jump to last post 1-49 of 49 discussions (337 posts)

Gun control

  1. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    Why do the the left wingers think that tighter gun laws and more through background checks will keep the "bad guys" from getting guns? The bottom line here is that "bad guys" are not going into gun stores and buying guns legally. They will get there guns any way they can from stealing to buying them black market and there is plausible way to manage and track that. So with that said you can't "control" guns therefore "gun control" is not plausible. I challenge anyone to come up with something that is logical not crazy.

    1. Paul Todd Sharp profile image61
      Paul Todd Sharpposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I have a logical suggestion; jleblanc1317.It is one that will take years of technological research, though. My suggestion is that a gun is manufactured that only fires a highly powerful, but non-lethal stunner to disable an attacker. Think of it like a sort taster in bullet form. It won’t casually hit the target. The new bullet will release the stunning pulse inches away the attacker...The gun is designed to alert police when fired & a profile is sent to police databanks. Let someone use that for evil purposes. I t will be like sending a digital footprint to authorities.Oh, & the guns police alert features cannot be removed or the gun stops working. The bullet should not be able to fire unless in one of these guns. The gun only fires when in the hands of the owner. Even a felon should be allowed one of these.

  2. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    And as I have said, now they can make them at home even more easily than before.

    In reality, it's not that expensive even to make a metal gun at home... CNC mills get cheaper and cheaper all the time, so do 3-d printers.

    People are going to have to realize at some point, that trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals will be as futile as trying to keep them from printing off a page from the Bible at home.

    1. Paul Todd Sharp profile image61
      Paul Todd Sharpposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      AMEN to that.

    2. Laura Schneider profile image92
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I think, actually, that people are more afraid of the casual gun user: the 4-year-old that got hold of Mommy's gun and shot her or himself with it; the angry teen who, upon being denied borrowing the car, immediately went to the gun cabinet and shot his whole family--then realized what he'd done and shot himself; the battered wife who would never buy a gun herself but got the one "for protection" from her husband's nightstand drawer and waited patiently for him to come home so she could end the horror she'd been living in.

      Simply reducing the volume of guns available in the nation would reduce such tragedies. "Bad guys" and "crazies" will always be able to get guns, just not curious kids, pissed off teens, and abused spouses/significant others. It's the ready availability of guns that causes such "accidents". Personally (my $0.02) is that there should be more focus on gun locks, gun safety, locking ammunition separately from the weapons, etc. (Note: I do NOT oppose individuals who REALLY/ACTUALLY need them from having guns for protection. I grew up with guns in the house for hunting, and I've fired various hand guns, rifles, and shot guns). I am NOT anti-guns, just pro gun-safety and against keeping a gun for no apparent reason, especially with children in the house, no matter how safely you have that gun and its ammunition stored.

      Our Constitution says we all have the right to bear arms (to protect our property in remote areas and primarily to stand up to an unjust government should such situation ever occur). I can't argue that. But, our founding fathers who wrote the Constitution no doubt never thought of rocket launchers, pressure-sensitive bombs, drones, and even nuclear weapons. A balance needs to be struck! We all need to work together or some dumb kid will be nuking their elementary school for fun someday soon.

      1. 61
        Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        "Our Constitution says we all have the right to bear arms (to protect our property in remote areas"

        Where does our constitution say that?

      2. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Laura, you list things like rocket launchers, pressure-sensitive bombs etc. The 2nd Amendment was and is about firearms, and those were clearly defined in writings of the day to mean personal firearm. They did not at the time include cannons etc. So, any hand gun or rifle would be protected.

  3. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Simple solution: Legalize all the drugs. All of them. All. Of. Them.

    Many of these gun homicides are between drug cartels and biker gangs who have a stake in illegal drug trafficking. A lot of them are likewise between regular folks vying for control of drugs.

    We'll still have 20,000+ cases per year of heat-of-the-moment shootings, premeditated hits, mentally unstable folks and kids getting their hands on guns, and gang violence over other things. But it's a baby step.

    1. peeples profile image89
      peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "Simple solution: Legalize all the drugs. All of them. All. Of. Them."
      I couldn't agree more. Then there will be so much extra money available to crack down on real crime. Then we can stop acting like gun crime is the only crime that exists.

      1. Laura Schneider profile image92
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        White-collar criminals aren't even pursued, let alone punished, for example.

  4. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago

    To legalize drugs is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. You cant possibly believe that nonsense. It is thinking like that, that got this country in the shape that its in. I would love to hear a legitiment reason why someone who was not on drugs would honestly think that legalizing drugs is a logical rational solution to gun control issues. Really people you can do better than that. WOW

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In metropolitan areas where these studies have been done, up to 80%, or more, of all homicides were drug-related. The majority of all homicides were drug on drug, where people kill each other for drugs.

      Since drugs are illegal, people have to go through the black market to get them. Prices are higher, and violence ensues. If drugs were legal, these people would be able to walk in the store and buy them for less, rather than sneaking around at night exchanging gunfire.

      The truth is, there is no reason to keep drugs illegal. The people that use drugs still get them now, but at great risk to themselves and others. It gives money and power to drug lords instead of to the country. It's exactly like prohibition, prohibition didn't stop people getting drunk, but it made the mafia families rich and powerful.

      So, give us a logical reason why drugs should be banned.

      1. peeples profile image89
        peeplesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      2. Josak profile image58
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1

      3. innersmiff profile image79
        innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        + 1

      4. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You make an interesting point about the drug-violence connection.  There is an interesting argument to be made about legalized drugs.  There is also an argument to be made about securing the border, something that has never been accomplished and something that might result in far fewer drugs entering America.  In my opinion, our disinterest or inability to secure the border is one of the reasons we've never really been able to "win" the war on illegal drug proliferation.

        Source, FBI:

        “No other country in the world has a greater impact on the drug situation in the United States than does Mexico.”

        “The Southwest border (SWB) of the United States is the principal arrival zone for most of the illicit drugs smuggled into the United States, as well as the predominant staging area for the drugs’ subsequent distribution throughout the country.”

        If we secured the border, we would decrease the drug supply and save lives.

        From an economic standpoint, let’s talk about how much money leaves America and enters Mexico because of illegal drugs.  The FBI reports, “It is estimated that approximately 18-39 billion dollars annually is moved from the interior of the U.S. to the Southwest border on behalf of Mexican and Colombian DTOs. Thus, billions of U.S. dollars are sent back to Mexico annually.”  Further, you’ll find that most gangs in America, another source of violence, are partially or largely fueled by illegal drug sales, drugs often obtained from Mexico or south of the border.


        If we secured the border, we would decrease the drug supply, save lives, and siphon money away from many gangs.  It seems like an obvious place to start.


        http://www.fbi.gov/news/testimony/drug- … ted-states

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

          And how much money comes back from Mexico to the U.S. for guns? Answer: PLENTY. American gun manufacturers and dealers are arming Mexican drug lords, kidnappers and common criminals. Drugs go north, guns go south.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            When the government is selling the guns to mexican drug cartels? Yeah, plenty.

            1. Seth Winter profile image85
              Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Most American's think Fast and Furious is just a movie with Vin Diesel

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Or that a person investigating himself, and saying that he's clean, and releasing only some documents to prove it, and having the president say that nobody can look at the other documents, means he's clean... o.O

          2. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Sure.  Commodities come from both sides, leaving a lot of crime behind.  The border security is so bad, people can smuggle things to and from America. 

            Ralph, if we had better border security, it would help eliminate gun smuggling to Mexico too.  Better border security helps both countries in some ways.

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

              We can agree on that.

          3. Laura Schneider profile image92
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Very true, Ralph Deeds! Actually on your point above, too, brought up by Education Answer: I agree there as well.

            1. peoplepower73 profile image89
              peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              While the one off killings are a tragedy, the mass killings by the mentally ill of young children and students is a much bigger tragedy and much harder to control.  These people are usually armed with high capacity automatic weapons.  Yes, it can be argued what constitutes an automatic weapon and what is high capacity?  But how do we know who these people are and when are they going to commit the crimes? 

              Wouldn't the first step be to ban these weapons of war from civilian use? I can understand if you are an upstanding law abiding person and want to own an AR15 just for the thrill of firing it, or if you live in a remote area and feel you need it for protection.  But I believe it is a small price to pay to remove these weapons and their magazines off the market.  The market being the legal and illegal markets. 

              The other argument is to protect yourself from tyranny.  Which I believe is a "what if game" the NRA and gun manufactures play to sell more of these weapons.  The NRA doesn't sell weapons, but it's lobby groups get funding from the gun manufactures. Fear can be a great motivator and I believe the NRA uses tyranny as an instrument of fear.

              What did we do before AR15 type weapons were available? Since we can't control when the mentally ill are going to commit these horrific acts. We don't know who they are and we can't provide therapy. Wouldn't it be better to remove the source of their instruments of mass destruction?  I am not advocating that the government confiscate your weapons. I know that is in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  However, banning further manufacture and sale of these weapons to civilians would keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

              I'm sure it can be argued they will use some other type of instrument as a weapon.  But the convenience of the AR15 type weapon will no longer be available to them. Note:  AR15 in this context can be any weapon of war that is designed for mass killing.

              In any decision that affects the entire socioeconomic structure, there are trade-offs.  In this case, weapons that were designed for war, will no longer be made available to civilians, especially the mentally ill.

              The second amendment is vague its understanding. In 1791, did it mean to protect the states that have a militia (national guard) from the federal government or did it mean everybody is entitled to have a gun?  A gun in 1791 was the same for a civilian and the military. Today, a gun is much different than weapons of war used for mass killings.

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

                That makes sense to me.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow Ralph, judging from your lengthy comments to others,  those few words say a lot to me.  Thank you.  You are the only one who has commented so far.  I read it again and in my haste to post it, I had some typos.

              2. Mitch Alan profile image84
                Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Tell me again how the ban on illegal drugs has worked in keeping them out of the public's hands?
                Since none of the mass shootings, that I'm aware of, were commit with automatic weapons, what would a ban on them (which, incidentally, already exists) do to stop them? The definition and distinction between semi-automatic and automatic has been, for decades, clearly defined, so your argument on that point is moot. Semi-automatic firearms are those that must have the trigger pulled a separate time for each round to be fired. AR15s fit this legal definition, as do most modern hand guns.
                Your comment about the difference between "one off" shootings and "mass"  shootings is also a bad argument, as more people are killed annually, by far, in one off shootings than in mass shootings. So, if your concern is for the loss of life, why stop at AR15 type firearms, when more people are killed using handguns than all rifles combined.
                Furthermore, almost all, if not all, of the mass shootings in the past 50 years, that occurred in public venues, have been in "gun free" zones. Violent offenders, regardless of reasons, tend to pick unarmed victims.

                1. peoplepower73 profile image89
                  peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Mitch Alan:  Just because you are not aware of mass shootings does not mean they didn't exists. This should satisfy that requirement. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 … tings-map.

                  The assault weapons ban was a sunset law that expired September 13, 2004 and was never renewed.  Please read this:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_As … eapons_Ban

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image84
                    Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Where did I say mass shootings didn't occur? Quote me back to me...
                    What I did say was that "one off" shootings account for far more deaths in the U.S. than all mass shootings combined. Furthermore, if any AUTOMATIC weapons were used, they are already banned and have been since the 30's.
                    As to the "assault" weapons ban, that should have expired, as the federal government is to be constrained by the 2nd Amendment, as well as the rest of the Constitution, and "shall not be infringed" is part of that Amendment. You may not like the Constitution, but it is the law of the land and can only be changed by Amendment.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The Netherlands has very, very lax drug laws. Finland, Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are very nearly just as lax, and as I've mentioned earlier, these same countries have absurdly low rates of violent crime.

      (In this case, Japan is the odd man out, as many drugs are still quite illegal. Guess no one wants to mess with the Yakuza...)

  5. Alphadogg16 profile image88
    Alphadogg16posted 3 years ago

    Guns are not the issue, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Saying guns kill people is the same as saying cars kill people.

  6. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    I agree completely.

    1. Laura Schneider profile image92
      Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I disagree mostly. The way guns are used in big cities is not the way they're used elsewhere (armed forces, rural areas). Folks in the city carry them to protect themselves from human attackers: rather than slug it out, they simply shoot it out, not caring who's caught in the crossfire, to include children, parents... folks who have nothing to do with the quarrel and yet are punished by it. Spouses killing each other thinking erroneously that some intruder is in the house (they had no business using a gun if they don't know the basic rule that you don't shoot unless you have a clear view of what you're shooting at). Kids playing with the improperly stowed guns.... The people kill the people, absolutely. However, they likely would NOT kill those same people without the guns. More guns per capita equals more deaths. Same is true for your car example: the more cars/vehicles we have on the road the more likely we are to be killed in or by them. Simple math, complex social issues. "Bad guys" may always be able to get guns, but we don't need to make it so easy for them as to sneak daddy's gun out when he's not looking. Homeowners trying to protect themselves are doubling their chances of death by gunshot--for every member of the family regardless of age. It's unbelievable that people can think that MORE guns will improve the situation. And, if MORE guns won't improve the situation, it's likely that FEWER guns will improve the situation. Like the case of Someone on this thread who said he lived in the rural area and there wasn't all this shooting going on. In other words, fewer guns per square mile/block/whatever. Same number of people have the guns (let's assume), but they have space to live apart from being annoyed by their neighbors to the point that gunfire is the solution. And, reading ahead, I'm on board with jleblanc1317, too, regarding the drugs. Guns are the weapons used by the people who are angry, crazy, or high, and the people are angry when crowded together with drugs mixed into the scene, so reducing the guns and drugs should reduce the incidences of gunshot victims. How to accomplish this? Not by divesting yourselves of any responsibility for the situation as you both have done, but through active participation in a war against guns and drugs. Hard work over time and neighborhood involvement and commitment and clear leadership and lots of money. Finding healthy outlets for peoples' angst and things to keep them cool and busy during the hot days of heightened tempers and murders in the summers. Showing them that there is an exit--many, in fact--from the life they'd been leading/headed toward. Helping them get legitimate jobs that pay legal money in reasonable sums to those who earned it, and making sure that the people DO their jobs, get paid, and get home safely afterward. <shrugs> It's hard. But, guns most certainly can kill people when wielded by idiots or hot-heads who think they run the street--and probably do! :-(  Think about it jleblanc1317 and Alphadogg16. Without a gun in your hand, you COULDN'T shoot someone deliberately or accidentally--or accidentally shoot yourself, for that matter. And, whether you have a gun or not someone else with a gun could still shoot you. Think it through. Do the math with a 3-digit IQ and see what you get for an answer. Find your own exits out of the mess and believe in them and then fight like heck to be able to let your folks and grandfolks remain living in your current neighborhoods without fear of violence if they so wish. Without people loitering at street corners, up to nothing legal. Start by being part of the solution--let go of your own gun(s). BE the change you want to see in your own life....

