gunman dead and others dead.

Four people killed during hostage standoff with police in Colorado

As many as 40 officers, including SWAT teams and hostage negotiators, were on scene at the home in Aurora, Colo.

Note to Gunman:

IF life really IS this bad off for you, then do yourself this favour: release the hostages and then just kill yourself. OR, if you're the narcicistic type, just kill yourself first in front of the hostages so that they can understand your pain.

and NO: there is isn't ANY need to "take anybody with you".

Wow. Clearly we need more guns in this country. Every man, woman, and child should be packing.

release the hostages and then just kill yourself

Of just go off by yourself and do yourself in.

R.Scalzo: That was my point.

No matter how many times this happens, it sickens me that a person with suicidal thoughts seems to think that they just cannot do it ALONE. What in the hellfire has happened to the phrase 'taking it like a man'? There just doesn't seem to be any honour in suicide anymore.

I am so glad that guns are not a problem in this country.

I am in greater fear of the terra cotta planters that people obsessively use as weapons...because they are so effective.

all they need to do is get the KERN COUNTY SHERRIF out there thy;ll just fill the house full a bullets hostage or not

@never stop

Me too. Now if we could get rid of the people problem.

Never..the gun wasn't the problem it was the moron behind then gun. he could have easily poisoned them or used explosives

Speculation before we get the facts. It was the disgruntled ex husband/husband/boyfriend angry at ex wife/wife/girlfriend because she had a new someone/he lost his job/drugs. Pick a scenario, they're basically all the same.

What is it about Aurora CO? Are they putting something in the water there?

For one week I wish the main stream media would report everycrime that happens nationally so we could see just how many involve guns or other items.

What is it with people killing each other these days...? I'll venture a guess... seems like each one of these gunmen that make the headlines are either mentally unstable or depressed...

Oh wait, depression IS a mental health problem, we as a society just refuse to call it what it is. Our problem is that mental health issues are something we refuse to acknowledge. We ignore them hoping they will go away and then wonder why situations like these keep happening.

No, mental health is not the only problem, but I think it's a BIG part of it.

Must be the water or reefer.

Keep in mind marijuana was legalized.

martvol

For one week I wish the main stream media would report everycrime that happens nationally so we could see just how many involve guns or other items

But then we'd actually have some real perspective, and what good does that do for the gun control agenda?

If every single gun was removed in this country, we'd still be reading about mass killings by poison, knives, bombs, etc. Murder was not invented with the invention of guns.

So the Media takes one incident that occurs everyday that ironically happens to be in Aurora to bring out the retards who don't know when the media is just fishing for ratings, and black and white battles about gun control.

They do the same thing anytime something dramatic happens. What happened with virginia tech? About a day later they reported a fuss in an apartment complex outside a campus's property as a "school shooting".

How about the earthquake in Japan? Oh it became breaking news anytime a quake popped up again which is what every second of everyday somewhere in the world?

Should be ashamed of yourselves NBC.

VH Navy, I am taken aback regaring the methodical methods that you have entertained to kill people, without using those dreaded guns, of course.

How dare you.

VH Navy

Never..the gun wasn't the problem it was the moron behind then gun. he could have easily poisoned them or used explosives

Easier than pulling a trigger? No, clearly not.

MamaBear00

Keep in mind marijuana was legalized.

Right, guns are fine. It's recently legalized marijuana. Because there were no shooting prior to that. And it's well known that weed makes everybody angry and violent, ala Reefer Madness. True Story.

So it ain't gonna happen, folks. Don't be so paranoid about the whole "cold, dead hands" philosophy. We're always going to have our guns in our holsters.

Don't bet on it SandUp, especially under this fascist control-freak administration. Hope you've been buying high capacity clips, ammo, and more guns while you still can. You may be very sorry down the road. And soon.

Smith Cassidy

Jhawke

Cars are a means of transportation; guns are meant to kill. Period. Still, please continue with the patently stupid analogies. They are fun to read.

People talk about guns in inner cities all the time. Ever heard about Mayors Against Illegal Guns?

And clearly Chicago is full of guns. How is that helping your pro-gun argument?

That's really strange. I own a .22, a 12-guage, and a 9mm and none of them have ever killed anyone. I tell you what though, there's a @!$%#-load of shredded paper targets out there. Guess the firearms you're talking about must have been manufactured differently than the ones I bought. The point is, a weapon is only deadly when it's used in a way that's meant to kill. Doesn't matter if it's a gun, a car, a plane, or fertilizer. Pretty much anything can kill if the intent is there.

So with that in mind, people freaking the @!$%# out over guns is completely irrational. It's the soup de jour for morons who want to take people out, but where there's a will there's a way, and if they didn't have a gun they'd use something else. Sorry that the world can't be wrapped up in pillows to satisfy you and people like you, but that's just not the way reality works.

legal gun or not.....

bad guy gets gun

bad guy uses gun

good guys with guns stop bad guy with gun

keep legal guns legal...kill the bad guys that use guns for illegal things

end of story.

to many nut's...sad times in deed...

Smith Cassidy...(#1.29)..." People talk about guns in inner cities all the time. Ever heard about Mayors Against Illegal Guns?

And clearly Chicago is full of guns. How is that helping your pro-gun argument?"

Well, if those Mayors were actually doing something about the illegal guns, instead of pushing for more gun control on law abiding citizens, I might say "kudo's.....

Chicago is full of ILLEGAL GUNS....Only the Supreme Court over-ruling Chicago's gun ban is allowing Law-abiding Chicagoans to keep a gun in their house....the front porch or the garage is NOT considered part of "in their house"....So, yeah, only the thugs and gang members walk around armed to the teeth...

How's that gun control working to stop them ???

P.S....Mayors Against Illegal Guns Grand Pubar Bloomberg has surrounded himself with bodyguards for decades....He is a billionaire don't ya know and his life is more valuable and more worth protecting than all the other inhabitants of his NYC...Pfffttt....

The average american has no hope and I think thats the majority of the problem.

I used to be an NRA member Tom, but I don't get those glossy little post-cards in the mail anymore.

Something about the over-simplicity of their arguments always made me give my head a shake.... but thanks for posting it word for word; I've been wondering what they looked like lately.

More guns are being bought/ stashed away now, than gun shops or manufacturers can keep up producing them.

That is because people are anticipating more violence, and the Gun Control Law being put into effect.

The massacre sieges will increase. The guns will either be stolen from others, or the gun Aficionados will have more weaponry, possibly selling them on the Black Market. It's all about "Self-Defense"; back to the Old, Old Wild West.

Why is this the second massacre in Aurora, Colorado, a Liberal State?---The basic fact is there are too many untreated Mentally ill people in the United States, who are h-bent on taking other lives with them. This seems to be a new phenomenon---More Mental Health Clinics should be set up for those who cannot afford to pay--funding for those clinics was taken away a long time ago--but would the crazies go and seek help?

Took four posts before an anti-gun moron jumped in with his stupid and predictable rhetoric.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel, if you'll pardon the expression. To make the anti-gun monkeys jump, that is.

Before even FULL details of the story come out, no less. Learning the facts be dammed.

Jhawke wrote:

Don't bet on it SandUp, especially under this fascist control-freak administration. Hope you've been buying high capacity clips, ammo, and more guns while you still can. You may be very sorry down the road. And soon.

That's a great idea Jhawke. That way you'll be able to steal the stuff you will REALLY need in a survival situation, like food and water. I hear guns and ammo make for lousy eating. Of course, that's easy for me to say from the safety of my bunker waiting for the "fascist control-freak administration" to enslave me, take my guns, and turn me into a socialist. Oh wait, I forgot, they're fascists now.

Just a thought. If I were in your shoes, I'm not sure I'd be pushing for mental health checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership.

weusall

Why didn't one of you "proud gun owners" that just HAD to go contribute to 3 1/2 YEARS worth of clips being sold in 1 week go and stop this? I thought you all having more guns would lead to a safer world where this kind of stuff wouldn't happen. Doesn't seem to be working. Why don't we just post an armed, uniformed officer at every doorstep in the USA like you want to do with every school? Oh, but wait, I thought you were worried about the US turning into a police state?!?! Go to hell, and take your guns with you!

You seem confused. Do you want responsible gun owners to try to help in these scenarios, or do you want them to go to hell with their guns? It's going to be a mighty difficult shot if we're all in hell, but I'd be willing to try. Or I might just leave you to get riddled with bullets by some suicidal maniac, and then say "I told you so" when you join me.

" ... Lets see who posts the first antigun post. ... "

Let's see who the first ignorant person ......

OOOS! To late . I see that person has already posted. That would be you Mary Jones.

Therefore we shouldn't have any?

@SmithCassidy - Where did I ever say we shouldn't have any gun laws? The POINT is they do NOT stop people from killing with guns, or any other inanimate object you people blame murders on. If you can't comprehend that, then there is no more point in wasting your time and my time.

No. Guns have a single purpose: to kill. That's it. You aren't arguing purpose, you're arguing usage.

That's your opinion, and your opinion only. Several of my guns are used for target practice only, including the rounds specifically purchased for target practice. Would you say that my compound bow was designed to kill, and kill only as well?

And I have no problem with guns...they are fun to shoot. But to act like there isn't a serious gun violence problem in this country is to deny reality.

It sounds to me like you have a major problem with guns. And yes, we do have gun violence in this nation. Who could deny that? But the issue to address is not knee-jerk confiscate and remove all 300 million guns from the hands of Americans (and good luck with the logistics of that...we can easily hide them including burying them somewhere in gun safes if it ever came to that). We have a crime problem in America and a revolving door justice system. And as already mentioned, a serious mentally ill problem. But we will just disagree and that's that. At least we still have the right to do that.

I'd like to be the first one to change the mantra "guns don't kill people,people kill people" to "people with guns kill people without guns". Seems to make more sense to me.

I grew up in Denver, and Aurora has been a pit since I can remember. It has never been safe - and has gotten less so in the past few years. Like every big city, Denver has suburbs that are the place where all the gangbanger wannabes and trashy people live. Aurora is to Denver what Compton is to LA. Avoid at all costs.

I saw an article on MSN that the reason Holmes chose that particular theater is because it had a "no guns allowed" policy. He knew it would be like shooting fish in a barrel there because no one could shoot back.

Aside from that, the true cause of the insanity is not a gun, millions of people own guns and never harm anyone, and people are murdered with knives, bombs, hammers, etc. all the time. It's not the weapon, it's the mental state of the person using the weapon. Almost 100% of these mass murderers have been taking deadly psychiatric drugs - DRUGS WHOSE SIDE EFFECTS INCLUDE HOMICIDAL/SUICIDAL THOUGHTS. Get your heads out of your *sses and see what the government and psych industry (OF DEATH) has planned for you.

Just a thought. If I were in your shoes, I'm not sure I'd be pushing for mental health checks as a prerequisite for gun ownership.

That's cute, David. Did you think up that all by yourself? And I never commented about pushing for mental health evaluation before purchasing a gun. And tens of millions (if not more) of Americans are VERY weary of what the current administration is up to with regards to gun control. There are always small steps to a bigger goal. If you don't believe me, go read some news stories about record gun purchases, backlogged background checks, and a shortage of ammunition. Are you going to insinuate they all have mental issues as well?

Once again, for the fifth time, (that in itself is a strange statement!) I'd like to request the ability to answer statements as they occur,not twenty statements down the discussion. When you finally find the word "reply", nothing you have to say is going to be relevant. All those in favor say "Ya,that's the ticket"!

I am so glad that guns are not a problem in this country.

I am in greater fear of the terra cotta planters that people obsessively use as weapons...because they are so effective.

Can anyone explain why my comment was collapsed? It did not violate the COH.

Mary Jones-1616541

"Lets see who posts the first antigun post."

Don't know, but you were the first person on the thread to make it pro-gun. Congratulations.

@Marchant

Why is this the second massacre in Aurora, Colorado, a Liberal State?---The basic fact is there are too many untreated Mentally ill people in the United States, who are h-bent on taking other lives with them. This seems to be a new phenomenon---More Mental Health Clinics should be set up for those who cannot afford to pay--funding for those clinics was taken away a long time ago--but would the crazies go and seek help?

Simple answer, no! The crazies would not go get help even if it was free. (to them, as nothing is completely free) That's why the funding went away long ago, no demand. The crazies won't go, and we can't make them go!

Just got back from early shopping at WallyWorld. Hardly anyone in the store - except a young, white male open-carrying what looked like a .40cal S&W. What are these people so afraid of? Terrorist carrots, or insane Cheerios? He didn't look like a hero in any sense - he looked like a scared, dangerous kid.

Old Dog,

That is completely and absolutely untrue. There are people out there desperately searching for help. None is available. There are people out there with unstable family members who have begged for help in confining and treating that family member. There is no help available. So don't blame the mentally ill for not getting help. Blame the society that has closed all the hospitals and expects the mentally ill to make sane decisions about taking medications that are thrown at them as a substitute for real treatment.

Of just go off by yourself and do yourself in.

The gunman just wanted his fifteen minutes of fame and glory. No one wants to take guns away, but to do something to prevent this violence.

Wow, check out Mary Jones post! 4 are dead, and all he/she/it can think about is how its going to reflect on the pro-gun argument. That is a pathetic (but, alas, predictable) display of callousness. What will be your next move, Mary Jane, lets see... usually pretty easy to get inside y'alls brains..... he could have done it with a knife, true that, or a tuning fork, an old DVD, last week's Denver Post......

For once, could any of you guys come up with anything original? Just apeing NRA propoganda gets so old.

No. Guns have a single purpose: to kill.

Hmmmmmm, ok.....

And I have no problem with guns...they are fun to shoot.

But only if yer trying to kill someone, since that is their only purpose...

More murder from a gun nut, just think if we could scale back on the guns the cops wouldn't need them either..

You don't have to be teabag or a libtard to know guns are good for nothing, except to put a man six feet in a hole...

@all the predictable pro-gun "you can technically kill someone with a screwdriver [or other object or substances]" arguments

Its easy to make your case when you fabricate the argument of the opposition and misrepresent their position without actually addressing anything they say. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone on the other side of this argument claim or even imply by any stretch that you can't kill someone with just about anything other than a gun (knives, rocks, etc.). The issue is not that guns are the only means to kill someone, the issue is that they're easier and more effective than anything else--including mass killing weapons like bombs and poison gas which I'm 100% sure anti-gun people are also against and would support regulations for as well.

How about you address that instead of spewing the same nonsense over and over again?

There are millions of games to play. Guns are not games to play and entertain yourself or your guests. Guns are weapons, made primarily to kill, to hinder, to destroy. It is too late to control the purchase of guns. Money making is BIG Business and so are guns. Our ideas are very good, but making money is BETTER. How many people you know are willing to stop making money from selling guns? And be real,PEOPLE. We can truly publish fliers, educate gun owners, and hopefully we will teach gun owners to avoid and respect innocent people as our rewards for life.@

How easy is it to point aim and shoot, my parakeet could do it, that was easy..

Ever been hunting?

That's what I thought!

Our country is plagued with IGNORANCE.

Generations of law abiding gun owners have proven that guns can be owned responsibly.

What has changed?

A society that no longer respects LIFE.

It's totally acceptable for our government to kill millions of innocent women and children in other countries, and do so with tax payer monies.

We have taught our young to settle their problems by murdering those who disagree.

A nation will reap what it sows, and the U.S. is no exception.

You Ain't Seen Nothin Yet!

VisionStorm

@all the predictable pro-gun "you can technically kill someone with a screwdriver [or other object or substances]" arguments

Its easy to make your case when you fabricate the argument of the opposition and misrepresent their position without actually addressing anything they say. But I don't think I've ever seen anyone on the other side of this argument claim or even imply by any stretch that you can't kill someone with just about anything other than a gun (knives, rocks, etc.). The issue is not that guns are the only means to kill someone, the issue is that they're easier and more effective than anything else--including mass killing weapons like bombs and poison gas which I'm 100% sure anti-gun people are also against and would support regulations for as well.

How about you address that instead of spewing the same nonsense over and over again?

Like the same old rhetoric of the control crowd?

Look at Australia and the UK, they are proof that disarming citizens only invites additional crime by removing any doubt of the victims vulnerability in the criminals mind. While they may come up with statistics that show firearm related incidents decrease, other types of violence double.

When YOU are the victim, are you content to trust law enforcement that is legally not responsible for your safety? Or will you just lay your head down on the chopping block and suffer any fate the criminal has in mind for you at the time? You have a right to be slaughtered by a criminal if you desire.

I however, have the 2nd amendment right to defend myself and NOT accept the fate a criminal has in mind for me, I have A chance, instead of NO chance to survive.

I have a right to fight back, so do you. Accept it or not, you have no right to force me to accept a negative fate at the hands of a criminal.

People have always kill others, guns are not to blame, but guns surely make it SO MUCH EASIER. It is really hard to kill a bunch of people that can run away with a knife or any other blade.

I had a six week course on how to handle guns and their safety, it was a requirement if I ever wanted to hunt..

Now we sell guns like a dime store with no requirement just a simple background check, this is wrong.

There are now to many Idiot losers in our country with guns for a civilized gun owner to earn respect sorry but true, that will never change unless we implement changes in how we sell them.

He who has no gun shall die by the hands of the sick and deranged.

