Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

WASHINGTON — For all the dysfunction in our political system, a healthy pattern usually takes hold when a terrible tragedy seizes the nation’s attention.

Normally, we engage in a searching conversation over what rational steps can be taken by individuals, communities and various levels of government to make the recurrence of a comparable tragedy less likely. Sometimes we act, sometimes we don’t, but at least we explore sensible solutions.

Unless the tragedy involves guns. Then our whole public reasoning process goes haywire. Anyone who dares to say that an event such as the massacre at a Colorado movie theater early Friday morning demands that we rethink our approach to the regulation of firearms is accused of “exploiting” the deaths of innocent people.

This is part of the gun lobby’s rote response, and the rest of us allow it to work every time. Their goal is to block any conversation about how our nation’s gun laws, the most permissive in the industrialized world, increase the likelihood of mass killings of this sort.

First, the gun lobby goes straight to the exploitation argument — which is, of course, a big lie. You can see this because we never allow an assertion of this kind to stop conversation on other issues.

Nobody who points to the inadequacy of our flood-control policies or mistakes by the Army Corps of Engineers is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a deluge. Nobody who criticizes a botched response by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to a natural disaster is accused of “exploiting” the victims of a hurricane or a tornado. Nobody who lays part of the blame for an accident on insufficient regulation of, say, the airlines or coal mining is accused of “exploiting” the accident’s victims.

No, it’s only where a gun massacre is concerned that an absolute and total gag rule is imposed on any thinking beyond the immediate circumstances of the catastrophe. God forbid that we question even a single tenet of the theology of firearms.

  • sigrid28

    Earlier this year, PBS featured an excellent biography of Harper Lee, that set me to rereading “To Kill A Mockingbird” (1960), which describes in semi-autobiographical detail the effects of a violent racial incident in 1936, in a town based on Lee’s hometown, Monroeville, Alabama. When a black man is falsely accused of a crime against a white woman, the young narrator’s father, attorney Atticus Finch, takes the case pro bono. One subplot involves Scout’s growing understanding of her father and his work. She is surprised to learn that he is a crack shot with a rifle, when county law enforcement enlists his expertise to bring down a rabid dog staggering through the emptied streets of Monroeville and terrifying the public.

    The memorable passage in Harper Lee’s novel brought to mind another famous scene in a world-class novel by a southern woman, Zora Neal Hurston. In “Their Eyes Were Watching God” (1937), the heroine has the sickening experience of having to shoot her lover with a rifle in self-defense. He threatens her with a pistol after he’s gone mad with rabies, which he contracted while saving her from a rabid dog during the flood caused by the breaching of Florida’s Lake Okeechobee during the hurricane of 1928. After the loneliness and horror of watching her beloved Tea Cake descend into madness, the crack of the rifle saves them both and symbolically restores sanity to their southern community, just as it does in “To Kill A Mockingbird.”

    Both women write eloquently of the deep South, depicting a time when guns brought order out of chaos, situations in which the crack of a rifle secured the peace of a community under threat of being overtaken by insanity and certain, miserable death. On this day in July, when we as Americans must add to our terrible roster yet another massacre by an insane gunman, it makes me heartsick to notice how the tables have turned so cruelly for the citizens of Aurora, Colorado–indeed, for us all. In our towns, rabid creatures are heavily armed and have us in their sites.

    • jim

      We are all rabid creatures under our veneer, look a the news, sickening. We seem to be moving in a daze of denial and self delusion. The few saints among us the exception.

    • crestdad

      Very well put. Although the effort to control assault rifles and weapons will be hysterically criticized, we as a people have to wonder what possible defensive end result can become from owning such a weapon. When would we be able to utilize these weapons for our defense? It seems we are continually, offensively attacked with them. The pleasure, or sport to own is like saying we should be able to own explosives. For the greater good, unfortunately our law enforcement should help protect it’s citizenry from itself. Im the first to say, yes had the mass murderers in our midst had only Glocks (pistols) they still would of committed the crimes. But when you can squeeze off 200 plus rounds per minute with an assault rifle it seems clear or common sense that these weapons are the usual instrument these whack jobs use to do the most damage as quickly as they can. We need to make illegal, and to have one in your possession an act of terrorism.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    OK, let’s talk about guns. Twelve months ago, Australia outlawed ALL private ownership of guns. RESULTS: Armed robbery has INCREASED by 44% in ONE YEAR in Australia. Why?
    Beacuse only law-abiding citizens turned in their guns. When guns are outlawed, only OUTLAWS will have guns. Their goal in Australia was noble…but the result is that honest citizens are now DEFENSELESS against criminals, and that’s just what criminals want: easy, defenseless prey!

    • hilandar1000

      I don’t think there is any history in this country for a TOTAL ban on guns. The framers of the Bill of Rights had no knowledge of the types of assault rifles that are used in the mass murders that occur today. Therefore, I think it would be constitutionally correct to limit the types of guns allowed in this country to the same type that were available at the time that the Bill of Rights was written.

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        This is like saying that “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” doesn’t include the right to own and drive an automobile, since only horses were known as conveyances back then???

        • hilandar1000

          The last time I checked, it seems there are myriad laws to govern the use of automobiles. There is no question that those laws exist to protect the people of our nation from needless harm — and those laws are enforced. The same is not true for the use of modern day firearms.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            It is MUCH more difficult in most states to obtain firearms. Did YOU have to undergo a mental health background check to get your drivers’ license? And did you have to be approved by a Government agency in order to purchase your last vehicle? But getting back to your original premise, that we should only be allowed to have firearms that existed when the original laws were written into Constitution. This would STILL require everyone to turn in present-days arms…..BUT only law-abiding citizens would do so, leaving ONLY OUTLAWS ARMED, since they would never willingly turn in their means of oppression over the rest of us. Is that a better place to be in…IE: At the mercy of thoes who generally show NO MERCY???

          • Ed

            Well one answer would be to stop wasting money on the war on drugs; particularly marijuana, which the citizens of this country have demonstrated overwhemingly that they want to use. Use those resources to carry out a war on illegal firearms. The reduction in convictions for having a half a joint would make room in our prisons for many many of the “BAD GUYS”. Also we have at this point proven that the promises of our politicians who told us that closing our mental hospitals and opening “community outreach” would save us money and be more humane. We know that is untrue. The politicos had no problem with closing the hospitals, but wouldn’t spend the money for outreach facilities. So we have people begging in the streets and sleeping on sidewalk grates. Just like New Delhi India!

          • metrognome3830

            You may as well give up trying to talk any sense to middleclass. He will keep bringing up nonsense arguments every time and the rest of us are simply wasting keystrokes replying to him.

          • RUKIDENME

            Yeah middleclass is using the Australian gun argument that surfaced by the NRA over 10 years ago!!! He thinks everyone should own a rocket propelled grenade.

          • hilandar1000

            You got that right, Metro! Reading the rantings and paranoia about government take-overs that these guys spout certainly makes a good argument against any of them owning one of the war guns they seem to value so highly.

          • Actually to get a driver’s license people have to prove they can see, understand and follow the driving laws and show that they can handle a car safely. Elderly people are commonly required to retake their driver’s test and someone with a disability has to show that their car is equipped so that they can handle it safely. My son cannot drive unless he wears his glasses, because he cannot pass the vision test without them. So it is not that easy to get a driver’s license. You can lose you drivers license (and cannot get another one at a driver’s license show) if you are caught driving under the influence, without insurance, driving unsafely, or have any mental or physical condition that would interfere with you being able to handle a car in a safe manner. You can go to jail if you are caught driving without a license.

            I agree with your point that there will be people who find ways to break laws and get guns. But, one nobody, at least I am not, is talking about banning gun ownership all together; they are talking about putting safeguards in place that will ensure that people with guns are competent to handle them. I would like to point out the person who just killed 12 people and wounded more than fifty others – was a law abiding citizen. Would have any law stopped him from going crazy as he did? NO. But, he could never have killed and wounded so many people in such a short time if he had not gotten his hands on an assault weapon.

          • middleclasstaxpayer

            If we endeavored to over-regulate ALL potentially dangerous items in commerce, we would have to eliminate possession of many common items….example: gasoline would NOT be allowed. As I recall, in Indonesia several years ago, some madman (or terrorist) blocked all the doors in a nightclub and then set it afire with gasoline, killing hundreds of innocent folks. If we regulated everything against what a madman “could” do with it to cause harm, we’d have to go back to the stone age.

          • phantomoftheopera

            well, then, should people have atom bombs? i mean, where is the line in the sand? or is there none for you.

          • wildhobo

            Hilandar1000 did not write “firearms that existed when the Constitution was written” but “the type of guns.” Comparing guns to vehicles is inappropriate and misleading. Vehicles do sometimes kill but are not designed to kill whereas firearms are. Per unit, a firearm has a much greater potential to kill than, per unit, a vehicle. Gun control laws are not necessarily gun suppression laws. I would not support total gun suppression laws. When properly drafted, gun registry and control laws do not require the owner to “turn in” his weapon, unless it is of a type that has little or no reasonable correlation to a lawful purpose such as sporting or individual self-defence. Assault and other automatic guns, capable of firing a multiplicity of rounds in rapid succession, are not appropriate for sport and too dangerous to qualify as safe self-defence tools for the average user.

          • metrognome3830

            No, I can see you still don’t get it. Well, you just stick with your phony NRA statistics and you pointless arguments. Thankfully, at least so far, there are enough “sensible” people around who do get it.

          • dave169

            There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the book in the USA. There are also laws against all criminal acts. Enforce the current laws!!

          • joyscarbo

            There may be laws on the book but they don’t make any difference in the amount of gun violence there is.

        • metrognome3830

          What part of “sensible rules” do you have trouble understanding?

      • With all of the crime and scams resulting from electronic/social media, should we limit communication to the type of communication available at the time that the Bill of Rights was written? What about cars…they cause more deaths than horses?

        • hilandar1000

          The answer to this seems pretty obvious. Since those things did not exist at that time, we have had to enact sensible rules and laws to ensure that they do not cause needless harm to our people and our society. The same would apply for firearms. Since the types of firearms used today did not exist at that time, we must enact rules that do not cause our people and our society needless harm.

          • they had firearms, black powder rifles, pistols & cannons.

          • DurdyDawg

            Yes they did, and the majority of them backfired in the user’s face. Get off the past feller, your dreaming a sour note.. Anyway, even if it would happen, bad guys and psychos would get them, use them (again) on innocents and the cons would say, “Still not working”..

          • FanticallyModerate

            What is even better is that in the 1700s the exact weapons available to the military were also available to civilians with the money to buy them. In fact a lot of times civilians had better weapons than the police and the military. The mindset of our forefathers was we need weapons to protect ourselves from anyone who would see us lose them. The absolute erosion of freedom is what you can expect. Creating defenseless babies enables the nanny state. The argument that banning “assault” rifles will stop violence is senseless. Ban violence, punish criminals that use weapons swiftly, surgically, and heavily.

          • sjensen6022

            ooooooooooooo, I want a cannon!

          • LazarusStewart

            And if that is what the shooter had, there would only be 1 or 2 victims. hilandar1000 has it right on this one. I am a liberal and own 3 guns. I hunt and hold 2 safety certificates. there is no need for assault weapons that are meant only to kill people. If you want a revolution…vote! fix the damn laws! these people’s deaths, while tragic are the predicable and direct result of the Bush administration and the congress of 2004 when they failed to continue the assault weapons ban. hey after 100,000 Iraqis, tens of thousands of US troops killed or wounded in an optional war whats a few more? It’s on you with it.

          • dragons3

            Of course! If you want to limit our military and police to black powder weapons. Then however the politicans will have their private armies well armed ( look at Chicago). But lets outlaw the airplane, steam engines etc. Thank (insert your local Diety here) that they did have Tobacco , so we can still have cancer.
            I would be willing to wager that you don’t have the skills to harness a horse to your wagon. And we do have more horses today than we did when we worked them. Yes, I do feel as your argument is from an idiot.

          • Then outlaw cigarettes, cars, trans fat, airplanes, war, tornadoes, huricanes, floods, coal burning etc. we can reduce everything to the ridiculous and still accomplish nothing, government regulation has never worked before and will not work now.

          • see above reply.

          • Don


          • old_blu

            @hilandar– Those things do cause needless harm.

        • rd2612

          There is no reason that any sane person needs an assault rifle or 1000 rounds of ammunition in a civilized society.

          • You probably never own a gun before. When shooting at paper targets at the range for 1 hour will easily burn through 200 rounds of ammo. If practicing once per month for 5 months, that’s 1000 rounds. Jim Holmes had illegal full SWAT gear and illegal sophisticated bombs and booby-traps. Where do you think you got those? Who opened the emergency exit door for him? It’s called INSIDE JOB by government or military to create fear to pass UN Small Firearm Treaty (citizen disarmament) which was in trouble at capitol hill!!!

            You know what Hitler did in a civilized society? gun ban then terminate millions. What did Mao do? Same thing as Hitler.

        • Stupid “logic.”

      • spiritwalker888

        You are right the framers of the bill had no knowledge of the type of assault weapons that would be in existence today, but that was not the reason for the right to bare arms being instituted into the bill, it was created so that the people would have the right to defend themselves against others that would attempt to take their rights away from them such as criminals and the Government itself if this Government ever turned on the people of this Nation by attempting to take the basic rights that were guaranteed them under the Documents Of This Nation.

        It has been proven throughout history that when you take the weapons away from the law abiding citizens to defend themselves the only ones that will have weapons are the tyrants and the criminals.

      • then we should also limit what kind of cars people drive.
        gays & lesbians should be outlawed also because homosexuality was not allowed then either
        we should then outlaw religion because of hate crimes.
        while we’re at it we should just use the bill of rights & the constitution as toilet paper because they cause so many problems, just think how fast the legal system would be, you get arrested & straight to prison or the gallows you go, no need for trials or such!
        the flintlock was the assault weapon of the day then…
        If you like America & your freedom & all the other Rights we have then Thank a Gun, it’s what they used to get & keep it with & that’s why they are STILL A RIGHT is to keep those other rights intact..

