The producers of the TV show "48 Hours" must be excited about the upcoming season.

I can't understand why they keep showing re-runs.....

......on both hips!

Mike-357988

Well, naturally! America = GUNS!

The much BIGGER news would be, "NO AMERICANS SHOT DURING NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS". But THAT'S not going to happen - not here.

I stayed home last night, to AVOID being shot.

Well, naturally! America = Drinking to get drunk!

The much bigger news would be "No Americans hurt during a drunken New Years brawl". But that's not going to happen -- not here.

I stayed home last night, to avoid all the morons who think getting drunk makes them "men".

If the media and Hollywood can keep the pot stirred long enough they will put themselves out of business. They sensationalize and advertise and promote violence and have helped form this culture. They make a living off of it.

Crime and violence sells and they make money off of it. Who wants to read about a new strain of drought resistant vegetables when they can plaster you with violence.

Their agenda and anything goes will one day be brought to light.

ban murders

Ban takenaka!

Ban takenaka, who cannot think up more than one line.

So where is the article that list how many people were killed or wounded due to
Driving under the Influence last night?

I'm willing to bet the number is higher than those numbers listed here with
shootings.

If you want to ban guns, let’s ban alcohol, or personally owned vehicles.

But we will not ban alcohol, tried it, it either did not work, or society would not
stand for it; you decide.

Let’s ban personally owned vehicles, oh wait that interferes with a person's right to
travel freely at home and abroad.

So before you think about banning something, because stupid people do bad things
with good items (cars, alcohol, or guns). Maybe you should just think of what
would be left if we started banning everything that can harm people;

Everyone please stop, use your own brains to think, get off the emotional hype that the
media pushes, and act responsibly.

I stayed home last night, to AVOID being shot.

I didn't. Strangely, I didn't get shot. Nor did anyone in my city. Nor, as far as I can tell, did anyone in the state I live in. Or even most of the adjacent states, only one of which made mention in the article, and that state is for all practical purposes, two states, one being the major metropolitan area...and the other being the whole rest of the state.

Well naturally America = DRINKING AND DRUNK DRIVERS!!! How many people died because of drunks celebrating? Oh, let's not talk about that because it might jeopardize your right to get drunk. This is typical of Tin Brain, frothing at the mouth ideology. Focus on the little picture while drunks kill and injure many, many more times people than guns did.

What's it like going to sleep every night knowing that you are completely defenseless, that in the face of mortal threat, you are 100% helpless to stop the attack?

The chances that the police will arrive in time to help you is almost zero and they are not even legally obligated to defend you.

Only a fool believes that self defense can be done for him by someone else.

How do you look your children in the eye?

Your face in the mirror?

This just in:

People are shot every day in the world!

And with the internet, we can all hear all about it!

Whereas 30 years ago, none of these stories would make your local paper or news!

Also just in:

Our country is getting safer and less violent each year!

Do some research.

Guns have been around this country since the founding. It's time we stop blaming the guns and come to grips with the real problems, A cartoon in my local paper put it very succinctly. The root of evil= exposure to violence, dissolution of the family, decaying morality, mental illness, apathy, desensitization, lack of social contact, pop culture, and unearned fame. Until we want to face up to this, we will continue to see tragedies every day.

The report does not make any sense..... were these people just standing around & a bullet fell on them? Or were they shot by another person that intended to harm them?

Thanks to the wonderfully detailed article here, no one can really tell what happened. But MSNBC only ever sees the firearm responsible. They would never venture to hold the person that pulled the trigger responsible.

What a wonderful long report of a bloody way to start the new year! Right? Isn't President Obama right? We must get rid of ALL the personally owned guns!

Brilliant strategy coming soon.

Let all illegal aliens in and disarm America. (immigration reform) (gun reform)

People wonder why this point of view is not acceptable.

Don, people do kill regardless of the means used, your mentality is absurdly ignorant.

Well I did see many more people having parties and getting drunk on our street, and shooting off fireworks...Dont think anybody was shot..Most seamed to be having a good time celebrating the New Year...? The paper did read about several people killed in car accidents, and a couple of people hurt in hit and runs...Think more people were hurt by other reasons, than gun play...

I wonder how many fatal stabbings or bludgeons there were on New Years Day... Heck, I even wonder how many fatal car accidents (DUI related or not) there were.

Regardless of the statistics, it still doesn't bode well for guns.

I've got an insane idea. Let's outlaw guns, alcohol, tobacco and eating turkey. Why turkey, I don't like to eat it.

Maybe you should just think of what would be left if we started banning everything that can harm people;

Maybe you should just think of what is designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent to kill - not just what could harm someone due to an accident.

Yes, after Newtown, Americans are more likely to pay attention to gun violence numbers than drunk drivers on New Year's Eve. Who can blame them? Comparing guns to cars, light poles, knives, and whatever is the desparate illogic of the gun goonies. The basic facts are that America's obsession with guns kills more people in western industrialized nations, than any other country. As long as we value guns more than lives this will continue. We can continue to worship at the altar of the second amendment or we can try to be a nation that actually lives in the 21st century and is responsible. Sadly, with guns being the major form of US "manly self-expression" we're probably going to take a while to get there.

Gee, why am i not surprised!

The basic fact is that more guns equal less crime.

Of course you liberal dumba$$ article. Let's just show all of the shootings. Guns kill, people don't. When you have partying, this crap can happen. Accountability is never with the people who do it, just the item used. I hate msn

Chris, we SHOULD control guns AND alcohol. With you coming from an area where drinking is considered sport you can fully grasp THAT concept. Booze and guns BOTH make wimps think they're men. Doesn't take an i.q. greater than a doorknob to slam back tequila or pull a trigger. Combine the two and it's the death knell for bars. And, hopefully, guns in the hands of 'good' guys.

There is nothing wrong with gun ownership, the problem is with all the nuts that can legally own a gun. Ban the irresponsible from owning guns.

Arm up America!

I just love all the "more guns equals less crime" argument. Okay, more guns also means more accidental shootings. Don't just look at crime. The median result is still going to be more people dying from guns. People just want to focus in on the crime aspect. The NRA is quick to point out when someone with a gun stops a crime, while failing to report how many people are killed with them. The "people will still people regardless" is somewhat flawed. In a premeditated situation, sure, I'll buy that. But so many shootings aren't premeditated. Some drunk guy at a party pulling out a gun and shooting people probably wouldn't happen without a gun. It's so easy to pull out a firearm and pull the trigger and take people out before they know what's going on.

The gun people are so out of touch with reality and refuse to look at the whole picture. Gun deaths are the key number. Not just crimes. Should we disarm all of America? Of course not. I'm all for having guns to protect yourselves. But the notion we need more guns is completely ludicrous and isn't solving the problem, as much as they want to say everyone blaming guns isn't solving a problem. More guns = more gun deaths. Just like more cars on the road will equal more accidents. So for everyone crying we need to have everyone armed, sure maybe some violence and crime will go down, but gun deaths are going to go up. Everyone just wants to accept the fact that we have the most gun deaths because we have the most guns so it's okay. Idiots.

Maybe you should just think of what is designed, manufactured, and sold with the intent to kill - not just what could harm someone due to an accident.

The problem here Sam Adams, is that these items that were designed to kill will still be in the hands of criminals, gangsters, mentally unstable, and a tyrannical government even if we destroyed every LEGAL GUN right now. Im glad that is a comforting thought to die hard liberals. We'll be sure to rush to your aid when your home and rights are overwhelmed.

