NewEnglandGirl you expressed yourself fine. There isn't much of a movement to disarm law-abiding citizens. Some want assault weopens to go but everyone knows that won't happen. If we just close the 'gun-show' loophole most people will be happy. I would like armour-piercing rounds and big clips to be removed too but I am not holding my breath.

My number one hope is that we hammer those who use guns during a crime. I mean really hammer them. If you rob a 7-11 and a gun is in your car you should go to jail for a very long time.

By the way, I think jails should have weight-lifting equipment removed. Why in god's name do we want stronger felons?

Roger-785733 - You anti-firearm advocates are so simple minded.

If you would have done a little research outside of NBC News you would have learned that two robbers who broke into the home had the wife at gunpoint and the husband on his knees. When one of the gunmen tried to go into their 11-year old daughters room the husband then got up and started fighting the robbers. They fought back and forth and then the husband/father was shot multiple times.

He had no gun. I'm sure this would have been a different story if he did. He was the line of defense and he stepped up, did his job, and now the locals are calling him a hero.

Oh and by the way, he was also a cripple.

Try doing a little research before taking NBC's word as gospel.

Sounds like a situation where a large capacity AR would have been useful! Bet the intruders were not legal gun owners as well....

Feel for the family....

Here's another story for you. Gun violence and violence in general has been in a steady decline for decades. The only thing that has increased recently is the press's coverage.

Cameron Ford - And if the invaders didn't have guns to begin with, the entire situation would never have happened.

You couldn't be any more further from the truth.

Try doing a little research in countries where firearms are banned.

Home invasions in Britain are at an all time high and that doesn't mean that residential murders do not occur either.

Also the NRA does not benefit financially if everyone were to own a firearm. For one, I own a firearm and I'm not a NRA member. In other words they make no money off of me. There are millions upon millions of firearm owners that are not NRA. So your point is moot.

Roger,

Had the family been gun enthusiast, they all would be acquainted with the use of firearms and someone might have gotten to one as the robbers were entering.

Fear is crippling thing as the Adrenaline flows through your blood, and perhaps the fear would have stopped the women from acting, who knows? But the brave father saw his child in harms way and gave his life for her. He is hero who does not need to be reduced to mindless liberal political rhetoric.

Yes the outcome would have been quite different. When the robbers take the leap to attack they are hoping there is no one armed because that is the law of the jungle. The predators always seek out the weakest because they do not want to chance themselves being hurt. These monsters obviously knew the family and planned the attack.

Lazarus

Bill From Corvallis:

Yea right..... First the AR's then the hunting rifles then the handguns!!! It won't stop with one type of gun.

Skup: just like many other issues, it's not that they are happening with more frequency, it's that the "closet" door is open now and EVERYBODY can see the skeletons.

Where in the hell are all the anti gun rabid drooling snarling snapping fools today?

Sincere condolences to the family and friends of this victim.

GA Mimi

He was protecting his daughter and got shot by the home invaders - whatever punishment they get is not enough!

He took care of his family to the best of his abilities and the rest of the family survived. Even though the term hero is passed around too frequently by some, this man - Maurice Harris stood his ground to protect them. He is a true hero!

I agree in that condolences for the family are the best we can do.

What To Do?

Had a gun and wouldn't run,
I shot the robber dead.
They took me to jail
Condemned me to hell
Now I live on water and bread.
My neighbor, unarmed,
Came to fatal harm
They buried him in the ground.
Just can't win
The PC spin
With the anti gunners around.

I wonder if you would have asked anyone in that family while that was going on if they would have liked to have had a gun with thirty rounds in it or if that was too many bullets...... what they would have said.

On a side note, notice that there were two armed invaders so if they had a standard ten round magazine each then the family was up against 2 aggressors and 20 rounds. One person on the defense with thirty rounds doesn't sound like overkill to me.

ga jack..

This just makes me sick.

I wonder if anyone here will post that they should have called the police? You know, the only people who NEED a gun?

New England Girl - no one prevented this man from buying a gun to protect his family.

no one is attempting to prevent anyone - like this guy (or family) from buying a gun in the future.

But if he would have bought a gun, or if his family chooses to in the future - I dont think it's too much to ask to run a background check and register the weapon.

If you're a law abiding citizen, why wont you register your weapon?

We have to register our cars, and so far...i've yet to see the govt sweep through the country snatching up all our cars, despite having them all registered.

Think about that for a minute...rationally, not with sheer paranoia.

Skup....."Here's another story for you. Gun violence and violence in general has been in a steady decline for decades. The only thing that has increased recently is the press's coverage."

Yep, the "media" is just providing articles to support Mr. Obama's Gun Control agenda. Otherwise, the public would not hear these stories on a daily basis now.

However, notice the "media" buried the information about NINE GANG RELATED SHOOTINGS in Chicago this last weekend.

screminmimi

I wonder if anyone here will post that they should have called the police? You know, the only people who NEED a gun?

ga mimi

Well put. Most people fail to realize that cops don't carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves.

ldo - No political value so why bother reporting. This article didn't really get a prominent spot because it clearly would have had a better outcome if the home owner would have been armed.

ga DB..

Yes, we keep hearing how the police will "serve and protect."

Well it takes law enforcement a good 25 minutes to get to my place when they are called. And even if you could call them the minute you hear glass break to signify someone trying to get into your place, it's already too late.

Your family's first line of defense is YOU! The job of law enforcement is to investigate and if enough clues are left behind, to follow them and hopefully apprehend the criminal.

And, oh yeah.... offer a million dollar reward if the criminal is coming after THEM!

I wonder if anyone here will post that they should have called the police? You know, the only people who NEED a gun?

Why is that? So they can unquestionably dominate any situation...even when they go rogue such as the cop in LA?!?

The second amendment is coupled with a few lines about militia for a reason. Protecting yourself from marauders is at the bottom of the list of reasons why the Founding Fathers wanted an armed country. If the country wasn't armed during Revolutionary times and we only relied on our small army and not Minutemen farmers, we would have LOST. The amendment exists to prevent oppression from a tyrannical government or police-state. It exists so Americans can successfully stage a coup against a government that gets "too big for its breeches". Big Brother knows this and it scares him. Also, since there were no supermarkets and refrigerators then, it exists so we can feed ourselves!

This is yet another lame attempt for NBC to somehow say we need gun control. They never state that had the family had a weapon in the house chances are he may of survived. Without a weapon he was defenseless. Nice job NewEnglandgirl with the post. You do not need to be eloquent, you just need to speak the truth, something NBC has a hard time with because they are pushing an agenda for what ever reason, they are not reporters.

Jessica,

If I use my car only on my private property, I DO NOT have to register it. Registering it gives me the PRIVILEGE of driving it on public roads.

Jessica--You mean that when Feinstein said "we need to get all the guns" she wasn't really talking about "all the guns?"

I have a dog and a gun. The dog is good, if he barks, maybe the bad guys will leave, if not I have a 40 cal glock on the night stand and I will do what I can with that. At least I would have a fighting chance.

mimi: I think you've got the "rabid drooling snarling snapping fools" role nicely covered. Check your mirrors.

I can NOT understand how some people think stricter gun laws will save them! These, probably the same people who say; "Just dial 911" I detest the phrase " Gun show loophole" Yes, two private parties can buy and sell guns at a gun show...or a picnic or a pot luck supper or a first communion party. What you are asking for is a background check, taxes and forms for any gun sale between anyone. Then some nitwit news paper can post such info so the felons know where to steal one and rob you. Yeah, a universal background check law will keep everyone snugglely warm and safe! What a naive thought

"impeded" - not prevented.

.

@ Borderlands post 1.4,

I was wondering why MSNBC left out so much of the story. It's amazing how they only wanted to tell there where guns involved.

To MSNBC: Don't you people think you could get off the gun thing for a few minutes and tell us what these guys look like what they drive or anything that might help the public find them?

Confussed-1578043 (and others) :

It's amazing, isn't it? I hopped over to ABC news and there aren't any stories about guns, except one about a guy who shot a drunk man that just ran over and killed his two sons! The stories are more interesting, more relevant to the US (less international news) and are updated more often. Think I'll start reading ABC in the morning and after dinner.

Here's one that never appeared on NBC that made my blood boil:

abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-encounters-allegedly-everyday-thing-students-california-preschool/story?id=18402570

Jessica

How many of your constitutional rights do you register for? Do you even know what your constitutional rights are?

Your car is not a right. It is a privilege and is quite different than a constitutional right. To compare car registration to the 2nd amendment is just stupid - not even an argument.

Jessica-1170252

New England Girl - no one prevented this man from buying a gun to protect his family.

no one is attempting to prevent anyone - like this guy (or family) from buying a gun in the future.

But if he would have bought a gun, or if his family chooses to in the future - I dont think it's too much to ask to run a background check and register the weapon.

If you're a law abiding citizen, why wont you register your weapon?

We have to register our cars, and so far...i've yet to see the govt sweep through the country snatching up all our cars, despite having them all registered.

Think about that for a minute...rationally, not with sheer paranoia.

Jessica, I agree 100%. The dead husband/father was probably wishing he had an AK-47 when he was on his knees, right before he was shot dead by two felons.

Note: according to an international survey, the US stands at #28 in the world in gun violence, behind mostly countries with stricter control and weapons bans.

The only thing that can stop gun violence is if a person has the ability to defend themselves with a gun. Most conceal carry states have less gun violence and keep us lower in the international standings.

Chicago - where we are going if we continue on the road to outlawing guns.

fonze

1.40

Gun trafficking to Chicago gangs...BIG BIG BIG business.... but you probably know that.

Once Obozo the Clown and Senator Frankenstein destroy the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States only the Criminals will have the guns and you can expect the crime rate to rise exponentially.

We have police here in Liberal New York State telling the public they don't support the radical liberal governors anti - gun bill and they will not enforce it... period.

And this is a quote, "Don't call 911 first because we will not be able to get there in time, defend yourself and your family than call 911"

GUN LAWS DON'T WORK THEY ONLY PUT YOU AT THE MERCY OF CRIMINALS AND MADMEN

Can we look at Education please? How about the Budget? How about bringing jobs back to the good 'ol U.S. of A so we can get off the Government tit and back on our own two feet?

Great post NewEnglandGirl! Thank you! If only the guy in the White House would listen to your sound advice, perhaps we, as a nation, can get back on track! I find it offensive that obama and biden are touring the country spouting their anti-gun rhetoric like it's an election year! Why aren't they addressing the jobs situation?? 15,000 more Americans signed up for food stamps this month and we haven't yet made it to Valentine's Day, lol!

He had no gun. I'm sure this would have been a different story if he did. He was the line of defense and he stepped up, did his job, and now the locals are calling him a hero.

Yes..if he had a gun, it would have been a different story; he would have been shot immediately, rather than the way you explained it happened. Even if he was heavily armed, it was still 2-to-1. Not good odds.

GUN LAWS DON'T WORK THEY ONLY PUT YOU AT THE MERCY OF CRIMINALS AND MADMEN

How exactly does a gun help you? Can a gun stop a bullet? The best that having a gun can offer you is chance to be involved in a shootout with a desperate criminal.