People ask why God allows this to happen, the same people that cast God out of our society, God is not allowed in Public schools, God is not allowed to share Xmas with people in public, God can not be mentioned in public. God can only be held responsible. and you wonder why society is falling apart. some people say that Religion is responsible for all the worlds problems? I say Man is, the way man can twist things for his benefit including Religion, the more we distance ourselves from God the worse things will become. society is lacking moral fiber, its degrading at a rapid rate its obvious that it will soon self destruct. its not just America the whole world is degrading into a state of moral decay and degradation, every thing that has been considered indecent over thousands of years is now a new acceptablenorm, values nolonger exist infact if someone displays values they could be persicuited and punished, simple morals can be a hate crime,, there is no freedom of speach or religion any more, society has lost itself within its liberal bounds, what we are experiencing is the reign of evil and the soon to be collapse of everything as we know it. now don't forget to be Politically correct so not to offend degenerates or people of low esteem.

as a child it was explained to me that God is as a judge and man is free to choose his direction and Satan is like a Prosecuting attorney, he works for the system attempting to prove to God how man is evil, man is free to do as he pleases but in the end there will be a judgment, the only truth is in your heart and you have to find the way yourself, you have the commandments to guide you, and you were educated about right and wrong but choose to ignore what is right or wrong, so if everything falls apart you only have yourself to blame, what you are witnessing is the absence of God by your own choosing.

and to you anti gun folks if you want to see how many horrible ways there are to die just start looking the media doesn't tell you everything but there are thousands of murders committed that don't involve guns. Knives, poison, Autos, hatchets, axes, machetes, fire, arrows, clubs, bombs, strangulation, water, smoke, subways, trains, cliffs, tall buildings, bridges, ball pine hammers, scissors, electricity, and weed sprayers just to name a few methods used this past year, wake up its your sick society that is to blame, and liberals enable it to keep being sick, and another thing you don't hear much about from the media is how many crimes are stopped by armed citizens, that news is suppressed, if you hear about one there were several that never got media coverage, some element wants to disarm everyone for their own reasons. I think we should arm everyone, it will be a little rocky for a while, then people will start to behave. you might even see people be polite and display good morals. I live in a small community where everyone is or at least is suspected to be armed and everyone is terribly polite to each other, and almost 0 crime rate, the worst thing that happens is a little gas siphoning.

How many people know what stopped the shooting rampage at Virginia tech?

Guns in the hands of, dope pushers, armed robbers, gang-bangers, hijackers, carjackers, muggers, mental ill persons, all are a problem, the problem is not solved by disarming the citizen who is armed for a reason, the criminals and nut cases are armed to the teeth, unless you have a gun, know how to use it, and know when not to use it, you are at the Mercy of the criminals and nut cases; first reports out of Aurio is that this is a domestic encounter.

It might be time to analyze the drinking water of the Aurora-Littleton (Columbine) area of Colorado. My gosh, how much horror can one relatively small area of our nation deal with? These good folks of Colorado need a break.'Snake-bit' doesn't even begin to describe the repetitive trauma heaped upon our American cousins in the Aurora-Littleton area of the great state of Colorado. Courage!

What is it about Aurora CO? Are they putting something in the water there?

Just may be considering that Holmes for for a DOH/DARPA project and their Psyops project. there just happens to be two psyops units located in Aurora, CO.

324th Psychological Operations Company (POC) -
Aurora, Colorado

349th Tactical Psychological
Operations Company (TPC) - Aurora, Colorado

Sign this petition to 'clarify' gun ownership requirements:

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

Here is the truth. Guns kill people. So do knives and a ton of other things in the wrong hands. But those things don't often give you the ability to murder half a dozen people in under a minute. Bombs do, but they are, suprisingly enough illegal. Sure there have been bombings but not as many as there have been mass shootings.

The argument that gun laws don't work is wrong. There are plenty of states and countries where there are gun laws that work rather effectively. But the thought of eliminating guns is not the answer either. What we need is to make it so that people who want to own a gun have to get a license, just like for driving. To prove that you are competent and stable enough to own the weapon. That's all I ask. You need a license to drive a gun. You have to prove you know the rules of driving and are competent with a vehicle, so why not with a weapon?

Guns don't kill people, BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.

Day five of the New Year and America's Most Wanted terrorist, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, remains at large (although he was recently seen re-entering Aurora, CO, a known hotspot of his).

Wayne continues to esteem hmself to his minions, serving faithfully as the anti-Christ.

No. Guns have a single purpose: to kill. That's it. You aren't arguing purpose, you're arguing usage.

I beg to disagree. The Olympics have shooting events and I dont remember anybody being killed at these events. There are thousands of shooting competitions across the country, and there are no killings. Guns do have another use other than killing.

I beg to disagree. The Olympics have shooting events and I dont remember anybody being killed at these events.

I doubt doubt they will be adding a category for the AR-15.

Mary Jones-1616541

Lets see who posts the first antigun post.

Don't know, but you win the 1st place prize for defending guns before anyone posted something anti-gun.

Regarding the person who posts as "Mary Jones" (see Post #1.1 et al), isn't the NRA clever as they pay their 400 hourly minions to scour these forums using aliases representing 'all walks of life' in order to suggest how truly "American" gun-ownership has become, including white-bread middle-America names like "Mary Jones."

FYI, Mary Jones is a retired white guy, twice-divorced and thrice abandoned, underemployed with a severe drinking problem.

He posts under five different names on this site alone.

"Now we sell guns like a dime store with no requirement just a simple background check, this is wrong"

Incorrect. There was a time in this country when you could buy a gun at a grocery store, or a gas station, or from a mail order catalouge, or a hardware store, and NO background check was required. And during those years, we did not have all of these mass shootings. Now, you buy guns from a FFL WITH a backgroung check and look what we have. What changed? It`s NOT the guns, but people who are raised improperly with no regard for life and who do not know right from wrong. In other words, POOR CHARACTER. Mental illness is also responsible. We have well over 300 million people in the U.S. and the ratio of peole being killed with the use of guns is quite low, however, the media sensationalizes each shooting, so it seems like an epidemic. The news does NOT report each occurance where a citizen use a firearm to DEFEND from and repel an attack. You are kept ignorant for political manipulation.

#1.12 Duane - What is it about Aurora CO? Are they putting something in the water there?

No, they use Denver water. But Aurora, CO is a large city that has a lot of minorities, uneducated and low income people, many of whom own guns and apparently approve of using them as they see fit. The ones who usually make the news here are almost always transplants from, mostly California or Mexico. Some judges in California give these guys a one-way ticket out of town, and many of them end up in our beautiful state.

I beg to disagree. The Olympics have shooting events and I dont remember anybody being killed at these events.

your quote

I doubt doubt they will be adding a category for the AR-15.

Funny how you libs or anti gun luntics will take just part of a statement. He also said

There are thousands of shooting competitions across the country, and there are no killings

And there are many specific competitions that use the AR type platform. There are 3 Gun competitions and Service Rifle Competition- these rifles will need to match the Army's specs for current or past AR(AR10 and AR15) and similar spec rifles.

SDN

Just got back from early shopping at WallyWorld. Hardly anyone in the store - except a young, white male open-carrying what looked like a .40cal S&W. What are these people so afraid of? Terrorist carrots, or insane Cheerios? He didn't look like a hero in any sense - he looked like a scared, dangerous kid.

Because you cannot predict when and where lunatics will act unpredictably.

Our country is plagued with IGNORANCE.

Generations of law abiding gun owners have proven that guns can be owned responsibly.

What has changed?

A society that no longer respects LIFE.

I agree. Let's go back to the 1960's. That is when mental institutions closed their doors and people were turned out to fend for themselves. This caused a rise in homelessness and crime. Today, we are in need of more mental health facilities. People need to be treated for their disorders. I give to you the history of Creedmore in NYC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creedmoor_Psychiatric_Center

In 1912, the Farm Colony of Brooklyn State Hospital was opened, with 32 patients, at Creedmoor by the Lunacy Commission of New York State, reflecting a trend towards sending the swelling population of urban psychiatric patients to the fresh air of outlying areas. By 1918, Creedmoor’s own census had swollen to 150, housed in the abandoned National Guard barracks. By 1959, the hospital housed 7,000 inpatients.[3]

Creedmoor is described as a crowded, understaffed institution in Susan Sheehan's Is There No Place On Earth For Me? (1982), a biography of a patient pseudonymously called Sylvia Frumkin. Dr. Lauretta Bender, child neuropsychiatrist, has been reported as practicing there in the 1950s and '60s.

The hospital's census had declined by the early 1960s, however, as the introduction of new medications, along with other factors, led to the deinstitutionalization of many psychiatric patients around the world. In 1975, the land in Glen Oaks formerly used to raise food for the hospital was opened to the public as the Queens County Farm Museum. Another part of the campus in Glen Oaks was developed into the Queens Children's Psychiatric Center.

In 2004, the remaining part of Creedmoor land in Glen Oaks was developed into the Glen Oaks public school campus, including The Queens High School of Teaching. By 2006, other parts of the Creedmoor campus had been sold and the inpatient census was down to 470.[4]

There are several disused buildings on the property, including the long-abandoned Building 25

I lived in the area and know that this wiki report is accurate.

BG-3384724

Wow, check out Mary Jones post! 4 are dead, and all he/she/it can think about is how its going to reflect on the pro-gun argument. That is a pathetic (but, alas, predictable) display of callousness. What will be your next move, Mary Jane, lets see... usually pretty easy to get inside y'alls brains..... he could have done it with a knife, true that, or a tuning fork, an old DVD, last week's Denver Post......

For once, could any of you guys come up with anything original? Just apeing NRA propoganda gets so old.

Her reaction is completely valid. It's sensationalist media driven by an anti-gun agenda that focuses on tragedies to use as their propaganda. The fact that you're here spewing your gun control nonsense is proof that their tactics are working as intended.

What's with this town??? Legalized pot and gay marriage I bet!!

I doubt it's the water but could be, also consider that Holmes worked/studied for for a DOH/DARPA project and their Psyops project. There just happens to be two psyops units located in Aurora, CO.
324th Psychological Operations Company (POC) -
Aurora, Colorado

349th Tactical Psychological
Operations Company (TPC) - Aurora, Colorado

Also consider that on the day of the the theater shooting a local school/hospital ran a training scenario in which shooters used tear gas and weapons (training copied the shooting to a tee) at a Parker medical school-Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine
"The
irony is amazing, just amazing," said Rocky Vista Dean Dr. Bruce
Dubin

Reported in the Denvcer Post and many other news agencies

Kelman Beaumont

Here is the truth. Guns kill people. So do knives and a ton of other things in the wrong hands. But those things don't often give you the ability to murder half a dozen people in under a minute. Bombs do, but they are, suprisingly enough illegal. Sure there have been bombings but not as many as there have been mass shootings.

The argument that gun laws don't work is wrong. There are plenty of states and countries where there are gun laws that work rather effectively. But the thought of eliminating guns is not the answer either. What we need is to make it so that people who want to own a gun have to get a license, just like for driving. To prove that you are competent and stable enough to own the weapon. That's all I ask. You need a license to drive a gun. You have to prove you know the rules of driving and are competent with a vehicle, so why not with a weapon?

Bombs are illegal, but their effects are in orders of magnitude more devastating. The disturbing thing about them is there's no way to safeguard against them being built. They can be created out of regular household items. People keep bringing this up as if comparing the two is valid. It isn't. Just be glad these insane people don't get any ideas about mass killing via bombs, because if they do then flash news items like this will look like a trip to Disneyland. One only has to look at the Oklahoma City bombing to realize that.

The rest of your post about gun control laws being effective makes me laugh. There is no data that can map other countries against the U.S. The people of this country, their numbers, their religious backgrounds, and a whole slew of other unique properties makes the comparison completely fail. Where you try to compare states with, I assume you mean harsh gun laws, against other states which are much more lax, is especially humorous. Have you even bothered to examine the results of findings conducted? It's pretty obvious you haven't, or you would have never posted what you did.

MSNBCMFE

Guns don't kill people, BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.

Day five of the New Year and America's Most Wanted terrorist, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, remains at large (although he was recently seen re-entering Aurora, CO, a known hotspot of his).

Wayne continues to esteem hmself to his minions, serving faithfully as the anti-Christ.

You're either a troll, or completely off your @!$%#ing rocker. To address your first statement - people with guns kill people in self-defense, or they're insane maniacs who almost always obtained a firearm illegally.

Everything else you posted is a great indicator that you should never, under any circumstances, own a firearm. You're clearly mental as all hell.

@Adam L

BG-3384724

Wow, check out Mary Jones post! 4 are dead, and all he/she/it can think about is how its going to reflect on the pro-gun argument. That is a pathetic (but, alas, predictable) display of callousness. What will be your next move, Mary Jane, lets see... usually pretty easy to get inside y'alls brains..... he could have done it with a knife, true that, or a tuning fork, an old DVD, last week's Denver Post......

For once, could any of you guys come up with anything original? Just apeing NRA propoganda gets so old.

-------------------------

Her reaction is completely valid. It's sensationalist media driven by an anti-gun agenda that focuses on tragedies to use as their propaganda. The fact that you're here spewing your gun control nonsense is proof that their tactics are working as intended.

Its a news article about a HOSTAGE situation--seems pretty news worthy too me. The ones that made this about guns were the gun nuts that started defending them before anyone even posted any sort of anti-gun comment.

Damn there are just too many ignorant people in here to respond to. But a couple points.

Someone said bombs and poisen kill people and are not legal so why not guns. Well most if not ALL of the people killing other people with guns DO NOT HAVE SAID GUNS LEGALLY. And, i am just blown away how ignorant of the world most of you people are. Do you not know how easy it is to make a pipe bomb? with LEGAL igredients? Easy to make, easy to use, death toll = to or more then a gun.

But hey, you all know what you're talking about, take away the guns, don't bother with the crazy people behind the guns, we all know there are no guns in jail and noone EVER gets hurt in jail, because people will who want to kill people will just give up if they dont have a gun nearby.

I am so glad non of you people have the ability to take my freedoms away from me. Your fear and ignorance of this world is such a poisen that rots this country from the inside out, but go on and fight over an inanimate object.. the source of ALL THAT IS EVIL. I guess its good you all have a hobby instead of being out in the real world where you could actually do something usefull with your lives.

VisionStorm

Its a news article about a HOSTAGE situation--seems pretty news worthy too me. The ones that made this about guns were the gun nuts that started defending them before anyone even posted any sort of anti-gun comment.

No, now it's an article that mentions hostages. When the "breaking news" was posted, the only thing it mentioned was four dead people and a gunman, which seemed like the typical sensationalist media latching on to another shooting. And you're wrong. The anti-gun comments started four posts into the discussion, like I stated way at the top of this conversation. Gun control advocates are all over anything remotely gun-related like flies on @!$%#, so don't try to paint this up as if they'd have steered clear of this article were it not for gun rights enthusiasts.

@ martvol

For one week I wish the main stream media would report everycrime that happens nationally so we could see just how many involve guns or other items.

#1.13

For one week I wish they would report how many crimes are prevented by a CCP, or honest gun owner.

And I am curious how many of these incidents are never reported. (after all not all rapes are reported either, but someone came up with an estimate for that)

@ MSNBCMFE

Guns don't kill people, BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.

Day five of the New Year and America's Most Wanted terrorist, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, remains at large (although he was recently seen re-entering Aurora, CO, a known hotspot of his).

Wayne continues to esteem himself to his minions, serving faithfully as the anti-Christ.

#1.81

If people with guns kill people then please tell me when the last time was someone opened fire at a Gun Show? (I know it has happened, but only once that I am aware of, there may be more. But you have to admit it is as rare as liberal accepting responsibility for anything)

@ Kelman Beaumont

Here is the truth. Guns kill people. So do knives and a ton of other things in the wrong hands. But those things don't often give you the ability to murder half a dozen people in under a minute. Bombs do, but they are, suprisingly enough illegal. Sure there have been bombings but not as many as there have been mass shootings.

The argument that gun laws don't work is wrong. There are plenty of states and countries where there are gun laws that work rather effectively. But the thought of eliminating guns is not the answer either. What we need is to make it so that people who want to own a gun have to get a license, just like for driving. To prove that you are competent and stable enough to own the weapon. That's all I ask. You need a license to drive a gun. You have to prove you know the rules of driving and are competent with a vehicle, so why not with a weapon?

#1.80 -

And in many of the countries that have those gun laws, they really have no crime problem either. One could easily argue that it is not the gun laws, but the overall attitude of those citizens.

And if you are speaking of Japan, they have Beer Vending machines(at least according to my nephew who has been there and was astonished to see them) available to the public. And just exactly what stops a minor from getting one? Nothing other than they have been taught not to. It is all about the attitude.

And just how would have that stopped Lanza? Or many of the others who seemed stable at the time of the purchase? Or the Columbine shooting? (were those guns not acquired through straw purchases?)

Et. Al.

No, you liberals will never understand you are only arguing about putting a band aid on the problem. You are trying to treat a symptom and not the disease.

Do you people not understand or remember American History? At one point in our history, everyone had access to FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS (Thompsons and BARs). I realize that the criminal element got ahold of these guns for their nefarious acts, but I also realize none of them were used in "Spree" or "Mass" shootings by non-organized criminals like we see today. So, if guns are the problem, why was this not a problem in the 20's and 30's?

But it does no good to argue with you people. Repeatedly I post this argument, and repeatedly no one will refute it. They change the subject or point out some silly error or typo. I could more easily convince Jesus there is no God, than convince you people that gun laws don't work.

No, you will continue your mantra that we need to ban certain guns, because you BELIEVE they are dangerous. You will say "No one needs x, y, or z." Who are you to tell me what I need? What would you do if I said we don't need Social Security?

Or like some of you who call for shooting LaPierre, would you like if we started calling for the Death Penalty for drug abusers? Personally I am all for declaring a real War on Drugs and start executing drug users. If we eliminate the users, then we eliminate the suppliers. My guess, it would a drastically reduce the violence in this country as well as Mexico and other southern countries.

As a side note: Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car? Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used? I do know one thing, the reporting on the Sandy Hook shooting is very poor and is all highly speculative. I mean generally speaking, the media has a time line all laid out of what a person did and when, down to the minute, that is suspiciously missing in this and the Batman shooting. Or at least I have not yet seen it. I am not trying to throw out some conspiracy theory here, this is only an observation. And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal.

It could be the media has just gotten side tracked on the "gun control" debate and is therefore not reporting the rest of the story. But before we all go off half cocked, wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts?

Is there a curse on that poor town? It's like it's Salem's Lot.

Here is a nice story that will not get national attention.

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/u-s-world/ga-woman-hiding-with-twins-shoots-home-intruder

ATLANTA - A Georgia woman hiding with her children in her attic, shot an intruder five times before fleeing to safety.

The incident happened Friday afternoon in Loganville, reported ABC affiliate WSB-TV.

The woman was working in an upstairs office when she spotted a strange man outside a window, according to Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman. He said she took her 9-year-old twins to a crawlspace before the man broke into the home, using a crowbar.

"The perpetrator opens that door. Of course, at that time he's staring at her, her two children and a .38 revolver," Chapman told WSB-TV.

