jump to last post 1-50 of 79 discussions (857 posts)

The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control

  1. A Thousand Words profile image81
    A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago

    I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70 people, killing 12 of them, including a 6 year old girl. He had four weapons with him, including an assault rifle and was spraying into the crowd "like a sprinkler," according to one witness.

    This tragedy has brought up the gun control law issues that have been evaded by politicians for some time, now. What are your thoughts on the matter? Will changing the laws help? If so, to what degree should they be changed? What else can we do to avoid anymore mass shootings like this?

    What do you believe are some of the causes? How can we address them?

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The right to bare arms. This needs to change, it's old and no longer fits in todays world. Canada has far stricter gun laws than the U.S., but hand guns make there was across the boarder into the hands of criminals and gang members.
      There is no reason this guy should have been able to buy all the guns and ammunition in such a short time frame. Why does anyone need more than a hunting riffle?

      This needs to change.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Why he needed all the guns for self-defense of course.  Don't be silly! Guns don't kill people at all... he could have just as easily thrown rocks and killed and injured all those people.  Anyway... if you take those perfectly innocent ASSAULT riffles out of the hands of law abiding citizens that need them for hunting and self-defense at a quarter of a mile then only criminals will have guns.  Everyone needs a gun that fires 21+ rounds in a clip... just in case they miss that deer or that rapist the first 20 or so times.

        Anyway... gun control lobbyists shouldn't be able to use this as a sounding board.  It is completely fair to list the times that a gun might have possibly prevented a crime by someone else carrying a gun that  may or may not be illegal... but dead children and mass murders make gun rights look bad so we shouldn't talk about those.  After all those few prevented crimes more than make up for all the dead toddlers and high school cafeterias that have been turned into Cambodia.

        Just remember that guns make the world a safer place... just like nuclear bombs.  When everyone has them then no one will use them right?  Just ask North Korea... they just want theirs for self-defense.

        And if you disagree with any of this you are obviously a constitution hating stupid liberal who can't face facts.  Plus you hate America and baby Jesus.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But don't you know, it was all a plot by the FBI to make gun owners look bad?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yep... because they need the FBI to make them look bad.

            1. Xenonlit profile image60
              Xenonlitposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Ha ha! Gun owners are looking bad enough on their own. Shut down the NRA and we will be able to get better.

              1. 0
                Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No, a psycho who killed 12 people and wounded 58 is the one that looks bad.

                When 24 people die in one weekend in Chicago, the criminals, the city, and their godfather mayor look bad.

                Funny thing is when you hear a story about a person who LEGALLY carries a gun killing someone, it's usually due to some thug looking for easy money and the permit holder's unwillingness to just hand it over. Of course, then it's the thug that looks bad if the funeral director's make-up artist can't hide the hole.

          2. 0
            Tawadiposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I've never understood the lefts overwhelming desire to lump people into groups. Maybe it's a divide and conquer thing.

            As a gun owner and permit holder, I don't think the FBI had anything to do with this other than helping with the investigation, forensics, and clean up.

            IMHO, this horrible thing was committed by a young man who'd been through a lot of self-imposed stress, getting his education, and he snapped. One man snapped and it unfortunately manifested itself in the death of a dozen people. To blame that on all gun owners is like blaming inner-city crime on all the people who live in the inner-city. Neither make sense.

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Sarcasm is best left to people who actually know how to use it.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I thought she did well.

            1. Paul Wingert profile image81
              Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              @ Rad amn's first comment. Keep in mind, when the 2nd amendment was written, the single shot, 30 second to load, muzzleloading, flintlock, Kentucky rifle was state-of-the-art at the time. Up till 1931 (?) it was perfectly legal to own a machine gun. You can buy them through the mail or at yohur local variety store without a fuss. They were usually located at the isle next to the cases of dynamite.

              1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
                WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So what?

                1. Paul Wingert profile image81
                  Paul Wingertposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Apparently you don't get it.

        3. LauraGT profile image88
          LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Like.  smile

        4. phion profile image59
          phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If this guy didn’t acquire guns he would have turned to explosives not rocks.

          I guess you would like for the military and police to be the only ones with assault riffles, oh and the drug cartels, gangs, and people who could care less about laws. You keep your sticks and stones, and I’ll stick with the weapons of the day to protect my family.

          Guns aren’t going anywhere, at least until we figure out a more effective tool. Yes people KILL people, and what they use to do it doesn’t matter. Would a few pipe bombs have the same “gun control” conversation attached to it?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm glad that he didn't turn to explosives or chemical weapons... he might have the chemical ability to be able to kill every person in the room.

        5. Niteriter profile image78
          Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          LOL, Melissa. You stand irony and satire on its head! I think Bill Maher is about to be retired!

        6. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Gasoline and a blocked exit is so much deadlier than firearms I wonder why we sell gasoline at all.  In fact, so many more people die as a consequence of gasoline usage than by firearms usage that is is irrational that gasoline is refined at all.  we don't need gun control we need to ban gasoline.

          87 people killed in Happy Land arson
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

          How about amonium nitrate fertilizer - not only dioes it destroy the lives of tweekers but it was used in the Oklahoma City Bombing - it is time to ban it.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_c … g_the_bomb

          The 9/11 attack killed people using jet fuel.  Aircraft drop bombs, carry soldiers, guns and all kinds of toxic chemicals.  How many millions have been dilled by aircraft fuel?

          Time to ban all petroleum products, that should save so many lives.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Cool story bro...

            Honestly though as I never said to ban guns I kinda look at your post as proselytizing. 

            Realistically you just presented an argument about the evils of an unrelated product in an attempt to say that one thing isn't bad because another thing is too.  Which really doesn't work anyway.  Then you said we should ban it... which has nothing to do with any of my suggestions to make guns safer.

            So honestly... I really have to wonder what your point is.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              My point is that when ever presented with a danger we should ban it.  Life should be free of risk.  Things are just plain deadly and they shouldn't be allowed if they are dangerous.  If the government can make my life safe than that is what I want most of all.  There is nothing more important than keeping children as safe as can be accomplished by government - nothing else matters.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nice sarcasm...  However it is wasted on me since I didn't say we should ban guns.

                You know that though.  So once again... what is your point?

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That is my point.  Life is too dangerous to live without the govrnemnt making it perfectly safe - it is long past time to hand ourselves over to people who are better and wiser.  We should let the smart people in government tell us how to live.  i am tired of taking care of myself.  Government is here to take care of us. By us I mean the 99%

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Okay... let's try this...

                    Go back through every post I've ever made and find my "we should ban guns" statement.

                    Now... if you are arguing that government should have no laws at all that regulate public safety then that's another conversation.  Would you like to have that debate?

                  2. JSChams profile image61
                    JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6936933_f248.jpg

                    Like this right?

              2. nightwork4 profile image61
                nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                all i can say is why is the country with the least strict gun laws, the one with the most murders. i think everyone should have a gun in their homes but an AR15, ya right.

      2. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. The right to speak freely is old and outdated also. Who knew about the terrorists who would use free speech to recruit more people? That's why freedom of religion is outdated also. And that 4th Amendment? How can we possible afford that in an age of terrorism? And the 8th? -- we should be able to torture anyone we want for the info we need. I personally would get rid of the 5th Amendment also. Let's force people to tell the truth and incriminate themselves.

        If the founding fathers knew all the problems we would be facing in 2012 they never would have writting the Bill of Rights. Toss it all out.

        1. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I love sarcasm, especially when its used to destroy what the left considers "critical thinking"!

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Just don't be afraid to change it. Can you imagine trying to keep it as it is for another 500 years?

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, I can well imagine keeping it another 500 years.

        3. phion profile image59
          phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That sure would make a lot of politicians happy.

          Really critical thinking got brought into this? So the left considers throwing out the Bill of Rights as “critical thinking”? Freedoms and rights are what we should question?

      3. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
        schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "bare arms?"
        I don't mind baring my elbows or my arms, I like to show off a little cleavage too, oh you meant "bear arms?" :lol; sorry



        wink

        1. 70
          logic,commonsenseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can  bare anything you want, it's okay with most of us!  smile

          1. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
            schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            wink lol

    2. 0
      Emer420posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I believe that if you take guns away from innocent people, more innocent people will get killed by guns.  Criminals don't follow law, which means that they are still going to have guns no matter what the government does.  As long as there are guns in the world there will be unnecessary death.  Our military causes more unnecessary death daily than people realize.  This shooting really shouldn't be taken so seriously.  If you think about it, the shooter won, he is now famous.  Everyone is talking about it, and he is now a household name just for shooting people in a theater.  Do people talk about the guy that dropped one of thousands of bombs on a small town in the middle east killing not only terrorists but innocent women and children?  NOPE!  He comes home a hero for killing those terrorists and the innocent women and children are never talked about.

      As long as there are weapons, there will be death.  I think that people should stop making a big fuss bout it.

      1. A Thousand Words profile image81
        A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, the people of Aurora and the media even seem to have been making a point to make the victims more important than the man who did this.

        But we SHOULD make a big deal out of it until something changes. Saying it's not a big deal or that it shouldn't be seems to insult the very lives that are unnecessarily taken, whether by our military, or in crazy mass shootings. It's not enough to say "that's just how it is."

    3. phion profile image59
      phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Laws will never stop bad people from getting guns. If more law abiding citizens exercised their rights to have firearms, then maybe there would’ve been someone there to stop him sooner. I bet there wasn’t one person in #9 with a CC permit, possibly not one in the entire theater. I’d be interested in finding out.

      Regulating or reforming gun laws has never, and will never impact violent crime. Encouraging more citizens to be educated on the proper use of firearms is the only way to make progress in deterring violent crimes like this.

  2. Jeff Berndt profile image91
    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago

    When people are scared and angry, they make bad decisions.

    This massacre has made people scared and angry.

    You do the math.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And sometimes tragedies bring about useful change. Not likely in this case because of the grip the gun culture has on this country and the misinterpretation given us by a conservative Supreme Court.

      In this case it strikes me as obvious that when one individual buys an arsenal including several weapons including an assault rifle, large magazines and 6,ooo rounds of ammunition, bells should have been going off, and law enforcement reps should have paid him a visit. Militias have created similar and even bigger arsenals all over the country, unmolested and apparently perfectly legal under current interpretations of the Constitution and state laws. We can do better!j

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph, what change would you like to see? Banning guns? Different requirements to obtain guns?

        What evidence do you have that these changes would be beneficial?

        1. nightwork4 profile image61
          nightwork4posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          the evidence is simple to find. look at EVERY other country in the world with more strict gun laws, then look at the murder rate by guns. simple.

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Norway, Switzerland, Israel

            Chicago and Illinois among the most restrictive gun laws in the country - Chicago is the murder capital of the developed world.

      2. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph refuses to admit to the reality that nine of the Justices signed off on the ruling that stated the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. Kinda like a flat earther in that regard.

    2. Niteriter profile image78
      Niteriterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm afraid I didn't do well in math, Jeff. Could you please help me out with the computation of this particular problem?

  3. recommend1 profile image69
    recommend1posted 4 years ago

    In a country with the highest rate of people attending pyschiatric treatment, highest rate on tranqs and other medication, highest rate of addicted to crazy drugs, most fundamental dimwits and 36th in the world in educational standards - what else would you think might happen if you fill the country to the brim with every kind of weapon ?

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, with 80,000,000 people owning weapons then you should be able to find about 30 percent of them misusing them. But you can't. You can't find ten percent. Or five. Or even one percent.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just found one, but it's too late.

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          one out of 80 million. Your former schoolteachers must be proud of you for picking such diligent math and research skills.

