone engaging in a certain business does, and there's a lot of regulation to go around for everyone these days. If no one in your area sells handguns for whatever the reason, trust me, the law has no issues with that.

I wonder how many good people (from countries that do not allow hand gun ownership) might have immigrated to the US but decided not to because of their fear of our loose gun laws? Would you think it was healthy for someone to want to immigrate to America, for the guns?

We have a fair amount of recent immigrants where I live, and I make an effort to get to know every one I meet. None of them have ever commented on gun violence, other than that it was often very bad where they lived, usually on the side of the government they fled. But even that's only a few of them. Most people have come here from very urban areas in other countries where even if firearms were commonly owned, no one was using them in the cities. Some of these people have commented that they don't understand why we keep letting dangerous people out of jail so easily, as where they were from, these people would be jailed or institutionalized indefinitely. None of them have stated that they were ever worried about being shot or killed when they came to the US, and none of them have told me that they were worried about being a victim of violence once they got here. In fact, in my town, they comment on how little crime there is. And I fully agree with them. I do not live in fear of crime here. Most of what happens here is best described as 'mischief', but the real crime that happens is not random and generally stems from a conflict between two parties that precipitates the crime.

Ironically, on the radio just now, is news discussion of the upcoming murder trial of a man from an adjacent county who used two knives to stab his wife over 100 times before fleeing with their toddler son to South Dakota where he attempted to inflict vehicular homicide upon a sheriff and his deputy out there. I do recall that one or both of the lawmen were substantially injured as he rammed them and/or ran them off the road when they tried to apprehend him. That tends to be the kind of serious crimes we see around my parts.

I will not mention an NRA hat, because I do not want you to focus on the NRA hat,

You're the one that brought it up!

how can we do a better job, through legislation, to reduce the number of hand guns that are possessed by anti-social people and people who have no training to handle a hand gun?

Through legislation? Let's take a quick second look at something from one of my earlier posts here:

Eliminate illicit drugs, addicts of illicit drugs, and crime related to illicit drugs. Remove criminals from society, and crime will become almost nonexistent.

That ought to about cover it. : )

I could expound on that, but I have much to do today and my dogs are barking to be let outside. If I make them wait much longer, I'll have quite a mess to be cleaning up in the house.

Have a good day.

If there were no hand guns, we'd have a better world, yes? The Virginia Tech killer could not have killed so many. The guy who walked into the Amish schoolhouse and killed so many children may not have had the courage to walk from the road to the schoolhouse carrying a rifle or shotgun, and if he did, the children might have seen that and ran. The hand gun of the shooter in Tuscan Az enabled him to kill and injure so many.

Hand guns are ideal for killing. We would have a much nicer society if there were fewer hand guns.

So many people who have shown themselves to be dangerous when armed can get a hand gun. And the hurt, and damage, and irrevocable harm that they cause can only be described as tragic. And it happens every day.

I wish you would engage on that one. So many rouge unsafe people can get hand guns. Mark David Chapman got a hand gun and killed John Lennon. Jack Ruby got one and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, for all the world to see. Phil Hartman's wife wigged out and killed him with his own hand gun. You seem to support easy access to hand guns by most citizens. Can you think of no way for us to better select who can purchase a hand gun?

If someone thinks that life is precious, why would he support easy access to hand guns?

What makes people think that they need a hand gun, for protection? I feel no need to have a hand gun. I feel safe. I would feel less safe if I had a hand gun. I'm not trained to use one, and there is enough data to show that having a hand gun is a risk factor for a variety of things that you don't want to happen to you.

Isn't it odd that in a society that, to me, seems like a good place to flourish, to thrive, seems threatening to others, such that, they need to be armed? In a society that is free, as ours is, you are free to live someplace that is safe. Someplace where you are not in danger. I live in a safe place and I do not fear for my safety.

What are the problems that some people see with our society, such that, they feel like they need to be armed, to carry a hand gun? Are these people just reacting to their perceived hostile environment by carrying a hand gun, or are they also working to address the root causes of their anxieties?

In the 1790s, there seemed to be widespread agreement about the right to keep and bear arms for militias. If we were writing a constitution today, I wonder how that would result? If we were starting over again, would there be an right, interpreted by the courts, to have a hand gun?

Davey, I thought this had pretty much run its course and I wasn't planning to check back on it. But, ironically, two things happened this morning that made me think of you. The first was that I got a note of congratulations on a job well done by a colleague named Davey I hadn't seen in so long that I'd figured he wasn't with us anymore. The second thing was when I was picking up some groceries after work and happened across an elderly man with his trusty six shooter holstered at his side. He was maybe 85 or so, but still a lanky 6' and then some. Rather quaint, really. Looked like he came right out of Wyoming or Montana and forgot to retire from being a cowboy. I've spent enough time carrying a sidearm myself and I've spent probably more time around others who do, so it was hardly alarming, but it did strike me as a bit unusual. Even though the law allows it, I do not recommend carrying a sidearm openly unless one is in uniform. But in this guy's case, I didn't give it too much thought. He was escorting his wife and seemed like a nice enough old man, no one else seemed to be concerned, and I really don't think anyone was about to mess with him, anyway. But it made me think of you, all the same.

If there were no hand guns, we'd have a better world, yes?

I'd strongly prefer for there to be no criminals, as in places where handguns are much more scarce and/or restricted, other very frightening weapons are used much more. If a handgun, which is not a particularly good weapon as much as it is a convenient one, is easy to get, then that's the 'serious' weapon most criminals will think about getting. If they're hard to get and expensive, then criminals (including terrorists) generally opt for explosives, automatic weapons, and military ordnance. If it takes roughly equal effort and means to get those as it does a handgun, why mess with the handgun? It's relatively easier to get explosives and weapons here in the US than it is in Europe and many other parts of the world, much easier than most people have been led to believe. The reason so few people mess with them is because weapons that are fair to middlin' can be had for much less expense and hassle.

The Virginia Tech killer could not have killed so many.

Seung-Hui Cho could have killed many more if he had opted for more effective firearms than a .22 caliber pistol and a compact 9mm Glock, both with 10-round magazines.

