Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, January 16, 2019

Anyone who has paid even casual attention to pronouncements from the leadership of the National Rifle Association knows that they do not place a particularly high premium on facts or the truth. And while the news media get a passing grade for challenging the NRA on some of its most preposterous claims – the Obama administration is in cahoots with the U.N. to confiscate everyone’s guns — the gun lobby has largely gotten a free ride on gun safety.

Setting aside the fact that the NRA’s general legislative agenda is antithetical to the idea of public safety, consider CEO Wayne LaPierre’s claim that “no other organization in the world has spent more millions over more decades to keep Americans safe.” To many Americans, the NRA’s “family friendly” image rests on the safety and education efforts that are an integral part of its promotion of a culture of guns. These include everything from the “Eddie Eagle” coloring books it disseminates to school children, telling them to call an adult if they find a gun, to multiple courses on the safe use of firearms. The NRA calls itself “the world’s leader in firearm training,” and it may well be.

Yet it has never advocated any serious requirement that gun owners acquire even a modicum of proficiency in the actual handling or use of a firearm before being allowed to purchase one — because that would be “gun control.”

Every state in the union requires that a driver demonstrate some ability to keep a car on the road before receiving a driver’s license. But there is nothing in either federal or state law that requires an individual to have any knowledge of how to use a firearm before acquiring a single gun or a small arsenal. And it’s highly doubtful that the NRA’s eight-hour “Basic Pistol Shooting Course” or its “First Steps Pistol Orientation” class does much to prepare someone for a real-world armed confrontation.

The NRA’s position on gun safety really boils down to this pearl from LaPierre: “The presence of a firearm makes us all safer. It’s just that simple.”

Of course it’s never that simple. Ask the parents of the eight-year-old girl killed last week in Jefferson County, Tennessee, by her 11-year-old neighbor who used his dad’s 12-gauge shotgun to shoot the girl after she refused to let him see her puppy. Or ask the boy’s father if that shotgun made anyone safer.

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller, it is now the right of every American to keep a gun in the home for self-defense, even if that weapon is more likely to be used in an accidental shooting, a suicide, or a domestic dispute. Encouraging untrained citizens to keep a firearm at home for their personal safety is one thing; but a major thrust of NRA lobbying for the past two decades has been to enact concealed-carry laws that send those same untrained, armed citizens into the public square — to schools, college campuses, national parks, restaurants, the workplace, and on public transport, including Amtrak trains. And that’s where any claim by the NRA to champion public safety really falls apart.

The NRA may talk about “responsible” gun ownership, yet it gleefully helps to arm people who have demonstrated neither the skill to use a weapon in a high-stress situation (or any other circumstance), nor any knowledge of the laws pertaining to the use of weapons. Nor does the NRA seem to care about the mental stability of those who carry concealed weapons. As far as the NRA is concerned, anyone is qualified to carry a concealed until proven otherwise. In 2011, LaPierre told the NRA’s national convention: “Every American wife and mother and daughter, every law-abiding adult woman should be trained, armed, and encouraged to carry a firearm for personal protection.”

Today, every state in the union has enacted a concealed-carry law. Most, sadly, follow the NRA model, including few if any training requirements or provisions that restrict permits to those citizens with a demonstrated need.

So in Virginia and Iowa, blind people can obtain concealed-carry permits. In Virginia and several other states, residents may qualify for a concealed-carry permit by completing an online “course” that is virtually impossible to fail. I qualified for a Utah concealed-carry permit – which would allow me to carry a concealed weapon in fully 35 states because of state “reciprocity” laws — by listening to a six-hour lecture at a Maryland rifle range where I was required neither to pass a written exam nor to fire a single bullet. The overwhelming majority of states also have no requirement that concealed-carry permit holders demonstrate any facility in the use of a firearm. In 18 states where live-fire training is mandatory, standards for passing are extremely weak, based on target shooting scores, which have little correlation to using a gun in a high-stress combat situation.

A Department of Justice study of local law enforcement training back in 2006 found that police departments required a median 60 hours of firearms instruction. Better than 90 percent also required some training in simulated stressful conditions and in night or reduced light conditions. But you won’t find any requirement of that sort in state laws for concealed-carry permits. Unlike police who are frequently required to undergo some sort of re-qualification program, few if any states require concealed-carry licensees to demonstrate any sort of competence to use guns over time. Some states automatically grant concealed-carry permits without any classroom or live fire training to anyone who has served in the military. Although concealed-carry licensees were never intended to replace police or to undergo the same training as police, a little training couldn’t hurt.

Thirty years ago, hardly anyone anywhere in the U.S. could legally carry a concealed weapon. By the early 1990s, promoting concealed-carry had become one of the NRA’s top legislative priorities. By the beginning of 2012, the Government Accountability Office estimated that 8 million citizens had obtained concealed-carry permits. Two years later, the decidedly pro-gun Crime Prevention Research Center estimated that at least 11 million Americans could legally pack heat when they walked the streets.

The NRA thinks this is a sign of great progress because all of these secretly armed, wannabe Rambos will come to the rescue of fellow citizens in distress and make the bad guys more wary of committing crimes. But do most Americans really feel safer with 11 million largely untrained would-be “law enforcers” on the streets?

Even with the best training, studies show that police have a very hard time hitting their intended targets. New York City’s Police Department has some of the best-trained officers in the country. But when 12 Brooklyn cops opened fire on a fleeing gunman last month, only one of 84 shots fired hit the suspect. In 2013, police in Times Square opened fire on a man after he reached into his pocket for what the cops thought might be a gun. Three shots were fired. One round hit a 54-year-old woman in the knee. Another grazed a 35-year-old woman’s buttocks. None hit the suspect.

A RAND Corporation evaluation of NYPD firearm training between 1998 and 2006 found that the average hit rate in gun fights was about 18 percent. Where there was no return fire, the hit rate went up to 30 percent.

Given this not-so-great record for the best-trained police, what should the public expect from wholly untrained civilians?

Earlier this week, a 47-year-old woman with a concealed-carry permit reportedly fired three shots at an SUV leaving a Home Depot parking lot in Michigan after witnessing one of the store’s security guards chasing two shoplifters who jumped into the vehicle.

Thanks to the NRA, we can all look forward to more illegal shootings like that one, by self-appointed citizen “police” who are unlikely to hit anything — except an innocent bystander.

Alan Berlow has written frequently about gun issues. He is the author of Dead Season: A Story of Murder and Revenge.

Photo: NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre speaks during the leadership forum at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting Friday, May 3, 2013 in Houston. (AP Photo/Steve Ueckert)

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 284

341 responses to “Concealed-Carry Crazy: What Gun Lobbyists Mean When They Tout ‘Gun Safety’”

  1. Tom Gresham says:

    Simple test. Any restriction or requirement you would advocate for gun ownership, first consider the exact same restriction to be placed on journalists and on free speech. First Amendment. Second Amendment. Until you understand that they have the same importance will you understand why millions of Americans push back against the proven failure of gun control laws.

    • Otto Greif says:

      Ever notice that the same people who want to restrict guns also want to restrict, and are hostile toward, the police?

      • Mr Corrections says:

        No, but then I’m not a crazy racist

        • DocWilly says:

          So you are just plain crazy and a tiny bit stupid.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I invite you to read Otto’s other posts and not come to the same conclusion.

            Additionally, it’s not stupid to want the Second Amendment to be restricted to its original meaning and not the current “guns are great!” reading introduced by ammosexuals.

          • hicusdicus says:

            It is restricted to its original meaning just not your meaning.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            Its original purpose was to provide a cheap replacement for a standing army, not function as an excuse for crazy people to be allowed to buy assault weapons to gun down children without the inconvenience of a background check. Since the US now has a standing army, it’s obsolete.

            I hope that helps!

      • Looner says:

        Cops want to restrict guns.

        • paulyz says:

          Yeah, in the hood where Black lives Don’t matter.

          • Looner says:

            So basically you are saying open gun laws for whites only. I see. How revealing.

          • paulyz says:

            Not at all ASSumer, answering your line about Cops wanting to restrict guns. In the Hood, where Blacks are killing Blacks tremendously. You OK with that dummy?

        • Otto Greif says:

          Not rank and file police.

        • hicusdicus says:

          No they don’t.

          • Cloudherder says:

            Yes they do. You think they want everyone walking around with a loaded gun all the time?

          • Willy Healer says:

            Who is everyone? Let me explain because you are very uninformed about guns and the law. In my state when a cop pulls you over they do an immediate check on your license plate. The information tells them you have a concealed carry permit. They then know you are not a felon and most likely not a criminal to be wary off. It relieves their stress. I know perhaps more policemen than you do and that is what they tell me. My wife who is a real-estate broker has been congratulated by many officers and deputies for having a permit and carrying. They have commented that most women should get the training and carry. Your thinking is in the minority and very uninformed. I am sure you will remain an ignorant activist until you get gang raped or badly beaten then you will change your tune. No They Don’t.

    • Insinnergy says:

      Simple test: Any restriction you want to put on privacy so the NSA can capture every email, record every phone call, and snoop on everyone to protect us from Terrorists, first you have to put the same transparency on gun owners concerning testing and recording their mental health, capturing their criminal record, recording any gun-related conversations, capturing all phone call and social media to ensure they won’t randomly kill a few people… Fourth Amendment, Second Amendment.
      Christ you’re an idiot. And yes we can do this all day with false equivalences.

      • Tom Gresham says:

        Actually, the correct comparison with the “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater” law, when comparing it to guns, would be to duct tape the mouths of everyone going into the theater. There are already laws against the misuse of guns (the same as misusing speech by yelling

        FIRE). You don’t prevent speech in the theater . . . just illegal speech.

        As for the NSA, etc., I strongly opposed the Patriot Act, and would be delighted to see it repealed. It was and is the largest move against individual freedom in the history of this country.

        That whole pigeonhole thing does tend to fall apart when you try to make gun owners conservative, male, white, backward, etc. Note the Pink Pistols (national LGBT shooters group); Democrat shooters, women shooters; black, Asian, etc., competitive shooters; young shooters in the Olympics (where shooting is the 3rd largest sport), etc., etc. Google” Deacons for Defense and Justice.”

        It’s difficult to understand, I know. That’s why I keep my ACLU membership card tucked into my wallet, next to my NRA Life Member card. Many of us actually support the entire Bill of Rights as well as the other amendments.

        • Karen Bille-Golden says:

          Meanwhile, I’ve lost my freedom to feel safe when I go to the grocery store or anywhere else for that matter. People give up some freedoms for the common good. It’s why I can’t get into my car without making a choice of whether I want to buckle up or not, why I have to carry insurance on my vehicle, and why some people can no longer smoke anywhere and everywhere they want. We do all live in this society together.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Karen, Your desire to FEEL safe should not prevent another woman from actually BEING safe. Thousands of women have used firearms to protect themselves and their children.

            Fewer than 1 percent of guns are ever used in crimes (FBI). Fewer than 1 percent of gun owners ever use their guns to commit a crime.

            Rather than impose your misplaced fear on the 99 percent of gun owners who do not present a threat, perhaps it would be better to bring your fears more into line with reality.

            FEELING safe is not the same as BEING safe.

            Place the attention on the people who are committing crimes, and don’t burden the 99 percent who are not.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            I hear your argument but are we really any safer as a society? I am not happy with the concept that the only way I’ll be safe is to own a firearm. To me, that is a false sense of security.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            At what point will the 99% percent of gun owners step forward and say enough is enough already. Responsible gun owners need to stop and think where this obsession with gun rights is taking us.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Actually, it is responsible gun owners who have done the most to reduce gun accidents (down 50% in 20 years). Also, “gun crimes” are down more than 40% in the last 20 years. Murders are down more than 40% in 20 years. That HUGE, GREAT NEWS. One has to wonder why the media isn’t proclaiming this victory??? Note: Sources for these numbers are FBI and National Safety Council.