While may be true that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, it is just as likely that good guy is the one who gets stopped.

And Scumbags like this jump on I-95 or The Florida Turnpike and come up the short distance into Palm Beach County, where untold THOUSANDS of retirees live....Easy Marks....

I live in a 55+ Community and I'm taking another one of my neighbors to the Gun Show this weekend to take the CCW Permit Class and get herself a gun for Home Defence....I Carry Concealed anytime I leave my house....and if a badass or two comes kicking in my door, say Hello to my little friend .....

Benelli M4 Semi-Auto 12-Guage Shotgun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benelli_m4_2.jpg

That Dad is a Hero..He lived and died for his Family...Godspeed Maurice Harris

Borderlands, as someone with a physical disability, I am very offended by your use of the word "cripple." Please think before you throw around words.

Secondly, no one is advocating that this family, or any family, CAN'T get a firearm for protection. The measures that are being discussed (such as universal background checks) won't make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have protection. Yes criminals will always find a way to circumvent laws, but that doesn't keep us from passing them. People still download movies and music illegally. People still drive without a license. People still steal and murder. We don't just scrap these laws because "criminals won't follow them." We actively try to IMPROVE these laws and their enforcement, and make the consequences severe enough that someone will think twice if they are considering breaking the law. Laws are also how we set the tone for our society about what is acceptable and socially appropriate behavior.

RI Mom

fonze

1.40

Gun trafficking to Chicago gangs...BIG BIG BIG business.... but you probably know that.

#1.42

If guns are so readily available in the surrounding states, would then the crime not be similar in those states as well?

I am paraphrasing someone else' post I read on a similar comment. The point is, if the the guns are coming from other states, as you say in the form of "trafficking", shouldn't the crime rates in those states, that don't have such strict gun laws be the same as or higher than those in Chicago? Yet all the neighboring states seem to have lower crime rates. (at least according to www.census.gov/statab/ranks/rank21.html) And Iowa was ranked 10th in the most peaceful states by 24/7 Wallst.com

www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/states-crime-rates-show-scant-linkage-to-gun-laws/?page=all

ChrisBurgh

Borderlands, as someone with a physical disability, I am very offended by your use of the word "cripple." Please think before you throw around words.

Secondly, no one is advocating that this family, or any family, CAN'T get a firearm for protection. The measures that are being discussed (such as universal background checks) won't make it impossible for law abiding citizens to have protection. Yes criminals will always find a way to circumvent laws, but that doesn't keep us from passing them. People still download movies and music illegally. People still drive without a license. People still steal and murder. We don't just scrap these laws because "criminals won't follow them." We actively try to IMPROVE these laws and their enforcement, and make the consequences severe enough that someone will think twice if they are considering breaking the law. Laws are also how we set the tone for our society about what is acceptable and socially appropriate behavior.

#1.49

As someone who has suffered crippling injury, I refuse to be labeled as "Disabled" or "Handicapped" or any other PC nomenclature. I am a cripple. I was CRIPPLED in an accident. I was not disabled, although I guess I do have something of a handicap when doing certain things.

But then I guess, this comes from my learning my vocabulary before PC. And certain part of that comes from reading numerous WWII books, in which they describe the different types of damage done to aircraft, one that was "Crippled" could still fly, if not at full speed or capability, one that was "Disabled" was out of action. I am not out of action. M-W used to define a cripple as a person who has lost the use of an appendage. But I guess they got PCed as well. And that offends me.

And just how do you expect to enforce the universal back ground check? And can you name some of the unintended consequences of such an act? (hint, I can)

And have you read any of the comments made by Feinstein and her ilk? (hint, They would like nothing more than to disarm the American Citizenry) It is called baby steps. First we do this, then later we'll do that, and so on. They have already infringed on right to Keep and Bear arms in numerous ways and pursue ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence,".

And if "we" are "actively try to IMPROVE these laws and their enforcement, and make the consequences severe enough", then why are "we" trying at every turn to do away with the Death Penalty? Why it then that prisoners have Rights? Were they not given Due Process? Should "we" not be able to strip them of their Rights? So, that they can not clog up the Judicial System with frivolous law suits.

PS, et. al.

Had Mr. Harris had a gun, and shot both intruders, we would not be reading about it here on MSNBC (can't keep our ratings up so we have to change our name to NBCnews). It would no longer fit into their agenda.

Just to clear up a few things, there is no such thing as a gunshow loophole, that is a teem that anti gun goons made up to scare people... If you buy a firearm at a gunshow you will get a background check done by any legal firearms dealer!!!! The only time you do not get a background check done is when you purchase a firearm from a non legal firearms dealer!!!!!!! Sorry but there is not way to stop that as long as guns exist!

The comparing cars to guns when it comes to registering I find funny seeing how all of the libs refuse to compare the death rate of cars when we talk about the amount of deaths caused by them!!! I also would like to point out that firearms are protected under the 2nd amendment and there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution about being guaranteed the right to own a car!!

The reason that we should not have a gun registry is because it leads to corruption of the politicians and if the time comes that they decide to take them away unlawfully they would know where to go so no registry prevents them from being able to take them away unlawfully!!!

For those of you that do not know about gun laws I will also let you know that all firearms are cataloged when they are manufactured, two rounds are fired from every one of them and the ATF keeps both of those rounds for keeping track of them!! When you purchase a firearm you fill out paperwork on that firearm and it is kept for a period of time before it is required by law to be discarded so technically all firearms are tracked and data is kept on them!!!

The other thing you all should know is that the so called anti assault weapons ban would not prevent the majority of the deaths they represent less than .0001% of the murders in the USA so when odumbass brought up the 1000 deaths and how his proposal would have stopped them he was lying his butt off because they were not done with the so called assault weapons!!!

What makes a firearm an assault weapon under this new proposal?

Threaded barrel, bayonet lug, pistol grip, folding stock, more than ten rounds in a magazine!!!

So using the logic of those proposing this any firearm is an assault weapon that has a piece of plastic on it is an assault weapon, a .22 is an assault weapon or even a 12 gage shotgun!!!

I also like the statement "we are not trying to take away your guns" If you are preventing a person from buying one you are TAKING IT AWAY!!!!!!!!

For the people who do not like guns, do not buy one!!!

The fact that this guy did not have a firearm to protect his family and the criminals did is what is wrong with the idea of more laws, we have like 12,000 laws fro firearms already and they are not being enforced so what makes any of you think that one or two more would help?

More gun laws just mean more unarmed citizens defending themselves and more armed criminals commiting crimes against them!

Annie comments, "I didn't think anyone listened to Fox news anymore but it's stunning how many are completely uninformed."

It always makes me laugh when one side thinks only the other side is misinformed by biased news. Get real, NBC News is just as guilty of misinforming, slanting, and selectively reporting the news as Fox.News, you just can't see it when the bias slants your way and fits your unexamined personal opinions. Wake up people, virtually all news sources these days are are just political propaganda machines.

My heartfelt condolences to the family that is suffering through this tragedy. The father acted heroically and deserves to be remembered for his brave and selfless act.

He had no gun. I'm sure this would have been a different story if he did

How do you know that? Unless you have a gun in your hand with your finger on the trigger and manage to shoot first and more accurately, then the other guy with a gun, then it is useless. Having a gun in your house does not mean it is impenetrable. It also does not mean that you will not be shot dead first.

@Sam... When I was twelve, two guys broke the back garage door of my house. I was home alone..When I heard the glass break, I grabbed and loaded my shotgun. (yes it was mine, not my fathers)... THEN called 911.

Once they found a sledge hammer to bash in the back door, they stepped into the house to find themselves looking at the business end of a 12 guage.

It took 15 minutes for the police to arrive. After the guys were lead away in cuffs, the cop congratulated me.... so no, most certanly THEY would have been shot first.

Can anti firearm person here tell me that these were two first time criminals? They didn't have a record nor ever were involved with the law before???? My guess is that they had a wrap sheet already on them.. and they were let go due to prison overcrowding or time off for <joke> good behavior?

1.50

Dear Mr. DumbFarmBoy,

Gun trafficking is a profitable illegal BUSINESS

Guns are sought after by gangs..and in high crime (usually poor) areas.

It's an easy-peasy way of transferring weapons to the wrong hands. I'm stunned that you haven't read how law enforcement identifies this as their #1 problem.

In an effort to discourage guns in the CITY of Chicago, gun shops were prohibited. Just outside the city borders, guns are purchased and transferred.

Surely, you've heard of the "corridor" that goes from States to States....

So lets not pretend that this can't be remedied. If you don't believe me, call your local police chief.

Demographics on gun trafficking are obvious....

How else do drive by shooters in Chicago randomly SHOOT a perceived "gang" member? That gun wasn't purchased at the local Walmart in that city.

RI Mom,

I understand that you are liberal, and therefor ignorant, but let me help you out. Most gangs get many of their guns from other countries as well. The Mexican Mafia is huge in transporting guns to Latino gangs, and international gangs like MS 13 from El Salvador also deal largely in international sales of guns. If we had such a bad time keeping our own guns, you would think that Mexico, with their huge restrictions on gun possession would have more crime with American guns, yet they get most of their illegal arms from central America. So your idea that restricting the rights of people in Florida, would help the people in Chicago is quite laughable.

Yes, RI gun trafficking is illegal. Therefor, the people who participate at either end are criminals. Most of them have probably already served time for breaking various laws. If current laws were enforced properly and criminals who use or traffick guns were locked up we would all be safer.

I live between Chicago and Detroit (your "corridor") and all the local law enforcement leaders that I know of are much more concerned with criminals and crime in general, not their weapons or where they came from. (That is the real ones who don't just pull people over looking for the easy money making opportunities) These same honest officials would telll anyone that they should do whatever possible to look out for the safety and well being of themselves, families and neighbors. The reason they would say that? Because they know that help most likely won't get there in time.

I personally feel for anyone who is a victim of violent crime, especially ones who aren't even allowed a legal chance at self defense, as is Chicago and other places where the political class feels they know what is best for their constituents, even while they are protected by their own security detail.

This is FAO any of the dullards that decide to use the UK as an example of gun regulation without actually really knowing any of the facts.

Home invasions may have been on the increase, and there might have been a handgun ban in 1997. However, 'guns' are not totally illegal and there are in fact more legally owned guns now (at least in 2011, which is the latest data I saw) than there were in 95/96 or 97.

RI Mom

1.50

Dear Mr. DumbFarmBoy,

Gun trafficking is a profitable illegal BUSINESS

Guns are sought after by gangs..and in high crime (usually poor) areas.

It's an easy-peasy way of transferring weapons to the wrong hands. I'm stunned that you haven't read how law enforcement identifies this as their #1 problem.

In an effort to discourage guns in the CITY of Chicago, gun shops were prohibited. Just outside the city borders, guns are purchased and transferred.

Surely, you've heard of the "corridor" that goes from States to States....

So lets not pretend that this can't be remedied. If you don't believe me, call your local police chief.

Demographics on gun trafficking are obvious....

How else do drive by shooters in Chicago randomly SHOOT a perceived "gang" member? That gun wasn't purchased at the local Walmart in that city.