The guy who walked into the Amish schoolhouse and killed so many children may not have had the courage to walk from the road to the schoolhouse carrying a rifle or shotgun

You know this how? Charles Roberts had not only a 12 gauge shotgun but also a .30-06 rifle with him, and if I recall, he also brought a small truckload of building materials with which to fortify the school and rations and provisions to allow him to remain in the school for a considerable length of time while he held the students hostage. I could be wrong on this, but my understanding was that he parked his truck in such a way to have mostly blocked the school doors, not too much unlike how Cho chained the doors of Norris Hall closed before he started peeking into classrooms trying to find one he felt satisfied starting his rampage in. That Roberts did most if not all of his shooting with the 9mm pistol after the Pennsylvania State Police had surrounded the school and ordered him to come out is probably why as many students survived as they did. If he had, for whatever the reason, been limited to the shotgun or the large game hunting rifle, there would likely have been no survivors and ten students would be dead instead of five.

The hand gun of the shooter in Tuscan Az enabled him to kill and injure so many.

Given that the 'Congress On Your Corner' meeting was being held outdoors, in the corner of a Safeway grocery store parking lot, Jared Loughner would have had absolutely no trouble firing on the crowd 'sniper' style from his vehicle with a rifle or shotgun. With a shotgun especially, emptying a magazine full (five or six shells) of buckshot or larger birdshot into the crowd would have resulted in far more than six killed and thirteen wounded. Hard to know how many more would have been killed, but probably all of the 30 or so gathered around Representative Giffords probably would have been hurt at the least. Worst of all, no one would have been able to tackle Loughner, who probably could have driven away had he done it that way. It almost seems as though he chose to handicap himself by opting for a pistol, but then again, the criminal element has never been known for great intelligence. If he could have obtained long guns but not a handgun, it would be tantamount to someone else making a more effective choice on his behalf.

Hand guns are ideal for killing.

No, not really. Anyone who has been trained in any type of gunfighting at all will tell you that they'd gladly take a rifle or a shotgun over a handgun if possible, and you'll often hear that the purpose of a handgun is to help one survive long enough to get to a rifle or a shotgun. Note that all soldiers train and qualify with rifles. Only officers and certain specialists who have their hands full operating crew served weapons or other battlefield systems in combat are issued pistols. In fact, by 1940, the pistol was actually considered obsolescent (along with the submachine gun) and was intended to be replaced by the Carbine, M1, caliber .30. But, like so often happened before, an actual war got in the way of plans and they utilized every weapon they had or could easily acquire. It takes far fewer resources to manufacture a pistol than it does a rifle, so if handguns are so ideal for killing, why did the US Government mess with spending $103 each on seven million plus copies of the US Rifle, M1, caliber .30, and an average of roughly $45 each on another six million plus of the US Carbine, M1, caliber .30? Just building 13 or so million pistols would have used half the metal and no walnut hardwood at all if Bakelite was used for the grip panels. There has to be a reason this wasn't done, right? Handguns were retained in service to a limited extent for those who really wouldn't need a firearm, yet shouldn't be without one. Staff officers, MP's, pilots, machine gun crew members, tankers, etc. But in 1985, we more or less dropped the .45 automatic, considered by many to be the most effective service pistol and cartridge combination available, for the European favorite, the rather mediocre 9x19mm Parabellum. The reason why: so we could interchange cartridges between our NATO allies. Why would we give up the world's best and settle for average? Because either one is still a pistol cartridge, neither are particularly effective for inflicting casualties, and both are only marginally relevant in warfare, which many would argue is, itself, the art of killing people.

We would have a much nicer society if there were fewer hand guns.

We would have a much nicer society if there were fewer criminals misusing weapons of any kind.

So many people who have shown themselves to be dangerous when armed can get a hand gun.

They can get pretty much whatever they want. They spend the extra effort and money to get a handgun because decades of cinema, crime drama, lousy novels, and other popular entertainment has convinced most people that if you're going to get a gun to commit a crime, a handgun is what you're 'supposed' it. In other cultures, where it's not a handgun, it's Kalashnikov rifles, Molitov cocktails, and high explosives. All things that bad guys can get here if they want to, but it's just so much easier to get basic firearms, only somewhat more difficult to get a handgun if you know where to look.

I wish you would engage on that one.

I just did.

Mark David Chapman got a hand gun and killed John Lennon. Jack Ruby got one and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, for all the world to see. Phil Hartman's wife wigged out and killed him with his own hand gun.

Since all of those murders were 'up close and personal', and not from a distance, a decently sharp knife into the throat, chest, or abdomen could have been just as deadly in each case. Legal and social principles aside, I do not have a whole lot of sympathy for Lee Harvey Oswald, though I have studied him at length. Your recent statement about our government being tyrannical reminded me of young Mr. Oswald before he decided to defect to the USSR, where he thought he belonged since he was a self declared Communist in the aftermath of the Julius and Ethel Rosenberg executions. Nor do I have much respect for Mr. Reubenstein, who was a notorious associate of Cosa Nostra in Chicago and later Dallas. As for Phil Hartman, aside from the fact that his wife could have very much just as easily stabbed him to death as he slept with kitchen cutlery or even suffocated or strangled him with whatever household items were within reach, that goes to show why anyone possessing anything that can be utilized as a dangerous weapon needs to keep it secured from unauthorized access. Frankly, I don't think that Mr. Hartman should have had a handgun. He obviously was not a serious user of firearms, for one thing, but two, not only did he choose to marry a flaky drug addict, he apparently had a history of marital discord in his previous marriages. The odds that it was all his wives' fault are extremely low. He probably had some serious behavioral and emotional issues of his own.

You seem to support easy access to hand guns by most citizens.

You assume many things, don't you, Davey?

Can you think of no way for us to better select who can purchase a hand gun?

I can think of more effective ways, but they certainly would not be fair. But that is generally the way things that are effective go, as far as governmental actions are concerned. Profiling, for instance. It works very, very well at picking out the trouble makers. But you know how people feel about it.

If someone thinks that life is precious, why would he support easy access to hand guns?

Most people who have or aspire to have a home defense or personal protection firearms of any type would probably tell you that the consider their own life and the lives and health of their family members precious, but admittedly when it comes to drug-fueled, psychopathic career criminals who potentially are infected with loathsome blood-borne pathogens, eh, not so much! They'd probably also tell you that they support themselves and people like them having access to firearms, but that they really don't want anyone else to have them. Typical human nature!

What makes people think that they need a hand gun, for protection?

Yeah, Davey, if they feel they need to get one (versus wanting to get one for purely recreational pursuits), 'protection' would be a fair guess.