  7. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago

    How about the people who kill people while on drugs. Drugs alter the mind they mess up rational thought processes. Therefore people do unrational things. Come on people really, not to mention that the most used most common drugs seeked and used is marijuana it is common knowledge that it is a nervous system depressant hence the laid back behavior of users of the drug. On the other hand other drugs are stimulants and provoke behaviors that a sober or rational person would not display. Lets use a little common sense with this people. Not to mention this was a gun control issue not one of drugs. However I enjoy the debate so bring it on your just gonna have to do better. And possibly stop taking whatever drug you want legalized.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      And according to those countries I listed, where most drugs are quite legal, murder is not among those..."unrational" things.

      1. Seth Winter profile image85
        Seth Winterposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        jleblanc1317 if your going to take that stance lets ban caffeine, because high amounts of caffeine have been known to make you do irrational things.

        That being said legalizing drugs would do wonders for this nation.
        -Ability to create a new industry of recreational drugs. Job/career creations
        -Ability to tax it.
        -Ability to regulate it. No more junkies sharing needles. HIV, etc cases would decrease.
        -Reassignment of law enforcement. It's a fact that cops are overworked and they can't keep up. What if all forms of law enforcement had the ability to stop looking into drug related incidents? How many murderer's, child molesters or terrorists could be caught?
        -Decrease in organized crime. Who benefits most from drug laws? Drug Cartels, because if it were legal, a large corporation would come in and start making the stuff cheaper/safer and without the need to smuggle it over the border.
        -Boost in tourism. This might be small but it would likely bring in more foreigners wanting to spend money here. How many people go to Amsterdam for the same reason?

  8. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago

    So let me understand meth, bath salt, k12 and those type of drugs should all be legal no matter the affects are? Is this what I'm hearing from you weed is one thing I get it never tried it never will but I do understand the reasoning behind wanting it legalized. I am in favor because of the afore mentioned money aspects for both state and federal. I will concur on that one drug. But I will not back down on my stance on cocain heroin and the like. Not to mention that the countries that are mentioned do not have the population as the US the culture is different and all and all the entire populous is different apples and oranges I'm afraid.

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It's incredibly hypocritical to start this thread arguing that people will get guns regardless of gun legislation and then turn around and want drugs banned, exactly the same thing is true for drugs as for guns and if you think people should have the right to own a weapon that can kill dozens of people in minutes (and I actually agree) how in the flipping hell do they not have the right to own drugs that can pretty much only harm themselves and maybe increase their chances of committing a crime a little (many of these drugs actually reduce criminal activity, LSD, Weed, Oxy etc. for example.)

      Not to mention that crime would plummet if they did, a huge portion of our murders are committed over drugs, it would far more than cancel out the potential increase in some more people using and committing a crime.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Have you ever heard of the law of unintended consequences?

      When you make a drug illegal, street pharmacists make it with no regulation. The people that want that stuff still get it, but they get much more dangerous versions of it. Again, it funnels money and power to drug lords. There isn't a single benefit from banning it.

  9. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    FROM MY MORNING PAPER:

    BUSY WEEKEND IN DETROIT--13 PEOPLE SHOT

    Thirteen people were shot, one fatally, during eight incidents in the 24-hour period between Wednesday and Thursday mornings, police confirmed.

    The spike in gun violence includes a shooting on Detroit’s west side Wednesday that left four people injured and a 54-year-old woman dead.

    At a news conference Thursday, police asked for the community’s help in identifying the man or men involved in that incident.

    “We are hopeful that this information will come to us sooner than later,” Detroit police homicide Inspector Dwane Blackmon said.

    As of Thursday, police said, a total of 115 criminal homicides had occurred this year, compared to 121 during the same time period in 2012. Police also said there had been 375 nonfatal shootings as of Thursday, compared to 371 by this time last year.

    On Wednesday, the woman was killed after 8 p.m. on Carlin, near Orangelawn. A 58-year-old man, 32-year-old woman, 24-year-old woman and a 15-year-old girl were wounded in the shooting and are in temporary serious condition, police said. None of their names have been released.

    Blackmon said the initial investigation revealed some type of argument occurred about children on the block. Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens told the Free Press Wednesday that a group of youths were playing, and after an adult sent one of the children home, the child told his or her family.

    An argument broke out between the two families, and the shooting occurred, she said.

    Blackmon said the shooter or shooters may live in that area.

    “It appears that this was a situation that could have been avoided if there had been some conflict resolution utilized,” he said. “This was a situation that escalated far beyond where it should have been.”

    In a news release Thursday, police said arrests have been made in two of the eight shooting incidents that occurred between Wednesday and Thursday. The victims in the incidents range in age from 15 to 58, according to information from police.

    Police on Thursday also announced an arrest in the stabbing of a 64-year-old customer at a Detroit gas station. According to police, the man, who is recovering, was at a station on the southbound Lodge service drive in northwest Detroit when he was attacked for his money.

    Lt. David LeValley, of the department’s Headquarters Surveillance Unit, said surveillance footage from the gas station and a tip from a citizen led officers to a 27-year-old Detroit man, who was arrested Wednesday. The Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office is reviewing a warrant, he said.



        LOCAL NEWS /
        City of Detroit

    Detroit police search for man suspected of killing 1, injuring 4 others

    Detroit police were searching late Wednesday night for a man suspected of shooting five people, one fatally, on the city's westside

        May 16, 2013



        LOCAL NEWS /
        City of Detroit

    Man shoots pregnant woman after she refuses demands for sex

    The woman, who is several months pregnant, was listed in temporary serious condition at a local hospital.

        May 14, 2013



        LOCAL NEWS /
        City of Detroit

    Man found fatally wounded on Detroit's southeast side

    The victim was discovered with gunshot wounds in the 300 block of Montclair and died at a a local hospital, according to Sgt. Eren Stephens.

        May 12, 2013


    Michigan news

       

        ter an early morning crash with a vehicle in Dearborn, according to police.

        Kym Worthy loses bid to get more money for prosecutor's office
        Romulus mayor announces he won't seek fourth term
        Judge tosses Arab Festival lawsuit filed by Christian missionary group
        Hostage escapes, Westland City Hall standoff ends peacefully

    Oakland County news
    SEE MORE Oakland County news

        Girl, 17, fatally shot in Pontiac; man, 18, held
            May 16, 2013

        Authorities in Pontiac say they've arrested an 18-year-old man in the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old girl.



        LOCAL NEWS /
        Michigan news

    Michigan man gets life in Ohio pawn shop shootings

    A judge in Ohio has sentenced a Michigan man to consecutive life prison sentences for the slaying of a pawn shop manager and the death of an accomplice during a robbery.

        6:48 AM, May. 16, 2013

    Virginia man charged in Macomb County road rage incident

    A Virginia Beach man is accused of pointing a gun at another motorist in a road rage incident this week in Macomb Township.

        May 16, 2013

    1. 61
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No news like that in my paper where approximately 90% of the citizens own guns.

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

        Where do you live? In a rural community, I bet.

        There's no shortage of guns in Detroit.

        1. 61
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes I live in a rural area, the city paper I speak of however is not rural at all.

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ralph has always had the philosophical position that if he can prove that lots of bad guys do bad things then society should make good guys pay for it with a reduced amount of freedom.

          Ralph calls this "common sense gun laws."

        3. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If he lives in a "rural" area with lots of guns... but no one is shooting people willy nilly.... and in Detroit there are lots of guns... but people ARE shooting one another regularly...

          It's pretty obvious to anyone with even a two-digit IQ it is NOT the guns that are the root cause of the problem.

          1. Laura Schneider profile image92
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's the conclusion you come to based on the scenario as it has been presented?!? On what did you base that conclusion?

            If I'm in a rural area with lots of guns my neighbors are distant from me so quarrels are less likely to break out. If I live in a densely populated area with lots of guns, my neighbors might be close enough to shake hands through the windows of our houses and just as annoying as an unwelcome house guest. So, when the quarrels break out they are immediately escalated far beyond "Sorry, Phil, I already drank the last beer or I'd give you one"--they go straight to lethal weapons used (mostly) by idiots who don't know how to use them or they wouldn't have brought one in the first place. It's pretty obvious to anyone with a three-digit IQ that it's the guns that are the root cause of people getting shot to death. If no guns existed in either area, rural or big city, no people could get shot to death by them. Obviously this is a "for instance", I know that guns will always exist in both places, but reducing the VOLUME of guns and/or the TYPES of guns --so they hold fewer bullets, not rapid-fire, etc. --should help city folks and won't hurt rural folks up against a raccoon or skunk who only needs 1-2 bullets in an educated hand or a shotgun.

            Yes, guns will always exist; and yes, they will always be misused by some and not others. Maybe it's the education of the 2-digit IQ-ers that we need to work on: without a gun in an argument, it's unlikely to turn deadly. Bring a gun, and what we've just read is what you get. That and accidental shootings of people through the sides of their houses from stray bullets, the kid playing with daddy's gun and shooting himself. The wife shooting the husband, mistaking him for a rapist/burglar...

            To respond to Jack's original statement directly, it's pretty obvious to someone with a 3-digit IQ that PEOPLE (humanity--human nature) are the root cause of the problem. Take away more of the dangerous toys and add education at all levels and you'll have a bare-minimum start at fixing a truly awful situation that will take years--generations--to resolve. ERs will start seeing fist-fight and broken bottle victims again, rather than gunshot victims. [I've lived in extreme MN and in Baltimore, MD (shades of Detroit still lingering, rioting still common), and in Chicago, so I can see in hindsight why we moved out of the cities when we did: too many guns went with the drugs and gangs and mobs. A bloody nose heals; a bullet to the heart--not so often.]

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph, we get it. Detroit is a screwed up place. A dying city, smothered by debt, run for decades with incompetence, corruption, and greed, and full of crime.

      Are you trying to make a point other than that?

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        If guns don't kill people, then neither do cities.

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Nobody said cities kill people.

  10. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    GUNSHOTS ON WARM SPRING EVENINGS

    NEWARK — A FEW Saturdays ago, at the early evening hour when children linger outside to wring the last fun they can from the day, a series of gunshots split the air near the corner of Chadwick and Avon Avenues. Everyone scattered. After the cops arrived and taped off the intersection and determined that no one at the scene had been hit, the street slowly stirred back to life.

    The kids re-emerged. So did their parents. Little girls did circles on pink bicycles in the driveway of a Newark Housing Authority town house complex. Someone turned up the radio of a parked car. With the cops commandeering the street, Chadwick and Avon was suddenly, temporarily, one of the safest spots in town.

    I happened to pull up with my wife and daughter just as the police had reopened the street to traffic. We were there to see Thaiquan Scott, 36, whose five children included some of the girls in the driveway. I’d spent a long time following Thaiquan and writing about him as he struggled to make a better life for his family, to protect his kids from the streets he once ran as a low-level drug dealer. He looked grim.

    “What happened?” I asked.

    “You know what happened,” Thaiquan replied.

    I stared at him. “Eight shots,” he said. “Maybe 10.”

    Thaiquan saw me look at his daughters. “What can I do?” he said. “I got to let them play. They don’t go far.”

    My heart ached for him. I’ve spent many years reporting on Newark, and I consider myself pretty well acquainted with the havoc that gun violence wreaks on a community. But it’s not just about blood and mayhem. The effects include a gradual acclimatization to violence that makes it seem O.K. to let your kids play 100 yards from the spot where someone just squeezed off a few rounds. It twists your perspective. Alters your perception of danger.

    Nearly a decade ago, when I first became a crime reporter in Newark, I didn’t know much about gun violence or what caused it, let alone the debate over bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. I’d never touched a gun, never known anyone who had been shot. I was clueless and grossly unprepared for what lay ahead of me.

    I set out with the naïve goal of writing about every shooting in the city and was immediately overwhelmed. There was more than one a day, on average, and the best I could do in most cases was write a “brief” — a couple of paragraphs, including the barest of details from the police, and maybe a quote from a witness or loved one — and move on.

    Within weeks, I was exhausted and despairing. I questioned why I was bothering to do it at all. When I returned home each night, I wondered if the victims or their families would pick up the next day’s paper looking for information, and how they’d react when they found so little.

    One thing that particularly surprised me was how relatively few people died of their wounds. My first year on the beat, more than 80 percent of all shooting victims lived. That turned out to be a fairly typical rate for Newark and the rest of the country. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 84,149 people died in shootings in the United States from 2004 to 2010. During that time, another 350,157 people were injured in shootings but survived.

    I’ve met a lot of those broken people. In a place like Newark, even after a historic drop in the crime rate, they weren’t hard to find. I interviewed a teenage girl with a slug lodged near her heart and a 7-year-old boy hit in the leg while he played on his porch. I know a hot-dog vendor who was shot in the gut by robbers and a grandmother struck by an errant bullet leaving church. One of my dearest friends is a man who got involved in a love triangle and paid for it with a gunshot that paralyzed him from the belly down.

    I’ve talked to kids who have seen someone get shot; many of them are afraid to go outside, while others act as if it doesn’t bother them at all. I’ve met their neighbors, who live in a constant state of fear and mistrust. I’ve spent many hours with their suffering parents, people like Thaiquan, who desperately want their children to ride bikes on a warm spring Saturday evening without having to think about ducking and running.

    Those stories don’t attract anywhere near the attention that murders receive. But I often think about them when there’s a mass shooting somewhere like Newtown, Conn., or Aurora, Colo., or Oak Creek, Wis., towns previously relatively untouched by gun violence. These unspeakable bursts of evil shred lives, families and communities, and the nation rightfully fixates on their grief and healing.