  4. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago

    As much as the media and many self-interest groups will try to make it such, guns are not the culprit here...people and their insane behavior are.  One man in that dark theater armed with two containers of tear gas, a gas mask, and a baseball bat could easily have killed 12 people in the chaos of just launching the gas and the aftermath.  Insanity finds a way to surface.  Where do we stop with treating a situation and never addressing the cause.  Guns did not cause this situation...they were only a factor of it.  We can regulate guns, chainsaws, axes, knives, silverware, hammers, and on and on and still we will not address the real problem of individual mental health.  One might be far more effective in finding a solution simply by adding a requirement to submit to a mental fitness exam prior to purchasing weapons.  That would have far more potential than crushing all the guns.  A person in this mindset will acquire what is needed regardless of whether it is legal or not.  At the same time, had there been one person in that audience who was licenses to conceal carry or an off-duty police officer, either one, who fired a shot that stopped this person...the same media would be calling for his/her head for making such a brutal response and victimizing a potential killer...the same argument then arises..."we need to get rid of the guns".  Sorry, I don't buy it. WB

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne, if a concealed carry holder had stopped him, it would barely be picked up by the media.

      If you go searching for stories of CC people stopping crimes, you will find that they get reported on the local news, and almost never reported beyond that. That's why people don't hear about those stories.

      If one person kills a dozen people, the whole world hears about it. If one person kills a couple armed gunmen, only a few people hear about it.

      1. Wayne Brown profile image87
        Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @JaxsonRaine...I suspect that you are right though my impression of CC folks is that they are quite responsible and do not take on the act of "cowboying" with ease.  Like most police officers, few are ever faced with a reason to pull their weapons to stop a potential deadly situation.  Our national media seems to do a good job of sweeping anything under the carpet that works.  Thanks much. WB

      2. phion profile image59
        phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        JAX~   Very true. The lack of education that has even allowed this conversation to exist is sad. Its disgusting how the shredders of the founding documents always manage twist these tragedies to fit their narrative.

      3. tirelesstraveler profile image86
        tirelesstravelerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Not only ignored. If during a robbery, which was video taped by security cameras, one 70 year old man shoots the armed gunmen in the legs, he gets arrested.

    2. recommend1 profile image69
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I guess you can't see either that the kind of mentality that thinks everyone should have a gun is also responsible for the way loonies behave.

      And the idea that some heroic concealed gun holder would ride in to save the day is total baloney - if anyone else had started shooting only more people would have died.

      1. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really?
        Maybe, that would depend on who decides to shoot back and what kind of shot they are, such as background with their weapon. So please, save the BS.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think everyone should have a gun. I also think that it's fine for responsible citizens to carry guns.

        I'm not opposed to mandatory safety training or registration.

        As far as more people dying, that's simply not based in fact. Citizens use guns to stop crimes, a lot. If you are willing to dig, you can even find the local news stories of it happening. It just never gets picked up on a national level.

      3. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And isn't it amazing, folks, that people like this who never shot a gun, who are dreadfully afraid of guns, who believe that guns CAUSE good people to go bad, who only barely know which end the bullet comes out of, are somehow the people to whom we should take advice from on how well guns work for self defense?

        While we simple-minded, misguided, befuddled people with years and decades of military and other experience with guns in all circumstances really apparently have no clue about how to effectively make guns work, and without the anointed ones guidance we will merrily continue to shoot ourselves in our feet, kill our children, and generally screw up society?

        Like they say: When you're sick you go to a car mechanic; when you're in court you need a good butcher; and when you want to know something about how to defend yourself, you go to this poster.

      4. Repairguy47 profile image60
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, like maybe the bad guy,

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wayne I agree with you about looking at the underlying causes, not just the immediate causes. Socio-economic and cultural factors could have contributed to the mental state of the person who committed this crime, and are part of wider societal issues that need to be addressed. Perhaps this tragic event will be a catalyst for that.

      On the other hand, it's bitterly ironic (and slightly disturbing to be honest) that you and some others seem to see the lack of guns in the cinema audience as the problem here. Surely the problem was too many guns in that cinema, not too few.

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If too many guns were the problem, then why did the police bring more guns into the situation? Should not they have left their guns at the station house before responding?

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's escalation, and it's exactly the problem. The more guns there are, the more guns are needed as protection. Should a family need to arm themselves before going out to the cinema in case an idiot with a legally purchased assault rifle attacks them? Is that acceptable in civilised society?

          And why is a civilian allowed to buy an assault rifle? What possible, legitimate non-military purpose could such a weapon serve?

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Sport, hunting, defense, or simply for collection.

            The bad guys have guns. They have access to guns. No law the US passes will change that.

            You can't de-escalate. The bad guys won't stop carrying guns if the civilians stop owning them.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sport? Use guns made for sport (preferably air rifles).
              Hunting? Use a hunting rifle (preferably manual).
              Collection? Use plastic replicas (preferably recycled).

              Sorry, but I have no sympathy for gun enthusiasts. Guns are machines designed specifically to injure and kill. They have no other purpose, and there is no place for them in civil society. And it's not good enough to say "the bad guys have them, so we need them".

              Gun enthusiasts peddle fear to justify their unhealthy fixation on guns. Fear of being attacked in the home, fear of being attacked on the street, fear of terrorists, fear of tyrannical government. In fact (and it is fact) the majority of people are (thankfully) not attacked by the "bad men" either in their homes, or the street. The majority of people are not victims of terrorism and, despite what the tin foil hat brigade say, most people are not in danger of being forcibly oppressed by the government. Most people go about their daily lives without being attacked, terrorised or oppressed in any way. Gun junkies simply paint that doomsday picture to help them justify their habit. 

              Why should people who don't need or want to own a gun suffer the consequences of relaxed gun controls, just so a bunch of people with an unhealthy fixation on guns can legally get their fix? This idiotic, juvenile (and mostly male) gun culture needs to stop. It's not the 18th century, the US is not the new frontier, and the west is no longer wild. There are well trained, professional law enforcement officers, and a mature political and judicial system. Improvements undoubtedly can, and must, be made to those systems, but they won't be made through the barrel of a gun. The US is moving out of its infancy, so time to put away the childish boys toys. In my opinion, instead of evangelising about the sacred gun that can protect us all from the "bad men", gun junkies need to grow up, stop the hysterics, and find some other way to sooth their paranoid, doomsday complexes.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for sport.
                FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for hunting.
                FYI Don, collectors don't like replicas... it's kind of the whole point of collecting.

                Ok, what is it enough to say? The bad guys have them, so we don't need them?

                Let me get this straight. You want to use an event that only happens to a minority of people to justify why the majority of people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against that kind of event?

                Don, get over it. I have the right, as an American, based upon the Constitution, to defend my life and property, and that of my family. I also have the right to defend others if I am able to.

                Either the bad guys aren't killing people often enough for us to need to try to ban guns, or they are killing people enough that people have reason to be prepared. It's ridiculous to think you shouldn't be prepared for an event that could take away the only life you will ever have.

                First of all, the majority of guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. I could go online and buy an illegal gun today if I wanted. Anybody can. No gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the US.

                Secondly, law-enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual person.

                Third, law-enforcement will almost never be able to show up in time to save your life if someone tries to kill you. It took police 7 minutes to apprehend the shooter in Aurora. A lot can happen in 7 minutes. People use guns millions of times a year to protect themselves and others, because the police aren't always there when they are needed.

                You have no right to advocate that people not be able to defend themselves. You can't do anything, or propose anything, that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So all your suggestions will only serve to disarm people who want to be able to protect themselves.

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for sport.
                  FYI Don, AR-based rifles are used for hunting.
                  FYI Don, collectors don't like replicas... it's kind of the whole point of collecting.


                  FYI Jaxson, I really don't care about yours or anyone else's desire to play shooting. That's not good enough reason to keep machines designed to kill people in circulation.

                  Let me get this straight. You want to use an event that only happens to a minority of people to justify why the majority of people shouldn't be able to defend themselves against that kind of event?

                  No, I want gun junkies to stop being hysterical and peddling fear, and I want some men to stop feeling they can only demonstrate their masculinity through powerful (usually destructive) machines. There are plenty of phallic substitutes for us men to fixate on. We don't need guns. Cars and bikes serve the same purpose, but at least they are designed with a useful function in mind.

                  Don, get over it. I have the right, as an American, based upon the Constitution, to defend my life and property, and that of my family. I also have the right to defend others if I am able to.

                  Yes, yes, you need a  gun to protect yourself and your family from the boogeyman. But the reality is that the majority of people are not victims of serious crime. Unfortunately not being a victim of violent crime isn't deemed newsworthy and doesn't get reported on much. Violent crime is and does. But let's not allow that to distort our perception reality. There is no one waiting to break down your door, no one waiting to attack you or your family as soon as you leave your house. You are statistically more likely to be involved in a car accident than killed by a criminal. My advice is to stop drinking the mainstream news media's kool-aid.

                  Either the bad guys aren't killing people often enough for us to need to try to ban guns, or they are killing people enough that people have reason to be prepared. It's ridiculous to think you shouldn't be prepared for an event that could take away the only life you will ever have.

                  Surely every gun death is one too many. That's my point. If you fight fire with fire, you just get more fire. Trying to reduce gun crime by glorifying guns and arming everyone will just lead to more gun deaths. It sends out the opposite message that you want to send out. In my opinion society should be making guns abhorrent and objects of disgust, to the point where no one would own up to owning one in public. That should be the message. That things designed for the sole purpose of killing are not welcome in modern society and they certainly aren't glorified or honoured.

                  First of all, the majority of guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. I could go online and buy an illegal gun today if I wanted. Anybody can. No gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals in the US

                  Sorry but the "there's nothing we can do, gun controls don't work" argument doesn't stand up. Child pornography is really hard to control too. Does that mean we should legalise it?

                  Secondly, law-enforcement has no obligation to protect an individual person.
                  Then work to change that.

                  Third, law-enforcement will almost never be able to show up in time to save your life if someone tries to kill you. It took police 7 minutes to apprehend the shooter in Aurora. A lot can happen in 7 minutes. People use guns millions of times a year to protect themselves and others, because the police aren't always there when they are needed.

                  Crime is an issue every society needs to deal with, but the logical conclusion to your argument is literally that everyone carry a gun. That solves nothing and only looks at it superficially. Society needs to deal with the underlying issues that cause crime in the first place. That's not easy, but since when did something being difficult become a reason not to do it?

                  You have no right to advocate that people not be able to defend themselves. You can't do anything, or propose anything, that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. So all your suggestions will only serve to disarm people who want to be able to protect themselves.

                  Guns are not the only form of defence against crime. Education is another. Just socio-economic policies are another. Intervention in the lives of young people from dysfunctional families is another (majority of death row inmates are from dysfunctional families). Better male role models is another (majority of violent crime committed by young men). Gaining better understanding of mental health disorders is another. Neuroscience and the study of how our brains work is another. Understanding the biological reasons we do the things we do is another. The only difference is that those things will have a much greater impact on the problem, and a longer lasting one, than the shiny, metal, noisy, phallic-substitute objects you and others seem to worship.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Just to answer one part 5 out of every 6 people in the US will be a victim of violent crime according to the FBI.

              2. Jack Burton profile image82
                Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Don... could you leave me your phone number?

                You see, when you said that, "Guns are machines designed specifically to injure and kill. They have no other purpose," you opened my eyes to the new concept that all my guns that I bought over the years are defective. I have put thousands of rounds through each one and they have never, not once, even come close to killing anyone (not even a rabbit).

                With such obviously defective guns sold to me I am thinking that I can take them back to the stores and get my money back. I still have all the receipts going back decades.

                But just in case the gun shop owners don't quite see the point I would like to be able to refer them to you for your expertise on the subject. Surely you'll be able to help them see the light that selling defective guns to an unsuspecting person is unethical.

                I promise only about 20 gun shops will be calling on you. By the third or fourth one you should have your arguments down well.

                1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Don is a rational person. He,s completely right.

                  Assault weapons may be used for sport and hunting, but they are not necessary for either. They are bought mostly by mouth breathing paranoid gun nuts and Mexican drug lords, not knowledgeable hunters or competitive target shooters.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    This is the best that Ralph can do, eh...

                    :-)

                  2. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ralph knows that the October 2009 issue of Outdoor Life, the premier magazine of hunting and fishing, prominently featured an AR style rifle on it's front cover, and declared it one of the top ten deer hunting rifles of the year.

                    Let me repeat myself. Ralph knows this. And yet he denies reality. Which brings up two questions...