I feel no need to have a hand gun. I feel safe.

Good for you, Davey.

I would feel less safe if I had a hand gun.

Yes, Davey, somehow I feel you would be less safe if you had a handgun, too.

there is enough data to show that having a hand gun is a risk factor for a variety of things that you don't want to happen to you.

I see you haven't yet learned how statistics really work. I'll give you a hint: All things are not equal. Studies have shown that 75-90% plus of the adult homicide victims in many areas had criminal records themselves. In other words, what goes around, comes around. Run with a bad crowd, and bad things tend to happen to you. Run with a good crowd, and bad things are not as likely to happen to you. In most of the studies, 'possessed' was equated to 'owned'. Legal title to a firearm wasn't counted, just whether or not one had one in their possession, even if stolen, 'found', or whatever. Criminals with guns tend to knock off, and be knocked off by, other criminals with guns. Who'd have thunk it? If you have an ancestor's pistol in a safe deposit box, or a relic Colt Single Action Army revolver that's part of a shadow box display on the wall of your den, the chances that you'll be a victim of violent crime are nil. Kinda' like that old saying about 'double nothin', is sill nothin'!' Go rob banks, traffic drugs, get in with the mob...suddenly, odds that you'll live to collect Social Security aren't looking too good anymore. Capisce?

Isn't it odd that in a society that, to me, seems like a good place to flourish, to thrive, seems threatening to others, such that, they need to be armed?

It's only odd until you realize that not everyone lives in your neighborhood, where you feel safe, and that some people have had jobs where they had to deal with some real losers who still harbor some resentment and ill will towards them, and that some people are cursed with loser 'exes' who not only have a problem with the fact that they're an 'ex', but who have an 'ex' whose new partner has a problem with the fact that their 'ex' is an 'ex'. Messed up, dangerous people think, and do, messed up, dangerous things. Some of us are very fortunate not to have that kind of drama in our lives. Others of us, well, are not so lucky.

In a society that is free, as ours is, you are free to live someplace that is safe. Someplace where you are not in danger.

'Free' means there is no law prohibiting you from living someplace that is safe and you are free of danger. Unfortunately, the reality of it is that the public is under no obligation to provide you with any such thing. One main reason is that it is impossible for it to be done equitably. For you or I, nothing needs to be done. We wouldn't really benefit. For other people, much effort and expense would be required to make that happen, depending on their geographic location, their family situation, their livelihood, etc. Society expects us to provide for ourselves in that area. Or, as another old saying goes, 'you make your bed, now lay in it'. If you choose to remain in a bad area because of some personal reason that makes it difficult for you to leave, whatever it is, that's your problem, not everyone else's. Frankly, I'd leave, but that's just me. Hell, if guns were a solution, then we'd have suffered nary a scratch in Iraq and Afghanistan as are soldiers all had excellent weapons, and we'd never, ever lose any law enforcement officers. They're armed. Not being in danger is best, but when danger is a lesser and acceptable risk, a firearm can be a most valuable threat management tool. Liken it to a life vest. Whether in a boat or aircraft mishap, I'd rather have a life vest than not if I was in the ocean. But I'd really rather not be in the water, period! Sure, the life vest boosts your odds of survival, but why tempt fate? Same goes for guns. In a bad situation, they can be a lifesaver. But why be in a bad situation if it can be avoided at all?

I live in a safe place and I do not fear for my safety.

That makes two of us. At least from violent crime, anyway. I still fasten my seatbelt, use eye and ear protection, trust my life to a full body harness when working at heights, and wear a helmet every time I'm on my motorcycle. Safety does matter, but only in the risks I actually face. Lately, other people hasn't been one of them. But, it has been at times in the past, and God only knows what tomorrow, next month, or next year will bring.

What are the problems that some people see with our society, such that, they feel like they need to be armed

Um, that would be crimes committed in their communities, against their relatives, against their friends, by people who should have never been let out of jail in the first place? If that wouldn't keep happening, then you would probably see a major change of attitude. Places where gun ownership is low do also tend to see very low crime rates because the first time someone screws up, is usually also the LAST time they're allowed to screw up. The recidivism rate in some of those nations is very, very low. Unfortunately, the difference is that here in the US of A, the words 'cruel and unusual' are of some import. In other countries, the attitude tends to be more of, 'too bad!'. We slap juveniles on the wrists, so to speak, other cultures spot a problem and 'nip it in the bud'.

Are these people just reacting to their perceived hostile environment by carrying a hand gun, or are they also working to address the root causes of their anxieties?

They're being proactive in the only way that appears to be viable to them. One person, by themselves, can take the initiative to work toward safeguarding themselves from harm. The root causes of their anxiety, violent crime and societal disintegration, are much, much larger than one person. One person can devote an entire lifetime towards helping other people, and find the troubles seem just as bad or worse in the end than if they did nothing at all. How's that for disheartening?

In the 1790s, there seemed to be widespread agreement about the right to keep and bear arms for militias. If we were writing a constitution today, I wonder how that would result?

It goes back farther than that, but yes, there was widespread agreement because that was the only way it could be done. No one issued equipment to the local militia. Citizens brought their own weapons, equipment, and provisions to defend their home territory. The idea of a large standing army in peacetime did not sit well with the founding fathers. We had a professional army during the Revolutionary War, the Continental Army, and, honestly, they weren't very good. Too many soldiers were effectively mercenaries, only there for the money. When the money wasn't very good and the conditions were worse, how well do you suppose those guys performed? Yet, unpaid volunteers gave 100% and then some to defending their home, their land, their family, and everything they held dear from being taken from them in conquest, which often happens when your nation is invaded.

Times have changed, but one thing has not. That is what being a citizen of the United States is about. Ultimately, you are responsible for you. Nobody owns you, you're nobody's chattle, nobody's subject. There are very limited circumstances where someone can arbitrarily order you to do anything, and even then, it must be done through due process and only for the good of the public. The flipside to having that freedom is that you have some responsibilities, and maintaining your own well being is one of them. Our professional police and soldiers do very good work on behalf of the communities. But they're not perfect, they can't be everywhere, and ultimately, any one person is not their responsibility. If something happens to you, the local government and authorities are generally not going to be found at fault for not having protected you; their duty is to the community as a whole, not any one person. Since small arms are generally designed for personal protection, and this is really the only reason that individual soldiers and law enforcement officers have them, it is only fair that law abiding citizens also have them. Weapons that are not allowed are offensive weapons, those which can inflict harm, but are not practically useful for defending oneself. Crew served weapons (artillery, battle tanks, fighter and bomber aircraft, naval vessels, etc.), poison gas, explosive ordnance, daggers, 'ninja stars', switch knives, black jacks, saps, and other things are counted in this. Police officers and soldiers are not allowed to have these, either, and when they use specialized weapons, it is only in the line of duty and to achieve an objective on behalf of the community or nation, never for the benefit or well being of any individual soldier or police officer.