            “Obsession with gun rights” is an interesting phrase. “Obsession with free speech” has the same ring, to me.

            If crime is going down. If gun crime is going down. If gun accidents are going down. And . . . at the same time, gun ownership is going up, up, up, then it’s clear that the “more guns equal more crime” meme is completely wrong.

            Stop and think about this. You FEEL as though there is (as the media likes to put it) an “epidemic of gun violence.” But the actual numbers show there is a huge reduction. Your feelings are based on being misinformed. You should be angry at being lied to by the media and the gun-ban industry.

            Gun owners teach gun safety classes, spend millions on gun safety messages, distribute millions of free gun locks, etc. The “gun control” groups do nothing for gun safety, other than call for restrictions on people who don’t break the law.

            It’s time to reassess what you “know” to be true.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            Forgive me for not seeing the evidence of reduced gun violence, per your statistics. I thank you for sharing and treating me with respect in spite of our differing point of view.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Absolutely, Karen.

            This may help. Note that I don’t present anything from the NRA, just as I would not believe anything from the Violence Policy Center, the Brady Campaign, or other groups promoting gun bans.

            This is from the Pew Research group.

            http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            Tom, I have never been opposed to gun ownership and I might assume you have no obsession with the right to stockpile military grade weaponry and magazines. Thanks for the discussion. Here’s to a more peaceful co-existence.

          • paulyz says:

            You anti-gun Libs are the ones obsessed with gun ownership, not most of gun owners. I and every gun owner I know, aren’t at all obsessed with guns. We want them for protection from so many & growing criminals & criminal Illegals, for protection from a possible tyrannical governnent, and for hunting. If it weren’t for all you anti-gun nuts trying to restrict us, you wouldn’t much hear from us. Stop the problems at their source, protect schools, lock up instead of release criminals, stop & deport criminal Illegals, not release Thousands like Obama, & treat mentally disturbed individuals.

          • Independent1 says:

            Gresham is spewing propaganda. Here’s one of the best articles I’ve ever read on the fallacies of owning a gun:

            Forget Ben Carson’s gunslinger fantasy. The best gun safety strategy is not owning a gun—period.

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/11/1415991/-Forget-Ben-Carson-s-gunslinger-fantasy-The-best-gun-safety-strategy-is-not-owning-a-gun-period?detail=email

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Are we any safer as a society? Of course we are, by any measurement. Crime is down. Murders are down. Crime with guns is down. Not by a little, but by a HUGE amount. (More than 40% in 20 years.) Data from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. Why do Americans think crime is up? See the Pew Research poll on this, and ask why the media will not report on this massive reduction in crime.

          • Independent1 says:

            The only reason that the crime rate overall is down, is because of the influx of immigrants who commit far less crimes than native-born Americans. So as the murder rate by other than immigrants has stayed fairly steady for the last decade plus at between 10-12,000 gun related homicides/yr; because millions of less unlawful immigrants have increased our population, the murder rate among the native-born although it has stayed steady, the overall rate has gone down because of adding so many millions of lower crime-rate individuals. It has nothing to do with more guns having reduced the crime rate. More NRA lies!!!

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Interesting. Statistics from 1. The FBI, 2. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, 3. The CDC, 4. The National Safety Council, . . . are all “NRA lies” to you?

            That’s . . . . strange.

          • Independent1 says:

            Let’s see you take statistics from those publications and prove to us it’s the increase in the number of guns that has caused the decrease in the crime rate.

            While I it’s clearly the GOP -governed states with the highest gun ownership rates that lead the nation in not only gun related violence but gun related homicides.

            How can the increased number of guns in America be reducing crime when the greatest levels of crime in America are in the states with the most guns???

            Come on!! Let’s see you prove that nonsense!!!

          • David says:

            There you go again, including suicides and accidents as well as deaths that no one knows the motive behind. Use homicide rate and tell us what you learn. I would be happy to walk unarmed in Laramie, Wyoming rather than in Chicago, Illinois.

          • Looner says:

            A gun death is a gun death. Why are you so hot for gun homicides? Who is talking about just that, except for you? You keep beating that dead donkey and missing the point.

          • Independent1 says:

            Oh! And I forgot to point out that the whole premise of your diatribe is a flat out lie – YOURS!!

            Guns HAVE NOT been going up as the crime rate has been dropping!! Fact is, the gun ownership rate in America has been going down since the late 1970s/early 80s. Aside from a bubble of sales right after Obama was elected, the gun ownership rate today is at about the lowest level in the past 3 decades!!

            See this from Newsweek!! Are you going to try and discredit that too liar????

            Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at
            the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

            The poll also found that 22 percent of Americans personally
            own a firearm, down from a high of 31 percent in 1985. The percentage of men who own a firearm is down from 50 percent in 1980 to 35 percent in 2014, while the number of women who own a gun has remained relatively steady since 1980, coming in at 12 percent in 2014.

            http://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822

            By the way, those statistics bear with what I was saying earlier, that the growing immigrant population is forcing not only the crime rate down because they commit fewer crimes; it’s also forcing the gun ownership rates down because immigrants buy fewer guns. (I have a relative who works at Colt firearms in Hartford and he’s about to be laid off because Colt is going bankrupt due to the lack of commercial gun sales.)

          • David says:

            Hey genius, read what Tom Graham said. The number of guns legally owned have increased. He didn’t say anything about the number of gun owners. Dumb a____!

          • DocWilly says:

            Total hog wash.

          • David says:

            Right…like the so many of your well mannered illegals are now clogging up our state and federal prisons.

          • Independent1 says:

            What do you RWNJs think you gain lying about illegal immigrants?? Your posts are flat out lies. Even Rupert Murdoch called out Trump on his lies. San Diego, El Paso and Las Vegas are some of America’s safest cities because they have high concentrations of all forms of immigrants including illegals!!!

          • David says:

            Safe? Really? Is that why 38% of the murder convictions in California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York from 2008-2014 were illegal aliens? They only were

          • Willy Healer says:

            I think dip sh/t one is an illegal himself it may not be a him it could be a trans-gender,

          • paulyz says:

            I have asked Independent 1 numerous times if he is in OUR Country ILLEGALLY, he has yet to answer.

          • Willy Healer says:

            I would say that from the frequency of his posts and the novels he writes it could be more than one person. What is scary is the thought that their could more people like him that are that stupid. Don’t ever follow him into public toilet with out a has-mat suit.

          • paulyz says:

            AGAIN you state (Immigrants), not ILLEGAL Trespassers, that commit very much crime, including serious crimes. Even if they didn’t have a high crine rate, if they weren’t here, they couldn’t commit these crimes in the first place. We have enough crime, mostly in all the inner cities. Solve that before you want to restrict honest Citizens. You are ALWAYS anti-American, like most Libs.

          • Independent1 says:

            You know very well I was including illegals with ALL IMMIGRANTS. I’m going to post you the same thing I just did to David below:

            What do you RWNJs think you gain lying about illegal immigrants?? Your posts are flat out lies. Even Rupert Murdoch called out Trump on his lies. San Diego, El Paso and Las Vegas are some of America’s safest cities because they have high concentrations of all forms of immigrants including illegals!!!

          • paulyz says:

            Didn’t you even get the point? There is enough crime in the U.S., so why just allow ANYONE that walks in ILLEGALLY, with NO Background Checks, to remain. And yes, Illegals do commit a high number of crimes. LEGAL Immigrants are usually checked for their history.

          • Independent1 says:

            You just refuse to stop posting those outright lies about illegal aliens, don’t you!! What can I say – once a dummy always dummy – you clearly have absolutely no reading comprehension whatsoever!!

          • paulyz says:

            I ask you yet AGAIN, are YOU an Illegal Alien?
            p.s. Try using your own adjectives, I already have the patent on calling you Dummy, dummy!

          • Looner says:

            Crime may be down, but accidental death and suicide is not. Mass shootings are not. I dare you to check out the daily report on accidental shootings here in the US. Do yourself a favor and explore the website http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
            I think you will be amazed and sickened over how often a person or child shoots themselves . 533 child deaths already this year. That is about 3 CHILDREN A DAY.

          • Willy Healer says:

            What ever you do don’t own a gun anything stabby or clubby ; you will hurt yourself. 25 children a day die from car accidents; this is the price you pay for mingling with humans.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Actually, accidental gunshot deaths are at their lowest point in decades. Rather than depend on a web site with the name of “gun violence archive” (Gee, I wonder if they have an agenda), why not go to the source. The National Safety Council has kept this data for a half century. They show that accidental gunshot deaths are at the lowest point since they started counting. More people. More guns. Fewer accidental gun deaths.

            Data, not dogma.

          • paulyz says:

            You need to ask yourself “why” society isn’t so safe. It’s easier to blame guns than to Socialist policies that contribute to it greatly. All you need to do is think why you wouldn’t walk down a street in certain areas, but would in others, where there are also many guns.

          • Willy Healer says:

            The only time you are safe is before you were born and after you are dead. You are living among humans The most dangerous animals on the planet. Any sense of security is false. Your owning a fire arm is your choice , you may not be happy owning and learning to use something that may save your life but give yourself some options just in case life does not go as you wanted it to.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            Life isn’t easy all the time for any of us but I’ve managed quite well using a set of life skills that have allowed me a sense of security for 71 years now. The human beings I have known and related to throughout my life’s travels really aren’t much different than you or me. I am sorry you haven’t found that to be true in your experience. Sounds like you have given up on yourself and the human race.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Okay you are a 71 year old with a teenagers proclivity to be rude. Good for you.. I don’t think you could compare your life and experiences to mine. In fact from your Pollyanna comment I would say your life experiences are rather fluffy. I am a decade ahead of you.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            I didn’t think I was being rude. And obviously you didn’t think you were either. Everyone’s life experiences stand on their own merit. Since we don’t know each other we can’t know what the other person has experienced. I replied to the feeling I got from what was suggested to me about safety amongst the human race. I choose to be optimistic if you don’t mind.

          • Independent1 says:

            More absolute hogwash!! Thousands of women have not used firearms to protect themselves and their children. That’s a blatant NRA lie.

            Fact is anyone is safer without a gun than with one:

            See this from the Daily Kos:

            Beyond the effectiveness of laws is the question of the effectiveness of
            gun ownership itself, at least for those who think buying a gun will
            make them safer. Again, the answer is clear: Having access to a gun
            makes a person less safe. A meta-analysis
            of existing studies done at the University of California-San Francisco
            found that a person who has “access to a firearm” is three times as
            likely to commit suicide (not attempt, but actually take his or her
            life), and twice as likely to be murdered when compared to someone
            without access to a gun. When broken down by gender, men with access to
            guns are four times more likely to kill themselves than those without,
            and women with access are three times more likely to be murdered. For
            just about everyone, if you want to make yourself safer: Don’t buy a
            gun.

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/11/1415991/-Forget-Ben-Carson-s-gunslinger-fantasy-The-best-gun-safety-strategy-is-not-owning-a-gun-period?detail=email

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            Thanks for your continued fight. I have read all the statistics being batted back and forth on this blog and others and I really don’t need them. Common sense tells me I would be no safer if I were to own a firearm. In the fray of this debate common sense seems to disappear and it becomes more and more about proving each other wrong and less about how we resolve these differences..

          • Independent1 says:

            Just as a summary – the Daily Kos article dispells a number of the fantasies that the gun lobby throws out to try and justify refusing to allow for any type of gun controls. And for its moronic mantra of all we need is more guns.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            I know, I know….and I have asked numerous NRA members why they stand for this as the responsible gun owners they say they are.