                    1) Who ya going to believe... the experts who make their living writing articles about firearms to people who understand firearms and can spot B.S. right away... or a mope on the internet who knows the truth but wants you to believe otherwise.

                    2) Why does Ralph feel compelled to lie about something when he full well knows the truth? What inner compulsion drives a person into this position? I means, honestly, Dear Readers... do YOU have a compulsion to lie about the things that you know are the truth?

                  3. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Ralph doesn't know a darn thing about competitive shooting either. Camp Perry is the national match each year, with the best shooters in the world competing in a dozen different categories.

                    Which type of rifle dominates the matches.... let's read Chuck Hawks, one of the premier shooting writers and see what he says...

                    "Camp Perry service rifle competitions are dominated by M16 type rifles, and the use of the M1A or the M1 is extremely limited. While I will probably never move to shooting a M16 type for competition, the individual who wants to be competitive should consider such a proposition. The M16 type has lower recoil, more inherent accuracy potential, and better ergonomics. Additionally the advent of 1/7 twist rate barrels for the M16 type allow the use of heavier bullets thereby allowing shooters to shoot very accurately out to 600 yards."

                    http://www.chuckhawks.com/camp_perry.htm

                    For those who don't know, the M16 is the military equivalent of the AR, which Ralph just declared as not being used by "competitive target shooters."

                    Ralph continuously strikes out, Dear Readers. But he is valuable for those of us who stand on the side of freedom. His shining example of the misinformation that he puts forth allows everyone to understand the sheer bankruptcy of the anti-freedom arguments.

                2. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If I put a hammer in my toolbox and never use it, it doesn't stop being a hammer. Likewise, putting your gun in a draw and never using it doesn't doesn't stop it being a lethal weapon. The fact you haven't used your guns to injure or kill doesn't change the fact that they were designed to do exactly that. 

                  Would you be happy with Iran having a nuke as long as they keep it in the silo, and don't use it for what it was designed for? No? Why? According to you that's a perfectly valid argument for keeping a lethal weapon.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Errrr... I do use my guns... many times a year. Perhaps you missed that part.

                    And Don said that guns have "no other purpose." If you want to continue to argue that I am always willing to be amused.

                    And it takes a special kind of person to confuse personal self defense with nation's having nukes.

                    BTW, the operative phrase in your post is "you haven't used..." Think about that for a while. Perhaps something will come to mind... such as the gun being totally subject to the purpose I choose to use it for.

          2. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Read my hub on Evil Black Rifles and you'll learn.

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I have. Read my reply above by way of response.

          3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
            Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yeah, the government could issue every child a handgun with a 30 round clip after mandatory training at age12.  That would solve the school bullying problem and provide an additional bonus of reducing fhe gang banger population.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They issue them condoms and birth control pills now.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Which is a good thing.

  5. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Another thread has been started on it also, but talks about placing blame on who?
    http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/100940

    As for the Gun Control issues in this country, my hub addresses it, as does the picture below.



    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6924404_f248.jpg

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Charleton Heston is full of crap... there are plenty of decent people who owned guns who have buried children because of it.

      Were those guns a threat to those "bad" toddlers?

      I would ADORE a mental hygiene fitness exam for all gun licenses.  If I got that and stricter sentences for any death/wounding/crime committed because some irresponsible idiot had to have his "right" to own a gun but was too stupid to adequately take precautions then I would shut up and never say another word about it.

      The NRA would crap bricks over either of those suggestions though.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Just curious Melissa, what would you want in a mental exam?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The MMPI combined with a review of any past mental health treatment records would be sufficient I would imagine.  Repeated every 4 or so years.

      2. Cagsil profile image82
        Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Melissa, you're over-looking the point. Self responsibility is what he's advocating. If someone lost a child because of irresponsibility of ownership, then that's not being responsible is it?
        This is one of the most ridiculous things you could have ever said.
        I'm sure you would, but would never happen.
        Not likely. Think you would still complain if something happen out of pure happenstance/accident.
        I'm sure they would.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The quote says nothing about responsibility... it simply lumps bad guys as being the ones that cause gun violence and the good guys as being completely harmless... which is crap.



          Actually I thought it was pretty apt... If only bad people are hurt by good people who own guns then the children who die must be bad.  I would just once like to hear a gun advocate say "Yes it is quite possible that your children will die with the gun you brought into your home for protection".



          I'm sure it won't.  Nevermind that license requirements for DRIVERS licences include mental hygiene questions in many states... yet owning a gun is fine.



          Only if it was an obvious failure of responsibility.

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Decent(honest) Good people are not going to purposely kill others. Get real. When people are responsible about their ownership, people don't get hurt.
            And, I said already that it would be by pure accidents. Accidents do happen with people being responsible. You're looking for perfection and that's just wrong.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              She knows she is wrong and it doesn't matter. She is only trying to use the issue as a hammer against freedom. If she was truly concerned about kids she would be agitating for the removal of swimming pools, bikes, and a dozen other things that do far more harm to children each year than guns.

          2. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How about if we say, 80,000,000 homes with guns and about 50 children die each year from an accidental gun death (which, BTW, the rate is falling at a consistent pace over the past 20 years).

            That means that for every 160,000 homes with guns, an accidental death will occur. That odds are far less than one in one-hundredth percent of happening. While each childs death is a tragedy for the family, and community, trying to scare people into thinking that their children are going to die if a gun is in the home is willfully fraudulent and typical of the misinformation that anti-freedom people purposefully spread.

          3. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            When you find a driver's license in the Constitution then get back to us. BTW, a driver's license is only required if you drive a car off your property.

          4. phion profile image59
            phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            This is a silly and futile argument. Guns aren’t going anywhere, and more importantly people aren’t going to stop killing people anytime soon.  As my grandma would say…bless your little hearts.

            Melissa~ My kids could be killed by guns, someone else’s gun, my gun, my car, your car, lightning, a shark, shall I go on? They are much more likely to be killed by a car than a gun I keep at home, so you give up your car. Isn’t that the same reasoning?  I guess violent crime would stop shortly after the passing of the Melissa Gun Control Act, along with kids not getting killed accidently by guns.  I know you’re just trying to use some common sense to make the world a better place, but it’s not going to happen.

            I’d prefer to not need weapons at all, but in our world they are the best method of protection.  Hoping for the best and planning for the worst is a pretty sane rationale to have. For many of us, the planning for the worst part includes having guns. Sorry that’s just the way it is.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You haven't been keeping up have ya sparky?

              Read the whole thread and make comments at the end.  It helps from having the exact argument over and over.

              1. phion profile image59
                phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Your right they are mostly the same argument. I just thought I reiterate reality to you one more time. You’re not making any progress, either is this forum...don't have too much have fun beating your heads against a brick wall.

      3. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here is the best that this thinking is. Let's examine reality, though.

        Approximately 80,000,000 gun owners in our country. About 100,000 people do bad things each year with guns.

        So Melissa thinks that the problem are the 79,900,000 gunowners who cause no harm. She wants to subject the 99.5 percent to costly, invasive exams because of the .05 percent who most likely don't have guns legally and therefore would not be given an exam.

        Melissa simply cannot tell the difference between the 99.5 percent and the .05 percent. To her, they are all the same. The 79,900,000 people who go about their lives in a peaceful manner, disturbing no one, harming no innocents, are equally guilty in Milissa's mind as the thug who uses a gun to hold up a bank or mug a person.

        This, Dear Readers, is why the gun control movement has lost so much steam. They talk about "reasonableness" but when their ideas are actually examined it turns out they are living in fantasy land.

    2. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely....absolutely.

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    But...don't you think alarm bells should go off when someone buys all the supplies this shooter bought in such a short time, legally or not?

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, better checks and balances of online retailers is a must. Anyone buying huge amounts of ammo or guns, should be flagged by the FBI.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Anyone attempting to purchase anything other than a hunter riffle should be flagged by the FBI. Can anyone really walk into a store and by a semi in the USA? Can't do that in Canada. The USA had 88.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 5.22 per 100,000 in 2007 while Canada had 30.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 1.67 per 100,000.

        Statistics don't lie, but people do.

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes people do lie, but that still doesn't take away the fact that people kill people and the gun is just a means to an end.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Why not address the statistics I showed you?

            1. Cagsil profile image82
              Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Because the statistics are irrelevant to the largest issue which is freedom. Just because people can be morons doesn't mean you punish those who are in fact innocent.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You don't want to look at statistics, you want to change the subject and talk about freedom. Do you have the freedom to buy anything you want? Do you have the legal right to buy prescription drugs without a prescription or any drugs for that matter? How about tank? Can you buy a tank and park in on your driveway? Do you have the legal right to bring a firearm on an airplane? Why not demand your freedom to drink alcohol and drive? Do give me this FREEDOM crap.

                1. Cagsil profile image82
                  Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, I haven't changed the subject. I'm attempting to keep it on track.
                  I have the freedom to buy the things I need. Your statement is ambiguity in context.
                  Now, who is changing the subject? Good show.
                  Tanks are available on the black market. So, if I had the ability to buy one, then I would be able to.
                  Irrelevant.
                  Not presently, because rights are oppressed out of fear.
                  It's not legal to do, but that freedom is already there and no one can do anything about it, except pass along a consequence if caught.
                  Yeah, I know. You don't mind restricting other people's freedom. Talk about a waste of a good issue on the mindless ineptitude.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I didn't change the subject, incase you were unaware I was showing you your lack of Freedom. Which you brought up. You don't have the freedom to drink and drive, because if you get caught you go to jail. No freedom.

                2. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, I can buy a tank and put it in my driveway if I had room Nothing in the law says I can't and many citizens do own just that.

                  And up until a few short years ago we all could carry handguns onto airplanes and -- wow -- nothing happened because of it.

                  Your concept of freedom is that nothing is allowed unless the state specifically gives you permission to do so. The American concept is that everything is allowed unless the state denies it. I think most Americans greater prefer our style.

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here's all you need to know about Canada and guns...

          http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/01/20 … attackers/

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Here's all you need to know about Canada and guns...

            http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/19/nahom-tsegazab/

    2. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Which "supplies" do you think should have triggered the alarm? Millions of people buy somewhat identical amounts of guns and ammo each month and you think that because some wack-job hurt other people that all these millions that don't should somehow "trigger" an alarm?

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It does in Canada, because millions don't buy assault riffles. Even buying a hand gun in Canada is a lengthy process which involves character witnesses and background checks.

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Good for you in Canada.

          Apparently speaking freely also triggers alarms in your country...

          http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/edito … ee_speech/

          After the ability of the citizen to stand against the state goes away, it doesn't take long for the state to begin oppressing the citizen.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, Canada doesn't tolerate hate speech. If a white supremacist what to come in and spread hatred we don't allow it. Thanks for changing the topic when you know your wrong. You can argue with statistics.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There ya go, Dear Readers. A canuck who thinks he has the ability to tell which people what they can or cannot say, and if they violate his feelings he feels comfortable shutting them down, and even putting them in jail. And he wants to tell Americans just how much freedom WE should also have.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I call it over stepping individual authority. wink

              2. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't want to tell Americans how much freedoms you should have. Perhaps your not understanding. I'm merely stating that freedom is an illusion. None of us have complete freedom.

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So totally doesn't understand the concept of freedom up north.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I understand the concept of freedom up north. I know that not what you meant, but it's funny anyway.

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            In Canada the state PROTECTS it's citizens by making it difficult to purchase a gun. It's all a matter of how you look at it. With less than a 3rd of your murder rate they seem to be doing a good job.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              In Canada the state PROTECTS it's social deviants by making it difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase a gun to defend themselves with. It's all a matter of how you look at it.

    3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely. Quite obvious. Maybe the guys at HubPages could show them how ti improve the system.

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph wants the authorities to investigate the quite legal actions of millions of people each month because one person was psychotic. And the anti-freedom people wonder why they are losing so badly in the court of public opinion when they attempt to pass that kind of thinking off as "reasonable."

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Seems to a system would be easy to implement that would have resulted in an interview with Mr. Holmes which might have averted the tragedy.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Millions of guns bought each year. Ralph wants every single person interviewed, at the cost of billions of dollars, when he knows that 99.99 percent of the people buying them will never hurt a single person.