Americans are born blessed with freedom to do mostly as they please and not live in fear of their government or other people lording over them. This freedom carries a price, however, and that is that there are some responsibilities and duties expected of citizens and that freedom must not be abused or perverted so as to deprive someone else of theirs. People who do not understand this end up in jail.

'Nuff said.

TexasLaw said:

"Guns aren't the problem at all, it's the idiots who get a hold of them and throw temper tantrums because someone says something that hurts their itty bitty feelings."

Yes and as the other person rightfully implied, Texans are an odd people in general - who get their panties in a bunch of they think you may have accidentally slighted them or made fun of them.

In other words, they're in general a bunch of divas... men who act like teenaged girls.

I wish that was not the case, but it's very true.

On a business trip down there once, some Texans were trying to strut around and act all mighty like big game hunters since they had killed a deer - that was about the size of a Collie. A tiny pathetic little thing, that in most of the nation would be considered a runt and not worth taking down. Yet for them, it was the biggest deer they had ever seen... the sad sad people. Add to that, it wasn't actually hunting - they had gone onto a private "game reserve" which they pay big money to join... which turns out is a few hundred acres of fenced in land stocked with a bunch of these tiny little runt deer. And yes, these macho Texan men filled with bravado didn't understand that they didn't actually go hunting - they were shooting fish in a barrel. I explained that I've regularly seen deer that were between 150 to 200 pounds after being gutted and that there was no fence to keep them from running away, and of course they still didn't get that what they did was NOT hunting.

They thought they were the best hunters in the world, when they had done no more than essentially kill a puppy dog tied to a rope.

Yet for daring to tell them in friendly jest that they didn't really hunt the deer, and that it wasn't really worthy of being called a deer, they got SOOO pissed. It was truly funny. A bunch of bratty children really - even though they were men in their 40s. Until you Texans get the chip off your shoulder, you WILL rightfully be a joke...

I'd strongly prefer for there to be no criminals, as in places where handguns are much more scarce and/or restricted, other very frightening weapons are used much more. If a handgun, which is not a particularly good weapon as much as it is a convenient one, is easy to get, then that's the 'serious' weapon most criminals will think about getting. If they're hard to get and expensive, then criminals (including terrorists) generally opt for explosives, automatic weapons, and military ordnance. If it takes roughly equal effort and means to get those as it does a handgun, why mess with the handgun? It's relatively easier to get explosives and weapons here in the US than it is in Europe and many other parts of the world, much easier than most people have been led to believe. The reason so few people mess with them is because weapons that are fair to middlin' can be had for much less expense and hassle.

Hand guns are easy to get and easy to use. That is why they are the #1 murder weapon in the US. Easy to get, easy to use, and effective. Sure, you do occasionaly hear about two armed (read hand gun armed) inner city gangs that have a confrontation and shots are fired and no one is hit. They don't know how to shoot straight and they are across the street from each other.

But when a mentally unstable person gets it in his head that he is gonna kill someone, someone that he knows, someone that he knows who has given a perceived insult or injury, then this mentally unstable person is going to legally get a hand gun (maybe he already has it), he's going to load the hand gun and put it in his pocket, he's going to go to the place where the intended victim is, he's going to be able to get very very close to the intended victim, and he is going to take out his hand gun, fire, and kill.

He is not going to have to build a bomb, which takes time and skill. (Did you ever hear the old saying, that if you are angry, count to 10, as a way to let you cool off? Building a bomb is a good way to count to 10. A hand gun lets you keep your crazy state of mind. A han gun lets you stay crazy. Don't blame it on Hollywood.) Plus, the bomb can detonate by accident while you are building it, something you do not have to worry about with a hand gun.

Seung-Hui Cho could have killed many more if he had opted for more effective firearms than a .22 caliber pistol and a compact 9mm Glock, both with 10-round magazines.

?? You are saying that he must have been an underachiever. That he did not arm himself correctly for the task he set out to accomplish and that he missed an opportunity to kill more young people. My impression of this event is that emotionally/mentally unstable people can easily get hand guns. And that is a bad thing.

Jared Loughner would have had absolutely no trouble firing on the crowd 'sniper' style from his vehicle with a rifle or shotgun.

Hmm, another bad choice by a whacko. Kind of makes you wonder about the thought processes of these whackos. They just don't choose the right weapons. They choose hand guns. They choose hand guns. It's almost like hand guns are the weapon on choice for whackos. Why is that TiGor? Why are hand guns the weapon of choice for whackos? If the weapon of choice for homicidal whackos was no longer available, would all whackos just use other weapons, or would some of them choose to not kill? Would lives be saved if hand guns were not as easy for anyone to get?

Anyone who has been trained in any type of gunfighting at all will tell you that they'd gladly take a rifle or a shotgun over a handgun if possible, and you'll often hear that the purpose of a handgun is to help one survive long enough to get to a rifle or a shotgun.

Well there you have it, people who have no training with guns choose hand guns. "Hand guns, if you have no training". "Hand guns, any idiot can use one of these things." I know, you blame Hollywood.

We would have a much nicer society if there were fewer criminals misusing weapons of any kind.

I have noted many situations where hand gun murders had no criminal record. When you refer to criminals misusinghand guns, does that include situations where the person misusing the hand gun had no criminal record prior to misusing the hand gun? I think we can agree that someone who kills with a hand gun has committed a criminal act. But if the shooter dies at the scene, there is no official act to designate that person a criminal, is there? I'm trying to say that I focus on hand gun violence. I don't care who commits it. I don't care what their criminal record is. The important thing to focus on is that it was easy for them to get a hand gun, and that shows a weakness in our system, a critical weakness that needs to be addressed, or innocent people will die.

As for Phil Hartman, aside from the fact that his wife could have very much just as easily stabbed him to death as he slept with kitchen cutlery or even suffocated or strangled him with whatever household items were within reach, that goes to show why anyone possessing anything that can be utilized as a dangerous weapon needs to keep it secured from unauthorized access.