#1.58

Did I say Gun trafficking was not profitable? No.

So, what is your remedy, since gun trafficking is already illegal? How about we enforce the existing law?

You blather on about the problem, yet offer no solution, except to violate my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Nor do you address the fact that the states the guns are coming out of have lower crime rates than the ones they are being "Trafficked" into.

Here is the real solution.

Let’s start by allowing those teachers who WANT to ( I have 2 sisters-in-law willing) get the proper training and let them CCW. One armed guard verses 4 or 5 teachers, who, by the way, ARE ALREADY ON THE PAYROLL! (Short term, inexpensive fix to school safety)

How about we study the problem, You liberals are always going on about how we need more Government Research into things like this, well instead if rushing to ban guns, let's find out which guns, and how they are doing the most damage and address that issue? (everyone, including you, is throwing around dated statistics from all over the world, from all types of biased groups, to suit what ever argument is being made at eh moment.)

How about we do away with the HIPAA laws that prevent the release of mental records for background check purposes? (We need to ensure that there is an appeal process though, to correct mistakes in the background check database)

How about we allow the temporary commitment of mentally unstable people, until the courts can decide upon permanent commitment? (This is what allowed and was the motive behind Adam Lanza’s attack on Sandy Hook.)

How about we start getting rid of these Government Programs whose unintended consequences is the destruction of the tradition family? How about we make ‘Dads’ relevant again?

How about we start treating things that are illegal, like they are illegal? Illegal immigration? Illegal Drugs? And criminal activity in general? How about we start executing 3^rd time offenders?

I have said it before and I will say it again, liberalism must be a result of brain damage. You obviously can not connect the dots.

except to violate my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

HOW.... do tell....

and after you give those specifics....

...ask your teacher sisters-in-law who WANT to carry a gun around....what does LIBERALISM mean.

HINT: liberty

Then ask them how many in their school will be WANTING to join them.

Will your sisters-in-law be able to handle all those other classes?

except to violate my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Hmmm....if you've been violated..... call your local sheriff......don't forget to mention all your suggestions...

.

.

and then consider becoming a "Big Brother"to all those kids who could use a "relevant Dad" mentor. (yes, that is a liberal idea)

Wireknob

Annie comments, "I didn't think anyone listened to Fox news anymore but it's stunning how many are completely uninformed."

It always makes me laugh when one side thinks only the other side is misinformed by biased news. Get real, NBC News is just as guilty of misinforming, slanting, and selectively reporting the news as Fox.News, you just can't see it when the bias slants your way and fits your unexamined personal opinions. Wake up people, virtually all news sources these days are are just political propaganda machines.

My heartfelt condolences to the family that is suffering through this tragedy. The father acted heroically and deserves to be remembered for his brave and selfless act.

#1.54

Ditto. Good call. I like how the lefties call it "Faux news", yet when I call out other networks bias, and give examples, I am called names.

I got my lesson in 1979, when my neighbors and parents went to DC to protest Carter's Ag policies. The media (then it was only NBC, ABC & CBS) portrayed the farmers as hooligans, and showed the few of them cutting "kitties" on the Mall Grounds with their tractors. What they didn't show was the large number of them dragging fire engines and ambulances through snow clogged streets. A snow storm hit DC shortly after they arrived and the snow plows couldn't clear all the streets, so the farmers, in usual farmer tradition, pitched in where they could. Since then I have trusted the MSM, to include Fox, to only give me (us) their version or part of the story.

10 yrs in prison for committing a crime with a gun plus time for the crime(no time off for good behavior).Any former felon using a gun in a crime in after being released 20yrs minimum sentence. As far as immigration,close the borders,send all illegals back(including obama's relatives,been here for twenty years)save billions on food stamps,health,housing,crime rate,gangs. as far as new gun laws they aren't going to change anything except make it harder for legal carry harder.Gun store in CT. had a barred door( 3/4 inch bars)ripped off door, stole pickup truck load of guns and ammo,never recovered.cops made it there in 15 minutes too late except to shut off alarm.This administration is following same path as Russia,China,Cuba,Germany,and the rest of dictator controlled countries in taking away gun rights a little at a time. 1st it's type of gun,than it's caliber of gun,than it's capacity,next is location (stored in a central place that you have to sign it out,after that it's confiscated.Read your history if there is still any accurate ones left.

RI Mom #1.64

Dear Dumb__________

Stop bashing me .

Then stop being asinine.

Keep your damn guns

I'm the last person in the world that wants your guns.

Yet for some reason you(or those of like mind to yours) seem intent on keeping me (we gun owners) from getting them or more of them.

State by State, County by County, Town by Town SAME UNIVERSAL GUN CHECKS is a common sense solution that is too hard for you to comprehend.

And how do you expect to enforce such a law? My city already requires a background check for guns sold by private citizens within city limits. Yet there is no way to verify the transaction.

When your sisters-in-law go through comprehensive mental background checks and SWAT training...and pass, for yearly certification..and your entire community pays taxes for that... post again.

Why do they have to go through any extra training beyond what a security guard would get? And the tax payers would have to pay for that as well as their salary.

Let me know when they wrestle a criminal to the ground and prevent a home invasion.

They wouldn't, if their husbands had not already shot the intruder, they would have.

Making things difficult should be for everyone...not just teachers.

I have no idea what this ramble is about.

When cigarette prices went up, along with an anti-smoking campaign...EUREKA...lung cancer deaths went down.

I have also mentioned this before, "they (the gun control crowd) are pursuing ongoing attempt to "price gun owners out of existence,". Which basically what they are doing to tobacco. However, having tobacco is not a Right that is listed in the limits set upon the Federal Government by the Constitution, Firearms are. And that Right shall not be infringed, either physically, nor financially. Also, I might point out, that since access to health care, is a Right, at least to those who sponsored and rallied to have the ACA passed. And since the Government is now on the hook to subsidize those who can not afford health care. They are now equally obligated to subsidize my Right to Firearms. Bet you didn't see that can of worms coming did you?

Your rant about illegal immigrants has nothing to do with the Florida home invasion. Apparently, that community has BIGGER issues.

My rant was not about illegal immigrants, my rant was about not treating illegal immigrants as being ILLEGAL same as most illegal drugs. (which btw, drug overdoses caused more fatalities than car wrecks in 2009, about 38k) My rant was we treat these people like delinquents, not criminals.

And those nasty, snarky comments about my "liberalism" as brain damage.... demeaned your entire epistle .

A lack of reading comprehension, the inability to make logical or rational conclusions from the data presented, the inability to admit failure or mistakes, all seeming traits of liberalism can only be explained by some sort of damage or impairment to the Frontal Lobe. It is not to be demeaning, it is merely the statement of an observation.

Gun safety is my priority...

So is it mine. The problem is that you see guns as the problem. I see the lack of a responsible society, (that is a society with consequences for poor judgement, rules that are enforced, discipline, etc) Also, you seem to have no understanding of guns, their uses or there overall purpose. Which makes anything you suggest as a solution, pretty much useless. Until you understand the problem, you can not fix the problem. You (and those of like mind) are like a doctor trying to diagnose a patient from a black and white photo. And you are only address a symptom, not the disease.

YOU... I don't give a flip about. Chances are, you'll shoot yourself

And don't worry your pretty little head about me. I am more than well versed in guns safety and knowledge. Having said that though, we are all still human, and accidents still do happen. Who knows an aircraft may fall out the sky and land on either of our houses, which would put one of us out of the others misery.

Those dirty bastards need to be pumped full of lead when their found. This BS about the wheels of justice is in need of a horsepower increase for faster justice..Not in years, but weeks.

RI Mom #1.65

except to violate my Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

HOW.... do tell....

and after you give those specifics....

First it was the FCA of 1934, and the limitations placed upon automatic firearms and others with no real rhyme or reason (one needs to be fully knowledgeable in firearms to understand the true idiocy of this Act, or at least large portions of it), then again in 1968,(although this one does have some merit as it is mostly based on interstate commerce) and the list continues, but that is debate for another day.

But I guess the main point of the argument is that the Federal Government is restricted by the Constitution from infringing on my Birth Right to Keep and Bears Arms. This includes all arms, not just certain arms. And this is something you will never comprehend, nor will you ever understand the full meaning behind the Founding Fathers logic behind that Right. And the truth is, I truly hope I(or any of my decendents) never, ever have to fully exercise that Right.

...ask your teacher sisters-in-law who WANT to carry a gun around....what does LIBERALISM mean.

HINT: liberty

From Wikipedia: Modern American liberalism includes Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, gay rights and government entitlements such as education and health care.[1] Modern liberalism stands in opposition to modern American conservatism on most issues, but its relationship to progressivism is debated.[2][3][4][5][6][7]

But I am guessing you were going for the Classical view of Liberalism, in the Age of Enlightenment. Well, just like the word "Gay", it no longer means "Happy or Joyous" it means "Homosexual". Liberalism no longer means "a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law, generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy, and private property"

Wikipedia again, has a pretty good summation of both Modern and Classical Liberalism. You should try and read them. I guess when you get right down to it, A conservative, is nothing really more than a Classical Liberal.

Then ask them how many in their school will be WANTING to join them.

Will your sisters-in-law be able to handle all those other classes?

I will do that and report back, give me some time. But my guess is, several other teachers will be, would be willing to join them. And as I have said in other posts, what is better, 1 or 2 armed guards with basically targets on them to be taken out first, or 4 or 5 teachers, incognito. (the element of surprise returns to them.)

and then consider becoming a "Big Brother"to all those kids who could use a "relevant Dad" mentor. (yes, that is a liberal idea)

I shouldn't need to, after all these children have Fathers of their own, but I do help out where and when I can.

We have to register our cars, and so far...i've yet to see the govt sweep through the country snatching up all our cars, despite having them all registered.

Jessica,

Driving is a privilege and not a right. There is nothing to protect your "privilege" to drive or own a car for that matter. While I agree with you that guns are available and law abiding citizens could have them registered, there can be no comparison between a "right" and a "privilege."

The question which really needs to be asked is: to what extent should the government be involved in one's personal life? Should you register your religion with the government? I ask this one question because this is another protected right of every citizen. Keep the government in its proper place and punish those who break the law. Stronger punishment for those who break laws with guns is all that is necessary.

Really, this story is about a family who suffered greatly and I pray they find a way to cope with their loss.

I have no problem with owning a gun, or using it to defend your home and family. What I do have a problem with, is, after a burglar is down, and is no longer a threat, to take a "finishing shot". When you do that, you're no longer defending your home. You just committed murder.

John If the criminal is still rolling around and has a gun in his/her hand they will receive a double tap to end all doubt.. Some states do have the flee law that says if you can jump out a window and abandon your family that what you should do.. It is illegal to defend your own family in your own home if that means harming the poor intruder..