The woman then shot him five times, but he survived, Chapman said. He said the woman ran out of bullets but threatened to shoot the intruder if he moved.

The woman ran to a neighbor's home with her children. The intruder attempted to flee in his car but crashed into a wooded area and collapsed in a nearby driveway, Chapman said.

Deputies arrested 32-year-old Atlanta resident Paul Slater in connection with the crime. Slater was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center for treatment. Chapman said Slater was shot in the face and neck.

My goodness national news! I live in Aurora, CO which is a city of 350K people in a metro area of almost 3 million. Sure this is a horrible situation, but there is no way this would get national news if the theater shooting didn't happen. It's just the national news trying to sensationalize a situation which in turn portrays Aurora as a gun-toting, psychotic city with "something in the water" according to earlier posts.

In reality, Aurora is a very left-leaning city where the majority of the residents support stricter gun control. It is a safe city with walking trails, dog parks and playgrounds abundant. It's a shame this situation happened, but it's irritating that the national media is trying to compartmentalize Aurora as a city full of gun crimes.

Aurora has a high college graduate rate and includes the nationally-recognized Cherry Creek School District. For goodness sake, Olympian Missy Franklin's high school is in Aurora.

So for the sake of the people who live here, I ask the national media to stop portraying Aurora as an unsafe place to live. Don't let one psycho person speak for our entire city.

I wanted to reply to something about fifty posts up but now I forgot what it was. Anyway you can take all the guns away from law abiding citizens and the very next day you will read where someone got shot. Yes the criminals will always have guns, they will sneak them into this country just like drugs. So in retrospect billions spent in the war on drugs lets find a few billion more and have a war on guns, good luck. Besides you have nothing to worry about Biden has been tasked with fixing the problem.

All of these mass shootings have one thing in common.

One bad person with a gun can do a lot of damage when everyone else is Defensless.

When the "Biden / Feinstein columbine massacre" happened, there was an assault weapon ban in effect.

the bad people with the guns are no different than the other people who want to take your rights away because of the bad person with a gun.

Dianne Feinstein is the same as Adolph Hitler.

IN RELATED NEWS! 5 DEAD AND OVER 17 INJURED ALREADY IN CHICAGO IN 2013!!!!

Funny isn't it?

PMSNBC has a hard time announcing all the murders in Chicago. The city with some of the strongest gun control laws in the country. Since the New Year a 19 year old, 20 year old and 29 year old were murdered in separate incidents on the second day of the year. Since then 2 more have died, one of them a revered muffler shop owner was gunned down 2 days ago.

Of course what are the first words out of the mouth of activist, Father Michael Pfleger?

"We gotta deal with guns."

So Father, how much more do we need to deal with guns? How many more rules, laws and regulations will finally satisfy your need for control of others lives? It's amazing how many of the Liberal/Progressive regime just focus on the "other guys" problems, especially gun problems, rather than deal with their own, isn't it?

Mayor Rahm Emanuel must love all this. This is his sacrosanct "crisis". The crisis that Liberals love to exploit in the name of "fairness", a "level playing field" or "it's the right thing to do". Yet the problem just continues to grow. Coincidence? I doubt it. More like contrived.

Chicago is still reeling from more than five hundred murders in 2012, and the homicides are already out-pacing the days of this new year. The murder rate was up 12% last year despite all the efforts and regulations.

But of course the indoctrinated bobble heads on the Left, and the lamestream media, will demonize our Rights ad nauseum in their typical dysfunctional ways. It's never the governments fault, as a matter of fact the limp-wristed Libbies proclaim even MORE GOVERNMENT is the solution!

This is the level of delusion the useful idiots, to the Left of common sense, have allowed themselves to be taken. It's sad so many are incapable of seeing the real cause of our problems.

It couldn't be the epidemics we have waged "War" against for decades, could it?

The "War on Crime?

The "War on Poverty?

The "War on Drugs"?

And of course the ultimate failure that is essentially responsible for all the other "War" failures.

The "War on Illiteracy"!

Last summer, Chicago’s Public Education system went on strike. It was the usual cattle call of nonsense to fix their pathetically horrible primary and secondary schools.

More money, less hours teaching and no testing of teacher proficiency. The usual irrational Liberal solution to our children graduating as illiterates.

Despite the fact that Chicago spends more than most states per student, this is their 11th Graders Meeting College Readiness Benchmarks: 21% in Reading, 19% in Math, 11% in Science, 38% in English.

This is an embarrassment.

And this is the problem. Not more laws. Not more rules. Not more regulations. Illiteracy drives most to drugs, crime and poverty. There is no relief for those on the streets in Chicago, Detroit or South Central. There is only despair, conflict and death.

Hate, anger and rage rule the streets. As a result we have crisis after crisis leading to chaos and ultimately death. Death by violence. Death by mistake. Death by insanity. It doesn't matter how we define it, death is the end result.

Go ahead, write more rules, laws and regulations. Outlaw more "assault weapons" if it makes you feel better. Argue the 2nd Amendments meaning, most of you are wrong anyway. None of it will fix anything.

Unless we address our education system to produce well rounded, educated citizens that understand the rule of law, respect it and can see others that are incapable of following it, these atrocities will continue.

Our great Republic is ruled by laws, not men. When we allow the laws to be manipulated to allow ideology rather than policy we see the results in our cities and on our streets.

“We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” ~Ronald Reagan

Hey, NRA dildos - let's have more guns.

DumbFarmBoy

@ martvol

For one week I wish the main stream media would report everycrime that happens nationally so we could see just how many involve guns or other items.

#1.13

For one week I wish they would report how many crimes are prevented by a CCP, or honest gun owner.

And I am curious how many of these incidents are never reported. (after all not all rapes are reported either, but someone came up with an estimate for that)

@ MSNBCMFE

Guns don't kill people, BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.

Day five of the New Year and America's Most Wanted terrorist, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, remains at large (although he was recently seen re-entering Aurora, CO, a known hotspot of his).

Wayne continues to esteem himself to his minions, serving faithfully as the anti-Christ.

#1.81

If people with guns kill people then please tell me when the last time was someone opened fire at a Gun Show? (I know it has happened, but only once that I am aware of, there may be more. But you have to admit it is as rare as liberal accepting responsibility for anything)

@ Kelman Beaumont

Here is the truth. Guns kill people. So do knives and a ton of other things in the wrong hands. But those things don't often give you the ability to murder half a dozen people in under a minute. Bombs do, but they are, suprisingly enough illegal. Sure there have been bombings but not as many as there have been mass shootings.

The argument that gun laws don't work is wrong. There are plenty of states and countries where there are gun laws that work rather effectively. But the thought of eliminating guns is not the answer either. What we need is to make it so that people who want to own a gun have to get a license, just like for driving. To prove that you are competent and stable enough to own the weapon. That's all I ask. You need a license to drive a gun. You have to prove you know the rules of driving and are competent with a vehicle, so why not with a weapon?

#1.80 -

And in many of the countries that have those gun laws, they really have no crime problem either. One could easily argue that it is not the gun laws, but the overall attitude of those citizens.

And if you are speaking of Japan, they have Beer Vending machines(at least according to my nephew who has been there and was astonished to see them) available to the public. And just exactly what stops a minor from getting one? Nothing other than they have been taught not to. It is all about the attitude.

And just how would have that stopped Lanza? Or many of the others who seemed stable at the time of the purchase? Or the Columbine shooting? (were those guns not acquired through straw purchases?)

Et. Al.

No, you liberals will never understand you are only arguing about putting a band aid on the problem. You are trying to treat a symptom and not the disease.

Do you people not understand or remember American History? At one point in our history, everyone had access to FULLY AUTOMATIC FIREARMS (Thompsons and BARs). I realize that the criminal element got ahold of these guns for their nefarious acts, but I also realize none of them were used in "Spree" or "Mass" shootings by non-organized criminals like we see today. So, if guns are the problem, why was this not a problem in the 20's and 30's?

But it does no good to argue with you people. Repeatedly I post this argument, and repeatedly no one will refute it. They change the subject or point out some silly error or typo. I could more easily convince Jesus there is no God, than convince you people that gun laws don't work.

No, you will continue your mantra that we need to ban certain guns, because you BELIEVE they are dangerous. You will say "No one needs x, y, or z." Who are you to tell me what I need? What would you do if I said we don't need Social Security?

Or like some of you who call for shooting LaPierre, would you like if we started calling for the Death Penalty for drug abusers? Personally I am all for declaring a real War on Drugs and start executing drug users. If we eliminate the users, then we eliminate the suppliers. My guess, it would a drastically reduce the violence in this country as well as Mexico and other southern countries.

As a side note: Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car? Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used? I do know one thing, the reporting on the Sandy Hook shooting is very poor and is all highly speculative. I mean generally speaking, the media has a time line all laid out of what a person did and when, down to the minute, that is suspiciously missing in this and the Batman shooting. Or at least I have not yet seen it. I am not trying to throw out some conspiracy theory here, this is only an observation. And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal.

It could be the media has just gotten side tracked on the "gun control" debate and is therefore not reporting the rest of the story. But before we all go off half cocked, wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts?

I don't care if people own assault rifles. I don't care if people own guns. I am not a liberal. What I said was that anyone wishing to purchase a gun should be forced to take a test that proves that they are competent to handle the gun to get a Gun Owner's License to purchase a gun. You know the same tests that anyone who wants to work in a profession that requires you to carry a gun require you to pass in order to, you know, carry a gun? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? To make sure that only people who've proven mentally competent to own a gun can you know, own a gun? I like how everyone argues "Illegal guns" are the problem. And in most cases the guns aren't actually purchased illegally. It's legal gun owners who commit several of these crimes. If you look at the records, most mass shootings were purchased "Legally" but since all that is required is a back ground check, theres nothing to prevent a complete psychotic from purchasing these weapons.

I like how you also validate my point that in places where good gun laws are enacted, crime isn't a problem. Which kind of dismantles the argument that stricter gun laws actually work and everyone won't be shot where they stand by the mad criminals.

Guns have their purpose, and in the hands of reasonable people, they are not a problem. Why not make sure that they stay in the hands of reasonable people? Is that too liberal for you? Because that is addressing the problem. Your argument is it's dangerous people and not the guns, I'm not blaming the guns. The guns aren't the problem. The lack of regulation preventing those dangerous people from owning those guns are.

The rest of your argument is rhetoric and has nothing to do with anything but let me address them anyway.

No, we don't need Social Secuirty. You and I don't need to pay into it as a program so it's there at the end of our lives when we can't work so that we have an income.. But that's kind of how insurance programs work. And that's what Social Security actually is. You're paying the insurance company (the Government)to provide coverage for you and when you need them, having paid for the surface you get said coverage. Often the coverage exceeds the pay in but that's how it works. It's not a need. Nor is it an entitlement.

Only about 30% of all crimes can be traced back to drugs or their users. The number of commited crimes that is suspected to be "drug motivated" is much higher but that is speculation when no answers are present. If you want to kill everyone who uses drugs then we should start killing everyone who steals, assaults, hits their spouse, or anything. Death penalty for all criminals across the board. I actually wouldn't be opposed to this idea but since that's a bit of sheer lunacy let's be rational. How about if instead we add a criminal negligence charge to anyone who commits a crime under the influence of any narcotic, including alcohol. This means that if someone dies while you're commiting one of these crimes and it's your fault, you can be charged with felony murder in the first degree which carries the death penalty where the death penalty is legal and life in prison. That's a fair compromise, yes. If you're lighting up in your dorm room, who cares. If you light up in your dorm room and shoot your room mate, then you're going to jail and might get a needle in the arm or spend the rest of your life in prison.

And how about we add the standard that anyone whose found to sell a gun to someone who doesn't have a valid gun license can be charged as an accesory to any crime commited with that weapon. Meaning that if you go to a gun show, sell your gun privately without varifying the gun license of the purchaser, and they shoot someone with it, you are legally responsible for failing to verify their ability to own that gun. I bet that will go a long way in preventing guns getting into dangerous hands too. I mean explosives are illegal. And no one is crying that they should be delegalized because they don't kill people. How many bombings do we really get these days in the US? Maybe that's because every madman with a score can't go out and buy them at any pawn shop. Yeah. They can still make one but even that has been restricted as most of the ingredients to make said bombs are highly monitored preventing easy access. I don't know. That's seemed to work out pretty well. Why not add the same logic to gun control?

Aurora, Colorado again? Wait, wasn't there just a mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado? Guns or no guns, it sounds like a lovely place to not be right about now.

And why do all these suicidal pricks have to take others with them? (No, not every suicidal person involves others. But many have been pulling stunts like this for awhile, and now more than ever.) If you are suicidal, either do it to just yourself, or suck it up and get help. Why be spiteful if you aren't going to know anything else anyway? Notoriety? Other sorry excuses? You aren't going to know the difference once you are dead, so there's no reason to ruin it for everyone anyone else. Unfortunately, these people only think about themselves and even at that want to kill themselves, so they are too messed up for reason. We need to take better measures against mental health.

@ Kelman Beaumont,

You are 100% right. Guns aren't the problem. People are. I mean you can argue semantics on what should be allowed based on deadliness in crowds and such, but people are generally the problem here. That's why we should make sure responsible people are the only ones who can get legal guns. We have national databases for people who buy things like medicine. It keeps track of who buys it, how recently they've done so, how many they've bought it, etc. I have an allergy medicine, Claratin D. You are only allowed to buy a limited amount per month and they can track all your purchases on the national database. Why don't have this database for guns when we even have this for fricken Claratin? It's not that hard or restrictive.

On another note, people being the problem is also why we should focus more on mental health. It is just too much to let all these people run around undiagnosed, not only for everyone else's sake, but their own. We need better measures to identify the mentally ill, and help them. And yes, that is related to gun control because I don't think it's a good idea for someone with, for example, serious bipolar or depression running around with guns.

Ok....So I read through this monstrosity of a thread and read all the nonsense.....and lots of precanned terms and yes lots of ignorance....First off......I am x-military and I do know how to use a gun.....I believe if everybody in the theater in Aurora had a gun ......with all the darkness...smoke...and confusion that a lot of more people would have died....So everybody being weaponized probably would have made for mass confusion with innocent killed by innocent people "defending" themselves........Anybody in law enforcement of the Military will tell you same thing....unless they were in the situation and they had a gun.....So with this being said....I will state my logic on gun laws........Gun laws and the protection of our second amendment rights......Well guys....This is the way I look at it.....Assault rifle ban ...large magazine clip bans just make it harder for the bad guys to do their job.......There is very little practical use for these weapons outside of war....Now people will say to have these weapons is the right to self protection and blah blah blah......Look the only thing you would need that assault rifle for would be invasion or against our military and the difference between a shotgun vs a tank is about the same with an assault rifle vs a tank......You won't win so give up the thought process that having an assault rifle is protection against a trained military force of almost any kind. So in real terms when an Apache turns your house to embers what is exactly the plan with the assault rifle? So the purpose of militarizing the populace to defend from its' own government has become a ludicrous and impractical concept .....unless everyone puts a tank in their front yard and a helo on the roof.....So arming against trained military personnel is impractical and therefore stupid.....I could be wrong....some people may be very entertained shooting their assault rifle at a target and a mound of dirt...But if it saves 10 people's lives in a year then I say it is worth it.....It is about limiting how often this happens...not about stopping it...because there really is no way to be safe all the time.....No one is trying to rob you of your guns you country bumpkins...they are just trying to limit the collateral damage caused by them being available easily when assualt rifles have no real civilian purpose.....

@Kelman Beaumont

The problem with your solution is that it involves reasonable gun control that would NOT take away guns from law abiding citizens... and gun nuts aren't reasonable. But yeah, I agree with much of what you said.

Also, the vast majority of drug related violence can be traced back to drugs being illegal, or negligence. The solution to that problem? Legalize drugs--effectively ending any reasons to fight over them--then regulate drug use much the same way they regulate alcohol consumption to address the "negligence" part, and spend some of that money being wasted on the so called "War on Drugs" on treatment that actually addresses drug addiction by treating it as a health issue, rather than treat it as a criminal act.

All this "lets kill people for breaking the law for the sake of upholding the law at all cost" is just madness. The law is supposed to be there to serve us, not the other way around. If a law is not addressing the issue and creating more of them it shouldn't be there.

Also, the whole liberal vs. concervative thing is just a red herring and people being stuck on BS labels that mean nothing. I have many believes and values that labeled "liberal" but also believe in stuff that can be considered "conservative". For example: I have no issue with the death penalty for particularly heinous crimes if/when the evidence that the individual in question really did commited the crimes is overwhelming, and don't see the point in keeping someone incarcerated for live when it serves neither the individual that ends up rotting away in prison nor the society that ends up paying the bills for it.

"He was behaving very irrationally throughout the incident..."

No, you really think so? Irrational for a suicidal gunman? What scale are they using to judge him?

I feel that the NFA (National Firearms Act) does indeed have the language to be able to remove the weapons that have been in the news lately used in mass killings, and the clips that hold a multitude of bullets.

The ATF needs to have a full time director, and needs to enforce the laws on the books. It (the ATF) has the power to deem these weapons as a public danger and not used for sport, thus taking them out of the hands of the public.

Taking these guns and clips out of circulation in no way violates the 2nd amendment. Machine guns and other like weapons have been taken off of the market without affecting 2nd amendment rights.

The second amendment only guarantee's the right to bare arms, however it was not written to reflect modern weaponry. Because our constitution is a living document and is amended, and has been amended ,reguarding the second amendment, many times since it was written in 1934, it should not alarm anyone if these guns and clips are placed in a ban.

The only people it alarms are the paranoid, and if we used their logic, then we would all be able to own nukes. (FYI, Nukes banned under the NFA, 1954).

If you own a gun (Like I do) Lock it up by using a gun safe or trigger lock. It is up to you to keep your gun out of the hands of someone that would use it to kill people.

Read the National Firearm Act for yourself. Be informed of the way the current law reads, and the way it came into being. It was for the safety of the public first, and is at the central heart of the amendment.

Taking these guns and clips out of circulation in no way violates the 2nd amendment. Machine guns and other like weapons have been taken off of the market without affecting 2nd amendment rights.