        • hilandar1000

          Could we please keep this discussion on a sane, adult level? In answer to your first point, there are a great deal of safety restrictions on cars and the people who are permitted to drive them. As to your second point, I don’t recall reading anything about homosexuality in the constitution, but I do recall that the constitution definitely makes mention of equality for all. Regarding point 3, I believe that freedom of religion is covered in the constitution — that means everybody’s individual religion — not just yours. I’m not sure how toilet paper or the abolishment of the justice system got into this discussion — unless you mention it as a distraction from a discussion of the facts. No part of this discussion mentions a total ban on guns — other than the fact that the people who are AGAINST gun CONTROL, such as yourself, seem to feel that people who want gun control are asking for TOTAL ban on guns — which, of course, is NOT the case. The freedoms we enjoy are the result of a variety of factors, but, of course, if you have a one-track mind, I suppose you have a right to think that our freedoms are all due to only one factor — however, the rest of us feel that there are a number of factors which contribute to the freedoms we enjoy —which include compromise and common sense.

      • That retroactive “no knowledge” crap is the only argument you gun control nuts have. Gun control has already gone too far with “interpreting” the constitution poorly. The founding fathers were not idiots and knew that technology would progress as time progressed. They were also keenly aware that a people having no means of self defense led to tyranny and oppression. The second amendment was drafted SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of guaranteeing that the people of this nation would always be able to effect their own fate even if it meant armed revolution was necessary. Furthermore it helped to ensure the security and safety of our neighbors, friends, and families by “providing for the common defense.” Personally I WANT the guy next door to shoot to kill anyone who threatens my security or the security of my friends and family. It isnt very hard to read the Constitution unless you are a lawyer interested in undermining it, or a politician interested in twisting it to your own UNCONSTITUTIONAL ends. Just read the damned Constitution and abide by it.

        • hilandar1000

          Tanaurak, you make a better case for enacting gun control than I could ever make. You insist that everyone must abide by YOUR interpretation of one part of the constitution — then you make a statement which shows your distrust of that document. Doesn’t it seem a bit confusing — even to you — to indicate that everyone else must abide by your interpretation of the constitution and then in the next sentence state that everyone must also plan ahead for overthrowing that government which relies on that same constitution as its founding principle? Have you read the entire document? Also, need I point out that you refer to a document that you supposedly hold in such reverence as the “damned constitution”?
          Of course the founding fathers were not idiots. They realized that there would be changes in this nation and, in order to accomodate those changes and the problems that might accompany such changes, they set up a procedure to allow for amendments to the constitution in order to AVOID armed conflict and revolution.
          But the most compelling argument you make for gun control is your statement that you want the guy next door to be able to KILL anyone who threatens your security. Of course, if you are able to use your own interpretation of the constitution, does that also mean that your neighbor can also use his own interpretation of who might be threatening your security? What if it is a family member who has forgotten his key and is climbing into a window of your house at night? Would you feel that your neighbor is justified in killing a family member because he interpreted the person climbing into your window as being a threat to your security? Thanks Tanaurak, you have made a very unintentional, but nevertheless, very compelling argument for enacting more stringent gun control laws.

      • Don


    • sigrid28

      Yet, law enforcement strongly favors gun control.

      • tcburch

        So does a tyrannical government bent on control of its citizens…

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        There are many thousands of ‘gun control” laws already on the books. And many law enforcement groups still favor the Second Amendment, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

        • Round and round we go. No one listens. That’s what the article was about in the first place. They have the gun lobby pegged pretty well.

    • Joris Heise

      There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Update your information, and you will find that the statistics have reversed as the situation took hold.

    • Where did you get that statistic from? It would help your point if you referenced Statistics with the source. Especially those that are hard to believe.

      • metrognome3830

        He can’t rerence any reliable statistics because they completely refute his entire post.

    • Joris Heise

      The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979–96, there have been none in the sixteen years since. From a CNN article today

    • Joris Heise

      The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979–96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

      from a CNN Opinion piece today.

    • metrognome3830

      Well, well. Mr. NRA, doing what the NRA always does. Come out with the phony statistics. Forst of all, Australia always had more restrictive laws on gun ownership than the US. Second, Australia did not outlaw ALL gun ownership, only certain kinds of guns. And even those outlawed for general ownership can be owned by people who have a need for such weapons, including collectors. Where in hell did the NRA ever come up with the figure of 44% increase in armed robberies in one year? That’s a flat-out lie. In 1995 armed robberies were 27.8%. In 2000, well after the buyback program, the rate 14%. How do they make that come out to a 44% increase? By playing around with figures. Figures lie and liars figure. Australia has never had the level of gun ownership the US has, but to claim that they are defenseless is just plain BS. Nice try Middleclass, but next time get your facts from a reliable source. What you are quoting is just plain ridiculous.

      And before you get to the next step — claiming I’m a Socialist/Communist pinko bedwetter. I am and have been a gun owner and I do believe that anyone who can qualify should be able to own a gun. Just like in Australia.

    • RodgerMitchell

      100% NRA bullshit.

      onsider what happened in Australia after a crazed gunman killed 35 people in Port Arthur, Tasmania, in 1996.
      The Australian federal government persuaded all states and territories to implement tough new gun control laws. Under the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), firearms legislation was tightened throughout the country. National registration of guns was imposed and it became illegal to hold certain long guns that might be used in mass shootings.
      The gun ban was backed up by a mandatory buy-back program that substantially reduced gun possession in Australia.
      The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total suicides and homicides) fell. Importantly, while there were 13 mass shootings in Australia during the period of 1979–96, there have been none in the sixteen years since.

    • Gammaanya

      BS. I have been to Australia many times over. People do have guns but not assault rifles etc. You have to be licensed. My friend owns 6 handguns (personally I don’t like guns), they never used it, but they live out in the boonies m/l so they needed for defense not against humans but a beast. Even Aborigines own guns. In Perth were I was staying, you can walk at night with no problem, nobody will bother you and Sidney is just as much safe. Yes, they have crimes there like any Country in the world, but nothing big in the last 15 yrs or so.. Furthermore if you wanted to move to Australia, their immigrations laws VERY STRICT.
      They are not looking for welfare recipients or cheap workers, Australians NOT CHEAP like AMERICANS. Their taxes are pretty high but I would like to live there on p/t basis if they would have me but I can’t afford it. BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY. We need stricter laws and LICENSE for every Dick and HArry that comes down the pike to get a gun. ONLY HAND GUNS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO CIVILIANS not AK 47 and other. Times of gunpowder, canon are gone, now we have almost hand held canons and for what?? SO few wackos can go and wipe out half a city next time?? Why not create miniminimini atomic bombs and when you get pissed off at your neighbor or his dog pooped on your yard you can throw one at him and wipeout half of neighborhood and yourself with it????? NRA will be pushing for freedom of owning now nuclear minibombs?? It’s in Constitution??
      I read the entire Constitution and nowhere it says that every Citizens have the right to bear AK 47, assault rifles and have the right to shoot at everything that have 2 legs and moving or sitting. Don’t take Constitution literally. It was 1787 when US Constitution was adopted so we have progressed much in 225 years and the rights of landowners have been a little tighter with laws not guns and hired gunslingers. Most likely you will be hit with a car than shot with a gun.


      That is 100% the NRA response, which is totally untrue… The old slippery slop argument used by the NRA and believed by it’s follower’s. The NRA convinces it’s follower’s that if assault weapons or large capacity magazines are outlawed then all guns will be outlawed. NOT TRUE! Cars are regulated to make the public safe and not outlawed. Gun owner, former NRA member, and retired COP.

    • joyscarbo

      Why is it that it’s ALL or NOTHING for you gun proponants??!! That’s not an intellegent arguement for gun ownership. Try thinking about what CAN be done to reduce the incidense of these tragedies! I understand that it’s a complicated issue- failure of our healthcare system to successfully identify and treat the mentally ill. But allowing access to outrageously powerful firearms goes WAY beyond personal protection and causes MASS destruction. No citizen needs an automatic or semi-automatic gun that has a 100 round magazine. THATS THE ISSUE

    • DurdyDawg

      And the greatest criminal of all is the political and corporate NWO.

    • Your argument is idiot. Put real arm control in effect and then you’ll see the results, not maybe the next year, all the criminals had already their guns. Tell me honestly, who’ll ever need the kind of deadly weapons some one like Holmes had in his possession?

      • joyscarbo

        Your arguement is IDIOT!!! If the average police officer never discharges his weapon in the line of duty, then the average citizen should be using a gun even less. Get your paranoid head out of your newborn butt.

    • Maybe I am missing something. As a supporter of the 2nd amendment and that most all law abiding citizen should have the rights to have a firearm. But why in the hell does a US citizens need such weapons as the M203, rifle grenade, WWH-ereM9A1s, GP-30, HK69, M15 & M14, assault weapons, etc and ALL fully automatic weapons? Anyone that have or want these types of weapons should have to obtain a Federal license and pay a Fee to own one.
      The penalties for committing a crime with a firearm should be consistent in all 50 states. There should be a minimum penalty (fine & jail time) attached to the sentence whatever the Judge gives the criminal, and not to be applied to run concurrent.

      • joyscarbo

        Thank you, Steve!!! I’ve been trying to make this exact point. I don’t support taking away hunting rifles or simple handguns that are used for personal protection. I do, however, think we need more regulations for gun owning- a national background check and proof of an accredited gun ownership safety class.
        There also needs to be tighter laws for careless gun safety with REAL penalties for owners who don’t do their due dilligence with securing their firearms.
        The fact that this domestic terrorist in Aurora got ahold of such extreme weaponry without any difficulty whatsoever is DISTURBING!!!! These weapons are only useful for causing maxium lethal force in the setting of war. No citizen should be allowed to purchase and own these types of weaponry- EVER.

    • dtgraham

      No, Australia did not outlaw all private ownership of guns. The American right exists in it’s own dimension these days. It’s own parallel universe. There’s no connection to the reality that the rest of us live in.

    • Who is trying to outlaw all guns in america? Won’t happen and I know of no politician attempting to do so. The paranoia of some gun owners is more dangerous than any gun control or lack there of.

      • middleclasstaxpayer

        Wake up top reality…Nancy Pelosi famously said: “If I could tell them all..Mr & Mrs American citizen, turn ALL your guns in in, I’d do it today.”

    • Expecting that thew results of gun legislation will have an immediate positive effect is unresonable. Your arument is essentially flawed. The ban on outlawing private ownership of guns needs to be followed up by a law enforcement effort to track down and confiscate the remaining firearms, strong controlls regarding the manufcture of firearms and ammunition and sanctions aganst the importation of firearms into the country. All of this takes time. Most importantly is the need to frame the discussion properly and chang the cultural factors that allow for the use and misuse of firearms.

    • The article was not about banishing guns. It was about establishing laws to make it not so easy for people, such as the lunatics in Colorado, to get their hands on weapons to commit senseless acts on innocent citizens.

    • Don


    • The Japanese have almost no legal handguns, and almost no gun deaths. Try to think beyond cliches, “When guns are outlawed…..” A big problem is that in so many cases the guns used in crimes, like in Colorado, were purchased legally, by so-called “law-abiding citizens,” that is until they go on some murderous rampage, then suddenly they are criminals. Why do they need to be able to buy 6,000 rounds of ammo on the internet? For self defense? Get real! I have lived and traveled all over the U.S. big cites and small towns, in the wilds, and in the suburbs, on college campuses and in factories and there has never been a single incident where I have needed a gun to defend myself, never, including living abroad for about 4 years, and not in the military. I hve never been anyone’s “defenseless prey.” Oh, yes, and when did you ever have occasion to defend yourself against “gvt. tyranny” with your old 9mm? I like using guns and have done so for many years, but we must move beyond cliches and paranoia and find ways to stop the slaughter resulting from irrresponsible gun owners, including those whose guns result in “accidental” child deaths.

    • mjw1952

      Urban legends. Google this. Australia never had the absolute right to own guns like the US does, it was strictly controlled. In 1997 they had a gun buy-back program and from 1995 to 2000 the proportion of robberies involving firearms went from 27.8% to 14%.

  • ARepublicanNorthlandGrad

    Problem with the article’s argument is that there is no proof of a history of mental health issues with the shooter yet. His mother was not surprised, but he never saw a shrink. He appears to have went through the waiting period apparently. No where have I seen where existing laws would have prevented this. Outlawing firearms in other countries have not prevented shootings. Maybe more will be learned as it develops, but if you want to prove your argument you have to show facts. So far it is a crazy person doing a crazy thing.
    As a vet, I would like to point out he is not a vet. The media makes so much of a story like this about vets when that is besides the point. Maybe they should start printing that the perpatrators of these crimes are non vets so we can see a comparison of how many are non servers. Then maybe their unemployment percentage numbers will be as high as ours. DON”T HIRE A GRAD STUDENT, THEY GO CRAZY AND KILL PEOPLE.

    • And of course then the problem with gun control is that there is no way to know who should be regulated. So then really regulation is likely to cause ever more harm than good.

      • metrognome3830

        Well, you’re not ALWAYS right.

    • sigrid28

      Yet, law enforcement strongly favors gun control.

      • tcburch

        So does a tyrannical government bent on control of its citizens.

  • shut up. it is always the person that is wrong, not the gun.

    • sigrid28

      Yet, law enforcement strongly favors gun control.

    • metrognome3830

      No, it’s the wrong person with a gun. That’s the problem.

  • You really need to learn what the government is calling an assault rifle, 200 rounds a minute, you dream. What is available to the public operates the same way any semi automatic rifle works, one trigger pull, one shot. Full automatic rifles were banned in the 1920’s because the government was afraid of the citizen soldiers from WW1 that knew how to use them.

    • metrognome3830

      They were also afraid the of the gangsters — who knew how and did use them.