    But for every one of those victimized towns, there are dozens of American cities where, every year, many more people are shot than in any single gun rampage. In those places — Newark, or New Orleans, where around 20 people were wounded last weekend when a gunman opened fire on a Mother’s Day parade — there is no definable healing process, because the violence never really stops. The number of dead, and the much larger number of those who return home with grievous injuries, grows every year. So does a deeper emotional trauma borne by their dispossessed communities.

    It’s become so ingrained in the life of certain neighborhoods that even its victims, those who are most at risk, have little choice but to learn to live with it.

    Police tape shouldn’t be a sign that it’s O.K. to go back outside and play.

    Jonathan Schuppe, an NBC reporter and former staff writer for The Star-Ledger, is the author of “A Chance to Win: Boyhood, Baseball and the Struggle for Redemption in the Inner City.”


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/17/opini … ef=opinion

  11. peoplepower73 profile image89
    peoplepower73posted 3 years ago

    Bad guys is a generalized term.  Who are the bad guys?  There are many categories of bad guys.  They include: gangs, robbers, and the mentally ill.  Gangs generally shoot each other.  They also shoot others because of stray bullets and initiation rites.  Robbers and other criminals don't generally do mass killings. 

    However, mass killings are in almost every case done by the mentally ill.  In most cases, these people only become criminals after they have done the mass killings.  Therefore it is very difficult to detect when they are going to do it. Further, if they buy their weapons through the internet black market it even makes it more difficult.  But if there were background checks, the checks would prevent these people from buying the weapons in the first place. 

    The argument is if I'm a good guy, why do I have to subject myself to a background check, criminals are going to get the weapons anyway?  in my opinion, its a small price to pay in order to screen out the mentally ill that create these horrific crimes.  Also there should be more funding given to mental institutions to be able to detect the potential for these situations.  It's not going to work in every case, but why not try and screen out as many as possible?

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

      Valid points IMHO.

    2. innersmiff profile image79
      innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      In light of recent events concerning the targeting of politically unfavourable groups, what basis is there for trusting the government to effectively judge who is mentally ill?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I think the mentally ill records are entered into a database.  The background check would just screen those record.  The federal government would not be involved.  It would be much like the background check for a driver's license.  It could be handled at the state level.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm all for background checks. I don't see the issue with that part of the gun control legislation however, much of what is being proposed is being completely ignored here.
          1. A National Register of all LAW ABIDING gun owners and all weapons they own. This is after they've passed the background check. Merely a nice little tool for the government to go collect all the guns when they're ready. It serves absolutely no other purpose.
          2. You would be denied the right to purchase a gun if you've been ACCUSED of domestic violence. Not convicted, mind you, simply accused. What happened to that nice little thing about innocent until proven guilty?
          3. While I am not certain this is included in the national legislation, liberal Governors of NY & Maryland have gone a step further. Not just a list of law abiding gun owners, but now they must be fingerprinted. Really? REALLY?
          Sometimes, it is not about the main point being spouted by the liberal left, but all the junk they hide beneath it.

        2. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It doesn't take away the problem of an outside authority with vested interests dictating something as vital as one's own protection.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No one seems to have any problems with the same outside forces dictating something as vital as self-reliant transportation.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, that's a different subject, but it's an infringement on our natural right to be free to travel.

            2. innersmiff profile image79
              innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I do, but not to the extent of my issues with weapon background checks seeing as driver licence-ship would probably be necessary even if the roads were privately owned.

      2. Laura Schneider profile image92
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I believe they were targeted because they SAID they never paid taxes. They do target people who publicly say they don't pay taxes--saves the time and money of searching for those that don't advertise on billboards/signs. It's logical and fiscally responsible.

        I agree with your other statement: ONLY a doctor (M.D. or Psych.D.) should be judging who's responsible enough to own a gun legally. (A note/form from your doctor should be good enough proof, though I realize doctors can be threatened or bribed into providing such things). The government can't seem to judge it's own sanity, if actions and results are any indication. LOL Sorry, I'm just sick of hearing "accidental shooting", "the child was killed by a stray bullet", and "friendly fire". And I grew up with guns in the house, was taught how to use and care for them properly, and I'm not a bad shot either. ;-)

    3. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      How will background checks stop people from buying guns on the black market?

      Why do you want more background checks, if we don't enforce the ones we already have?

      What do you plan to do to stop people from making their own gun at home with the push of a button?

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How will background checks stop people from buying guns on the black market? - They won't, I never said they would.

        Why do you want more background checks, if we don't enforce the ones we already have? - The reason they are not enforced is because congress has hobbled the ATF from doing their job.

        What do you plan to do to stop people from making their own gun at home with the push of a button? - You can't stop that.  But that doesn't mean you can't have background checks.  Your argument is why even try, it's not going to work anyway!

        1. innersmiff profile image79
          innersmiffposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The point is that you don't violate liberty on a whim.

          But even if it were theoretically possible to prevent every ill on this Earth, what would happen to our liberty?

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

            "Whim."
            The gun mayhem that we've been experiencing is hardly a "whim."

            1. 61
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this
            2. Laura Schneider profile image92
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Well said,Ralph Deeds! Mayhem is exactly right.

        2. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You said people buy guns on the black market, and background checks would prevent them from getting those guns in the first place.

          It's not up to the ATF to prosecute. It's up to the Department of Justice, and state governments when the cases are passed on. Nobody prosecutes them. You have FELONS filling out those forms, getting rejected, and nobody prosecutes them... you think they just walk out and give up?

          My argument is that gun control is a losing battle, and one that only puts restrictions on the kind of people who care about the law.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            The ATF doesn't prosecute.  It enforces laws and arrests those who have violated them.  Sure, why have any laws at all, it only puts restrictions on those who care about them?

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              There is no point to having laws if you don't enforce them. Thank you very much.

              What would be the point of making it illegal to murder, if we didn't prosecute people for murdering?

              "You broke the law! Bad! But, we're not going to send you to prison. Have a nice day, just try not to do it again."

  12. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another deranged cretin with a gun:

    " ...According to Mr. Kelly, the gunman was in the neighborhood with two other men shortly before midnight when he urinated in front of the Annisa bar and restaurant on Barrow Street at West Fourth Street.

    The man then went inside and angrily confronted the bartender with antigay slurs, the police said, pulling up his gray hooded sweatshirt, and revealing a silver revolver in a shoulder holster. He threatened the bartender that if he called the police, he would be killed, the police said.

    The man and two companions then headed south on the Avenue of the Americas and ran into Mr. Carson and another man at West Eighth Street, the police said. A confrontation ensued.

    “There were no words that would aggravate the situation spoken by the victims here,” Mr. Kelly said. According to the police, the gunman once again used antigay slurs, and at one point asked, “What are you, a gay wrestler?”

    Raquan Johnson, 22, was in a pizza shop on the Avenue of the Americas and watched as the argument escalated.

    He said that Mr. Carson’s friend shouted back at the gunman: “Oh yeah? Well, what do you look like?”

    After a few minutes, Mr. Carson and his friend continued on their way, assuming the exchange was over. The two men walked along West Eighth Street, but the gunman apparently did not want to let the matter drop. One of the gunman’s companions tried to talk him out of following Mr. Carson, according to the police. That companion left, the police said.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/nyreg … ay.html?hp

    1. 61
      Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. Ralph Deeds profile image70
        Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Unfortunately, many of the police aren't the brightest bulbs on the tree. And a significant percentage of them are bullies who should be locked up.

        1. 61
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          That's why we law abiding people have firearms. I am amazed that you don't understand that.

  13. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 3 years ago

    Lol, I love how you think these stories mean something Ralph

  14. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    A huge part of the problem is prison overcrowding. Instead of tax payers feeding and housing lifers for the rest of their worthless lives we should execute them and make room. I say we do the same with pedophiles. But the bottom line is that the government has got to be proactive not reactive. That being said this country is entirely to far behind to be proactive. Drugs is absolutely a big part of gun control. The government will not do anything to stop drugs they have the rescources and means to stop it however it brings to much money into the country. They won't legalize like suggested in earlier post because prices will fall through the basement. So solutions I don't really know if there is one.

  15. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    FROM THE DETROIT FREE PRESS 5-21-13

    ARMED ROBBERY BY 3 TEENS IN WIXOM, Michigan

    The Wixom Police Department is looking for three teenaged armed robbers they say struck around 11 p.m. on Monday in the Village Apartments on Thornwood.

    According to police, two broke in and demanded money from the person inside, but when he said he had none, they attacked him. Then, the third thief came in and pointed what’s believed to be a long gun at him. The trio stole an item police haven’t identified and then fled on foot.

    The victim was taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, investigators said.

    Anyone with information concerning is asked to call Wixom Police at 248-624-6114, or the anonymous tip line at 248-624-0884.



        LOCAL NEWS /
        Macomb County

    Two on trial in Macomb County in shooting of pregnant woman

    Police said the woman was driven to a field in Detroit, where she was doused with lighter fluid, set on fire and shot in the back

        5:46 PM



    http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … om-robbery

    MAN ARRESTED IN QUINTUPLE SHOOTING

    An arrest was made in a shooting last week that left four people injured and one woman dead, police announced Tuesday.

    A 27-year-old Detroit man was arrested Friday in connection with the shooting, which happened on May 15, Detroit Police Sgt. Eren Stephens said. She said the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office is reviewing charges.

    Police said a 54-year-old woman was killed in the shooting on Carlin, near Orangelawn, on the city's west side. A 58-year-old man, 32-year-old woman, 24-year-old woman and a 15-year-old girl were wounded in the shooting, according to police.

    Stephens said police are still looking for a second person they believe was involved in the shooting

    http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … oit-arrest

    DETROIT POLICE--WOMAN DEAD--2 MEN WOUNDED IN SHOOTING

    A 55-year-old woman is dead and two men are wounded after being found shot in a suspected drug house early today on Detroit’s west side.

    The trio was found at 1:20 a.m. today in what was supposed to be a vacant home in the 8100 block of Wetherby, near Livernois and Tireman, Detroit Police spokeswoman Sgt. Eren Stephens said in a release.

    All three apparently had been living in the house, a suspected narcotic location, according to investigators.

    The two men, ages 73 and 47, were in temporary serious condition. No details were available about who shot the trio, according to the release.

    Anyone with information is asked to contact the Detroit Police Department’s Homicide Unit at 313-596-2260 or Crime Stoppers at 1-800-SPEAK-UP (1-800-773-2587), online at www.1800speakup.org or by texting CSM and tips to CRIMES (274637).

    http://www.freep.com/article/20130521/N … n-shooting

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well now, Ralph, I wonder if you've actually read what you've posted here. They really do not support your argument for gun control. Let's recap.

      A case where the assailants doused a woman with lighter fluid and set her on fire. THEN shot her in the back. Because you know, setting her on fire wouldn't have killed her at all. Either way, people who live outside the law, so elaborate how regulations aimed at law abiding citizens would have helped here.

      A case where bodies were found in a narcotics house. Again, people living outside the law. Elaborate how regulations aimed at law abiding citizens would have helped in this instance.

      A case involving three teenaged assailants. Committing a robbery. Once again, people already living outside the law. I reiterate my statement regarding the other cases.

      I don't have enough details on the actual shooting for the last case because that isn't the story on the shooting itself but the arrest story.

      Finally, I leave you with this:
      9/11/2001: Weapon of control: box cutters   Lethal weapon: airplanes

      Boston Marathon Bombing: Weapon of control: none Lethal weapon: converted pressure cookers

      Oklahoma City Bombing: weapon of control: none Lethal weapon: car bomb

      People of a mind to commit mass murder, mayhem and destruction will do so with or without a gun.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ralph is not really interested in "supporting an argument for gun control."

        He just likes to emote. For a number of years that has substituted for any reason and logic in his gun control posts.

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

          And your argument is to protect citizens from our government. Sounds like treason to me.

          1. 61
            Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't believe that is the argument but that is exactly why the second amendment was created.

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

              It's one of several arguments being advanced, by opponents of any or all weapons control.

              1. 61
                Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It is a good argument then, and no if the federal government steps out of its intended role an armed response would not be treason! In fact it would be exactly what the founding fathers intended.

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

                  That's Looney Tunes. You sound like a member of the Michigan Militia. Do you dress up in a camo outfit and run around in the woods?

                  1. 61
                    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Not in a while no. Tell me why the second amendment exists then.

                  2. Jack Burton profile image80
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And ~this~ is the best that Ralph can do.

          2. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There ya go, Dear Readers. Straight from Ralph's reasoning...

            If a Dick Cheney type gets into the presidency with a solid radical conservative tea party majority in the Senate and the House, and he decides he kind of likes the power and wants to continue it indefinitely so he shuts down the press and media, and sends anyone who contradicts him to Gitmo, including the Supreme Court, the best Ralph can advise is to "grin and bear it" since any other course of action would be "treason."

            Ralph would be forced by his own philosophy to roll over like a lap dog and beg to have his stomach scratched.

  16. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    He's slow he thinks because some shoot someone else nobody should have guns if somebody in his family was raped or robbed and they could have stopped it by having a gun I bet his view would change. That's the problem with the liberal democrats the think what is good for the gander don't apply for the goose. Some people also forget about those who have been traumatized by bad experiences in there lives. Not just the victim but there families as well. If my sister was rapped you bet I'm do everything in my power to protect my family by anyway possible. Yes Ralph that includes a firearm now you digest that while you try to come up with something to prove we don't need guns. Get real Ralph.

  17. 61
    Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago

    For some reason I don't think Ralph is interested in truth.

  18. Astra Nomik profile image75
    Astra Nomikposted 3 years ago

    There are countries in the world where gun crime is only a fraction of the rate of crimes committed in the USA by gun users or gun-toting criminals.

    has anyone seriously look at why that is the case? Are laws responsible for it? Or the absence of guns? Or the overall culture of the society in general?

    Someone in the USA feels that despite the many deaths that happen all the time, guns seem to still be such a powerful thing that it is worth the risk owning one and possibly using one for criminal purposes...

    What incentive would be worth implementing - that would dissuade gun-toting folks from using guns for criminal reasons? What would change that situation? What would save lives? What is the most we could do? Who's side are gun owners really on?