          • DocWilly says:

            Yeah! sure you have.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            And yet . . . Crime with guns has fallen by more than 40 percent over the last 20 years, while the number of guns owned in the U.S. has gone up by maybe as many as 100 million. More guns, but less crime. More guns, but far fewer murders. Facts from the FBI. Completely destroys the meme of more guns equaling more crime.

          • David says:

            So true!

          • hicusdicus says:

            Nobody care what you think. We all know you can’t think.

          • paulyz says:

            Then tell us your solutions!

          • Willy Healer says:

            Yes please tell us your solutions to living safely among humans.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            1. Quoting the Daily Kos has the same validity as quoting NRA stats. I don’t the latter, and no one believes what Daily Kos puts out.

            2. Most defensive gun uses do not involve shooting, much less killing, anyone. Trying to count defensive gun uses (DGUs) from the number of justifiable homicides is just plain clueless.

            The lowest number I’ve seen for annual number of DGUs is about 800,000. (National Crime Victimization Study). Other studies (from pro-gun and from anti-gun researchers) have put the numbers upward of two million.

            Women are tired of being patted on the head and assured that they will be taken care of. They are taking charge of their own safety, and they know that when attacked, they are the first responders. Anyone you have to call on the phone is the second responder, and will be there to write up the report on the assault.

            Basic fact: Using a gun in self defense most often does not result in the gun being fired at all.

          • Independent1 says:

            What a load of crap!! “Most defensive gun uses do not involve shooting”!!!

            Tell those lies to the guy who’s now dead because he threw a package of popcorn at some nut in a Florida movie theater and the guy whipped out his concealed carry and blew him away.

            Or tell that lie to the two guys that are now dead because they jumped out of their cars in a road rage incident and ended up killing each other because of their concealed carry.

            You’re just one more lying sack of crap shill for the NRA!!! Go get lost somewhere with your pack of lies!!

            There are thousands of dead Americans every year because some idiot with a supposed defensive weapon loses his or her cool and blows someone away. Just like t hat idiot woman tried to do the other day to some guy running out of a Home Depot with some contraband and she shot at him in a crowded parking lot.

            I could go on for hours with examples that prove your diatgribe is pure lies!!!

          • paulyz says:

            Would have been nice if Kate Steinle or her Father was carrying, bet he will now.
            Anyone can pick out a few examples here & there to try and (prove) their rants, just like Obama does in many speeches. But ignores the main facts.

          • Independent1 says:

            Those wishes of yours about Kate and her father carrying a gun are really not very nice, really. Because someone using a gun to defend themselves stand less than a 15% chance of being successful in that attempt; with a far greater percentage chance (well over 50%) of being shot and killed – so it’s good that they were not carrying anything as your mistakenly wishing for them.

          • paulyz says:

            I am certain if he could go back in time to that dreadful day, he would be armed, Kate too. I suppose if someone came to kill you with a gun, you would prefer to be defenseless! That the killer was an ILLEGAL ALLOWED to remain in this Country is the real story, not guns. We need Liberal Control, not Gun Control.

          • Carl_in_California says:

            Tom: Why don’t you believe the Daily Kos? Their statistics and statistical analysis looks pretty accurate and thorough to this observer? Why do you say “… and no one believes what the Daily Kos puts out.” I do… and I have seen no rational reason to think otherwise.

            I suspect that you don’t like what they say–and attacking them is far easier than refuting their statistics and analysis. I’d like to hear your answer and hope that you can back it up with specifics… –Carl Hobkirk

          • rozyredtoes says:

            Go ahead and believe them its your right.

          • Godzilla says:

            Hi there Parrotmonkey! Glad to see your entire education on life still resides with idiotic Left Wing rags like the KOS. They are as useless as you are. Get an education BOY!

          • Independent1 says:

            Tell you what sonny boy, lets see you take a Kos article and prove it factually incorrect. The KOS is not your typical RWNJ propaganda news source that not only censors what it publishes but creatively embellishes everything it publishes; such that the facts are totally unrecognizable from reality; which is why people who listen to Faux News are dumber than people who don’t listen to any news. Because the news RWNJs listen to ARE LIES UPON LIES UPON LIES!!!!!!!!!!!

            Here’s just one example:

            Fox News Caught Editing Press Conference to Spread Lies (VIDEO)

            http://samuel-warde.com/2013/05/fox-news-caught-editing-press-conference-to-spread-lies-video/

          • David says:

            Oh, if I have a gun I will shoot myself. I prefer to be armed when dealing with criminals. Wouldn’t you?
            Molon labe

          • paulyz says:

            RECORD numbers of women are now carring firearms, nearly 1 in 4, & that’s from NBC. The dailykos, ewwww! LMAO

          • Independent1 says:

            Flat out lie from another RWNJ organization. I guess that’s why Colt firearms just went bankrupt because so many women were buying guns?? Sorry – not believing that BS!!!

          • paulyz says:

            Guess your closed mind to anything other than your Socialist “news” prohibits you from ever knowing the truth. NBC is quite “progressive”. Your cup of tea.

          • Looner says:

            Oh no! He said “socialist” like it’s a bad thing. Grow up. http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

          • paulyz says:

            Yup, not very long ago you Libs didn’t like the label Liberal, now you embrace it. Not long ago, being called a Socialist led you to deny it, & call those calling you it, right-wing wackos, now you embrace Socialism & run Bernie Sanders. Proof that the Left veered FAR LEFT, the Right maintained their long-standing principles.

          • Independent1 says:

            No! I know an absurdity when I read it. Given that I know for a fact that the gun ownership rate of the major populated north eastern states is under 10% for both males and females – there is absolutely NO WAY that nationwide 25% of women are packing guns. THAT IS A TOTAL ABSURDITY!!!

            Now if you told me that 1-4 women in the Houston area or Memphis area or some of the major cities in red states were packing guns – I might believe that. Because people in red states are stupid enough to believe packing a gun is a good idea when it’s the dumbest thing you can do!!!

          • Willy Healer says:

            Have you ever been attacked, beaten , robbed or scared so bad you filled your britches?????? It will never happen to you because you are special.

          • Independent1 says:

            And here’s an excerpt from an article from the NYTimes that basically makes what YOU CLAIM you saw from NBC a flat out lie. And by the way, you are aware that NBC and the WSJ combine on polls right?? Why do you suppose that NBC would go together with a Murdoch owned WSJ which is clearly right-wing biased if the NBC wasn’t right-wing biased ???HMMMMM????

            From a 9/9/2013 NYTimes article on the decline in gun ownership in America:

            The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.

            The gun ownership rate has fallen across a broad cross section of households since the early 1970s, according to data from the General Social Survey, a public opinion survey conducted every two years that asks a sample of American adults if they have guns at home, among other questions.

            The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.

            The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.

          • paulyz says:

            Recently, many Liberals on this site & elsewhere, was very critical of the NY Times, when they went AGAINST Obama. Now you like them again? The changing principles & misinformation by Liberals like you is amazing.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Hey find a new spiel you have worn that one out. The university of California. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, The land of beans and fruit.and Governor Jerry likes them brown. HAHAHAHAHA,

          • hicusdicus says:

            These people seem to avoid the fact that we are the third largest country in the world with a population of 330 million people. The FBI and police keep records better than any other country. A lot of the criminal statistics coming out of other countries have been severely doctored to look favorable.We also have a lot of diversity which means their are a number of groups who hate each other.

          • David says:

            Why don’t we give up our right of free speech? That way we don’t have to put up with pornography and hate speech! Why don’t we give up our right to be protected against unlawful searches and seizures? We don’t have anything to hide. It only protects criminals. Why don’t we give up our right against self-incrimination? It only protects those with something to hide.

          • hicusdicus says:

            You are talking to an ignorant silly old woman who has no real concept of life and hides her wrinkled ole face in the sand.

          • hicusdicus says:

            If someone starts smoking around me either I leave or they will. You probably are not safe, people like you are referred to as potential victims.

        • stcroixcarp says:

          Ohhhhh, PLLeeeze! Stop with the silly analogies already.

      • Karen Bille-Golden says:

        It’s useless to use common sense with people who have had the wool pulled so far over their eyes and ears. We can only hope they never have to experience a random gun violence in their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Surely those who have lost someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time are comforted by our willingness to pass out more guns in the guise of safety.

        • David says:

          You should be comforted to be unarmed with criminals who are!

        • hicusdicus says:

          I was the victim of an armed robbery and pronounced DOA. I will never be unarmed again. It was a home invasion. I will give you some of my thinking which you can use for one of your teenage Internet come backs. I have never in 65 years of driving had an accident but I always buckle my seat belt just in case.

          • Karen Bille-Golden says:

            You certainly have the right given the scars you bare, both physically and mentally, to own a gun for your own feeling of safety. I do not dispute that. I do wonder however if that might not have been prevented with more stringency in gun laws being so adamantly defended against here. Your calling me a teenager reminds me of the song sung by George Burns, “I Wish I Were 18 Again”. Peace

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Exactly what gun control law would you propose that has not been tried and found to do nothing to reduce crime?

            Gun Registration? It’s the law in a number of states and cities. No evidence that it has reduced crime.

            Waiting Periods? Currently the law in some states, and was the law nationally for a while. No evidence that it has reduced crime.

            Background Checks? It’s currently the law. Certainly no evidence that it has reduced crime, but it does create a multi-billion dollar bureaucracy with databases on many millions of law-abiding citizens.

            Gun Rationing? You know, the “One Gun A Month” scheme? In place in some states. Being considered for deleting from the books in some, because . . . No evidence that it has reduced crime.

            Of course, it is illegal for a felon to buy/own a gun. It is illegal for someone who has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent to buy a gun. There are age limits on who can buy a gun. Every single time a gun is purchased from every single firearms dealer, the FBI must give the okay on every single person buying that gun. The FBI is involved in every sale of a gun from licensed dealers.

            Gun Shows? The famous “loophole?” 🙂 Doesn’t exist. Every law in effect outside a gun show is in effect inside the gun show. No difference at all. This is a phony creation of the gun-ban industry.

            Even gun confiscation has been tried in the U.S. From the post Civil War laws to strip black Americans of their guns, to California’s efforts to take guns away from citizens, even bans have been tried and failed.

            Just what gun control law do you have in mind?

          • hicusdicus says:

            She wants a world full of daisies and unicorns standing under a rainbow. In a very extensive study the main cause for crime reduction was ten years after Roe versus wade The number of unwanted children was greatly reduced and the criminal seed was sterilized. My wife is a real-estate broker and has to meet strangers in secluded area in the country and do inspections of foreclosed houses. She has uncovered two meth labs. She has one gun in her car , one gun in her purse and one gun on her person and practices on her own pistol range.I am sure most of the anti gun people stay at home hiding under the bed.

          • paulyz says:

            Excellent response. Liberals can’t handle the truth/facts, just rattle off “feel good” sounding nonsense.

          • hicusdicus says:

            I was not talking about physical age. For eight years I was a rent collector in the black ghetto’s of Houston. Owned and lived in a apartment house next to to the countries second biggest motorcycle gangs main drug house. Spent 8 months in central America avoiding rebel groups. I bare no scars of any kind except for three bullet holes. I live on 50 acres with my own private lake and pistol range living off a seven figure stash I don’t know where you live but I think I would be bored to death. I agree that no one should be allowed to have a gun except me.

      • DocWilly says:

        Another silly person.

    • Independent1 says:

      What an absolute load of malarky!! ‘push b ack against the proven failure of gun control laws’. Only an idiot would believe some garbage like t hat:

      Here’s some facts to prove you are blatantly wrong (note the enormous difference in the homicide rates between the blue states with strict gun laws and the red states that have virtually no gun control!!!