  • BAN ALL GUNS IN THE U.S.A. I make my living mugging unarmed people. Gun banning will make my job safer.

    • Deb

      I carry pepper spray in my bra, go ahead and try to mug me, I haven’t had the chance to use it yet.

    • metrognome3830

      Judging by the cleverness of your reply, I actually believe your occupation is what you say it is.

  • Gun lobbyists dare anyone to approach the idea that America should begin a serious conversation on regulating firearms, because it would just be “exploiting” the deaths of innocent victims.

  • Yes more tough measures on guns should be taken, but still something is to be done in all kinds of video games, which results to be a place for teenagers to take practice without supervision of anyone. On my own life, I have witnessed the mass killing in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tuscon and who carried these mass murder were teenagers. Nothing happened on the hand of teenagers before these games were introduced to people.
    They use Video games as their training tools and not a game. It is really a very dangerous game and it is doing more harm than enjoyment. After all what kind of enjoyment these teenagers are getting in practising killing??????

  • The only time we will have a meaningful talk about guns is when some bozo shoots up a NRA convention.

    • JSquercia

      God wouldn’t THAT show that God has a delicious sense of Irony

  • Deb

    The AR15 used in Aurora yesterday was bought legally within the last month. This gun would not have been for sale had congress extended the assault rifle ban that was allowed to expire in the late 1990’s.

    It occurs to me that all of these mindless assaults have been committed by men, maybe the problem is testosterone.

    How about we pass a law that says, no man can buy a gun unless he can show proof that he has been castrated.

    Just thinking.

    • JSquercia

      Love it Deb . Boy THAT would certainly cause a drop in Gun Ownership

    • metrognome3830


  • To Mary Poppins
    I want people to show a gun that fire’s at certain people by it’s self even computorized automated are cotralled and programed by humans
    I had a break in my home one time along ago .I went out with my favorite 44 mag pistol with intentions of shooting who ever it was when I seen who it was I put the gun down and went into him and beat him out the back door of my home .I went to his parents and they replaced all the damage and were thank full that they did not loose their 17 year old son .I was 35 then I am 60 now and now I would have to shoot him because of my health and age but even then I would have to make quick decision any way at no time did my gun decide to shoot him I wander why
    Johnny Thomas

  • ffejamesl

    It’s not the guns that did the planning and execution of the latest tragedy. Removing guns from the possession of the common citizen will only make them more vulnerable to the criminals who will still get firearms through the same means they have been since the beginning. In many areas, violent crime has gone down since anybody can carry a concealed gun in their vehicle to protect themselves. Granted everybody needs to use discretion in the use of guns but are more likely to do so than the criminal elemant who will already have guns regardless. Another example of lower crime rate is the castle law, regardless of the fact that some incidentrs are sensationalized. No matter how you look at it, either you are an armed citizen or an armed criminal, just depends on the law.

    • metrognome3830

      Oh, here we go again. Another guy with the phony NRA statistics.

  • At the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was expected that every able bodied person had the best military grade weapon possible, so that they could defend our rights from anyone.

    • JSquercia

      That implied that they be in an Organized Militia. The founders were extremely suspicious of a LARGE standing Army.

    • metrognome3830

      Really? Is that what the Bill of Rights says? “It is expected that every able-bodied person had the best military grade weapon possible?” I better re-read that. I don’t recall it said that. I don’t think you are Always Right.

  • This will stop when the republicans and the tea party stop supporting the NRA. Too many people are dying because is darn easy to purchase weapons in this country.

  • The type of guns all able bodies males were encouraged to have at the time the Bill of Rights were written, were the most powerful military grade weapons available, including cannon. That need will never change if you want to have a republic.

  • Let’s talk about guns. The most corrupt, dishonest terrorist type organization in the world, the US Government. Just lost several thousand fully automatic weapons in the fast and furious operation , where they were intentionally dealing illegal weapons in Mexico. Brian Terry lost his life doing his job for his country. Then in typical Obama fashion, that lying pos issues an executive order to protect himself, Eric Holder, and Janet Napolitano, who are all neck deep involved and cover it up. E.J Dionne, your a clueless idiot. The problem here is not guns or gun ownership, its a person with a sadistic mind, and no respect for human life. Why are we not hearing about the 81 year old man in Geogia that was eating in a resteraunt this week, when two robbers came in with bats and guns, he shot them both as they were fleeing. The police caught them and he was given a standing ovation from the customers.


      Stop drinking the NRA koolaid, Fast & Furious while ill conceived did not lose thousands of guns, not even hundreds. Keep hating.

  • All They Seem To Care About Is Making Money, No Matter Who Gets Killed!!!

  • Nor do I think the people who wrote the Bill of Rights ever thought that this great nation would be run by lying, anti American people, who want this to be a government controlled socialist country. Simple fact, if my goal was to go kill 30 people today, I could easily do it with my car, or a few basic chemicals from the store. The problem here is a sadistic mind, with a mother that knew something bad was wrong and did nothing about it. Not gun ownership.


      How is the country socialist? Is your Social Security socialism?

  • If assault weapons are so evil and pointless, then how come we give them to the police and military? I can guess you would likely say we do that in order to ensure we are protected, but the reality is that the police and the military actually are most likely the very type of people who are the greatest threat. They are the type of people who will follow orders even if that is to implement the Holocaust.
    It is misplaced to worry about the rate of fire of a particular firearm. Every household contains all that is needed to instantly kill 10 times the number ever killed in a firearm incident like this. Are you really going to try to make every produce nerf protected, in a society as high tech as ours? That is impossible. Even cars would have to be eliminated.

  • Liberalal

    I have decided to create an organization to combat the NRA. I believe the NRA is one of the most dangerous organizations in America today and even though they will say that I’m using this most recent tragedy for political purposes, I really don’t understand how anyone could not use it as an example of how insane our gun laws are (or lack of them).
    So I’m starting the NARRA (National Automatic Rifle Removal Association), and it’s purpose is to work for the removal of all automatic weapons or as I call them “Weapons of Societal Destruction” from the public. These tragedies will continue to happen unless intelligent people regardless of their political persuasion stand up and say “Enough is Enough”. We refuse to let the NRA continue to protect the rights of every misfit, thug, neo Nazi, mentally deranged individual over the rights of American Citizens to live in peace.

    • Jerpell

      We will never be able to outlaw firearms in this country! The largest army in the world are the game hunters America. There are 700,000 game hunters and it is estimated that each outdoorsman owns an average of 6 firearms, those numbers are just for the state of Michigan….Almost one million game hunters in one state alone!

      • metrognome3830

        How many of those game hunters use AK47s? How many of those individual game hunters use 6000 rounds of ammunition in one hunting season? Unless they are the absolute worst shot on the planet. No one is trying to take away hunting rifles, Jerpell, and you damn well know it. That is a specious argument. And the fiigure of an average of 6 firearms per hunter? That could be a little high. When I was a hunter I owned a .12 gauge shotgun, a Winchester 30/30 rifle and a .22 cal. rifle and that was more than adequate to kill anything I wanted to kill. I gave up hunting after the second time I was nearly shot, while wearing bright red pants, jacket and cap, by a “deer hunter” who should never have been allowed out of his house with a firearm of any kind. A couple of “nimrods” who had never hunted before, had no firearms training, and one of whom was still drunk from partying all night the night before. I shudder to think what they could have done with an assault rifle. Every year, these “hunters” would hit the woods for a weekend of partying and playing with their new high-powered rifles, shooting at every sound and every movement. And every year several of them managed to kill another hunter or themselves. I know the NRA has excellent training programs and gun safety training, but people like this never seem to sign up for any of these courses. What is your objection to having to show that you know how to use a weapon before heading out to the woods? You can’t just go out and buy a car and drive it around unless you can pass a written test, a road test and an eye test before you get a license.

  • Are you referring to car makers, politicians, pharmaceutical corporations, newspapers, oil companies, etc.? It seems to me the main purpose of firearms has always been defense. Ask the night duty nurse who carries a little 32 caliber automatic in her purse when she has to go into a dark parking structure at night.

  • And when you prevent all the ordinary people from being armed, then who will you turn to when the government becomes even more corrupt and comes for you?

  • Read your state constitution. Every able bodied male is supposed to automatically a member of the organized state militia. Just because they are not called up, does not mean you don’t have a need and responsibility. Once the need is there, it is too late to prepare.

  • tcburch

    Guns, in and of themselves are not the cause of the problem.

  • scoreatthetop

    “Assault rifle.” People collect them, I guess. People have them for “fun” in the broadest sense. Assault. Fun?

  • Bear_Gebhardt

    Thank you, E.J Dionne. Clear, direct, compassionate and true. Keep speaking such, friend. We will join you.

  • There is no a single firearm that can not be turned into an assault weapon. All pistols can have high capacity and rate of fire. All shotguns can also. There is no such thing as an assault weapon really. It is a term for usage, not design. The closest you can come would be that assault weapons have low power because that allows for less recoil and a quicker succession of shots. So are you going to outlaw low powered calibers?
    Testosterone is what gets people up in the morning and off to work. If you want passive people then you will have to accept the end of our high tech society and any concept of freedom or rights. Rights exist only because we constantly fight for them. And every 400 years or so, that means full scale wars of rebellion. Change that, and you lose everything of value.

  • I would like to see someone try that. It would almost be funny.

  • tcburch

    That is exactly why the Second even exists…

  • JohnRNC

    Yes! Of course the outcome in Colorado would have been much different if all of the people in the theater had been armed. Then you would have had 100+ people shooting into the haze & darkness of a movie theater full of gas. I’m sure that would have prevented so many more deaths & injuries. And remember, gas canisters are now an integral part of a hunting enthusiast’s arsenal – gassing the forest slows down the deer – saves money on ammo and gets Papa home in time to mow the grass.

    And yes let’s also talk about enforcement of existing laws. How it that accomplished with government budgets that are slashed to the bone? Firefighters, cops and other “regulators” get laid off and their remaining budgets make it virtually impossible to to do their jobs (see Coal Mining & Oil Drilling). I would love to engage in reasonable, rational debates about the regulation of guns and many other deadly activities. Unfortunately “reasonable and rational” have become endangered species.

    • metrognome3830

      Right On, John!

    • joyscarbo

      Thank you, John!! I have family who have lived in Aurora, Colorado for near 30 years and thankfully they are all safe. But their community is devastated and traumatized by this heinous event.
      I understand the use of a gun for hunting. But allowing any citizen to purchase this kind of weaponry is just insanely irresponsible if our government-both state and federal!!!
      The NRA can’t possibly defend the ownership and use of these types of guns. It’s immoral and unethical on every possible level. Yet look at all the yahoos who are defending it as if it were their gun?!!! Just plain crazy and without any thought.

  • Guns don’t kill unless pointed at person loaded and the trigger pulled. What is needed is “Criminal Control.” Use a gun in the commission of a crime. Immediate death penalty is the way to go.

  • No, what needs to be done is everyone should have some proper firearm training, so that they are less inclined to abuse firearms. All the people who have had proper training, such as those sent to Vietnam, Iraq, etc., did not go around shooting others. Video games don’t cause people to want to kill others. That is from our own indifference to others.

  • And how do you go about regulating firearms? Seems to me the police kill dozens of innocent people every year. We could start there.

  • howa4x

    There is well deserved moral outrage at this sensless massacre. I live in NJ and we banned automatic weapons 20 yrs ago with heavy police support. Although the cities still present a problem with acess to automatic weapons the violence is contained to gang vs gang. I don’t see why the average person needs an assualt rifle, since deer are easy to kill in fact the majority of killing is done mostly by cars. The problem is that some of these people read books like the Turner diaries and think a race war is comming and the UN has black helicopters that will one day sneak in a take us over. The reality the citizentry is more well armed than most countries armies. But since no race war is on the horizon and the idea of the UN having black copters is upsurd, the guns are there to kill the average person, and the population is in an arms race with each other. States encourage it by passing concealed, and right to carry laws. Since the gun lobby has gone so far getting states to have lax permit laws, we have situations like this happen where a mentally unstable person can get a gun. Ask Gabby Giffords.. At least this time the people of Colorado didn’t have Charlton Heston waving a gun over his head and proclaming no one will take it away like he did at an NRA convention in Denver with knowledge that the Colombine massacre had just happened. The worst part of this is the politicians hide or try say supportive things about gun ownership and our religious leaders say nothing. Off in the distance the killing goes on.

  • I am a Democrat and have no intention of giving up my gun ! We have the right to defend ourselves !

    • he’s not asking you to, he’s saying we should look at gun laws. People won’t get their guns entirely taken away, the supreme court has made their opinion on gun ownership quite clear, but there is ZERO reason that this kid should have had an AR-15, that’s not for protection, that’s for killing a ton of people. There is no reason he needed a high capacity clip, that’s for killing a bunch of people. Unless you have no faith in the American Military or believe fully in the Zombie Apocalypse, I’d love to see you successfully defend these things.

  • oldylocks

    for some reason i think i would rather get shot than stabbed with a knife or broken glass or chopped with an ax or slashed with a chainsaw ,,,, police shoot innocent people every day so it isn’t just crazy civilians randomly shooting people just because they have a “gun” ,,, take away my gun and i will stab you with a knife , carve you up with a box cutter , beat you to death with a pipe or a baseball bat , i will strangle you with a garden hose or the very tie that you wear around your neck , first chance i get i will run you over with my car , i will shoot you in the eye with a nail gun , i will spray you with gas and start you on fire , i will blow up a gas station with my bic —— and everything that i just wrote is seen on the nightly news every single night without fail , we are fed that like pablum from the day that we are born — obviously the only solution for pure safety is a strait-jacket for each and every one of us , but then beware of nature —

  • Just like the NRA to promote lies, Australia murder by guns was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2007 and was the same last year ranked 27 while the US is ranked 4 just under South Africa, Colombia, and Thailand. good company to be with.