I laugh when a liberal says they don't want to take your guns away and firearms will still be legal.. If we did not fight for the right to keep and bear arms as described in the second amendment they would have already been taken away to the last one.. It is only that loud voice of gun owners yelling as one that gets the politicians attention over the steady drone of the liberal socialist/communists who have the nerve to sit at their keyboard and lie.. Do you think that Dianne Feinstein would not try in an instant to write a law that would make all of us peasants unworthy of owning guns if she had the opportunity.. Would you tell her Hell no?? How about the first amendment or the third or the fourth.. Are you ready to say hell no they won't go to these zealots??

Could this guy or his wife have intervened if they had a gun of any type?? Who knows, but at least they would have had odds in the matter instead of just a 0.0 chance..

Roadrunner0

John If the criminal is still rolling around and has a gun in his/her hand they will receive a double tap to end all doubt.. Some states do have the flee law that says if you can jump out a window and abandon your family that what you should do.. It is illegal to defend your own family in your own home if that means harming the poor intruder..

And those laws are in Blue states, with a high concentration of Democrats and Liberals, who are supposed to be "the fighters for equality" for all. I wonder if they realize how discriminatory and derogatory those "duty to flee" laws are to those of us who are crippled?

I was in an accident about 20 years ago. They ended up removing my ankle bone and fusing my shin bone to my heel bone. Needless to say, I can no longer "run away" from a fight. And granted, I can still kill a man with my bare hands if it comes to that, and he is close enough. I would rather keep my distance and use a firearm, as I am not as young as I used to be, either.

Good post, keep up the good fight.

@Roger, you would have ran and hid behind women and children to save your self like a typical anti-gun pansy.

Its not the Gun that bothers me it that MORON with his finger on the trigger, people think they are KING KONG when they own a gun and that's one HELL OF A PROBLEM, because now they are looking for trouble and don't give me that BS that it's not true, its the same as drinking and put them both together and someone is going to die, I'm not saying people should not have a gun it all depends on the individuals look at our Police officers you can't tell me that most are not bullies just because they carry a firearm because if you do you're full of SH_T, anyone that thinks you shoot first and ask questions after should not be anywhere close to a GUN.

Remember...the catch phrase gun violence was coined by the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

As I clicked on the COMMENTS and waited for them to load, I thought to myself, "I wonder how many posts there will be before someone brings up the "gun control" issue." By Gosh, NewEnglandGirl, you were the first one to post and the first one to bring it up! You get the prize! No mention of how traumatic it must have been for that 11 year old to witness her father being shot, or how the wife of 14 years will be a single parent. No mention of the fear some homeowners are in now that there's been another home invasion reported. No, it's all about the politics for some people. That is shameful!

the anti gun crowd is living in la la land as if they can sit down around the campfire, sing kumbaya, ban guns and everything would be great...

they like to say that banning assault style weapons and the standard 30 round magazine for them will slash gun violence..

it's just the first step in driving guns into a black market and starting a 'war on guns'... and we all know how well the 'war on drugs' is going.... record prison populations, record military hardware sales, decades of suffering, people who need help afraid to ask for it, rampant violence between gangs, erosion of rights... all kinds of stuff.

Australia and the UK have banned guns for decades... and criminals get them easily, Australia has a 600% rise in armed home robberies, London has a higher gun assault rate than most major US cities (I don't get why their murder rate is low, I guess they are bad shots or they are sentimental or something)

the world is blanketed with guns..... humans have been making weapons for millions of years and will keep doing it no matter what....

if this guy had a gun in a kitchen drawer and everyone in the house was trained, they would have had a chance.... if they just fired one or two off these guys most likely would have left instead of having a gun fight

you anti gun people disgust me with all your cherry picked statistics, half assed theories, and complete naivete about the real world....

Cocked & locked 45acp...... I refuse to go quietly into the night........

I'm surprised that nbcnews the most liberal of media outlets would even post this story! They tend to shy away from stories that don't support obama's current effort to circumvent the 2nd amendment!

Cocked & locked 45acp...... I refuse to go quietly into the night........

sounds like you should go enlist

Steve -44 were you with the LAPD?

If you have to ban guns, while you're at it, ban cocaine and methamphetamines. Those drugs are killing our youth!

Coke and Meth are killings kids almost as fast as the gangbangers in Chitcago!!

Bogy Registrar I put my time in(4 yrs)I own guns,any body that breaks in will be shot.I didn't work all my life to have some dipstick think he can walk in and take things and if he touches my family there is only one way they will leave my house and that's in a BODY BAG.

common: I too, wonder why he didn't. Maybe he thought that guns and kids in a household don't mix.

sdn.........and now he's dead because he lacked the power to defend anyone.

Yes, let's blame this brave father and husband for not having a gun...SMH. Totally sick. If you choose to have a gun, how nice for you, but let's not get so sick that we blame every family who doesn't have one.

Yes, let's blame this brave father and husband for not having a gun...SMH. Totally sick. If you choose to have a gun, how nice for you, but let's not get so sick that we blame every family who doesn't have one.

Everytime I hear that argument repeated I think of Liam Neeson in Batman Begins, blaming Bruce Wayne's father for being shot by the robber "because of his inaction". What an ass-backwards insane perspective. Sad sad story here, politics be damned.

Has it ever crossed anyone's mind that the father might have had a gun but could not get to it. Just because you have a weapon dose not mean you will always be in a position to use it. That fact is born out time and time again in the news.

I have a strobe system at the entrances and widow areas of my house. An unauthorized entry will trigger them at the point the house was entered. At that vary point the trespassers ether exit the house or they end up on my floor vomiting. I also use a system of always close nonlethal weapons. I am highly trained and I do practice "break ins" at my own home to test my front line system.

I will never feel the need to carry a lethal weapon. When you carry a gun you are far more restricted in where you can safely use it ( even in defense ) so that it has no chance of killing a bystander or striking another persons home. With none lethal, up to and including rubber rounds, you have an effective stopping power and an effective defense.

Even with all I have said, no weapon or defensive system is 100% simply having a firearm dose not mean you will not be shot by the bad guys.

Barron Whitehead

No one is wanting to restrict your ability to protect yourself from valid threats. Just because of that however, doesn't mean that SOMETHING doesn't need to be done.

Not true, and wrong. Laws currently in effect are enough. Enforce those laws. It is against the law for criminals to own guns and it is illegal to use guns to commit a crime. What part of that does the anti-gun crowd not understand? When alcohol was made illegal what happened? It was driven underground and even law abiding citizens became criminals. Marijuana, cocaine, heroin, crystal meth, ecstasy are all illegal and yet readily available. So restricting guns will only restrict law abiding citizens and will only increase exposure for law abiding citizens.

One more thing. The Supreme Court has determined that the police are under no obligation to protect you.

Laws currently in effect are enough. Enforce those laws. It is against the law for criminals to own guns and it is illegal to use guns to commit a crime. What part of that does the anti-gun crowd not understand?

Enforce those laws? Really? Then explain to me why there is currently no head of the ATF? The same gun nuts that scream such bilge are the same ones that have stated flatly that NO head of the ATF will be allowed to even come to a vote for approval in the Senate. And why does such an appointment even require senate approval? Oh yeah, the same nuts got a midnight rider on a completely unrelated bill to create this new mandate. THAT part I don't understand. Clear enough for you? So spare us with this complete crap about enforcing existing gun laws.

Another new concept for you to try to absorb. Just because someone supports some stronger gun control legislation, does not make one "anti-gun". I truly wish this home owner was armed with a Glock or two and had put the dog crap that came into his house in pine boxes. But I can, and this next part will be really hard for you to comprehend, at the same time want enforced licensing and background checks for fire arms.

One last thing. You forgot to mention that even with all the speed limit laws, speeding is "yet readily available" and quite commonly practiced by most people.

Barron....

Baloney

Baloney

At least the gun crowd puts forth well thought out and intelligent arguments.

@JSteve7 - Stray argument. A Head of the BATF is a political post and nort a law enforcement foot-soldier. All those cops and FBI agents and yes, BATF agents are putting int heir 60 hour weeks witht h e exisiting gun laws in place. Poitning a finger at the political theatre over the Director isn't stopping criminals from breaking into any houses.

Here's my plan...

1) grab gun

2) who goes there?

3) you'd better call 911... you're going to need it

4) I win

AKRandy -

Not baloney. The extremists want to scream that Obama is going to take away everyone's guns. Simply not true. Very few people want guns banned. Most people are fine with law abiding citizens having guns to protect their homes. No one is trying to take that way from anyone. That's just a scare tactic.

And, we can speculate all day as to what would've happened had there been a gun in the home. The mother or father could've grabbed it and killed the intruders. Or they could've fumbled with it out of fear, shot and missed the intruders, and experienced the very same outcome.

Having a gun doesn't guarantee you win when the bad guys break in. So, we need to protect the rights of people to own guns to defend themselves. And we need stronger laws to make it much more difficult for the criminally minded people to own guns. And gun owners need to take responsibility for their guns, to make sure their gun never ends up in the hands of a child or an irresponsible person.

I agree something needs to be done. Solution: Enforce existing laws! Out of the 70,000 applicants who criminally lied on their ATF firearms applications, and subsequently denied sale of firearms last year, only 70 were investigated and only 11 were prosecuted. The Attorney General response to these stats were that they didn't have the resources to go after them. So, if they don't have the resources to enforce existing laws, who is going to enforce new laws. Additionally the states are not doing there job reporting mentally ill patients into the existing database for background checks. Considering that a majority of homicides are gang related, known gang members should be entered into this database as well and additional due diligence be required prior to giving approval.

WinWin4all,

Read some of the pending legislation in California. There are documented bills presently on the table that call for confiscations if approved.

WinWin4All

AKRandy -

Not baloney. The extremists want to scream that Obama is going to take away everyones guns. Simply not true. Very few people want guns banned. Most people are fine with law abiding citizens having guns to protect their homes. No one is trying to take that way from anyone. That's just a scare tactic.

I'm getting sick of reading this freaking lie.

Two months ago this was what was being said. Now there are demands from rabid frothing-at-the-mouth people who want all guns banned and those who have guns to turn them in to have them melted down. What do you think that little stunt was about by the newspaper who printed the names and addresses of everyone in the area who owned guns?

Did you miss the newspaper and TV interview by Commissioner Kelly of New York where he admitted that of the 1400 shoot-outs police had with criminals last year, only three had involved rifles? And that he went on to say that the REAL problem was hand guns? What do you think that is leading up to?

Jim,

The head of ANY organization is critical to setting priorities, properly allocating resources, and maybe even more importantly, GETTING more resources. One of the biggest responsibilities of, say, the Secretary of Defense is to present the case to Congress for support for all of the needs of the Dept. The ATF is an organization that needs leadership just like the armed forces, the state dept, and even the executive branch of the US government. By your argument, Obama is nothing but a political head and not a "soldier" in the mud. But it's not just the refusal of Republicans funded by the NRA to appoint a head of the ATF and I think you know it. It is also ridiculously anemic funding for what Mr. Northridge is demanding. The NRA and their subordinates in Congress don't want the ATF doing @!$%# and that is no secret.

ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones. A detuned M15 misfired shooting 2 rounds with one pull of the trigger and the ATF came down on a Reservist like a ton of bricks.