When are we finally going to start regulating violent criminals?

takenaka Comment collapsed by the community

Ban handguns.

Why is this collapsed? This isn't offensive. It's a point of view.

MSNBC shilling for the NRA now?

When are we finally going to start regulating violent criminals?

We do, the problem is regulating people before they become violent criminals. They are called law abiding citizens and can have a gun then they misuse their gun and become a violent criminal. Don't put the wagon in front of the horse.

zorloc

Arm up America!

I just love all the "more guns equals less crime" argument. Okay, more guns also means more accidental shootings. Don't just look at crime. The median result is still going to be more people dying from guns. People just want to focus in on the crime aspect. The NRA is quick to point out when someone with a gun stops a crime, while failing to report how many people are killed with them. The "people will still people regardless" is somewhat flawed. In a premeditated situation, sure, I'll buy that. But so many shootings aren't premeditated. Some drunk guy at a party pulling out a gun and shooting people probably wouldn't happen without a gun. It's so easy to pull out a firearm and pull the trigger and take people out before they know what's going on.

The gun people are so out of touch with reality and refuse to look at the whole picture. Gun deaths are the key number. Not just crimes. Should we disarm all of America? Of course not. I'm all for having guns to protect yourselves. But the notion we need more guns is completely ludicrous and isn't solving the problem, as much as they want to say everyone blaming guns isn't solving a problem. More guns = more gun deaths. Just like more cars on the road will equal more accidents. So for everyone crying we need to have everyone armed, sure maybe some violence and crime will go down, but gun deaths are going to go up. Everyone just wants to accept the fact that we have the most gun deaths because we have the most guns so it's okay. Idiots.

Wow are you clueless. I am on a military base with over 5000 armed people. There have been 2 accidental discharges in the last 2 years with no injuries. All those people are trained you say? Ok, lets check the national numbers.

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as
follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600

People will kill themselves regardless of access to guns so lets not go there. Most homicides are done with illegal weapons, that goes without saying.

600 people died from a gun accident that year nationwide. That number doesnt even touch a positive percentage point to even justify stating here. Did you know that over 3000 people die from choking each year? And you are going to whine about accidental gun deaths as a pretext to get rid of them? Are you f***** serious?

Nationwide the average traffic crash deaths for New Years Day is 142 people. This is far more of a deadly New Years statistic.

A shooting was probably expected going to a bar that looks like it was burned down in the early 90's.

no excuse for the shooter, I hope he burns in hell of course...

Yeah I think if you screen the news in a country of 310 million people, you can find all sorts of things that look statistically significant.

I'm a progressive and I enjoy MSNBC, both the online news and many of the shows on TV. What I have always given credit to MSNBC for is reporting another side you won't get from Fox, but doing so in a fair manner and not distorting things for a political agenda. Unfortunately over the last few weeks MSNBC has become just like Fox news trying to push an agenda. This is truly a sad development because in the past they have stood up under unbiased scrutiny, but lately they have been pushing this anti-gun agenda.

I am not suggesting they made up these stories, so they still have that edge over Fox, however they have clearly been on a mission which goes beyond reporting the news. I'm sorry, but when my side attempts to distort things, it is no better than the opposition.

I have listened closely to the President's comments on the topic and frankly he has been far more even handed on the issue emphasising the violence rather than the guns. He has parsed his words very carefully, yet the pundits and the media reporting on it have distorted his comments and conveyed them considerably different than how he spoke them.

I find it disturbing how many on my side have become like rabid dogs on this issue just looking for any opportunity to bite. It is wrong and it is unfortunately trying to take a tragic situation and turn it into some kind of ideological gain. I must say too, an ideological view that runs counter to most everything else we stand for. We on the left are about individual rights, women's rights, gay rights, minority rights. I don't see how an individual's rights to own a gun and protect himself is any different. Yes there is abuse but it is the exception rather than the rule.

Probably the most significant issue in these tragedies is some mentally ill person. We are the people who are all about getting health care for every citizen. Why aren't we focusing on the mental health situation and trying to help these people before they do something like a mass killing? Ironically, the crazy NRA has talked more about this than people on the left. Lets focus on prevention by getting at the root cause which is clearly mental illness, not the devices they use to commit such acts. Lets crack down on criminal behavior using guns. Typically, these charges get plea bargained away. Why? Lets change that.

My fellow liberals, get your act together, you are on the wrong side of this personal right issue. If you don't like guns, don't own one. Just like if you don't like abortion, don't have one. I'm sure most of you don't have guns and most probably hold a lot of misconceptions about them. "Assault weapons" are military weapons? No they are not. High capacity magazines are somehow more deadly? No, not really, magazines can be swapped in one or two seconds. High capacity magazine are more prone to failure. The assault weapons ban worked? No, not at all and it was nothing but a joke targeting purely cosmetic features. The Second Amendment is not about hunting. It's not about militias and it's not about being able to overthrow the government. It is part of the Bill of Rights which are the rights of individual citizens. It's basis came from the English bill of rights which too is about protections and rights for individual citizens. You might try to interpret it differently, but when taken in total context it is a personal right. I could go on. If you want to make a change with guns and violence, there is only one effective way. That is to ban and confiscate every gun. That isn't about to happen. And all this will do is change the method of violence. Like the sick criminal mind will say, "Man I want to kill people but I can't get a gun, so I guess I'll just be nice instead." That isn't going to happen either. And any part way attempts to take away guns only works against law abiding citizens, making the situation even worse. This anti-gun rhetoric solves nothing and it only has worked to increase gun sales. More guns out there. Is that what you want? So people who maybe didn't have a gun before and probably aren't well skilled or trained and may even not have the means to possess one safely, have now become gun owners because your blathering is scaring the crap out of them. They fear their rights are going to be infringed. Get real people, you are behaving like right wing nut jobs!

one new day -thank you for a good post

Yes, it is sad that people were killed with firearms on New Years. How many were killed in drunk driving accidents? How many DWI's were made? Not as much of a hot button topic, but the reason why I was worried being out on New Years Eve.

@CaptJim50 Ah, yes, the old cars kill more people. The huge difference is that cars are made to get from point A to point B. Guns were made to kill (animals along with humans). There is no correlation between gun deaths and deaths via cars. The only thing they have in common is both cars and guns are used by humans.

Ah yes the automobile /dui argument . However we register cars and licence the users and we also have a record of when they are sold or destroyed . Why dont we do this with guns ?

Since cops started to clamp down heavily on DUI's thanks in no small part to MADD, deaths due to DUI have fallen especially innocent ones . Will they completely go away no, but a decrease is always a good thing . Does anybody suggest we should go back to the old days when driving while under the influence was a skill that many a young person thought they could master

JennyQ, you say that guns were made to kill and cars were made to get from point A to point B. Ironic that the object not made to kill actually kills more people each year than the object supposedly designed to kill.

SUKmeBollix, if you did some research you will know that guns are registered and records are kept. I had to go through a FBI and DOJ check and wait 10 days to obtain my guns.

Quite blaming the object and start looking at the root of the problem, which is people. I have been around guns for over 40 years and I have never shot at anyone, and I have a CCW.

10,288 killed in cars accidents. That is unacceptable. Ban all cars.

Burning - The 10,288 killed in accidents is the stat for alcohol related car deaths. Just plain car deaths are much higher.