  • Betgood

    I know this would only help in a limited number of cases, but with our computer system and talented programmers, it seems to me that when someone buys THAT many guns, as the shooter in Aurora did, and especially the types of guns he bought in that short period of time, some kind of alarm should go off, maybe not to arrest, but to be aware. I cannot believe that our country has been brought to its knees like this.

  • I live in the Liberal Progressive Utopia known as Chicago . The land of Rainbows Lollipops and Unicorns . We know it as Communist Occupied Chicago . Chicagoans are enjoying double the per capita murder rate of NYC .They are 4 times our size . We have more Americans dying in Obamaville then are dying in Afganistan . Have you seen Obama say anything about that in his ADOPTED hometown ? I wonder what the Crime stats are in his real hometown in the 57th state of Kenya .
    We have suffered under Dem control for decades . Everywhere you find Dem control like this you see the worst cities in terms of Violemce and Urban decay . This is especially true for Blacks who suffer the highest crime rates , highest unemployment , and poorest stinkiest ghetto’s but inexplicably vote Dem.
    Chicago has had an Unconstitutional Gun ban for decades . Our Mayor and Governor have spent millions trying to fight to keep it . They failed and the Supreme Court told them to grow the F up . We still enjoy the toughest regulations in America making gun ownership for the honest citizen impossible . Illinois also is the ONLY state that does not have CCW . They are wasting millions fighting that also. We are woefully undermanned on Police as the DEMs struggle with the Unsustainable debt of their Storm troopers in the Public Unions . Because of that we are in debt ,taxes are out of control, and jobs and taxpayers are leaving Illinois .The Criminals know they own the streets . They know that the Dems are sacrificing Public Safety at the Altar of funding their supporters in the Public Unions . That is more importatn to them then theb Safety of Chicagoans . Homest people are not putting up with that and are all moving to Republican Strates . They are taking their tax base and jobs with them . With the Gun Bans Chicago is the murder capital of America
    The Liberal Pres trying to capitalize on Colorado is shameless . All you have to do is examine everywhere gun bans have been tried

    • 1. shouldn’t we be looking more at how these guns are obtained in Chicago in order to address the problem of rampant gun violence rather than saying more guns are the answer?
      2. Your rant makes you come off as completely cukoo bananas.
      and before you accuse me of being a crazy-liberal-democrat-communist-blah blah blah, I completely believe in responsible gun ownership, I’ve shot a gun, wouldn’t mind owning one (don’t feel like I need to but I like shooting shotguns, so maybe one day) even if the second amendment is being exploited in a way that the framers of the constitution never intended.

    • metrognome3830

      Wow! Good going Michael. You managed to make your neck even redder than usual. You managed to hit all the red-neck buttons in one post. Amazing red-neckery. Why would it be impossible for an “honest citizen” in Chicago to own a gun? Did the Supreme Court actually say grow the F up. How terribly unprofessiona of them. I can seen Scalia saying that, but not the rest of them. I kind of believe that a large segment of Chicago will not be sad to see you go. I would suggest Arizona as the ideal state for you Michael. I think they are trying to pass a law now that allows kids from middle-school on up to carry concealed weapons at school. Everywhere and by anybody else is already legal. According to your theory we should soon have no crime here at all. Just think of the tax money we will save by getting rid of all the police agencies. That way Sheriff Joe can concentrate exclusively on getting rid of illegal immigrants if he doesn’t have to be concerned with other mundane problems like robberies, murders, etc. The gun-toting populace will take care of all that for him.

  • One_Kids_Mom

    Well said and much needed. The emphasis on gun control is lost every single time we have a major tragedy…whether it was JFK, MLK, RFK, school shootings at colleges and other schools throughout our land, those killed the day Gabby Giffords was shot or those who die in America every day from gunshot wounds. One person killed by a gun is a major tragedy for the person who was denied a life of schooling, working, raising a family and it is a tragedy for the family who lost the person they loved along with their hopes and dreams. Yet, we act as if paralyzed by the NRA who funds our politicians and writes our gun laws.

    We also are not talking about the mess that is our approach to mental illness. Is there help for these people? Or is it that you have to do something to be arrested and then get into the system? Is it that you have to be rich enough or insured enough to have sufficient access to mental health care to make a difference? Is it that we are not identifying the “at risk” kids who are being bullied or are the bullies in our schools at an early enough age to matter?

    We can’t address guns or mental illness without the will to even begin discussing it, let alone pushing politicians into action or boycotting guns, ammunition and those who promote these weapons like the NRA.

  • When will people realize that guns DONT kill! Its is the PERSON, behind the trigger, who does the killing!

    Guns are NOT alive, as humans are, and guns cannot act on their own.

    In fact, guns, like cars, bicycles, televisions, computers, and so on, could not care LESS if they are NEVER used!

    When will people come to understand this?


    Using guns, pipes, ropes, cars, explosives, etc.

    Take away legitimate gun ownership, from responsible people and all you end up with is a dictatorship.


    Why cant we understand this????????

  • There is NO reason for magazines larger than 6-10 bullets, unless you want to do a LOT of killing in a short time.
    When I play “Call to Duty” or similar game, I want the LARGEST magazines for my rifles I can find. That is a key to running up my score, especially in close quarters “combat.”
    Translate “large magazines” into real life situations means a lot more death and wounded.

  • Jerpell

    We should have a law on the books that only law biding citizens are allowed to own firearms….Criminals and anyone with a prison record would not be allowed to own firearms. That was easy!

  • Joris Heise

    Again, it is not the gun, but the NRA and its unbalanced passions that makes it partly responsible here; if they balanced their passion for the “right to bear arms” with a normal passion to save lives, it would make sense, but they–it–is responsible for a powerful anti-life movement. (A person who “carried” in the movie theater would have had little luck against the armored shooter in Colorado.)

  • Jerpell

    We will never be able to outlaw firearms in this country! The largest army in the world are the game hunters America. There are 700,000 game hunters and it is estimated that each outdoorsman owns an average of 6 firearms, those numbers are just for the state of Michigan….Almost one million game hunters in one state alone!

    • ObozoMustGo

      Jerpell… you are 100% correct. Add them all up across the country and there’s about 60 million of us. And who knows how many weapons?? It’s the world’s largest army by a huge amount.

      Have a nice weekend!

      • metrognome3830

        Now you’re starting to scare me, OMG. What’s all this talk about a 60 million person army? Are you and Jerpell thinking about taking over the country?

        I’m hoping you will stick to grilling steaks on the weekend.

        Put down the gun and have a nice weekend! I’m heading for my bomb shelter now.

  • Just like the NRA to promote lies, Australia murder by guns was 1.2 per 100,000 in 2007 and was the same last year ranked they 27 on the list of 32 nations, while the US is ranked 4 just under South Africa, Colombia, and Thailand, good company to be with. This info is from the United Nations

  • Does this mean that if there were no automatic weapons in the USA, this attrocity would not occur. I think not. This 24 year old went to extremes to be well armed, with body protection and his home rigged. If he wanted weapons, he could find them as close as Mexico. Hand guns and auto weapons will always be easy to obtain if the desire is strong enough. I wish someone in the audience., licensed to carry, sitting in the from row, could have stopped most of this social disaster.

  • sorgfelt

    I can see the point of some that outlaws are controlled somewhat by legal gun ownership, however, I don’t trust anyone to be sane at all times, and gun owners often get themselves killed, where otherwise they would simply try to escape the situation. For those who say the people in the theater should have had guns to shoot back, observe that the shooter had armor.

  • ObozoMustGo

    Too bad there weren’t a few people “packing heat” in that theater. Not so many would have been hurt or died. To those of you that disagree, ask the people that were in that theater what their preference would be. Here is real world proof from 5 days ago:

    YouTube this: customer shoots suspects during Internet Cafe robery

    It’s not the gun that kills… it’s the nutjob who holds it. And if it’s not a gun in his hand, it’s a bomb in his bag. Look at the scumbag that killed 84 Jews in Bulgaria. Nothing we can do will legislate these kinds of scumbags out of existence. Evil exists. It is a sad reality of life.

    God be with those victims and their families!

    Have a nice weekend.

    • metrognome3830

      Oh come on, now, OMG. A few people “packing heat” in a dark theater — with a smoke bomb going off, and no one knows immediately where the shooter is? you can truthfully say there would have been fewer hurt or dead? The toll would more likely have doubled or tripled.

      Unfortunately, you are right. It’s impossible to stop these lunatics. And it’s a lunatic with a gun that kills. There has to be that combination of weapon and lunatic in these cases. But some regulation would make it more difficult for the lunatic to get armed. The shooter’s mother wasn’t even surprised at what he did, reportedly, yet he was able to acquire an arsenal of weapons and 6000 rounds of ammunition. There are small country militias that aren’t that well-equipped. Surely we are clever enough to put a stop to such an outlandish acquition of weaponry by a single citizen. That’s beccause there are too many ways to get around the laws and the powers that be have no interest in trying to come up with a way to stop it. I bet you could think of some ways to do that. I can. And I am not anti-gun, either.

      Have a great weekend!

      • ObozoMustGo

        Metro: I’m not willing to trade a shred of my liberty for the illusion that there will be greater security if only we let the government restrict us more. It’s phony! I’d rather be in that theater with my kids and either me or anyone else carrying a gun be there also, than to be completely defenseless against a mad man.

        Have a great day!

        • metrognome3830

          Sorry OMG, I’m not able to agree with you on this one. Under the circumstances, more armed people would have only meant more death and injury. It has nothing to do with gun restrictions. It has to do with common sense. Perhaps, if you were sitting in the theater within a few feet of the shooter, and had a clear shot, fine, take it. Under any other circumstances you would more than likely either hit an innocent victim or get yourself shot. Probaly by another guy trying to be a hero instead of the original nutjob shooter. Your best option is to run for cover. Trying to outgun a nutcase with an AR15 and a 100-round clip, with a handgun would require a large amount of luck. It only happens in Steven Seagal movies and that’s phony!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Metro… Let’s go to the movies. I’ll be the armed one…. you hide! OK?

            Have a nice day!

          • metrognome3830

            No way, OMG, I don’t want to see you gunned down. Have you never heard that “Discretion is the better part of valor?” And, also, how much combat or law enforcement have you had? I want to be sure you get the guy.

          • ObozoMustGo

            Metro, I’ve never had to pull a weapon in 25+ years and, God willing, will never have a need to. But should it come to be that I must, I train frequently and will do so quickly and with precision. No guarantee, but I’ve got much better than even odds in my favor against 99% of the perps. Like I said, you can hide, I’ve got your back, brutha! 🙂

            Have a great night!

          • metrognome3830

            OK, I’m counting on you. I can holler threats from my hiding place and when the gunman turns to shoot me, you blow him away.

            Have a great night yourself!

          • ObozoMustGo

            Metro… sounds like a plan! 🙂

            Talk tomorrow. Gotta run. Little guy has hockey practice.

            Say hi to Mrs. Metro for me!

  • I fail to see why automatic and semi-automatic weapons are available and accessible for purchase in this country, except under the most restrictive of requirements. There is nothing sporting about these guns – they are used to maim and kill people, not animals. Why our political leaders continue to stay mum about this topic is evidence that we are not strong enough to stand up to ONE lobby and say the welfare of our citizens is more important than your millions of dollars of contributions.

  • wildhobo

    People who seek laws that control the proliferation of gun ownership do not necessarily want to outlaw guns. It is a vast, and tendentious, exaggeration to wave in front of us the myth that only law-abiding citizens will turn in their guns while criminals will not. The aim of sensible gun control laws is not to outlaw guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens. It is to develop a tool for law enforcement agencies to track where and in the hands of whom guns, and in particular guns that have little or no legitimate civilian purpose, i.e. not for sporting and not for reasonable self defence, are held. Many automatics fall in this category. It is preposterous to claim that the Bill of Rights guarantees the right of every resident secretly to own a machine gun or its equivalent. On the other hand, it is entirely reasonable for a national record be kept of the identities of people who own guns because state records extend only to the state’s borders. Anyone wanting to evade a state’s registry laws need only travel to a state lacking such registry to acquire a firearm in a non-registry state and quietly return to his home state, thereby subverting that state’s laws and endangering that state’s residents. Most democratic, civilised countries, with equally or more developed democratic traditions than ours, have reasonable gun registry and control laws and have statistics of unlawful firearm incidents far lower than ours.

  • I think it is more than just talking about guns, it is about political influence. As long as we have laws that allow powerful and/or rich organizations and corporations to have greater influence over elections than votes we are going to have laws that are put in place that have nothing to do with the greater good and more to do with special interests’ pocket book and protection.

  • ObozoMustGo

    Pennsylvania Police Do Care

    I get irritated when people come down on our police officers, saying that the police don’t care about or respect others. Well, here is a story that clearly shows not all cops are in that category.

    This story involves the police department in the small hill country town of Wilkes-Barre, PA, who reported finding a man’s body last Saturday in the early evening in the Susquehanna River near the state highway-81 bridge.

    The dead man’s name would not be released until his family had been notified.

    The victim apparently drowned due to excessive beer consumption while visiting “someone” in Wilkes-Barre. He was wearing black fishnet stockings, 10 inch spiked heels, a red garter belt, a pink G-string, purple lipstick, dazzle dust on his eyelids, 2½ inch false eyelashes and an Obama T-shirt.

    The police removed the Obama T-shirt to spare his family any unnecessary embarrassment.

    Pennsylvania police do care

    Have a nice day!

    • metrognome3830

      Did he have a pink, pearl-handled revolver tucked in the garter belt? I think I might know the guy.

      Hey, let’s hear it for those “sensitive” guys on the Wilkes-Barre PD.

      Get out there and grill those steaks, OMG.

      • ObozoMustGo

        Bwwwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha! You crack me up, Metro. It’s why I love you, man! hehehehehehehe

        Have a great day!

  • Passing laws does not guarantee enforcement. When you have to deal with an unstable mind the result will not change despite any law. If guns were totally banished and ceased to exist, the unstable person would be building explosive devices. Does anyone really believe laws help?