I don't know the particulars of that case but agree that the ATF has MUCH bigger fish to fry. Sounds to me like the ATF is currently an under funded, flailing organization with lack of the proper leadership. Let me ask you, what would be the very FIRST thing you would recommend to get the ATF more properly focused on enforcing the laws that really NEED enforcement? OK, now go tell that to Mitch.

The problem is with the 'Something".

We do need to enforce the laws on the books. We do not need more unenforced laws..... Now when people say "SOMETHING needs to be done" what I hear is Won’t “Someone please think of the children” in that pastors wife form the Simpsons voice. Doing ‘Something’ just for the sake of doing ‘something’ will leave us with a worthless, knee jerk, reactionary set of ‘laws’ that do not help the problem or save lives. If we want to pretend we really care about solving the problem, enforce current gun laws without making up more and focus on mental health and what passes for our culture. What leads these scumbags to do these things and why? The type of gun they use is less important then what drives these filth to behave this way.

Forget / ignore the names of the killers and hold up the heroes like Maurice Harris as examples.

Chris,

Show me the existing "laws on the books" that prevent a violent felon from walking into practically any flea market "gun show" in the US and loading up on an arsenal of weapons.

JSteve:

. And why does such an appointment even require senate approval?

All presidential appointment require approval, it's part of our check and balance system which I will go into further shortly.

WinWin4All

"Not baloney. The extremists want to scream that Obama is going to take away everyones guns. Simply not true. Very few people want guns banned. Most people are fine with law abiding citizens having guns to protect their homes. No one is trying to take that way from anyone. That's just a scare tactic."

The second amendment is coupled with a few lines about militia for a reason. If the country wasn't armed during Revolutionary times and we only relied on our small army and not Minutemen farmers, we would have LOST. The amendment exists to prevent oppression from a tyrannical government or police-state. It exists so Americans can successfully stage a coup against a government that gets "too big for its breeches". It exists as a "check/balance" for the citizens! To keep their government in check. Big Brother knows this and it scares him. It threatens his expansive agenda.

If an attempt was ever made to confiscate guns, there would be a big problem dealing with those of us that know this. To surrender your weapons is to surrender your last line of defense against oppression. Keeping your weapons is not paranoia. It is preparedness. With recent maneuvers such as the 'Patriot' Act and the executive order allowing the seizure of infrastructure, resource, etc someone with a bit of cautious foresight could see the chessboard being set. Sorry, we don't all trust our government unconditionally. Who knows what future governments will be like? If you give up your rights now, you won't have them in the future. It is a piece of physical, mechanical, "what if" insurance.

JSteve,

"show me the existing "laws on the books" that prevent a violent felon from waling into practically any flee market "gun show" in the US and loading up on an arsenal of weapons."

Out of all the gun crimes commitied in the US, 1.6% of those guns are purchaced from Gun shows. Over 75% of gun sales in gun shows are from FFL dealers meaning that background checks are mandated by law.

The overwhelming majority of guns involved in crimes are bought illegally through straw purchases, black market sales, or theft. California alone has over 20,000 criminals with firearms bought from FFL dealers due to the backlogged background check.

What would make more sense, adding additional laws that will catch a few criminals while taxing law abiding citizens or, actually going after the many known criminals now? Even if a criminal gets denied a firearm at a gun show due to a background check, do you think that they will be prosecuted (they are not now)? Do you think they will say "well I can't buy a gun here so i'll stop trying"? No they will either buy one on the black market or do a straw purchase. Why don't we enforce the laws we have now and see where that gets us. If it is not enough then we should consider additional laws. Putting new laws into place without enforcing the existing ones will only put restrictions on law abiding citizens.

Truth,

All presidential appointment require approval, it's part of our check and balance system which I will go into further shortly.

Sir, before you make statements like this you need to know the facts. Fact: prior to 2006 the POTUS had the power to install a director of ATF WITHOUT congressional approval.

I firmly support a person's right to bear arms to protect ones family against criminals. I do NOT support the use of arms to shoot at officers of any form of the US government. With all due respect, I think those that envision a shooting war against our own government are completely delusional, if not bat @!$%# crazy.

The Fonze,

Out of all the gun crimes commitied in the US, 1.6% of those guns are purchaced from Gun shows. Over 75% of gun sales in gun shows are from FFL dealers meaning that background checks are mandated by law.

Just on the face of it, that "1.6%" number is ridiculous. I would be interested in your "source" of that one. I say ridiculous because such a number simply could not be determined to such a precision for a lot of reasons. One is that, as you know, in many cases the serial number is removed and the purchase history simply can't be determined. Another is that the origin of many weapons involved in many crimes simply isn't investigated. A big reason for that is lack of resources.

But as I've alluded in other posts on this thread, just saying enforce existing laws means nothing. Let's see people saying this to put their money where their mouth is.

jSteve

Fact: prior to 2006 the POTUS had the power to install a director of ATF WITHOUT congressional approval.

Well, good thing the law was changed...obviously to install a 'check' that should have been in place all along.

I firmly support a person's right to bear arms to protect ones family against criminals. I do NOT support the use of arms to shoot at officers of any form of the US government. With all due respect, I think those that envision a shooting war against our own government are completely delusional, if not bat @!$%# crazy.

Then you assume the government will always be friendly toward it's citizens. You also assume the mainland will never be invaded by foreign powers. Like I said, we don't all trust our government unconditionally. To give up your guns now means you have full faith in the government now and always will. I am sure Germans felt the same way prior to the 30's. Sorry, some of us plan for any eventualities which includes hostile governments. The Founding Fathers did, too.

Jsteve,

Just on the face of it, that "1.6%" number is ridiculous. I would be interested in your "source" of that one.

National institute of Justice: 2% of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows.

Uniformed crime report: 1.8% of firearms used in crimes come from gun shows.

My original statment of 1.6% was off by 0.2% or 0.4% depending on the source. At least I base my reasoning on relaible sources and admit when my data is off. Even if it is off by tenths of a percent.

Where is your data that banning "assault weapons," "high-cap magazines," and a national registry will reduce gun violence? I've been asking people this for a while and the best I could get is Mother jones says, NBC news says, and Huff post says.

"But as I've alluded in other posts on this thread, just saying enforce existing laws means nothing. Let's see people saying this to put their money where their mouth is"

So the goverment should just put in new legislation? They can't insist that DAs prosecute criminals with firearms?

Truth,

Well, good thing the law was changed...obviously to install a 'check' that should have been in place all along.

A "check", really? Then explain to me exactly how, in your mind, that is supposed to work. Wait, let me take a stab for you. The president appoints someone, the senate takes a vote, and the appointment is confirmed or not. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Then please explain why there is currently no head of the ATF. Please explain why McConnell and other senate Republicans have explicitly stated they will filibuster ANY Obama appointment to head the ATF. Come on, please, this is NOT about "checks and balances". This is purely Republican horse crap intended to completely prevent the ATF from doing the VERY THING the pro gun crowd is demanding on this vine thread.

To give up your guns now

You see, that is part of the problem right there. I've never said or supported this and I don't see anyone else here calling for it. It's because of this reflexive spewing of right wing talking points that meaningful discussions on this subject are nearly impossible.

The Founding Fathers did, too.

This is always open for debate but the founding fathers were protecting against the British trying to take their colonies back. Even if one is to accept a founder "intent" to protect against any new government intrusion, you know, it would have been pretty hard to envision the concept of say, an F-16, let alone nuclear weapons.

JSteve

A "check", really? Then explain to me exactly how, in your mind, that is supposed to work. Wait, let me take a stab for you. The president appoints someone, the senate takes a vote, and the appointment is confirmed or not. Sounds reasonable doesn't it? Then please explain why there is currently no head of the ATF. Please explain why McConnell and other senate Republicans have explicitly stated they will filibuster ANY Obama appointment to head the ATF.

Sounds like you know how it works already, you just don't like it. It prevents the president from filling top-level jobs with ANY crony he chooses. If there were no checks, we wouldn't have a president, we would have a king. Funny your brought up the British. ----As for the reasoning behind the blocks, I can't speak for the senators, but I would assume they know his candidates are likely very anti-gun just like he and Biden are. Birds of a feather flock together.

It's because of this reflexive spewing of right wing talking points that meaningful discussions on this subject are nearly impossible.

I'm a democrat that supports unhindered gun ownership, fyi. I still support abortion, gay unions, and most of the other typical 'libtard" agendas.

Even if one is to accept a founder "intent" to protect against any new government intrusion, you know, it would have been pretty hard to envision the concept of say, an F-16, let alone nuclear weapons.

Well, some of the military would be involved if a coup ever HAD to take place. You assume ANY pilot would follow orders to bomb his own people?

The government does not 'own' our nuclear weapons. The people do. A citizen organization ultimately controls them...Oh, wait. Our king made sure to seal up that loophole with that executive order! You don't find that odd? You don't find the multi-billion dollar bunker near the Denver airport for the government odd? You don't find the new 'secret' bases and 'camps' going up all over the country odd? You don't find the military conducting more frequent and thorough drills on 'domestic uprisings' and 'riot control' odd? Are you capable of seeing patterns? Can you see the future? Does it look brighter than ALL signs seem to indicate?

Fonze,

I will check out reports from the NIJ. Thanks for pointing to that. Ironically, what I did see there was a stated reduction of use of automatic weapons in crimes by as much as 72% in some areas (since you asked) following a 1994 ban on assault weapons (or at least called "semi-automatic). Certainly the mitigating factors are many which is why these stats can be somewhat misleading.

They can't insist that DAs prosecute criminals with firearms?

Who isn't insisting that? A general point I have is that the NRA pro-gun lobby seems to be against ANY limit to weapons what so ever. I mean, where does the right to bear arms end? Where is that line? LAWS rockets? SAMs? Helicopter gun ships? I listen to people like Truth talking about bunkering up against the US government and I say this is getting ridiculous.

Truth,

If you think what is going on with the ATF appointment situation is somehow correct or righteous, then you really don't give a crap whether or not ANYTHING with government should ever work. Just think ahead just a bit when someday there is a Republican POTUS and Democratically controlled senate and the Democrats make the same damn "crony" claim and refuse to even allow votes on ANY appointments for one or more positions. Don't you see, it's this very sort of crap behavior that public opinion of congress in general is less than approval for Charles Manson - single digits for Christ's sake. And your support of such behavior is allowing it to go on and maybe continue to go on ad infinitem.

Fonze,

I'm a democrat that supports unhindered gun ownership, fyi. I still support abortion, gay unions, and most of the other typical 'libtard" agendas.

You claim to be a "Democrat" yet use the phrase "typical libtard agenda". Democrat? Yeah right, beware of those selling bridges.

Fonze, sorry, let no one confuse your posts with the "Truth" :) I'm getting bleary eyed :)

JSteve7

You claim to be a "Democrat" yet use the phrase "typical libtard agenda". Democrat? Yeah right, beware of those selling bridges.

Eh, that's just what I'm used to being called when I defend other 'typical' agendas...that's why I put it in quotation marks. It's not a slip-up, it's sarcasm.

Just think ahead just a bit when someday there is a Republican POTUS and Democratically controlled senate and the Democrats make the same damn "crony" claim and refuse to even allow votes on ANY appointments for one or more positions.