Burning - The 10,288 killed in accidents is the stat for alcohol related car deaths. Just plain car deaths are much higher.

True - about the same as all firearms deaths. But car deaths are generally called 'accidents', and for good reason, while around 96% of firearms deaths are intentional.

Let me speak to the "mentally ill" fallacy: Reading the comments here, many of you sound mentally ill. You rant and rave about 2nd Amendment rights without any idea what you're actually ranting about and many of you, the way you speak about the President, who by the way has done absolutely nothing up until now about gun rights, and liberals is just plain kookoo. When the Christians appear and talk about their imaginary buddy in the sky, they sound mentally ill.

Realize when you have a child, you don't lock the child in a closet to protect it, you remove things that might harm it and others, from it's reach.

The bottom line here is, if we disarm people who are mentally ill, more than one of you on this list is losing your gun. You need to read what you've said and understand why a person might be afraid of you.

The NRA was formed to teach firearms safety. The NRA-ILA was formed to combat the deterioration of all rights guarenteed by the bill of rights.

The NRA is an individual membership organization, founded to promote marksmanship and defend Americans' Second Amendment rights. It is not an industry trade group. The firearms industry trade group is the NSSF.

Jim, what a foolish comment. The NRA doesn't even sell guns. Never mind the fact that the NRA conducts the most gun safety and training courses than any other organization in the United States. Your assertion that more guns = more violence has been disproven so many times over I shudder at having to reassert that fact. Please attempt to educate yourself...it's easy considering you obviously have internet access. Or maybe your agenda is just to obfuscate?

But the NRA is basically saying, "WE MUST KEEP GUNS AT ALL COSTS!!!" They are hardly about "safety" anymore. If they really were for "safety" then they would not have existed in the first place. Guns are dangerous to start with, no matter how much training you have. They are still weapons, and only meant to kill.

Today's NRA is nothing more than a mouthpiece for gun manufacturers. It isn't membership fees that keep the NRA going, it is advertisements and donations from gun makers.

The more guns the merrier, to hell with the violence and it's consequences....

Yeah it's the gun's fault. Give me a break. Time for you pathetic parents to raise your children correctly. Rawanda 800.000 killed in 3 months with machetes.

You are not well informed are you? If you were you would then be aware of all of the firearm safety classes the NRA sponsors for hunters, women, and children to teach them the safe use of all kinds of firearms. Your statement shows your ignorance in the importance of someone taking the lead in these educational classes which the NRA has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in which it obtains from the membership dues of millions of supporters/members. It is the ignorance and irresponsibility of people like you that detracts from the effort of responsible people to help others be more aware of the safe use of firearms. You might understand the necessity of good law abiding people having the right to a protective firearm when YOU come up against a car jacker, or Heaven forbid a burglar sneaking into your house in the dark hours of the night when you face a gun barrel aimed at you and your family, maybe if you live you will appreciate what the NRA fought for to allow you the opportunity to make the choice of personal and family protection with a firearm. Otherwise, we'll see you and yours in the obituaries.

drik, you are spot-on. And honestly, I'd rather be shot dead than hacked to death with a machete, stabbed with a knife, beaten to death with an iron bar, set on fire... the sickos will find a way to fulfill their agendas with or without a gun, if they really want to.

WorkerBee1,

This is about efficiency. A firearm is an extremely efficient weapon of murder. Much more than machetes, knives, iron bars, and fire. If C4 explosives were as readily available as guns are, we'd be hearing much more about them being used in murders because they are just that much more efficient.

No Name,

I don't buy it, because after Sandy Hook and after every senseless travesty, the NRA doesn't preach gun safety, such as keeping unintended hands off your own firearms. They preach more guns as a solution. That sounds a hell of a lot more like an organization acting as an industry mouthpiece than an organization promoting safety.

Think about it. Safety advocacy organizations generally work with government agencies to quantify hazards and discuss policies to make things safer. The NRA is the only "safety advocacy organization" I'm aware of that lobbies for the government to remove funding to be used in government studies quantifying the hazards and lobbies the government not to take any action to make things safer. It would be like the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety Organization lobbying against airbags, child seats, seat belts, while telling you to go buy another car just so you have a spare if you get in a wreck.

Prag -

Do you know how many law officers the NRA trains each year? (Oh, these are all government employees.)

The NRA's suggestion for increasing school safety was made to government agencies.

BTW - I am not a member of the NRA.

Do you know how many law officers the NRA trains each year?

These the same officers that last August wounded more civilians in NYC than the gunman they were trying to stop? NRA members were making fun of those officers saying that they are better shots. And those NRA members making that claim are probably right too.

I received firearms training for a former job as a federal government employee. The NRA was not involved. My single experience doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means the NRA isn't required for firearms training. And I probably have a lot more safety sense than some of the NRA trained idiots who put holes in road signs for fun.

The NRA's suggestion for increasing school safety was made to government agencies.

The NRA is not an advocate for school safety. The point being made is that they are a firearms safety organization. They made zero suggestions regarding firearms safety.

I could care less about the NRA, but I'd point out that guns save more lives in the USA and worldwide than they take every year. Studies for the USA range from a few tens of thousands to 2.5 million lives saved by guns a year, while 10,000 annual lives are taken by guns in the USA via gun murder, and about 30,000 total when you count suicides, legitimate justifiable homocides (self defense deaths by gun), and the relatively few accidents that happen. Either way, guns are a NET GAIN to life despite being a weapon designed to kill. Game theory mathematics show why...deterent factors. Another stat that is counter-intuitive but true: a criminal with a gun is LESS likely to cause you bodily harm when commiting a crime against you than a criminal without a gun (because he can intimidate to control you instead of harming you alternatively).

Deductive logic, and stats in reality, are counter-intuitive.

And Obama's own school (Harvard Law and Public Policy) did a study where they proved nations with higher gun ownership rates have LOWER murder and suicide rates than low gun ownership nations. The top 8 gun ownership nations had a 3 times LOWER murder rate and suicide rate than the bottom 8 gun ownership rate nations. Violent crime and crime generally also seem to follow this pattern. The UK for example has the highest violent crime rate in the EU, and it is much higher than in the USA. Again, deterent factors from game theory mathematics come into play.

There just is no correlation with low gun ownership and low crime rates, low violent crime rates, low murder rates, and low suicide rates. Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation. To find any connection between low gun ownership rates and those rates you have to cherry pick stats and be intellectually dishonest (or lazy) - like by only looking at toal gun murders annually, or only gun murder rates instead of total murder rates.

I'd also point out the more money you make the more guns you have per capita, and because of that poorer people have higher crime rates, violent crime rates, murder rates, and suicide rates. The same is true of rural vs urban people, white people vs minorities, etc. Wherever a demographic has a lower gun ownership rate they have higher rates of crime, violent crime, murder, and suicide (nearly universally, but there are rare exceptions - but usually for only one category, not all of them at the same time). BTW...I'm not white or rich, so don't tell me I'm being racist or whatever to point these facts out.

You need to provide some facts regarding firearms saving more lives than taking of them. Otherwise, it just sounds like you're pulling big numbers out of your hat.

If you take a look at the figures in Australia you will gun violence , suicides etc all decreased when measured scientifically but of course anecdotel evidence is much more convincing

urfos

Once again, YAY for guns! They're so awesome.

Sign this petition to 'clarify' gun ownership requirements:

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-28th-amendment-gun-ownership-privilege/tRJtD6L7

The NRA is an individual membership organization, founded to promote marksmanship and defend Americans' Second Amendment rights. It is not an industry trade group. The firearms industry trade group is the NSSF.