      From the Daily Kos (FACTS!!! FOR A CHANGE!!) RATHER THAN LIES!!!

      One way of looking at these issues is through the prism of laws. The
      data strongly suggests that gun control works. A recent study from the National Journal found
      that the states with the lowest rate of gun deaths in 2013 (i.e.,
      homicides, suicides, accidental gun deaths, and firearm deaths from
      shootings where intent could not be determined) were states with the
      tightest gun laws. Those include laws that mandate a permit to buy a
      handgun, laws that extend to private sales the requirement for a
      background check (thus closing the “gun show loophole”), and laws that
      make it difficult to acquire a concealed carry permit.

      For example, the six states with the lowest gun death rates from
      lowest to highest are Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut,
      Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Those states have rates ranging from 2.5
      to 5.7 deaths per 100,000 people. The six states with the highest gun
      death rates, starting with the highest are Alaska, Louisiana,
      Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming. Those states have rates
      ranging from 16.7 to 19.8 gun deaths per 100,000. We are not talking
      about small differences here.

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/11/1415991/-Forget-Ben-Carson-s-gunslinger-fantasy-The-best-gun-safety-strategy-is-not-owning-a-gun-period?detail=email

      • David says:

        Hey genius —
        Look at your “facts”. Suicides; accidental gun deaths; deaths where intent could not be determined? Gun laws will go a long way to help with those type of deaths — yeah, right! Try looking at homicide rates. Oh, that would take brains.

      • DocWilly says:

        You only read and quote what fits your bias and what you are told to write.

        • Independent1 says:

          My bias?? It’s got nothing to to do with BIAS, it’s all about facts and I have tons of them that prove that owning a gun is nothing more than a potential death sentence for the owner if he or she is not going to become an expert in using that gun (like a law enforcement officer).

          I have plenty of facts WHICH PROVE!! That the NRA does nothing but SPEW LIES!!

          Facts from the FBI, the CDC, the libraries of even red states, that prove gun ownership as the means of ‘self protection’ IS NOTHING MORE THAN A MYTH!!! AN NRA FABRICATED LIE!!

          How can you argue against facts?? Facts like how much lower the homicide and suicide rates are in places where guns are controlled; like in Canada, England and virtually every other European country.

          And even the facts proven in studies done by even red states like Utah!!

          Here’s the link to one you need to read that explains the carnage that excess gun ownership is causing in America and that the notion that guns are good for self protection is A MYTH!!

          Keep living in your ‘I love guns fantasy’ and believing the NRA lies and you stand a 5 times greater chance than I do of being killed by a gun, and quite likely that gun that you own!!!

          From the medical department of the state of Utah!!

          Gunshot wounds impact severely on the criminal justice as well as health care systems. Some basic statistics are important in understanding the magnitude and severity of the social and economic burden to the U.S. The subject remains contentious. (Glantz and Annas, 2009)

          In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms,
          distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).

          The rates of firearms deaths in the U.S. vary significantly by race and sex. The U.S. national average was 10.2 deaths per 100,000 population in 2009. The highest rate was 28.4/100,000 for African-American males, more than quadruple the rate of 6.3/100,000 for white males. (CDC, 2009)

          The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable–over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with
          $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

          http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

          And they say this about using a gun for self-protection:

          The issue of “home defense” or protection against intruders or
          assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides
          (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless ofstorage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

  2. Dominick Vila says:

    The part that is always left out of the open carry argument espoused by the NRA, allegedly so that we can protect ourselves from criminals, is that one of the groups victimized by gun violence are well armed and trained police officers. Criminals don’t run around with a neon sign on their foreheads letting everyone know that they are going to shoot someone. More often than not, the victims of violent crime find out they have been targeted when it is too late to do anything about it. Walking around with an arsenal under your coat is not going to help you after you are killed. Admittedly, in cases of multiple shootings, some of the intended targets may have time to draw and fire, in ways reminiscent of the old Westerns. Is that what the NRA has in mind for the USA? Is that the kind of society we want?

    • David says:

      Is the type of society we want is that of sheeple waiting helplessly for the police to arrive to protect them?
      Molon labe

      • Dominick Vila says:

        What is wrong with letting law enforcement officers enforce the law? The term used to describe a society that allows or depends on its citizens taking the law in their own hands is anarchy.

        • David says:

          Nothing is wrong with letting law enforcement officers enforce the law. However, when the average response time is 20 minutes, I want to be able to protect myself and my family until they arrive on the scene.

        • paulyz says:

          Restricting gun ownership for Law abiding Citizens & waiting for Law Enforcement to protect us in most cases is like restricting fire extinguishers in homes because we have Fire Departments. The 2nd. Amendment is about individual Rights to have firearms, & it’s not just for protection against criminals anyway, which I am sure you know.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            That is why I own a handgun. Nobody is talking about disarmament. The proposals that have been made are about making it more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get their hands on a lethal weapon and carry out massacres like the ones we have seen. I don’t think legislation alone will solve this problem, but in the absence of something more effective that is the least we can do to show that we are concerned and that we want to find ways to reduce the incidence of gun violence in the USA. Sharing relevant information, including access to psychiatric records and U.S. of behavior altering drugs with law enforcement would probably be more effective than strengthening existing laws.

          • paulyz says:

            Well that was a reasonable response from a gun owner. Need more of that on here, not all anti-gun Liberal rhetoric. But sort of contradictory from many of your other statements.

          • David says:

            In fact, the left DOES want to take all weapons. Incrementally, but all nonetheless.

          • paulyz says:

            That is correct as we have seen by many Leftists, Libs on this site, and Hillary. That is their ultimate goal. But “the elite” will maintain armed bodyguards!

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Is that why Trump is demanding Secret Service protection?

          • Willy Healer says:

            He is demanding secret service protection from people like you.

          • paulyz says:

            Trump has a concealed-carry permit Dummy, and the Secret Service “gives” protection to serious Presidential candidates. Geeeze.

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Concealed-carry permit issued by who?
            Chris Christie’s New Jersey?
            Protect candidates BEFORE the conventions?
            Big government?

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Hitler was a leftist?

          • Willy Healer says:

            Is that what he told you the last time you two had a chat?

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Hitler died before I was born!
            Herbert Hoover, not FDR, shook hands with Hitler!
            FDR was a Republican?
            My little dog FALLA!!

          • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

            I haven’t seen any proposals talking about ways to stop the mentally ill or insane from getting weapons, nothing other than what is currently in the background checks currently enforced. Part of the issue is, the information that is supposed to be legal to share with the FBI, is not getting to the FBI; people are not doing their job.

          • Willy Healer says:

            Hilary is. She said something to the effect that she will go around congress and the constitution and get rid of guns. On your comment about behavior . Alcohol is involved in over 90 percent of violent crimes. Lets ban alcohol. Men are involved in 100 percent of abortions lets get rid of men. If there were no women there would be no rape. Quit teaching yourself what to think and start learning how to think.

          • Lisa Gunther says:

            Wrong. The second amendment was about the militias not wanting the government to take away their weapons. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Most pro-gun people skip right over the first part and all they see is the right to keep and bear arms. At the time it was written this country had no standing military for protection. Militias were how wars were fought then. We now have a standing military. I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning guns however if you are a felon, a spousal abuser or cuckoo for coco puffs I don’t want you anywhere near a loaded squirt gun let alone a loaded weapon. I don’t want testosterone fueled teenagers packing heat on campuses or in churches. Despite what the NRA says the answer to the gun problem is not even more guns. They oppose mandatory background checks and see nothing wrong with the gun show loopholes. If they really gave a damn those things would be no brainers.

          • David says:

            Learn what the word “militia” meant in the late 1700’s and have the intellectual fortitude to come back on this site.

          • Kurt CPI says:

            Lisa, YOU are wrong. The 2nd amendment provides for the people to form militias, and to that end, to own and carry (keep and bear) arms. There’s nothing to skip over – the language is as plain as it could possibly be. The second amendment acknowledges that “a well regulated militia” is a necessity in order to secure a “free state”. It could be restated as such: “Because the people’s freedoms are rightfully theirs to protect, their right to own and carry arms to that avail shall not be infringed”. Their are plenty of arguments to the effect that, since we now have organized military and law enforcement, the second amendment doesn’t have a modern application, but there’s just no possible way to misinterpret the clear, concise language of the text short of deluding one’s self.

          • paulyz says:

            No, you’re wrong. If an individual didn’t have the Right to bear arms, there wouldn’t be the means to form a militia.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            “A well-educated population, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”

            Does that mean that only the well-educated can keep and read books?

            Neither does the Second Amendment mean that only “the militia” can keep and bear arms.

          • hicusdicus says:

            You are wrong on both accounts. When it comes to no brainers , you are the prize winner.

          • Bob Brooks says:

            Tough analogy that home fire extinguishers is somehow akin to gun ownership for the self protection. The fire idea and home is simple… The extinguisher is there for the ready.. The gun,darn it, is in the cabinet upstairs and the burglar is already in the house. Drat.. what an argument that hold nothing but air.

          • Willy Healer says:

            How did you arrive at this scenario? I know you saw it in the movies. By the way if a burglar is in your house you own him hands down.

          • paulyz says:

            Assumptions by you, break into my home & you will find a weapon ready & waiting, as for fire extinguishers, many households don’t even have them, & the ones that do, might not have them in working condition. Have anything better to discuss?

          • Bob Brooks says:

            Paul The NRA tea is heavy with nonsense posing as fact. If you are armed and ready when someone breaks into your home I must take the ridiculous assumption that you shower with a weapon and replacement for the napkin is a 38.. Mel and I had finished a long day of deer hunting… Storing out shotguns safely in the trunk, shells in pockets.Trunk locked and leaning on the trunk smoking a cigarette a beautiful, full rack came up on the dirt road and stood there looking at us… The argument that you are ready should is just a fairy tale.

        • hicusdicus says:

          Good idea. Just call 911 and see who shows up first. The cops or the meat wagon.

        • Willy Healer says:

          No it is not. Legal lethal self defense is not anarchy. Law enforcement officers usually arrive after the fact. The above comment you just made is your dumbest one yet.

      • Looner says:

        No. I want some wild eyed, untrained, adrenaline pumped person who thinks they are protecting me to spray the area and innocent bystanders with bullets while we wait for the police.

      • greenlantern1 says:

        How about arresting the gun dealers for criminals?
        Remember Viktor Bout?

    • hicusdicus says:

      So now you are an expert on criminology? I bet you have had a lot of first hand experiences or at least you know someone who knows someone who has and thats good enough for me.

    • Buzzi Butt says:

      One can always rationalize his/her/its own views. For every armed person that didn’t have time to draw, how many did? As for police, they are in the arena of violence by choice. They punch the clock knowing that it may well be the last time. Same goes for a soldier. So, do you propose doing away with arming these 2 groups or would you prefer to just eliminate them all together? After all, if we lay down our arms, it goes without saying that no law abiding criminal will attack a defenseless person. I’m sure the criminal will just give it up and go get a job instead.

      • Dominick Vila says:

        Actually, I think our police officers deserve higher pay, and their numbers should be increased. They, and the National Guard, are part of the well regulated militia mentioned in the Constitution.

        • DocWilly says:

          You need to read the history of the beginning of America. You are

        • Buzzi Butt says:

          Few people in the developed nations understand how valuable the regulated police are to maintaining their lifestyles. Why you think the “regulated militia” mentioned in the Constitution refers to the police and National Guard? The second Amendment only refers to “right of the people”.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            Let me start by saying that I own a handgun, which I keep in my house for self protection. I don’t have a problem with the right of people to bear arms.
            I have a problem with criminals and the mentally ill to have easy access to lethal weapons, either because the background checks are inadequate, because it is sometimes difficult to determine who is mentally ill without a thorough psychiatric examination. I also believe legislation alone will not reduce the incidence of gun violence in the USA.