  • stsintl

    First, our heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families who lost their loved ones, and prayers for rapid and full recovery of those lay in hospital beds [Amen].

    The only difference between this act of terrorism and the one carried out by Nidal Hussain at the Army base is that the perpetrator in this case is white and has a Christian name, the other was brown and had a Muslim name. They both acted under mental duress. However, there is going to be no mass hysteria against all American Christians or even the NRA this time, the way Islamophobians [mostly Republican leaders] created hysteria against all American Muslims in the earlier case.

    Let’s focus on the root causes of terrorist acts and not on religious, ethnic, or racial profiles of the perpetrators. Of course, thanks to NRA and their control of the Congress, easy access to guns and weapons gives these mentally disturbed individuals tools to commit terrorist acts against innocent masses.

  • I believ stronly in our right to bare arms however noone needs a assault rifles or these automatic high caliber weapons for self or home protection. Where is the logic ? the reasoning is tainted . The congress was elected to respond to the wishes of their constituants and not the NRA or gun lobby’s .

  • emadis41

    I would say you can own any gun you want, but an automatic rifle should be restricted. Anyone who own guns should be registered in a state database, this should be done for the public safety and should not be viewed as gun control. Also, gun sale should be restricted to people who are lunatics or unstable, those who are convicted with a crime.

    Does it please the NRA and other gun lobbyists for the USA to be the the first nation in the World in gun related murder, with a distinction as the number of gun related victims excceed the total of the next 20 industrialized nations combined.

    They also say guns does not kill people, it people who kill people; yes people with guns kill people and if they do not have guns their will not be anyone killed, that is why there should be a separation between the two. Example, some of the same people request iunacting laws that will deprive old people from driving because the rise of seniors’ related accident deaths, shouldn’t the same argument apply to these lunatics with guns, including the NRA.

    The argument that the second amendment guarantee that they are free to carry guns; the second amendment says that citizen militia should be allowed to carry guns to defend the country; however, there are no militia, but a bunch of launatics all around and Guns should be controlled one way or another.

  • LeafLakeFinn

    The NRA is only promoting gun usage to make MONEY! Their campaign is raise the paranoia of public by fearmongering, partial quotes, phony stats, and anything else they can use to promote their interest, which is to market firearms. The Second amendment argument is only a smoke screen. As long as the NRA can intimidate lawmakers and the general public, they have nothing to worry about. We are being held hostage by the NRA, gutless politicians, and our own system of government. It is a terrific campaign, fueled by our own paranoia, and the willingness to accept any means for security, personal as well as for material wealth. Fear and greed are great motivators. Will anything change? I doubt it. All we can do is keep count of the bodies.

  • dljones

    We seem to return to the old axiom,” it was not the killer, the gun did it”.

    New York City is blessed to once again have the United Nations among their populous. Their focal theme calls for world leaders (thats the good guys and the bad guys) discuss the “Arms Trade Treaty”.

    One of Hillary”s agendas calls for a “consensus” to tighten up the distribution of guns. Don’t tell Eric Holder though I think it’s safe, he doesn’t read his emails. Presume, as usual, this concurs with President Obama.

    Therefore squirrel hunters, you are now on the world stage, it is open season to have your fire arms under siege.

  • About 1 year ago a couple from Essex Vermont became missing no trace of them has been found a 38 caliber handgun had been found that was owned by the couple, a suspect in the case has recently been apprehended in Alaska after he had murdered a young waitress, that 38caliber handgun didn’t seem to help the Essex Vermont couple, maybe it was even used by their assailent.

  • Jason Kennemer

    The framers of the constitution did not create the 2nd amendment for hunters and sportsmen. They created it so the nation’s citizens could defend themselves against their government. Its a shame madmen use weapons to kill innocent people, but I am not sure outlawing weapons would prevent mental illness and the will of man to harm innocents. It would only repeal the essence of how and why this country was founded.

  • BigJohn Bingo

    This article is crap. Note after it was over that there were 200 policemen on the scene. That is after the problem occurred. Don’t expect the police to protect you. Their job is to catch the perpatrator. I voted for Obama but I am also a member of the NRA. I do not want my rights given back to the government. The first thing Hitler and Stalin did was to take away personally owned firearms, period. Then there could be no dissent. This was a bad thing but bad things happen in this world. If you read the NRA publications you will note many folks that protect themselves in their own homes with firearms. As noted Australia outlawed private guns and the crime rate increased rapidly. This is another Red Herring for the gun control freaks..

  • BigJohn Bingo

    Machine guns are almost impossible to own in this country. It takes a very specialized firearms license which are almost impossible to obtain. It is people like wildhobo that make intelligent discourse on this subject almost impossible. They make statements about things that they know nothing about.

  • BigJohn Bingo

    Automatic weapons are virtually banned in this country. The rifle he used is an autoloader. These have been around for years. I had a 22 autoloader when I was a kid and I am 67. God you people are stupid.

  • BigJohn Bingo

    These are autoloader not automatic like machine guns. Private ownership of machine guns is virtually banned in this country. Course it is legal for the armed forces if they decide to implement a dictatorship (we are on our way there already).

  • BigJohn Bingo

    Automatic weapons are virtually banned in this country. This was an autoloader. Do you people know anything??

  • BigJohn Bingo

    This was an autoloader not an automatic weapon such as a machine gun. Get your terminology correct for crying out loud. There are a lot of stupid posters on this site.

  • More people are killed by auto accidents, heart disease, Cancer,& other environmental conditions, junk food etc, then by guns in America.
    it’s not gun control, it’s right’s control.
    why isn’t anyone looking into more what causes these nuts to do what they do, instead of what they use to do it. I don’t hear about Micky D control or hammer control or even stupidity control..
    People licensing is what we need- not gun control to punish those of us that are legal, sane gun owners.

  • onedonewong

    Gag rule on guns?? Really gun ownership has been a never ending topic for libs for 50+ years. As the Supreme Court has said gun ownership is a constitutional right Poll after poll has shown that the taxpayers want a smaller govt with less impact on our freedoms.
    No one is making libs buy a gun but they won’t hesitate to make the taxpayers buy into their outlandish programs

  • I don’t think that gun control would make any difference to anyone, because most people would still be able to get a gun either legally or illegally so it really doesn’t do any good to have gun control.

    • Then why is America’s rate of firearm-related murders nearly 6 times what it is in Canada? Looks to me like gun control makes a HUGE difference.

  • Okay, can I say something? Because this really bothers me.

    You need to learn about guns. I understand your position, and agree that some regulation should be required in the purchasing of such weapons. And I won’t trivialize it, that’s exactly what they are. Weapons. But you need to learn about them just the same. You should know as much or more about guns than the people you are trying to debate.

    In this article, for example, you say that it is easier to get a gun than a driver’s license. That, while true for many guns, is not true for the guns that journalists have given people a true fear of: “Assault rifles” and other automatic weapons. These weapons are incredibly hard to get your hands on legally and are almost exclusively handed out to law enforcement agencies and the military. You go through an extensive background check and pay a 200 dollar tax stamp at a Class 3 FFL dealer. It’s at least as strenuous as getting a driver’s license.

    Your picture is entirely misleading. Again, when you show these weapons, people conjure up visions of automatic weapons being used to mow down countless innocent people. Those weapons are almost certainly semi-automatic and no more dangerous than any other semi-automatic rifle that a civilian can purchase.

    You spent this entire article claiming the right is trying to sweep this issue under the rug, and you’re absolutely right, but you ignore when you or someone who shares your views does the same. I agree with more strict gun control, but when the advocates of such a thing have no idea what they’re talking about, you will never be able to have a real conversation on the subject. Learn about guns. Go shooting – not just once, but multiple weekends throughout the year – and come back with an understanding of what you are writing against. You are doing no favors to this national conversation by trivializing this issue as something which is merely “good” or “bad”.

    • sigrid28

      By this reasoning, all men who are pro-life must drop out of any conversation (or legislative vote) regarding the outcome of a pregnancy and a woman’s choice. To be a pro-life advocate, a man would need to know as much or more about women than a woman. In order for men to participate in the national conversation about pregnancy, they would need to become pregnant, not just once, but multiple times, and achieve a woman’s understanding of what it means to give birth and foster the growth of a child, for a lifetime. Men who do not want to know about the topic of pregnancy and its consequences this intimately are doing no favors to this national conversation by trivializing this issue as something which is merely “good” or “bad,” just to get votes. They should leave the pro-life agenda to the women who know the most about it. Look on the bright side. This would give guys more time to enjoy their gun collections and gun play.

      • Unfortunately you’re drawing parallels where they simply do not exist. Abortion and gun control are two entirely different subjects which require entirely different approaches. Men do not have the ability to experience child birth from a woman’s point of view, nor do they have the ability to understand the dilemma women face in the event of pregnancy. All people in America, however, have the ability to understand a gun. And personally, I would agree that men have no place in an argument over women’s bodies.

        Either way, to continue your example, I am not criticizing media over the fact that they don’t experience everything. I am criticizing the media for not understanding the argument at all. This article is a great example of “guns bad, gun control good!” It’s harmful to the nation and the debate. I understand the need for stricter gun control, but that will never happen if people continue believing that guns are these terrible baby-killing machines with no purpose but wanton violence. Articles like this one are the reason the NRA is getting everything they want, and they are the reason we don’t have reasonable gun control laws. We’ve either got California’s bans on anything useful or Montana’s carry-a-shotgun-into-a-preschool lack of restriction. We need reasoned, intelligent arguments, NOT fear-mongering and misinformation.

        If the media were to learn about these weapons, they would understand them. In understanding them, we as a nation will be able to move the conversation towards productive, but not overly restrictive, change in current gun control laws so as to create a system where a mentally healthy, law-abiding citizen can obtain a gun and those who are incapable of properly handling the responsibility of a weapon are not.

        • sigrid28

          You make an effective rebuttal. What if we were to say that the problem is not understanding childbirth or understanding guns, but not having a uniform concept of what constitutes privacy, not only with respect to these two subjects, but many others as well. Your referral to the media is very interesting in that respect, because the limits of privacy are central to their role in mediating the “national conversation.”

          To agree on what any private U.S. citizen may or may not do at what age (think: voting, driving, drinking, etc.), would be a good start. In my opinion, the demarcation of rights regarding pregnancy in the U.S. has gone too far, in a case where I and others like me think that we need fewer restrictions and should leave more up to the individual.

          In the case of gun control, what a private individual may do at what age could, perhaps, be codified. Put simply, we must decide whether a private individual may own any firearm or only some. Diverse legislation throughout the country seems to have created a kind of Wild West atmosphere, in a confusion that plays into the ultimate motives of the NRA. Comparative research by well-meaning, knowledgeable persons like yourself might go a long way in mapping out the territory. The NRA will try to obfuscate on this one, saying that it is impossible to settle on any one size law that will apply to all. But such research as I propose might show definitively what weapons are unfit for use and ownership by any private citizen. I would suppose that the James Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has already compiled a great deal of this data.

  • Justice_for_the_Victims

    The NRA is responsible/culpable for the carnage in Aurora. It is time for the relatives of the people who died to file wrongful death suits against the NRA. We have trial lawyers smart enough to figure ways around the gag laws that the NRA has been successful in having passed into law. The people who were wounded should file civil suits against the NRA for damages. The NRA has deep pockets. Again there should be lawyers willing to pursue damages for their clients.

  • adler56

    Until i get proof in the form of pictures, people with assault rifles will continue to be small dick republicans or small brained others.

  • dragons3

    I own guns. Unfortunatly I do not carry them, so there I would have been.. defenceless when needed. I also have re-fitted my sailboat and have excess rope. Take the damn fool out and hang him (I will supply the rope). I don’t care why he did it, don’t care what his religion was, or color, or political viewpoint. And I don’t want to know, hang him and move on.
    But if some there were carrying , he would not have killed so many.
    Liberals (and I am one mostly) want my guns, I have no problem with that line of thought (or wishful thinking). If they are as willing to die for their beliefs as I am willing to kill for mine. No Problem.

  • to kill some one is a choice made by the individual, with guns, knives, abortion, and on and on we could go, to reduce the amount of shells a person can have for a particular gun, might help comfort the minds of some, was he able to buy guns with a mental health record, I have not seen any multiple gun related murders committed by the mentally disabled, this guy attended college, we as humans have to make excuses and blame some one or some thing for the actions of others, so lets accuse every gun owner, every manufacture, every one who believes in the way the law as been implemented, if you were serious about change, why is all our night club parking lots full of cars every night, [I go to ] ever heard of DUI, how about the serious problem known about prescription drugs, and the amount of people who die every day, yes I know, I wish some of the money we send over sees and such was used in our own communities to help support local police, have more seen protection, and actually enforce the gun laws with a weight time extended. Sick people will find a way

  • mmilford

    Dionne is absolutely right. Ordinary citizens have no business with assault rifles. Those who have criminal records and/or are unstable for whatever reason have no business being able to purchase weap0ns. I suspect few of us object to stable peoples hunting, or range practice, with weapons designed for those things. On the other hand, I think a clear majority do not believe that Holmes or anybody else should be able to purchase an arsenal in a few weeks or even in a decade.

  • anniecattie

    the theater was a GUN FREE zone.
    Wow, that really slowed that shooter down, didn’t it?

    Can we have a REAL discsussion on how necessary guns are to our own individual safety? I don’t want to wait for the police to come and clean up after someone starts shooting, I want a chance to defend myself. I am a 66 years old woman and I found out a long time ago that no one is going to be there to help me if I’m not there to help myself!

  • The Republican Party has become the nazi party of America. They hate blacks, unions, Muslims, gays, etc. They are led by right radicals such as limbaugh, palin, and beck. They are controlled by the rich who want only to get richer at the expense of the middle class. Its time to rise up against these nazi pigs and take back America for the people.
    Any Republican earning under $300.000 a year must be really stupid to keep voting for republicans. The republicans want to cut social security, Medicare, the military, support for Veterans, money for jobs, unemployment, and any other benefit for Americans while they support rich bankers, rich oil companies, rich insurance companies, etc.. They want the rich to get richer at the expense of the middle class. The republicans supported tax breaks for all their rich buddies and screw the middle class citizen. Its OK for them to spend 8 trillion dollars on a war and triple the national debt but they don’t want to spend a dime on American citizens!!!!!