74% of the NRA budget originates with firearms manufacturers.

And Obama's own school (Harvard Law and Public Policy) did a study where they proved nations with higher gun ownership rates have LOWER murder and suicide rates than low gun ownership nations. The top 8 gun ownership nations had a 3 times LOWER murder rate and suicide rate than the bottom 8 gun ownership rate nations

Please provide a citation for this 'report'. The information I've seen from the Harvard School of Public Health directly contradicts your statement

There just is no correlation with low gun ownership and low crime rates, low violent crime rates, low murder rates, and low suicide rates.

Let's stick to the actual subject, shall we? This is typical gun proponent manipulation of the data - it's not about overall crime rates - it's about firearms deaths. Firearms homicide rates in the U.S. are 92.5 times the rate in the U.K. (per 100,000 population).

Your assertion that more guns = more violence has been disproven so many times over I shudder at having to reassert that fact.

It has? Really? Like in your mind?

I understand that you folks on the Right think if you shout something often enough and loud enough that automagically makes it true...

meanwhile back in the real world, um, let's just look at a tiny little place called Europe and have a look at your "facts"

without Switzerland of course where the population is educated and wealthy rather than a bunch of frightened little rabbits sitting a hole waiting for the apocalypse.

MPA; You should be a member. The NRA organization is fighting for all your Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment guarentees all the others. That is why the States had the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before they would join the Union.

The NRA organization is fighting for all your Constitutional rights under the Bill of Rights.

No, that would be the ACLU. The only thing the NRA fights for is the rights of firearms manufacturers to sell more guns.

"No, that would be the ACLU."

Ummm, tim, the ACLU is the reason all of these mentally ill people are on the street. I afraid that you can't make an argument with deflection.

"The only thing the NRA fights for is the rights of firearms manufacturers to sell more guns."

Del was correct; you are thinking of SAAMI.

the ACLU is the reason all of these mentally ill people are on the street...

No, that would have been Reagan and his Republican legacy....cut funding and 'starve the beast'. The ACLU advocates for the mentally ill, on issues such as prison reform and the death penalty, not against them. Here is the charter of the ACLU:

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

On the other hand, the NRA receives 74% of its funding from firearms manufacturers. That is their constituency.

First, I would like to say that the ACLU SUED the gov't saying that these people's rights were being infringed and they won. Nice try anyway. Second, please provide a source for your numbers; I am a member of the NRA and I get a newsletter telling me who the large contributors are and whereas there are a few corporate sponsors most are private citizens. Again, nice try anyway.

First, I would like to say that the ACLU SUED the gov't saying that these people's rights were being infringed and they won.

That was one individual in NYC, not 'those people'.

Second, please provide a source for your numbers

The Violence Policy Center, among others. The NRA has 4 million members, as they announced in their press conference last month, with annual dues of $25-$35 max, not counting the thousands of 'lifetime' members. Their annual budget is $300 million. Do the math.

The "Violence Policy Center" is a partisan gun-control lobby. As for the rest of your post, you are leaving out information that disputes your position, therefore it is an intellectually-dishonest argument. Next.

I did not leave out anything relevant. Most of the NRA's funding come from the gun industry. That's a fact.

Next.

It is not the NRA or anyone else's business for the right to own and bear arms in the protection of our freedom. If only the left had a clue.

And what is the right's answer to curb violence? MORE guns?

lol, pathetic

Oh yeah, it is the NRA's problem that kids sit in front of the TV and game consoles with a plastic pistol for hours, even year's on end and shoot every human being that appears on the screen? There is even a game incorporating kindergarten kids as the targets and as is the case for all of these combat on regular human being games, the more people you point at and kill with blood splattering everywhere the more bells and whistles a player hears and the points rack up don't they. So, here we have young people getting their kicks blowing people away (for how many years in front of the TV?) and getting numb to the effect of doing so and you look for blame with the NRA? The NRA has serious issues with these games because they undermine the educational mission of the NRA. Give a kid a plastic pistol and a realistic video human killing game and you end up with a young person numb to the act of pulling a trigger on another person.....that is NOT the NRA's fault!

I'd go along with your suggestion,dss, if the media also reported every time that a firearm was used to save a life or stop a crime.

Shall we work on forcing the media to get on board?

You're awful mouthy about your rights when you hide behind a pseudonym. I'm not impressed but people like you anyway..but I'm reading this thread and the most vocal and opinionated people hide behind internet white hoods and fake names--the tools of bullies and cowards. I'l discuss this with someone up front enough to not need such things. Most gun owners that want more gun freedom either A) Are mentally unstable or B) Are bullies and cowards. I know a number of responsible gun owners and they support stronger regulations (these guys are IN the NRA for God's sake) and they agree no civilian needs high mag caps or automatics to go 'Hunting'.

It would be impossible to report all the shooting in the USA. !0,000 gun murders every year.30,000 gun deaths every year. How many shootings? Ban handguns.

I've known guy's my dads known guys and his dad knew guys who had all types of military hardware including cannons, tanks, artillery, machine guns, mortors, rockets, planes and so much other stuff it boggles the mind. So f..in what, those things don't do anything by themselves except in cartoons. Every American is a patriot, and if they aren't they should be. Sport shooting has been around longer than this country, and it included all of the above. Civil defense is the reason to be armed, more now than ever. We are at war. Many military men have weapons you do not condone so in your mind they are feeble minded, yellow belly's.

NRAs problem? Its the legal systems problem or revolving door that lets these criminals go free to commit more crimes

Civil defense is the reason to be armed, more now than ever. We are at war.

We are not at war. War was never declared by Congress. We are involved in two prolonged military operations at the behest of two commanders in chief with permission and funding from the Congress. Our enemies do not have the material resources to make it to our shores and invade in numbers where civil defense will turn the tide of war.

In a nuclear world, nations with the resources to invade our shores will just eliminate the civilian population centers first. Guns won't stop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can act as a deterrent, but civilians do not own these.

takenata,

It would be impossible to report all the shooting in the USA.

The reason it is impossible is because the federal government routinely guts funding to study this. Guess who lobbies against this kind of data gathering and fact finding? The NRA.

They already made it to our shores and more are being brought here every day from those exact countries. Nidal ring a bell? Funding? from what and where? Let me get this straight hundreds of thousands of people dead from Desert Storm and other conflicts that resulted in dead Americans, but we are not at war? I know your really ill informed when you bring up nukes. They are nothing like atomic bombs, they have the effect times a thousand. No one in their right mind would use nukes as the detonation of five would destroy the entire planet. Make it a very dangerous place to live even if you do.

They already made it to our shores and more are being brought here every day from those exact countries.

There is no invasion of our shores. I don't see any warships. I don't see any landing craft. I don't see any armed soldiers. The most our adversaries can do is send covert cells and pluck off a couple people.

Nidal ring a bell?

Nidal was an American. He wasn't from a foreign country. He's not a foreign soldier. He was a criminal.

Let me get this straight hundreds of thousands of people dead from Desert Storm and other conflicts that resulted in dead Americans, but we are not at war?

For our nation to be considered "at war" there must be a declaration against a foreign adversary from the Congress. No such declaration has been made since World War II. We are involved in military engagements. The President sought permission and funding from Congress to conduct these military engagements. But no declaration of war were made. Those serving may not appreciate the Constitutional difference, but it exists none-the-less.