            Having said that, I don’t understand why people need semi-automatic weapons for self protection or hunting, why they need high capacity magazines, and why they need to walk around with concealed weapons.
            The Second Amendment can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) refers to the creation of a well regulated militia, (2) the right of the American people to bear arms. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the latter.
            What is being proposed is to close loopholes and make it as difficult as possible for people with a criminal record and the mentally ill to have access to lethal weapons. Nobody is talking about disarmament.
            A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
            State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
            infringed

          • Buzzi Butt says:

            What you may not understand as little bearing on the Constitution. A Supreme Court running amuck is frightening as the interpretation of the Constitution is their only responsibility, however. A semi-automatic merely refers to the method a cartridge is chambered: By the gun or you. Someone still has to pull the trigger to fire the gun. The fact is, death by guns is a minor cause of unnecessary deaths in this country. For example: 100/day by auto, 55/day by suicide (non gun), 357/day by unintentional accidents, 133/day by poisoning (mostly drug related). The bulk of homicides is by guns during the commission of a crime. Crime rates are highest in more densely populated areas, think MSAs, areas with lower education and employment levels. Is the problem the tool used–the gun– or society’s moral decay? Do we have a society that is highly stratified because the system has failed to serve all equally or has the base line for a decent life been raised so high that marginal people–regardless of cause–can no longer get by? Thus they turn to crime to survive.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            The main contributors to gun violence are, indeed, that ours is a violent society, and our insistence in making it as easy as possible to allow people who should not have access to lethal weapons to acquire the tools they need to commit a crime. Like I said before, legislation alone is not going to solve this problem, but in the absence of more effective and expeditious solutions, that is the least we can do if the goal is to reduce the incidence of gun violence in America.

          • Buzzi Butt says:

            We have a violent society? Bloody hell, what do you call that mess in Northern Africa and the Arab peninsula? There are about a 100 countries that have higher murder rates than the USA. We do top the list on per capita gun ownership, however. Again, gun violence is directly related to crime-most particularly the drug trade. Suicides account for 2/3 of gun deaths in the USA –but those aren’t homicides. Emotions, not common sense or fact, are driving the gun issue. By the end of the day about 100 people will die by automobile.

          • Dominick Vila says:

            I prefer to compare the USA to other industrialized nations, not to failed societies. This the UK, Sweden, Norway, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, among others.

          • Buzzi Butt says:

            The USA has a population of 322 million. Your short list of European/European-derived countries have populations ranging in size from 82 million to 5 million– mere fractions of the size of the USA. Most have a dominant indigenous population while the USA is somewhat of a hodgepodge. What works for a small country, say New Zealand with about 5 million people can’t really be extrapolated to a country 65 times larger.

    • Willy Healer says:

      You are a misinformed armed chair story teller.

  3. stcroixcarp says:

    What is needed to slow down and stop deadly violence with guns is to change the conversation. Apply the wisdom of St. Paul to your “rights” . St. Paul says that all things are legal for him, but not all things are good. I can say any damn fool thing I want to say, but not all things that can come out of my mouth are good and beneficial to myself or others. I need to bear responsibility and bear the consequences . As with gun ownership and bearing arms. Maybe it is my right to carry a loaded gun everywhere (I don’t think it is) but bringing weapons everywhere is not a safe or sane idea. What is needed is a conversation about our individual and collective responsibility concerning guns to our neighbors and our families. What do we want our society to value?

  4. Godzilla says:

    I truly love article so full of nonsense that people actually fall for the BS. As a professional weapons safety/marksmanship instructor for the USAF from 1984-1995, training of the average war fighting member was less than 8 hours (3 hours classroom-1-2 hours live fire/weapons cleaning), which qualifies these folks to fight in a war. Police, in general, shoot more often and stink in real life situations, because they do not face any ramifications for piss poor shooting. If they were to face a judge, they would be much more formidable and miss a lot less. To equate cops to the average conceal carry law abiding citizen is utter nonsense. The author is an idiot as well and knows zero about guns, he speaks with emotions and a lack of education on the facts.
    The problem with Liberal’s is they cannot comprehend that us non liberals believe in personal responsibility and ensure we are quite proficient with our firearms, whether hunting or personal defense. I live in a relatively crime free part of the country where the men and women carry a concealed weapon daily. I feel perfectly safe around these people, of various ages, races and religions. Unfortunately, the liberal left seem to only see those places where liberal Democrats have led the governments where the most crime and gun violence occurs. Sorry, we outside of your crapholes don’t have these problems. Maybe you should look at your ideology in order to fix this problem, but you won’t.
    Gun violence, which occurs mostly in Democrat run cities, is most certainly a problem. Usually, these issue result around drugs. While I don’t engage in recreational drug use, I can see how this prohibition, much like the one on alcohol in the early 1900’s, is a failure. Prohibitions do not work and lead to violence and death. One only needs to research the original prohibition to see how things are very much the same with the current one. It was the violence during the original prohibition that led to the “prohibition” of automatic weapons (machineguns). That has since changed, but the point being, that prohibitions are a failure in a free society.
    In another point, equating gun ownership and driving a car is also nonsense. Driving is a privilege (which I find appalling), gun ownership and it’s use for self protection is a RIGHT. I think you see the difference.
    In conclusion, to stop the violence ya’ll whine about so much, stop the prohibitions. Your NOT getting the guns from the people, period. We can start to eliminate the causes of gun violence by ending the prohibition that is it’s the main cause. We also need a better mental health system and need to REMOVE Big Pharma’s government protection from liability. The problem is government actions, not inanimate metal objects that don’t act on their own.

    • ExPAVIC says:

      Wish

      Here’s hoping none of your family or close loved ones are present the next time a pro-NRA wacko decides to take their black plastic kiddie killer with 30 shot magazine and decides to shoot up the place.

      • Godzilla says:

        The NRA only makes up less than 5% of gun owners. I’m not one of them, nor am I concerned about them. I worried about the mentally defective left wingers know for extreme violence due to the SSRI’s they are on. I’m not even sure one’s political views matter much, but maybe if you and your ilk could lose the Left wing brainwashing, something can get done. As long as ya’ll cry for gun control, your answer is NO! And we have the law of the land behind us. We won’t be victims, you and your ilk will, maybe you should get a grip on reality.

        • Looner says:

          The lack of maturity in your response “I worried [sic] about the mentally defective left wingers know [sic] for extreme violence due to the SDRI’s they are on.” And the fact that you carry a gun.

          • Godzilla says:

            It is your lack of intelligence to the causes of the problems that keep them from getting fixed. Your ignorance and that of your ilk are the problem, not the scary guns.

          • Looner says:

            Lack of intelligence?? Ignorance?? First of all, I am very bright. Second, I certainly am not ignorant, my son in law is a deputy sheriff, my daughter works as a Range Master, my son is in the AF. And we own 3 guns. What were you saying “Godzilla”?

          • David says:

            He was saying, “Wake up and face reality!”.

          • hicusdicus says:

            What reality is that?

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          The FBI website stats put gun owners in the 380 million range in the USA. No other country of the world needs as many guns. Why do you?

          Calling yourself “militia” when you are not is another of the fantasy world lies men like you tell yourselves.

          • David says:

            Eleanore!!! More mistakes in your post. 380 million gunowners? There aren’t 380 million people in the United States. You meant 380 million guns, I assume. As far as the term “militia”, didn’t I explain to you that that word means all able-bodied man? What are we going to do with you not retaining the information given you? Please take your medications and rest. Aren’t you glad you have someone from Texas to correct your mistakes?

          • hicusdicus says:

            Okay I will be militia and you can be the moving target I guess that is not really fair since you are so big an slow.

        • ExPAVIC says:

          Ha Ha

          This liberal has an arsenal that puts yours to same. No victim here.

      • leadvillexp says:

        You fall into a point Godzilla makes. Guns are not all plastic. A few have been made, but blow up after a few rounds. The explosive power of the charge will kill a plastic gun and maybe it’s owner after a few shots. All have some metal parts in them.

      • David says:

        That happens all the time! Right?

    • Eleanore Whitaker says:

      So Godzilla…you want people on hot subways, trains and buses in NY City to ALL carry concealed weapons? Or do you charge for your BS?

      I also live in a perfectly safe state. We do not allow concealed weapons. There’s a time and a place for everything. Do you get your rocks off knowing the guy or child next to you doesn’t know you are armed? Do you get your jollies knowing how powerful you are?

      Come off the BS. Grocery stores, public streets, schools and movie theaters are NO place for guns. You idiots would have another 380 million guns in the wrong hands.

      A country that needs to manufacture 2 million guns every year for public sale is a country that will end up with blood baths in the streets reminiscent of the old Wild Wild Wild West. No thanks. Shove your gun up your anal canal.

      • leadvillexp says:

        Godzilla may have gotten carried away with the name calling but he makes very valid points. Is your area one that allows open carry? Many areas do with and without a permit. They do not allow concealed firearms. I find this odd as so many people are scared when they see someone with a firearm. If you want, you can carry open and scare everyone. You might be surprised at who is armed where conceal is allowed. Many anti-gun advocates carry or have someone with them that does. When I do carry I try to keep it low profile and out of sight even when I am hunting. Guns scare some people and the sight could ruin a good outing they are having. When you disarm all the criminals and can prove it maybe I wouldn’t carry in public areas anymore. I and my wife were licensed as a class 3 collectors for many years. Many people own firearms as collector item and never use them. This would explain why many people have large collections of firearms. I have since gotten older and sold off my collection but it was fun in the day.

        • Eleanore Whitaker says:

          I live in NJ. We are not the Wild, Wild West. We have enough police protection our tax dollars pay for. Our law enforcement is mostly college educated and highly professional.

          To answer your question? I live in a state that neither allows open or concealed weapons.

          Of course people in my region are scared of people with arms. The very attempt to kill people was on a Long Island train by a gun nut who tried to shoot up a subway care with hundreds of people in it. Guess what?Several guys got off that subway and busted that gun man’s butt right on the subway platform and they were heroes for doing it.

          Remember that 9/11 Flight that went down in PA? And the young dad who was heard telling the rest of the passengers, “Let’s Roll?” before they headed into cockpit with terrorists flying that plane? That guy was from East Brunswick NJ. He lived 10 minutes from my home.

          Men in my states don’t need guns for protection when they can as easily kick gun nut butts and take names. Next excuse for your need for guns?

          • leadvillexp says:

            Yes those men in the subway are heroes and so was the 9/11 man but he is dead. The terrorists on the plane used box cutters to take it over. Even a gun would most likely would not of changed the outcome on Flight 93 as it was already under their control by the time the passengers found out. How many people got shot on the Subway? One good person with a gun might have stopped all the shooting with one shot. Also, was he out of ammo when they jumped him on the platform? In a desperate situation you can do something like that but you are most likely going to be killed or injured.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            The shooter was spraying bullets through the subway car windows…If memory serves, 3 straphangers got shot but were not killed.

            No, he wasn’t out of ammo. But, the men who jumped him beat hell out of him. He was badly bruised when the cops got there.

            It’s a serious, misguided idea that anyone, armed or not, can be ready to shoot at someone who is shooting on impulse.

            That’s why that AZ Congresswoman, in a state with loose gun control laws was so badly injured. You cannot possibly know when someone with or without a concealed weapon is going to impulsively start shooting. The plan may be in their heads, but the actual Gunfight at OK Corral is pure impulse.

            I know this because my nephew works in law enforcement and was with ATF.

            That shooting in AZ still happened in public even with armed men and women in that crowd.