  19. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    More gun mayhem in Michigan:

    1 killed, 3 injured at Saginaw pre-prom gathering

        12:48 PM

    Saginaw High School student Tonquinisha McKinley, 17,died and three women, ages 18, 19 and 39 are recovering after they were shot while watching students take pre-prom pictures, Saginaw Police Sgt. Reginald Williams II said today.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      thank you, ralph, for your continued and diligent efforts to provide the exact reason why citizens need to be armed to defend themselves against predators.

    2. 0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hey Ralph, you forgot these:

      Boy, 15, arrested in stabbing of 2 younger siblings

      http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/u … -1.1353037

      Brother arrested in stabbing death of 8 yr old sister

      http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/11/us/califo … bing-death

      Hmmm...no guns. Go figure. Disturbed people find a way. They don't require a gun.

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

        That's true, but guns kill more people and more effectively. It's been months since I've seen a report of someone who successfully defended himself with a gun. Not saying it doesn't happen, but reports of these cases, except for killings by cops, are far out-numbered by gang shootings, accidental shootings, suicides, murders, robberies, car jackings, etc. I'm sure there are ways of curbing some of this violence without interfering with anyone's legitimate 2nd Amendment rights. I accept the 2nd Amendment as interpreted by the courts. You and others in this forum appear to be completely uncompromisingly against any sensible gun regulations. (Repeat: I'm a gun owner and former hunter and target shooter.)

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Depends on what you consider sensible.

          I am all for background checks. I am fine with waiting periods. I don't even have an issue with a reasonable assault weapons ban, just not one that includes 15 different criteria whereby one can now define a handgun as an assault weapon.  Thereby banning 80% of handguns. If you want an assault weapons ban, then you first have to determine an actual definition of the term.
          I'm against fingerprinting law abiding citizens just because they purchase a gun. I'm against a National Registry of all gun owners and all the weapons they own. (serves no purpose for prevention and is only good for one thing, collecting them.)
          So what are your sensible regulations?
          I think you just really aren't looking, Ralph. You are aware, that such stories won't really make the mainstream media right? It doesn't support their agenda. smile

          April, 2013:
          "Most home invasion robberies follow the same script: Find a residence in a nice neighborhood where people do not live too close together. Statistics show potential victims are likely white or Asian, though professional athletes of all races are common targets, too. In this case, police are not identifying the identity of the home owner.

          In an increasingly common crime around the country, especially in rural areas near cities, the perpetrators rush in, maybe beat up the occupants, take what they came for and get out. Maybe kill someone. Maybe not.

          But this is the most important part of the plan: The potential victims need to be defenseless.

          And that is where Xavier White, Dominik Lavon Council, Lamyer Gorminie Campbell and Derek Rashaun Hair went wrong: They chose the wrong house."
          source: http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/gun-owner-st … ders-dead/

          March, 2013:

          Gun Owner Safely Stops a Crime
          "Gun owner witnesses a burglary in his home, draws his weapon and waits for the police to arrive. No one is hurt"
          source: http://5440fight.com/2013/03/30/gun-own … s-a-crime/

          Here is a site that lists a few over the years:
          source: http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/ … crimes-too

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

            I agree that what people commonly call "assault weapons" don't really fit the correct or original definition of assault weapons which can be fired automatically by holding down the trigger. Perhaps it would be better to quit using the term entirely and simply focus on the capacity of magazines which I believe should be limited to a smaller number than were used in mass killings in schools and movie theaters and which are not necessary for target shooting, hunting or self-protection. Ditto for armor piercing ammunition which is opposed by nearly all police organizations. I accept that you are not dogmatically opposed to all gun restrictions. We might be able to come to a meeting of the minds on issues opposed by NRA and the gun manufacturers. As you're aware they are pushing cute little guns for kids and allowed a target with Obama's face exhibited by a vendor at the organization's recent convention. NRA opposes any restrictions that would conceivably reduce gun sales in this country which is foolish because reason and the wishes of the majority will eventually prevail over the millions they spend lobbying against the public interest.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The whole guns for kids thing is a tough one. I live in a rural community. These kids get hunting permits at aged 8 and up. We've never had an accidental shooting of a minor or by a minor. I think, that at the very least, parents should have to demonstrate they are knowledgeable enough to keep the dang thing out of reach and unloaded when the child is not being supervised. Certainly held responsible if they fail in that duty.
              I vehemently disagree about the President and the target practice. I disagreed with it when the Bush pictures went around as well.
              I honestly don't think background checks would reduce sales. I think it would just make it more difficult and perhaps costly for the venders at the shows. I think much of the NRA's resistance is borne by people like Feinstein who's clear agenda is to rid the populace of all their guns. She's even said so. Even law enforcement has balked at the regulations being passed in states like Colorado and Maryland, saying it does nothing by way of prevention and only treats law abiding citizens like criminals. Given a politician or a policeman, I'll listen to the policeman's opinion on this particular question.
              We've lost our moderates really. All we're left with (or at least the majority) are extremes on both sides running the show.

  20. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Deception on Gun Background Checks
    By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
    Published: May 24, 2013 48 Comments

       A strange thing happened after 45 senators killed a bill to expand background checks for gun buyers five weeks ago: many of those same senators suddenly discovered a profound affection for background checks. They had been for them all along, it turns out, and wanted nothing more than to keep guns out of the hands of felons.

    Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have co-sponsored and supported recently,” Senator Dean Heller, Republican of Nevada, wrote to his constituents earlier this month. “I have been adamant from the beginning of the gun control debate that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving.”

    Mr. Heller says he was a co-sponsor of a bill called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Reporting Improvement Act. He doesn’t explain that the bill would have made it easier for people involuntarily committed to mental institutions to own guns. And nowhere does he mention that he actually voted against a far more important proposal, sponsored by Senators Joe Manchin III and Patrick Toomey, that would have required background checks for buyers at gun shows and over the Internet.

    That bipartisan measure would have closed a gap that has let millions of guns get into the wrong hands. At the time, Mr. Heller said he voted against it because it would have led to the creation of a gun registry, though the bill would actually have made such a registry explicitly illegal.

    This kind of dissembling by gun control opponents has been rampant for years, but rarely have the National Rifle Association’s most captive lawmakers been so nakedly deceptive as in the weeks since public rage grew over the gun vote. Senator Kelly Ayotte, Republican of New Hampshire, also voted against the Manchin-Toomey measure, and she immediately suffered the backlash of angry voters in her state. So she issued a statement saying “I support effective background checks” and reminding voters that she had backed the misleadingly named Protecting Communities and Preserving the Second Amendment Act — a measure that does nothing to close the loopholes for Internet or gun-show sales and that was, in fact, supported by the N.R.A. because it actually makes it easier to transport guns across state lines.

    Polls have shown that the vast majority of New Hampshire residents support checks on all gun sales. Infuriated by Ms. Ayotte’s attempt to paper over her own voting record, Mayors Against Illegal Guns (a group financed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg) produced a video ad pointing out that she was the only New England senator to vote against background checks “when it counted.”

    These ads are having an effect, putting many gun-lobby senators on the defensive. Rather than admit that they fearfully follow the dictates of the N.R.A., these senators are instead seeking to fool voters by supporting measures with fancy titles and hollow cores. “Contrary to the ad, I did vote to strengthen background checks,” said Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, though he emphatically did not.

    This issue is not going away. The true supporters of background checks have promised another vote in the months to come. Those who really want to keep guns out of the wrong hands will have to stand up and prove it.

  21. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    Ralph really first of guns don't kill people. People behind the guns kill people. How about this someone breaks into your daughters house holds a knife to her throat has his way with her then cuts her throat. Or he breaks into the house makes his way through the house when he opens the bedroom door he's staring at the business end of a firearm. Come on people power and Ralph pick a scenario I bet you won't pick the first one. Now lets get to the elephant in the room. Gun control is not about guns or people owning guns. Instead it's about the government having absolute power and control over the people it governs. Really you don't believe that well how about this.  The liberal democrat administration that's currently in office says you should only be able to eat and drink this or that and only so much of this or that. Not enough here's some more you absolutely will have health insurance one way or the other or be fined oh but wait you can't afford it well that's ok the taxpayers can foot the tab. Furthermore it will now decide who gets what as far as treatment meds procedures. This is an attempt to radical and fundamentally change this country into what this administration wants it to be with boils down to a fascist ruling tyranny based Utopianism. The government is for itself and the ruled body should be for the government not the themselves. Get real the more power the better this administration feels absolute and supreme power.

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

      You are a victim of the Tea Party syndrome. We will never agree on much of anything.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Oh nooes... the "tea party" card. That pretty much ends the thread for Ralph. That's as far as he can go with reason and logic.

        1. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Which is farther than "nowhere," which seems to be how far Tea Party members can run with logic and reason.

          1. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am always happy to let the Dear Readers judge which posters are emotionally driven and those who use logic and reason. The fact that you added absolutely nothing to the thread just might give them a clue, eh.

          2. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            . . .and the progressives are better?

            1. Zelkiiro profile image84
              Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Considering progressives usually have actual science on their side rather than superstition and religion-induced ignorance, yes.

              1. 85
                Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Liberal, bleeding-heart emotion is the alternative?  That seems like a soft science at best.  Right now, we're progressing into bankruptcy.

                1. Josak profile image58
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Eh on most issues it's actually hard science. Same sex marriage, Global Warming and Contraceptive policy leap to mind immediately.

                  Liberalism is very much the ideology of experts, if you take a look at major liberal policies you will see the vast majority of them have the support of the vast majority of experts in that field.

                  1. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I find it interesting that the socialist defends progressives.

                  2. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Eh on most issues it's actually hard science. Same sex marriage, Global Warming and Contraceptive policy leap to mind immediately.

                    They are not hard science. Global warming has just as many on one side as the other. In fact, a recent report says that global warming has been slowing since 1998.

                    "Global warming has STALLED since 1998: Met Office admits Earth's temperature is rising slower than first thought"

                    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … ng-up.html

                    Please elaborate on what hard science has anything to do with same sex marriage or contraceptive policy. Especially since teen age pregnancies have been on the rise since we went on the free for all contraceptive binge.

              2. Jack Burton profile image80
                Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Bigot much....?

                1. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Why yes, the Religious Right is full of bigots. We've known this for decades, now.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Like the left isn't?

                    Oh but it's just against religious people or white people so that's alright. I forgot.

                  2. Jack Burton profile image80
                    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Best Zek can do, eh...

                  3. 85
                    Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The liberal left is full of class bigots and racial bigots.  When you give preferential treatment to somebody based on skin color, that's bigoted against everybody with a different skin color.  Affirmative action is bigoted.

  22. sokar505 profile image82
    sokar505posted 3 years ago

    The "bad guys" are stealing guns from the homes of the "good guys" though.  This is one of the most coveted things stolen during break-ins.  I don't know why "right-wingers" always jump to the conclusion that even the most modest control will lead to confiscation of all guns.  Even modest reform is impossible due  the limitless power of the NRA, the gullibility of some gun owner (my brother included unfortunately), and the timidity of politicians who are too afraid to face the gun-lobby.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You just discovered that bad guys steal things from good guys? How old are you anyway?

      And yes, we don't trust you. We don't trust those who claim that they just want "a little" and behind our backs talk about wanting "a lot." We don't trust those who know nothing about guns yet think they can think of and write laws to "control guns." We don't trust those who say they want "a little" and when that doesn't work, will want a "little more" and when that doesn't work will want a "little more" unto infinity and there is "no more" to give. We don't trust those who think solely with their emotions and bring no logic or no reason to the table. We don't trust those who are really after "people control" and not "gun control."

      We don't trust those who are willing to distort the plain truth of the 2nd Amendment. We especially don't trust the government -- and you can thank the good people at the IRS for nailing that down for everyone.

      You've given us no reason to "trust" you at all.

  23. Paul Todd Sharp profile image61
    Paul Todd Sharpposted 3 years ago

    I agree, Ralph Deeds. I dare anyone say that something designed to force equal treatment to be respected within our society bigoted. Affirmative Action is, like a policeman in its own right. It is there to dictate that humane treatment is a part of the mainstream in our workplace. Just like domestic violence laws. They not only protect our precious women, they also protect male victims, too.

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

      Whether or not affirmative action is justified depends on the history of each particular organization--whether there was past discrimination and current participation by minorities and women. I can envision institutions where there are few whites where affirmative action benefiting whites would be justified. When I went to college there were exactly two minorities in my freshman class of 1800 and only one minority professor. In grad school there were exactly zero minority students, zero faculty, and women had just became eligible for admission (1958). Currently at both institutions there is a significant percentage of minorities (and women in the grad business school). This change was accomplished by seeking out outstanding minorities and women for to be admitted as students and hiring in faculty positions. When I came to Detroit, the police force and fire department were pretty much lily white. This resulted in friction between the police and citizenry and contributed to the riot in 1967. By virtue of affirmative action, there is now is a significant percentage of minorities and women, and affirmative action is no longer in order.

  24. 60
    jleblanc1317posted 3 years ago via iphone

    Ok you either believe the whole bible or you don't believe it at all. The bible clearly says right there in black and white man for woman woman for man. Sodom and gumora ring a bell did burned the entire city because of its sexual immorality. That being said God makes no mistakes no junk therefore to say that people are homosexual by birth is a complete joke if you believe the bible. Nextly how much gun control do you want how can you justify more restrictions on law abiding gun owners as I said in previous post it's socialist propaganda to give the government complete control over everyone and why power. Power is the root of it all. Guess what was the first thing hitler did when he got power take the guns and bully and/or kill those who resisted. Obamacare is punishment as is the sequester trying to whip us into submission and if you don't believe that then it's time to wake up. This country is down hill to quick to check up if it is not reigned in a hurry we will hit rock bottom. The Great Depression will look like a bad day in the stock market. No one in their right mind can oh no the country is in the best shape it's ever been in bush screwed up Obama hasn't had enough time. Really people I'm sick of hearing it. I won't sit here and say its all obamas fault however I can say confidently that he has not improved under his dictatorship.