            As noted earlier, this is what passes as "sensible" by those like Ralph.

  7. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 4 years ago

    Guns Are A Primary Source for contributing to the death of citizens in America and around the world. Now others can claim that one can use explosives-(however we all know that exposes can be volatile-so not a good choice). We can say  we could use a knife and it could be an effective weapon if however your opponent has been trained to disarm a person with a knife-(not a good choice). A person could use a hatchet a hatchet would make a good weapon unless the people coming after you outnumber you are you one.

    I decided to keep weapons in our society is our problem we as citizens are also creating so that more innocent lives in the future will be lost to this stubborn denial of the truth.

    A solution I've mentioned before:
    we have the technology to create non-lethal weapons. We can ask the public to trade their lethal weapons in for these new nonlethal weapons.

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This statement alone shows you're not even attempting to understand what's bigger than the product/goods available.

      Guns are not the primary source. People are the primary source. The gun is a means to an end.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And I say you are wrong. People are brave because they have handguns or firearms take those away and you will have a few people who are brave without the courage of a handgun but you won't have that many.

        1. Cagsil profile image82
          Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Interesting statement. roll

        2. 0
          Emer420posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Criminals don't follow law and will still find a way to get hold of a gun.  There are ways to make your own home made guns.  People aren't thinking logical here.  Take all the guns away from the innocent people and the innocent people won't be able to protect themselves causing more deaths.

          1. SpanStar profile image61
            SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            You are correct-people still need to be protected and if you read what I wrote I said replaced the lethal weapon with non-lethal weapons. That way citizens can still protect themselves without causing further death to even innocent bystanders.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Star, you can protect you and yours with a spray can of cheese whiz, or a baseball bat, or even a Indiana Jones bullwhip all you want. Go for it. I'll back you to the hilt. Just don't think you have any say on how I protect me and mine with the best possible way of doing so.

              1. SpanStar profile image61
                SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jack Burton,

                I wouldn't think of telling you how to protect yourself. Just recognize that maintaining this wild West mentality is responsible for every man woman and child being killed through years of gun violence.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No, it's not.

                  Citizen's desires to have guns for self-defense is not responsible for criminals using guns to kill people.

                  By your standard, if all law-abiding citizens gave up their guns, nobody would get shot.

                  My having guns will only affect someone who breaks into my house or attacks me.

                  1. SpanStar profile image61
                    SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They deserve to have guns because we created a gun society. We have a society where people now must carry guns I don't know about you but it seems as though we missed the point somewhere about a society if all we doing is bringing back gun toting people from the date of the old West.

                    We come this far in the future only to continue to live in the past.

                2. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  That's as silly as stating that all social drinkers are responsible for every drunk driver who has killed a person on the road.

        3. Repairguy47 profile image60
          Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I wonder what would have happened if one brave CHL holder had been in attendance?

          1. Cagsil profile image82
            Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Hey Repairguy,

            I had this conversation with someone else on Facebook and the person told me that there were 4 people seeing the movie who were actually armed, but did nothing.

            1. 0
              Emer420posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Has that been proven?  Or  is that just a rumor?

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't know. I haven't yet investigated. I only mentioned what someone else said about it.

                Regardless though, if you stop to think about it....what does that say about the people who didn't do anything(if there were people armed)?

                12 people had to die and 50 others were injured, when after the beginning of the onslaught they could and had the power to stop it sooner. That would be a shame on them for not preserving the lives of those in their surroundings.

                Self preservation didn't even kick in? Why not?

                Why would they be armed?

                1. SpanStar profile image61
                  SpanStarposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Cagsil,

                  This is only my idea of why they may not have responded to the situation surrounding them. Every one doesn't have a killer instinct and people actually have to be trained to kill, one of the reasons why a soldiers goes through basic training it is normally not in our nature to want to take another person's life.

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    agreed.

                    "In the final moments of his life, Trayvon Martin was being hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him, according to the teenage girl whose call logs show she was on the phone with the 17-year-old boy in the moments before neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman shot him dead."

                    Why does a neighbourhood watch volunteer need a gun?

            2. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A gun is not a Harry Potter magic wand. There are many situations where they just are a lump of metal in your pocket. Better, still, to not need one and have it than to need one and not have it.

              1. Cagsil profile image82
                Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'm not suggesting it is.
                Yes, they are.
                Correct.

            3. Repairguy47 profile image60
              Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I did say brave.

        4. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, before guns were invented mankind lived in virtual paradise.

    2. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      :-)

      I am sure the rapists, muggers, home invaders, burglars, mass killers, terrorists, white-sheeted bigots, gay bashers, gangbangers and anti-Semites will be lining up to take advantage of your trade-ins.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And where do you think the above list of people are getting their guns?

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Errrre... they are criminals. c r i m i n a l s. And you do know that it takes about five minutes in a decent home garage workshop to build a workable gun, don't you? You didn't know that?

          Hmmmm......

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The USA had 88.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 5.22 per 100,000 in 2007 while Canada had 30.8 guns per 100 residents with a murder rate of 1.67 per 100,000.

            How is your gun control policy working out for you? Your murder rate is over three times higher than Canada's and you have 3 times the amount of guns per resident. Hmmmm. Do you really think more guns will help?

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So what your point? That social deviants do bad things when they get the opportunity? That is surprising news, eh.

              I know this might be a new concept to you, but freedom is neither predicated on statistics, or bound by the actions of those who are outside the law.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                So why not take away the opportunity?

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How?

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How? If the Gun gives the opportunity, take the gun away (or limit the purchase). Which is the hardest part because big money is being made selling them.

                2. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, it's illegal for a criminal to buy or own a firearm. I guess in your mind we can make it "double illegal." No one will possible violate that.

                3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
                  Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Good question!

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    How do you take away the opportunity Ralph?

            2. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Rad, if you really think you can just compare homicide rates across countries, without even attempting to control for any other factor, then you truly fall under the 'lies, damn lies, and statistics' category.

              As gun control laws in the US have loosened, homicide rates have fallen. The US has a naturally high crime rate compared to other countries, for many, many reasons. Guns are not it.

              Guns are used in the US millions of times to stop crimes. In our current environment, it's better to have an armed, responsible citizen base, as compared to a defenseless one.

  8. clp2190 profile image59
    clp2190posted 4 years ago

    I'll admit I have not been partial to either side of the gun argument in the past, but I think the answer lies in improving the technology associated with guns. I think installing microchips in the guns that lock the guns firing mechanism when in certain locations could go a long way in solving the issue without inhibiting anyone's 2nd amendment rights. If my phone can track my every location and send me targeted ads based on my location, than I believe something similar is at least possible for fire arms in the US.
    Of course a question some of you may have is how do we find all of the older guns and install this new technology? Who fits the bill with the associated "upgrades"? How can we ensure that the chip is not uninstalled?

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you know how guns work and the tremendous stress that they are under? There is a reason that the barrels, slides and much of the parts are made from steel.

      And just what locations do you feel should be off base to people with guns? Do you know you just advertised those as "victim disarmament zones" to any bad guy in town? Take your pick, no one will be able to defend themselves.

      And do you know that it takes a couple of minutes to make a hand gun in a garage workshop? If I am a bad guy I will be delighted knowing that I am the only one in the room with a functional gun.

      1. clp2190 profile image59
        clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So there are no targeting mechanisms associated with any other weapon that fires projectiles under intense stress like navy gunships. I understand what you are saying but i believe american engineering could easily solve that issue. Also I would not  label them as victim disarmament zones, but simply as disarmament zones. FYI i know other critical parts of the gun can be made of plastic, reason why the M4 is so light. And why the m16 is a lot lighter than it's earlier version.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There would be an immediate demand for gun modification to bypass these zones, old guns, or custom guns without the chips.

          It wouldn't really be much different than just asking people to check their guns at the door on an honor system. Anything like that, law-abiding citizens will comply. Criminals won't.

          1. clp2190 profile image59
            clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            slippery slope...

          2. 0
            Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes I agree. You asked me to go back and look at your posts so I did. I made the same comment. The hackers would be hard at work. But it certainly would make it more difficult than sawing off a serial number.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I was wondering if you looked at my posts about Sweden and Florida, and about other states with low crime rates and high gun ownership rates. I posted this elsewhere, but do you see a correlation between gun ownership and crime rates?

              Homicide rates by state, ordered by gun ownership rates. One end of the chart is a state with 6% gun ownership. The other end of the chart is a state with 60% gun ownership. Can you tell which way the chart is ordered?

              http://i48.tinypic.com/wjixd.png

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think it's fare to look at stats from different states because guns can be taken in and out of individual states without checks. However if you look at states from neighbouring countries  such as ours that do contain a boarder that makes it a little more difficult to transfer guns you do see a clear difference between the murder rates and it's in direct correlation to guns per capita.

                1. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Haha, Rad, be serious!

                  You can't compare states, which have more similar socioeconomic conditions, but you can compare countries?

                  What does it matter if you can take guns across state lines? There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates.

                  The state with 60% gun ownership had homicide rates of 1.8. The state with 8% gun ownership had homicide rates of 2.6.

                  You can't say that more guns = more crime, there is no statistic to back it up.

                2. 0
                  JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Just for fun though Rad.

                  Canada, you say has a murder rate of 1.67.

                  North Dakota had 51% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.1
                  Vermont had 42% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.1
                  Maine had 41% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.4.
                  New Hampshire had 30% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.4.
                  Wyoming had 60% ownership and a homicide rate of 1.8

                  All those figures are old, too. Updated figures would be lower.

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I really don't want to carry around a Naval gunship in my back pocket so that is not a realistic solution.

          And why not call it what it is. If the law of unintended consequences allows the bad guy to be the only armed person in a room of victims then we should call it what it is.

          And the plastic they use in guns is extemely tough and durable. Electronics are not. And a 5 second pass through a microwave oven will disable any chip you can think of putting in there. Oh... I am sorry... the criminals won't do that because it would be against the law. My bad.

          1. clp2190 profile image59
            clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Ill admit it is not a perfect solution, but I believe it will defer a number of criminals.
            Obviously i was not insisting everyone carry a gunship in their back pocket... I was making a point that weapons that hold a lot more stress than guns have microchips inside them.
            And if the chip is damaged... then the gun wont work. A fail safe

            But i'm done with this discussion it seems you are getting a little to aggressive for my taste. I hope not all conversations are like this on this site.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              A vastly imperfect solution that puts innocents at risk, deters no bad guys, and will cost billions of dollars to do nothing and you wonder why I am so "aggressive" in pointing out the flaws?

              1. clp2190 profile image59
                clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The way things are constructed puts innocents at risk, deters no bad guys, and will cost billions of dollars to do nothing and you wonder why I am so "aggressive" in pointing out the flaws.
                I guess my imperfect solution and your lack of one are not that different!

                1. 0
                  Rad Manposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, it's not a bad solution. It would not cost much at all and would be easy to find if stolen. Might be hard to keep ahead of the criminals and there hackers, but at least someone is thinking.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Hey Rad Man, did you miss my posts?

                2. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  99.5 percnet of gun owners do no harm with the existing system. Your idea will cost those 99.5 percent of guns owners to lose about 98 percent of their guns that cannot be converted to your special idea. I hardly think that is comparable.

              2. clp2190 profile image59
                clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                The difference is i was trying to make suggestions that could potentially deter tragedies like Aurora, while you just sit back and say how wrong everyone else is. That is not good for a healthy argument.

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My lovely three year old granddaughter is having trouble braking her two-wheeler with training wheels. As a consequence she keeps running into things. We were working on the problem when she pops out with the suggestion that she just carry an anchor on her bike and toss if behind her when she wants to stop.

                  I have no idea where she got such an idea. But I commended her on her insight and creativity. However, I didn't spend a great deal of time wondering if such an idea was either feasible or would work.

                  If you need a pat on the back for creativity I'll give you one. But your idea itself is about as good as an anchor on a two-wheeler with training wheels.

  9. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Rad Man

    http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/florida-full.png

    If the number of guns is the problem, then why did Florida, which had always been above the national average for homicide rates, see such a drastic decrease in murder rates when it started allowing citizens to carry guns with them?