I won't complain. That is the way the system is supposed to work. It's good for someone that has near-complete control to hear other opinions on domestic issues, national security, etc.

Truth,

OK, looks like I missed that.

But you really do make some outer space remarks like the government not "owning" and controlling nuclear weapons. Was your use of quotes meant to also mean something I might have missed there as well?

Also, IMHO, you confuse a check on what you perceive as "complete control" with complete non-functional gridlock.

But I will give you this, if you are indeed a "Democrat", you are living proof that blindly using labels such as liberal and conservative is somewhat pointless :)

Jsteve,

"Ironically, what I did see there was a stated reduction of use of automatic weapons in crimes by as much as 72% in some areas (since you asked) following a 1994 ban on assault weapons (or at least called "semi-automatic). Certainly the mitigating factors are many which is why these stats can be somewhat misleading."

It certainly is ironic that automatic weapons in crimes decreased during a ban on semi-automatic firearms. Personally I dont see how that correlates. The report that I have read by Janet Reno stated that there was no decrease in crimes comitted with the banned semi-automatic firarms.

"A general point I have is that the NRA pro-gun lobby seems to be against ANY limit to weapons what so ever. I mean, where does the right to bear arms end? Where is that line? LAWS rockets? SAMs? Helicopter gun ships? I listen to people like Truth talking about bunkering up against the US government and I say this is getting ridiculous."

The federalist papers further outline the role of the second amendment. The founding fathers intended that private citizens be armed equally as light infantry soldigers (firearms not rockets or explosives) The NRA is not advocating that private citizens be given the right to own rockets, bombs, etc.

The deamonized AR-15 has been available to private citizens since the 60s. You could get one easily and without a background check. Contrary to the Feinstein myth, the gun has not changed one bit in its operation since then. School shootings/ mass shootings in the US were all but unheard of until the 90's. So, if the gun hasn't changed then what did? If we are to overcome these mass shootings/ gun violence should we address the root cause or should we penalize law abiding citizens? Tell me what you really believe.

Then you assume the government will always be friendly toward it's citizens. You also assume the mainland will never be invaded by foreign powers. Like I said, we don't all trust our government unconditionally. To give up your guns now means you have full faith in the government now and always will. I am sure Germans felt the same way prior to the 30's.

Actually, Hitler was very much in favor of guns.

From http://www.natvan.com/national-vanguard/assorted/gunhitler.html :-

The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man's character.

Hmm... banning firearm ownership was utterly alien to National Socialism. Wonder what group of people, today, is like that.

Sorry, some of us plan for any eventualities which includes hostile governments.

Really? And how exactly do you plan to deal with an ICBM delivering a thermonuclear device at 7000mph and a nuclear fireball a mile across? Do share, please.

The Founding Fathers did, too.

The Founding Fathers never had to face down an aircraft carrier or a nuclear missile.

Fonze,

If we are to overcome these mass shootings/ gun violence should we address the root cause or should we penalize law abiding citizens? Tell me what you really believe.

I think what's happened is the recent mass shootings have shinned a bright light on the larger issue of gun violence. As a result, a number of proposals are being floated that might not specifically address the sadly typical "mass shooting". But I don't see this as a reason to reject such proposals out of hand. While we may disagree on the relative effectiveness of, say, mandated background checks with the purchase of "all" fire arms, just because such a policy would not have prevented some specific recent cases, that, in itself is not a valid reason to reject the proposal.

Should we address the "real" cause of mass killings? Sure and I will admit that such an answer may be very complex and not necessarily due just to a proliferation of high powered weaponry. But I will submit that such high powered weaponry IS at least a partial factor. Analysis of the Tucson shooting clearly showed that only when Laughner went to re-load was there enough of a pause for him to be stopped and that a case can be made for at least making 30 round clips less readily available in general. Then there is this gun worship culture which gets into so many young minds. I mean Adam Lanza's mother was obsessed with high powered weaponry to the point where I really believe the guy developed unnatural shooting fantasies. Couple this with a warped mind and or a grudge or two and this sort of thing is bound to occur. But I do agree that just banning any particular type of weapon will not prevent mass shootings in general. But maybe, just maybe, we might lessen the effect of, if not prevent, just a few.

What you see as a "penalty", I see as societal responsibility. There is another point that seems to get lost in all this discussion. That is, strong gun controls (not bans necessarily) can be an important tool for law enforcement. It is just one more way to put gun using criminals behind bars. If a criminal is stopped in his car carrying a high powered assault rifle and/or gun with an illegal capacity, he can be prosecuted severely just for that, maybe BEFORE he actually uses such weaponry in a crime.

JSteve7
Truth,

OK, looks like I missed that.

But you really do make some outer space remarks like the government not "owning" and controlling nuclear weapons. Was your use of quotes meant to also mean something I might have missed there as well?

Also, IMHO, you confuse a check on what you perceive as "complete control" with complete non-functional gridlock.

I meant what I said. Civilian agencies control the nuclear arsenal, not the Dept of Defense. It used to be the Atomic Energy Commission's job, now it is the Dept of Energy/Energy Research and Development Administration...While it was moved under the 'government umbrella', it still is not solely in the control of the DOD. This sort of answer's Byron's questions, too...not to mention if the US ever used such weapons on its own people, it would have to answer to the international community.

I agree, the "status quo" sometimes causes "gridlock", but these checks are needed. If they weren't in place, past presidents would have done MANY more things that didn't have ANY public support and we could be living in a completely different country. (I'd prefer a REAL, DIRECT-democracy where the people vote on most issues) Obamacare didn't have much public support. What if decisions like this were the norm? How would our country differ from a communist country if one man's whims were always enforced?!?

Truth,

For reference, the following is what you originally said:

The government does not 'own' our nuclear weapons. The people do. A citizen organization ultimately controls them

Maybe you didn't get the memo but ERDA is a GOVERNMENT agency. You seem to be confusing the concept of "government" with the Defense Dept and/or civilian-ism and God knows what else. Secondly, while ERDA does fund and oversee much RESEARCH (hence the name) into all things "nuclear", including weaponry, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do what so ever with how existing NWs would be used in any war or even where they might be pointed.

Obamacare didn't have much public support

You make statements like this and yet claim to be a "Democrat". A true Democrat believes Obamacare was a BS compromise with Republican pukes in an effort to do something about the 40,000+ people dead EVERY SINGLE YEAR from lack of proper health care. A true Democrat wants a "public option". Obama care trended under 50% public support ONLY because a huge percentage of people thought it wasn't good enough of a fix of the joke system we have had for years. Stop making BS claims about being a Democrat. I don't mind a good discussion with people I have opposing views with. I just hate disingenuous bull @!$%#.

A true Democrat believes Obamacare was a BS compromise with Republican pukes in an effort to do something about the 40,000+ people dead EVERY SINGLE YEAR from lack of proper health care. A true Democrat wants a "public option". Obama care trended under 50% public support ONLY because a huge percentage of people thought it wasn't good enough of a fix of the joke system we have had for years

Right, it got little support. If more democrats supported it, then those numbers would have been higher, now wouldn't they? We don't ALL oppose it for the same reason. You want to put everyone in a little box and label it. I don't support it because I don't believe ANYTHING should be forced on people!! Period.

Stop making BS claims about being a Democrat.

I don't have to prove ANYTHING to you. I can be a democrat without being in the same sheep-pen as you and thinking like you. Get over it!

You seem to be confusing the concept of "government" with the Defense Dept and/or civilian-ism and God knows what else

Not really. Government agencies can be/are still civilian in nature. If you'd read my post, you would see that I acknowledged it being moved under the "government umbrella". The point is no weapons will be launched without the approval of several people in the process. If you think our systems are 'online' and the president can just push a button from anywhere in the world, you watch too many movies. If they were online, they would've been hacked YEARS ago. If you think everyone in the process would follow orders, you have issues with faith in people. If you think they would ALL go along with targeting a US city, you have even LESS faith in the government than I do. From the military standpoint, that involves half-dozen men...One man on the phone inputting codes, one man inputting targeting information, TWO officers with the keys, etc....personally if I were in the military and given an order by the president to target an American city, I know EXACTLY where I would send the missile and it would NOT be where I was told!!!

Right, it got little support

Over 40%. Not what I call little. And guess what, that support is growing every day now that people are seeing some of the benefit, the biggest being that if we are FORCED to enrich-en bloated healthcare insurers, those fat ass insures MUST offer coverage to anyone. Secondly, once it was seen that Obamacare was the only way to get SOMETHING past pigs that are fine with 40,000 deaths (including many children) per year, almost the entire Democratic party (you know, "your" party of choice) got behind it.

How would our country differ from a communist country if one man's whims were always enforced?!?

Then, bringing out the "communist" references to the Obama administration. No, you don't have to "justify" anything to me. But I'll exercise the right to LOL and your laughable claims of being a "Democrat".

Secondly, once it was seen that Obamacare was the only way to get SOMETHING past pigs that are fine with 40,000 deaths (including many children) per year, almost the entire Democratic party (you know, "your" party of choice) got behind it.

I don't know what you mean by "entire". Those of us that still value personal responsibility aren't behind it.

Then, bringing out the "communist" references to the Obama administration.

Yep. Just like FDR, he has taken a crisis and used it to expand presidential power. History will be the judge of whether those decisions are right. As for gun control, I don't believe in holding society responsible for the actions of individuals. Passing laws aimed at trying to control human behavior don't work and never have. History provides many examples such as prohibition and drug control. When abortion was illegal in my state, so many young women "fell down the stairs" is was laughable!!

But I'll exercise the right to LOL and your laughable claims of being a "Democrat"

You do that. Like I said, I have nothing to prove to you. You just fall more in the "authoritarian" sector and I am "libertarian". You think governments should control their people, I think people should control their governments. That's all.

Truth be known, I think the population will eventually need to be culled and the government is doing a wonderful job at laying the framework. My arguments were purely in defense of the Constitutional, the Plan of Government, and the Check and Balance structure. So what if you don't support it. Like I said, authoritarian. All that pesky red tape sure gets in the way of the authoritarian/oligarch agenda, huh?!?

And if you truly believe a nuclear launch would wipe out so many people, you must live in one of those large population centers aka 'targets'. I laugh so hard when some calamity befalls them. You know, cockroaches cram together in a small space, too. That's why one can of fogger wipes them ALL out!

You can always buy guns from the BATF or Eric Holder(tell him you are running a drug cartel and they will sell you what ever you want,With out a back ground check if they won't sell tell them you call obama deal direct.

The deamonized AR-15 has been available to private citizens since the 60s. You could get one easily and without a background check. Contrary to the Feinstein myth, the gun has not changed one bit in its operation since then. School shootings/ mass shootings in the US were all but unheard of until the 90's. So, if the gun hasn't changed then what did? If we are to overcome these mass shootings/ gun violence should we address the root cause or should we penalize law abiding citizens? Tell me what you really believe.

This point needs to be Re-stated.
It was actually 1963, for further clarification.

And by all accounts from every "liberal media outlet" that I can find listing Mass Shootings (Mother Jones, Citizens Crime Commission, etc) going back to 1984 there was a startling number of ARs used in Mass Shootings.