          • leadvillexp says:

            An impulse shooter is going to catch everyone off guard. Some people are bound to be shot. I believe in the shooting you are talking about, the shooter was jumped when he went to reload. The point is that if he had reloaded more would be dead. The other armed citizens might have regained their senses and responded, stopping him. We can not predict the outcome of what could have been.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Have you ever been on a hot subway car in NY City in the dead of summer? From your post, I’d say you obviously have not.

            NY City doesn’t allow guns concealed or open carry for one reason which hicks from the Corn Pone and Mutton Chops states don’t get…there are too many mentally ill homeless in this city and the population in the City during business hours isn’t like some DogPatch rural village.

            Picture a subway like a can over over-packed sardines. People packed so tightly together, women often get molested from behind. Better yet, picture riders on the platforms all pushing and shoving to make sure they can’t their ride. You have no idea how dangerous guns would be added to this.

            Now, do you want to tell us how to protect riders from being pushed off the platforms to their deaths which happens more often than gun fire? Or don’t they have subways in Hickville USA?

          • leadvillexp says:

            Yes! I have lived in this god forsaken state most of my life. I can tell you if we opened more asylums and put some of those sick people in them it would be a safer city. Oh, I forget they have the right to roam the streets until they hurt some one. As for corn pone and mutton chops, that is an insult to some very nice rural people in states like West Virginia and Tennessee. They have more common sense than all those city folk put together. I have been to New York City many times and hate it each time. I would rather live in a nice place like Dog Patch than NYC.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            My neighbor across the street is from a 3 generation coal mining family in West Virginia. All I know about that state comes from her and her husband. He left mining when the first signs of lung diseases scared him into moving north.

            As for Tennessee, there are genuine people in both TN and WVA. Their politicians are not. They are shills of billionaires. That’s the reason incomes in the south and midwest lag so far behind other states.

            At least 35% of every dollar these people are paying in taxes ends up in career politicians campaigns funds.

            I was born to an illiterate Italian immigrant Dad and 2nd generation Austro-Hungarian Mom. My Dad was a truck farmer when NJ was still the Garden State. So I know what poverty and deprivation are. I know how cards are stacked against the poor and uneducated. It’s why both my parents were tough on their kids to speak perfect English and get the best educations they could afford.

            I am not a fan of New York City. But I do know that people packed in subway cars, trains and buses tighter than sardines in a tin, are no place for guns.

          • hicusdicus says:

            Did you get all excited telling us about women getting molested in subway cars? Did you lose you riders pass and now you are all frustrated.

          • hicusdicus says:

            It was spraying bullets? What kind of shower head was he using??

          • hicusdicus says:

            You should have been there, that would have scared them all off.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            I’m sure if you were there, your Cheney style dead eye aim would have really solved world hunger, the war on drugs and any other issues your flea bitten superiority acting brain could overcome. Do men like you ever realize that you are of NO use to this world? Bitching is all you men know how to do. Remove the bullets from your butts. No one cares what you think.

          • Willy Healer says:

            Are you back on the bottle again? When you star tippling you always end up stubbing your toe, the one with two humps.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            Are you gun freaks still shooting up …through your veins? The hump a dipshit like you ever gets is when your butt end has saddles sores. Grow up little boy. Time to stop trying to be Rambo.

          • 788eddie says:

            One good person with a gun may have also ended up doubling the number of casualties.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            May have? When and where has this ever happened in the U.S.? Answer, never, and nowhere. Millions of people carrying guns for personal protection — legally, and no reports of anyone blasting away and killing a bunch of innocent people. Never.

          • leadvillexp says:

            No one knows what could have been. Yes, it could have gone your way or it may have gone the way I said. We will never know because that armed citizen wasn’t there.

          • 788eddie says:

            Unfortunately, I’d feel more at ease If NO armed citizens were there; shooter included.

            No guns; no shootings. Kinda simple.

          • leadvillexp says:

            When you find a way to get the criminals to give up their firearms let us know and maybe the rest of us won’t have to be armed. When you make gun laws the only ones that follow them are the honest citizens. Criminals don’t care. Years ago, in the 1970’s, I tried to prove this to a Legislator. I offered to take him to NYC and buy an M16 military machine gun marked US Property to show him how easy it was to buy stolen military weapons. He declined the offer. I believe that today, if you know the right people you can still do that. It is naive to think getting rid of all legal firearms would keep them out of criminals hands. We in the U.S. have been lucky that car bombs and hand grenades have not yet been used, least we forget Timothy McVeigh.

          • 788eddie says:

            Criminals get guns mostly the same way every other gun owner gets a gun; they buy them. Another way is to steal one from a legitimate gun owner.

            Again; No guns = no shootings. Kinda simple.

          • Willy Healer says:

            No cars no car accidents ,no alcohol no drunks, no hi fat food and sugar no heart disease, No prescription and no non prescription drugs drugs and no more OD’s no abusive parents no screwed up children, No marriage no spousal abuse, Everybody unarmed lots of happy criminals, no irresponsible sex no abortions. The world we live in is dangerous and the more unhappy people milling about the more dangerous it gets. I don’t count on the fire department or the police thats why I am armed and keep fire extinguishers in the house. You do it your way and I will do it my way. The one thing I won’t do is tell you how to live your life. For your information I am against open carry. It is unnecessary and frightens people. I also think our government is at least 75 percent corrupt and getting worse, both parties .I am also of the mind that our financial system is hovering on the verge of a horrendous collapse. Get rid of humans not guns and the planet will be a happy place.

          • 788eddie says:

            “I agree with you when you point out that “the world we live in is dangerous and the more unhappy people milling about the more dangerous it gets.” I get it that if you live in a rural area, as my brother and his family does, a gun may be a necessity for added protection (but not an arsenal of weapons). But in urban or suburban areas, guns have caused more problems than they solve, as the family of a 12-year old girl found out recently when she was shot and killed while sitting in her living room.

            In this country, we pride ourselves that we all get do to our own thing, within reasonable limits. Owning a gun is acceptable under certain conditions; I also have no problem with reasonable limits on owning guns.

            As for the financial system on the verge of collapse, my brother, who is in banking, told me that we were on the verge just after President Obama took office; he’s still wrong!

          • Willy Healer says:

            How do you figure that???

          • 788eddie says:

            Not all people who have guns know how to shoot straight. Add to that being in a high-pressure situation.

            For examples of stupid actions people have with guns, please see YouTube.com (It’ll keep you busy for hours).

          • Willy Healer says:

            You are generalizing because you are anti gun which Means you are anti self defense. I know a lot of people who are armed and they take it seriously and know how to shoot ..Most people don’t have a good grasp on the laws of self defense. and when they are allow to use lethal force. If you really want to see people do stupid things, Go to “kaotic.com” and pick the category accidents and there is one for shootings. The category for war is ghastly. These are unedited videos sent in from all over the world. If you can watch a car accident where the top has been sheared off and the heads of 5 people are all in the back seat and watch ISIS burn children to death then you are good to go. Make sure you are alone the first time you try to navigate the site.

          • 788eddie says:

            I’m not anti gun; I’m anti idiot. I’ve seen too many idiots with guns who should not have them. “Gun-rights” people have been protecting these idiots for way too long. If reasonable controls had been in place, we wouldn’t be having these discussions now. There would be no problem!

          • hicusdicus says:

            I think their are more idiots with computers that should not have them.

          • 788eddie says:

            Agreed!

          • hicusdicus says:

            You live in a sewer. The New Jersey Cameltoe Godzilla who likes to poke things in places where Doctors fear to go.

          • rozyredtoes says:

            Of course they don’t need guns for protection they have you. I bet you are the only person on the planet that could make an Abrams tank disappear just by sitting on it.

          • Eleanore Whitaker says:

            You bet I can outwit dipshits with guns. I kick them in their balls before they can pull that trigger.

            As for you gun freaks, do us all a favor, shove those guns up your anal and vaginal cavities and pull the trigger so we can return to a civilized society where there is peace and quiet and not the constant pow pow pow pow pow pow pow you dipshits so love to hear .

      • David says:

        Eleanore!!!! Wrong again! In fact, New Joisey DOES have a provision for the issuance of a carry permit. N.J. Code Chapters 38 and 54. Interestingly, the law makes no distinction between open and concealed carry. You live there — maybe you ought to learn more about your state’s laws.

        • David says:

          Eleanore!!!! A “safe state”? Hmm… What about Camden and Newark? Wouldn’t want to be there after dark and be unarmed!

      • hicusdicus says:

        What ever happened to old Jersey??????????

    • greenlantern1 says:

      One of the presidents, of the NRA, was US Grant!
      Ever read his memoirs?
      What did he think of Nathan Bedford Forrest?

    • 788eddie says:

      I love how conservatives lay claim to being the only ones who exercise responsibility in this here world; they also claim to be the only ones who share “family values.” Unfortunately, the rest of the human population have seen enough examples to show what a crock of BS those claims really are. When anyone makes claims like these, it’s time to watch out!

      • Willy Healer says:

        Where do you come up with these generalized statements? They are completely bogus.

        • 788eddie says:

          I am right! YOU are either unwilling or incapable of understanding how the majority of Americans feel. Most of us have no problem with REASONABLE gun ownership. There is a certain segment of the gun-rights population, however, who insists on “pushing the envelope,” insisting on the right to buy any weapon that tickles their Twinkie, and as many weapons as they please, and it is these people who get pissed-off when the majority lets them know when they’ve pushed too far.

          Time to wake-up, Willie!

          • Willy Healer says:

            So you are in the majority and know how everybody thinks? Well aren’t you special. You are saying what you want, nobody cares what you want. Well I will say what I want and that is to revoke the open carry law.

          • 788eddie says:

            I have no problem with someone who wants to revoke the open carry law, willy healer. I say again, I’m for a REASONABLE gun ownership policy (please see above).

  5. Tom Gresham says:

    So . . . we LIKE the government to compile databases on people who have done nothing wrong? That’s all the “universal background check” push is about. UBC can not function unless all guns are registered (“Yes, sir, you will have to bring in all your guns annually to prove that you actually still have them.”.

    In some countries, this measure is enforced by spot checks by police searching homes without a warrant.

    And people are worried about the NSA?

    • greenlantern1 says:

      Felons, like G. Gordon Liddy, used public airwaves to call for headshots!
      He wanted to murder policemen that wore bulletproof vests!
      Perfectly clear?

    • Ricky says:

      If you want to exercise the right to drive a car, you apply for a driver’s license.
      The info from this goes into a government database, even though you’ve done nothing wrong.

      So I see no problem with maintaining a government registry with information about who’s licensed to own a gun, and details about the owner’s arsenal.

      • DEFENDER88 says:

        Difference is – the Govt/Dems have no desire to collect/confiscate your cars.

        • Ricky says:

          Nor do they desire to collect/confiscate your guns. Don’t listen to right-wingers peddling scare tactics.

          They’ve been telling us for 7 years that Obama wants to take away all the guns, among other things. None of their dire predictions have come to pass, including this one.

          • DEFENDER88 says:

            I dont listen to the “Right Wingers”.
            I gather my own info.

            I got that info from a confirmed Dem News source that knows the behind the scenes discussions/desires at the White House after the Sandy Hook murders. Obama himself did not desire nor advocate confiscation(he knows better) but many in his Admin do. And if Hillary is elected, they will still be there – good news for “you” I imagine.
            It has not been attempted because they know many will not stand for it. The word revolution comes to mind. Think it cant happen here? I remind you – the Brits went to Lex and Concord to confiscate their weapons. I was there(the 1775 version of me).

            ps The Dem Assault Rifle ban had absolutely NO effect on the gun crime rate. It “did” make some Dems “feel” good.

          • Willy Healer says:

            The one thing that always makes a liberal feel good is an enema.