Actually it does and so did those laws. The founders allowed people to own canons privately without regulation because the military had them. The point of the 2nd Amendment was not sport shooting, self defense, or hunting...it was to give the govt a deterent from becoming tyrannical, and to overthrow it if it did become tyrannical. The original intent of the Amendment was NOT public safety (although there is no correlation between gun ownership rates and murder rates, either county by county in the USA, or transnationally).

BTW...the murder rates, violent crime rates, and crime rates have all been FALLING while these weapons and clips you irrationally fear have been proliferated to historic numbers. There is no causality between them and these incidents. These massm urders hit their peak per capita in 1929 and have been falling ever since. There is no uptick in these crimes, despite you guys seeing it more in the media. The media is just more widespread.

And if you want gun murder to go down, the last thing you want to do is try to go door to door confiscating guns. It would cause times of shootoutts with agents and cops, and it might just spark a 2nd Civil War.

Read all my comments on this vine's page 1 for links to studies, quotes, legal scholars, etc. who back every claim I just made:

Less than 2% of gun murders are realted to violent mental illness and mass shootings....40-70% are linked to the Drug War. The way to seriously end gun murders is to expand rights (end the Drug War), not limit rights (gun control). It's not really logically debatable once you look over the numbers...they're overwhelming.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/04/16342909-gunbattle-on-new-york-subway-leaves-2-cops-injured-3rd-cop-shot-elsewhere

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The findings of two criminologists - Prof. Don Kates and Prof. Gary Mauser - in their exhaustive study of American and European gun laws and violence rates, are telling:

Nations with stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those that do not. The study found that the nine European nations with the lowest rates of gun ownership (5,000 or fewer guns per 100,000 population) have a combined murder rate three times higher than that of the nine nations with the highest rates of gun ownership (at least 15,000 guns per 100,000 population).

For example, Norway has the highest rate of gun ownership in Western Europe, yet possesses the lowest murder rate. In contrast, Holland's murder rate is nearly the worst, despite having the lowest gun ownership rate in Western Europe. Sweden and Denmark are two more examples of nations with high murder rates but few guns. As the study's authors write in the report:

If the mantra "more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death" were true, broad cross-national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per capita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or suicide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates. (p. 661)

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to arm individual citizens, not just members of militias, so they could overthrow a tyrannical government. Every Founder said this and only this, except Adams (who still wanted individuals armed, but only for self defense, and he thought militias must follow the orders of tyrants regardless because he was a law fetishist as opposed to someone more agianst tyranny and for liberty even if it meant breaking tyrannical laws). Some people have suggested to me other false revisionist history nonsense, and so I leave this link full of other links and facts to prove the case. If further necessary I will start quoting the Founders and challenging them to match me quote for quote (which they can't).

http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

The most important links on that site are these ones:

"Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

"Quotes from the Founding Fathers and Their Contemporaries"

http://guncite.com/gc2ndfqu.html

Good luck defeating that with some semantical trick about the wording or puncuation of the 2nd Amendment. They mispelled words in the Constitution too...I suppose next you'll argue we have somehow mistakenly mispelled words all these years and the Constitution had them right all these years? Enough with the illogic and irrationale...non sequiturs are not logical arguments.

As a side note: Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car? Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used?

Ok, that's just plain stupid. The medical examiner who did the autopsies stated:

NEWTOWN, Conn.--Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner investigating Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said autopsies completed on 20 children and six adults on Saturday showed they were killed with multiple bullets fired by a rifle at close range.

The veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. In what appeared to be an uncomfortable moment for Carver, he said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle

Why on earth would you try and claim they were actually shot with hand guns, and why would you claim the media isn't reporting it?

Why on earth would you try and claim they were actually shot with hand guns, and why would you claim the media isn't reporting it?

Because the media did report it (that rifle wasn't used) on television, locally and nationally (but then stopped reporting it). They said early on that the rifle was found in his vehicle and was not used in the massacre. He brought it with him but never took it in the school. Like most early coverage it may have been incorrect. It's not the posters fault...but you seem to have cleared it up.

time for "SCUM CONTROL" as GUN CONTROL is a failure ,BAN the SCUMBAGS ,CRIMINALS,PSYCHOS AND CRAZIES !!!PROBLEM SOLVED,nobody needs them around

Yes. Let's blame weed and guns. Why not throw homosexuality somewhere in the mix for placing blame? And Obama? He was reelected, it must be his fault too, right?

actually, if you listen to some of those RWNJ evangelical whackjobs, it is the fault of those things you mentioned

I'm sure the last thoughts of the victims were "Gee I sure am glad I don't have a gun to defend myself from this psycho home-invader." /s

Or perhaps their last thought was "I don't need the tools to defend myself and my family since the cops will put themselves in danger to save my life." - FAIL

ProIndividual-3906907:

This was enacted in 1934 along with the support of the NRA. The amendments that followed (1954,1968,et el) All where done for the public safety. The amendments had no effect on basic 2nd amendment rights to bare arms.

In our day and age it is impossible to think that you or any group in this nation would be able to over throw a tyrannic government in this country. We are much larger than we where when the 2nd amendment was written in its original form, thus the ratifications of the 2nd amendment as seen above.

Your studies are impressive on the surface, however it's the type of firearm we are talking about here. In the studies you cite they do not contrast type of weapon or ammo used. They also don't our constitution.

Look at it this way, Cigarettes have been outlawed to be smoked in most establishments and in all government buildings. Why? Because it impedes someone else's right to breath and not get cancer and die.

These guns are the same, although faster than a cigarette to kill. It violates someone else's right to life...liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

So what your saying is your 2nd amendment rights outweigh others constitutional rights?

HORSE@!$%# STEVE! Owning a gun does not mean you have to go murder someone. Holy @!$%#ing @!$%#, are you saying that if you had a gun you would not be able to control yourself and go murder someone?? That's the same kind of neanderthal mentality that says women must wear burkas otherwise they're asking to be raped.

And how about all the times guns are used to save lives from attackers, do those people not have the right to life too??

I feel that the NFA (National Firearms Act) does indeed have the language to be able to remove the weaponsthat have been in the news lately used in mass killings, and the clips that hold a multitude of bullets.

It's possible, but far from certain given that the National Firearms Act of 1934 designated firearms and accessories often used by organized crime as Title II firearms and required their registration and payment of a $200 excise tax on their transfer. It didn't remove anything, it just taxed it and provided penalties for failing to register firearms as defined by the NFA or evading the transfer tax on them.

Given the very extensive use of AR-15 type rifles and a number of other autoloading designs as target competition rifles and their recent popularity with varmint and even deer hunters, I suspect the 'no sporting use' argument would be a very uphill battle. It may be able to be used to tax carbine length (16" barrels, anything shorter is a Title II firearm that is already taxed) upper receivers that are now so insanely popular (I admit I don't appreciate the fascination people have with those at all), but the 20" and even 24" barrels used by many sportsmen who have a rifle built on an 'AR pattern' lower receiver are really quite legitimate...about as legitimate as a Remington Model 8 has been for the past 107 years or so. People who hunt use the reduced capacity magazines as dictated by the laws of the states that they hunt in, which often limit autoloaders to either two or five cartridges, and competitors use whatever the rules of their competition allow, which in many cases will be a somewhat reduced capacity magazine. In some cases there is no rule about the capacity of the magazine, but there is a rule that no bipods may be used nor may any part of the rifle make contact with the ground. Reduced capacity magazines are shorter in length and are less likely to 'brush' the ground when the rifle is fired from the prone position and risk disqualifying the competitor because it looked like it was being used to support the rifle.

The ATF needs to have a full time director, and needs to enforce the laws on the books. It (the ATF) has the power to deem these weapons as a public danger and not used for sport, thus taking them out of the hands of the public.

Taking these guns and clips out of circulation in no way violates the 2nd amendment. Machine guns and other like weapons have been taken off of the market without affecting 2nd amendment rights.

The NFA didn't take anything out of the hands of the public, unless you count people who were found to have unregistered NFA firearms. In 1934, there were really very few machine guns in the hands of private individuals. Auto-Ordnance had chosen to stop selling Thompson M1921 and M1928 submachine guns to individuals on its own volition no later than 1930, but when they did they cost nearly as much as a new car. There were many more short barrel rifles (under 16") and shotguns (under 18") out there, but those typically lived a fairly hard life and most that had existed prior to 1934 were likely to be no longer serviceable by the time the NFA was passed. The NFA didn't prohibit anything at all, it just required that the firearms it covered and sound signature suppressors (silencers) be registered and the tax be paid.

There is a reason the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 didn't work too well, and that was because coming up with precise legal definitions that applied only to what everyone likes to call 'assault weapons' was extremely difficult and ultimately boiled down to restrictions of the cosmetic features that differentiated them from anything else. They couldn't just state 'semi automatic' guns, because of the vast number in existence that would be virtually impossible to deal with. I don't know about anyone else, but an autoloading rifle lacking a bayonet lug and a flash suppressor doesn't strike me as any less deadly in the hands of a criminal using it to kill people.

The second amendment only guarantee's the right to bare arms, however it was not written to reflect modern weaponry. Because our constitution is a living document and is amended, and has been amended ,reguarding the second amendment, many times since it was written in 1934, it should not alarm anyone if these guns and clips are placed in a ban.

The second amendment was written with the understanding that a citizen in good standing would be able to be armed as effectively as an standard infantryman would be, as that is what the people of the United States would ultimately be facing in the case of an invasion by a foreign army. Heavy ordnance is fearsome, indeed, but the expense and logistics of it precludes artillery and anything explosive from being used to just level all the homes in the nation. Instead, it is the common foot soldier who would be locating and entering people's homes, possibly to harass them, possibly to take them into custody as prisoners, or possibly to kill them outright. As long as the citizen is able to have a firearm that is somewhat comparable to what an invading soldier would be likely to be carrying, the Second Amendment has been complied with. Most any repeating centerfire rifle or shotgun would be a rough match for any service rifle issued by any of the world's military forces today.

I'm not aware of any changes to the Second Amendment, let alone any since the NFA was enacted in 1934.

The only people it alarms are the paranoid, and if we used their logic, then we would all be able to own nukes. (FYI, Nukes banned under the NFA, 1954).

The NFA doesn't even address nuclear weapons, not even as 'Any Other Weapon' provisions that deal with firearms built into pens, canes, briefcases, or disguised to look like anything else. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 established the Atomic Energy Commission and empowered it to set and enforce regulations dealing with that stuff. I do recall that one of those is that if you own property where any radioactive material such as uranium was discovered, the Atomic Energy Commission could initiate condemnation proceedings to take your land under eminent domain for government use. Nothing happened with the NFA in 1954!

Read the National Firearm Act for yourself

Not a bad idea, really.

For the record, I do believe that a few 'tweaks' to the Federal Firearms Act of 1968 would be the most effective way of dealing with some of the problems we're having, which are not exclusively criminal misuse of firearms but accidents and failures of ignorant US citizens who do not fully understand what their duties and responsibilities in regards to the possession and use of firearms are.

The first thing I would like to see is that EVERYONE who wishes to purchase a firearm or ammunition have at least some level of credential, the least of which could be known as a Federal Firearms Certificate. All it would amount to is having to hand copy the basic firearms handling and safety rules with a witness to attest that it was genuinely done and the bottom of the page would be a little card much like a Social Security card, which you would show at all firearms or ammunition purchase transactions. No registration, and it would be good for life. Lose it? No problem, just replace it on the spot as needed, it'd take maybe five minutes at most. The main idea here is that there would be NO excuse whatsoever for not being familiar with the basic rules of safe firearms handling!

It would be good if firearms were no longer regulated as rifle, shotgun, or pistol, but as 'basic', 'intermediate', or 'advanced'. A novice could buy any 'basic' firearm, which would be any single shot or repeating rifle or shotgun that generates less than maybe 20 pounds of recoil when fired with standard ammunition. This ensures that people who have no experience with guns will have to start with something they can safely handle and comfortably use; in other words, something that meets general purpose needs that a first time user is not going to resent and loose interest in. People who buy a gun, decide they don't really like it, then store it away and forget they own it practically INVITE their gun to end up in the wrong hands sooner or later. If someone is going to own a firearm, they need to be completely serious about it and ALWAYS know where it is and in what condition its in (loaded, unloaded, secured, disabled, etc.). After some time with a mentor or instructor who is willing to attest that a person with a BASIC firearm can in fact handle it competently, safely, and be ready to move up to something more challenging, they could be granted a certificate allowing them to purchase and possess and INTERMEDIATE firearm, which would be any rifle, shotgun, or handgun, repeating or autoloading, that is suited for a user of moderate experience. Handguns, with their short barrels, are not good for beginners because it is so very easy to loose track of where the muzzle is pointing! Autoloaders have a 'self resetting' trigger that novices tend to have accidents with when the forget that the gun can be fired again after the trigger is pulled previously; proper safe handling is a bit more than most beginners are cut out for. Higher powered rifles and shotguns are noisy enough and recoil hard enough that no one who hasn't fired one before should be buying one - it typically leads to nothing good. With some experience, no problem! But they're not for the uninitiated. The very extreme stuff - humongous handguns, elephant and dangerous game rifles (usually more than 50 pounds of recoil force when fired), Title II NFA firearms, and anything with special safety concerns would be considered ADVANCED.

While the basic and intermediate levels of firearms could just be handled with certification (which is exactly how it works if you choose to become a pilot and fly airplanes of different types), the best way for the advanced level firearms to be kept in the right hands is to change what is now the type 3 Federal Firearms License - the 'collectors' or 'curious and relics' license - to a 'Firearms Expert' license. It would still be an FFL, covering more than just curious and relics, but still for the private individual who is not manufacturing or selling firearms as a for-profit business. Anything for a bona fide firearms expert's own use could be purchased or shipped by or to the person who has earned a Firearms Expert license, which would involve having enough experience and knowledge in firearms and shooting that they can safely and wisely make independent decisions about purchasing or using firearms without having to rely on answers from a retailer to make a selection.

There's maybe a bit more to it than that, all fine points I won't address here, but that's it in a nutshell. I believe it would be best to consider AR-15 pattern rifles, Kalashnikov type rifles (AK-47's), and certain others to be ADVANCED. They're wonderful mechanical designs in most ways, but there are some realities about them many people are not aware of and what one doesn't know about firearms can most certainly hurt them! A person using a service type rifle that can be easily tinkered with (especially an AR-15 type) needs to be knowledgeable enough to recognize when some minor yet significant part such as a bolt cam pin has been left out and what to do when malfunctions start to occur, which they eventually do with such rifles given a few thousand rounds' of use. The novices are far better off with simple, reliable types that seldom act up even with extensive wear, at least until they've been around the block enough times to deal with malfunctions that more complicated designs are prone to. In any case, it can't be a bad thing that someone who has never fired a gun before in their life would not be able to walk in to a gun shop and walk out with an AR type rifle or something else they know little to nothing about. In virtually every mass shooting, the killers themselves had little to no previous firearms experience, or the firearms they used (pistols, service type rifles) were purchased by someone else (possibly a straw purchaser) who had little to no knowledge or experience with that type of firearm.

@ Kelman Beaumont #1.108

I don't care if people own assault rifles. I don't care if people own guns. I am not a liberal. What I said was that anyone wishing to purchase a gun should be forced to take a test that proves that they are competent to handle the gun to get a Gun Owner's License to purchase a gun. You know the same tests that anyone who wants to work in a profession that requires you to carry a gun require you to pass in order to, you know, carry a gun? Wouldn't that be the responsible thing to do? To make sure that only people who've proven mentally competent to own a gun can you know, own a gun? I like how everyone argues "Illegal guns" are the problem. And in most cases the guns aren't actually purchased illegally. It's legal gun owners who commit several of these crimes. If you look at the records, most mass shootings were purchased "Legally" but since all that is required is a back ground check, theres nothing to prevent a complete psychotic from purchasing these weapons.

Ok, so you say are not a liberal. It is just that you post had all the ear marks of someone who knows not of what the speak, i.e. a Liberal. My apologies.

"It's legal gun owners who commit several of these crimes." So how is your idea of testing and licensing going to stop this? And who is going to pay for said testing? Guns and Ammo are expensive enough already. Are you suggesting that only the wealthy should be able to afford self protection? (one of the reason I don't actually have a CCP is that I can not justify spending the $300 or $400 required for testing and licensing, times are tough)

I often ask people when are we going to subsidize the 2nd Amendment, the way they have just decided to subsidize those who can not afford health care, because it too is a "right".

I like how you also validate my point that in places where good gun laws are enacted, crime isn't a problem. Which kind of dismantles the argument that stricter gun laws actually work and everyone won't be shot where they stand by the mad criminals.

You obviously misread my comment. My point was the gun laws are not what is responsible for the low crime rate. The peoples attitude toward crime is, which makes the laws irrelevant.

Guns have their purpose, and in the hands of reasonable people, they are not a problem. Why not make sure that they stay in the hands of reasonable people? Is that too liberal for you? Because that is addressing the problem. Your argument is it's dangerous people and not the guns, I'm not blaming the guns. The guns aren't the problem. The lack of regulation preventing those dangerous people from owning those guns are.

I agree, guns in the hands of reasonable people is what we strive for. But just exactly how does one do that? Testing and Licensing? You, yourself said that many of the crimes are committed by legally purchased firearms. So if they can legally obtain a gun today, what would be different about it after the rule you imagine? And who determines "Mental Competency" in these cases? I have known more than a few so called mental health professionals, and let me tell you, they do not fill me with confidence. (Perhaps that is one of the reasons we have so many nut jobs going off with guns)

The rest of your argument is rhetoric and has nothing to do with anything but let me address them anyway.

Evidently you missed the "Et. Al." or you do not understand it. It means literally "and others" but I use it as "to the rest of you", so you see, I did not actually specify that you were a liberal.

No, we don't need Social Secuirty. You and I don't need to pay into it as a program so it's there at the end of our lives when we can't work so that we have an income.. But that's kind of how insurance programs work. And that's what Social Security actually is. You're paying the insurance company (the Government)to provide coverage for you and when you need them, having paid for the surface you get said coverage. Often the coverage exceeds the pay in but that's how it works. It's not a need. Nor is it an entitlement.

On this we can definitely agree. Nor would I be opposed to it being used exactly as an insurance policy and one would need to file a claim and qualify to receive any benefits. It would be better though if we could privatize it. As you should know, every government program is subject to corruption and fraud.