You do not focus on the fact that hand guns are the #1 murder weapon in America, year after year, you look at hand gun murders and critize the killer for not choosing another weapon. Very interesting.

Frankly, I don't think that Mr. Hartman should have had a handgun.

Now Tigor, now you are getting it. Mr. Hartman should defintely not have had a hand gun. He made a very foolish, even frivilous choice. TiGor, many people should not have hand guns.

...not only did he choose to marry a flaky drug addict, he apparently had a history of marital discord in his previous marriages. The odds that it was all his wives' fault are extremely low. He probably had some serious behavioral and emotional issues of his own.

Oh yes, yes, yes. Phil Hartman definitely had serious behavioral and emotional issues. You could not be more correct than that. You hit the nail on the head. TiGor, in these United States of America, why is it a good thing for people with serious behavioral and emotional issues to be able to easily get a hand gun? Can we as a society do better than that? If yes, how?

But you know, Phil Hartman was a funny guy and his death was sad. It's too bad he lived in a society that made it real easy to get hand guns, otherwise he might not be dead today.

I can think of more effective ways, but they certainly would not be fair.

Well, tell me what those ways are.

Studies have shown that 75-90% plus of the adult homicide victims in many areas had criminal records themselves.

Show me one of these studies. Just one. I need to see it. You know, if hand guns were used primarily by bad guys to kill other bad guys, I'd sit back and cheer. Fantastic. There are indeed members of the herd that may very well need to be culled. But how can you say that, given the Amish schoolhouse, Virginia Tech, Tuscon AZ, and yes, even Phil Hartman? Was Phil Hartman a criminal who deserved to die?

Since small arms are generally designed for personal protection, and this is really the only reason that individual soldiers and law enforcement officers have them, it is only fair that law abiding citizens also have them.

Can you provide me with a citation for small arms designed for personal protection? I am currently under the impression that they are used offensively more than they used defensively. But don't get bogged down with that, just please send me a citation that demonstrates that hand guns are designed for personal protection.

Also, what is the basis for your statement that if cops and soldiers have hand guns, civilians should have them, too? I mean, don't cops and soldiers receive training for how to use hand guns? Are cops and soldiers evaluted for their fitness to be cops and soldiers before they are accepted into training? Where is any such similar evaluation and training for civilians, such that, they automatically also get hand guns?

What the heck is a CHL card ? like,instructions to chill out ?

Texas is a baffling place,my sister in law lives there,alone, she packs a .357 magnum pistol, and knows how to use it, yee-haw..

Texas used to be the Mexican State of Tejas, when, in the 1830's Americans,seeking cheap land,asked Mexico if they could settle in their state of Tejas.

Foolishly, the Mexicans said "Si", but reminded them that they were settling in a different nation and that they would have to obey the Laws of Mexico, which prohibited the ownership of human beings.

The American settlers were law breakers, who disregarded Mexican Law and took their Slaves into Mexico, THEN THEY revolted when Mexican authorities tried to uphold the Laws by freeing the slaves. What a nerve !

The Texas "Revolution" was an illegal uprising so Americans could spread slavery,it also included anti-Catholic undertones,as Mexico was a Catholic nation and the American settlers were Protestants.

From : A retired history teacher.

Well, retired history teacher, you left out the fact that the Comanches were decimating the Mexicans and the Mexicans decided to invite the Texans in to deal with the Comanches, which they did.

When will people learn that alcohol is a violent spirit?

Some retail workers joke about their liquor aisle when stories about 'evil spirits' are brought up, usually in late October. The punchline is usually that it depends on what your views on temperance are.

To liam, retired history teacher, The movement for Texas independence was started by the Mexicans living there but was unsuccessful until the American settlers joined in. The causation was that having just won a war against the tyranny of European rulers, they were not willing to have a home grown dictator like Santa Anna. If you are truly a retired history teacher, it is no wonder that the American educational system is rated so low. You must of taught the students at the college I currently attend who will confidently claim that WW2 was fought in biplanes and that the civil war ended in 1914.

Have any of you bothered to look at this invite??????

http://txbeachparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cu6rcp.jpg

gmainco

Have any of you bothered to look at this invite??????

http://txbeachparty.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cu6rcp.jpg

Yea buddy...your typical redneck truck-drivin' NRA types, fer sure!

Yes--the Mexicans living in Texas (like the Mexicans living in Mexico) were not nuts about the Europeans who were oppressing them. They didn't initially have a problem with the US citizens who came in, and who claimed that they were siding with them in favor of "independence."

I think we all know how that turned out--don't we?

People of Mexican heritage living in Texas and still speaking their native language are told to "go back to Mexico," are picked up by Texas police officers and sometimes deported despite having birth certificates on them, and are called "illegals."

So, yes, we do kind of need to distinguish between the insincerity of the US Citizens who came into Texas, along with their slaves, and then joined up with the local Mexicans when they wanted to keep their slaves. It was foolish of the local Mexicans to think that the US Citizens had anything in mind other than Manifest Destiny (yes, I know that came later).

The retired history teacher was giving a very brief lesson--it is not entirely inaccurate, but brief discussions do tend to generalize. So--I think that you, too, are deserving of a critique for providing a highly truncated version of events that suits the "Texans" who like to pretend that they were welcomed in by "Mexicans" and did them a favor by first fighting for "independence" and then joining the US and creating a sub-category of "14th Amendment Americans" called "Hispanics" whom they could oppress viciously. Have a great day.

I bet if someone had a son, he would look like the shooter

What the hell are talking about? That statement makes no sense.

Makes sense to me, like the old joke he wasn't shooting blanks.

Yes, history teaches us there was hard drugs and gangster rap at the Alamo, where the Texans and Mexicans got along until the concert started....

It's hard to follow what you are trying to say Clarence... I think you may still be "smokin" something. Caring is sharing! now pass it or get out! :).

Sounds like a Woodstock survivor or a survivor of some of those "peaceful" anti Vietnam war protest rallies.

Parking problems? Finding where you parked is what I remember.

@clarence sam dangler

I am with you on that one! There is no reason what so ever for these kids to act like that unless of course there influenced by someone(s) or something(s) or perhaps both?.............................Hmmmm

I highly doubt anybody there was listening to gangster rap, if there still IS such a thing.

combine alcohol, gangster rap,and hard drugs

Like ice cube said gangster rap made you do it. Obviously gangster rap was the key ingredient of the three in the shooting.