  25. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    A recent poll revealed some interesting views from our law enforcement professionals.  PoliceOne.com surveyed over 15,000 law enforcement professionals.  Here are the poll results:

    Would a fed ban on semi-automatic weapons reduce violent crime?
    91.5 % said no or negative effect

    Would a fed ban of magazines holding more than 10 rounds reduce violent crime?
    95.7% said no.

    86.2% said casualties would be decreased/avoided if armed citizens were present at a shooting.

    Only 1.5% thought schools should be “gun free” zones!

    What do you believe is the biggest cause of U.S. gun violence?
    Decline in parenting & family values – 38.1%
    Parole, early release & short sentencing for violent offenders – 14.7%
    Pop culture (violent movies, video games) - 13.9%
    Poor identification/treatment of the mentally ill – 10.1%

    Guns are too prevalent and easy to obtain– 4.4%

    15,000 people is a significant poll.  These are the people tasked with protecting us.  They MIGHT just know something about guns.

  26. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 3 years ago

    What happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany was so wrong, they were given a homeland with the support of the US President Senate and Congress. The Japanese was wronged by being the first (and only) Nation to have cities Nuked; their cities were rebuilt better than before. They became a trading partner and the label made in Japan was like, made in China is today. The Southeast Asians in America during the war, who were gathered and encamped, were given Reparations by US Law Makers after they were freed. The Native American’s Great Grandchildren were given a little land and casinos. The Negro, made in America after hundreds of years of slavery and racism, who got no reparation, no 40 acres and no mules, no homeland, the memory of their homeland lost forever. For some reason American Lawmakers and many here on Hubpages have no empathy for, we people who are darker then Blue. Affirmative Action is the least America owes to the people whose back this country was built. But… The Creator has a Master Plan and you reap what you sow.

    1. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      Nobody owes college admission or tuition to a person because of the color of his/her skin or because of cruel treatment that happened hundreds of years ago.  America does not "owe" affirmative action to anybody.  Perpetual reparations, generation after generation, takes away from one group of people to give to other people who feel entitled based on skin color.  It's simply wrong; it's similar to the racism we had fifty years ago and back.  We're all equal and deserve equal treatment.  Preferential treatment, based on skin color, sex, and religion, is simply wrong.  Isn't that the message of American history, the message you are trying to make?  Reparations and affirmative action result in greater opportunities for some, based solely on skin color; that's exactly what we should be avoiding based on what we should have learned about our past.

      1. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Educated Answer: racism haven't changed in the last fifty years??? Don't you believe that post racial stuff because Obama is President. He is not Negro he can trace his history back hundreds of years There are people without skin color today as yesterday that feel their skin entitles them to be better then all people of color, even if they are poor hungry and uneducated. What I wrote about American made Africans didn't reference skin color. You seem to base your understanding of debts owed on skin color. I bet you think you are not racist and you don't think that colorless people did or do any wrong to people of color. I knew if my first reply can from the right, the right to be wrong will be used to try and confuse my post, you are not as confused by my post as you pretend to be, I think you know better then you let on.

        1. 85
          Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I've read your post several times.  You seem to be saying that I am a racist and that poor, hungry, or uneducated people are lesser individuals.  You also seem to be saying that many people think racism is no longer a problem, because President Obama was elected; he is not black.  Is that your point?

          I wasn't confused by your original post, but now I am confused about this one.  Actually, I'm quite baffled by your post.  Sorry.  Could you please clarify your point?

          1. junko profile image79
            junkoposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No Educated Answer, I'm not saying Obama is not black. I stated that he was not a Negro. My point about the poor, hungry, and uneducated whites hold to their skin color or lack of color as an entitlement all people of color don't have. The much referenced Founding Fathers were all colorless, so some whites regardless of personal achievements feel superior to any and all people of color. My basic point is and was, people who was very wronged and left homeless in history like American Slaves, recieved from the American Government more than Affirmative Action. White women and all people of color needed and benefited from Affirmative Actions. Minority set asides benefitted the white woman more than the black man. The white man benefited through white women which included him when he was excluded by law. I can't educate you because you don't want to be educated by me, so my point is mute with you and you will never openly and publicly understand me.

            1. 85
              Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I have no reply.  I'm speechless.

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

                And clueless.

                1. 85
                  Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Ralph,


                  Did you read what he posted?  Were you able to understand it.  Yes, I am cluess when it comes to deciphering what he meant.  I asked for a clarification. 

                  He quite literally stated that poor, hungry, and uneducated people shouldn't consider themselves better than black people?  What does that mean?  I asked for a clarification, because frankly, I was shocked by the statement.

  27. 85
    Education Answerposted 3 years ago

    "In recent years, the SAT scores of white applicants to U.S. colleges and universities have been, on average, about 200 points higher than those of their black counterparts. Nonetheless, black students have been admitted to virtually all academically competitive schools at much higher rates than whites. At Amherst College in 1995, for instance, 51 percent of black applicants were admitted vs. just 19 percent of white applicants. At Rice University that same year, the corresponding numbers were 52 percent and 25 percent for blacks and whites, respectively. At Bowdoin College, the figures were 70 percent and 30 percent. In their 1998 book The Shape of the River, Ivy League professors William Bowen and Derek Bok report that at five of America's most elite universities, black applicants whose SAT scores fell within the 1200 to 1249 range had a 60 percent chance of admission, whereas whites with similar scores had just a 19 percent chance."

    There are many sources that detail this kind of thing.  Here's but one:
    http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view … asp?id=693

    We shouldn't be doing this.  Instead, we need to make sure all children, regardless of where they live or what the color of their skin is, receive a good, solid education.  Admitting anybody into college, based on reduced standards, does not address the real issue.  Why do they need reduced entrance standards?  We need to fix our schools.  Affirmative action does not fix schools.  Its goal is admirable, to level the field and allow greater opportunity.  It miserably fails to do this, because ultimately, it never fixes the problem in the first place, failing schools.

    Josak is right when he says that there is more to our problem than just bad schools.  Students go home each night.  If they go home to a family in physical, emotional, or financial crisis, it's less likely that they will succeed in school.  If they have parents that are uninvolved, it's less likely that they will succeed in school.  These are very real concerns that are not addressed by affirmative action.  We're doing a disservice to our children by thinking affirmative action even comes close to addressing any of these issues.  I liken it to gun control.  Banning guns doesn't address the real issue, violence.  It, much like affirmative action, is a quick fix.  When was the last time any quick fix really worked?  These quick fixes mask the problem and make activists feel like they have accomplished something.  If we're going to address these issues, it's a little bit more difficult than enacting a law.  It requires a deeper understanding and more commitment than enacting a feel-good, quick-fix law.

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

      Studies have shown that SAT scores are not a good measure of the academic potential and ability of inner city students or other students from deprived socio-economic backgrounds. And they are certainly not a valid comparison between deprived applicants and those with advantaged backgrounds. These tests are not a measure of innate intelligence and indicate nothing about character, ambition and potential for success in college and life.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        True.  I've always seen them as a measure of the knowledge base you are wanting to enter college with. 

        At an extreme level, you want to go to college and become a mathematician but you can't add 2+2.  That SAT will tell the college that; that the applicant does not have the prerequisite knowledge for the classes they wish to take. 

        That's what they're for, or so I see it, and they do a fair job of it.

      2. 85
        Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm a teacher.  Test scores are used for teacher evaluations and merit pay, so I can tell you that I am all too familiar with all of the faults of a single test score.  Still, there is no better way to determine academic potential.  The point, however, isn't that SAT scores are the single best way to compare applicants.  The point is that standards have in fact been lowered for some applicants.  Whether or not you believe in SAT scores, it is a fact that some applicants are given preferential treatment based on the color of their skin.

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

          Invalid SAT scores should not be used as an indicator of comparative merit in the case of applicants from deprived backgrounds. A better predictor of success is class standing, school recommendations and other indications of character and determination to succeed. Test scores are being misused in many states to evaluate teachers for purposes of salary increases, bonuses and to decide who gets laid off.

          1. 85
            Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Most educators know that class standings and school recommendations are a joke.  Schools are not equal, so class standings and recommendations are not equal.  What is above average performance at one school is substandard at another.  Tests provide equal comparisons, and that's why they are used.  Should a 4.0 at a horrible community college warrant admission into Harvard?  Should a recommendation from a teacher warrant Yale?  Come on, let's get serious.

            Yes, test scores are being used to determine teacher merit too.  It is a bit scary.  Your future is based on a single test.  If a student is hungry, sick, or being abused, you get slammed on your next performance review.  Your salary might decrease, or you might be terminated if enough students do poorly.  Still, the test is the single most accurate method to determine student ability.  You see, I am not only for using test results when it comes to college admissions, I'm for it when it comes to my own future.  Until somebody comes up with a better system, tests are the best method of determining what students know.  Teacher recommendations and student standing do not work and are quite literally next to useless.

            I base this on over 20 years in the profession.  I place students in accelerated classes, and I can tell you that teachers often fail to select the best candidates for a rigorous class.  Students who performed well at one school in another district aren't necessarily ready for accelerated classes in my district.  District standards, grades, and even curriculum vary widely.  Grades and teacher recommendations are the worst way to select students for accelerated programs, and I'm quite sure the same applies for colleges.

            Another point I need to make is that our district employs testing to alleviate bias.  Tests don't know color, sex, behavior, income, or religion.  They simply record knowledge.  Consequently, testing is an unbiased, fair system for selecting students. 
            .

  28. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Here's a good summary of the current state of affirmative action programs:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/educa … ed.html?hp

    1. mike102771 profile image82
      mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, the cost of a college is out of control. A person (white or "of color" ) may think twice before taking on 60,000 to 100,000 dollars of debt for a degree that may not get them a job.

      1. wilderness profile image97
        wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        And so they should, but there is no reason to run up a $100,000 debt load, either.  Anyone willing to put out hard work and sacrifice some comfort can pay for their own college education without accumulating that kind of debt.

        1. mike102771 profile image82
          mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The average college work load along with the unavailability of work makes that harder than you may think. The jobs the average college student would do are now being done by non-college students (people doing two or three of them just to get by). The type of college that is designed for the working student is not the type of college most employers want to hire from. The days of working at a pizza shop to pay for college are over (unless you can find a pizza place that pays 40k a year). My Ex-brother-in-law worked while going to Kent State. His paycheck went to pay for life (housing, food, etc). He has around a 60k debt for his degree. He works behind the counter at a gas station.

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

          " Anyone willing to put out hard work and sacrifice some comfort can pay for their own college education without accumulating that kind of debt."

          True. I worked part time for three years and virtually full time during my senior year in college as manager of a student laundry and dry cleaning agency. As I recall, I made close to $4,000 during my senior year in 1957 which was enough to pay for most of my education and for a good used car.

          1. mike102771 profile image82
            mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think 1957 makes my point. Things have changed in the past 56 years. A part time job will not pay for rent on room in a college town. That is if you can find that job. A part-time job that pays around 25k to 40k a year? Good luck trying to find that.

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Really?  Boise is a college town, and there are lots and lots of houses for rent, all within, say, 20 miles of the school, for $900 per month and down.

              Three roomies means that a minimum wage job will pay your share with just 41 hours of work per month. 

              It wasn't very many years ago that my son, with wife and 3 kids including one newborn attended school full time plus worked 40+ hours per week during the school year and more than that all summer long.

              When he graduated his wife went back to school, working part time. She graduated, got  a full time job, and he has now gone back part time for a masters, still working full time along with her.  The plan is for him to get his MBA, whereupon she will go back part time while still working full time with what is now 4 kids.   I'm really proud of them both, and they sure give a lie to the idea you can't pay your own way through college.

              Is it fun?  Heck no, but it can be done if you want to badly enough.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                "Is it fun?  Heck no, but it can be done if you want to badly enough."

                Which is where a lot of the problem lies IMO. Today's kids don't want to work. They want to play. They expect everything to come fast, easy and not break a sweat.
                Many never had a chore in their lives. Their parents just handed them money each week along with anything else they wanted. They don't believe they should have to actually work for something.
                Is it true of all of them? Of course not. Did these same kids exist years ago? Yes they did. Now, however, the majority fall under this category.
                It is a mindset that has been promoted by today's parents and our own Government. Just saddle on up and collect. No work required.
                That is just my opinion but I observe it every single day.

              2. mike102771 profile image82
                mike102771posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                So they still had two incomes (one full time and one half) whereas a teen entering the college/workforce would only have the 1/2. Also your son was older with more experience behind him as well as a support system in his wife. 20 miles from school would require a car with all of the expenses a car brings.

                Then you have to find that minimum wage job willing to give 41 hrs. Most will limit hours to limit the chance of being forced to offer insurance with the new law. This new job will also have to be willing to set their schedule around your school schedule. On top of all this you have the whiplash of all these over coddled children being on their own for the first time. Going from The helicopter mom to nothing is a shock that usually leads to drunk and disorderly charge  or at least no understanding on how to do the basics. 

                People go to college in Idaho?

    2. 85
      Education Answerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      "to encourage diversity"

      You won't need to encourage diversity if you fix our K-12 schools in the first place; if all kids have a good K-12 education, you won't need affirmative action to help students get into college.  They'll be able to get into college and receive scholarships based on their academics rather than the color of their skin.

      You haven't addressed that issue.  How are you going to help all of those inner city kids who don't plan on going to college?  Affirmative action is a quick-fix solution that avoids dealing with the real problem.  It's like gun control.  Neither affirmative action nor gun control really address the real cause of the problem.

  29. Laura Schneider profile image92
    Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago via iphone

    Sorry, there's a bug in the mobile interface, making my posts absurd.

  30. Laura Schneider profile image92
    Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago via iphone

    Would someone please report this bug to the appropriate thread? I have no control over where my posts appear when replying via the mobile interface. Thank you, unknown helper, in advance. Guess I'm altogether offline for today.

  31. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Another AR-15 shooting rampage leaves 4 dead in California.

    SANTA MONICA, Calif. — Four people were killed and five wounded on Friday morning as a gunman, dressed in black and carrying an assault rifle, strode across Santa Monica firing at people, cars, a public bus and buildings before being shot and killed by the police at the Santa Monica College Library, the authorities said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/08/us/sa … p&_r=0
    http://s3.hubimg.com/u/8078262_f248.jpg

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ralph:  This was too close to home for me.  Our daughter lives in Marina Del Rey which is the town next to Santa Monica.  She goes their all the time.  When is enough enough?  Thanks for your postings.