Only about 30% of all crimes can be traced back to drugs or their users. The number of commited crimes that is suspected to be "drug motivated" is much higher but that is speculation when no answers are present. If you want to kill everyone who uses drugs then we should start killing everyone who steals, assaults, hits their spouse, or anything. Death penalty for all criminals across the board. I actually wouldn't be opposed to this idea but since that's a bit of sheer lunacy let's be rational. How about if instead we add a criminal negligence charge to anyone who commits a crime under the influence of any narcotic, including alcohol. This means that if someone dies while you're commiting one of these crimes and it's your fault, you can be charged with felony murder in the first degree which carries the death penalty where the death penalty is legal and life in prison. That's a fair compromise, yes. If you're lighting up in your dorm room, who cares. If you light up in your dorm room and shoot your room mate, then you're going to jail and might get a needle in the arm or spend the rest of your life in prison.

Well, if doing as I suggested, executing drug users, cut these crimes by 30% then I would say that is a pretty drastic reduction. Nor am I opposed to executing all criminals, but I am at least fair minded enough to know that the police often make mistakes, so I am for the three strikes rule, upon your 3rd felony conviction, lights out. But in the case of drug users, there are tests that can be done to show the existence of the drug in the system and it is hard to argue that one took the stuff accidentally.

And how about we add the standard that anyone whose found to sell a gun to someone who doesn't have a valid gun license can be charged as an accesory to any crime commited with that weapon. Meaning that if you go to a gun show, sell your gun privately without varifying the gun license of the purchaser, and they shoot someone with it, you are legally responsible for failing to verify their ability to own that gun. I bet that will go a long way in preventing guns getting into dangerous hands too. I mean explosives are illegal. And no one is crying that they should be delegalized because they don't kill people. How many bombings do we really get these days in the US? Maybe that's because every madman with a score can't go out and buy them at any pawn shop. Yeah. They can still make one but even that has been restricted as most of the ingredients to make said bombs are highly monitored preventing easy access. I don't know. That's seemed to work out pretty well. Why not add the same logic to gun control?

Well, in this I have a little experience. 26 years ago I sold a gun to a college roommate. He was a good friend. A few years ago, he was going through a rather ugly divorce and with the family business in the balance the strain was more than he could bear. And after one more "button push" from his ex, he snapped, went to her house and shot her dead. Never in a million years would I have suspected him of being able to do such a horrible thing. But if it were up to you I would be in the cell next to him. So. do we put a statute of limitations on such a transaction? and for how Long? 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years? After all I spoke with the guy a week before the incident, and it sounded like it was worked out and all they needed to was sign the papers. If he'd asked me at the time if I had a gun for sale I would not have questioned it.

And finally, I agree your idea has merit and I wish it could work as you see it. But I foresee many pitfalls, not the least of which is that they did the same thing in Australia, registered all the guns and owners. A short time later they confiscated all the repeating firearms there. And guess what, non gun crime went up. go figure.

I just read an article about mass murders in the U.S. and myths. I'm not sure what to make of it yet, but here is what it said- Myth: Mass murder in the U.S. is increasing. The article said it has been relatively constant for the past 30 years. The largest mass murder was in Bath, Michigan in 1927 in which 45 died in a bombing, mostly in grades 2-6. Domestic and foreign terrorism is a different category. Myth: Mass murderers snap. Many mass murders have been carefully planned. Myth: Mass murderers can be easily divided into psychopaths, psychotics and depressives. Myth: Mass murders can be predicted and prevented. The act is so random, this is false.

Salvia58,

I can't speak to the overall statistics on mass murders, but I do know that mass murders at schools has risen 400% since the passage of the gun free school zones act. That may only be due to mass murderers targeting them because they were made easier targets for them though.

Sorry. Last sentence should read- The act is so random and rare

House for sale real Cheap Aurora Col.

somebody better check the food and water supply for contaminants. What the heck.

Just so I can be like the rest of you, here is my pointless point of view.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. The constitution said you can bare arms. Never said nothing about bullets. Bullets didn't exist in them thar days. So you can keep your muzzle loader but i'm taking away all the other stuff.

@fishman "also consider that Holmes worked/studied for for a DOH/DARPA project and their Psyops project. There just happens to be two psyops units located in Aurora, CO.
324th Psychological Operations Company (POC) -
Aurora, Colorado

349th Tactical Psychological
Operations Company (TPC) - Aurora, Colorado"

It also strikes me as odd that both father's of these two shootings are set to testify in the Libor case. Both shooting happened without anyone "really" seeing the faces of either of the two shooters while the shootings were happening. Holmes supposedly let himself be caught by police while he was waiting outside, and Lanza supposedly shot himself to death. There are no timelines or any other data like in many other cases. Both stories or situations could be fabricated easily by only a few corrupt individuals. Holmes could have been drugged, was already in custody, and it was someone else who did the theater killings instead. Someone could have killed both the Lanzas and did the school shootings and the police were already there before the shootings happened in other words.

I try not to buy into any conspiracy theories, but if only there had not been so many random deaths/murders in the Occupy camps I would not be so suspicious, or if there was not so much money/power on the line with the Libor case.

@PeterDean "Assault rifle ban ...large magazine clip bans just make it harder for the bad guys to do their job.......There is very little practical use for these weapons outside of war....Now people will say to have these weapons is the right to self protection and blah blah blah......Look the only thing you would need that assault rifle for would be invasion or against our military and the difference between a shotgun vs a tank is about the same with an assault rifle vs a tank......You won't win so give up the thought process that having an assault rifle is protection against a trained military force of almost any kind. So in real terms when an Apache turns your house to embers what is exactly the plan with the assault rifle? So the purpose of militarizing the populace to defend from its' own government has become a ludicrous and impractical concept .....unless everyone puts a tank in their front yard and a helo on the roof.....So arming against trained military personnel is impractical and therefore stupid.....I could be wrong."

What about packs of wild hogs or dogs that many states have? If I only had the money to buy one gun for home defense could I really hunt with a handgun? How quickly can you change a mag if you are practiced? 1 or 2 seconds tops. So what would limiting the size of mags do? It would have only added 15 seconds or so to the total time it took to shoot 90 rounds or so. The school shooter had 8 minutes or so and could have killed just as many people with handguns. A .223/5.56mm only has a little more muzzle energy then a .44 magnum, slows down faster (loses energy) going through walls with its smaller lighter bullets and is actually safer in many cases with the right ammo for bystanders. Being a rifle it is also easier to aim and put the bullets into the bad guy. I could miss more shots with a handgun and then I might hit an innocent bystander instead of the bad guy.

Pretty sure the "assault" weapons ban did not limit the sale of semi-automatic rifles. It simple changed the features you could get on them like a folding stock or a threaded barrel. I do not really need a folding stock, but it is handy and I use the threaded barrel for a "sound thrower" type of flash suppresor just in case I do not have time to get my ear plugs in. It does not change the volume, but tries to direct the blast forward towards what I am shooting at since I am not worried about giving away my position atm. A flash suppressor is a good thing at night (when most crimes happen) so if I have to shoot I can still see after the first shot, and am not blinded by the flash.

I would not expect a simple soldier to understand logistics. How many people are in the military versus how many citizens in the U.S. even though we have the largest military in the world? How long can the military fight without the public to supply it with gasoline, ammo, bombs, repairs, etc.? NOT LONG AT ALL. The military does not have enough supplies to invade and kill all the citizens of America without needing to be resupplied.

Pretty sure you can still disable a tank without explosives. The Polish used molotov cocktails to disable tanks back in WWII by throwing them above the engine bays. Engines still have to breath air and so do the people inside. If you can knock off the track of one that will disable it too. I wonder if I could jam something in there and cause the track to come off... I wonder if I could make a homemade cannon using gunpower or some other propellant if I needed to take out a hovering helicopter and our government was waging a war against its people? Why does our military worry about the guns that the bad guys have like AKs btw? How many soldiers are killed by bullets? If only my government was not taking away my rights by the second...if only. Must be nice to have enough money to hire armed guards that have guns...

ProIndividual-3906907

Because the media did report it (that rifle wasn't used) on television, locally and nationally (but then stopped reporting it). They said early on that the rifle was found in his vehicle and was not used in the massacre. He brought it with him but never took it in the school. Like most early coverage it may have been incorrect. It's not the posters fault...but you seem to have cleared it up.

I agree with your comment, that in the first few hours the media was reporting it as hand guns. But the guy I'm replying to brings it up as if there is currently some debate on what weapons were used.

Coming in a close second as sickening here is that the media feels compelled to highlight every single ahole shooter out there to stir up and whip up controversy. It's time the media gets put on the carpet for causing deaths by copycat due to their varacioius appetite to write until it causes some sort of reaction. They won't stop until their wallets are hit long and hard.

Societies around the world and especially here in America wake-up call. Accountability needs to be the new slogan in Politics and life, not change or improvement. The courts, government, and individuals need to stop blaming objects and become accountable again for our own actions. People kill people! Angry people, sick people, twisted and deranged people kill every day in every country and town on this crazy planet. Due guns help, most certainly, but I have never read a story of lone gun kills crowd and blows up or surrenders. Just like I have never read an account of women impregnating self. What is the parallel, humans interact and use tools to create outcomes and yes use tools at times to create good or wreck havoc. Have you ever seen a person whose head was smashed in by a hammer, or rock, cut up by a knife, or chain saw? These things happen much more frequently then you might think. The point is guns are a tool just like all these objects even cars which take more lives yearly then gun crime and I do not hear anyone screaming to eradicate vehicles because of errors or incompetent drivers. We finally have gotten tougher on drunk driving in this country after years of looking away. What changed, personal accountability! Due the same with gun crime, use a gun in a crime 20 years, use a gun to kill someone, death penalty no due overs or excuses about being a victim or mental competency. Sane enough to kill, sane enough to be put down. When we keep making excuse for the killer and blame the device he uses, accountability is not only lost but totally irrelevant. We will not ban cars because drunk drivers kill more than guns, because law abiding citizens should not be punished. This should be no different then the gun debate. Punish the criminal not the people who obey the law.

Swooshz - Aurora isn't as quiet and safe as you suggest. Certainly there are areas that are better than others, but Aurora isn't a terrific place. I've been trying to get my father to move from there for years. I lived in Aurora for a time myself, and I left when things were just getting too bad. Stuff is happening there all the time. Remember the Chuck E Cheese killings - 4 people killed and another one shot in the face? That was 1993. How about Najibullah Zazi? The guy who was on his way to complete a terrorist/suicide attack in the New York City subway system? That was in 2009. How about the guy that went to an Aurora church early in 2012, and killed someone there before a churchgoer (who had a gun by the way) shot and killed him? How about the shooting at a Safeway in Aurora in 2010? Or the shooting at the Aurora mall in 2005 that left multiple people dead? Or the shooting at Aurora Central High. Those are just the incidents I remember off the top of my head. I won't even go in Aurora mall anymore, and haven't for years. My brother's house was broken into and robbed a year ago in broad daylight, and he lives in a very nice neighborhood in Aurora. No, Aurora is not a terrific place.

Iamnotyou wrote:

" ...the "Biden / Feinstein columbine massacre" ....

" ...Dianne Feinstein is the same as Adolph Hitler."

Your Newsvine page is filled with similarly disturbing rants. I say this to you with 100% sincerity: You sound dangerous, and you sound mentally disturbed. I hope you are already on someone's radar, and I hope that you don't own guns.

As a side note: Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car? Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used?

Oh good grief! You're still dissembling? Doesn't truth matter to you, or is it just a quaint and inconvenient concept you prefer to ignore?

If you have a point to make, make it using facts, not by making up your own facts. The Associated Press published the following just two days after the Newtown/Sandy Hook killings:

"Multiple Rounds, Hundreds of Bullets Found at Sandy Hook School"

NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) -- Connecticut state police say multiple 30-round magazines and hundreds of bullets found at elementary school where 26 were killed.
State Police Lt. Paul Vance also said Sunday that authorities have publicly identified the gunman in the school rampage as Adam Lanza. They say his mother, Nancy, as was one of his victims.
Vance also detailed the guns found at the school. He says Lanza had two handguns, a Glock 10 mm and a Sig Sauer 9 mm, and a Bushmaster assault rifle that was used for nearly all his killings.
The Bushmaster is the type of weapon which was used in the Washington area shootings, and also in the Oregon Shopping Mall shootings earlier this week.
A fourth weapon, a shotgun, was found in the car Lanza drove to the school.

Oh good grief! You're still dissembling? Doesn't truth matter to you, or is it just a quaint and inconvenient concept you prefer to ignore?

That's what was reported on the news initially, it wasn't until later that it was determined that he had a total of 4 guns, he used the AR-15 bushmaster and two handguns inside the school and left another long gun that was found in the car. The press did a horrible job getting their facts straight initially so it's understandable that anyone that paid attention to the news as it was happening would be confused about the exact facts now, so just set the record straight for him without all the ad-hominem personal attacks. Ok?

There's no call for all these personal attacks you're lobbing around here.

See...I made a reasonable argument that was not precanned "All I need is my assault rifle and my bible" comments and was reasonable and not one comment....This is why I am mean...presented with practical reason and everyone shuts their hole and just argues at other comments......I think the Neocons have lost their minds...truly

the TiGor

The NFA had to address Nuclear 1954-58, and classify it under DD (Destructive Devise), as prior to the development of Nuclear technology there was no need to address it.

My point is that as a gun owner myself, we need to take responsibility for the weapons we do own. Take off the market the high capacity magazines, and the weapons that have been used for such destructive killings of late (Bushmaster).

Again, The NFA, at it's very basic is and was developed in the interest of public health & safety

Okay, Steve. Since you like to point out how basic the National Firearms Act of 1934 is (and it's really not that complicated), would you please do us the favor of pointing out precisely where in Title 26 United States Code, Chapter 53 that nuclear material is specifically addressed?

Section 5845 of of Subchapter B of Chapter 53 defines 'destructive devices', which are said to be any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including bombs, grenades, rockets with more than four ounces of propellant, missiles having explosive or incendiary charges grater than a quarter ounce, mines, or other similar devices.

Nuclear weapons are not any type of firearm, so they are not covered in any other provision of the National Firearms Act. As a destructive device, they would most certainly be destructive, but only to the extent that they are 'explosive' and 'bombs', or possibly even 'similar devices'. Note that the words 'Atomic' or 'Nuclear' or even 'fissionable' do not appear.

If you have some specific information on this you could share with us, it would be most enlightening. Still, to the best of my knowledge, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 is the legislated law that covers this, which it did by delegating the authority to the Atomic Energy Commission, who in turn drew up and enforced the regulations in much the same way that the BATFE does.

The NFA was passed in the interest of public health and safety just as much as the Eighteenth Amendment and the Volstead Act of 1919 was.

all on gun sales sites that I've been on all specify that guns WILL be be sent to a gun store (which has a federal firearms license, that is issued by gov.)at that time you have to have a permit if it's a pistol or hunting licence for long gun or you don't get the gun.I read in a magazine that Bloomberg is so paranoid about guns he refused the national guard because on the grounds that there would no other guns in NYC outside of NYPD.He still has his armed body guards with him at all times of course. CT.gov travels with at least 10 plain clothes state troopers. In CT. to get a permit to carry you have to be finger printed and file application at local police,then it's sent to state police,then to F.B.I. at a total cost of approx.$300 in fees.After about 6 to 8 wks your permit comes in,you can then pick up your pistol. Feinstein(sen in CAL) also has permit to carry but doesn't want any one else to get permit or own a gun.

SetYouFree

Oh good grief! You're still dissembling? Doesn't truth matter to you,

or is it just a quaint and inconvenient concept you prefer to ignore?

"That's what was reported on the news initially, it wasn't until later that it was determined that he had a total of 4 guns, he used the AR-15 bushmaster and two handguns inside the school and left another long gun that was found in the car. The press did a horrible job getting their facts straight initially so it's understandable that anyone that paid attention to the news as it was happening would be confused about the exact facts now, so just set the record straight for him without all the ad-hominem personal attacks. Ok?

There's no call for all these personal attacks you're lobbing around here."

No, you are wrong. This is not a "personal attack." It is confronting a repetitive and intentional lie being spread for an underlying purpose.

The Newtown/Sandy Hook shootings occurred on December 14.

That was 23-days ago. More than 3-weeks ago.

The facts about the AR-15 'Bushmaster' weapon which was used for most all of the killings was reported by the Sheriff, the Connecticut State Police and the Medical Examiner within the first 24-hours following the shootings.

The person dissembling here, and on numerous other discussion threads defending the ownership of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, has repeatedly posted the same erroneous statements for more than 3-weeks after every newspaper, broadcast news network and news agency in the nation has reported otherwise.

This individual has an agenda, and is repeatedly posting false information in order to push that agenda. That is also called "lying."

Confronting a liar on that person's repetitive and intentional spreading of a lie is not a "personal attack." (And you should please note that I did not even use this person's screen name signature, merely confronted the lie by posting the facts).

I believe that truth still has relevance in our American national dialog.

Many in our society however have decided that truth is just a passe, quaint concept which is too inconvenient to their individual agenda.

I disagree.

@ george pauljohn

House for sale real Cheap Aurora Col.

somebody better check the food and water supply for contaminants. What the heck.

Just so I can be like the rest of you, here is my pointless point of view.

Guns don't kill people. Bullets do. The constitution said you can bare arms. Never said nothing about bullets. Bullets didn't exist in them thar days. So you can keep your muzzle loader but i'm taking away all the other stuff.

#1.129 -

It is no wonder we gun owners can not converse intelligently with you Anti-Gun people. Your ignorance is only outdone by your emotional knee jerk reactionary thinking. Where there is no knowledge, there can be no intelligence.

Of course bullets existed "in them thar days". It was a cast lead ball. The "Cartridge" did not exist and was not invented until the mid 19th century.

And if you are going to take away or restrict ammunition as a whole, since it is a 'modern' invention. Do I get to regulate what news is broadcast on TV? Do I get to remove MSNBC from the internet because the only broadcast the Commie/Socialist Anti-American view? Do you not understand that if you want the 1st Amendment to cover modern creations; Modern Art, TV, Internet, Porn, Homosexuality. Then the 2nd covers modern weapons.