It may be gansta rap that influenced but it was also a lot more to it. The shooter had no real social skills which is a lack mental development that could have been stunted by gansta rap influence. The shooter don't impress people with style and sofistication but rather fear. The goverment needs to find a way to keep weapons out of the hands of man babies who lack any social skills skills . The shooter don,t see a weapon as anything out but bling. Like it's a toy or something.

You are so witty and original. -_-

I remember parking my car along th beach in Galveston and when I got back all 4 ties were slashed. As luck would have it somebody with an air compresssor in the back of his pickup happened along and got me enough air to get to a garage. I didn't like living in Texas but it was generallly prettty interesting 0 I always said shooting someone in Texsas is considered a legitimate form of self-expresssion.

Yea , move to a big urban city like Detroit or LA . You will be safe there

Probably would be..

Purnell, did you have plenty of bubble gum to put in those slashes so the tires would hold enough air to get you to the garage? You need to think before you post your BS stories. The air goes out as fast as it goes in, when tires are slashed.

PS Thanks for leaving.

Was this a "black" party ? A "college" crowd party ? A "Baptist Revival" party? A "Communist" party ?

charles barton

Its an annual black party.

Black Fraternity Party. Houston has a very large population of black people and with the influx of the Katrina 'refugees' from New Orleans, the criminal class swelled mightily. Houston has since regretted it's largesse in inviting many of those 'disposessed' gangstas.

mygirl1

I was at the Astrodome helping unload trucks full of donations when the buses from NO rolled in, within 3 hours they had formed gangs and were robbing people in the parking lot. The Katrina Crime Wave. And the bad thing is that most of them are still here, and still committing crimes.

OK, for all you uninformed idiots that ant to blame this on "redneck Texans" and "gun nuts"...this was more a case of black-on-black crime than anything else. However, the media will not say thet at all. Why, you ask? Because it does not sell thier idea of what they want you to buy...plain and simple.

Does that death mean less then?

Steve-2081387

Steve-2081387

I was at the Astrodome ....when the buses from NO rolled in, within 3 hours they had formed gangs and were robbing people in the parking lot.

...you gotta hand it to them people - they really know how to "organize" and "get the party started'

Paul - every wod I posted is true. Why would I lie about gettting my tires fixed? A LIberal plot? Enjoy your shoddy big city (Houston.) I didn't.

Like I said, Purnell, THANKS FOR LEAVING

It USE to be the Greatest country. Most of the world hates us, most Americans hate others just because of the " State " they come from. What's that saying? " A house divided against it's self cannot stand. " This country will implode one day. We are our own worst enemy.

I have always wanted to live in Australia. I love how their government works for the most part, their attitudes, healthier living and I have made quite alot of friends over in NSW. I really have thought about it. But you know what I hate the most when I get "excited" about the thought? How many people are going to hate me just because I am from the USA?. It's depressing.

This country once stood for amazing things, all the amazing soldiers who laid their lives down for her and many MANY other things. They are being tossed away as if they meant nothing. Her own people are spitting on her name and wanting to get rid of all of what she use to stand for. " Merica " is headed down a very bad path. And with all the Race BS that's going on, that has especially been brought on with the damn Trayvon case, I honestly feel this country will see another replay of the '60s.

I love my country and I love where I come from. But something is going to give eventually and it will not be for the better.

wayne, I trust you are living in one of those 3rd world countries with no guns and no bibles.

wayne would have to live in fantacy land to come close to happiness and that may not work.

Wayne, come on! This is not the most murderous country in the world. You can't just make up crap. Get some facts.

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

@TexasLaw, "I have always wanted to live in Australia. I love how their government works for the most part, their attitudes, healthier living and I have made quite alot of friends over in NSW. I really have thought about it." You may want to know this about Australia before moving :D

Wayne, come on! This is not the most murderous country in the world. You can't just make up crap. Get some facts.

Even nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia that many westerners consider to have a barbaric justice system have a murder rate that is lower than many US states. A lot of westerners would consider Iran and Saudi Arabia to be barbaric 3rd World nations, but they would be wrong.

Saudi Arabia has a lower murder rate than every US state, except for five, which it ties with.

Using Saudi Arabia as an example, I would consider reasons for less of a murder rate as being the penalties. Or the fear of the penalties. It is not three hots and a cot as is more the case than not as in the U.S.

Stoning, beheading, firing squad...

Well go live in one of those third world countries moron one less waste of a human life gone from here.

wichasha Fear of the penalties in Saudi Arabia? Texas has the death penalty, and they apply it very freely with out hesitation. So apparently its something more than just fear of the law.

Mike

My example of Saudi Arabia was in response to McHumans at #8.6 In America, yes, even Texas, you are far more likely to get the hots and cots than death. Even if you do get death, it will be some form that tries to take into consideration your comfort. The bleeding hearts will see to that. Take a look at some of the forms of punishment you'll be looking at in Saudi Arabia.

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

First, I have to agree -- if you truly feel the US is not the best country in the world, then you should be making definite plans to immigrate to the country of your choice.

Second, if you feel Saudi Arabia or any Arab/Muslim country is less barbaric, then please take your women with you when you do leave. I suspect their treatment as second class citizens will make you think again. In fact, make sure and take your Bible and see how well it is received, too. You cannot separate out one aspect of a country to say it is better than the US. The US does have its problems, but it's the best country in the world and that's because of its people.

And yes I am a liberal, and yes I own a gun and am against gun control.

OK, for all you uninformed idiots that ant to blame this on "redneck Texans" and "gun nuts"...this was more a case of black-on-black crime than anything else. However, the media will not say thet at all. Why, you ask? Because it does not sell thier idea of what they want you to buy...plain and simple.

Well I don't know about all the Saudi Arabia stuff. But I love my country and I love alot of her people. The people running it are her biggest problem. They don't speak for America as a whole, they speak for themselves and what benefits themselves. And as for a Rick Perry mentioning I seen on another post... Alot of Texans like him, but ALOT of Texans can't stand the idiot. Actually idiot doesn't really do it for him does it?.