    1. clp2190 profile image59
      clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm not saying you are wrong by any means, but there are many more variables to consider before making deductive assumptions.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh, I'm not saying it's the only reason, but you can look at ANY state in the US when it passed right-to-carry laws, and homicide rates didn't spike in any of them.

        It does show that the argument 'more guns = more crime' doesn't hold water.

        Over the next year or so, we'll be seeing the crime rate in Detroit start to come down, finally.

        1. clp2190 profile image59
          clp2190posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That's a good point to make. Its not the fact we have more guns, its the fact that the wrong people get guns and use them in the wrong way. What I posted earlier is a good start to solving this issue.

  10. WD Curry 111 profile image60
    WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago

    Personally, I think is is bad form to delve into this until the families have had some time to grieve

    1. JBrumett profile image61
      JBrumettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, I agree.  That's why I don't bother debating these subjects online.  Arguing with people just to argue when you know the person you're debating against isn't there to change their opinion is a waste of time.  To many arm chair quarterbacks in this world.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks for the agreement, but I turned out to be a hypocrite. It is messing with my self image that I got sucked into the debate.

        1. JBrumett profile image61
          JBrumettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Meh, I'm sure you'll figure out a way to gracefully bow out if you choose.  =-P

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks J. I'll see you somewhere else. Bye.

  11. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    If there were armed civilians in the theatre, don't you imagine they were in shock like everyone else?  It would have taken a skilled, trained shooter to properly aim under the conditions given. The room was smoky and chaotic and the killer wore protective gear.  Just because someone carries a gun does not ensure they are skilled to use it in any situation, nor does it mean they are less of a citizen because they didn't use it in a mass murder setting.

    1. Cagsil profile image82
      Cagsilposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      roll

  12. JSChams profile image61
    JSChamsposted 4 years ago
  13. hubby7 profile image81
    hubby7posted 4 years ago

    I thought the question was: What else can we do to avoid anymore mass shootings like this?
    Although I'm sure most of you will not like what I am about to say, I will say it nonetheless: I think that we need to go back to a ban on assault weapons as we did in the glorious days Bill Clinton! This, I think, will help to stamp out home-grown terrorism that has tended to be in the upswing since the 1970's.

    Yes, I believe in the second amendment. Yes, I believe that people should have--and do have--the right to bear arms. However, I do not believe that people should have the right to bear any weapons of their choosing. That right to bear arms must be checked by the kinds of weapon that people can and cannot bear.

    The US government would not allow you to own a nuclear warhead, would it? Then why do you think that you should be allowed to own an assault weapon?

    I hope my contrarian viewpoint don't make you rain down fire and brimestone on me? Quick! Let me take cover.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      1) You have no clue as to what an "assault weapon" is

      2) You don't know that all through the so called assault weapon ban these types of firearms were perfectly legal to sell and buy.

      3) Those who compare buying a firearm with a nuke are not fundamentally serious people.

      4) People who post about subjects that they know nothing about don't even deserve fire and brimstone.

      5) Read my hub, Evil Black Rifles to find out more in five minutes than you've learned in a lifetime about these firearms.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What is it with all of these eagle head/American flag avatars around here?

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Can'[t speak for other folk but I happen to like that picture. I've used it in various forms since a few weeks after 9/11.

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Whatever.

        2. A Thousand Words profile image81
          A Thousand Wordsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Haha I was just wondering the same thing

          1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Great minds think alike.

            Now watch.

  14. DrMark1961 profile image90
    DrMark1961posted 4 years ago

    I was never that concerned about gun laws in the past but now I live in a country where gun laws have been stringently enforced for about ten years. Guess what is happening? The only people who have guns are the police and the criminals. The police feel comfortable abusing citizen rights and the criminals feel like they can do whatever they want, as long as there are no police present who have guns. Burglars know they are never going to go into a home where the homeowner has a gun, holdup artists know the shop owner will never be able to defend himself, etc. Is that the kind of world you want to live in?

    1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
      WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No. I like it here in Florida where we stand our ground.

      http://youtu.be/LKqO0FeaCFQ

  15. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    In a concealed carry state like Colorado, is it weird that no one in the audience was carrying to take out this lone gunman?
    Absolutely!
    There just never seems to be a George Zimmerman around when you need him.
    roll

    Someone suggested he could have gotten the same results with tear gas and a baseball bat. I don't believe that for a minute.
    And the point it, he didn't bring a bat.
    He brought THREE guns.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is unfortunate that nobody was able to stop him, it's always nice when civilians are able to prevent criminals from hurting more people.

      And no, he wouldn't be able to do that much damage with a baseball bat, I agree.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Can we name a single mass murder where civilians, who outnumber the gunman by a ratio of several to one, were able to stop or minimize the damage?

        Kinda weakens the guns are necessary for self-defense argument, does it not?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can point to stories where a single individual stopped an armed criminal, one on one. Stories where a single individual stopped multiple armed criminals, one on one. Stories where a single individual stopped an armed criminal(s) in a public place with multiple civilians... there are thousands and thousands of such stories.

          From what I've read, the theater is a gun-free zone. I know some permit holders respect those policies, some don't and carry anyway, and some simply don't do business there.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We can read the nonsense that non-gun owners try to post about what gunowners coulda, shoulda, woulda done if only they were magical beings akin to genies or superheros, or we can read what actual dozens of gunowners and those who carry on a daily basis are writing about the effect of a CCW holder in the theater...

            http://ingunowners.com/forums/carry_iss … orado.html

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, mom, I can name quite a few. The school shooting in Pearl, MS, the law school shooting in Virginia, the church shooting right there in Colorado, the shooting in Texas where a CCW holder stopped a mass murderer at the expense of his own life. All those were stopped or minimized by the actions of an ordinary citizen with a personal firearm.

          An older, great example was the original school shooting done by Whitman in Texas several decades ago. He had barricaded himself in a tower and was picking off students with ease. A number of students (back when they were allowed to carry on campus) began firing back. At that distance they were unable to hit him, but they forced him to keep his head down and not take any more shots until the police arrived.

          The vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun free zones such as schools and place (as in the theater) where they have signs telling patrons not to bring guns in. The CCW crowd generally obeys those signs, or just stays away from the place all together. This makes it difficult for a CCW to then step up and do anything, eh.

          And how does this logically "weaken" any argument in the favor of citizens carrying guns. Do you believe that guns are supposed to be akin to a Harry Potter magic wand, able to do amazing, supernatural feats? My gun doesn't protect me against lightning strikes, losing the winning lottery ticket, or even Auntie Susie coming over for a week.

          If you want to make the argument that because guns are not a 100 percent guarantee of good things and peaceful times then they are not good for anything then go for it. I'd be amused to read it.

        3. Ralph Deeds profile image70
          Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So does Reagan,s shooting while surrounded by armed and trained Secret Service agents.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What's up with these weak arguments?

            Nobody claimed that someone having a gun will prevent someone else from being able to fire a gun.

            1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
              Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              i guess I don,t understand your argument.  I thought you have been extolling the value of guns for self protection???  Are you suggesting that the problem was that Reagan and Brady were,t carrying???n

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I have never said that carrying a gun makes you invincible. You are completely straw-manning my argument, to a ridiculous level.

                Pointing out individual examples and saying 'see, guns don't work' is cherry picking.

              2. Jack Burton profile image82
                Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Ralph is trying to make the kind of argument that says because one person was killed in an auto accident while wearing a seat belt then it is obviously pointless for anyone to wear seat belts.

                Why do you think Ralph is reduced to this kind of infantile reasoning?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Seatbelts weren't made to kill people.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And your point is...? Specifically...? In regard to Ralph's original attempt to make a point.

          2. WD Curry 111 profile image60
            WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If someone is bent on evil . . .

          3. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I had a lightning bolt strike my radio tower once and burn out the transmitter even though I had two separate systems for protecting the equipment from such a thing.

            Ralph would have us get rid of all lightning rods based upon that anecdote.

        4. phion profile image59
          phionposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Mighty Mom-
          That’s the whole point; there wasn't a person in close enough proximity with a firearm to stop any of the shootings. When someone finally arrives with other “guns” the incident soon ends. There are many cases where crazed gunmen/women were put down before they got to do more damage, they just don’t get the spotlight that tragedies like this do.

          The libs favorite radio guy, Rush Limbaugh had a suitable perspective…Blaming guns for murder is like blaming forks for obesity.

          Just slap some more regulations and laws on the citizens and it will solve all the problems.

  16. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Sorry, but I couldn't help it.

    http://6.media.dorkly.cvcdn.com/76/81/940a597f9bafe5eb918f033b97d2fbc5.jpg

    Mall ninjas never miss.

    http://i34.tinypic.com/16ga2o.jpg

    Preferred gun of mall ninjas.

  17. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    Gun control is inevitable. The NRA and all its members might as well get ready to give ground and compromise. For many years the underclass has been driving by and killing men, women, and the children of the underclass with military anti-personel assault weapons. The freedoms that has allowed atlease a million homocides and injuries in the underclass over many years, has brought the possibillity of drive bys and walk bys to middle America. THE UNDERCLASS IS POWERLESS. The middle class will not stand for the senseless killing the underclass live with daily. When they get laws passed to protect themselves the underclass will also be safer.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      As long as the people-control advocates such as junko feel compelled to lie about such things as "military anti-personel assault weapons" the general population will understand that they lie pretty much about everything else.

      That kind of negates any fantasies about people-control and new laws.

  18. Sherrie Bain profile image60
    Sherrie Bainposted 4 years ago

    I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.

    To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.

    Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim:  I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.

  19. Sherrie Bain profile image60
    Sherrie Bainposted 4 years ago

    I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.

    To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.

    Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim:  I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.

  20. Sherrie Bain profile image60
    Sherrie Bainposted 4 years ago

    I believe in the right to bare arms, but I do believe that there needs to be greater regulation on the amount and types of weapons and ammo that private persons can own. In the news reports they indicated that this young man was able to buy SIX THOUSAND rounds of ammo in the last few weeks.

    To me anyone purchasing that mount of ammo should trigger an alert. If chemicals like iodine can be monitored and regulated by the DEA because it's used in meth production, then I don't see why access to high-powered weapons and excessive amounts of ammunition shouldn't be extremely monitored. It may still not prevent every single act of gun violence, but I think in a case like this if he had triggered an alert at the FBI level when he bought all that ammo (even having some delivered to his university address), I honestly feel this tragedy could have been averted just like the FEDS have successfully averted other terrorist acts by intercepting/disrupting the plans of individuals or groups.

    Tragically the 6yr old wasn't the youngest victim:  I read that there was a 3mth old victim who died today. Sadly, also, at least one of the victims had dodged a similar act of terrorism during recent mall shooting in Toronto, only to end up dying in this gruesome event.

  21. hubby7 profile image81
    hubby7posted 4 years ago

    I. I admit that I am not an expert on what weapons qualify as assault weapons, but a quick reading of Wikipedia shows me that my concept—though general and somewhat hazy—is not too far off.

    II. Those who say that those who compare nukes to firearms are not serious are they themselves not to be taken seriously.

    III.Those who are arrogant and believes that others don’t know what they are posting about assume that they are right in knowing that the others do not know what they are talking about. Saying that a person doesn’t’ know what they are posting about does not necessarily mean that they do not know what they are posting about. Perhaps it’s you who has a problem.

    IV. Finally, I don’t waste my time arguing with know-it-alls and religious—I meant—gun fanatics. It’s a waste of both my time and my energy!

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But in this case you really, really didn't know what you were posting about.

      If you don't like people pointing that out to the readers then perhaps you might want to be more diligent in knowing at least a little about the subject before you post.

      1. WD Curry 111 profile image60
        WD Curry 111posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What readers? You mean Hubbers.