That number?

TWO
Aurora and Sandy Hook.

49 years

*By using those liberal sources I eliminate the "Right slanted bias source" argument often used by anti-gun supporters

(Just in case someone wants to throw around Ad Hominems; I am a blue state, independent who does not own any firearms, as is my choice)

I'm confused. First you claim it's a lizard, then you say it's a weazel [sic]. Which was it? No wonder the cops can't do their job. You don't even have a clear description of the perps species.

Had I heard them, there would have been shots fired.

In most states, this would get your arraigned for felony assault and discharging a weapon; and if you killed them, possibly manslaughter and 20 years to life. In my state, you can only defend yourself when the intruder is in your home or coming at you. If you go to them, especially from the safety of your home, you're in big trouble.

Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you shouldn't train, both for the gun and the laws that govern their use. Please get informed before you end up like a certain Floridian.

You can always drag them inside after their dead...

Thankfully, Texas does NOT share your views on property rights.... ever wonder why criminals keep moving north?

Steve: so in Texas, if you catch someone stealing from your car - you can legally execute them on the spot?

It was possibly a new species; a hybrid of a lizard and a weazel.

I wouldn't want to kill someone. I would just like to hurt them enough that they never forget what a jerk they were being.

Mifo

Steve: so in Texas, if you catch someone stealing from your car - you can legally execute them on the spot?

It's the same in Kentucky, too. You can use deadly force to stop ANY felony in progress that is endangering lives. Our Eminent Domain law uses the word "dwelling". This is later defined as ANYWHERE you are an invited guest or are staying the night so it includes tents, etc.

How is snatching a purse from an unlocked car "endangering lives", though?

(and yes, I understand that the inside of a dwelling does and should have special designation).

Mifo

How is snatching a purse from an unlocked car "endangering lives", though?

(and yes, I understand that the inside of a dwelling does and should have special designation).

The written word provides a better explanation than I can give. I hope the links won't get blocked. I will remove the "http://" and hopefully not. Just add that on if your browser won't open the page (Adobe Reader)

www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/055.PDF (Home and OCCUPIED vehicle)

www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/080.PDF (Protection of property)

www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/070.PDF (Protection of another)

www.lrc.ky.gov/KRS/503-00/100.PDF (Prevention of suicide/crime)

Thanks AnOz - explains things well. (Note the distinction between the use of force and the use of deadly force, though).

I don't plan on killing anyone in Texas or Kentucky - but it never hurts to know the local rules and customs. LOL

There is not a demonstrated need for laws on assault weapons. Yes we had a few tragic events that involved assault weapons and the mentally ill but we should not compound the crisis by removing Americans rights. We have had thousands of tragic events involving handguns and even more tragic events involving impaired drivers. I don't see anyone screaming to take away handguns or outlaw alcohol. I don't see anyone trying to protect citizens from the mentally ill.

Thank you very much but I prefer to keep my rights and not hand them over to an incompetent government!

Yes we had a few tragic events that involved assault weapons

Oh, just a few tragic events where weapons were used that almost cut children in half, that's all. What's the big deal, right Cher? I don't wish that upon you or your family, but I do wish you had to deal with the aftermath and the "clean-up" so that you'd better understand what it is you're supporting.

Many are proposing banning magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Indeed, some are proposing limits even lower than that, but I don't recall that any serious politician has dared do that recently except when pandering in speeches to small audiences.

I supposed you missed the "two heavily armed suspects" part?

If I'm facing "two heavily armed suspects" (let alone three, which is not uncommon in home invasions), I'd like a few more than ten rounds in my firearm (although I do defend your right to have only one round if that's your personal preference - it's a free country and it's your funeral, not mine).

Three shots per invader is a good starting point -- two to center of mass and one to head (for example see Stage IV LEO test for one jurisdiction here). You don't wait to see if the first shot "worked" - when you are on target, you need to take that opportunity to deliver as much stopping power as feasible before acquiring the next target because effective target acquisition is time consuming compared to firing a second and third round. A single round of typical ammunition (9mm) often isn't very effective in stopping the target within a few seconds (the clean head shot is obviously the best bet to do so, but it's also the hardest to hit reliably - thus the sequence body, body, head).

Two suspects -- that's six shots if you hit every every one (unlikely - and if you miss the head shot, the suspect is possibly still very dangerous). Remember, this is "instinctive" shooting at fairly short distances at targets which may be moving evasively once they observe they have made the likely lethal mistake of invading a home where an occupant is armed. So, let's assume you need to return to the first target 2 seconds later because they are still a threat (even if they have a wound that will kill them via blood loss if untreated for ten minutes) -- there go three more rounds. You now have ONE round left. How do you use it if the second target is still a threat? Do you use it and render yourself defenseless (at least for a few seconds)? Remember, in a home invasion defense, you likely aren't wearing a belt w/extra magazines right where they were in your training - hopefully you have picked up the gun and a spare mag, but it's probably in your pocket right now -- extending the time to reload by perhaps a few seconds.

Pedestrian-in-SF, I'm sure you are aware that while the last assault weapon ban was in effect that there were no less than 30 school shootings involving them? I'm also equally certain that you are completely aware that the Department of Homeland Security is on record as stating that weapons such as AR-15 style rifles are immenently suitable to fulfill at least two roles: #1 providing home defense and #2 providing the basis for a "well regulated militia" as provided for in the Constitution?

The consequences of being shot by any weapon are serious and no one would belittle the aftermath of tragedies involving any shooting by any type of weapon, but it is not the weapons that we need to focus on - it is the evil sick people who get their hands on them that should be the focus of "gun control". Perhaps, as many have said, one positive move in that direction would be to mandate the death sentence for crimes in which a firearm is used. But that kind of thing pre-supposes that the criminal actually thinks they might get caught, or that the mentally ill even give a rodent's rectum about such a law.

alicia-3213128,

What does this have to do with assault weapons. More than double the amount of homicides last year were a result of hand, fist, sand pushing, than what was caused by rifles period. That does not even mean just assault rifle, but all rifles.

There is no mechanical or technical advantage that an "assault weapon" has over any semi automatic weapon technology that been around for over 100 years. The only thing the legally makes something an "assault weapon" is cosmetics.

Pedestrian-in-SF

Oh, just a few tragic events where weapons were used that almost cut children in half, that's all. What's the big deal, right Cher? I don't wish that upon you or your family, but I do wish you had to deal with the aftermath and the "clean-up" so that you'd better understand what it is you're supporting.

Sensationalizing the death of children does not a valid argument make. Statistically, of over 12,000 homicides comitted with guns last year, fewer than 400 were committed with any rifle, much less an assault weapon. And these were committed in a country where about 100 million citizens own about 300 million firearms. Confiscating ever long gun in the country would have a negligible effect on the murder rate. To paraphrase your comment, "I do wish you had to deal with the aftermath of a bad education in mathematics and statistics, so that you had a better understanding of what it is you are supporting."

weapons such as AR-15 style rifles are immenently suitable to fulfill at least two roles: #1 providing home defense and #2 providing the basis for a "well regulated militia" as provided for in the Constitution

No, 2k, I hadn't heard that AR-15s are any more "imminently" suitable for either of the examples you cite than weapons that are not specifically made for battlefields. Where does it end with you? What other weapons do you have to have? Hand grenades? Rocket launchers? How many more kids have to be mowed down by your "imminently suitable" toys while you make excuses for their proliferation? When will you stop being patsies for the gun manufacturers who gleefully flood the market and use fear-mongering to sell their product from their cushy seats in the boardroom at the NRA headquarters?

Sensationalizing the death of children does not a valid argument make.

At least as long as they're someone else's children, right Bill? And nobody is going to confiscate guns. Stop fear-mongering.

Pedestrian,

Rifles were implicated in just 323 murders in 2011. Note that this includes ALL rifles, not just "assault rifles". By comparison, "knives or cutting tools" were implicated in 1,694 murders (more than FIVE times that of rifles) and "Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)" were implicated in 726 murders (more than double for rifles).

It's inconceivable that all those murders would be eliminated by banning and confiscating all "assault rifles". Among those murders which were via "assault rifle", surely some (I speculate a significant percentage since the criminal's likely primary goal in most of these cases is to kill - and "assault rifles" are only marginally more effective at that job than handguns) would instead be committed via handguns.

However, in 2011 there were 3,555 "Accidental drowning and submersion" deaths (see table 2, bottom of page 18) - or over TEN times as many deaths as from ALL rifles. In 2006 thorough 2008, there were over 300 deaths of children five years and under each year in pools and spas.

Instituting a rigorous Federal licensing and inspection scheme for pools and spas with criminal penalties for abuse would be more effective at saving lives than banning "assault rifles". There is no legal issue since there is no enumerated Constitutional right vaguely referencing a "right to keep a pool or spa" so the Federal government could institute rules tomorrow and begin enforcement by next Monday. Simple and reasonable restrictions and rules to accomplish this might be along the lines of:

1. No person or entity shall allow an "unlicensed swimmer" to access a pool or spa owned or controlled by them unless that pool or spa has one certified (via a process to be defined by the Department of Swimming Safety (DSS)), lifeguard on duty continuously and exclusively monitoring every five, or fraction thereof, users of the pool or spa.
2. Violations of rule 1 shall be a class one felony punishable by not less than 20 years in Federal Prison.
3. The DSS shall create a program for licensing swimmers. Obtaining a license shall require the showing of strong swimming and lifesaving skills and good health. Swimming licenses shall not be valid for more than two years. The fee for a swimming license (including one water test and one written test) shall not exceed $500 (adjusted annually by the CPI). Swimming licenses are invalid at the time the holder has been convicted of any local, state, or Federal crime and may not be reapplied for until five years after all restrictions on that individual resulting from that conviction have lapsed.
4. It shall be illegal for any unlicensed swimmer to be within in 10 feet of a body of water (including, but not limited to, pools and spas) deeper than eighteen inches at the deepest location unless in the constant view and monitoring by a DSS certified lifeguard who is exclusively devoted to monitoring not more than five individuals lacking a swimming license.
5. Violations of rule 4 shall be a class one felony punishable by not less than seven years in Federal Prison.
6. The DSS shall develop regulations for licensing public and private pools with the intent of maximizing safety of authorized users and insuring the exclusion of unauthorized users.
7. All public and private pools and spa shall be licensed by DSS and subject to inspection at any time. The annual fee shall not exceed the greater of $1 per gallon of water (at full capacity) or $5,000 (adjusted annually by the CPI). Additional charges may be required for pools and spas which fall outside of canonical design guidelines established by DSS.
8. Each pool or spa licensee shall post a cash bond of $1,000,000 for each pool or spa. This bond will be returned (without interest) upon transfer of the pool or spa to a new licensee or upon verifiable proof that the pool or spa has been rendered permanently inoperable. Refunds will be reduced as specified in rule 9.
9. If a pool or spa becomes unlicensed either due to violation of regulations or failure to renew the license and pay associated fees, the DSS has the authority to immediately render the pool or spa safe and inoperable (including compete demolition and back-filling if deemed necessary by DSS). The costs of the this process (including law enforcement costs, legal fees and administrative fees) shall be deducted from the cash bond associated with that pool or spa. DSS shall have unlimited access without restriction at any time to the pool or spa with a lapsed license in order to carry out the provisions of this rule.