And I love Australia have ALWAYS loved Australia. Every place in this entire world has problems and issues. BUT also I would NEVER move to another country just because I was a little unhappy with how mine is being run. I went there years back, I loved it, and I would love to experience something new and different. If I ever moved it would be for good reasons. Because I am a little unhappy or mad at how my country is being treated isn't a good reason. I love America and that's all that needs to be said.

Wayne which 3rd world country do you live in? BTW Obama says this isn't a Christian nation

Oh yeah?. I hope they can find the room for 1 more some day :(. I love OZ. The people I have met have been really great.

30 million people in the entire country does not mean choked with over population. I've lived there myself a time or two and loved it also. And yes, they do like Americans but also wonder what' the hell is wrong with us now. We can't even get along with each other without picking a stupid argument that our politicians are usually generating in the name of political advantage.

Commonsense - You know what upsets me? Or well not upsets me but embarrasses me? When I have talked to some people from the UK, Aussie etc. one of the most popular questions I have been asked is... Do Americans really sue over everything? The second was why does America get into everyone elses problems, don't they have enough?

It's embarrassing because... well, it is true. I don't even know how to answer them. Our image has gone down the drain, all I tell everyone is just don't believe every American has that frame of mind. The news makes us look even worse.

It's just really sad.

Because we are inundated with people who do NOT care about what WE CAN do. They only care about what THEY can do. I would really like it if they went home.

To hell with the rest of the world, I love TEXAS, this is where I want to be.

I'm with you on that note, Paul. The Texas bashers can go suck eggs. They've likely never been here, and I doubt any of them would have the gonads to stand on a street corner in downtown Dallas, El Paso, or Houston and say some of the garbage they can post on here from the safety of their keyboard.

Because we won't be going there. You have guns strapped on your hips and you elected Perry.

Reason to avoid.

Hell, if that is all it takes to keep you derelicts out, maybe we should re-elect Perry and strap iron on the other hip.

P.S. I don't care what you eat for breakfast!

The only problem with Texas is the people who have moved into austin and want to pass more laws following california. Neither is capitalized for a reason, neither is worth a chit.

Nothing wrong with California that a big earthquake couldn't fix.

I have been wishing for years!

Foxynews, head to Texas. There's a story that you can spin and twist and if you holler loudly, like you generally do, the ill-informed will cheer in their seats and tune in again tomorrow.

Borrowfromchina you are absolutely right, but remember you have to find out if there are color cards to be played. Otherwise Al and Jesse won't get involved. Sad huh, we all bleed RED and thats the way God planned it. It's a disgrace to what this country is turned to, and YES Obama is one accepting the racism. And for the blacks revieing this post, NO this is not ALL about Obama. It's strange to me I was raised in the 70's and actually would have gun rack in the back windows of pick ups on campus so we could Dove hunt after school. And yes we smoked cigs on campus, we dranked beer after class, smoked a little weed on occasion. WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT killing another classmate. YEAH we got in fights, neat the tire out of each other and usually were friends the next day. WE ALSO feared certain teachers causes they would wear your butt out with a paddle is needed. They were respected and the parents allowed discipline. NOW at one point someone got a bruise or a lawyer created a lawsuit, we have turned to a bunch of sissys, white, blacks, mex, I really dont care your color. Country has gone down the tubes, OBAMA is just as bad. NOW EVERYONE BASH ME CAUSE YOU CANT READ THE TRUTH SISSYS!!!!!!!!!!!!

David1254 - I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said. NEVER thought about doing anything like what today's people get away with - because you had to go home and answer up to mom and dad! or grandma with a switch.

greyskyeast, I'm just speaking for myself, but I want to live in a place like the United States. Yeah it could be better, we could actually follow the constitution as it was written and stop making stuff up or ignoring the parts we don't like. But that said, the United states it the best place I have ever been to and I've been to a lot of places.

greyskyeast...yes that would be a lovely dream and there are some legitimate gun owners who would give up their means of personal protection but how do you intend to get the criminals to surrender their guns? The folks who just don't register their fire arms or get a license to carry? Very rarely is the licensed gun holder the problem in a shooting and well the criminals just won't comply with a law.

Personally, I am one of those second amendment folks...but you can't have the guns...not even the hand guns. We know how to use them and these days could be called to for a break in. It would be a slim proposition for someone to choose our home to break in...we are the rednecks of our neighborhood living among the passive who have suffered the indignation of thieves breaking in and taking everything including the dignity of proud people. As the redneck I do rely on my faith that no one will choose our home, we have an alarm that would alert the police, I also rely on our dog to stand watch and interfere is someone were to try to climb the stairs where to sleep our children.Then well I have access to several varieties of weapons to stop any intruder into my home. Because I am pretty sure that anyone who would choose my home would be armed and even if they are not and they are in my home I would do what I had to do to protect my family.It is truly my right and responsibility to protect my family no federal or state authority can truly supersede that responsibility.

greyskyeast,,,,I'll choose the USA ( even with it's parts of socieity that seem un appealing) ,,,With out trying to quote Benjamin Franklin ,,,,our founding fathers gave us a "republic" ,,,if we could manage to keep it ,,,,,

One of the saddest facts above protecting our homes and families with deadly force is, we have to kill the intruder or be sued for bodily injury by the intruder. The lawyers have ruined this country. The bad guys have no fear of the law, only the law abiding do.

There is a sign I saw in Oklahoma on I 40, "formerly we feared crime, now we fear the laws". I think that pretty well sums up what has happened to what used to be "our" country>

greyskyeast:

YOU WROTE: "If we add up all the times a violent crime has been committed with a firearm, and then add up all the times a life has been saved by a firearm, we all know that the former outweighs the latter by a wide margin."

MY RESPONSE: What you wrote is exactly the OPPOSITE of the truth.

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.

And, Rhonda, those stats don't say anything about how many times a year some would-be rapist, burglar, or street punk is enlightened about the error of their ways just by having a weapon shown to them before they go any further.

glenbo:

YOU WROTE: "...those stats don't say anything about how many times a year some would-be rapist, burglar, or street punk is enlightened about the error of their ways just by having a weapon shown to them before they go any further."

MY RESPONSE: You are exactly correct. In fact, let me relate my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE to you. A few years ago, a strange, large man was pounding on my front door at 3:00am so forcefully that the pictures on my walls rattled. When I opened the inner door (I also have an outer storm door), the man began hollering something largely incoherent...it sounded like cursing mixed with insults. So, I displayed an M1 carbine with a 30-round banana clip and chambered a round (I still had the safety on). That display was enough to make that stranger flee. When the cops arrived about seven minutes later, they took my description of the stranger and proceeded to hunt for him in my neighborhood. Nevertheless, my defensive use of a firearm (even though I only had to display it) will never be included in any statistical data base that casts firearms in a positive light.