I know your really ill informed when you bring up nukes. They are nothing like atomic bombs, they have the effect times a thousand.

Come again? A nuke is an nuclear weapon. There two types of nuclear weapons: fission bombs (atomic bombs) and fusion bombs (thermonuclear bombs). Neither is sufficient to destroy a fifth of the world. A fission bomb is sufficient to destroy a population center, such as a small city. A fusion bomb is sufficient to destroy a large population center, such as a city and its metropolitan area. The largest fusion bomb ever constructed and tested would only destroy things in a diameter of 21 miles. (Fallout is another matter.)

And this still doesn't detract from my main argument. Civil defense with firearms won't stop an adversary with the means to invade our shores. Because such an adversary will be a nuclear armed nation, no other nation is large or powerful enough. If you think a nation like Venezuela poses any conventional military threat to the US, you don't really understand how powerful our navy and air force are. The best they could hope for is a small cell of people planting a bomb in a crowd. And guess what? An armed populace isn't going to stop that bomb from being planted and going off. We don't need guns for civil defense against foreign invaders. Period.

Pragmatic,

Are you kidding me? Haven't you seen Red Dawn?

/s

Prag: Your logic eludes even you. This isn't about history or a standing army. The term for terrorism is a covert group using guerrilla tactics. I gave you a number of countries conquering superior forces with fewer numbers and inferior weapons. You ignore facts if they are not spelled out in plain simple language. The nuclear test we did we had a device 3 times smaller than the Russians had in 1961 tsar bomba yet bravo had the ability to disperse radiation for 7000 miles. I do not know where you have learned about preverbial winds and what effects radiation have, but by your response it is not much. Since you are so afraid of Americans maybe you shouldn't live here. P.S. I didn't say a fifth, I said the entire world.

911 was accomplished with about 12 and it was more than a couple of people. I am reminded of what old Ben said

But are cars designed to kill? Nope. Quite the opposite, though it happens. Are hospitals designed to kill people? Not really. The only point of a gun is to kill.

Yeah right, except to my knowledge there has never been a car designed to kill. That's all a gun does. Try riding your gun to Kroger for milk.

Ever see a Yugo?

there has never been a car designed to kill.

Ralph Nader might take exception to that.

yuk yuk yuk

Based on some of the responses, it seems that preventable deaths are acceptable as long as it isn't done by gun.

David: It never ceases to amaze me that those that speak of a 'few' deaths - of any kind - is no big deal. What if those 'few' deaths were your family? Those would be, according to your perspective, a 'few' deaths - no big deal - to most of the rest of us. Any death takes a terrible toll of the friends and family of the deceased.

2.5 MILLION died in the US in 2011. All sad, but you don't see folks looking to ban old age or accidents, do ya?

I have lost parents, siblings, friends. It is hard, but not a reason to strip rights from the citizens of the country for the sake of perceived safety. And all the numbers indicate that the fix won't work.

Pinto!

David,

You want to compare guns to cars? Fine. Let's treat all guns just as we do cars: mandatory test before being allowed to use one, yearly registration (including fees), you'll have to get your gunner's license renewed every few years, and if you're carrying and acting in any way suspicious, a cop may give you a gun-side sobriety test.

Also, you must have your gun registration and insurance (that's right, you'll need liability insurance) with you at all times.

Boston has a violent crime rate of 8.84/1000. Durham, NC has a rate of 7.4. Raleigh has a rate of 4.18.

Your point?

Violent crime rates are not the same thing as gun violence rates.

Um, yeah we tried that before it was called "Prohibition" and was the 18th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Maybe you should do some research before you make stupid comments. Here is a link you can start with. Also check out Ken Burn's documentary about prohibition.

Harry A. Mitchell III--The thing is, that's exactly the sort of argument usable to rewrite the Second Amendment--so the gun loonies won't even bring it up--If the 18th can be repealed, so can ANY of them.

Chris -

Do you understand the concept of "unalienable rights?" You may be much wiser than the founders but probably not.

Would you suggest the "Bill of Rights - Minus One?"

Yes, it will be repealed or re-written with more specifics, but like all things that are progressive and not reactionary, it's going to take time and a lot of people will oppose it. Just like banning slavery, mandating better drunk-driving laws, child-labor laws - there are always people against progressive ideas when their time comes. This is one. The alternative is to have everyone buy more guns.

Progressives. The root of the word - progress - pretty much describes the communist/socialist/liberal agenda. This sort of agenda has brought us such social ills as fire, cooked food, community, medicine, transportation, education, energy. Progressives - almost as bad as liberals. If we'd just have stayed in caves. Wait.....living in caves was a progression from living in trees.

"unalienable rights" are defined in the Declaration of Independence as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" so they can be called upon when a militia is needed to defend the country is the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, of which the first 10 amendments are generally known as the Bill of Rights.

Regrettably, the notion of a citizen militia is long lost to our history, as is the constitutional provision that there be no standing army, nor that any funds raised to support an army be for more than two years. The text: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; is found in Article I, Section 8, which enumerates many of the powers of the Congress.

I don't honestly know what the answer is to the gun violence in this country. Neither confiscating all guns (I am a liberal, I DO NOT support confiscation and I DO support the 2nd Amendment), nor arming everyone to the teeth is the answer. The workable answer is somewhere between the poles of those two positions. In order to do that we need better data, and better studies, on the sources of gun violence, but the NRA has lobbied long and hard to eliminate, if possible, and reduce to a minimum if not, any funding for such research.

I cry for the country my grandchildren will inherit.

But if you look at the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights, you will see that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Those would be the ones mentioned in the Declaration - the unalienable rights. There was a reason that the states could not pass the original Constitutuion, without the (unalienable) Bill of Rights.

Thanks for your reply, Publia. I agree that this is not an easy-answer issue.

Chris ...

You are comparing an amendment that took away a privilege to an amendment designed to protect you and yours from goverment tyrany. Last I checked totalitarian goverments love drunken societies with their mindless sheep acceptance plans a hell of a lot more then the fear they hold over armed memebers of the society that keep them from out right occupation of your home property and life for their own gains. You people who only have as a standerdized answer to get rid of everything that might cause harm are just weak and pathetic.

Fire-arm bans are stupid, no fire-arm control is stupid, the NRA are lobby folk pushing for more money, the goverment is corrupt and the people of america are follwing the white rabbit down the hole any chance they get. Why not stand as a nation instead of letting politicians continue to seperate you into your own little idiot boxes?

To be historically accurate, the US Constitution was passed, without any amendments, and went into effect on March 4, 1789. The first ten amendments, know popularly, but not officially, as the Bill of Rights, was adopted in 1791. My con law professor impressed that on us students, and ever since I have wished everyone I know, and all my fellow Americans, a "Happy Bill of Rights" day on 15 December.

Some of the original framers argued that such a 'bill of rights' was not necessary, because these were understood by 'all men' to be inherent in a civilized society. Others argued that enshrining specific individual rights in the Constitution would guarantee their observance by everyone in the years to come. I am grateful to the latter group for their prescience, even though I am not always happy with the SCOTUS's interpretation of same.

Most of you are saying we need to limit the type of weapons we should be able to own, which are supposed to be used to protect ourselves from government and our own personal safety. Yet our same government is arming the militias in Lybia and Syria to fight against their goverments. Sounds a little hypocritical to me.