      1. Laura Schneider profile image92
        Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wow, that was a close call! I'm so sorry, peoplepower73. Something like that happened to me: my sister, her husband, myself, and another friend of theirs were all sitting on the floor playing a board game one Saturday night in their St. Paul apartment. We all heard the noise. "Was that a gunshot?" the other friend said. "Yes," said my sister or her husband. Then they briefly discussed who should call the police THIS time while the rest of us kept our heads down and stayed on the floor. As we watched from the windows, the police arrived and the shooter was put in custody after a foot chase that ended at a street corner visible from their windows--about three houses down and across the street they lived on. The disturbing part of the story is that they couldn't remember who'd called the police the last time, this being a common occurrence in their lives.

        I'm all in favor of gun control, peoplepower73, but I'm also in favor of the constitution upon which the U.S. is built. I'm at odds on this one within my own mind: I just don't know how to merge the two peacefully, as they seem at odds when it comes to automatic weapons, rocket launchers, drones, and, dare I say it, nukes and other such weapons of war, not protection, hunting, or sport. As you said before, however, simply reducing the VOLUME of guns and ammunition--and maybe even the places where they can be purchased, and adding a 60-day waiting period which a court order could override in extreme cases of danger--would help some. Also as you say, crazies and criminals will always find a way to get guns, but just cutting down the number of guns is a huge start--they have to work harder to get those guns, perhaps.

        Perhaps we could outlaw the "sport": shooting tournaments and target practice--that might get a lot of guns off the streets. After all, there are plenty of other great sports out there for gun people to participate in, such as archery. Maybe we should demand a DNA sample and fingerprints from each person who purchases a gun, with private purchases and DNA and fingerprint collections being supervised or taken by a Notary public. With authenticated DNA, we could at least trace the original legal purchaser of the weapon. Maybe, like we do with cars hold that person accountable to some degree if the weapon does something wrong in anyone's hands....

        These all sound like utterly crazy ideas to me, yet SOMETHING has to be done to get guns off the streets or we'll all be in the habit of sitting on the floor in our own home and hoping that no stray bullets can make it through the walls (fat chance, that, when you're talking assault weapons).

        And if you have a weapon that you don't want/need and turn it in to the police department, do you know what they do with it? In at least one case that I know of here in suburban Minneapolis, MN, they auctioned it off--it had been safely stowed in a remote closet and wrapped tightly to prevent it from being used accidentally for probably 40+ years. Now, it's on the street and busy again. Sigh.

    2. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Raplh, for pointing out why citizens should always have a carry gun with them. You just never know when you'll need it. And as we see in your story, waiting for the police just gets more people killed.

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

        I've never felt it necessary to carry a gun. However, okay for those who do. But why are you opposed to doing a bit more (background checks) to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, criminals, children?

        1. 61
          Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The current required background checks are supposed to do just that. What seems to be the problem?

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

            Why don't you read up on the issue of gun controls before you stick your nose into the discussion. Try googling "gun show loophole."

            1. 61
              Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Because there is no gun show loophole. Private sales of firearms are legal, no gun can be sold at a gun show by a Federally licensed gun dealer without a background check.

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

                http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaign … w-loophole

                To date, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has prevented nearly 1.8 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

                Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

                Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere.

                Unfortunately, only six states (CA, CO, IL, NY, OR, RI) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows. Three more states (CT, MD, PA) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Seven other states (HI, IA, MA, MI, NJ, NC, NE) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. Florida allows its counties to regulate gun shows by requiring background checks on all firearms purchases at these events. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the Gun Show Loophole.
                Gun Show Loophole Headlines

                New Gun Control Movement in America Making Real Strides
                Monday, May 27, 2013
                On April 17, the bill to expand background checks on gun buyers failed in the Senate, and the fatalistic shrugs in Washington were so numerous they were nearly audible. The legislation had been a modest bipartisan compro..,   Read More >

                Why Aren't US Gun Control Advocates Focusing More on Online Sales?
                Tuesday, April 16, 2013
                Despite clear demonstrations of the ease with which anonymous weapons transactions can occur online — including ties to mass shooting incidents — the issue has been largely sidelined during the political debate. After al..,   Read More >

                How the Gun-Control Movement in America Got Smart
                Wednesday, February 6, 2013
                Here is how advocates of gun control used to talk about their cause: They openly disputed that the Second Amendment conferred the right to own a gun. Their major policy goals were to make handguns illegal and enroll all ..,   Read More >

        2. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I wasn't aware that children were out buying guns at Walmart but perhaps I could be mistaken.

          And we already have background checks  to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people, criminals, and children who buy a gun from a gun dealer.  I guess we could create double-background checks for those people.

          Dear Readers, Ralph thinks you're stupid enough to believe that the gun runner who is illegally selling guns out of the trunk of his car to those who legally cannot own one will suddenly be persuaded to run background checks on every thug who approaches him in the back alley at midnight if only the "right" law will be passed. This is what he believes is "common sense."

          And I've already expressed the right approach in my hub about a gun law that everyone can support.

          1. Laura Schneider profile image92
            Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Mitch--Thanks for explaining the legal difference. I understand now. I'm still not sure how that keeps such weapons out of the hands of the idiots, but I understand the law better. :-) And thanks very much for acknowledging my existence in this debate: much appreciated.



            Children find ways of buying anything else they need that's illegal. Why assume guns are different? And why assume that the guns are being sold directly to the kid and not to a willing but idiotic adult?

            I think the main point here is that kids HAVE access to guns. How, why, and most importantly how can we stop it? Trigger locks, safes, etc. are one way of doing that. Because obviously the current screening method is failing our society more and more frequently these last few years. Doing home checks after the purchase to ensure that the guns were stowed appropriately safely for all inhabitants of the house would be one expensive but possibly effective (for awhile) way to go.

            Which reminds me... why aren't we all pushing for trigger locks? Aren't they effective? I don't know all that much about guns and nothing about trigger locks that's not on biased TV. I do know that daddy never locked his gun cabinet with 6-8 big guns (one for bears) and a hand gun or two in it...And another kid and I would play with them. (And we were supposedly the grown-up smart kids of the neighborhood, not the airheads.) Trigger locks would have helped as well as locking the gun case and putting the bullets somewhere else. (We lived in the suburbs then--we rarely ran into trouble except with the paperboy being late.) I currently know a felon who owns hunting rifles. How'd he get them? and why aren't those of us who know about it turning him in? Because we're "Minnesota Nice". Right to the death, we are. He's a very nice felon, but a felon for serious illegal business that guns are sure handy in. I guess those two things--me playing with guns alone or with a friend as a kid, and now knowing an adult felon with guns--are the reason I'm trying to keep up with this debate. Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions sometimes.

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

            Cute little guns designed especially for kids are being pushed by gun manufacturers. They are being purchased by gun nut parents for their children.

            http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/05/07/ … e-allowed/
            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8080059_f248.jpg

            1. Laura Schneider profile image92
              Laura Schneiderposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I've seen these guns, too! Ralph is right--they're a scaled down size for children and lighter weight in "cool" colors and designs. No serious adult would use them (or be caught dead, NO pun intended, using the pink ones).

              Ralph, I assume you were referring to me when you said,  I apologize, and you are correct: as I indicated before, I'm unprepared for this debate and kind of coming at it from the other side. I'll keep my mouth shut and listen and learn more from now on.

              However, I am not totally ignorant and I have done research through "normal" channels, I'm just not as informed as all of you:  I'm aware of the gun show loophole, having been to several shows, and I'm aware of trigger locks, but only from TV news or sales spiels (biased/useless). A person close to me went off his meds, bought some guns easily from a store--passing the background check without a hitch, and became one of the "crazies" we're worried about, and he knows exactly where I live--alone. I've seen the minimal background check forms they have you fill out at the stores that didn't prevent this particular crazy (or the convicted felon on parole) from getting guns from stores even with the background checks. No offense to TV, manufacturers, or the Internet in general, but I'd rather learn more from people who know more than the news feed readers or random total strangers on the 'net I've read rantings from, and what little I can learn having never gone through the whole process of purchasing a gun for myself at all, let alone in very recent years. I trust all of your opinions more than total strangers'. I'm NOT against owning or collecting guns at all--I kind of like target practice even, and I'm not a half-bad shot even when out of practice. I believe that any little bit we can do to make guns safer, within financial and practical reason, the better. I also believe the guns themselves are innocent {except perhaps the pink ones and Buzz Lightyear ones I've seen :-| those manufacturers and the parents who bought them are guilty, as far as I'm concerned}. The background checks and the parolee check-ins have utterly failed my little world, so I'm hoping to hear ways of improving something that will help prevent or at least lower innocent bystanders' risks. So far, reducing the number of guns on the street seems to be the only way I can see to really make a dent in that. Gun collectors are no trouble--heck I collect goblets and rocks and they're stowed appropriately for display just as are the collections of the gun collectors and makers I've met and am related to.

              Okay, I'll just listen/lurk, if that's okay with y'all.

              One serious question for everyone first, though:

              Should I report the felon with the guns to the authorities, or is that too dangerous or a waste of time because the slime-ball will charm his way out of it and nothing will be done? That might (might) slow down his lucrative illegal business (while on parole after serving 7 years' hard time) at least for a while. I know he'll get another gun(s), but shining a spotlight in his direction -- would that help for awhile?

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

                Actually, my comment was directed toward Lie Detector.

            2. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Oh,... so you were wrong and children are not out buying guns. Thanks for clarifying your error. Now just work on the other 98 percent and we'll have a decent discussion.

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

                Sorry, Jack, I didn't say that children were buying guns. Try for a change to get your facts straight.

                1. 61
                  Lie Detectorposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  " gun nut parents"

                  Do you have the ability to post without calling people names? You put up Chris Rock as some sort of voice of reason on gun control, Chris Rock shouldn't be taken serious on any subject.

                2. Jack Burton profile image80
                  Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Well, Ralph... SOMEONE suggested that we need background checks specifically to keep guns out of the hands of "children."

                  I do believe that was YOU.

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

                    Here's what I actually said:

                    "Cute little guns designed especially for kids are being pushed by gun manufacturers. They are being purchased by gun nut parents for their children."

  32. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    Survival story in inner-city Detroit:

    This has been a week to remember for Balaal Hollings.

    On Monday, he celebrated his 18th birthday.

    On Tuesday, he suprised his classmates by attending his Northwestern High School graduation ceremony and delivering his speech as senior class president.

    On Wednesday, parts of that speech were featured on national TV and “liked” all over the Internet. On that same day, Hollings was released from a Detroit physical rehabilitation center, and he threw out the first pitch at Comerica Park, where the Tigers battled the Tampa Bay Rays.

    This week almost didn’t happen for Hollings. He almost wasn’t here to celebrate his birthday, give that speech or throw out anybody’s ball.

    On April 6, a bullet blew out part of his brain. It’s still lodged there.

    But unlike the stories of the seven teenagers killed by gun violence in Detroit this year, Hollings made it to the other side of high school. And he is determined to keep on making it.

    “First, I want to thank God,” Hollings said to the crowd of 1,500 attending Northwestern’s graduation at the Millennium Centre in Southfield. “It is so good to be alive.”

    A bullet could shatter his brain, but he refused to let it shatter his hopes. Even doctors marvel at Hollings’ nearly miraculous recovery.

    “This is just a small piece of my life,” he said. “I still have my whole life to live.”

    People love Hollings — his teachers, his classmates, his mentors. He was the class president. The homecoming king. Captain of the football team, basketball team and swim team. Voted “Most Likely to Succeed,” “Class Clown” and “Class Spirit.”

    “This young man represents what we’re all about, that is, academic success, and it was critically important for me to go to the hospital and let him and his family know that he is important to us, that he has a bright future, and that we stand ready to ensure his continued success,” said Detroit Public Schools emergency manager Roy Roberts, who visited Hollings at DMC Sinai-Grace Hospital in late April.

    http://www.freep.com/article/20130608/N … shot-Wound

  33. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Laura sez: Children find ways of buying anything else they need that's illegal. Why assume guns are different? And why assume that the guns are being sold directly to the kid and not to a willing but idiotic adult?

    Jack replies: Okay...now explain just how "background checks" are going to stop "illegal sales" and "willing but idiotic adults"?

    It's a "feel good" measure. Laura. It does absolutely nothing other than make the person who posts "background checks" ffffffeeeelllllll gggggoooooddddd. Nothing else.

    And it allows those of us who know this to know just how little other posters know about guns, buying guns, and the gun ownership culture.

  34. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Ralph thinks that when you buy a red car you used a "red car loophole" in order to get it.

    When you buy a head of cabbage at the store you used a "cabbage loophole" to buy it.

    That TV you just bought -- it was only done with the "plasma TV loophole."

    That's because Ralph doesn't know what a "loophole" actually is. For him, the definition is "I don't like someone doing something so that must be a loophole that allows them to do so."

    He simply distorts the English language because he can't actually make a valid point with logic and reason.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jack Burton: I believe you are distorting what Ralph said.  Here is what he said that is pertinent to the argument. "Unfortunately, current federal law requires criminal background checks only for guns sold through licensed firearm dealers, which account for just 60% of all gun sales in the United States. A loophole in the law allows individuals not “engaged in the business” of selling firearms to sell guns without a license—and without processing any paperwork. That means that two out of every five guns sold in the United States change hands without a background check.

      Though commonly referred to as the “Gun Show Loophole,” the “private sales” described above include guns sold at gun shows, through classified newspaper ads, the Internet, and between individuals virtually anywhere."

      Your thing about red cars, cabbage, and plasma T.V. is a distortion of what he wrote.  It is also the same old line that is used that if guns are outlawed, then we have to outlaw knifes forks, cars, and anything that can be used as a weapon to kill people.  That is called false equivalence and is a propaganda technique to compare two unlike things that are made to believe they will produce the same results.

  35. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    PP... it's only a distortion if you have no clue as to what a "loophole" actually is. I think you've just settled that point about what you know and don't know.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      What?