          • Tom Gresham says:

            Ricky, Tom Diaz, of the Violence Policy Center, told me his desire is to do away with private gun ownership. Hillary Clinton just this week said she likes the model of requiring people to turn in their guns, as was done in Australia. Yes, they really do want to take away our guns, and they are quite open about it. Obama openly calls for banning the most popular rifles being bought — by competitors, hunters, recreational shooters, etc. One only has to put aside the dogma and actually listen to what’s going on.

          • Willy Healer says:

            Not for his lack of trying you silly person.

      • Tom Gresham says:

        As Defender88 said, the stated goal of those calling for the so-called Universal Background Checks is to ban guns. Very clear. They know they can’t get to their goal all in one step, so they create these small steps, always moving toward their goal. They ban small or large groups of guns, as they are able. Witness the so-called “assault weapon ban” under Bill Clinton, where simple semi-automatic rifles were banned on the basis of cosmetic features (pistol grip, flash hider, etc.), when identical rifles which fired the same low-powered cartridges at the same one shot per pull of the trigger were not banned.

        They slice this thinly, getting any restriction and any ban they can, and then come back for more. There are thousands of gun control law in effect right now, but they keep calling for more and more and more, because, 1. the gun control laws they promised would be “the answer” weren’t, and 2. their actual goal (actually stated when they forget to hide the real intent) is to ban gun ownership.

        The whole cars versus guns meme is so flawed as to be laughable. Really? Do you have to get the approval of the FBI to buy a car from a dealer? No? Well, you have to get the approval of the FBI to buy a gun from a dealer. And on and on. It’s a silly argument, and it falls apart immediately. Gun manufacturing and gun sales are highly regulated, with severe penalties for breaking the law. There are few, if any, items which are as heavily regulated throughout the manufacturing, transportation, storage, record keeping, background check by the FBI, and ultimate sale as are firearms.

        • Willy Healer says:

          There is nothing you can say to this silly person that will matter. The only thing that will make a difference is after he has encountered a home invasion. If he lives through it his underwear will be ruined.

    • Buzzi Butt says:

      People seem to forget why we have an virtually inviolate base set of rules, i.e. the Constitution, by which we govern our society. To change it with the wind leaves us a no better place to live than Russia, Syria, Afghanistan or northern Africa. Emotions and social trends are not grounds for destroying country.

  6. greenlantern1 says:

    Thanks to Eric Holder, and the FBI, fiends like Viktor Bout are behind bars!
    He was a Russian arms dealer!
    He tried to sell arms to Colombian outlaws!
    They wanted to murder American pilots!
    How come the NRA is quiet about that?

    • Tom Gresham says:

      That would be the Eric Holder who ran guns to Mexican narco-terrorists and then watched as those guns were used to kill U.S. law enforcement officers as well as hundreds of Mexican citizens? THAT Eric Holder?

      • greenlantern1 says:

        You must do a lot of ballistics tests.
        Mexico belongs to INTERPOL!
        The US belongs to INTERPOL!
        Malaysia belongs to INTERPOL!
        Right now, a hacker is being extradited to the US!
        Terrorists hate INTERPOL!
        The Republican party wants us to withdraw from INTERPOL!
        Perfectly clear?

  7. stcroixcarp says:

    Where does ISIS get its weapons and ammo? Who makes and sells guns to the Taliban? What companies manufacture and sell weapons to Al Queida? Is it possible that the same folks who make a killing (pun intended) supplying foreign terrorists also arm domestic terrorists, neo-nazis, school shooters, the mentally ill, abusers and other assorted mass killers? Is it possible that the NRA supports both domestic and foreign terrorism?

    • DEFENDER88 says:

      Almost all the weapons used by Alqaeda and ISIS are surplus Russian or Chinese AK47’s.
      They dont like the US Assault Rifle because they cost more, are less accessable, more complicated to operate, and less dependable under harsh conditions. These(AK47) are also preferred by the Gangs in US cities.

    • Ricky says:

      According to what I’ve read from multiple sources, a sizeable portion of the weaponry the Islamic State uses was either confiscated or abandoned by their enemies.

      The Iraqi army abandoned a great deal of American made munitions when they fled in the face of IS attacks. These weapons and vehicles are now being used against US-supported groups now fighting Assad. So both sides are often using the same US-made firepower against each other.

      As long as someone’s firing rounds, I’m sure the NRA supports it.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

        Actually Ricky, the USA Defense Department, Military and the companies that manufacture everything our government buys appreciates it. There are countless wealthy business owners making fortunes off the wars and equipment. Not to mention the backdoor deals taking place at various levels of government and private business persons as well.

        • Ricky says:

          Agreed, and I’m sure what we know is only the tip of the iceberg.
          I recently read that the three most profitable lines of business in all of human history have changed little over the centuries (millennia?).

          They are; drugs, weapons, and energy. A quick look at the world around us show how ruthless and tenacious the people at the summit of these lines of professions can be. They allow nothing to stand in their paths, and if large numbers of people die along the way, they don’t care a whit.

          • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

            “They allow nothing and no one to stand in their paths, and if large numbers of people die along the way, they don’t care a whit. They see it as collateral damage, and an insignificant side effect.” Yep, and then they make an issue about a minute % of people being killed by accidental firearm incidents or suicides, and of course massacres; which still amount to a minute % of people. It’s all a game, to them. Fortunately, the pawns still outnumber the rulers, so they need to stick together, a divided nation cannot survive for long.

          • Willy Healer says:

            You should move to another planet. Humans are the most dangerous animals on the planet with or without a gun.

      • hicusdicus says:

        What you have read, you are so smart and knowledgeable you just amaze me.

  8. 788eddie says:

    Interesting fact: the NRA would like guns to be allowed just about anywhere in the country. So why do they not allow guns to be garried into NRA conventions?

    Fair play, guys.

  9. greenlantern1 says:

    Ever hear of police officers Alyn Beck and Igor Soldo?
    They were gunned down by Jerad Miller and Amanda Miller!
    Their gang leader was Cliven Bundy!
    Law abiding citizens?
    Why is the NRA so quiet?

  10. 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

    So because they don’t support Government Regulation/Law with regards to Specific Training Requirements, that if violated would Fine You or Put you Behind Bars, the article is saying they Do Not Support Gun Safety and Proper Training? What a Crock of Vile garbage that is. There are many issues that revolve around the topic, because of the registration and records that would be involved if their were a legal requirement. If Government agencies were totally Honest and straight forward the majority of people might support some form of reasonable certification; unfortunately it is not that way.

    We need to have a Safety & Education program within our Public Schools that addresses weapons (firearms,knives, etc) and the responsibility involved with ownership, use, violation of the laws, how to secure them when not in use or where there are underage people in the home (alone or unsupervised). The devastation that can be caused by using them with increasingly graphic visuals of injuries (age based). Along with this education program we should talk about self-defense and awareness for children and especially women of all ages, about those whose desire is too take advantage of them. However, we cannot even agree to do something like this, because it’s too controversial and people don’t want their children exposed to these TRUTHS about our society. We need to quit living in the Land of Make Believe and live in REALITY, the “REAL REALITY”.

  11. 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

    Something to ponder: Should the Government be able to restrict the Right to Bear Arms if a person cannot pass a competency test for safe responsible handling/storage, as well as reasonable marksmanship with a 22LR pistol, revolver or single shot rifle?

    • Ricky says:

      An emphatic yes to both, IMHO.

      Better yet, clarify the second amendment by clearly defining “a well regulated militia.” Then restrict gun ownership to the only places where they belong; police, military, and museums.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

        Well, until you decided this should be Nazi Germany or some other Dictatorship run country, I was glad you liked my ideas; but they are not about disarming the public, they are about making those who someday want to shoot and or carry, a safer population. What many don’t realize, is if you attempt to disarm the nation, and or turn millions of legal firearm owners into criminals, through some unfounded regulation(s); you will be casting the first stone of the next revolution.

        • Ricky says:

          The restrictions I proposed were my own preferences, but that’s in a theoretical “ideal world.” The current interpretation of the second amendment guarantees the right of ownership, and I don’t support forcibly disarming the population.

          However, the popular notion of fed-up American patriots courageously resisting a tyrannical government with their private arsenals is a naiive fantasy.

          The type of weapons possessed by lawful gun owners wouldn’t stand a chance against things like jet bombers, tanks, cruise missiles, and other military firepower. The government would quickly and easily trump anything a private citizen might have.

          In the extremely unlikely case of a government turning on it’s own people, there should be no doubt about who the victors would be. Best wishes.

          • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

            The question becomes, who will the military support? It is actually not as simple as some would like to think it might be.

          • Ricky says:

            Interesting question, but hard to answer in the context of a theoretical situation.

            In most cases, the military follows orders from above and stays out of political issues. But anything’s possible in a revolution, and a lot would depend on the circumstances.

          • Willy Healer says:

            The military would be over whelmed by the 35 million plus licensed hunters not counting another 150 million gun owners. Silly person has become stupid person.

          • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

            So who’s the stupid person in your eyes? If it is me, then you misunderstand my comment . . . .

          • hicusdicus says:

            .Not you , silly person Ricky. You know the guy with no understanding of human nature at its worst.

          • Willy Healer says:

            The military will support their family and friends.

          • Willy Healer says:

            You mean like the insurgency in the middle east???????? There are over 35 million licensed hunters alone. Nobody can thwart an army of 35 million plus. You are an unknowledgeable silly person.

      • DEFENDER88 says:

        The 2nd Amendment “was” clarified not that long ago by the Supreme Court. That is what they do. I doubt you know more than them about the law.
        If you dont need a gun for self defense – I am happy for you.
        You must not get out much or live in a protected area. And not go to areas where a gun is virtually a necessity.
        Many of us are not that lucky.
        I realize you dont give one s*it if they kill me, but for some odd reason I do. You likely cannot understand nor relate at all to the need.
        The police can not “defend” me. They can take a pic of my body, investigate etc but not protect/defend me.

        • yabbed says:

          There’s no need for you to be such a ‘fraidy cat. No one is coming to kill you. And without so many guns in so many hands you will be ever so much safer.

          • DEFENDER88 says:

            You have no F*k*ng idea what kind of threats I have had to face and still do.

            Just because “you” are protected and think you are safe and dont have to deal with threats, does not mean the rest of us are. Its a big country.
            I have to take responsibility for my own self defense.

            You consider your potential threat environment and I will consider mine – very different it sounds. And no, it is not Black Folks that have threatened me.

            While I am happy for you – You have no right to limit me because “you” are safe and do not have to consider armed self defense.

            Kind of like living on the beach and not understanding why on earth people who live around mountains need snow skies.

          • Willy Healer says:

            You might want to point out to the silly person that in one year alone there were 2 million reports of a gun stopping a crime. Do you think silly person will report back when he gets mugged?

          • Mr Corrections says:

            That statistic is absolutely 100% false.

            I hope that helps!

          • hicusdicus says:

            Of course it is , you read a study.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            I sure did – several, in fact – and they concluded that, even if self-aggrandising and obviously false reports from gun owners were taken at face value, the overall danger of owning a gun far outweighs the imaginary safety benefits of owning one.

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Read a list of our worst criminals.
            Al Capone!
            John Dillinger!
            Machine Gun Kelley!
            Baby Face Nelson!
            Ma Barker!
            Bonnie and Clyde!
            Negroes?
            Mexicans?

          • paulyz says:

            More blacks are killed in an average week in Chicago by other blacks than all the people AL Capone killed. What an anti-American statement. And add to that all the killings & rapes by Illegals, makes all the criminals you listed as pikers!

          • Willy Healer says:

            Prove it.

          • Mr Corrections says:

            The onus is on the person making an outrageous claim to provide evidence for it.