Arming yourselves against government with firearms is not fruitful. If a government wants you dead, they're going to bomb your house, your car, your trailer, and come after your family. Your gun won't protect you any more than the lock on your door will. And as has been shown in Syria, Libya, etc, even a well armed populace is not a good counter measure to 30 year old tanks, planes, and artillery. It's time to stop living in that fantasy.

And guess what? The government is still removing your rights despite your ownership of guns. The Senate just passed a bill extending the warrantless wiretapping started by Bush. Let's not forget free speech zones, which limit the areas where you can protest a public figure. The threat of an armed populace doesn't stop the brazen assault on our rights and the armed populace does nothing to stop these assaults on our rights. So it's time to stop living in that fantasy as well.

Do you understand the concept of "unalienable rights?" You may be much wiser than the founders but probably not.

Sure - it's in the Declaration of Independence in reference to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not gun ownership. The Declaration is not the law, and the Constitution does not define the right to bear arms as unalienable, anywhere.

Would you suggest the "Bill of Rights - Minus One?"

Not really. 100% Owner licensing requiring safety testing and periodic renewal, 100% firearms registration, 100% background checks using a NICS database that is 100% comprehensive and requiring 100% participation by all 50 states would be a good start. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the government has the power to regulate firearms.

Tim, a little help for you:

"Definition of INALIENABLE

: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <inalienable rights> "

"the Constitution does not define the right to bear arms as unalienable, anywhere."

Actually it does:"

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you use a little thought, you will realize that "shall not be infringed" matches the definition of "inalienable".

First of all, the Declaration of Independence uses the word "unalienable", not "inalienable". They do not mean the same thing.

Secondly, neither word is ever used in the Constitution, your interpretation notwithstanding.

"Unalienable" means incapable of being sold or transferred - no matter what. It is these rights that the Declaration defines as including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Not the right to bear arms - not in the Declaration nor in the Constitution. The second amendment does not address the right to bear arms for the purpose of defending unalienable rights whatsoever. It only addresses the security of a free State.

"Inalienable" means incapable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of one possessing such rights. This term is never mentioned in either document, but if you insist, then you are effectively saying that such right to bear arms can be transferred with the consent of the citizenry, i.e. by rule of law.

Your interpretation. Unfortunately incorrect. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this and I assure you they are better read on this topic than either of us.

"but if you insist, then you are effectively saying that such right to bear arms can be transferred with the consent of the citizenry, i.e. by rule of law"

Meaning that a popular vote by the people, not by Congress, would be required to remove our rights; according to your interpretation. Keep trying.

Really? Please cite the Supreme Court opinion. The court has in fact ruled that the government has the power to regulate firearms, as I suggested.

The rule of law means Congress. Laws are not made by popular vote. It's in the Constitution.

Porrohman DONE.

I reported it as inappropriate. All the allegations in the petition are false.

Absolutely - but then again, it is the church of the gun, isn't it?

The Nonprofit status can only be revoked if it is proven that the organization is actually making a profit, the NRA does not make a profit. GUITARMA: the NRA is not a church, as a NRA member I do not worship guns. I do object to people who make assumptions that are baseless and asinine. There are too many people who go out and buy a gun yet are clueless regarding the safe handling and storage of said gun. The NRA is the largest advocate of firearms saftey, yet that fact is totaly ignored. A church? No. An organization to protect the 2nd Amendment from clueless people like you? Absolutly!

Actually, many non-profit organizations make a profit, but the uses of that profit are restricted by the IRS regulations that allowed the group to be organized in the first place. Most of these are in Section 501 (c) something of the IRS code. Subsection (3) refers to educational organizations, (4) refers to social clubs that operate for the benefit of their members (my yacht club, for example), and there are others I can't call to mind immediately because I have no specific contact with them.

What the regulations are very clear on, however, is that the non-profits' profits (the funds) cannot be used for the purpose of promoting or influencing legislation, e.g., lobbying. Many organizations create and fund a separate arm for such activities, and this meets the IRS's requirements. (These often have the word 'Foundation' in their names, but not all foundations are lobbying arms.) The Sierra Club, for example, lost its non-profit status because it was too obvious and aggressive about promoting, or fighting, legislation it deemed harmful to the environment. (I have no opinion on this one way or the other; I simply cite it as an example with which I am familiar.)

I don't know how the NRA funds its lobbying efforts, nor how well they comply with the IRS regulations. (I suspect that anyone who went after them for a violation of non-profit status wouldn't have his/her job very long, but that IS an opinion.)

What really bothers me, and should bother every tax-paying American is that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops actually has funds for, and expends them on, lobbying. I read an article awhile back that mentioned figures in the tens of millions, but have no specific citation at hand. I suspect other churches, including, probably, the Mormons, have similar arrangements, but I don't know that for a fact.

Opinion: I think it is outrageous that churches that supposedly survive on the contributions of their members, and enjoy a tax-free status thereby, should use those funds to influence legislation. (Just look at the sources of most of the money promoting Proposition 8 in California [an amendment to the state constitution to bar gay marriage]; the greater portion of the funds came from the Catholic Church and the Mormons, some of it directly, some through front groups, and some from individuals fronting for those churches.)

If a church's teachings aren't enough to persuade their flock of the rightness of their position, why should we tax-paying Americans allow them to use un-taxed funds to promote those positions? Those who do not adhere to their particular interpretation of theology should have the freedom to be left alone, one of the most precious freedoms in any code of law governing a free society. I can't tell you how thoroughly sick I was of hearing promotional ads for Prop 8 because my favorite radio station was owned by the Mormons. (They've since become an ad-free, public radio station, in part, I suspect, because many of their listeners were equally sick of the ads.)

Still, anyone who tries to go after the NRA, the Catholic Church, or the Mormons will have a rough road, and a very short professional life. It's sad, because it was this very kind of state-sanctioned religious influence, against which this country was founded, and the Revolution was fought. Do the research; you will find many of the so-called Founding Fathers were Deists at best, and that probably only because the popular view of the times had not yet accepted atheism as a valid viewpoint/belief.

There are different types of non profits. The NRA is set up as a lobbying non profit and as such, donations are not tax deductible (hmmm, sounds like a violation of the first amendment). The Brady Campaign, however, is set up as an educational non profit and isn't allowed to lobby, yet does so without losing their tax exempt status and all donations are tax deductible. Guess we know what our gov't wants, huh? The NRA is evil, but follows the law; the Brady Campaign is the good guys and so doesn't have to? Maybe if our gov't would just enforce existing laws we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Pub: Churches do a lot more for the people of this country and others worldwide than you give them credit for. I do not support my government being the protector of the world, nor do I agree with their foreign policies most of the time. I surely do not agree with people who spout off about freedom and think it will exist forever because some how logic will insure that. Wrong! P.S. I remember an old song the lyrics were one hand on the bible, one hand on the gun. Until war is no more.

It was not a family party.It happened at a bar in old town Sacramento.A customer started an argument with others,the bartender intervened and was killed along with another customer.

Yeah, and even though the security guard had a CCP and was armed, he still couldn't prevent the shooter from killing two people, and in fact was wounded himself during the gunfight. Just like the shooting of Arizona congresswoman Nancy Giffords; there were two people present with CCP's and weapons and they still could not stop Jared Laugher before he shot six people. Or, the case of the Ft. Hood doctor who shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers despite the fact that he was in a room full of armed soldiers trained to kill. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but these cases proves that shootings will not stop just because we have more armed citizens. Carry a gun if you must for protection and be ready to defend yourself, but the violence will not end. We as a society must find a way to treat the disease (violence) instead of merely treating the systems (by carrying a weapon).