  • As a big fan of guns and a realist there is no way to stop the sleeper nutcase, or is there ? If there were only 1% of the theatre patrons that were armed or there was an off duty police officer the outcome may have been very different. By limiting the legal acess to guns you also limit the protection that they afford.

  • joyscarbo

    My older brother and his family all live in Aurora, Colorado. My niece and her husband had just been to the theater where the tragedy occured. Thank God, they are all safe but as longtime members of Aurora, they are experiencing the many feelings of incredulousness, fear and saddness that an event of this magnitude produce.
    Our country is good at coming together in time of crisis and supporting those who were the victim of senseless violence. We’re also good at reacting with knee-jerk responses that are the product of fear, rather than rational reason. Having said that, I do believe our country needs to take a more critical look at guns.
    I understand the desire to own a firearm- a rifel or similar weapon- for the purpose of hunting. I understand why someone would want a firearm – a handgun or similar weapon-for the purpose of “protection.”
    What I fail to understand is why there aren’t laws to protect the public against the purchace and ownership of outrageous amounts of firearms and specific types of weaponry. I’m talking about automatic or semi-automatic high powered assault rifles, machine gus and other fire power that are usually only used by the military for purposes of war. These weapons are used exclusively to destroy human life. What is the motive behind wanting to posess this kind of fire power? Let’s be truthful. No real, legitimate hunter takes out one of these weapons to mow down game. You don’t need a machine gun to protect your property for family. There is no necessity for any United States citizen to own this kind of firearm, period.
    I understand the curiosity and want to experience firing these weapons. Why not make these weapons only available at highly secured and tightly operated gun ranges?
    Personally, I’m 50 years old and I’ve never shot a gun and never wish to. I don’t want a gun in my home. I don’t believe this way because of my political beliefs or whether I’m liberal or conservative or any of that mess. I don’t want to own a gun and I don’t want to use a gun. My care for my family is the same as any gun owner. I choose not to live in unreasonable, perpetual fear of my neighbors, invaders or strangers. I do believe we need to have a national discussion about gun violence and what types of weapons should be removed from our general population.

  • I’ve read some of the posts regarding limiting types of guns allowed, etc. The founders of this country experienced tyranny first hand. Because of this they added the second amendment to insure that the people of this country could not be enslaved by it’s government. Every “benevolent” dictator in history starts by disarming the general population in order to subjugate the people of said country. Disarming the people is ALWAYS done to Protect them.

    As to stopping the sale of assault weapons , the AR rifle is not an assault weapon. Assault weapons are select fire, meaning they can be switched between semiautomatic (one round fired for each trigger pull) to full auto or possibly 3 round burst. I also have news for all who don’t know, most “hunting rifles” are more powerful than the AR. (AR stands for Armalite Rifle, the company that originated this type of rifle). AR rifles are usually chambered for .223 Remington and /or 5.56 NATO. It’s essentially a souped up .22. Hunting rifles usually start in at .308 on up with a much higher range. SO the point is once you can ban a “class” of fire arms you open the door to ban all firearms. This is always the first step down the road to tyranny.

    Laws are already on the books to disallow certain folks from owning firearms. The list ranges from people who’ve committed felonies, drug convictions, diagnosed mental illness, domestic violence, dishonorable discharge from the military to name a few. It seems that the ONLY people who don’t own firearms when they are banned are the law-abiding. Criminals always find a way. They also don’t let a few laws stand in their way, hence the term “criminal”.

    I believe in this country the best way to keep people from harm are enforcing the many stringent rules on the books (which IS being done) combined with honest law abiding responsible citizens exercising their franchise and getting a concealed permit (along with the required training-hence the responsible comment) and protecting themselves. I believe a large problem in this country today is the idea that someone else is responsible for the individuals’ safety and well being. I’m not saying we don’t need law enforcement, but safety is everyone’s business. As one of my law enforcement friends says “I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy”.

    Tragedies happen. What happened in that theater should not have happened. It obviously was not perpetrated by a sane person. Banning firearms would not have stopped that tragedy, but a trained concealed carry permit holder could have. It’s a fact of life that bad things happen. But it takes a calm head and rational thought to help find solutions, not knee jerk ill-informed jumping to conclusions.

  • greghilbert

    The “gag rule” on discussion of gun control is visible in the comments responding to this article.
    Opponents of greater control are suddenly swarming all over the internet to beat back yet another brush fire arising from the mass murder of innocents by a deranged individual who easily obtained a mass-murder arsenal.

    The power of the NRA lobby and the high priority many of our citizens attach to their guns — whether for hunting, target shooting, protection, or symbolizing opposition to government interference — predicts the carnage will continue. The expansion and intensification of economic
    distress among the 99% (or the 80% as the case may be) predicts an increase in frequency. So too does our militarization and war-making, as it yields traumatized warriors trained to kill with firearms. And of course our TV and video-game media are further multipliers. Within the progression from westerns to gangsters to war to police-detective to gang and vigilante, the common denominator remains killing with weapons. Reality TV programs are clearly migrating to conflict and assault, with tongue-lashing routinely whetting appetite for violent retaliation.

    I do not pretend to know how to reverse the tidal wave that carries opposition to improved gun control on its crest, even as it predicts an increase in mass murder for lack of it.

    I wonder what would happen if gun-control advocates challenged NRA adherents to propose solutions?
    I also wonder what would be the effect of absurd counter-sloganeering and posters, such as:
    While I don’t intend them as black humor, but rather as parodies to provoke awareness of our insanely violent descent to social and political hell, I suppose their drawback is the high risk of trivializing the insanity.
    That leads me to wonder if part of the problem is the sanitized reporting of the carnage. The taboo against photos of the destroyed bodies shields the public from facing up to the horror. I realize that the families of victims do not want such photos of their lost loved ones made public, and I do not mean to suggest any media outlet should do so without permission, much less to sensationalize or profit. Perhaps one day a family will give permission to a socially responsible organization in the hope it will contribute to the sparing of others. Perhaps one day a Speilberg will produce a movie in the manner of Saving Private Ryan, to show what the horror is really like when innocent loved ones are terrorized and ghoulishly destroyed with mass-murder weapons.

    • sigrid28

      I’m afraid black humor and more realistic depiction of the effects of gun violence can have little impact among those too ignorant to understand satire and those too wedded to their fantasies of gun violence, whether in video games or television or film, to tell fact from fiction. My suspicion is that among this group that line is a blur.

      One gun control advocate described how in some states better laws resulted when legislators were taken out of the picture and gun control initiatives were passed or failed via public referendum. The NRA might be able to intimidate individual law makers, but it can’t hold the entire population hostage, especially when voting is private.

  • cmills73

    I wish you would quit trying to protect me and let me do it myself. All the laws in the world aren’t going to stop these things from happening. We have very stringent laws on driving while intoxicated but more deaths occure from that than from gunshot wounds. We have laws telling us to use seatbelts because “its for your own safety”. People still die in car crashes and more frequently than being shot to death. How about allowing me to make my own, adult, decisions. We don’t live in a fairytale, there are bad people out there who will find a way to do harm to others. At least if i’m allowed to arm myself I have a fighting chance if someone is trying to harm to me. I feel for the victims and there families in colorado, just as i feel for the families i’ve watched go through alcohol related deaths in my own small town, but you simply can’t make a law for everything because only the law abiding citizens will follow them.

  • drslipro

    Sad when things happen everyone want to point the finger to anyone who will carry the blame. I blame the Media they go on and on about the tragic what happen Thursday night in Aurora Colorado. Making the low life punk a World Wide Star. The media will keep it up and mind you it will be another nut want to get in the spot light. Sad how people will do anything to get attention. One thing I can say about the punk he didn’t take the coward way out by committing suicide.

  • cmills73

    I belive one of the first things the Nazzies did when they came in to power was to outlaw personal firearm ownership. they also said it was sensible and said it was for the protection of the people, but as we now know today, it was one of the main tools used to controll the population and ultimately exterminate whole populations. I know this is extreem, however, if you do not think it could happen again then you are living in a fairy tail world. Also, sensible rules do not apply to the insensible people. they simply ignore them. how is it going to help by making it harder for me to own a firearm. all that will accomplish is to make it harder for me to defend myself. If you don’t choose to have a firearm for selfdefense thats fine, you probably shouldn’t have. But the rest of us shouldnt’ have to be penalized because of the actions of stupid people.


    “Never mind that more rational laws would help keep guns out of the hands of people with a history of mental illness”

    The following list of prohibited persons are ineligible to own firearms under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

    Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
    Fugitives from justice
    Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
    Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
    Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
    Illegal Aliens
    Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
    Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
    Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
    Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

  • so_cal_john

    What about the IED’s in his apartment?
    Do we outlaw GAS, PROPANE,ELECTRICAL TIMERS that turned the radio on.
    Deranged people will always find a way. I feel guns do as much good as they do bad,
    sadly you only hear about the bad….

  • cmills73

    well, this proves one thing, you don’t know a damn thing about guns. First, it is already illegal for any citizen to own an automatic firearm, unless you have a special permit from the federal government to do so. There are only a handfull of individuals and companies that are allowed this permit. Second, I believe what you are referring to are semi-automatic weapons. These weapons automatically reload a shell each time one is fired. (vs having to manually operate a bolt or slide mechanism ect) They DO NOT repeatedly fire by keeping the trigger held. One shot, one bullet. I have several of these. Some were made specifically for hunting while others were developed for military aplications. BOTH, are useful in different hunting situations by reduceing the recoil felt from the discharge of the weapon. (and no, I don’t use 30 round magazines for hunting, but I do use what is considered high capacity magazines on the practice range so that I don’t have to keep reloading them) Third, and most important of all, is that I’m a law abiding citizen that doesn’t need the govt or people like you to protect me from guns (or what your obvioulsly limited knowledge on the subject percieves as a more dangerous form of gun), I can protect myself with the aid of these so called “weapons of societal destruction”

  • The NRA, the FOX NEWS SYNDICATE, The INSURANCE CORPORATIONS, the BANKERS, The STOCK MANIPULATORS, the CHURCHES, these are the folks that own and run the nation known as America–Sanity will never win out against them!

  • DurdyDawg

    Do these weapon cons actually think eliminating guns from the public is going to keep them out of psychopath’s hands? As long as one gun is produced, it can(and often will) find itself in the hands of the criminal (either by purchase of theft). We know why this gun control is trying to make head way, it happened in Nazi Germany in the same manner. As long as the American citizen has a weapon, the chances of a take-over is minimum.. Take away that right and how would you be able to protect yourself when the corporate gestapo breaks down your door?

  • If this person was ordering all these explosives and firearms shouldn’t this have been a big red flag? ? ? Shouldn’t these companies be required to report this type of activity to the authorities ?

  • On some things I agree 100% with the Republicans. This is one such issue. On this issue, I don’t even like the title of the issue- gun control. Why don’t we call it what it is- Public Disarmament.

  • I live in a state where the NRA controls the Republican Governor and Republican Congress that unfortunely was voted into office in the 2009 elections. Starting in 201o about 1 out of very 3 bills that was passed had to do with guns. These laws made it easier to get a gun carrying permit, then being able to carry a hidden gun and the places where guns could be taken into including state parks, county parks and city parks unless the county and city parks post no guns allowed. Then when counties and cities posted the no guns allowed the NRA was going to take the counties and cities to court because of the state law, judge threw it out because of the no guns allowed statue. There were other laws that pertained to guns also passed that year. Then in 2011 the NRA sent a bill to the Republican state Congress that allowed guns to taken into places that sold liquor and food so long as the person didn’t drink or if the owner hadn’t posted a sign saying no Guns Allowed which was passed. They also tried to pass a law allowing guns in church that didn’t pass. So the Republicans told the NRA since they didn’t pass as many gun laws as the NRA wanted them to in 2011 they would do better in 2012. This year they didn’t pass any gun laws because they finally got the message that the citizens of the state was tire of the NRA running the state where guns were concerned. Now the NRA has threaten to make these Republicans state Congress members pay because they didn’t pass anything the NRA wanted pass. For reasons like this the NRA needs to be reined in. Semi automotic guns that can be turned into automotic guns with a little effort needs to be banned. I can see no reason for a person to own a semi automic gun.
    I don’t trust people that feel the need to carry a gun at all times because I never know what will make them snap and start shooting the people around them.

  • Scopes

    And so, like firearms enthusiasts that generally use their guns for recreation, competition and security, writers are generally responsible, but sometimes write words that contribute to a bad outcome. Should we ban or confiscate their writings and/or pens? Should we muzzle people, confiscate phones and other communication devices that belong to those that say inflammatory and devastating things about others. After-all, wasn’t it once said: “The pen is mightier than the sword”. Hopefully the citizenry of our country will not further relinquish the few liberties we have left.

  • redwood509

    Not one word this sworn Lefty writes is worth noting! he never saw a tragedy that could not be exploited to further limit liberties and strangle the American Constitution. If he dislikes this country so bad, why does he not take residence in Cuba or North Korea where he can enjoy all the limitations on freedom available in a real Marxist state and begin the high life of a country where th epopulation cannot revolt because they cannot own guns.