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          tom-a-to, to-mah-to

          1. junko profile image79
            junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @ WD Curry & Jack Burton, The hubber thinks he has a following of readers that think his post are logical. I've never called jack a liar, I feel that would be insulting. Maybe he think that if is disrespectful me, the readers will give him as much attention as the man who shouted "You lied" at the President. Well, saying I lied don't change the fact that an A-K-47 is an anti-personel military assault weapon. Calling a Man a lie on line or at a press conference is as cowardly as a drive by ,walkby, or what that coward did in Colorado. I did once tell you Burton, your ignorance was painful and you would argue with a stop sign. than I refused to debate you because you were acting childish. If you can't respect me and my post,don't comment. I didn't address you in My comment, JACK , because you don't know,jack.

            1. recommend1 profile image69
              recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1

            2. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You do lie junkio, because you know full well that the AK-47 that is used on the battlefield is not the same as the AK-47 that is bought and sold in thousands of gun shops across America.

              If a man purposefully lies, I have no moral hesitation in calling him a liar.

              And no, there is no reason to "respect" a poster who must willfully and knowingly lie to attempt to make a point.

              1. junko profile image79
                junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Jack Burden, you are too stupid to comment to me and I asked you not to do so. You just had to show just how stubornly stupid you really are.The red head coward was a little more dumber than you, but super stupid will one day define, Jack Burton. You are a disgrace and you stand alone, nobody wants to identify with a fool, stop fooling yourself. No need to reply.

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And ~that~ is the best that Junko can do, eh...

  22. PseudoLogic profile image59
    PseudoLogicposted 4 years ago

    All this simply comes down to is the exchange of freedom for security. Just a small dabble into history will show you what path that leads down. Personally, I believe the old saying "people kill people" because frankly, it is true. Even if guns were to be completely removed from the world we would still find ways to maul each other, weather it be poison slipped into drinks, automatic machine guns, or a rock you found on the ground.

    1. recommend1 profile image69
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      not totally logical, the number of drive-by poisonings are not that high I suspect big_smile

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        the Happyland nightclub murders of almost 100 people was done with a gallon can of gas and a match. Would you outlaw those?

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Matches and gasoline weren't made to kill people.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did a pretty darn good job though, eh...

      2. PseudoLogic profile image59
        PseudoLogicposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There are many cases in which people have been murdered with poison. It is probably one of the oldest tools used to murder another human being other than your bear hands.

  23. schoolgirlforreal profile image76
    schoolgirlforrealposted 4 years ago

    I'm half asleep but I'll put my two cents in

    If you outlaw guns, you take away one of the fundamental rights of the Constitution, the right to bear arms.

    This was put in place I believe not only to hunt deer and learn how to live off the land in case of possible need in the future (just my interpretation) but also to ensure that the government could not oppress its civilians; that they would have some sort of defense- although I can see that may not work.

    It just comes down to basic rights, like free speech and freedom of the press. When you start taking away rights one by one, you lose the freedom in a society.

    (We needn't be motivated to do things out of fear but to do them with a lot of thought and logical thinking. ) Already, many rights are being taken away as a result of 9/11 and I don't think we should live in fear and act on that fear.
    Rather teach how to better implement gun laws, etc and the use of guns. I'm not a person who is interested in owning guns but I wouldn't want to take that priviledge away from hunters etc.

    The criminals will always get guns illegally, and so it's important for "good" people "responsible" people to have guns. It's part of being an American and the land of the free.

    Let's not try and change too much and destroy what our founding fathers fought for.

  24. nick nak profile image59
    nick nakposted 4 years ago

    I am not sure that it can be said that man lived in virtual paradise until guns were invented. What about knives, spears and bows and arrows and canons.

  25. aware profile image70
    awareposted 4 years ago

    stop these type of people before  they  start shooting  bullets.  by  catching  them   in social media    where they  write their manifestos and describe their intent  beforehand.   turning a blind eye to the crazy's  spewing  violence and hate speech all over social media. is very much to blame for the authority's not catching     acts like this in time.

  26. TamCor profile image81
    TamCorposted 4 years ago

    If this killer hadn't purchased these guns, then most likely he would have used a different weapon.  He could've used homemade bombs, and probably caused even more loss of life.  Look at the Oklahoma City bombing--McVey didn't use a gun of any kind. sad

    I agree with most guns shouldn't be banned.  In the days we live in now, I would feel pretty uneasy, not being able to defend my home, or my family.

    The problem is that banning them wouldn't stop these massacres, because the criminals who really wanted them would either already have them and refuse to give them up, or know where to get one on the black market.

    As far as the number of accidents in the home because of private ownership of guns--so many could be prevented if the gun owners just stored their guns safely.  I wrote a hub a couple years back about gun safes and trigger locks, and how easy it really is to protect your children if you own guns. 

    I don't think there is any "pat" answer to this problem, sadly.  The killings won't go away if guns are taken away from law-abiding people, we all know that.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You are absolutely right. It's scary how accessible illegal goods are. You can access the black market through the internet nowadays.

  27. TamCor profile image81
    TamCorposted 4 years ago

    Why can't this issue be discussed in a rational matter, without all the insults?

    Aren't we all supposedly adults here?

    No one is going to change the others' mind, but it can still be discussed without all the vitriol, can't it?

    And I know no one wants to hear that.  I've said it before, and it never does a lick of good.  smile

    1. recommend1 profile image69
      recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I generally find Junko to be level headed and withhis own opinions etc, in this case he appears to be in the line of  a torrent of abuse from Jack Burton mostly - as you would expect from a shill for the right and the gun lobby.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        lol

      2. TamCor profile image81
        TamCorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        In this case, though, the abuse is coming from both sides, isn't it? 

        I learned a long time ago that nothing gets settled like this--it only makes both sides dig in that much more.  I've had many discussions with people who disagree, but usually we manage to handle the talks without mockery or ridicule. 

        Oh, well, I tried...I knew it wouldn't do any good, lol.

        1. recommend1 profile image69
          recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You are right, but I get pursued by mindless trolls, shills and carpetbaggers and it is hard to just ignore the dimwits.  oops, did I just insult someone big_smile

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Tam... people like junko are not going to change their mind even if Jesus came down and slapped their heads. I have no interest in even attempting to do that job.

          But it still needs to be pointed out where they are lying, illogical, and just plain silly. Junko knows that he is not being truthful about the AK 47. He didn't even bother to defend himself on that because he can't. His only option was to attack me for revealing his willingness to mislead the readers.

          If plain speaking offends someone... so be it.

          1. Josak profile image61
            Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No the weapons are not exactly the same a they are civilian versions but functionally they are very similar and you can buy a military AK range weapon quite easily, I have one myself the weapon i own is the same as certain branches of the Chinese military.

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Well, he is finally forced to begin to tell the truth. These weapons look similar, but they are radically different in that the military version is fully automatic and the civilian weapon is semi-automatic, just like virtually every other rifle sold in the country.

              There is no real difference between the civilian AK and the semi auto deer rifle that uncle bob has in the closet. But junko wants you all to believe that every AK in the country is fully automatic, able to continue to fire bullets with just one pull of the trigger.

              His assertion that you can easily buy one is also a lie if you are speaking of the United States. Here are the specifics of what hoops you must jump thru...

              http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/10/19/h … e-weapons/

              And since automatic weapons are highly regulated and controlled by the federal government I'd like to know just how junko can claim to have one -- unless he resides outside the country where they might be legal.

              1. Josak profile image61
                Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Many many states do not restrict NFA weapons. Getting a gun capable of burst or full auto fire is not that hard.

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that when people follow the link I gave they'll find out just how hard it is. They don't sell full autos down at Walmart, you know.

                  1. Josak profile image61
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I own one, you just have to get ATF permission register it and get the signature of your sheriff. Then they check you aren't a criminal, you pay 200$ and it's yours.

      3. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Best you can do, eh...

        :-)

    2. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Because, Tam, when people willfully lie about firearms it should be pointed out.

      Those who don't know about guns are more than willing to accept a lie as the truth. Why should we let that lie stay in place, unchallenged?

    3. crazyhorsesghost profile image85
      crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6928876_f248.jpg

      Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was a student at the University of Texas at Austin and a former Marine who killed 16 people and wounded 32 others (a total of 49 victims including himself) during a shooting rampage on and around the university's campus on August 1, 1966.

      My Aunt was one of the women shot by Whitman. And I had three friends killed on 9-11. It makes me sad that people like this exist in our world.

      It's really sad that it keeps happening again and again and I think the News stations running non stop coverage may help to breed more but I will tell you I believe very much in the First Amendment and the US Constitution.

      I set all weekend and thought how do we fix this problem.

      I have hundreds of weapons and I am a former U.S. Combat vet but I've never thought of crawling up in tall buildings. What could make someone do this. And why?

      It's sad that we have this problem here in the USA. I could name many other people that have done it but I won't. And while it has happened in other countries it does seem to happen more and more here in the USA.

      Is it the way children are raised? Is it the drugs in our society? Or is it the video games?

      I've heard all three blamed this weekend and today on news shows.

      I think a lot of it is that our American system of values has gone to hell in a hand basket. TV Shows and Movies are filled with violence.

      I'm really sorry for those people at the movie theater but I fear it's only a matter of time before it happens again. It's sad that young people are choosing to do this over and over. I just don't know how to stop it. Do you.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I really don't know, I'm sure there are a lot of factors, that probably won't be changed anytime soon.

        More kids are raised by the TV, compared to having grown up working on the farm or at the shop. We over-medicate and over-diagnose in some areas.

        It's hard for me to understand the idea of desensitization due to movies and games, but that's just me. I've 'killed' my fair share of zombies, monsters, and enemy combatants in games, but I never once confused that with reality.

        I don't know if there's an answer, but I do know that the knee-jerk reaction to ban guns is not the answer and would only make things worse.

        Businesses need to realize that gun-free policies don't make anybody safe as well. Anytime a large number of people is gathered somewhere where they are supposed to be unarmed, it's an attractive scenario for these crazies.

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Here's some interesting thoughts on this...

          http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ … hrive.html

        2. crazyhorsesghost profile image85
          crazyhorsesghostposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No I don't think guns should be banned. Not ever. Too many American lives have been given for freedom.

          I think a lot of it is how kids are raised. Or not raised today.

          The TV plays way too much a part of life in our American families today.

          I watch some of the cartoons and shows and wonder how did programming get to this. How indeed.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't let my children watch TV(current TV).

            We purchase older shows for them to watch on DVD, I totally agree that entertainment is mostly crap these days.

    4. paradigmsearch profile image89
      paradigmsearchposted 4 years ago

      Get a load of the pic of James Holmes in court today...

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/col … 06043.html

    5. JSChams profile image61
      JSChamsposted 4 years ago

      http://s1.hubimg.com/u/6929680_f248.jpg

    6. prettydarkhorse profile image62
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

      the word is facilitate and make it easier to kill in a minute with multiple rounds. Then we wonder why we don't like other countries to have nuclear.

    7. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

      Eh, there is no point Jack. Melissa and Ralph definitely aren't interested in rational discussion, or logical arguments('Somebody died and he had bodyguards = Proof guns don't work' style arguments). But I'm not surprised, most people on these forums who disagree with me have disagreed with factual figures backed up by primary sources.

      Instead of using guns to defend ourselves from criminals, we should just educate them, work on socioeconomic factors, pie in the sky, blah blah blah. Yeah, we can work to reduce crime rates, but while we have crime rates, I am certainly going to make sure I can defend myself and my family.

      Just because all civilians started 'abhorring' guns, as Don would put it, doesn't mean criminals would go 'oh, guns are bad, I'm not going to use them anymore! For shame! How could I ever have been such a brute!'

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph, Melissa and the others are good folk for our side. They don't understand this, and sit around and wonder just why their anti-freedom side is losing so badly in the issue with the public.

        The more they continue to put out bad info the more the public see through them. When you lose your credibility by the means that they do, then the middle and the fence sitters begin to reject all their arguments. Ralph will die an anti-freedom poster even if he lives another 20 years. I don't really care. But I get to use him in the meantime as a human posting pinata to shower blessings of truth down to those who are wondering just what reality is. When the Dear Readers see the fantasy world that Ralph and M. have constructed for themselves, and realize that R and M expect the readers to also live in that world, the readers soundly reject it.

        R and M will never understand this, so I don't feel as if I am giving away a game plan. They simply cannot adjust and change their style. They have far too much invested in it, and will never understand the game they are playing is not the game the rest of the world is playing.