Can I abolish the Religion of modern science and evolution, and go back to teaching Creationism in school, do I get to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I violates my right to be a racist, sexist individual. ;-)

Do you not understand that if you want the 1st Amendment to cover modern creations; Modern Art, TV, Internet, Porn, Homosexuality. Then the 2nd covers modern weapons.

"It is no wonder we gun owners can not converse intelligently with you Anti-Gun people."

No, the reason "anti-gun people" cannot converse intelligently with (some) gun owners is that intelligent conversation requires TWO individuals who can carry that intelligent conversation. That criterion is not met when one of those indivuiduals makes comments such as the following:

"Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car?"

"Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used?"

"I do know one thing, the reporting on the Sandy Hook shooting is very poor and is all highly speculative. I mean generally speaking, the media has a time line all laid out of what a person did and when, down to the minute,

that is suspiciously missing in this and the Batman shooting...

I am not trying to throw out some conspiracy theory here, this is only an observation. And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal."

"Your ignorance is only outdone by your emotional knee jerk reactionary thinking. Where there is no knowledge, there can be no intelligence."

"Do I get to regulate what news is broadcast on TV? Do I get to remove MSNBC from the internet because the only broadcast the Commie/Socialist Anti-American view?"

"Can I abolish the Religion of modern science and evolution, and go back to teaching Creationism in school, do I get to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I violates my right to be a racist, sexist individual."

If it's truly intelligent conversation you seek, try offering intelligent thoughts and dialog. It's a two-way street.

the TiGor

You made the point for me:

Section 5845 of of Subchapter B of Chapter 53 defines 'destructive devices', which are said to be any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including bombs, grenades, rockets with more than four ounces of propellant, missiles having explosive or incendiary charges grater than a quarter ounce, mines, or other similar devices.

If you want to try and say that this only covers the amount of charge used in such DD's read it again. Rockets with more than four oz. & charges greater than 1/4 oz only covers missiles & rockets, and was not ment to cover the entire list.

Steve, you're a funny guy, you know that?

If you want to try and say that this only covers the amount of charge used in such DD's read it again. Rockets with more than four oz. & charges greater than 1/4 oz only covers missiles & rockets, and was not ment to cover the entire list.

What the heck does that have to do with whether the NFA specifically addresses nuclear weapons?

My point is that the ONLY way in which the NFA can even remotely apply to nuclear weapons is that anything explosive in nature is considered to be a destructive device and while meant to include the listed examples of bombs, grenades, rockets, and missiles, it could by extension possibly be argued to include nuclear weapons. In any case, it does not specifically list anything atomic or nuclear in nature.

What I was really hoping to see from you was a link to something hidden on the BATFE's website or something hiding in the USC somewhere that backs your claim that the NFA was updated to include nuclear weapons in 1958. I've never heard of that, and if you have a source to cite, I'd love to see it.

Yes.

Because the article of the section you sited, and knowing that the NRC had address public possession of Nuclear weapons (1947), the NFA covered broadly the subject in the 1954 discussion & amendment. As you duly noted Nuclear weapons are not firearms, but then again none of those listed in this section are, which is why the listing of these weapons are broad & not specific, unless your talking about a rocket or a missile.

@ Chris from Yucaipa

As a side note: Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car? Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used?

Ok, that's just plain stupid. The medical examiner who did the autopsies stated:

NEWTOWN, Conn.--Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the medical examiner investigating Friday's massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School, said autopsies completed on 20 children and six adults on Saturday showed they were killed with multiple bullets fired by a rifle at close range.

The veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. In what appeared to be an uncomfortable moment for Carver, he said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle

Why on earth would you try and claim they were actually shot with hand guns, and why would you claim the media isn't reporting it?

• 5

• !

#1.116

Did I, or did I not state that I have not read any report confirming that the AR was used. I read an article(from NBC) about the examiners report, but it failed to confirm (i.e. mention) which guns were used. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Do you not understand simple English composition? I asked a question. One I thought to be a reasonable question, given the lack of actually real journalism in this particular case. It all seemed to be speculation and sensationalism. And I get a juvenile, bigoted, and rude response (of course I guess I should expect as much liberal from California).

Why is it stupid to try and verify that the 'facts' are the facts? Do you simply believe everything you read?

I have read conflicting reports that the AR was still in the car, and that it was used inside. I am merely trying to ensure I am working with the facts, unlike you dope smoking liberals.

And again with the reading comprehension problem(obviously that California Public Education system is doing a fine job) I never tried to claim anything you worthless illegitimate child.

So who is the stupid one here?

A simple "here is a link to an article in which the coroner confirms that the AR was used" would have sufficed.

However, the article you post has at least one glaring error in it. (which is another reason I am suspicious of the whole thing, and points to my initial comment about the lack of journalistic integrity of the whole incident.)

@ Robert in Oregon

"It is no wonder we gun owners can not converse intelligently with you Anti-Gun people."

No, the reason "anti-gun people" cannot converse intelligently with (some) gun owners is that intelligent conversation requires TWO individuals who can carry that intelligent conversation. That criterion is not met when one of those indivuiduals makes comments such as the following:

"Has anyone else seen the reports that Lanza only used the pistols in side the school and the AR was found in the car?"

"Has anyone seen a report in which it was "Confirmed" that the AR was used? Or is everyone going off the assumption it was used?"

"I do know one thing, the reporting on the Sandy Hook shooting is very poor and is all highly speculative. I mean generally speaking, the media has a time line all laid out of what a person did and when, down to the minute,

that is suspiciously missing in this and the Batman shooting...

I am not trying to throw out some conspiracy theory here, this is only an observation. And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal."

"Your ignorance is only outdone by your emotional knee jerk reactionary thinking. Where there is no knowledge, there can be no intelligence."

"Do I get to regulate what news is broadcast on TV? Do I get to remove MSNBC from the internet because the only broadcast the Commie/Socialist Anti-American view?"

"Can I abolish the Religion of modern science and evolution, and go back to teaching Creationism in school, do I get to repeal the Civil Rights Act? I violates my right to be a racist, sexist individual."

If it's truly intelligent conversation you seek, try offering intelligent thoughts and dialog. It's a two-way street.

#1.145

You obviously failed reading comprehension right along side Chris from Yucaipa. Or are you both so Omnipotent, that when others ask questions that you so obviously know the answers to, that you have to assume they are complete morons?

Read the above post.

I work for a living, and I don't have time to sit in front of a TV or computer all day reading every bit of drivel spewed forth by the MSM. I truly have not seen any articles that confirmed what I requested. I have gotten some emails from others that indicated the AR was found in the car. It turns out it was a shot gun, and not a rifle at all. (How many reports did you see of "another rifle" was found in the car?) Which goes to show fact to back up my comment about poor journalism.

What is so "un-intelligent" about comparing modern firearms to modern media? The Constitution says freedom of the press, that is the Printing Press, not electronic media. Since you seem to be All Knowing and All Intelligent, can you tell me what a Devil's Advocate is?

And instead of just copying and pasting what I wrote. Why don't you add something to it other than snide remarks? Since I am just a Dumb Farm Boy, out here in fly over, unsophisticated, back water America, maybe you can explain to me why my comments lack intelligence.

Get off you high horse. Like I said, it is no wonder we can not speak intelligently to you, all you can do is snipe and belittle.

Steve,

Yes? Yes to what, dare I ask? Yes, you know that you're a funny guy? The thought that you're just messing with me has certainly crossed my mind.

Because the article of the section you sited

I cited Title 26 USC - Internal Revenue Code, Subtitle E - Alcohol, Tobacco, and other Excise Taxes, Chapter 53 - Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms, Subchapter B - General Provisions and Exemptions, Part I - General Provisions, Section 5845 - Definitions, Paragraph (f) - Destructive Device, subparagraph (1), clauses (a) through (f).

and knowing that the NRC had address public possession of Nuclear weapons (1947),

Now, what precisely does the portion of the Code of the United States I referred to have to do with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Which, by the way, split of from the Atomic Energy Commission subsequent to an act of Congress in 1974, not 1947.

the NFA covered broadly the subject in the 1954 discussion & amendment.

This is what I was hoping you'd post a link to so we could find this wherever you found it. I have never heard of any 1954 changes to the NFA, and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The only thing I can imagine is that you're referring to the act of Congress in 1954 which amended the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 by opening up the availability of technical information about nuclear science to the private sector so it wasn't exclusively in the hands of the Department of Defense anymore.

As you duly noted Nuclear weapons are not firearms, but then again none of those listed in this section are

Uh, yeah. Everything listed in 26 USC, Chapter 53, Section 5845, paragraph (f) are enumerated destructive devices. The reason that these are defined in the USC is that manufacturers of things defined as destructive devices are taxed through the assessment of a Class II Special Occupational Tax levied on all parties who are issued a Type 10 Federal Firearms License - Manufacturer of Destructive Devices. In a nutshell, unless a company is making ordnance to fulfill a specific Defense Department Contract, they get to pay thousands of dollars in licensing fees to the US Treasury Department each year. Again, the schedule of FFL types makes no mention of nuclear weapons whatsoever, just various types of conventional explosives and ordnance.

which is why the listing of these weapons are broad & not specific, unless your talking about a rocket or a missile.

I'd say that the clauses of paragraph (f) of Section 5845 of Chapter 53 of Title 26 USC are fairly specific:

(A) bomb

(B) grenade

(C) rocket having a propellant charge...

(D) missile having an explosive charge...

(E) mine, or

(F) similar device

Pretty much covers everything. They just don't address nuclear weapons by name.

However, let me throw you this bone, for what it's worth:

Title 50 USC, Chapter 4C, Section 47A provides that if you discover and turn in any nuclear weapons constructed or imported into the United States contrary to any provisions of the United States Code, you are entitled to a reward from the US Treasury Department for up to $500,000.

Neat, huh?

Just don't ever forget that the NFA is under the Internal Revenue Code - IT'S A TAX LAW!!!

@ Chris and Robert

This is what I am talking about:

After two weeks of media reports that a .223 AR-15 Bushmaster was found in the trunk of Lanza's car, gun aficionados point out that the rifle is not a Bushmaster, nor even an AR-class assault weapon. Gun experts say that the weapon shown in an NBC News report is some kind of shotgun.

Washington Post:

He had two semiautomatic pistols and a .223-caliber rifle, law enforcement officials said. He apparently used only the handguns, which were later found in the school. The rifle was found in the vehicle.

CNN:

Three weapons were recovered from the school: a semi-automatic .223 Bushmaster found in a car in the school parking lot, and a Glock and a Sig Sauer found with Lanza's body, a law enforcement official familiar with the investigation said. The weapons were legally purchased by Lanza's mother, the official said.

After our little discussion I decided to Google a little more info. I copied this from the Digitaljournal.com

Perhaps now you understand the legitimacy of my questions.

I blame the NRA. The leader of the NRA is nothing but a cheap whore who would sell a gun to a ten year old if he could. We all know that guns don't kill. It is the nut job with the gun that kills. Per CNN last week Anderson Cooper, " Gun lobbyist made sure that doctors were not aloud to ask if their patient had a gun or if a gun was in their household. If the guy is suffering from depression that doctor can't ask if he has a gun. Our guns are locked in a large safe and follow all safety measures. We should be able to own our guns. The gun lobbyist are making it hard for law enforcement to remove guns from mentally unstable people. They are causing this and it is going to blow up in their face. The leader of the NRA reminds me of Marie Antoinette "Let them get cake!". This is so getting out of control because of greed. If you own guns call your Congress person and Senator and ask them to fix the laws so that we can stop mentally unstable people from getting guns.

Gossamer Wings

I blame the NRA. The leader of the NRA is nothing but a cheap whore who would sell a gun to a ten year old if he could. We all know that guns don't kill. It is the nut job with the gun that kills. Per CNN last week Anderson Cooper, " Gun lobbyist made sure that doctors were not aloud to ask if their patient had a gun or if a gun was in their household. If the guy is suffering from depression that doctor can't ask if he has a gun. Our guns are locked in a large safe and follow all safety measures. We should be able to own our guns. The gun lobbyist are making it hard for law enforcement to remove guns from mentally unstable people. They are causing this and it is going to blow up in their face. The leader of the NRA reminds me of Marie Antoinette "Let them get cake!". This is so getting out of control because of greed. If you own guns call your Congress person and Senator and ask them to fix the laws so that we can stop mentally unstable people from getting guns.

#1.153

""I blame the NRA. The leader of the NRA is nothing but a cheap whore who would sell a gun to a ten year old if he could.""

First of all the NRA doesn't sell guns, (but I hoping you knew that) Second, the NRA was established, and is still mainly concerned with gun safety. (You are aware that many Law Enforcement Agencies, both State and Federal, use the NRA training services?) So they actually perform a vital role in gun safety.

I don't normally nit pick someone's grammar, but it is ALLOWED, not aloud. And I have heard this one before, and I am willing to bet, that will be one of the laws passed as an amendment to the ACA. "DOCTORS MUST NOW ASK IF THERE IS A GUN IN THE HOME". And just exactly how would that stop a case like Lanza? He killed the gun owner, then stole her guns. I still have not seen a report on how he got access to the guns, if they were locked up and he forced her to open the safe. Maybe if I come to your house an hold a knife to your or your child's throat, you would keep the safe locked?

I blame the prostitutes like James Brady and his ilk(people like you) and the prostitutes in the media who would sell their soul for ratings. It is people like you who vilify the gun, and make people scared of them. THEY ARE CAUSING THIS. If we did not have these gun free zones... blah blah blah.. Truly, I blame Democrats, and the Progressive march towards hedonism. We no longer have consequences in this country; whore around all you want, get an abortion or go on welfare, marry the wrong person, get a no fault divorce, piss your life away playing or screwing up and collect Social Security, etc. Why is it the guns fault? We had access to fully automatic machine guns after WW1, why were there only a couple "mass" shootings in all of the 20's? Why is it, the more gun control (starting with the GCA 1934) and social programs, SSI,(1933) Medicare and Civil Rights Acts 1960's leads to more violence .

If you want to know the real culprit, look in the mirror. I am guessing you are one of those people who think like or agree with those who "Freed" the mentally ill after seeing "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"

"Our guns are locked in a safe", and who's safety measures do you follow? THE NRA's now doubt. (who do you think wrote the book that all the firearms safety experts follow?) What a low life disgusting little hypocrite you are.

Also, you are aware the that your beloved William Jefferson Clinton suggested armed guards in every school after the Columbine Shooting. Aren't you?

The New York Times reported in 1998: "Two weeks ago, President Clinton announced a program called Cops in Schools, aimed at making it easier for school districts to get money to hire police officers in hopes of preventing the types of shootings that have resulted in the deaths of students and teachers in half a dozen schools in the last three years."

Read more:times247.com/articles/bill-clinton-once-backed-armed-guards-in-schools#ixzz2HJagmndO

AND I AM CALLING MY REPRESENTATIVES AND ASKING THEM TO FIX THE LAW SO WE CAN STOP DOPE SMOKIN', REATIONARY, COMMIE LIBERALS FROM TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRY. see, I can raise my voice too.

The problem is, you are not going to stop this stuff. PERIOD. The best you can do is try to limit it, and prepare for it.

Single-shot Hunting rifles and shotguns are legal in Great Britain (England,Scotland,Northern Ireland) where there were 12 murders by gunshot last year....in all of Great Britain.

There were more than 9000 deaths by gunshots last year in the gun-totin USA.

There are 62 million in the UK, and 311 million in the US, but still a great disparity. However, How many of those "more than 9,000" were gang/drug related? How many were homicides "Where, a person was going to die, regardless of the weapon"? That is to say, how many of these are stranger on stranger homicides?

And according to Homeoffice.gov.uk, 39 murders were committed by firearms out of 550 and 483 attempted

There were about 29/100K rapes reported trending upward (after the gun ban) in 2010.

There were about 27/100K rapes reported trending downward(after expansion of CCP) in 2010.

There were about 745K burglaries (England and Wales(against 26M households)) in 2010/2011 (I guess they go by Fiscal, rather than calender year) 14% increase from the previous year. and trending up.

In the US, the FBI report lists 2.16M in 2010 (out of 115M households) a 2% decrease, and trending down. Comparative rates: UK 1 per 35 households. USA 1 per 53 households. So you are around 51% more likely to be burgled in the UK.

.... there are four US states with a lower murder rate than England & Wales, namely Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, and an additional six which are lower than Scotland, those being Minnesota, Iowa, Utah, Maine, Oregan and Idaho, with Wisconsin, Washington and South Dakota not far behind.

So, it is certainly the case that the UK, taken as a whole, is less dangerous murder-wise, than the US, taken as a whole, but then this was always the case, including back in the days when guns were freely available and unrestricted (and, I might add, punishments for actual crimes, committed with or without a firearm were considerably more stringent than today). It is also noteworthy that some of the least dangerous US states are those with the least amount of gun control – but then y’all knew that, right? [ libertarianhome.co.uk/2012/12/uk-murder-rate-higher-than-some-us-states/ ]

And I hate to go all racist here, but if you will notice, most of the these states have a low percentage of blacks and Hispanics, just saying. Coincidence?

@ DumbFarmBoy

I am not trying to throw out some conspiracy theory here, this is only an observation. And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal.

It could be the media has just gotten side tracked on the "gun control" debate and is therefore not reporting the rest of the story. But before we all go off half cocked, wouldn't it be nice to have all the facts?

#1.99

I need to make a correction, "And coincidentally, both fathers of the shooters were to testify in the LIBOR scandal."

This is false: I was misinformed, sorry.

Did you not read the headline?

I wish the plonkers would just end their own lives before taking others and then their own.

Does the current state of society have such a "me-me-me" problem that a man can no longer just do the right thing on his OWN without killing his family or a bunch of his friends before offing himself. Disgraceful.

Perhaps we should go back to having stages in cities for public suicides: places where the distraught can go, get it out of their system to anyone who is willing to listen or engage in discussion, and then supply the weapon of choice so they can get on with it. Just think of the innocent lives that would be saved from these selfish tortured souls....

REX-1306908

look at what time Ajgallo type it, at 10:53 AM they were all still alive at that time, you come in at 12:01 PM and now they are dead and type" Did you not read the headline?" why did not read?