By definition, all incidents involving successful defensive gun uses fall within the no-injury, no-property-loss category, and thus are largely invisible to the police. Consequently, police rarely hear about the bulk of successful defensive gun uses, instead hearing mostly about an unrepresentative minority of them containing a disproportionately large number of failures.

American Bar Association lists in the US a person is 8 times more likely to be killed by guns than counterpart countries.

Yes, strap on your guns and die for the NRA.

Who cares what the American Bar Association says. Lawyers are the biggest bunch of crooks and liars in this country.

If we really want to clean this country up, kick out all the illegals with a lawyer cuffed to each arm.

Maybe a NRA parade along the way. Support the NRA! Whoha Whoha

Actually, stupidity is legislated on a daily basis all over the USA.

The state of Californication has some of he toughest gun law resrictions on the books. Full auto firearms are are outlawed in every state. Laws not stop criminals. In New York city , hand guns are not allowed. Planes crashed into the twin towers on 911. Against the law !

Where are you getting these facts? Class III firearms are NOT banned in EVERY state. With the proper documentation, they are perfectly legal on some states.

R. Scalzo , I knew I would get a reply on that. What what be the stats on crimes committed with class III firearms?

I agree that passing more gun laws won't accomplish anything. Look at all the things that are illegal that happen daily. We're fighting a war on drugs but drug use is as prevalent as ever. Underage drinking is illegal but that sure doesn't seem to stop it. Same with drunk driving, prostitution and any other crime you can think of. The problem is some individuals violent nature and that is not something that you can legislate away. I'm probably stupid but I don't understand why somebody would feel the need bring a gun to a beach party in the first place.

Javondure

When white people have parties we very seldom shoot each other.

OK, for all you uninformed idiots that ant to blame this on "redneck Texans" and "gun nuts"...this was more a case of black-on-black crime than anything else. However, the media will not say thet at all. Why, you ask? Because it does not sell thier idea of what they want you to buy...plain and simple.

AK's trolling and spamming hard today. Beat the racist drum much?

AK's trolling and spamming hard today. Beat the racist drum much?

And you just made his argument for him. Speak the truth or facts and be labeled a racist.

Hey Tea, get a little of this! Glad to edify your day!!

Factories where foreign AK47s are / were Manufactured - Click Here

I did check up your comment, however I believe that not considering that the Drug War enables the success of these gnags, as well as the enrichment of those "Drug Warriors" and Arms Merchants is paramount in the causal effects which perpetuate the downward spiral we are on in this country. Giving no consideration to why these conditions exist does little to raise the bar on debate. Demanding Terrorism Law Equality against these gangs is just a cop out, and goes against allowin individual states to regulate their own manner of fixing these issues, which is against the Tenants of Tea, I do believe.

Peace.

Jingo- you are correct, more than one American company builds AKs. I hope you respect my view on the 2nd amendment as I respect your view on how to stop the madness. Your friend on the innertube machine, stonepipe. In your travels you are welcome around my campfire.

And if I was out at your campfire, I would probably have some guns with me! Stopping guns isn't gonna happen. You know I respect you, stonepipe, and am glad/proud to count you as a friend.

We all drink some kind of Tea, I may add...

I'd love to intertube down the Peace River again. I probably wouldn't have my gun on the 'tube, though!

LOL

Jingo! On a previous post you said you traveled. For work or vacation? It would not take Sherlock Holmes to figure where I am at.

For work or vacation?

Yes! Just not as much as I used to. Hopefully that turns around soon, though. I am due an escape soon!!!

ps - I'm not even Watson!! LOL!

Don't believe you for a minute. If you ever find yourself in the land of not so sky blue waters, let me know. Watson always made me crack up. Well, it's showtime got to go. Peace and the best to you and yours.

Back atcha.

Enjoy

LOL!

Really? You know this how? Nothing has been released? Maybe it was a bunch of white trash crackers shooting each other.

DShot1 , The news media will not report that. Need to keep that quiet. Blacks are a minority that commits the majority of crime in this country. I find it odd that the crime stats of other minorities are figured in with crime committed by white people. Strange that it is always a Black/White issue and not a red, white, yellow, brown, or purple issue.

Click on the links in the article and have a look for yourself. Of course the MSNBC authors couldn't (wouldn't) just say it. Instead they did what all coward journalists do, they include a link.

Thank You, GEllis. Here is the paragraph with that link, so saying MSNBC did not offer it up would be wrong. Not that that will stop those wishing to turn this racial. For me, it is a choice to avoid parties/situations which I have zero interests in becoming involved, whether that be the Rodeo or a JamzFest. And all types attend both at the same time. Just never heard of/recall a rodeo shootout involving a death occurring.

Word of the party had spread earlier in the day on Twitter. A website advertised a “bring your own everything” beach party with volleyball, beer pong, flag football, wet T-shirt contest, tug-o-war and DJs.

Scalzo do you even know what a cracker is? Why follow up one racist comment with one of your own, it gains nothing.

Beer + pot... plus add and idiot with a gun. Then you have death.

Beer + pot equals nothing more than a fat guy looking for some Twinkees.

@Tumbleweed

Beer + pot = death?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being sarcastic.

About the Twinkees...yes. Beer and [pot isn't going to kill you. A high drunk idiot with a gun.... Possibly.

Scalzo, maybe you should check deaths caused by drunk drivers

It's Zimmermans fault, didn't you know?

No it's one of them Bush dudes. I saw the younger one smirking around back there. :)

Maybe it was just an accident. Was Cheney there duck hunting?

If the dead person is white would you STFU?

He was black, but that shouldn't matter. He was a human being.

Shots ring out at massive Surfside Beach party | Newswatch | a ...

Don't bring your own bullet holes, we provide them.

We are devolving into cavemen.

Blacks have made it a requirement that there be some kind of violence at their barbecues and parties.

I go there for the sun. It's a great place to get a tan.

mimi

I used to go surfing there back in the day, it was a quiet nice place, not anymore.

Nice race card, Caesar

Caesar Augustus, even at the funerals. There has been some of those lately that I've read about.