            I hope that helps!

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Did either John Brown or William Quantrill respect law and order?
            Was “bloody Kansas” peaceful?

          • Willy Healer says:

            The grim reaper is coming and does not care if you have a gun. The last time I saw guns in many, many hands was in the barracks shower room. Not one had an accidental discharge but they were pointing them everywhere.

      • Willy Healer says:

        You mean the well regulated police shootings? Military person-ell are not allowed to carry fire arms on base.

    • Tom Gresham says:

      Sure. Block ownership of guns if you can’t pass a competency test, but also apply that to all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. Can’t write well, or can’t read, or have bad grammar? You are blocked from the internet. Can’t recite the right bible verse? You are blocked from attending church. Can’t show that you are good in a group of people? Your right to free assembly is taken away.

      All or nothing. You can’t cherry pick which rights you will support, because there will always be someone willing to take away the rights YOU think are important.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

        Well Tom, there are some subtle differences between the Rights you speak of. For example: if I cannot right write, ore ewes duh rong werds, it don’t kill sumwon. Ifn eye no nutting bout wepins eye mite kill a body an knot no why. Just saying . . . . do you think psychotic, not all there people, convicted rapists, murderers, child molesters, etc., should be able to own deadly weapons and carry them in public?

    • yabbed says:

      Teaching gun “safety” in American schools is an NRA propaganda tool and we should not allow it. That is not a proper role for educators. It is designed to inculcate guns as a normal part of American daily life and that is the exact opposite of what we need in this country.

      • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

        Read the news from around the world; Rebel uprisings, people being slaughtered for their beliefs; whether they be religious or political, or because they are not liked for many other reasons. Drones taking out tens and hundreds of people at a time, many of them totally innocent. Yep, you’re correct; there is no culture here to support EDUCATION of dangerous weapons . . . . you do realize what took place to become the United States of America, right?

      • Willy Healer says:

        Whats wrong with you? constipated again?

    • Bob Brooks says:

      The NRA people came to my school. The trainer was the science teacher.

  12. Michelle Hackler says:

    Let’s see how the NRA and the white militia groups like it when the Black Panthers get gun permits and open carry semi-automatic weapons. They have just as much right to own guns and open carry as anybody else. The same goes for the American Indian Movement.

    The police have no reasons to shoot any non-white ethnic group for carrying a weapon until they ascertain that the person is carrying the weapon illegally. If the police have no right to shoot a nonwhite ethnic person armed with a gun they have even less right to shoot a kid with a toy gun, a black man in Walmart carrying an air rifle, or any unarmed person.

    According to the National Rifle association no person with a gun should be considered a threat to the police until the police is certain that that person is carrying the gun illegally, is an escaped felon, has a criminal record, has been adjudicated as mentally incompetent by the courts, is a known terrorist, or is involved in process of carrying out a crime.

    All police shootings should be prosecuted unless the police have proven the above conditions before they shoot. This is the logical conclusion of the National Rifle Associations point of view on guns.

    However everyone knows that the NRA believes that only white males have the right to carry weapons and everyone else who carries a gun is doing it illegally. The NRA leaders are a bunch of bigots.

    • Tom Gresham says:

      Michelle, you’re seeing the world from your own bigot-colored glasses. You clearly don’t know about the black NRA members, the women NRA members, the gay NRA members, the transgender NRA members, etc., etc.

      To call this diverse group bigots shows only that you really have been exposed only to the gun ban industry’s mantra of hatred.

      Time to find out who we are — representative of all America.

      • yabbed says:

        Nonsense. Polls show that most Americans want stronger background checks, the closing of loopholes for gun shows and private sales, and an end to this outrageous open carry agenda. Guns need to be regulated as part of a public safety program. There is no excuse for letting a lobbying group kill us on a daily basis.

        • Willy Healer says:

          You really should not drink and post at the same time.

        • Willy Healer says:

          I don’t care for open carry it scares the sheeples. The open carry people don’t realize how much jeopardy they are putting them selves in. What loopholes are you talking about? You seem to be a hysterical frightened person.

      • Bob Brooks says:

        Tom, You forgot one group of gun owners and it represents most.. Most NRA members were member when the NRA was a respected group. They trained people on gun safety and we in the rural communities appreciated their presence. Now, they are a Nazi-jackboot outfit, “my way or the highway…Tom, We have all lost to the craziness that is the NRA. Next mission … arm kids ..

        • Willy Healer says:

          Teach children about guns and what they are for and when it is proper to use them. The NRA does this. What is your problem????

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Who does the teaching?

          • Tom Gresham says:

            There are 100,000+ NRA-certified firearms instructors (many of them are police department trainers). The NRA teaches gun safety to more people than any group anywhere. The false “gun safety” groups teach exactly NO gun safety classes.

            Remember that the NRA, itself, actually can’t do any lobbying. That is done by the separately-funded NRA-ILA. The NRA still does what it has always done–teach gun safety to millions, promote shooting competitions, promote safe hunting practices, help with the design of safe shooting ranges, etc.

            The NRA has not changed what it does. The media, however, has changed how it portrays the NRA, and for most people their image of the NRA comes from the media’s portrayal. If you will go around the filters of the media and actually look at the programs offered by the NRA, you may be surprised at the scope, which includes training the police. http://le.nra.org.

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Has the NRA spoken out against Viktor Bout?
            G. Gordon Liddy?

      • drdroad says:

        Baloney. A HUGE majority of Americans want background checks on all gun sales, and that includes a majority of gun owners. You can’t just make stuff up Tom, that’s what this whole article is about!

        • Willy Healer says:

          There already is background checks. My background check included FBI, State police , Local Sheriff. How much more do you think is necessary ????

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Ask Donald Trump!
            He is demanding MORE government protection at the same time that he wants the government to spend less!

          • drdroad says:

            No background checks are required at gun shows or private sales. Less than 50% of all gun sales have background checks.

          • rozyredtoes says:

            Have you been to a gun show lately or ever??????????

      • greenlantern1 says:

        Sadly, the NRA is not standing up to the gun industry!
        Why?

        • Tom Gresham says:

          “Sadly, the NRA is not standing up to the gun industry!”

          ???? The heavily-regulated gun industry? The industry where a manufacturer must be licensed, where the retailers must be licensed, where the movement of every item (gun) is tracked from manufacturer to final buyer, where every sale to a consumer must receive the blessing of the FBI? The industry which has distributed 100 million FREE gun locks? The industry which has created the “Don’t Lie For The Other Guy” educational campaign to teach sellers how to identify illegal straw purchase attempts? The industry which works hand-in-hand with the BATFE at every stage of manufacture, transportation, storage, and sales?

          Is this the industry you want gun owners (which is all the NRA is, after all) to “stand up to”?

          • greenlantern1 says:

            Thanks to Eric Holder, and the FBI, fiends like Viktor Bout are behind bars!
            He was a Russian arms dealer!
            He tried to sell arms to Colombian outlaws!
            They wanted to murder American pilots!
            Why is the NRA silent about that?

    • greenlantern1 says:

      Black Panthers was the invention of Spiro Agnew!
      You remember him?
      Our ONLY VP to plea bargain!
      “Good” guy?

  13. yabbed says:

    I agree with Hillary Clinton that the American public needs to rise up against the NRA. The public needs to turn on them as we turned on drunk driving. We didn’t stop drunk driving, of course, but we made it socially unacceptable and we stiffened the penalties for doing so. And it helped enormously. We should not elect any politician who has thwarted gun control measures, be they right wing freaks or Bernie Sanders. Until we have politicians in office with the mindset to get guns under control in this country we will continue to suffer these outrageous mass slaughters of our citizens.

    • 2ThinkN_Do2 says:

      Too bad you are mostly incorrect about your statements. Both driving under the influence of any mind altering substance and the thinking that it is okay to take someone’s life without provocation are results of humans who in most cases, are not thinking properly. Seriously, taking someone’s life could be punishable by the Ultimate Penalty; how come it’s not thwarting massacres?

    • Willy Healer says:

      “The mass slaughter of our citizens” You need to go outside and join the fun. Become a moving target and help the gun nuts waste ammunition.

    • Tom Gresham says:

      Hmmm. Recent CNN poll showed that the NRA had a higher favorability rating than either Hillary Clinton or President Obama. Neither of those Democrats had a majority who favored them, but the NRA did. Simply put, the people like the NRA.

  14. Grover Syck says:

    Again, we must keep a democrat back in the white house in 2016, and give him or her a strong democratic senate, so that when the corporate justices die off, we can put progressive justices in their place.
    \Then we can start working to fix this mess.

  15. Grover Syck says:

    The problem is the courts have been snookered into misinterpreting the second amendment.

    It was not put into the bill of rights to protect the individuals right to own a personal weapon so he could “protect himself form the big bad government. It was put there so the relativly few people who had guns could be formed into a governmental militia for use in times if uprising and or insurrection., The specific motivation was the whisky rebellion

    You can find the reasoning behind and history of the second amendment here.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/the-original-intent-of-the-2nd-amendment-was-not-to-facilitate-citizen-rebellion

    the first paragraph of the article is below.

    The loudest backers of the Second Amendment have their history wrong.
    The Second Amendment was not drafted to facilitate armed rebellion, it
    was crafted to do the opposite. One can only reach the conclusion that
    the Amendment was designed to help armed rebels by ignoring the context
    in which the Constitution was written. The Constitution was ratified in
    large part to strengthen the federal government because the Articles of
    Confederation that preceded it were seen as ineffective as a government
    framework for putting down Shay’s rebellion.

    • Willy Healer says:

      Oh bullshit!!!!

      • greenlantern1 says:

        Ever hear of BEAUMARCHAIS?
        It was a French company.
        It armed our patriots.
        That sissy country!

      • Bob Brooks says:

        Why is it that Willy and others of his “mind” seem only to dismiss what is rational advice why he is wrong about the gun thing and worship of with his kind. A lunacy of sorts prevails .. Guns in the home somehow protect the homeowner.. The absurdity of such an argument is not based on fact but romantic notions of the old west and gunslingers like RoyRogers or Clint Eastwood. Pity for the smaller ability of a thinking man not to think

        • Willy Healer says:

          I don’t know much about movie actors but I do know what it is like to be involved in a home invasion and shot 3 times and be pronounced DOA. Bullshit to you, of little experience.

  16. Bob Brooks says:

    it is my belief that with the stellar leadership of La Pee Pee the country will soon be awash with guns. Guns for everyone and all for one. Buying the gun will be as easy as a quart of milk . In fact, next to cucumbers will be the latest AR-15 or the Glock for smaller hands, Ie children. Folk, the silly land of lunacy is upon us..

    • hicusdicus says:

      I think you are right. You better get one while the gitten is good.

    • Willy Healer says:

      You having fun making silly statements?

    • greenlantern1 says:

      Among the first presidents, of the NRA, was President US Grant!
      See the difference?

      • Bob Brooks says:

        Grant was involved during his presidency in then Tea Pot Dome Scandal. Wayne LaPeePee hasn’t got caught yet. Fail to see your point. The NRA use to be a sane, educational entity until it found nirvana with ammo and gun manufacturers. The more guns they put in the hands of everyone the more money for NRA and Wayne

        • Willy Healer says:

          And the safer from attack they are.

          • Bob Brooks says:

            Willy It’s just pity I feel for you. Ignorance is not one of your valued virtues I can plainly see and read what you think is witty or profound, neither apply. Guns are too plentiful and too easy to obtain. I keep a pistol in my home but I know and even you should know that it does not mean I am safe. The burglar , already in the home, armed…. Value of my gun !! PLEASE enlighten me ye lover of guns

  17. greenlantern1 says:

    Should the NRA have spoken out when Viktor Bout was convicted?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.