      2. Don W profile image83
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How about a 73% reduction in shooting and killing in an area of Chicago? How? A "pie in the sky" project called CeaseFire that changes social norms so that violence is seen as 'uncool' by perpetrators and the communities they live in. So 'violence is what's expected of me' becomes 'violence will make me look stupid'. It's also working in Baltimore. Guns don't feature in the project at all.

        But hey, why worry about actually trying to solve the problem when you can just scaremonger and play at being Wyatt Earp instead.

        1. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          270 plus shootings in gun free chicago so far this year.

          1. Don W profile image83
            Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I made no mention of Chicago being gun free. I did mention a 73% reduction in an area of Chicago though, and more success in Baltimore. The point being that arming everyone to the teeth with lethal weapons isn't the only solution to gun crime. There are other things that can be done. They take more time, and need a different approach, but the benefits are surely worth it. Besides, guns are a false economy. It may feel safer to have a gun, but statistics show that people with guns are 4.5 times more likely to be killed than those without.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Don, I'm not saying that guns are the only solution.

              But while we have crime, taking away guns from citizens isn't going to help anyone but the criminals.

              It's like the whole oil thing. Yeah, we need to work on alternatives. No, taking away oil isn't going to help anyone right now.

            2. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And people who go into a hospital are much more likely to die than those who don't.

              I don't know anyone who objects to sitting down and talking with people about how to solve problems without using guns to avenge insults. Or removing guns from gangbangers.

              But when two young gangbangers just outside Chicago confronted me one day, wanting what was mine, I really didn't have time to engage them in a conversation over learning acceptable behaviour, or to see that they would attend a class on violence management while I waited for them. It was my handgun that saved me. Nothing else.

        2. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          That sounds great and I fully support it, doesn't really have anything to do with legal gun ownership restrictions though.

        3. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I'll look into that.

    8. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

      I mean, who cares if civilians use guns millions of times a year to stop crimes and save lives?

      I mean, who cares if concealed carry permit-holders are only 20% as likely to commit a crime as the average American(strange that people who respect the law are the ones more concerned with gun rights)?

      Come on! We don't need to keep allowing law-abiding citizens to have access to guns. If they just start abhorring them, then the criminals will stop using guns too!

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I absolutely do not give a damn about civilians stopping crimes.  Good guess.

        I do care about dead kids though.

        Priorities.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah, who cares about the kids who are alive because someone stopped them from being killed, right?

          I care about kids too, which I why I support education and training. I'm very glad to see the accident rate dropping every year. We're to a point where children being accidentally killed by guns is so statistically insignificant that many more could be saved by putting effort into education about other danger.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Good to know about that even one dead kid is considered statistically insignificant.  Nice.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, Melissa, like you said, priorities. I didn't say that child doesn't matter, I said that the rate is statistically insignificant compared to other causes.

              Let's say 1 kid under age 10 out of 45 million died from accidental firearm discharge every year. You could spend all your time and energy trying to reduce that number...

              Or, you could focus your attention on the much larger number of kids who die from drowning, falling, poisoning, car accidents, suffocation, etc...

              Don't the 16 children who accidentally drown for every child accidentally shot deserve your attention as well? What about the 29 children who suffocate for every child accidentally shot?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Who says they don't get my attention as well... start a thread on pool safety and kids and I'll be right on it.

            2. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How statistically important do you consider the hundreds of thousands of people who save themselves with a firearm each year?

              Oh. My bad. You already told us you just write them off as insignificant.

              1. Angusaxon profile image62
                Angusaxonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                What do these people save them selves from anyway?  Bows and arrows?

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It's beyond your imagination that some people can attack other people with more than just guns, eh.

                  Perhaps you can ask this lady if her attacker which didn't have a gun had a bow and arrow instead...

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkS8mdbml0A

                  Or you can ask this young widow defending herself and her child if her multiple attackers without guns had bows and arrows...

                  http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/just … PM:JUSTICE

                  Or you can ask this 67 year old woman about the social deviant holding a knife to her throat instead of gun...

                  http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.s … t_int.html

                  Or maybe this 71 year old gent who had two thugs smash in his door without guns...

                  http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19070 … s-intruder

        2. Jack Burton profile image82
          Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Damn... pretty cold hearted. So much for liberal compassion. It's not often stated that baldly but I guess Melissa is under a lot of pressure

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh... was there a liberal handbook I should be following to tell me what my opinions should be?  Do conservatives have one of those?

            1. Jack Burton profile image82
              Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              nice deflection... but the cold heart and lack of compassion is still quite noticeable.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If you say so... you are the one who says that 50 dead kids a year is just fine so long as you get your guns so your opinion of my compassion really doesn't hold a lot of water...

                1. Jack Burton profile image82
                  Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism report of December 2000

                  http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/economic-2000/

                  “…costs of alcohol abuse grew from $148 billion in 1992 to $185 billion in 1998, approximately a 25 percent increase” Who knows where it is in 2012, but with certainty it has not gone down.

                  We can perhaps put a dollar figure on alcohol abuse, but that doesn’t even begin to put a face on the hundreds of thousands of shattered and lost lives, the beaten wives, the children who grow up under intolerable conditions, the jobs lost, the companies gone bankrupt, and the hazards it creates for everyone else who is innocent.

                  The question is, are you willing to accept these hundreds of thousands of incidents for the freedom of the American public to be social drinkers. Are you willing to stand with those courageous people who demand that all alcohol either be strictly controlled or banned all together?

                  Anyone who is not an alcoholic would have no objection to the following federal laws...

                  1) Every person desiring to purchase alcohol must have a photo ID permission card, updated yearly, and signed by their physician that they are not addicted to alcohol.

                  2) Only two 12 ounce beers can be purchased a day, and only six total in a week. Any other alcohol can only be bought once per rolling two weeks, and is limited to a total of no more than one quart. There will be a nationwide registry put into place paid for by those retail outlets that are licensed to sell alcohol to keep track of all purchases and tied to the permission card.

                  3) If you give a 30 day notice to the local police dept of a planned party and receive their permission, then up to 20 beers and one gallon of other liquor can be purchased on the day of the party. This does not apply to SuperBowl day when all alcohol is forbidden to be consumed. Beer and other alcohol can only be served to those possessing a photo ID permission card. The police have the right to come and check the home the day of the party to ensure no cheating on the alcohol consumption.

                  4) Whiskey and other hard liquor is available only to those 30 years and older to prevent early onset alcoholism.

                  5) No alcohol can be sold with an alcohol percentage greater than 3 percent.

                  6) Every separate container of alcohol be taxed at $5.00 per container to use for the cost of alcohol rehab centers and women's shelters in the local areas.

                  7) All alcohol in a home must be stored in locking containers to prevent any access from minors. Any consumption of alcohol within 300 feet of a minor child is forbidden.

                  8) No liquor can be sold in a municipality where there is a school, a daycare, or a public park.

                  9) If you're caught violating any of these rules then you are required to take an alcohol inhibitor such as Acamprosate or Disulfiram for five years minimum. Weekly mandatory blood tests at your cost will confirm the medicine intake.

                  Seeing the out of control harm that alcohol is doing to our country only a fool or a drunk would object to these provisions.

    9. seanorjohn profile image82
      seanorjohnposted 4 years ago

      It is crazy. It is just too easy for USA citizens to get hold of guns and ammo. It must stop. Too many people are dying.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Except that bans make things worse.

    10. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

      So you would have shot them?

      Just out of curiosity... how much was in your wallet?  I want to know how much their lives were worth to you...  Or why you felt that they deserved the death penalty from you when the courts would have given them a year or so in jail...

      You weren't protecting yourself you were protecting your money.  No... your money is not worth another person's life.  No matter what you consider their worth to be.

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Did I shoot them? I don't recall it happening that way, but good imagination.

        And I am sure my lovely wife and children appreciation your willingness to sacrifice my life or well being for a few dollars. More of that compassion, eh.

        BTW... do you know what AOJ means? Might want to brush up on that before you enter any conversations about what is and is not acceptable in self defense.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I asked if you WOULD have shot them... see reading helps...

          But if you WOULD have then you would have been killing over money not to protect yourself.  If you WOULDN'T have then it was damn stupid to pull a gun.

          So if you would have shot a couple of people to save whatever you had in your wallet then you might not want to argue compassion anymore.  Apparently the lives of others come pretty cheap to you.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            If AOJ was met then, yes, I would have shot them.

            As noted earlier, Melissa would much rather see an innocent person violated and on the street dead than to see them standing over the dead body of their attacker with a smoking gun in their hand.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They weren't threatening your life... just your money.

              And you are coming to some pretty big conclusions that I never said...

              I would rather see you beat to crap than your attacker shot.  Yep.  The death penalty is excessive for assault.

              I would rather see you robbed than your attacker shot.  Yep.  The death penalty is excessive for robbery.

              I would rather see a woman raped than her attacker shot.  The death penalty is excessive for rape.

              If you are defending your life then have at it.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You never know. Crimes escalate.

                That is Melissa's respect for human rights. You don't have the right to defend yourself against criminals. Imagine a world with those kinds of laws.

                Melissa, if someone is beating you, how do you know they are going to stop and not just kill you? Where does the line get drawn where you say 'Heck, I'm almost dead, now it's ok for me to shoot them!'?

                People who infringe on the rights of others forfeit theirs.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  ROFLMAO...

                  You realize that there is such a thing as reasonable force right?  If someone is hitting you then by all means hit them back.  That is retaliation in kind.  How pitiful it is to shoot someone just because you are getting your ass kicked.

                  Taking the law into your hands and deciding someone needs to die because they are trying to take your money is vigilantism though.  It's not self-defense. It's deciding you should have the right to be judge and jury... and executioner.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Melissa has no more idea what "taking the law into your own hands" and "vigilantism" than anything else she has posted about.

                    She also doesn't know what AOJ is, which is what is required to use any self defense, especially lethal force, against a attacker.

                    Since the law specifically allows one to defend oneself, just how is it "taking the law into your own hands" to operate within the bounds of the law and defend one self?

                    And vigilantism is to track someone down after the fact and meet out what you perceive as justice. That has nothing whatsoever to do with self defense.

                    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      *rolls eyes*

                      Yep... just like I didn't know anything about guns or hunting.  Could it be that I know just as much or more about the law than you and just don't agree with you?

                      Nope... it must be that I am ignorant.

                      And you might want to go back through my posts... I've listed my educational credits before.  I've also talked about my family/life experiences.  Disagreeing with you doesn't make me stupid dear... but assuming that it does might backfire on you.

                      And the other readers that you seem to be concerned about can make there own decisions if they like but I (nor you) likely don't even register on their "I don't give a crap meter" but hey if you are so anxious to impress a bunch of internet people on a forum then have at it.  I might recommend actually finding real people to impress though... it is more rewarding.

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What if they have a knife? What if they are stronger than you? What if they outnumber you? You have NO WAY to say whether or not they are going to beat you up or kill you.

                    And, you continue to ignore the fact that they ARE NOT FORCED to attack someone who has pulled out a gun. They have a choice.

                    It's sad that you prefer the rights of criminals over the rights of innocent citizens. Nobody knows how a situation will end. Nobody knows if you will be robbed, raped, beaten, or killed(well, the criminal might). It's completely irrational to think the criminal should be the one who has the right to decide your fate.

                    If I pull a gun on him, he has the right to decide his fate. If he attacks me, he risks his life. If he stops or runs, he doesn't.

                    You seem to think that my pulling a gun is taking away his right to life. It isn't.

              2. Jack Burton profile image82
                Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you buy your Godlike power to forecast the future for everyone, in every time, in every place, off from Craigslist? I've never seen it advertised there myself.

                Here's Mellisa's superpower, Dear Readers. She KNOWs (K N O W S) that the social deviant is going to stop with merely beating the crap out of you... she KNOWs (K N O W S) that the rapist is content with merely raping you. She KNOWs (K N O W S) that the mugger is merely content with the money in your pocket. All this knowledge in her head and her picture look almost normal.