Michael -

Do some research. That "workplace violence" (George Orwell anyone?) incident at Ft. Hood was in a cafeteria where NO arms were allowed.

Oh, people are never robbed at home. Sound logic.

Michael; you seem to think that soldiers walk around armed at all times. Not true. On a military base in the US, the only people who are armed are the MP's or the DoD cops. The rest are just doing their jobs and only see a weapon when they are training. Also, concealed carry is AGAINST regulations at most posts, depending on the base commanders standing orders. I personally have worked posts where the MP's weren't even allowed to be armed.

formerly, 649th M.P. Co., 49th Brigade, Range Pirates....................

At Just a Cleaning Lady. It was shortly after the 9:00 p.m. fireworks event geared towards families. Lots of kids on the streets as well as people in the bars that were open. I watched as people pushing strollers and holding their kids by their hands run for cover. Yes it occurred in a bar, but the event was a family affair.

Yes, my right as an American, a tax payer and a consumer of American goods that supply Americans with fine quality firearms and JOBS. One a year? Pffft. I don't tell you how much anal lube you can buy.

I think your comments fall under the "Well Regulated" part of "a well regulated militia..." You know, the part of the 2nd amendment that most 2nd amendmenters forget to address.

My idea was more radical. Everyone (sane, legal, qualified) gets a hunting rifle for free (lever action, bolt action, or other non-SA) at 18 along with 50 rounds of serialized ammo. When you use up your ammo, you turn in the 50 casings for 50 new rounds for free. 1 Free gun and free ammo for life. Sounds nice eh?

Then we outlaw all guns, ammo and manufacturers in the US. No more sales, no loopholes etc. The only exceptions are individually licensed police and military.

The 2nd amendment is upheld and even enhanced (Free gun and ammo for all) and all other guns are taken off the streets.

This is obviously an extreme example, but no more so than arming schools,teachers and students.

Buffaloe51

OK. It's pretty easy.

1: Close the gun show loophole on background checks

OK, first off, there is no gun show loophole, all firearm transfers MUST be authorized by NICS.

2: Anyone that wants to buy a gun of any kind has to agree to release of medical records regarding mental health issues.

I think you will find that the ACLU will object to this.

3: No magazines of more than 8 rounds.

4: Ban ammunition that can pierce a cops vest or any kind of armor.

Sorry, but the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow us, the free citizens of this country, the means to violently overthrow our government if we need to, therefore, we must have access to the same weaponry the government has.

5. One gun per year purchase.

Not a chance.

6: All licensed permit carriers must re-qualify annually.

I have to renew my drivers license every 4 years, and my license to carry every 4 years. What's your point?

7: No sale or transfer of ownership of any firearm without going through a licensed FFL.

Anyone who transfers ownership of a firearm between two private parties uses a licensed FFL dealer anyway to protect themselves, so it's a moot point.

Will any of this have prevented the tragedies that we've recently experienced? No, but we have to start somewhere and maybe in a couple of decades these proposals could have a positive effect.

So, if none of your suggestions would do anything to prevent the recent tragedies, why implement them?

Did you see anywhere that I proposed taking away existing weapons?

Our government is the most well-armed in the history of man, with more arms than the next six countries combined. No amount of small arms will every stop a takeover by this government, but then again, they don't HAVE to take over, do they? So unless one is planning an armed revolution against this government, or feels that they can cherry-pick which laws to follow and which to not follow, the only good the saturation of guns does us is to enable arguments to quickly spiral into life-or-death fights.

The media SHOULD report every single incident of gun violence, and every single incident where being armed saved someone's life or save someone from harm. In fact, "the media" does - it's just the national media that cannot do so because there are so many incidents each day in this country - because of the proliferation of guns. Everyone knows that the incidence of violence using guns far outweigh the incidence of guns saving someone. That's common sense. But if someone has numbers and examples, please post them here so we can all improve our opinions.

"Everyone knows that the incidence of violence using guns far outweigh the incidence of guns saving someone. That's common sense."

Except the feds themselves (DOJ) post numbers which belie your statement.

More guns than ever, lowest homicide rate in 2011 since 1963 (2012 figures not yet available).

Facts are a booger, aren't they?

Why was Buffalo's comment collapsed? Reason being banned?

mpa,

I'm not able to find this kind of research from the US DOJ. As a matter of fact, I can only find a DOJ survey from 2009 that interviewed 2,000 convicts and asked whether they were deterred from their crimes by a firearm in the house. (Less than half were. And some may have been lying.)

You also have to look at more than the homicide rate. It's low. But there are factors that can influence this. Stricter parole requirements. Stricter sentencing. More police on the street. Effective community organization to prevent gang violence.

Above and beyond the homicide rate, you have to look at accidental shootings in homes of family members and suicides. There aren't great numbers on this because the NRA lobbies the government not to conduct that kind of research.

There's plenty of evidence of a lower violent crime rate overall, even where no firearm is involved. This suggests that other factors are at play, such as the ones I suggested above.

To prove a link between firearm ownership and the prevention of homicide, you would need good statistics on both. I'll give you a hint, no such statistics exist because the NRA lobbies the government to ensure that they do not have the resources to fund such fact finding studies. What you get are anecdotes and anecdotes aren't a substitute for data.

More guns than ever, lowest homicide rate in 2011 since 1963 (2012 figures not yet available).

That is simply not true. Firearms homicides have remained steady at about 9k-10k per year for more than a decade.

"That is simply not true. Firearms homicides have remained steady at about 9k-10k per year for more than a decade."

Tim, cite a source, please.

The CDC.

How about a source that isn't the government or partisan...

Like the NRA?

The CDC is non-partisan and completely authoritative.

And when the First Amendment was written they used an ink well and a feather. What's your point?

tynabee- citizens owned cannons just not muskets and pistols you need to check up on your history

The Internet, Television, Radio, etc. were not around in 1787. So let's ignore the 1st Amendment for those.

Chuck,

They do. Radio and television have to get permission from the FCC to broadcast. And the FCC has decency codes. No nudity and no cuss words, for example. You get fined if you're a broadcaster and ignore the decency codes. Keep ignoring them and you lose your license to broadcast. Keep broadcasting and you get thrown in jail. The 4th amendment is being ignored the for the Internet.

My thoughts exactly, ac2jc. No articles about other deaths- just gun-related ones. The presstitutes are obviously workin' that ol' leg!

Then park that 70mph car and take a horse next time

sigh. they did not say guns they said Arms which encompass more that just guns

The NRA does not "sell guns", the NRA is an organization of people who have already bought their guns. Yes the NRA is politically active in Washington just as all of the Anti-gun lobbys are, there are just more of us than them. (pisses you off doesnt it?) ... And, with Ms. Feinstein issuing the threat of MORE anti-gun legislation, she has increased the ownership of firearms immensely. Only a bloody idiot would act to increase the membership of the opposition.

Garb: Maybe you should watch some more movies because you don't know anything about weapons of the 18th century. They had rockets and weapons capable of firing multiple projectiles, kind of like having the effect of a machine gun. Bombs were another big seller which were more sophisticated than the Roman's had as were the flame throwers. I am surprised at the statements try to pass off as fact. Doesn't matter, I think inantimate objects do nothing until they have a mind to.

grammatical error whoops.