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        don't be obtuse. I just said you don't know what a "loophole" is. this is why you agree with Ralph. Neither one of you know what one is. You just make up definitions to suit your desires.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Jack Burton:

          Definition of Loophole :"The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"
          1. A way of escaping a difficulty, especially an omission or ambiguity in the wording of a contract or law that provides a means of evading compliance.
          2. A small hole or slit in a wall, especially one through which small arms may be fired.

  36. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Absolutely. Now learn something...

    There has NEVER been a federal wording, contract or law that ever, even once hinted at the necessity of background checks on private sellers and buyers of guns.

    There have NEVER been an law or regulation passed by the federal government to have total, or even mostly "compliance" with a background check for private sellers and buyers.

    There is no "difficulty." It doesn't exist.

    There can be no escaping, omitting or evading a federal law that prevents, hinders, or stops a private sale or buying of a gun merely because it is private or between two individuals that reside in the same state. That is because there is no such law and there never has been.

    By your own definition you just proved there is NO "gunshow loophole." If you still think there is, then the burden is upon YOU to show just which "contract" or "law" is being escaped, omitted or evaded. It's going to be difficult at best to show how a loophole exists in a law or regulation that doesn't exist.

    The American system of freedom is that if a law is silent on an issue we have freedom in that issue. That is why I raised the concept of buying vegetables and TVs earlier. There is NO law that says you can't buy a TV... therefore you can buy a TV. It is not a TV loophole.

    There also NO law that says I can't sell my gun to my neighbor in a private sale as long as he is otherwise an acceptable person to own a gun. Therefore I can. It is not a "gun show loophole."

    You can continue to live in the fantasyland about "loopholes" that you've read about from anti-gun sources.... or you can man up and decide that you are going to live in the truth of the matter.

    Your choice. I've done my responsibility to educate you.

    BTW... your ignorance about selling guns over the Internet is as vast as your ignorance about loopholes. If you want I'll make a stab at cluing you in to the truth but I kinda want to know that I am not wasting my time on someone who refuses to learn the facts.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jack Burton: Read this.  It is far too long and too much pertinent information to just quote some passages.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_ … ted_States

  37. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Gun control is a state issue.  Gun show loophole in the majority of states demonstrated here: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Slow learner, eh...

  38. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Surely you're not advising wiki as an authoritative source. I've got a third-cousin, twice removed on my mothers side who says he knows the exact day the space aliens will land. He has as much credibility as wiki on any subject about guns.

    If you want to know about gun shows just ask. I've been to them, I've bought and sold from them, and I've exhibited at them. If I judge that you are really seeking information to actually learn something I'll probably answer you.

    1. peoplepower73 profile image89
      peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Jack Burton:  Why am I not surprised that you would give no credibility to Wikipedia?  I take it you did not even go to the website.  I like the way you pass judgement on people and condescend to them by saying : "If you want to know about gun shows just ask. I've been to them, I've bought and sold from them, and I've exhibited at them. If I judge that you are really seeking information to actually learn something I'll probably answer you."  Hey Jack, don't do me any favors O.K.

      I think this link shows all the states and their laws for background checks.  http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safet … s-map.html

      So when psycheskinner posted that link, you called him a "slow learner, eh... " You probably didn't even look at that site either.  I don't think you can handle the truth.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        All of which to say that you can't really refute the truth that you've been wrong about the so-called gun show loophole all along.

        Yes, I took a look at both links. Neither one of them refuted the error either.

        As noted previously, you can continue to live in fantasy land or you can become educated. Your choice.

        1. peoplepower73 profile image89
          peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Deleted

          1. Jack Burton profile image80
            Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Your "protect police" website is nothing but a sock puppet for bloomy's Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

            Hardly a credible, unbiased source.

            Here's the Fraternal Order of Police, representing the rank and file, in full support of the Tihart Amendment...

            http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news … vidual.xsl

            And yeah, I remember quite well when my boss was gone for a month... why, I didn't come to work that whole time. Why bother, eh. The boss isn't there.

            And you still can't point to a law or regulation that is being "loopholed" with private gun sales, can you.

            All hat, no cattle.

  39. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    At this point I am confused.  What is the dispute.  Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows.

    Yes?  So.... cherchez the argument?

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      psyche..,. you could not be more wrong than if you claimed an elephant was really a mouse. Or that a child's tricycle was a sufficient vehicle for interstate travel. Or that "The View" was quality TV programming.

      1. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Perhaps you could explain.  Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say.  Gun shop = background check.  Gun show = no check. Not sure what I am missing. Perhaps it would help if the participants in the discussion would argue facts rather than hyperbole and misdirection.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          psy....if you think it "would help if the participants in the discussion would argue facts rather than hyperbole and misdirection" then you have to quit posting statements such as, "Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows." and "Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say.  Gun shop = background check.  Gun show = no check."

          The FEDERAL government has set up a system using people with a federal firearm licenses for the buying and selling of guns. This person is known as an "FFL" for short.  The rules are complicated at times but the basics are simple.

          A gun manufacturer cannot sell directly to the consumer. A gun wholesaler cannot sell directly to the consumer. Both must go through a FFL to sell their guns to the public. If a person wants a "new gun" they have to go to a FFL located in their state to purchase one.

          The FFL can have two types of guns. The first are his private guns, and these "off the books" as they are his private property. Any gun, whether new or an used one that he took in on trade or bought to resell, that he has for sale MUST be "on the books" in his registry. It goes in the book as soon as he gets it. To move a gun out of his book he MUST run a background check on a person who fills out the federal form 4474 completely and accurately. If a gun is on his books it does not matter where he is at when he sells the gun. The 4474 MUST be filled out and a background check MUST be called in. He can be sitting in his garage, at a flea market, in his shop, at a gun club, a hunting lodge, a gun show or any place between. The correct paperwork with a background check MUST be done by the FFL. If a FFL sells a gun on his books without doing so he has just committed a federal felony. There are NO exceptions.

          There is no state law that overrides this federal law. None.

          There are only three basic federal laws that have an impact on a private sale from one individual to another. The first says that if you are not an approved person (felon, adjudicated mentally ill and a few other categories) you cannot legally buy a gun from ANYONE. The second says that if you are a private seller you cannot SELL a gun to someone that you know is unapproved. The third law says you can only make a private sale to someone who lives in the same state at you do. There are some minor differences in the law concerning handguns and longguns but that is basically what private sales are like.

          This means that all those who fearmonger about "internet sales" are clueless. If I, as an Indiana resident, want to buy a gun advertised over the internet in Oregon the only way I can do so legally is to have the seller of  that gun ship it to my FFL and then he puts it on his books the same as any other gun in his shop. I then have to go through the same exact system with filling out the paperwork and doing a background check as if I was buying a new gun from him.

          Yes, I can call Fred up in Oregon and ask him to ship the gun directly to me, but we are both committing federal felonies by doing so, and it has nothing to do with the internet. If my buddy Sam who is Fred's neighbor in Oregon tells me that Fred is selling his gun and I call Fred on the phone the same exact illegal process can take place without the internet even being invented. There is not a background check law in the world that prevents criminals from illegally selling and buying guns.

          If I, as a private individual, want to sell my guns at the gun show I can do so without having to run a background check. I can also sell them over the back fence, over the swimming pool, and in the parking lot of Walmart without having to run a background check. My only requirement is that I verify that the person lives in my state and that I believe he is not an unapproved person.

          There is no such thing as a "private dealer." This is like calling the drug dealer a "private pharmacist" or a bank robber as a "private money exchanger." The law allows a person to sell off their collection of 1, 100, or 200 guns. If it takes ten weeks, ten months or ten years to do so then it is still legal.

          What is illegal is for me to buy a gun, sell it, buy a gun, sell it, buy a gun, and sell it. I am engaging in the activities of a dealer, and that is against federal law. Acting as a dealer doesn't make me a "private dealer" anymore than a fraud without a medical licenses is legitimately a "private doctor."

          Some very few states, such as California, require by state law that ALL firearm selling and buying within the state must go through a FFL. This is their prerogative, but note that it does not impact or change the federal law at all.

          So your previous statement "Most states require background checks, and in most states this requirement is waived at gun shows." is completely untrue. The state has no power to "waive" the requirement for a FFL to do background checks at gun shows. The states don't "waive" the requirement for private sales since they simple have no law on the books that require it in the first place.

          You can figure out yourself why your other statement, "Because very states laws are right there on the internet and that is what they say.  Gun shop = background check.  Gun show = no check." is also just as wrong.

          As noted with peoplepower... you can accept the truth of the matter... or you can choose not to and continue to believe and post false information. Your choice.

          BTW... those who spout the nonsense about gun manufacturers opposing background checks because of their greed are just plain ignorant of the process. As noted above ALL new guns are sold via FFLs with their background checks. A used guy is what is bought and sold on the private market without background checks. That used gun brings in no profit one way or the other to gun manufactures. They have already made their nut off from it months, years or decades ago.

          If the bottom line was the only thing the gun manufacturers were interested in they would all strongly be in favor of background checks in order to force all gun buyers into the gun shops where they can see what the latest, newest whizbang gun is for sale.

  40. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    Yes, that applies to licensed dealers.  But private individuals can also sell guns and in many states anyone not making their living by gun selling is a private seller.  These users are not required to do a background check at a gun show.

    Yes/No?

    I genuinely am trying to find the facts here.  I have no idea how much gun show trade is licensed dealer versus private seller.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Anyone can be a "private seller." If I sell my handgun to my neighbor over the back fence I am a "private seller." The SAME EXACT WAY that I am if I sell my TV to him over the back fence.

      Why is this so difficult for you to understand. There is NO FEDERAL LAW that prohibits me from selling the gun, the TV, my car, a tomato or three of each to my neighbor.... someone who saw my ad in the newspaper... someone I bumped into at Walmart... or someone I met at a gun show. As long as they are not a prohibitted person and live in the same state as I do I have the freedom to do so. And in each case I don't (and can't) do a background check.

      Some very few states have a state law that requires me to go thru a FFL if I want to sell my gun. But I repeat myself from the previous post.... which I am beginning to suspect that you never read.

      The phrase "private seller" is meaningless. Totally worthless. If you mean a "private dealer" I already went through that in the previous post.

  41. psycheskinner profile image79
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I am understanding it, I think.  And the existence of private sellers, some in large volume, is why you can buy a gun at a show without a background check.  They are not subject to the federal background check requirement.  Yes?  They can sell guns over the back fence, or at a gun show booth.  yes?  That is where we came in?

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      At a gun show you are going to have three basic kinds of people who sell a gun privately. The first is someone coming to the show to unload a gun or two. He may sell it to a FFL if he gets a good deal, or he may sell it to another individual. You often hear, "I'll swap you my XX for your YY and I'll throw in $50 to boot." This is a common type of individual.

      The second is the person who buys a gun meaning to keep it and someone else makes him an offer on it five minutes later that is too good to pass up. For some, a quick $20 profit is worth it, for others it takes a $100 or more to move their heart. Many gun show attendees won't do it for any price no matter what. While it is perfectly legal to do so, it has ~just~ enough shade in it to attract the attention of an ATF agent who might be far too quick of accusing the seller of acting as a dealer -- buying and selling guns for a profit.

      The third is a person who actually has a table and is selling off a private collection. It's very common to hear those anti-gun people to breathlessly proclaim that statistics show that almost 50, 60, 70 percent (dependent upon how hysterical they are) of the tables at a gun show do not have an FFL at the table.

      Well, of course they don't. That is because gun dealers actually only make up about 30 percent of the tables at a gun show. The other tables are knife dealers, book dealers, accessory dealers, and even homemade candy and jerky dealers -- none of which I beleive require a federal license to operate. This is symptomatic of the type of lies that those on the other side delight in spreading.

      Back to private sellers. In a gun show of 30 to 40 dealers there ~might~ be 2 to 3 tables that feature an individual selling his collection. Might. The last gun show I was at a few weeks ago had none. It is a minor part of the show. Some buyers prefer buying from those people because they think they get a better deal. It's a toss up as far as I am concerned.

      Keep in mind that in every gun show you have three kinds of cops... There are those who are hired by the gun show owner as security. They are quite a number. There are those who are shopping for their own needs. I see them all the time in the shows. And there are those who are "undercover" hoping to get in the news because they busted someone doing something illegal at an evil gun show.

      Any felon with an ounce of brains is going to be on the far side of town from the show. Any person thinking about doing something illegal in the midst of dozens of cops deserves to be arrested for mere stupidity.

      1. peoplepower73 profile image89
        peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        How about the guy that is selling out of the back of his truck in the gun show parking lot?  Or the guy who buys a gun for someone that cannot pass any kind of check, but he can, so he buys the gun and then hands it over to the person who is not able to pass the checks for whatever reason?

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If the guy selling out out of the back of his trunk at a gun show is doing nothing illegal then  why are you concerned about it? Do you often stick your nose into other people's business?

          And a straw buyer is an illegal buyer. Why don't you also ask me about the person who goes into a bank and robs it.

          1. peoplepower73 profile image89
            peoplepower73posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            If the guy robbing the bank gets caught, he goes to jail.  If the straw buyer gets caught, does he go to jail?...just asking!

            1. Jack Burton profile image80
              Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Depends upon the prosecutor. Often they cut a deal with the straw buyer in order to roll up the bigger target above him. We just had a straw buyer sentenced to five years in jail in this area a few weeks ago.

      2. psycheskinner profile image79
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It seems to me that if you want to buy a gun without a background check, one or two booths is enough.

        That looks like a loophole big enough for an insane person or felon to walk through to me.  I don't see how they would be scared off by cops being present.  What they are doing is not illegal.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I really, really hope for your patients sake that you are not as ignorant of your field of study as you are about firearm laws. How about taking a look internally at yourself and find out what compels you to post about matters that you truly know nothing about, yet proclaim with all steadfastness about facts that are 100 percent wrong.

  42. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    I believe the law will not be able to stop the progression of guns and the illegal use of these guns certainly in America. I do however believe these laws being generated is in an effort to see to it that the government is not complicit in helping to provide guns for those with unlawful intent.

    I do believe the one thing that will impact the murder rate and the proliferation of guns is the changing of people's mindset as to simply sitting back and accepting that nothing can be done. No man is an island it has been said once before there are people who know people who are unstable, high strung and those who are irrational all in possession of firearms. Once these people have taken action their friends, relatives maybe even neighbors have said time and again if anyone was going to do that I always suspected it would be him.