Serious politicians who cared about saving lives would be pursuing effective and reasonable restrictions with real teeth such as I have proposed above.

Note that pools and spas are hard to move, hard to conceal, and hard to import/export - thus regulating them would be a much more cost effective way to save lives.

Knock off the BS, Whatslegal. We're talking about weapons used to massacre large numbers of people in short periods of time, and you and the rest of the lobbyist lackeys know it.

Pedestrian, the numbers don't lie. People being killed by rifles simply is nowhere near the epidemic you and your side try to paint it to be. Your position is also clearly refuted when presented with evidence like the Virginia Tech massacre, where the shooter was armed with standard capacity magazines and two of the most common handguns in America, a 9mm and .22 caliber pistols. The .22 is arguably the LEAST powerful caliber in existence. He used these weapons to commit the largest school shooting massacre in modern history. You're speaking either out of pure ignorance of the subject or sheer dishonesty, neither is acceptable with a subject that quite literally can mean the difference between life and death.

As for "personal defense rifles" as Homeland Security/ICE likes to call it when they purchase them, or "patrol rifles" as the police likes to refer them, they are the most popular sporting rifle in America for many years now. They are, by definition, a weapon "in common use by citizens for lawful purposes" in this country. If you bothered to read the SCOTUS Heller decision, you would know that these are weapons that are going to be constitutionally protected. Wasting your time and political capital trying to push unconstitutional AND ineffective laws is not very productive.

Annie-322924

Jessica - thank you for enlightening all these people who suddenly think they won't be allowed to buy a gun. I didn't think anyone listened to Fox news anymore but it's stunning how many are completely uninformed.

maybe if you yourself looked at other news media..you would see the difference in how the full story of this account happened is reported compared to what NBC/MSNBC is reporting. Quite a bit of editing of the whole story by NBC/MSNBC......then you are the one being misinformed by not geting the full account, your getting what they ( NBC/MSNBC )want to tell you

lol @ NorCalDude - nice marketing strategy you've got there. Just like the 'Tea Party' just change the name and go about your business. "Personal defense rifles" - what a hoot. Which gun manufacturer on the NRA board though up that one?

Have any of you anti gun people ever read the NRA books on gun safety?Where do you think most police dept. got their training?Whose certified training course do you need to get a gun permit that is required by all police dept? THE NRA. Most of soldiers WW1 received gun training courtesy of the NRA.Look it up.

But it is not going to happen, what part of that don't you understand????? It is easy to see why. It is not registration, clip size, or type of weapon you want. RI Mom is exactly what all of you are. Your extremism is what defeats you, you are really not to different than the NRA. I am an independent social liberal that likes guns. RI mom, can you count, then count the democratic senators from the west and midwest, 12 or so right, well you won't get a single gun control vote from them. Usually I am pretty reasonable but when I read the diatribes from RI Mom, just want to go down and buy a 30 clip assault rifle. When you gutless wonders get honest about who is doing the shooting and where it is happening then I will listen.

I'm also equally certain that you are completely aware that the Department of Homeland Security is on record as stating that weapons such as AR-15 style rifles are immenently suitable to fulfill at least two roles: #1 providing home defense and #2 providing the basis for a "well regulated militia" as provided for in the Constitution?

And that's not to mention many of the Shooting Competitions that involve those types of Firearm.

Pedestrian-in-SF
No, 2k, I hadn't heard that AR-15s are any more "imminently" suitable for either of the examples you cite than weapons that are not specifically made for battlefields. Where does it end with you? What other weapons do you have to have? Hand grenades? Rocket launchers? How many more kids have to be mowed down by your "imminently suitable" toys while you make excuses for their proliferation?

Strawman argument.

Poorly done, but a typical tactic of Anti-Gun supporters.

Fact:
Since they became available in 1963 AR-15s and their clones have only been used in 2 Mass Shootings.

FYI: AR-15s were created for civilian use and not use on the Battlefield.

Pedestrian-in-SF

At least as long as they're someone else's children, right Bill? And nobody is going to confiscate guns. Stop fear-mongering.

This is a lie and an under-educated catch phrase of Anti-Gun supporters.

You need to educate yourself by looking into the New NY State Firearms Laws and the Laws purposed by your own Dianne Feinstein.
There's lot of Legalese involved but you'll find it if you bother to look.

Pedestrian-in-SF

lol @ NorCalDude - nice marketing strategy you've got there. Just like the 'Tea Party' just change the name and go about your business. "Personal defense rifles" - what a hoot. Which gun manufacturer on the NRA board though up that one?

I love how you "cherry picked" those three words out of that 2 Paragraph long factual post.

Very dishonest of you whether you are aware of it or not.

I admire your passion and respect the stance that you think you have.
Unfortunately, your lack of education concerning Current Firearms Laws, Proposed Firearms Laws(epsecially the ones in your state) and Firearms in general do you and your position a great disservice.

With proper education in the above subject matter, your opinion would become much more valuable to the discussion.

The answer as to "why" generally boils down to two things....drugs, or money.

pb in CA writes, "...considering that nobody is proposing to disarm law abiding citizens." Perhaps you should google your own Diane Feinnstein. Yes, people are advocating the complete disarming of the American populace. They are going about it piecemeal, since they know they can't pull it off wholesale. Before you go running off half-cocked, or shooting your mouth off, perhaps you should do your research.

P.S. It's illegal to purchase a firearm for someone else. It's one of the items on the background check. Again, do your research...

pb in CA
considering that nobody is proposing to disarm law abiding citizens.

If you actually believe that you need to read Heather's post.

Unfortunately, that "anti-gun" catch phrase is a Lie, made so by your own Dianne Feinnstein' proposals and the New Firearms Law passed in New York.

pb in CA
Universal background checks is a reasonable measure, and prison for people who make a living by circumventing bg checks WILL HAVE AN EFFECT.

Unfortunately, the Background checks often conflict with HIPAA regulations in terms of mental illness, that needs to be addressed or it remains a flawed system.

Federal fire arms regulations? And just what federal agency is responsible for that? Please see post 4.2.

"Use hollow point ammo - the hydrostatic effect is far more lethal"

Finally, a man with some common sense! There is also the fact that hollow points normally do not exit the scumbags body, that way there is less chance of unwanted collateral damage caused by a pass through.

Bad advice...hollow points are for idiots...what's wanted is 12 gauge double ought buck...

VERY effective! But, anything over a 10-15 foot distance, you're talking about too much spread on the pellets, especially if you are using a defender type or sawed off shotgun. Again, possible collateral damage to anything or anyone behind them.

As a certified firearms instructor, I often get asked what is the best firearm for home protection. I tell them NONE. NOT that I'm against a firearm for self defense. The very best defense is to have a big dog. It doesn't have to be a pit bull or Rottweiler, just big and loud enough to be scary. And post those beware of the dog signs!

Second, have good and bright lighting outside that is either on all the time or is motion activated.

Third, good locks.

THEN you look at a firearm. I recommend a tactical 12 gauge pump. They are usually just a couple of hundred bucks. Get the short barrel and short stock. Easy to swing in a room. I load it with #4 shot. More pellets than 00. The big key to this is that it won't overpenetrate. If you miss, you won't shoot through to the neighbors house. My .357 magnum will shoot from one side of my house through to the other. If you have kids in a bedroom, this would put them at risk. Also, in any shooting situation, there is high stress. Even the best shooters are likely to be shaky and have tunnel vision. Your aim is likely to be less than perfect. At 10 feet, a 12 ga #4 shot will put alot of hurt on any bad guy.

I'll take that mortgage, if you throw in a couple of silver plated 40.caliber Glocks with hollow point rounds!

Ummm,yeah, crimanals by definition should not have guns. The only person who should have stocked up on guns and ammo should have been the poor hapless homeowner who was killed.

If they were criminals who should not have had guns, then that implies that the guns they had must have been acquired illegally. Therefore, none of your gun laws would work to stop them. Your statement contradicts itself.

More Justice,

Did you even try to comprehend or understand what you wrote as you wrote it? The post you left above is moronic and a contradiction in itself. Criminals by law should not have guns in the first place. Does that stop them from getting guns illegally? NO! All your "feel good" gun laws do is make it harder for honest, law abiding citizens to protect themselves from the scumbags that couldn't give a sh-t about those very same laws.

Instead of your call sign being "More Justice", maybe you should change it to "More Common Sense", because you are definitely in need of all you can get.

Oh, and you have probably heard this already from some other wise, law abiding gun owner, but I will say it again,

Proper, effective gun control is called "using both hands to aim"!

So, you're saying he should have just given into them. How would he know they would not have killed them all (there are many examples of this happening, google it). No, thanks. I'd take my chances too.

Um...did you read the story? The gunman aimed a weapon at the daughter and the father stepped between them to protect her is how I read it. If your instincts would not kick-in in the same manner, than I hope no one ever threatens your kids.

BTW - calling a father, who acted in defense of his daughter's life and gave the ultimate price, stupid? Pretty low.

If the father had been wielding an AR_15 the outcome would have been much better.

I'm thinking that the poster lacks reading skills, he only knows how to attack and bad mouth the NRA

Cameron Ford

"Someone tried to play hero just like the NRA always says to do instead of being smart in the situation, and now his kids don't have a father because of it. Stupid."

So dial 911 when it happens to you...and die.

Cameron Ford,

Thank you for proving that IDIOTS still exist! You are a prime example of one, a living, breathing dumb ass. If you had read and comprehended the article, you would have understood that the father DID NOT HAVE A GUN, the scumbag criminal did! The father stepped in front of his daughter and took a bullet that would have probably killed her instead. The father is a hero for what amounts to saving the life of his child. Maybe if he had a gun, it would have been the perp dead instead of him. And yes, criminals DEAD is the way it should be. If more people would exercise their right to self defense, there would be a lot less crime in the world.

Just like a Libtard, you jump to conclusions before ever trying to understand the argument!

Cameron cannot help himself. He is conditioned to drool and type "NRA" when the NBC bell rings.

There are websites out there that give instructions on how to convert semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic ones. That goes for handguns as well as AR_15's. It's the shot capacity of the gun that is a big issue. At least in my eyes.

People should be able to protect their families. I respect the decision of anyone who chooses not to have a weapon in their homes. Might not agree, but it's their choice.

IAMMYOWNWOMAN If you look on internet there are sites that tell you how to build a nuclear weapon or most any other type of bomb.

You can dream................

Sarcasm Jimmy!

I would agree to long prison sentences if they are outsourced to third world country and if prisoner is released or escapes and is found in US no trial. Execution immediately.

I believe Turkey has a good prison system,all hard time,little or no escapes because if your on guard duty and a prisoner escapes you finish his sentence.

Morgan doesn't worry about such things. He's a zillionaire, living in a armed-guard protected hi-rise in NYC, to go along with his guard and alarm--protected mansion in the countryside.