  • ralphkr

    First, we need to consider the definition of an “assault weapon” which is a selective fire weapon, in other words, capable of both full and semiautomatic fire. Far too many people call weapons such as the 1911 Colt 45 and police issue side arms an automatic but they are actually semiautomatic because pulling the trigger fires the weapon causing it to eject the spent casing and load a fresh round. A true automatic weapon shall continue to fire as long as you hold the trigger until the ammo is expended. Now look at some of the mass killings over the last few years:
    1949 Camden, NJ, 13 killed: fired 14 rounds from his semiautomatic Luger pistol (WW2 trophy)
    1966 Austin, TX, 16 killed: M1 Carbine, 12 gauge shotgun, 6 mm bolt action rifle, .35 pump action rifle, .357 magnum revolver, 9 mm semiautomatic Luger pistol, .25 revolver.
    1984 San Ysidro, CA, 21 killed: fired 256 rounds from 2 semiautomatic weapons and 1 pump 12 gauge shotgun.
    1990 Jacksonville, FL, 11 killed: semiautomatic M1 (fired 28 times), .38 revolver.
    1991 Killeen, TX, 23 killed: 2 semiautomatic pistols
    1999 Columbine, CO, 13 killed: 9 mm semiautomatic pistol (fired 55 times), 9 mm semiautomatic rifle (fired 96 times), 1 double barrel 12 gauge shotgun, and 1 pump 12 gauge shotgun (fired 25 times)
    2005 Red Lake, MN, 10 killed: .22 pistol and police issue .40 semiautomatic pistol and 12 gauge shotgun.
    2007 Blacksburg, VA, 32 killed: .22 and 9 mm semiautomatic pistols
    2007 Omaha, NB, 9 killed: semiautomatic rifle (fired 30+ rounds)
    2009 Geneva County, AL, 11 killed: semiautomatic rifle, 12 gauge shotgun, .38 revolver
    2009 Binghampton, NY, 14 killed: fired 99 rounds from 9 mm and .45 semi-automatic pistols
    2012 Aurora, CO, 12 killed: pump 12 gauge shotgun, semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and semiautomatic pistol
    In most of these cases there was an immediate outcry to ban automatic and/or assault weapons while ignoring the fact that the only assault weapons involved in any of these incidents were those carried by law enforcement officers.

  • There is nothing wrong with the gun laws we have in place at this time ,the problem is the Federal governments ability to enforce the thousands of laws that we currently have.The “ultra conservatives” would say control,control, if such controls were in place law abiding citizens like me would be branded as extremists or worse. No it’s time to enforce the current laws. The massacre in Colorado is and was heinous but the accused gunman obtained all the weapons ,which were completely legal, through the proper channels and he did it legally. He had no criminal record and was ,apparently very gifted.We can rant all we want about guns but guns don’t kill, people do. A loaded gun can lay on table for years and not kill anyone until someone with intent picks it up,points it at someone and pulls the trigger. We are not physcologists or shrinks to know what is in a persons mind but even the most gentle person can be pushed to a point of violence given the right circumstance. No we need to talk about getting along and trying to be our brothers keeper instead of ranting about guns.

  • rock2beat

    We can have an honest discussion, when the government comes clean. Oh, thats right. That will never happen. They cover up the impact of Earth that will happen, when the moon sattelite asteroid, (1/3rd smaller than our moon) hits the Earth on December 21st, 2012 @ 11:11PM; they cover up the spending of Tax Payer funding for the FEMA Death Camps and 800+ gillotines, and the NAZI Style Gas Chambers; they covered up teh FEMA Coffins stacked all over the Eastern USA to tossed our bodies, once our heads are chopped off, or gassed like the dam NAZI’s did to the Jews; and auto transports via rail Cars, with Handcuffs and schackles; to exterminate Man, Women, Child; Christian Saint, and Jes, who are over the evil NWO Commandments of Georgia State, of 500,000,000. That means global mass murder of 6 billion people, to worship fricken Satan. To hell with the devil, Free Mason, and Illuminati. God comes, they all goto hell, includeing Hillary. No beggin, cause God dont deal in evil politics.

    Hmmm. Well, since we know they cwont talk honestly why should we? But I will be patriotic and diplomatic about this. To take away ALLLLL guns, is a set up, so we can be hauled off to the death camps with least resistance. Hitler did it that way to the Jews, and the NAZI’s running our government, are doing the same here. Thats why it was once sai; if we dont learn from the past, we are doomed to repdeat it.

    Get a clue, cause WE THE PEOPLE knwo who the prophecied future allies are. You attacked Libya without congressional approval; just like Hitler invaded Poland, Netherlands, Etc. Your attacking the 3rd prophecied country, cause it s the smallest, Iran. But thats ok, cause China outnumbers Americans 10-1 and all they have to do, is fullfill the prophecy, and unite as alies to Russia.

    Then, they can join the battle against evil, since th non-American President with fake ID, who violated the Constitution by inviteing Korea, Vietnaam, and Germany, to train on OUR soil, to KILL US< if we resist; the scales will be ballanced. So, As it were in Abraham Lincolns Time, so will history repeat itself. And the NWO will lose, and all politicians who supported this, along with secret societies, collaborators, supporters, will be tried for treason, and put to death under the same death penalty as the NAZI's. God will deliver them into the hands of the Patriost, as God did to the Israelites, though outnumbered, and God and the Israelites won evry time. HOORAH!

    • Looks like you are off your meds.

    • ExPAVIC


      Somebody get this guy’s license number. This crazy SOB sounds like he is about to shoot up a movie theatre.

      Do us a favor and take a Prosac and call the police on yourself, you nut case

  • Firearm-related murders per 100,000 in population in a year:
    U.S. 4.14 (nearly 6 times Canada’s rate of firearm-related murders)
    Canada 0.76
    Ireland 0.03
    Scotland 0.19
    England/Wales 0.07
    France 0.44
    Austria 0.42
    Australia 0.44
    Germany 0.22

    I think these numbers say it all.

  • In Arizona, the Republicans tried to make it the law to allow people to bring guns into churches & schools — that’s how nuts they have gotten. We’ve already got a swarm of armed militia groups in this state who strut around with their macho swagger, armed to the teeth, wearing camo gear scaring the hell out of everybody — they look like Hitler’s brown shirts. One of these militia nut cases recently shot and killed his girlfried and her entire family (including a toddler) because she wanted him out of her house. They are lunatics.

    • stsintl

      Once again, we learn that not all terrorists are Arabs/Muslims and not all Arabs/Muslims are terrorists. Racial profiling and harassment of Arabs/Muslims is not keeping us safe from terrorism.

      Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, will deserve neither and loose both.”

  • ours is the most permissive? your insane. lots of countries have more guns then food. dont you remember pictures of young afghanies and iraqis carrying ak47’s? criminals will make a “killing” because they will not give up weapons that are already illegal. at any rate no one is up in arms about the death rate associated with driving. 100000 per year. noone is threatening to ban vehicles.

    • So Afghanistan and Iraq are models you think we should emulate? Or just as long as we don’t descend into the lawlessness of such countries we just keep the massacres to the minimum and truck merrily on? And since when is no one up in arms (appropriately word choice) about car accidents? Do you mean that as long as we keep killing people on the roads we should keep pace by shooting down a few dozen people just to prove we have the right to any number of weapons we might want for our own personal kill sprees? Think just a few seconds before opening your mouth and letting the air rush from your skull cavity where a brain is still waiting to form.

  • Unfortunately the ownership of guns is enshrined in the constituion, But when the constitution was written it was single shot rifles and pistols which were not particular accurate. Automatic or semi-automatic guns were unheard of.
    Instead of outlawing all guns or rifles let us restrict private owbership of rifles or pistols to the single shot variety

  • dtgraham

    All you have to do is just look around the world. The wealthy, first world, democracy with the largest number of gun homicides per capita (by far) is the U.S. The rich, industrial, country with the fewest restrictions on various types of gun ownership? The U.S.


  • Argument against outlawing gun ownership will result in only criminals possessing guns and citizens would be defenseless are a load of crap! The likelihood that an average citizen would use a gun to defend himself/herself from a criminal is very low. Even if a gun were available, what are you going to do with it? Most of the time, the gun would be inaccessible because have to keep it out of the hands of minors (young child accidently shoots and kills father). Then you have to load it. Most people aren’t adequately trained in using guns, especially in stressful situations. Then there is the issue of when is it permissible to use deadly force. OK, in your home, you are being threatened so it is probably OK. If you are stalking someone because you think they are committing a crime and the person attacks you in defense, deadly force is NOT OK. If you get into a bar fight, deadly force is definitely NOT OK. So you have a gun. Chances are, you will be so nervous or afraid, you either won’t use the gun quick enough or you will miss. The bad guy will take the gun away from you and kill you. So are you better off having the gun? Probably better to leave the house if you can or hide and call the police.

    Why do you need an assault rifle? If you want it for fun, what is wrong with an extended permit process and background check? You aren’t going to need the gun for a mass killing spree next week and it isn’t an appropriate gun for hunting. And assault rifles should be kept at the shooting range which is it’s only purpose. If we get invaded by the Russians or Iranians, then by all means, get your assault rifle and join the military.

    • ExPAVIC


      But don’t tell that to the Democrats. They aren’t listening.
      See my item above.


    Go Ahead Start a Gun Control Move

    The Democrats learned a long time ago that supporting gun control measures was a sure way to loose elections. In fact, it was anti-gun control that helped George W. Bush win two election and we sure don’t want anything like that to happen again.

    In fact, Obama has favored the gun toting public in three fairly recent rulings. One, he allowed the possession of loaded firearms in all national parks for the purpose of personal protection. And, two and three pushed legislation that allowed residents of Washington, DC, and Chicago to possess gun for personal protection.

    If St. Pierre, NRA current head, wants to bitch about anything he better find another target and not the Democrats since gun control is not a part of their political platform. Got that you rural pickup truck jockeys and deer slayers?

  • Homer1949

    This dialogue has degenerated to the level required to perpetuate the goals of the gun lobby. Congratulations.

  • The idea that arming a nation to the teeth is an effective way to prevent foreign attacks or domestic abuses of power is a proposition that has proven to be wrong time and again. Our guns did not prevent 9/11, and abuses of power have taken place repeatedly irrespective of how many paranoid Americans have guns to defend themselves….from ourselves. The biggest problem, in my opinion, is the ability of mentally disturbed people to buy guns. I know two people that carry concealed weapons that are under heavy psychiatric medication. People afflicted by mental illness have no business owning guns. Tragedies like the one in Colorado, which happen more frequently than we care to admit, are facilitated by our insistance to make guns available to everyone, suppossedly because that is what the Framers intended. I disagree, I have too much respect for our Constitution and its spirit, and I serioudly doubt such rational and intelligent people intended for every nutcase in the country to carry a concealed weapon.

  • Nofinercat

    No gun ever does anything. It will sit forever doing absolutely nothing.
    A gun is nothing but a TOOL. (Except I am not required to register my hammer)
    Who ILLEGALLY use the tool who are the problem.
    Causing every Law Abiding Citizen to register their gun will not do a single thing to control persons who have no regard for the law.
    We are ALL HORRIFIED by the current monsterous event in the theater.
    However, the answer is not MORE control over guns.
    In fact, had just one Law Abiding Citizen been in that theater and CARRYING his or her gun
    Almost ALL of those lives that were lost…could have been saved by that person.
    The author should consider writing on HOW our society could get RELIEF from criminals and insane people that are the actual cause of such events…assuming that the author knows a lot more about that subject than he/she knows about guns. The Founders of America gave us,
    We, The People, the RIGHT to Bear Arms…for reasons which are still good in our time.

  • tgcapps

    NO ONE needs an automatic weapon such as the one used in Colorado.

  • I have a issue. Yes I was career Military and have a engraved pistol, I have removed the firing pin in case of theft the worst damage it could do is to be used as a blackjack. Now for the other side of the coin. I own four blackpowder revolvers, fully functional only a total moron would try to carry one concealed. Sparks , dropping etc could cause them to fire. I have three long range blackpowder rifles as well a TC from New Hampshire , A Knight long range target rifle and a Henry lever action carbine. Mine are mid 1800s vintage yes they work and if we were living rural I would keep one of the revolvers loaded, no not for burgulars (thats the Dogs job) or a compund bow. More for a unruly Bear whom would like to demolish our home. I do not hunt, Vietnam taught me what it was like to be hunted and watching the mid east allies shoot animals for fun put me off it completely. A comprimise? perhaps heavy calibre military weapons (automatic or semi) a $1000 bond and a thourough SBI first. If I am not in error when the second amendment came into play a rifle was a very needed tool, only the rich could afford pistols. Try a Air rifle for target practice and perhaps a 45 cal plus blackpowder for all else. Some argue that the right to keep and bear arms meant the right of the State or territory to keep a well armed Militia seperate from the Federal Government. If true we have many more years of discussion to go through. Lets have some give and take anyone ever had a good look at a Mdl70 Winchester? Whats wrong with that one?

  • We already have over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are being ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen (18) existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really think the shooters cared they were breaking those anti-gun laws? By definition, does any criminal care that (s)he is breaking the law? Any law? What possible good can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?

    The 911 terrorist killed 3000 Americans in one day with box cutters and jet airplanes, not one firearm was used, remember that liberals.

    You need to have the balls to address the real problem….we have failed our youth and allowed them to replace faith with a worship of pop Hollywood culture that causes them to see violence and mayhem as an outlet for their lack of self-esteem and personal shortcomings. Its going to only continue if we do not address the real root of these problems and stop laying blame on inanimate objects.

    This idea that some of you keep mentioning that the framers of the Constitution could not have envisioned a world with the kind of firearms available today is total non-sense and a fallacy of logic. The 2nd. Amendment was added to the Constitution by these very wise men to address the issue of a government run amok, and the right, not privilage, the right of free citizens to have weapons to defend themselves against their own government. Love your Country but don’t trust your government was the reason the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    The “cultural factor” that allows the use of firearms in the US is our CONSTITUTION. The misuse of any substaance or article in the hands of madmen would be difficult to implement, since so many items in the home or on the farm can be rendered harmful if misused. We would have to ban fertilizer (common fertilizer took down an entire building, killings hundreds), gasoline (remember the purposeful fire set in a nightclub killing hundreds), and many more common substances and articles. It’s NOT the thing that causes the problem, it’s the USER (or mis-user). We should concentrate on identifying troubled individuals in our society, and helping them (or institutionalizing them), not in attempting to eliminate all potential means of causing harm. Actually, if we needed to eliminate harmful things, the first might be the internet, as it offers the ability to allow dissemination of crazy ideas worldwide in seconds, and thus could be ruled “dangerous also.