I really hoped this was not another bad story when it first showed up, before the headline changed and made it clear another tragedy had happened.

My prayers for the innocent and their families and friends.

Chicago is alot worse.

What is it about Aurora CO? Are they putting something in the water there?

Poor Aurora. This is more negative publicity for them that I'm sure they don't need or want.

Seriously, poor Aurora....this has little to do with the community and much to do with some idiot, who happened to murder people in Aurora.

I have to agree with Alex the Blade.

Perhaps we should go back to having stages in cities for public suicides: places where the distraught can go, get it out of their system to anyone who is willing to listen or engage in discussion, and then supply the weapon of choice so they can get on with it.

The idea of taking a human life because the murderer is too cowardly to just leave others out of their own desire to die is reprehensible.

If someone wishes to die they should do just that.

You have a personal problems, don't buy guns...

ajgallo...

You need a reading comprehension class.... and pay attention

So it's inanimate guns that are the problem… not the murdering lunatics behind them. Trouble is, only the law abiding obey the law. If you are a murderous nutcase, you could kill dozens of people with a effing skill saw.

Ban all guns, make the laws as restrictive as you like.. you only affect those who actually obey the law. Do you really want to be disarmed? Solely dependent on the state to be there to assist you, remember Katrina? How about the 2005 SCOTUS ruling that police do not have a Constitutional duty to protect someone from crime or a criminal?

During the Los Angeles riots and Hurricane Katrina, vast sections of territory was ceded by civil authority for days and sometimes weeks. The majority of Americans watched these events unfold on TV and made conversation about how bad things looked for "those" poor people. I would bet those “poor people
never thought that it could happen to them.. nor do you.

Aurora has it's own reservoir, to avoid paying Denver for water.

I've advocated for years that those who want to do the "Muder/Suicide" thing; should do the Suicide part first.

old fat guy -

At the time he typed his comment, the hostages were still considered to be alive.

What's the purpose of such a nasty post?

Nom Deguerre;

The year was 1992, twenty years ago, when following a jury trial, four Los Angeles Police Department officers were acquitted, in April, after being accused in the video recorded beating of a black American named Rodney King.

As a result, people throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area rioted over six days because of the verdict. They engaged in widespread looting, assault, arson, and even murder. The damage these criminals caused was well over $1 billion!

The rioting finally came to a halt after the California National Guard, along with U.S. Marines from Camp Pendleton were called in to help stop them.

During the riots, more than 60 people were killed and over 4,000 were injured.

On April 30, the second day of the riots, Korean-Americans saw the police fall back from Koreatown, leaving them to defend themselves in the midst of heavy looting and fires. A store owner at the time, Jay Rhee, told the Los Angeles Times, “we have lost faith in the police.”

The Times reported in May of 1992:

In the shadow of a flaming mini-mall near the corner of 5th and Western, behind a barricade of luxury sedans and battered grocery trucks, they built Firebase Koreatown.

Richard Rhee, owner of the supermarket on the corner, had watched as roving bands of looters ransacked and burned Korean-owned businesses on virtually every block.

But here, it would be different.

“Burn this down after 33 years?” asked Rhee, a survivor of the Korean War, the Watts riots and three decades of business in Los Angeles. “They don’t know how hard I’ve worked. This is my market and I’m going to protect it.”

From the rooftop of his supermarket, a group of Koreans armed with shotguns and automatic weapons peered onto the smoky streets. Scores of others, carrying steel pipes, pistols and automatic rifles, paced through the darkened parking lot in anticipation of an assault by looters.

“It’s just like war,” Rhee said, surveying his makeshift command. “I’ll shoot and worry about the law later.”

From tiny liquor stores in South-Central Los Angeles to the upscale boutiques in Mid-Wilshire, Korean store owners have turned their pastel-colored mini-malls into fortresses against the looter’s tide.

For many store owners, the riots have become a watershed in the struggle for the survival of their community.

The store owners shot off at least 500 rounds into the sky and ground to break up masses of people that were looting. They could have only accomplished that with the types of weapons they were using.

By the end of that first day of defending themselves, they have killed four looters and beat back the mob that had moved into their area.

Though they desperately tried to get the police to respond, even asking “Where were you when we needed you?” police would not show up for another 24 hours. Additionally, it was reported that 200 police uniforms had been stolen and according to a Korean radio announcer at the time, “We cannot trust a person just because they are wearing a uniform.”

Eventually things were brought under control. However, understand that the Clinton signed “assault weapons ban” was just two years later. Imagine if that had been in place when the rioting took place. It is highly possible that many of these Korean-Americans would not have been able to defend themselves, their property or their families and obviously the police were not very effective.

So I ask those who may read this article who are in favor of gun bans, more gun laws, and simply more control, are you willing to simply stand for government telling you how you can and cannot defend yourself, your family and your property? You better think this through before you go calling for it. After all, if the police in LA will abandon the people of Koreatown, what makes you think they won’t leave you to fend for yourself should something similar take place in your neighborhood.

Remember just keep telling yourselves "guns don't kill people....."

To..Mary""""

#1.1

But It's not the" anti-gun " people you have to worry about...

Gee why might people think guns might be a problem? Why do you suppose we weren't told what type of guns were use in this situation. We know the military style SWAT team has assault type weaponry, odd since their purpose is anti assault. It is not rhetoric to say that guns are a problem. They are.

I'm tired of seeing people go nuts, but we cannot control how other people act.

I'm also tired of seeing news catering to people who would rather blame objects than the people for crime.

#2.6 Duane - What is it about Aurora CO? Are they putting something in the water there?

No, they use Denver water. But Aurora, CO is a large city that has a lot of minorities, uneducated and low income people, many of whom own guns and apparently approve of using them as they see fit. The ones who usually make the news here are almost always transplants from, mostly California or Mexico. Some judges in California give these guys a one-way ticket out of town, and many of them end up in our beautiful state.

Rex-1306908

Did you not read the headline?

Nice fail there dude.

My goodness national news! I live in Aurora, CO which is a city of 350K people in a metro area of almost 3 million. Sure this is a horrible situation, but there is no way this would get national news if the theater shooting didn't happen. It's just the national news trying to sensationalize a situation which in turn portrays Aurora as a gun-toting, psychotic city with "something in the water" according to earlier posts.

In reality, Aurora is a very left-leaning city where the majority of the residents support stricter gun control. It is a safe city with walking trails, dog parks and playgrounds abundant. It's a shame this situation happened, but it's irritating that the national media is trying to compartmentalize Aurora as a city full of gun crimes.

Aurora has a high college graduate rate and includes the nationally-recognized Cherry Creek School District. For goodness sake, Olympian Missy Franklin's high school is in Aurora.

So for the sake of the people who live here, I ask the national media to stop portraying Aurora as an unsafe place to live. Don't let one psycho person speak for our entire city.

To: Never stop asking questions; it was probably collapsed because it was a stupid comment. I didn't think it was too bad, but I could never figure what flower pots had to do with this story.

@Harley Mike,i remember those rioters and the koreans that stood there ground in koreatown ,thank god they had 12g shotguns as well as AR15'S &pistols ,i remember my friends shell station was untouched from looters as well as firebugs ,a few well positioned koreans with AR15's stopped even more firebugs and looters,the other gas station was burned to the ground that was unprotected

"Never stop asking questions" your the most informed dumb*ss on this planet. No matter how you look at it. Guns will be here to stay, especially for the criminals and illegals. Mexico has a ZERO TOLERANCE for guns and they probably have the most non-war killings in the world.

There is probably thousands of small border towns along Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. That are subject to takeover by drug dealers, illegal immigrants, the only thing stopping the takeover (if it hasn't already happened) is the right for every citizen to carry a gun. I guess people who live in a fantasy world and probably do not need guns did not realize that for other parts of the country. Ever live in open range territory?

How many blue states and gun control advocated states have had gun violence?

I live in a state where I do not believe I need a gun and therefore I do not own one, but with all this media attention on gun violence and the controversy of gun control, I feel the need to buy many guns.

How would you feel if you were alone at night in the middle of the woods with a gun and without a gun.

@ Theo

Ok i will keep telling myself "guns don't kill people" I have a .50 cal desert Eagle on the desk in front of me. And not once has it ever tried to kill me. Nor has it jumped off the desk and tried to kill any friends or family i had over. I am not sure what your point is.. if you see a gun in the sporting goods of your local walmart do you run for your life, squeeling like a little girl that the evil gun is going to kill you? Sure sounds like you do.

If you spent more time worrying about the mentally unstable people that are killing others, and not what tool they decide to use, maybe.. just maybe, you would actually start being useful to society.

So far, the thin air has only affected two people. Gotta admit that is a unique way to explain the violence in America.

America again

Kris-2512112 and piglizard420

Do America a favor. Read International news and you will see that this type of tragedy [ and worse] happens worldwide. Violence has no geographical boundaries

Michael Johnson speaks the truth. One recent incident of horrific and tragic proof came in the form of Anders Behring Breivik...

I actually read a study that found that people tended to be a little happier in cities. It was theorized to be due to the increased amounts of CO pollution lowering the amount of Oxygen the brain gets.

Remember, one of the first symptoms of oxygen deprivation is euphoria.

We actually have a fairly high rate of violent crime in general. It's because everyone who lives here is young and poor. Not saying that young, poor people are all violent criminals, but there is certainly a correlation.

What I find interesting is that Aurora has one of the better income-based mental health centers in the state. It's easy to access, well advertised and has specialists in every sect of psychological medicine. It makes it hard for me to take the "Crazy people just need access to treatment." argument very seriously.

Read International news and you will see that this type of tragedy [ and worse] happens worldwide. Violence has no geographical boundaries

Of course it does. That's not the point. The point is that it happens in America every couple weeks.

For example, the incident mentioned above, Breivik, was a year and a half ago yet described as 'recent'.

In America, 'recent' means in the last 30 days.

Do America a favor. Read International news and you will see that this type of tragedy [ and worse] happens worldwide. Violence has no geographical boundaries

Yes, this type of tragedy and worse happens worldwide. In places like Pakistan, Uganda, and Columbia. The difference is, we're a very rich developed nation. Among rich developed nations, this type of thing is extremely uncommon, except in the US. We're better than Pakistan, which is loaded with violent fundamentalists. We're better than Uganda, which is so poor it is lawless. And we're better than Columbia, which is a haven of rebel and drug violence.

The rest of the developed nations have murder rates roughly around the same rate: UK, China, Canada, Japan, Italy, New Zealand, Australia, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, South Korea, etc etc etc. The US stands alone among developed nations. Our murder rate is among great nations like Laos, Thailand, Belarus, Haiti, and Yemen.

Kris - 2512112 Would you feel better if you read the stories in China about some lunatic murdering children with a hammer/knife? Or how about the Swiss man who murdered four women? What about the guy in Norway who murdered about 80 kids at a camp on an island? That story make you feel any better?

Got me? I've seen a lot worse. You didn't use obscene language or call anyone names or advocate murder or the overthrow of the government. Maybe someone is just being a jerk?

TO: Never Stop:

Don't worry. I always read ALL THE COLLAPSED comments. In fact, I would read all the deleted comments if I could. I don't like censorship. I like to think for myself. I don't want others to tell me what they think should be read, collapsed or deleted.

Let's just keep saying that guns are the problem. Sooner or later, people will believe it, we can fool them, "yes we can" .

Then we can make more empty promises and never mention them again.

Just promise them a "Change we can believe in" and they will fall for it and re-elect us.

"Forward", is where they told the people to go, into the oven.

Those who do not learn from history,are destined to repeat it... and what about that "Flexibility" Obama* promised to Russia...?

I think nobody could find a reference to a flower pot killing someone so they just figured you were a deranged spammer. I don't know.

Bullet171: No kidding? Maybe he just lives in Berkeley

Ignored 911 Call Turns Fatal In Berkeley; Police Busy With Occupy Protest -

Peter Cukor, 67, had been beaten to death with a flower pot. The suspect, 23-year-old Daniel Dewitt, was taken into custody and will be arraigned on Wednesday.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/21/ignored-911-call-turns-fatal-in-berkeley-police-busy-with-occupy-protest/

Using such delusional comparisons does nothing to further the cause of preventing regulations on access to guns. How many people are killed with a flower pot in the U.S. every year?

Firearms are used to kill over 30,000 people every year, more per capita than any other industrialized country in the world.

Most police dept. are under manned due budgets, small towns typically have a max 30 to 40 people if they lucky.it boils down to maybe 3 people a shift for a town of 25,000 spread out over 30 sq. miles.Not good for a fast response time,maybe up to 10 to 15 minutes,if you really need them

The problem with selfish people that have suckey lives.... is that they usually make everyone else's life suckier before they take care of the problem.

His life sucked so he decided to make it suckier.

That might be true, but honestly, we have no idea whatsoever who this guy was or what was going on. We do not know what kind of relationship he had to the people he killed. They could have been family, they could have formerly been friends of some sort, they could have had a business relationship of some sort, legitimate or otherwise. He could have been a home invader who had nothing to do with the folks in the home be broke into, unlikely though it may be. We just don't know yet.

We don't know if he was criminally insane, or if he was just a criminal. This could have been a revenge killing. There seems to have been an unnatural number of adult occupants in the house with no children mentioned as present, so the odds are very good that something untoward was going on, especially given that it happened during the overnight hours when most normal people are sound asleep. Still, anything is possible, and all the speculation in the world isn't going to gain us much, is it?

I don't know. Seems to me that people that smoke weed don't resort to violence and hostage taking to solve their problems.

No they take their 4000 lb car on the road where 1 car can kill more than one bullet

I think that that will change. Idiots abound in here in the USA. Anymore I'm not surprised at anything. When somebody is about to show you they are right, somebody comes along and blows that theory out of the water. I don't guess that somebeody is right I just sit back and watch for it to blow up in their face.

Except there have been no reports of anyone using a motor vehicle to intentionally killing anyone. This act is not the same.

Unfortunately the hostages were probably dead much earlier

But no gun has just one bullet and the bullets aren't a danger unless they're fired from a gun.

Compromise now-----Give me a break. More people are killed by guns and drunks. As you would say "Guns don't kill people, people do". And I suppose "Cars don't kill people, drunks do!!! Which tell me to take away the guns and the drunks and then there will be less killing, period.

People that smoke pot are less likely to go out and run someone down, they are to busy with the munchies!

R. Scalzo: Except there have been no reports of anyone using a motor vehicle to intentionally killing anyone.

-----------------

??? Where have you been scuttled? Just this week some Salem Oregon Cop was run over by his WIFE (on purpose) after she went to some other woman's house with a handgun and accusing her of having an affair with her husband. The cop is in critical condition and they don't expect him to live: so I beg to differ with your idea that no one has EVER used a motor vehicle to commit Murder (intentional killing) when there was one just this week.

Compromise.......Alcohol is legal an 10 times lethal behind the wheel of a car...what's your point?

Just maybe waiting a bit before too much comment would be in order. Maybe this is more proof that we need to do something to take the stigma of mental illness away and make it possible for people to safely and affordably to get the help they need. Even for family members and friends to seek help for family members and friends who can't see what is happening to them on their behalf. Just a thought.

If someone is smoking pot and they still have the ambition to get in their car and drive somewhere, they just haven't smoked enough.

The point is...there are more than many ways to kill somebody.@

@jon Or they didn't have the good stuff.

I'd be willing to bet that on average more people are the victims of intentional firearms death in one day in the U.S. than are intentionally killed using a car in an entire year.

Way more.

@rednawt1

Maybe this is more proof that we need to do something to take the stigma of mental illness away and make it possible for people to safely and affordably to get the help they need.

Unfortunately the problem is that the ones who need the help don't want it! Court rulings from the 80's make it impossible to make them get help if they refuse. It's not a matter of funding or affordability, you simply cannot make people get the help they need! Courts have upheld this principle time after time.

I'd be willing to bet that on average more people are the victims of intentional firearms death in one day in the U.S. than are intentionally killed using a car in an entire year.

Way more.

Mass causality incidents involving cars are rare too. The only one I can remember at all is an elderly man driving through a farmer's market. And he wasn't trying to murder people. But he did kill 10.

OldDog, good point. I understand that. Then what needs to be done is change those laws. Make them sensible though. No One Flew Over The CooCoo Nest is needed. This is what Me LaPerrire (sp?) from the NRA suggested, but really gave no details instead of changing gun laws. I really don't think they need to be change, much. The problem isn't with responsible gun owners, however some of those responsible gun owners guns do get in the wrong hands. Many of the tragedies that happen come from very sick people who happen to live in the same homes of the responsible gun owners and DO get their hands on the guns. It isn't enough to just say this is normal, or the new normal because it isn't new. We have to do everything we can to find the root cause and to fix it. NO other comparable nation on earth has this severe of a shooting problem. Please make your suggestions.

compromise... Don't worry, Obama* promised the russians that he "will have more flexibility after the election".

Don't worry, Obama* promised the russians that he "will have more flexibility after the election".

Right, like that was some kind of huge revelation or something - or maybe even a secret plot to convert the country to communism....or socialism....

No wonder the right wing in this country is imploding. It's only remaining members are nothing but morons.

this is exactly what the media whorenalists live for.no facts just a salacious blurb containing the "right" hot buttons,guns,hostages etc.disgusting

I wonder at what point did the tasking of hostages seem like a good idea to this guy? Does he really expect it to turn out well? Either way just waiting until he realizes that it's not going to go away and come out is hopefully the way it ends.

Well, R. Scalzo, it is easier to kill someone else than yourself. Then there are some people who believe that they will go to h*ll if they kill themselves but not others. There are some that to want to commit "suicide by cop". Until more information is forthcoming, we will only be able to speculate. Right now, at the time I am writing this, the police don't even know if the people killed know each other.

Mary Jones, I think Jersey Michael gets the award for the first sly anti-gun post.

You see this as a PRO-GUN story? Another gun owner flips killing a few, probably family.

R. Scalzo, There are alot of crazy people out there!

Thanks Becky. I'll send him the award in the morning. You have a great day.

Very clear ! In this scenario NRA can tell "The hostages die because they don't have their own guns for self defense" Act now, go to the store and buy your gun !