  43. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8098653_f248.jpg

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      This is the best that Ralph can do. And it's the reason why the anti-freedom crowd is losing in the courts, the court of public opinion, and the legislatures.

  44. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Star sez: I do however believe these laws being generated is in an effort to see to it that the government is not complicit in helping to provide guns for those with unlawful intent.

    Jack replies: Please explain how two people engaging in illegal activity makes the government a partner in the activity. Is the government "complicit in helping to provide meth for those with unlawful intent" merely when two dealers get together to divide their stash before heading out to the street?

  45. SpanStar profile image61
    SpanStarposted 3 years ago

    Jack I hope I don't have to use big letters in order to explain this to you.

    If sellers have contracts with the government and the policies or procedures used by the sellers are lax in comparison to the laws for example not taking the time to make background checks would in fact make the government complicit in these transactions.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Makes no sense no matter what words or letters you use.

      "contracts"? What "contracts"? Making up non-existent items doesn't help any position you have.

      1. SpanStar profile image61
        SpanStarposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This may come as a shock but Boeing is just one of the businesses contracted with the federal government.

        Government Contracting Facts
           
          •Less than 5% of the businesses in the United States do business with the U.S. Government.
        •The U.S. Government is the largest company in the world. Approximately $1 billion in new opportunities in the services sector of Government contracting were available to bid on by private business each day.
        •The federal government signs over 11 million contracts a year.
        •COMPANIES ARE WINNING AND ARE AWARDED NEW CONTRACTS DAILY. ABOUT 95 PERCENT OF FEDERAL CONTRACTS ARE AWARDED TO SMALL-AND MEDIUM-SIZED BUSINESS vendors.
        •Government procure services range from Food Services and Janitorial projects to complex space flight systems development.
        •A Small Business Set-Aside Program (SBSA) was developed to help assure that small businesses are awarded a fair proportion of government contracts by reserving certain government purchases exclusively for participation by small business concerns. Any contract that has an anticipated dollar value between $2,500 and $100,000 in value is reserved for small, small disadvantaged, woman-owned, and small veteran-owned businesses.

          https://www.bidcontract.com/government- … 101.aspx#1


        Private parties entering into a contract with one another (i.e. commercial contracts) are much freer to establish a broad range of contract terms by mutual consent than a private party entering into a contract with the Federal Government. Each private party represents its own interests and can obligate itself in any lawful manner. Federal Government contracts allow for the creation of contract terms by mutual consent of the parties, but many areas addressed by mutual consent in commercial contracts are controlled by law in Federal contracts and legally require use of prescribed provisions and clauses. In commercial contracting, where one or both parties may be represented by agents whose authority is controlled by the law of agency, the agent is usually allowed to form a contract only with reference to accepted notions of commercial reasonableness

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government … ted_States

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I never knew the CEO of Boeing was caught selling illegal handguns out of the trunk of his car to convicted felons. The things I learn on the 'net never cease to amaze me...

  46. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    More gun mayhem:

    Woman, 3 Teenage Daughters Shot in Nashville
    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Published: June 14, 2013 at 9:32 PM ET

    Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

    NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Nashville police said a woman and her three teenage daughters were shot at an apartment complex in the city's Madison neighborhood.

    Police said in a news release Friday night that 39-year-old Earnest Woodley, who also goes by Earnest Moore, is wanted in the shooting of his girlfriend, 34-year-old Nicole Luke, and her twin 14-year-old daughters inside an apartment. Police said he then shot Luke's 15-year-old daughter as she sat outside in an SUV and fled barefoot.

    Police said all four victims were transported to Vanderbilt University Medical Center and are in stable condition. Police said Woodley has a previous conviction for second-degree murder in the 1990s in Shelby County.

    Arrest warrants were issued charging Woodley with four counts each of attempted homicide and aggravated assault.

    Police said Woodley is considered armed and dangerous.

    1. Jack Burton profile image80
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you Ralph. Your posting are a blessing for those who need to understand that THEY are their "first line of defense" and that waiting on the police to save them is usually done in vain.

      You're doing a valuable service for the firearms community and it's growth.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image84
        Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, the firearms community won't be satisfied until daily life replicates the O.K. Corral.

        1. Jack Burton profile image80
          Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          This is the best that zel can do. He can't actually add anything of value to the discussion so he attempts to demonize his fellow citizens. No reason...no rational thinking... no logic... just pure emotions that make him ffffeeeelllll gggggoooodddd about what he posted.

          And this is the reason why the gun control movement has lost in the public opinion, the courts, and the states. They have nothing to offer. Nada. Zip.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image84
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hmmm...
            /cast Reflect

            Jack Burton's attack reflected back onto himself!
            It's super-effective!

          2. Josak profile image58
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I am pro gun ownership myself but as for this:

            "And this is the reason why the gun control movement has lost in the public opinion, the courts, and the states. "

            Well that is flat out false, consult the polls to prove that gun control leads by a big margin in public opinion and ask the supreme court about the legality of background checks and automatic bans to see quite clearly that gun control won the courts too.

  47. Ralph Deeds profile image70
    Ralph Deedsposted 3 years ago

    At last!  A story in my Sunday morning Detroit Free Press relating how a responsible person (editor of the newspaper) carrying a gun averted being robbed at a convenience store. (Incidentally, I have no problem with responsible citizens "carrying." But I do think we need to try much harder to prevent others' access to weapons.):


    "James G. Hill: Why I carry: Having a firearm is like having insurance.

    "A few years ago, I was followed into a convenience store in northwest Detroit by two young men who were acting a bit too peculiar — and paying me a bit too much attention.

    "They didn’t do anything specific to raise my suspicion, but I’ve lived in big cities long enough to know when I ought to keep my eyes peeled. Something just didn’t feel right.

    "As we entered the store, one of the men followed me down an aisle; the other went down a separate aisle.

    "When I got to the register, one of the men stood a couple customers behind me. The other had already exited the store.

    "As I walked to my car, the man behind me began shouting after me, trying to get my attention. I kept walking, but also was scanning the parking lot, trying to put eyes on the man who had come out of the store before me.

    "That’s when I noticed “the other guy” ducking down behind some cars in front of me in the next row.

    "The man behind me, now just 10 or 15 feet away, continued to call out to me.

    "After his last shout of, “Hey!” I dropped my package and turned. I lifted my shirt so he and “the other guy” could see the HK .40-caliber handgun in the holster on my hip.

    "And I finally responded: “What?!”

    "The two men fled in separate directions.
    Prepared. Trained.

    "People buy insurance for their cars or houses, even their pets — usually with the hope that they never have to use it.

    "People take driver’s training or go to driving school to help them navigate the hazards and bad drivers on the road. They install alarms and locks for added security at home. And they watch over their pets and keep them in their house or yards to keep them out of trouble.

    "I think the same way about my gun.

    "Those are the analogies that I used to explain to the person who asked me recently, “Why do you carry a gun?”

    "Then I told them about my parking lot incident.

    "I carry it, like insurance, hoping that I never have to use it.

    "But, more importantly, I train with it.

    "I train with it because: a) It’s the responsible thing to do. b) I like target shooting. c) If I ever do have to use it, I want to be prepared to not only deal with the split-second situation, but also to help mitigate any unintended injury to those around me.

    "To put it plainer, if I have to shoot, I want to hit my target — and only my target — if at all possible. I don’t want to be part of the problem of people walking the streets, shooting aimlessly with no regard for human life. We have enough of that already. We have 300-400 people killed each year in Detroit alone.

    "But Detroit is not alone in that problem. And I don’t just carry my weapon in Detroit. Crime happens everywhere: From the quietest, far-flung community where the jaded response of “that just isn’t supposed to happen here!” echoes; to the grittiest of urban cores where the fed-up response of “Enough!” refrains.

    "Unfortunately, there seem to be too many reminders of how important it is to be prepared.

    "Think about the May 11 assault of a 64-year-old man at a gas station on Detroit’s northwest side. The man was followed into the gas station after being confronted in the parking lot, then beaten and stabbed repeatedly as the thug robbed the man. All the while, two men inside the station, along with the station attendant, watched — except for those brief seconds when one of the onlookers asked for his change and the attendant gave it to him.

    "Like most people, I was outraged at the video of the brazen attack, particularly because it involved an elder. We’re supposed to respect our elders, not beat, stab and rob them.

    "The first time I watched it, I focused on this prolonged attack that — while only taking seconds — must have seemed like forever to the victim. You can hear his pleas for mercy. And you can see and hear that the attacker had none to give. He was there only to take.

    'As I watched it over and over, I focused on everything around the chaos. I was livid at what appeared to be the relative inaction.

    "And I know I’m not the only one who felt that way.

    But I also know that I can’t put myself in someone else’s shoes.

    "It’s easy for me to sit back and say, what if? I’m sure the surveillance video clip didn’t show everything that happened. Those two customers may have had good reason to keep their distance. Maybe the attacker had a gun that wasn’t apparent on the video. Maybe the attendant, whom you couldn’t see or hear clearly in the video, was frantically calling for help from behind the counter.

    "It would simply be unhinged indignation and uninformed bravado for me to sit here now and say that I would have done anything different. Fact is, most people have no idea what they would do in those split-second, heart-pounding moments when life or death potentially hangs in the balance.

    "I admire, and now have a new appreciation for, police officers and what they confront on a daily basis. And I don’t want their job. But I know they can’t be omnipresent.

    "That is why I train. Not only so that I can try to be aware — one of the most important things you learn in firearms training — but also so that I can react as rationally as possible.

    'My experience in that parking lot is something that I have not shared. Not even with family members. But it was a situation I will never forget.

    "My heart was racing at the thought of what could have happened. I thanked God for getting me out of that situation. And I thought about Will Campbell, too.

    "Will, who is a licensed firearms instructor and a friend from our days at Wayne State University, had the same thing happen to him. Maybe it was the same duo? But, without really thinking — and at that moment in the parking lot — I recalled what he told me and reacted the same way he did. And with the same fortunate result.

    "I handled the situation as best, and as calmly, as I could under the circumstances: No one hurt. No one robbed.

    "By no means am I bragging about this situation. I was scared, for sure. But I was blessed. And I was trained.

    "Just like insurance, you buy the weapon and the training with the hope that you never have to use it.

    "But if you do, you’re glad you did.

    "I know I am.

    "I’m much less afraid of a responsible gun owner with dozens of weapons, than I am of one irresponsible thug with dozens of shootings and no training or conscience."

    James Hill is the Free Press’ politics editor. Contact James Hill: jghill@freepress.com or on Twitter @JGHillfreep.

    http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/arti … 3306230043

    1. A Troubled Man profile image60
      A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      That one statement speaks volumes. Thanks for posting the article.

  48. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    Unlike others... I actually have backup when I post...

    "33 percent of Americans feel the “Senate should debate and vote on gun control legislation again,” while 62 percent want the Senate to “move on to other issues.”"

    http://reason.com/poll/2013/05/29/poll- … ant-senate

    "Just your opinion, what do you think are the one or two most important things that could be done to prevent mass shootings from occurring in the United States?"

    2011 Jan 14-16
    Stricter gun control laws  -- 24%

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    "Most Americans feel it is more important for the government to enforce existing gun control laws than to create new ones. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 32% of American Adults believe creation of new gun control laws is more important. Fifty-seven percent (57%) think more emphasis should be put on stricter enforcement of existing gun control laws. "

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … g_new_laws

    There are dozens of other polls that I can point to that all say the same thing.

    As far as the courts, if you really want to claim that in the recent light of Heller and McDonald that the gun control movement is winning in the court then good luck with that one. In a few days Illinois is going to be the last holdout on CCW laws because the state was forced by the federal courts to acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms.

    "President Barack Obama made another push Wednesday to build support for gun-control laws in the wake of December's mass school shooting in Connecticut. But since then, states have passed more measures expanding rather than restricting the right to carry firearms."

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 … 64474.html

    That's what happens when all you have is emotion to post with. Reality has an unexpected way of intruding on fantasy.

    1. Josak profile image58
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Yes you do reference your statements, too bad the references you give are totally irrelevant and dishonest.

      None of your polls address the issue in discussion.

      The first one is not "do you support more gun legislation" it's "Do you think the Senate should work on it given they already failed to do anything on the issue". The second one is not "do you support gun legislation" it's "what is most important to stop mass shootings" and the last one is again not "do you support more gun legislation" it's "Do you think enforcement is MORE important than passing new laws".

      So really you didn't back your statement at all... because you can't, that's too bad. Not a single polls actually addressing your issue.

      Here is a poll addressing the actual issue:
      http://www.people-press.org/2013/05/23/ … s-chances/

      More than 80% favor the background check increases and more than 75% want the Senate to pass the bill that they failed to pass.

      Nice try though man tongue big_smile

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak frantically waves his arms and tries to claim that the public is in favor of more gun control in spite of the obvious truth that I posted. He can't really refute the numbers. Each question was on "gun control" and each time the public disavowed it.

        As far as that bogus 80 percent?

        The question was "do you think background checks should be run at gun shows"

        80 percent said yes.

        those 80 percent didn't know that background checks are already run at gun shows. They were merely approving of what was already a law. I can get you 90 percent of the public approving of a ban on abortion if I am the one who gets to define and arrange the question.

        There was a mass demonstration of gun control support the other day in California. Three people showed up.

      2. Mitch Alan profile image84
        Mitch Alanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I wonder how many of those that stated they wanted Congress to pass the bill in question have any idea what is in it? I doubt they know a single thing that is actually in it and are of a "do something, anything" mindset...just like those for Obamacare, Amnesty etc...

  49. Jack Burton profile image80
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    "/cast Reflect"

    Do we have a poster who actually thinks that casting magical spells works on the internet? I think I found his problem with logic, reason, and rationality.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image84
      Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Do we have a poster who actually doesn't understand the joke and how it relates to the post as a whole? I think I found his problem with...problem.

      1. Jack Burton profile image80
        Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        So far we've certainly established that this poster has little to nothing to add to the subject, eh.

        Other than histrionics, of course.

        OK Corral and all that....Live in fantasyland... post about fantasyland...

 
working