  • greghilbert

    Sigrid, I’m replying to thank you for your thoughts in response, and to call attention to the good advice you shared about PUBLIC REFERENDUM as a means to circumvent NRA intimidation of lawmakers.

    • sigrid28

      You are welcome. I saw an interview on cable news with a gun control activist who noted that public referendum had already been used to alter gun control legislation in the U.S. The activist may have been connected with the James Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, where the full and accurate record of these initiatives can perhaps be found.

  • The logic for some of the things we do is sometimes so elusive it shall remain invisible forever. We are a Judeo-Christian nation that describes itself as peace loving, compassionate, tolerant; a nation of immigrants that is a beacon of freedom and democracy for all; and to demonstrate all those laudable qualities and the strength of our spiritual convictions we arm ourselves to the teeth to ensure we can defend ourselves against each other. Do we know for sure Goebbels is not working for the NRA? What is happening in our country, and what we are exporting to other countries, could not be made up even if we tried to do so deliberately.

  • greghilbert

    It’s obvious that “middleclasstaxpayer” is in fact or effect an NRA propagandist deployed to help put out the latest brushfire arising from the ease with which a mass-murder arsenal can be obtained. The absurdity of his logic is that we should not regulate nuclear weapons because it is not nuclear weapons that kill! In fact, nuclear weapons should be freely available to all, because they can be used by citizens to defend themselves against government, and to blow up cardboard cities. Likewise, we all have a right to own anthrax, tanks, and RPGs.

  • It would be sensible and prudent to place limits on THE TYPE OF GUNS & AMMUNITION available for sales. The Auroa shooter had a 60 round magazine for his legally obtained ASSAULT rifle. He did not have a history of mental illness. If as a hunter you need a 60 round magazine and tear gass to disable your animal, you should find another sport. When they checked his car he had enough ammunition to take out 10% of the total population of Auroa, about 6,000 rounds. Right now our police are out gunned by the bad guys. But we cannot have a reasonable conversation about this for all the cries of FREEDOM that the NRA puts up. The biggest freedom that the NRA is pushing is the FREEDOM TO DIE in a gun tragedy.

    I perdict that the NRA will hold a rally within 60 miles of Auroa in the next 3 months where we will be told yet again that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” No mention will be made of the fact that he could not have possibky killed 12 people – if we had not given him the tools.

  • grammyjill

    Ok, all that all of you have written is all well and good. But what it comes down to is not banning all guns. There is NO reason for John Q. Public to own a semi or fully automatic gun! The only reason for these is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time.

  • greghilbert

    Yahoo-5etc, I just wanted to commend the thoughtful personal choices you’ve said you made. I agree with the kind of reasonable compromise you propose. I’d like to suggest that we can all agree that whatever the constitutional right to bear arms may be, it does not extent to individual right to own nuclear weapons, anthrax, tanks and RPGs.

  • greghilbert

    JamesC, that we have too many weak and poorly enforced gun laws does not make a case for the status quo. We need to tightly regulate the manufacture and distribution of mass-murder firearms for the same reasons and in the same ways we do so for nuclear weapons, anthrax, tanks and RPGs. The idea that citizens could today use firearms to defend themselves against a government that spends as much on military, security and law enforcement as the rest of the entire world is beyond naive. That 911 terrorists killed thousands without firearms is as relevant as the Red Sox beating the Yankees without firing a single shot. The possible good that comes from tighter regulation of
    mass-murder weapons is fewer innocent loved ones being traumatized, crippled and murdered by them. That this imposes some inconvenience and limitations on honest
    and decent citizens is just too bad. Honest and decent citizens will just have to suffer loss of easy access to mass-murder firearms along with nuclear weapons, anthrax, tanks and RPGs. The only place you make a degree of sense is in the matter of “worship of pop Hollywood culture…violence and mayhem”. The icon and locus of that worship is the gun used to kill people.

  • Grizzdj

    If you can’t shoot the big buck in two shots or stop the bad guy/gal in three then the buck got away and the bad guy either got you or he/she ran away. In other words, I can see no reason for high capacity magazines. There’s a place to start the discussion. But as we do, the gun lobby and gun nuts will cry, “then only the bad guys will have high capacity magazines.” That is true just like the bad guys will be the ones to break all kinds of laws whether it be robbing banks, driving without a license, etc. etc.. A gun with 6 shots like a revolver, can still defend, having one still maintains the right to bear arms. If passed into law, and you were caught with a high cap. magazine, immediate confiscation of guns. It may take a century to eliminate most of these high cap. magazines but it is better then our current situation which is do nothing.

  • Don


  • middleclasstaxpayer

    There are stringent laws already. However, until someone actually does something to hurt someone else (or themselves) it is all but impossible to do anything to restrain them, unless they volunteer for help. It is political corrrectness gone amok. Look at the Muslim Army officer who killed many at Ft Hood….they KNEW he was communicating with known terrorists, and he even advocated suicide bombings in some of his talks, but no one took action, or they expressed concern that, if they spoke up, his “career” would be harmed???
    Again, political correctness run amok.

  • Guns are harming American freedom

  • Guns are getting into the hands of children and teenagers who are too young to rationalize their feelings. In this age of instant gratification and urge to eliminate what they conceive as a problem, they “shoot now” and think later, a long time later, in jail or six feet under where they will never think again. To a young person a gun in hand is power and control. The availability of guns is too much for a young person who has low self esteem to resist. The gun gives him the power he lacks in his life.

    Why, other than for sports and hunting, would one need a gun? For protection maybe to be kept in a safe place where a child cannot get it. Adults, of course, kill also, but let’s give our children a chance to grow up and solve their problems rationally – it is up to the adults to accomplish this. It can be done but only if one cares enough to get it done.

  • are any of our elected officials ever going to have the guts to stand up to the gun nuts? nobody wants to take away their hunting guns or regular guns, just take away those awful unnecessary assault guns. do you really need those to shoot a poor defense less deer.

  • We do not need gun control any more then we have. I have never seen or heard of a gun jumping up and discharging itself. We need to bring back the mental laws that Reagan did away with. We need to allow school officials to be able to report out of the norm behavior that was evident with Holmes and Dillon Kleibold and Harris and the shooter at UVa. All these persons and countless others all exhibited abnormal behavior before they took action. All these people were sick mentally.
    We also need to get rid of a Republican congress so health care, including mental health can be addressed. Let’s get rid of protection laws, HIPPA that were designed for the .00001% celebrities to protest their privacy.
    Then we can help the less then normal people that are having difficulties.
    Off my box now.

  • The existing law forbidding any regular citizen from buying or possessing tear gas canisters worked great to keep them out of the hands of the theater killer, right?

    Making that law stronger than it already was would have kept him from getting them, right?


    The simple thing you gun control morons never can seem to grasp is that criminals and insane people don’t give a rat’s ass about following the law, criminals and insane people who want guns, or tear gas canisters, will get them and use them no matter how strong the laws are. Yea, let’s work to take the guns away from the 65 million legal owners who didn’t kill anyone yesterday so they have no chance of defending themselves against the ones who don’t care about following the law, right? WRONG! (see middleclasstaxpayer’s story about Australia, that is a true story, as it is with every case of extreme gun control I have researched. The statistics strongly indicate in every case that taking the guns away from legal owners puts them in more danger.)

    Making those drugs illegal sure got them off the street, right?

  • liberalgunowner

    I am a liberal gun owner.
    Gun control is NOT going to stop terrorist attacks based here or from abroad. They do not go into gun shops purchase and register them like law abiding Americans. They are either smuggled in purchased from underground weapons dealers or just plain stolen. You can go to gun ranges across this country and see law abiding citizens shooting assault/miltary type weapons. Why? They are fun to shoot, accurate and excellant for home defense. I do not belong to the NRA because of the party they support. Alot of liberals vote the other way because of the gun control issues. I haven’t yet but push the issue about control not only mine but alot of other votes will be lost also no mater what the other issues are. There is only one kind of gun control. Thats being able to hit your target.

    • greghilbert

      “liberalgunowner”, like “middleclasstaxpayer” the telltale user name of yet another NRA operative.

  • joyscarbo

    Can we have a REAL discussion about guns and the 2nd Amendment without gun owners immediately jumping to the conclusion that they’ll have ALL guns taken from them??!! I’m fairly certain that this will NEVER happen. We should be able to have a discussion about what guns/firearms/weaponry should be available to the public for the purposes of hunting and personal protection versus what should not. What should be the minimum requirements for firearms ownership? If you must prove that you are competent to operate a vehicle then what is wrong with doing the same for gun ownership? Why should anyone need weaponry that is usually only reserved for war? Why should any person who is not connected by profession to law enforcement or the military be able to own a gun that can fire over 70 rounds per minute? There is no domestic threat of invading forces. What necessity should a potential gun owner show to own advanced weaponry? And PLEASE…spare me the “..its my right to own whatever gun I want…” arguement. That’s not a well thought out arguement- in fact, it’s not an arguement at all.

  • pja1961

    Ban assualt rifles and all weapons that were not available when our constitution was written. Let everyone have their trusty musket, dueling pistols, etc. I don’t think we will see such mass shootings as our current weapons encourage. Does the NRA rule this country?

    • I don’t think the Forefathers would have allowed such an imbalance between criminal and citizen, whereas the burglar has a semi auto pistol and the homeowner has a single shot musket. The law abiding citizen would have the musket, the criminal would have the semi auto pistol. FYI… Criminals do not care what the law says.

      And if the homeowner didn’t fire off the old charge in the musket from time to time in order to get fresh powder (damp and wet), then all he has is the bayonet at the end… Not a balanced situation at all.

      However, if you are able to UNDO technology, well…. knock yourself out. We can go back to those days and “enjoy” everything else then. I personally like today’s health and dental care, it sure beats using leeches!

      If you give up on undoing technology or that time machine, then you can move onto the next step. Gun control. Gun control does work…. Just look to Communist China, Cuba, N. Korea… Gun control works VERY well there. The scary part for me is that Communism is a portion of the democratic party platform. All the links are posted on my facebook… you are invited.

  • I disagree with Mr. Dionne

  • We should legislate Wacko’s ! Other than a nut this guy was a perfect person. Do you imagine the damage and terror this SOB would of done if instead of guns he would of brought in a five gallon can of gas and a match? Walk around once then light it? That is real scary!
    Lets legislate gas sales?? c mon? This is a social problem.

  • We should legislate Wacko’s ! Other than a nut this guy was a perfect person. Do you imagine the damage and terror this SOB would of done if instead of guns he would of brought in a five gallon can of gas and a match? Walk around once then light it? That is real scary!
    Lets legislate gas sales?? c mon? This is a social problem.

  • This last shooting, raises a lot of questions on guns and laws and the right to bare arms. who carries and uses the guns to kill. This was not and is not an issue from the the moment that President Regan and others was shoot. The United States and it people all ways want to respond to whatever to late after the damages of families and lives have been pulled apart. Hopefully this will be the last massive shooting in this country but I doubt it for this is pain out there on the streets of the RICH, MIDDLE CLASS AND THE GHOTTOS

  • 1standlastword

    Lets look at the root causes and solve those first….Start with our broken capitalism where rule of law and accountablity don’t seem to apply. This nonsense is making us angrier by the day!!!!

    Gun violence is secondary to the bevy if institutional problems this nation fosters which are collectively the source of most all gun violence; for example poor to NO health care!!

    Much gun violence is about the disempowered taking their power back and for the killers the act of killing is too often a cathartic one.

    If we politically opt for austerity and the commercialization of public safety nets, while continuing to promote income inequality within an antiquated “debt-driven–finance oriented capitalism” we’ll have more gun violence and that is why my guns will always be close!!!

  • I would go further than the comments in your article . Not only are the NRA and its fellow travelers intellectually dishonest they are cowards . We had an assault weapon ban in this country under President Clinton which frightened the NRA to such an extent that they poured tons of money and time into nixing the extension of the ban under Bush . Naturally , President Bush being the stand up guy that he was sided with the cowards and let the ban expire .
    What does any private person in our society need with an assault weapon if not for a nefarious purpose ? But the cowards that comprise the NRA are rattled by even a hint of gun regulation . Can you imagine a group of more insecure if not psychologically skewed that we let control a major policy issue ?
    And this is at a time when the national murder rate is at an all time historic low as well as general drop in crime . But these cowards “cling to their guns… ” as President Obama said . jh

  • I’ve always wondered that since gun nuts always say there should be no limitation on the types of weapons one can own, then why is a person not allowed to possess a nuclear weapon? And if one is not allowed to own a nuclear bomb, then what is the logic for the restriction? If one can own a semiautomatic rifle, a weapon of mass destruction, then why not any other type of wmd?

  • middleclasstaxpayer, I’m dubious of your statistics. Do you have a source for them? It’s more of the same NRA bullying we’ve seen for years.

    I have three proposals to float that seem reasonable to me and that I think might slow down someone like the Aurora shooter and perhaps lessen the likelihood of a repetition.

    First, you can only buy one gun a year. You can have as many as you want, but you can only get them one at a time and only one a year. Special licenses could be granted for, for example, someone who wants to buy two guns as matching presents for his teenaged kids – but he’d have to show that he was going to do what he said. We could also license a class of gun collectors, who would be able to do more purchasing for their collections. But that would have to be carefully examined, and the collectors would have to agree to an onsight examination of their arsenal.

    Second we ban private ownership of clips that hold more than ten rounds. They would be available for use at your local shooting range, but you couldn’t own one privately.

    Third, we shut down internet ammo purchase.

    This seems to me to be a way to lessen the likelihood of a repeat of Aurora. We can’t stop crazy people, but we can lessen their opportunities and perhaps slow them down so that their rage does not boil over.