But, but call me crazy but the NRA's LaPue said that wouldn't happen with a armed security present. Must be misreported.

He did read the article the guard is the reason he fled i.e. the guard stopped him from shooting more people.:

CBS/AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. - A suspect is under arrest in connection with a New
Year's Eve shooting that left two dead at a bar in the Old Sacramento area,
police said Tuesday.

The 22-year-old was among three people wounded Monday evening after a
shooting that occurred as people gathered to watch fireworks to celebrate the
New Year, authorities said.

The suspect's injuries, as well as those to a security guard and a
30-year-old woman, are not life threatening.

Police say the incident started as an argument inside the bar at about 9:38
p.m. that escalated and became a physical confrontation. When an employee tried
to break up the fight, he was shot, as were the woman and another man.

That man, 35, and the employee, who was in his 20s, died at the scene after
suffering multiple gunshot wounds.

Authorities say an armed guard near a side door at the bar heard the gunshots
and got into a gunfight with the suspect. Both were wounded.

The armed suspect ran out of the bar toward a street crowded with holiday
revelers but was caught quickly by officers chasing him, police said.

Police are not identifying the suspect because of the ongoing
investigation.

After the shooting, police canceled the midnight fireworks show that was
expected to draw as many as 40,000 people.

Just like the shooting of Arizona congresswoman Nancy Giffords; there were two people present with CCP's and weapons and they still could not stop Jared Laugher before he shot six people. Or, the case of the Ft. Hood doctor who shot and killed 13 of his fellow soldiers despite the fact that he was in a room full of armed soldiers trained to kill. I believe in the 2nd Amendment but these cases proves that shootings will not stop just because we have more armed citizens. Carry a gun if you must for protection and be ready to defend yourself, but the violence will not end. We as a society must find a way to treat the disease (violence) instead of merely treating the systems (by carrying a weapon).

We in America have the right to bear arms.This is not a gun issue.It is an issue of people getting drunk and using a gun.I'm 61,been out in my day on New Years Eve,driven in bad neighborhoods and have never been shot at.

at the time your constitution was written, what weapons were available ... flintlocks? i believe it mentions a regulated militia ... it is quite a stretch to equate this with an individual and assault rifles - your armed forces don't walk the streets with their weapons, why should you or anyone else

Jeff -

Since you are a canuck, I am assuming you don't know too much US history. You should read what the founders hadd to say about an armed populace being "citizens," whereas an unarmed populace are "subjects."

Different country, different intents, different founders.

Jeff-the-canuck, I envy the apparent peace in your city.

The exact wording in our Constitution is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Also, in defining militia, "Persons have been said to engage in militia in response to a "call up" by any person aware of the emergent threat requiring the response, and thence to be in "called up" status until the emergency is past.^[56] There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law." (via Wikipedia "militia" entry)

That pretty much says right there that we all have the right to "walk the streets with our weapons" as you say. (By the way, I don't walk the streets with either of my weapons, thanks.) However, as my grandmother used to say, "just because you can doesn't mean you should." Carrying a gun to a New Year's Eve party seems like a gross error in judgement to me, especially if one knows they will be drinking.

Pray tell, what is this obvious solution of which you speak? The guns are already out there; there's no undoing that. Not that disarming the good citizens of the milita is the answer...

WorkerBee -

Excellent post. Reading many of the anti-gun posters, they cannot refrain from using perjorative phrasing (gun-huggers, gun loonies, etc.). Yet you have managed to state your case without such insults and prove, once again, that responsible gun owners do exist.

Thank you.

Pay attention to ken-3185183 Such eloquence in defense of the USA and gun rights! Ban handguns.

canda is not the United States. You need to do some more research america is not the most violent country in the world. Actually its far from it.

mpa-4893349 - Different times, different weapons, different society = different rules.

ken-3185183 - It's hard to pay attention to illiterates. Or maybe you're an illegal immigrant, eh?

Stay safely in Canada and stay out of our rights.

You have no real comprehension of the 2nd amendment.

Gitma -

"Different times, different weapons, different society = different rules."

Fortuneately, same Bill of Rights.

Snowco,Good questions.People have a higher chance of being killed by a drunk driver on holidays than being shot by a gun toting drunken hot head.

These are both lame, overused responses. We would have to ban meat, poultry, driving, hospitals, elevators, dogs, alcohol, cigarettes, farm instruments, construction tools, you name it. The one difference is that guns (and I'm not in favor of banning every type of gun) are expressly made for firing. They don't get you to work. They don't treat you for health issues. They don't build houses. They don't do anything except fire deadly projectiles which, when used PROPERLY are meant to kill.

Gitma -

Same old tired, lame and overused comment.

Google "competition firearms." You can lay out some serious bucks for weapons designed and manufactured to send a projectile through a piece of paper.

If it was an average New Years Eve for traffic related deaths, the number would be over 140 deaths (per AAA numbers pulled from the National Highway Trafic Safety Admininstation).

sam4ever,

The difference is people will actually listen seriously if you propose solutions to reducing the number of deaths related to drunk driving. Calling for the limitation of alcohol you can buy isn't considered very unreasonable. Calling for a limitation of ammo rounds or size of firearm is shouted down. Calling for more traffic stops to enforce sober driving isn't considered unreasonable. Calling for firearm registration and background checks are actively protested.

They might listen seriously, but history shows that changes don't happen just because there are restrictions made. How many years have we had such high rates of deaths due to drunk drivers, going to fast for conditions, and not wearing seat belts? We have plenty of laws on the books to try to prevent these accidents, yet they still occur.

My point was that a few gun deaths are unacceptable and make headlines yet over a hundred per day traffic related deaths is considered acceptable and doesn't even make MSNBC headlines.

And your suggestion is?

You will not under any circumstances remove weapons from the world or the US.

SO, now what?

Help us out here.

So we just pretend the " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is no longer there in the 2nd ammendment?

In the time the bill of rights was written regulated refered to "Trained" not controlled.

Here's a few,

A woman driving the wrong direction on the Boulder Highway hit a car killing the two people inside. I bet it was a gun.....

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/20480496/breaking-news-serious-crash-closes-flamingo-road

A woman driving in the Wrong direction on the Boulder highway,hit's a car and kills two people?

I know while the fanatical antigun clowns are running around, screaming, parading, and campaigning all their marxist antigun Crap rhetoric,why don't we start campaigning to ban all autos.After all they kill to!

They want to band semi Automatics, and we can ban all Automobiles.Aw look even the first 3 letters of these words are the same.

Ain't that remarkable?

You don't ban 'autos' because 'autos' have a main use other than killing people.

The first 3 letters? If you could count beyond three you would see the first five letters are the same. Ban handguns.

So do guns. Hunters use guns to hunt animals which they then eat. Not that they use semi-auto pistols or rifles necessarily but the point is, "guns" have a main use other than killing people.

Hey, we had a guy last night drive into a light pole and kill himself - I was there just a few minutes after he hit!

I don't see anyone in my community foaming at the mouth for light pole control.

Wow, if I didn't have unlimited confidence in our TOTALLY UNBIASED" news media, I would wonder why they never mentioned, even casually about the millions and millions of responsible gun owners who never fired a shot this weekend! Talk about the "tail" wagging the "dog", and the "lefts" mania on guns goes on , despite their immense schedule of abortions, WHO ARE THE CRIMINALS?

I would want to read stories about gun owners who don't use their guns. Very interesting material. Ban handguns.