                Think about this, Dear Readers. Rape is more acceptable to Melissa than a woman defending herself. That's all we need to know. And we don't even need superpowers to find that out.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And you apparently KNOW they are not going to stop.  It appears that you shop on Craigslist as well.

                  And yes as the victim of a rape... which I presume you are not... I do not feel that my rapists deserved the death penalty.  One of them is actually a very upstanding member of the community now with two beautiful children a lovely wife and even a small pastorship.  If I had a gun I likely would have shot him.  He's done a lot of good in the world and I'm glad I didn't have that gun.

                  Of course that "deviant" was about 16 or 17 at the time.  But I guess that doesn't matter.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, when my life is on the line I prefer not to take that chance. If you choose otherwise, go for it. I am not responsible for you. I am responsible for myself.

                    And we've already had your definition of "rape." I doubt that your experience was either anything but you changing your mind half way through or having regrets about a mutual teen experience and crying rape to mollify your emotions.

                    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Actually I was giving the average experience.

                      My personal experience is that I was on a date when I was 16 and decided to have sex with the guy I was out with.  When we were done he left and 4 of his friends came in after him.  They held me down and took turns raping me until they were tired... then they each spit on me as they were leaving.

                      The funny thing is I lived through it.  I can talk about it... and do so regularly to other women... without flinching or crying.  It was damn crappy for a damn long time... however... it wasn't fatal for me and I'm glad it wasn't for those boys who mostly grew up to be decent people.

              3. TamCor profile image81
                TamCorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                This one Melissa...and for the last time, I do not lie.  I consider these boundaries, but maybe you have another term you prefer.

                And I am not running--I am trying to fix a meal for my family, which, to me, is much more important than this conversation.  smile

                Now, I have to get back to it.  But I promise I am NOT running towards my kitchen. smile

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Those are not me setting boundaries... those are my preferences.  I have no ability to set boundaries for anyone but myself.  Me stating my opinions is not condescending... it is simply me stating my opinion.

                  The boundaries that I think should be set on guns by the government (who does have the ability to set boundaries) were well defined in several posts...  none of which said anything about limiting anyone's right to use a gun for any reason they like... unless they were found to be insane or unable to understand gun safety.  So obviously my personal opinion on what I would morally prefer and what I think should happen legally are separate. 

                  In addition... just because correct word use is a little quirk of mine... condescending implies by definition that I am attempting to be falsely kind.  I'm obviously not attempting to be kind... falsely or not.

                  1. TamCor profile image81
                    TamCorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Boy, you love to argue, don't you? lolol   I know, I know--you're not arguing, you're just stating your opinions... smile  Problem is, in my home, we don't state our opinions so harshly--we discuss different opinions in a civil way...we also don't jump on every little thing said and dissect it into little pieces... but maybe that's just us. smile

                    Okay--I believe that I mentioned that "I" considered them boundaries as to how far you would go--but that "you" may consider them something else....didn't I?  I looked at them as personal boundaries.  But I do agree with some of your other boundaries, as far as the government and gun laws, and not allowing the mentally unbalanced to own them. 

                    I can't believe I am debating over the meaning of another word here, but here goes...to make sure I was correct, I looked up the meaning of the word "condescending", after you called me on it.  I thought "Okay, maybe I've been using this word wrong".  The first definition on Google is "Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority."  I realize that you don't believe you fit that description, so I'm sorry-- but that's how you come off to me.   And yes, I do realize that you're not attempting to be kind...but, I don't understand why you wouldn't want to.

                    Sooooo, I disagree that I was using the word incorrectly.  And I'm sorry that you feel like you have to pick every little thing I said apart like this.  I am not skilled as a debater, but sometimes I try to get in on debates that I feel strongly about, and this is one of them.  I probably don't state my case in the way that's considered proper on here, but this is the best I can do.

      2. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You don't have to shoot someone to stop a robbery. If you pull your gun, they will almost always run away. If they decide to attack you, then it is their choice to escalate to violence.

        You ALWAYS have the right to defend yourself and your property, and you don't have to kill people to do so.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson once you pull a weapon you better be ready to use it... and you KNOW that.  Otherwise it is a big dangerous liability.  Any police officer or member of the military will tell you that. 

          Now... with that in mind... nevermind your "rights"... is it morally acceptable to be prepared to kill another human being over money or property?

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "Prepared" is quite different from "must."

            And it is so gracious of you to decide that the mopes will be huggy and kissy after the fact. Might even become your BFF after they mug you.

            Or, perhaps, on the way out the door they can turn around and shoot you just for kicks and grins, and then come back and put another one into your head at six inches.

            http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/lake/ … lling.html

            Melissa would have us trust in the sweet, affable nature of social deviants. I prefer not to take that risk.

          2. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did I say otherwise? No. You don't have to use your gun if you pull it out.

            If someone threatens to rob me, I pull out my gun. At that point, they have to attack me to get shot. If they are dumb enough and disrespectful enough to try that, then they are forfeiting their rights to infringe on mine, and I will shoot them.

            Statistics show that firing is generally not required.

            It is acceptable to kill someone who chooses to attack me and refuses to stop, yes.

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Umm... and you don't see yourself pulling the gun as escalating the situation?

              If someone tries to rob you and you give them the money and they go away... that's worse than risking a fatal confrontation?

              Is money really that important to you? 

              Is your idea of self-defense really money?  Do you think that's what the constitution intended?

              1. Jack Burton profile image82
                Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did you buy your Godlike power to forecast the future for everyone, in every time, in every place, off from Craigslist? I've never seen it advertised there myself.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  It wasn't all that clever the first time... the second time was kinda pathetic.

                  Don't kick the same piece of hyperbole around so close together... try some variation.

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It got under your skin... that was all the clever that it needed to be.

                    But as noted much earlier... you're not, and never will be, the intended target for the posts. So don't worry too much about how clever it is.

                    And the Dear Readers noted you still don't have an answer for how you KNOW what is going to happen.

                  2. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You haven't addressed his point! Or mine, for that matter.

                    You would rather I get beat up than shoot someone. How am I supposed to know that a thug coming at me is just going to beat me up? You say it's ok if my life is in danger, but how do you know if it's your life, or if they are just going to beat you up?

                    YOU want to let the CRIMINAL control the situation. WE prefer that the law-abiding citizen control the situation.

                    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Yes.  I thought I stated that pretty plainly.



                      You don't know.  Either way.  In your scenario you would rather certainly kill rather than possibly die.  I would rather possibly die than certainly take someone else's life. 



                      There are too many variables in potentially violent situations for anyone to control the situation.  It might make you feel better to think you have control but like you said no one can see the future.  You don't KNOW that pulling your gun will put you in control or get you shot.

                    2. 0
                      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      You asked for provable facts. You ignore them if they don't agree with your opinion.

                      No, statistics aren't always facts. Some are though. Learn to tell the difference.

                      If I were able to post 5 million news reports of civilians using their guns to stop crimes this year, would you count that? I don't know what you want. Peer-reviewed studies by leading criminologists don't count. Studies by the government don't count. News stories don't count... It really seems like it is just your opinion that counts.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Me pulling a gun is taking the control of the situation out of the hands of the law-breakers, and putting it in the hands of the law-abiding. Who better to be in control? Someone who upholds the law, or breaks it?

                If someone is going to attack me when I have a gun pointed at them, they have something wrong with them. Who is to say they wouldn't attack me anyway? Most murders don't start with someone walking up and saying 'Hey, I'm going to kill you!'

                My life and my rights are. If I can't trust someone to uphold one law, and respect my rights, why should I let them be in control and risk my life?

                Property is absolutely one of the defining principles of our rights, yes.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Ok... so those are your opinions and your "rights".  I don't agree with you or how you choose to use your rights.  However I never said anything about taking them away from you either... just argued the morality and my opinions.

                  Now... can you tell me why my ideas on gun control that were stated plainly take any of those rights away from you?

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, you don't just plainly state your opinion. You make attacks, you act judgmental and condemning, you tell people they are wrong.

                    You aren't taking away my rights, but you are presenting illogical arguments on a discussion forum, and I disagree with them.

                    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Show me an attack.  Explain to me how my opinions are any more judgemental than yours?  Tell me where I said you were wrong any more than you said I was.  Also explain why your "logic" is any better than mine.  You think it is better to be able to have a gun for your defense... I think the danger isn't worth it.  Is there a provable fact in there somewhere?  Or is it all personal opinions?

    11. hubby7 profile image81
      hubby7posted 4 years ago

      The late philosopher Bertrand Russell once said that every society holds within it the seed of its own death. Question: Might our love affair with the gun be the death of American society as we know it?

      Also, the Greek philosopher Plato argued that after democracy comes dictatorship. Will that happen to America soon?

      Just a thought. What do you loudmouths, know-it-alls, fanatics think of that?

      (I hope you got the humor)

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The 2nd Amendment dates to virtually the founding of our country. I have seen no reason why it suddenly becomes the death of our country. Hyperbole comes easy when it is not based in reality.

        1. hubby7 profile image81
          hubby7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Whoever said anything about doing away with the 2nd Amendment? I strongly support it myself.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Whoever said anything about you saying anything about doing away with the 2nd Amendment?

      2. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If "dictatorship" happens to America soon then it means one of two things...

        1) The people with all the guns staged a coup and are now running things... and the people without the guns had absolutely no way to stop them. They were indeed powerless. Helpless. Of no consequence, and could only stand around and watch the people who had guns take over.

        2) The people who attempt to stage a coup are acting against the Constitution, therefore it is best that those who don't believe in coups have guns to prevent such a thing from even being thought of. An attempted dictatorship would fail even before it started because of the ability of the citizens to fight back and overcome.

        1. hubby7 profile image81
          hubby7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with your first answer. However, your second answer is debatable. It may be right. It may be wrong. It is based solely on prediction and speculation. The only way we can really know the answer is to cross that bridge when we come to it. Nice thoughts nonetheless.

    12. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

      Don, as long as there are guns in the hands of criminals, it's dangerous to disarm the citizens.

      A world without guns would be nice, but disarming citizens won't lead us there. While there is crime, I'm going to defend myself and my family.

      1. hubby7 profile image81
        hubby7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Whoever said anything about disarming citizens. The second amendment gives them that right and it cannot be taken away.

      2. hubby7 profile image81
        hubby7posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree. It would be very dangerous to disarm citizens!

    13. Angusaxon profile image62
      Angusaxonposted 4 years ago

      According to the defenders of those laws the world is a safer place if everybody is carrying a piece.  Personally I think guns should be restricted only to military personel and the police.  Instead of waging wars across the world the military should be hunting in stead.  Those who want to hunt can join the military.  All problems solved!

      1. Jack Burton profile image82
        Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I think you just gave us the official definition of a police state. But I am glad that you feel comfortable with a nation where it is quite possible that the military and police have all the weapons and the Congress and White House are in the hands of a Dick Cheney type president.

        Wow, can we ever get done the things we want to get done then.

        1. Angusaxon profile image62
          Angusaxonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I don't really get your point about the police state.  You get the president you vote for right?  Are you suggesting the people should arm them selves against their own police and military?  You can just go to Afghanistan if you prefer that kind of arrangement.

          1. Jack Burton profile image82
            Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            What do you think the real intent of the 2nd Amendment is all about. And if the military have all the guns what makes you think you're going to necessarily get a chance to vote for the next president?

            1. Angusaxon profile image62
              Angusaxonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So you get to vote because you have guns?

              Sorry, I have no clue about your amendments.  I am not american.

              1. Jack Burton profile image82
                Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                If I have a gun and you don't, and I choose both that I get to vote and you don't, just what are you able to do about it?

                1. Angusaxon profile image62
                  Angusaxonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So, democracy is only possible if the population has enough leverage of arms against it's elected but evil government?

                  1. Jack Burton profile image82
                    Jack Burtonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Answer my question first and then I'll answer yours. That is how dialogue works.

                    1. Angusaxon profile image62
                      Angusaxonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                      Ok, fair enough.  If you are the government and you use the power of your weapons to prevent me to vote then you have your self a totalitarian dictatorship.  People would have to call Amnesty International for help. There it is.
                      But does that description apply to USA?  Now you answer my question please.