Baco78- I fully agree. Everyone should buy their guns now. More people with poor impulse control having guns and more shootings is definitely the way to go. It's no wonder we have the highest per capita gun deaths in the developed world. Yes, El Salvador has a higher per capita gun death rate than the U.S. Let's become like them.

There is no county to county or transnational correlation between murder rates and gun onwership rates. In fact, the top 9 gun control/ban nations have 3 times the murder rates as the top 9 gun ownership rates nations.

I said in the developed world. England and Australia have fewer gun related deaths per capita than the U.S.

You anti-gun jack asses can bitch all you want but you ass hole democrats will never take away the law abiding citizens guns.hey david lg your a typical liberal democrat talking out of your ass.You had to get your facts from those liberal democratic ass holes you put in washington.The FBI just put out statistics that show the number of people killed by guns was at the bottom of the chart.More poeple died of cancer, car accidents and other violent non gun killings and you can't discount the fbi because your ass hole in the white house put the man in he wanted to run the agency.You liberals are so FK'n stupid you all should consider keeping your mouths shut because like your leaders you have no idea what's going on,what's causing the problem or how to handle the problem.You truely talk out of your Fk'n asses because your stupid FK'n ass holes.

Nazareth,

Please stop. It's people like you that are giving your side a bad name. People aren't stupid for being afraid of guns. They blame what they see the problem is, just as you blame democrats for everything you think is wrong with America. What makes you think that you know better than every other person in the world? Why is your opinion more valid than anyone else, especially enough that you have the right to tell someone that they are stupid and don't know anything? I'm not for this whole gun-control thing either (I'm a democrat), but that doesn't mean that I feel the need to tell other people with differing opinions that they are "stupid Fk'n ass holes" on a PUBLIC forum, because that's not how real things get down. IF you have an argument, present it in an intelligent, nojudgemental, factual manner that gives you credit. Otherwise, you need to realize that, that is your opinion and opinions are not subject to right and wrong. If you're allowed to have one, and express it in such a manner, then certainly someone else is entitled to its' opposite. How do you ever expect to be taken seriously? All you are is a bully who is too worried about bringing everyone else down to come up with a reasonable way to state what you think. That's the problem with America. Everyone wants to point fingers and blame each other, call each other names, throw out slander and insults, but never take the time to have a real discussion. It's truly disgusting.

tellbabyy:

Well said!

Thanks David

Never ! This crazy killers are protectec for the second Admenment, NRA and the politicians

So the Media takes one incident that occurs everyday that ironically happens to be in Aurora to bring out the retards who don't know when the media is just fishing for ratings, and black and white battles about gun control.

They do the same thing anytime something dramatic happens. What happened with virginia tech? About a day later they reported a fuss in an apartment complex outside a campus's property as a "school shooting".

How about the earthquake in Japan? Oh it became breaking news anytime a quake popped up again which is what every second of everyday somewhere in the world?

Should be ashamed of yourselves NBC.

Maybe, there is too much carbon monoxide in the brain. The gunmen have no mind control.@

So the Media takes one incident that occurs everyday that ironically happens to be in Aurora to bring out the retards who don't know when the media is just fishing for ratings, and black and white battles about gun control.

Yeah, they should publish every single incident like this. Maybe then it would start to sink into the thick skulls of those who think we don't have a gun problem.

Because, throughout the civilized world, it only happens every day here.

No, it happens every day in many other countries, even ones who have made guns illegal. And BTW, why do you people think that the NRA likes shootings? Even if we are to assume that they are a heartless group of people who only care about politics, shootings give the anti-gunners more cause to remove their rights. Speaking from a purely political point of view, anti-gunners should love shootings.

No, it happens every day in many other countries, even ones who have made guns illegal.

Sure, like Uganda, Yemen, Columbia, Mexico - i.e. third world countries.

I said, in the civilized world.

The NRA doesn't like shootings. They like guns. They're funded by the firearms industry.

You are seriously weird! There was cleaner water, cleaner air back then. Even pot wasn't as strong as it is now. It's a lot more dangerous world in which we live now than we did then.

jasper999, I think it comes down more to a combination of bad genetics and a bad environment.

jasper: You might really be on to something. Don't allow some druggies to step on your thoughts.

really?...truth is that every generation gets more pathetic in America. Now we have a bunch of gutless little punks that want everything the easy way and when they figure out that they have to actually work hard to be successful....this crap happens! Bunch of pot smoking, pill popping, weak punks that have been riding the back of the generations of REAL men and women that built this country back before the 60"s...pretty dispicable.

Yeah, they didn't have this 'fracking' problem back then, either......

Actually the Bible has the answer but you probably don't want to hear it

captain: Your right. I don't want to hear those lies anymore. Followers of the bible have murdered more people than any other GANG in history.

Hahahahahaha, you kno, this country is a Laboratory for the rulers in charge ?

There is no right answer, its like prohibition if you outlaw something it gets worse. it goes black market, under ground out of control. things just get worse. and that is a fact.....!!!!!!!!..... criminals will have everything and good citizens will be defenseless. mayhem will pursue, and that unfortunately is the way it is don't count on a cop that is 20 min away, or your psychicpowers to help you the problem is not enough guns. if everyone carried crime and violence would drop 90 % or more, make everyone equal, eather way its a no win situation but better then taking away from the good and enabling the bad.

"Real" Christians do not murder people!!!

You have a lot of people who "claim" to be christians, but they are NOT!

Just because you go to church does NOT make you a Christian!

Just because you are baptized does NOT make you a Christian.

Just because you live in America does not make you a Christian.

To be a Christian is "to be like Jesus Christ!"

He healed people, He gave people hope and He raise people back from the dead, and He forgave people their sins.

And He died on the cross for your sin and the sins of the whole world!

So you don't have to go to Hell.

really?...truth is that every generation gets more pathetic in America. Now we have a bunch of gutless little punks that want everything the easy way and when they figure out that they have to actually work hard to be successful....this crap happens! Bunch of pot smoking, pill popping, weak punks that have been riding the back of the generations of REAL men and women that built this country back before the 60"s...pretty dispicable

I'm so sick of people acting like young people are the root of all evil. Newsflash, every single one of you were young once too and like it or not you did things that the generation previous to you thought were dispicable, irrational, and uneccesary. Stop acting like there is only ONE thing to blame in all situations. You think people didn't smoke pot and pop pills back in your day? Wrong. You think people didn't want things for free back in your day? wrong. You may not like it, you may deny it, but no one is a saint. You think people that are older don't commit crimes are leech off the welfare system? Where do you think younger generations learn those things from? People wonder why younger generations are so disrespectful to their elders. You don't just GET respect when you look down on everyone. You're being just as "lazy" as you think young people are if you're willing to throw in all your chips on them being the issue. EVERYONE NEEDS TO STOP GENERALIZING AND BLAMING THINGS ON INANIMATE OBJECTS AND MASS GROUPS OF PEOPLE AND START LOOKING AT WHAT THE REAL ISSUES ARE.

Carry a gun? how's that working out for the hostages? They had guns in the house, remember. Better to follow the NRA and blame TV and video games.

protection of their Families and their selves

Tell me, how does that work when your family member is the one holding the gun on you? More firearm's assaults are from family members or acquaintances.

If they did have guns they might not be a hostage. I will protect my Family and you can call 911 and wait

Hey R. Scalzo - Where did you get that they had guns in the house. Making up facts again?

Where do you think the gun was that he used? The witness gave the details to the police after she escaped.

What happens when there's a shootout and the cops show up? How do they tell who the 'bad guy' is when both parties are shooting at each other?

After I purchase a gun under the table and sneak up behind you I guess you will still save the day super hero. Too many like you have a false sense of security. Then you leave your guns where kids can find them and play Call of Duty at school or you sell them to some unsuspecting felon. Either that or you get mad and kill your family. What's that behind you? Oh it's your own shadow.

Might not be a bad idea. A lot better than killing everyone.

Yes, a giant peace pipe seems to be in order. . .stat.

when it probably was a pistol used

So it makes a difference what someone uses to kill you or your family. You trying to make this look like anything other than someone using a firearm to kill three Innocent people?

You think it mattered to the parents in CT? What a moronic statement.

You're probably right, nailer. When the kids in CT were killed, the first reports said the killer had two handguns. They then found a rifle in his car. The next day the report changed to say he had murdered them WITH the rifle.

Hey, you're right - it was two handguns at first with the rifle in the car.

Then it was 'sprayed with an assault rifle.'

He had two handguns and a rifle (the Bushmaster) in the school. The gun in the car was some kind of fancy shotgun. Stories change as more information is released. It has nothing to do with trying to advocate or ban guns. It is simple information flow as more facts are discovered and then released to the media. It's called updating. I also believe that the media initially called the Bushmaster an automatic assault rifle and later revised that to semi-automatic. Should all the anti-gun people accuse the media and the government of downplaying the danger of automatic weapons?

These stories are reported because they are news. The internet carries almost every newstory published in the world if you look for them. Are you suggesting the government should suppress the news, censor our right to free speech? Oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting that the only part of the Constitution you actually support is the second amendment.

Underemployed ;; Didn't you know that the second amendment supercedes the right to fre speech admendment and also the basic right to live . The pro-gun morons has a petion out right now to have Pier Morgan deported for he used his freedom of speech to voice his anti-gun opinion . They want to censor any of the truth about guns Pier Morgan has been saying. NRA hates truth about guns !!

Wrong the NRA educates about guns.

Adolph Hitler took away the guns first, then moved in and took over the country!

History repeats itself, but who listens?

it will happen again!

They are not there for information,Juan,its all about the agenda.

Pretty obvious,right?

Yes this happens every day

Yes and that's a problem. A matter of months after another mass shooting in the same town and you seriously think the media is blowing it out of proportion? Get real.

Juan: ? - well, where are all of the links of all of these 'armed citizen saving a life everyday'?

Certainly they were reported on or you wouldn't have known about the stories on them, would you.

The only citizen I read about lately had two arms: and he used both of them to toss one end of his jumper cables to a lady and rescue her just moments before her vehicle was submerged in a rain-swollen river.

You don't have to have a gun in order to perform near-miraculous acts. Gun owner here - and have saved two lives to my name - and funny thing: both times, my guns were at HOME.

@ Alex, I have also saved a life on more then one occasion. Same for me I did not have a firearm at the time of those acts. My rub is with IDIOTS with MENTAL problems taken away any RIGHT or CHANCE of LAW ABIDING CITIZENS from being able to own a weapon. The SOROS media machine is doing a great job. To there detriment. The 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment.

Thank you Juan! You don't ever see mainstream media talk about armed citizens and homeowners stopping burglars.

There are very few armed citizens that has saved some one elses life many more lives taken by accidents , people with a bad temper, mental cases, drunks, children getting hold of guns that had been stolen from legal gun owners, etc. Bet there is many more than a hundred killings to one that was actually saved anyones life ! They are a dangerous adult TOY and nothing more!! GUN OWNERS THAT CARRYS ONE IS COWARDS !!

Instead of banning guns, why don't we ban abortions unless life of woman is involved? We could ban abortions and claim all human life is of value and importance and should not be murdered. Then we could ban violent movies, television shows, music, books, and magazines. We could ban the teaching of evolution in our schools and replace it with creationism and thus teach children life is of value and highly important. Banning guns will not keep people who want and desire to inflict death, pain, and misery on others from occurring any more banning drinking and driving has stopped drunk drivers from taking millions of lives.

We could also BAN rambling fools like YOU,I suppose,who do anything to get off-subject in discussing a particular important issue......save your rambles, separate them,and argue them individually....you're in the wrong forum,here....maybe you belong in the Cuckoos Nest.

Somebody should check that place out.

It is not just Aurora the entire State has gone to POT

Meth more likely...

is not yous business, is NRA business...

Aurora ? There are 87 killings by gunshots DAILY in the USA.....Whats wrong with Americans that they don't rise up against the mayhem and ban all but single shot hunting weapons ?

You might say the same about Chicago, New York City, Atlanta, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, and Washington D.C. They all have more crime than we do here in Denver metro area.

Denver experienced a 12.7 percent increase in violent crime in 2011

Guess everyone didn't get the memo.

Um Rex? Crime rates (especially murder) were at an all time low in both NY and DC, Wanna try again? Maybe they did not get the update at Fox or Rush was probably drugging up and forgot to report that?

Go blow a bubble.

So 414 murders in NYC in 2012 is a LOW??

Major crimes are up 4.2 percent so far in 2012, the New York Post reports, marking the first time in eighteen years that all eight NYPD "patrol boroughs" have seen an increase.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/06/why-are-crime-stats-up-in-nyc-2012.html

Violent crime so far this year in the District has spiked sharply — a 40 percent increase that includes twice as many robberies at gunpoint than at this time last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/19/violent-crime-dc-surges-2012/#ixzz2H7qntIk5

Looks like you need to do some adjusting to your post.

With 8 million people and only 414 murders for 2012, I think that is pretty low. NYC ranked the 2nd lowest in deaths in the Nation.

Slodon, no I DON'T!!! I live in the DMV and I KNOW that their crime rate is at a low. And with that many people that live in NY and DC, YES those figures are at a LOW!!!!!

I know, once again, let us not allow FACTS to get in the way of a good rant.

ERROR on my part.....I was wrong in stating that there were 9000 deaths in the USA last year,by gunshots.....there were more than 37,000., or,87 each day ,on average....compared to 12 gunshot deaths each YEAR in Great Britain ( which consists of England,Scotland and Northern Ireland)...Great Britain permits ownership of single shot hunting rifles and shotguns.

There has NOT been a serious attempt to overthrow the government of Great Britain in more than 600 years.

Let me guess you voted for Barack Hussein for President. I know he won and America Lost

Someody call the whaaambulance.

Didn't take long for someone to blame the President. No wonder we have loons shooting each other.

The constant hatred and lies directed at a sitting President from the ultra right are part of the problem. They foster an atmosphere of hate, paranoia and assumed persecution that feeds the mental confusion of the crazies. Then they wonder why the crazies go off. They push their hatred, provide the guns, and then sit back and blame the president for the environment of hate and violence they have promulgated. Extremism is a major part of the problem, and they, in their paranoia, keep blaming everyone else for what they do.

Compromise Now You are ignorant ; Tell the Congress to compromise . Obama compromises but congress refuses to do so !! Thats why they the worst congress ever !! USA won with Obama winning the election. We will be able to keep the middle class from losing every thing the right wing wants to take away so the wealthy can get their taxes lowered. Romney was paying 14% and he wanted it lowered another ten percent.

Clayton you nailed it. It is not the POTUS, it is congress. The President can';t get anything done for all the wasted time begging congress to use some common sense. Remember that at mid-term elections all the sitting members need to be fired.

Then go over to FOX. You know the place that they had to shut the blogging down because of how nasty and racist things were getting.

I just post here to bash you anti-gun turds

Tell ya what arg726, come into my home and you don't belong there and you will find out just how anti-gun I am. What's left of you I'm sure that you family will be able to put into a mason jar.

Don't mess with Independent Liberal Gun owners!

Is there a dome over South Chicago? Detroit?

No but there should be one other those to.

So the Media takes one incident that occurs everyday that ironically happens to be in Aurora to bring out the retards who don't know when the media is just fishing for ratings, and black and white battles about gun control.

They do the same thing anytime something dramatic happens. What happened with virginia tech? About a day later they reported a fuss in an apartment complex outside a campus's property as a "school shooting".

How about the earthquake in Japan? Oh it became breaking news anytime a quake popped up again which is what every second of everyday somewhere in the world?

Should be ashamed of yourselves NBC.

The only difference between this now and before is that you didnt hear about it till it was a rating boom.

No! It's the people who move to Colorado from other states!

We have already sent the people with serious mental issues to Washington and confined them to the House of Representatives and the Senate

Congressman Compromise :)

So the Media takes one incident that occurs everyday that ironically happens to be in Aurora to bring out the retards who don't know when the media is just fishing for ratings, and black and white battles about gun control.

They do the same thing anytime something dramatic happens. What happened with virginia tech? About a day later they reported a fuss in an apartment complex outside a campus's property as a "school shooting".

How about the earthquake in Japan? Oh it became breaking news anytime a quake popped up again which is what every second of everyday somewhere in the world?

Should be ashamed of yourselves NBC.

The only people who should be ashamed are those blaming the media for what the paranoid extremists have created, an atmosphere of hate and fear and paranoia.

Why The Obsessive Need To Posses Dozens Of Weapons?

A rat in an experiment keeps pressing a bar to obtain rewards. A drug addict keeps buying and using drugs, because they make him feel better, at least for a short period of time. Gun people behave in a similar manner. Every time they buy another gun (like the rat pressing the bar); they do it to obtain an emotional reward to satisfy their psychological need for security. A drug addict keeps buying drugs because the effect from the last hit has dissipated. Gun people keep buying guns due to a similar reason. After the rush from the last purchase has receded, they have to go back for another “hit”. This type of dependent, obsessive, addictive personality explains why they possess so many guns and the alarming incidence of alcoholism among self-proclaimed Gun People. Every purchase signifies a frantic search for another “hit”, Instant Gratification. They attempt to justify their behavior by invoking the 2nd amendment and their right to protect their property and family. Let’s see. If it only takes one weapon to defend your family and property from a perpetrator, why do they crave to posses dozens of high powered weapons? Answer: Gun people try to compensate, and hide their social, mal-adaptation by amassing large quantities of weapons. “If you know how many weapons you have, then you don’t have enough”. That kind of twisted logic is only found in psychologically-insecure, alcohol-dependent, weak personalities. i.e. Gun People.

Abraham Maslow describes an insecure person as a person that "perceives the world as a threatening jungle and most human beings as dangerous and selfish; feels rejected and isolated person, anxious and hostile; is generally pessimistic and unhappy; shows signs of tension and conflict, tends to turn inward; is troubled by guilt-feelings, has one on another disturbance of self-esteem; tends to be neurotic; and is generally selfish and egocentric." (Maslow, 1942, pp 35). He viewed in every insecure person a continual, never dying, longing for security. Hence, the never ending purchase and twisted justification for possessing more and more weapons. No different that the rat pressing the bar or the drug addict “chasing the dragon”. Rest My Case.

@Mustafa - Evidence of this?

@Mustafa8 you should know what gun control did to albania ,only the gov't and radicals had them and they killed everyone else who didn't have them or was not the same side they were!