Type to search

People With Guns Are More Likely To Kill Than When Not Having One

Memo Pad National News

People With Guns Are More Likely To Kill Than When Not Having One

Share

Even though there is steadily accumulating evidence of the futility of criticizing the gun culture, certain episodes prod me to go there. One of those occurred last week, when an unarmed man was shot dead after assaulting a fellow movie patron with, ah, popcorn.

This particular incident wasn’t one of those that dominate newscasts, that summon President Obama to a press conference, that propel some members of Congress to insist on tighter gun control laws. It didn’t pack the awful, gut-wrenching punch of the Newtown, Conn., massacre, in which 20 young children and six adults were gunned down by a psychopath.

The power of this recent episode lies in its more mundane nature: Person with gun gets angry, loses control and shoots an unarmed person. It’s a more common occurrence than gun advocates care to admit.

And it contradicts several of the gun lobby’s central arguments because it demonstrates that the proximity of firearms can change circumstances. It undermines that dumb and overused cliché, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” That may be true, but people are much more apt to kill when they have a gun.

As it happens, this shooting occurred in Florida, where an ill-considered “Stand Your Ground” law has prompted many a trigger-happy bully to pull a gun and shoot a stranger (or, sometimes, an acquaintance). Curtis Reeves, 71, has been charged with second-degree homicide in the death of Chad Oulson, 43, on Jan. 13, according to the Tampa Tribune.

The newspaper reported that Reeves got angry because Oulson, who was sitting in front of him, was using his cellphone during previews before the film Lone Survivor started. Reeves, after asking him several times to stop, went into the lobby to complain to a theater employee about Oulson — who was apparently communicating with his child’s babysitter.

When Reeves returned, the two again exchanged words, and Oulson reportedly showered Reeves with popcorn. Reeves drew a .380-caliber handgun and shot Oulson in the chest. Oulson’s wife was wounded because she reached for her husband as the shot was fired, the Tribune said.

You know how the gun lobby always insists that the antidote to gun violence is to allow more properly trained citizens to carry guns everywhere — inside nightclubs and schools and churches? Well, Reeves could hardly be better trained in the use of firearms. He’s a retired Tampa police captain and a former security officer for Busch Gardens.

Tags:
Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

119 Comments

  1. Daniel Jones January 18, 2014

    Let me be straightforward. If killing were easy, people would do it all the time.

    The thing is; guns make killing easy, and people DO kill all the time.
    End of discussion.

    Reply
    1. Leftout January 18, 2014

      Guns are used in the majority of killings, if they were all confiscated then the next most used weapons are knives, forks, etc. these are…indeed messy. Before guns there were projectiles ,spears, swords and hands, later clean Sirin for Syrian types. Eliminate pop corn and texting in theaters, I say. People can relate to that.

      1. elw January 18, 2014

        Yes that may be true, but there is no law allowing people to carry concealed knifes, spears, swords, etc. into movie theaters, churches, schools and other places where large number of people gather.

        1. Leftout January 18, 2014

          These are stressful times for many. And it does not take much to set off fuses. If one is hell bent on killing , then they will do so, laws or no laws. …Cain and Abel 101.

          1. elw January 18, 2014

            So, to you that makes everything OK? You thing that everyone should be allowed to carry a weapon with the capacity of killing someone with the pull of one finger without even getting close them and no matter that it puts everyone around them in danger of getting killed or hurt as well? In other word level of danger or collateral results is of no consequences to you as long as people can have their guns? That is just plain sick.

          2. Leftout January 18, 2014

            I do believe in right to carry, in some states it is necessary for protection from wildlife, as in Montana. Was changing a tire one day and a shadow appeared on a rock ahead of me. It Was a large mountain lion. I shot in the air, since it was not texting and it went away. Guns are definitely dangerous, and must be handled carefully. Judging the mental capacity of the user is a different matter. Most all mass killings were by mentally challenged., Republicans and Tea Party types.

          3. Independent1 January 18, 2014

            Irregardless, eliminating guns would leave about 50% of those who are killed by guns each year in America alive; Australia proved that when it tightened up its gun laws and eliminated a large number of guns from the country – not only did the homiced rate drop by almost 50% – so did the sucide rate – that’s the other place where guns kill – people will kill themselves with guns who would not do it any other way.

            Do you even realize that there are approximately 200,000 accidental shootings in America each year (that’s over 500/day)?? And about 70,000 of those end up being bad enough to need a visit to the ER. And that doesn’t even include the 19,000 or so suicides and 11,000 homicides perpetrated by guns – with less than 3% of those homicides justifiable for the reason of self protection.

            No organization lies better than the NRA with it’s fake lies of ‘a gun will protect you”. Yeah! maybe in the rare incident that you sighted with the mountain lion – but fact is, of the 11,000 homicides each year, the majority of them occur in states with high gun ownership making it clear that thousands of those murdered were gun owners who either couldn’t get to that gun they own in time to protect themself – or they were killed by someone they knew and didn’t think they need that worthless gun they owned to protect them.

            Because owning a gun far more increases the probablity that the gun owner will be killed by the gun he owns, than he will ever use that gun to protect himself. In fact, bringing a gun into a home, just increases the probablity that someone in the home will be killed by a gun by 5 times; especially with respect to any women or children in that home. Owning a gun does not make you safer, it only makes you a bigger liability even to yourself.

          4. Leftout January 18, 2014

            I agree, guns are very dangerous, one must be well, well trained , even then accidents still happen.

          5. Independent1 January 18, 2014

            Yeah! Here’s an excerpt from an article in the DailyKos which highlights a number of the the gun accidents that happen each week:

            Six hunting GunFAIL incidents were counted, plus three recreational or target shooting accidents. Two defensive gun users accidentally wounded themselves, as well, as sometimes happens during the excitement and confusion. Two people also accidentally shot themselves while cleaning their weapons, which should never happen. And three gun owners out and about, shopping and dining with the rest of us accidentally lost some bullets this week. One who shot himself in a Walmart parking lot in Mississippi, one who accidentally fired a pistol in his pocket in a restaurant in Georgia, and a third who dropped her gun and shot another shopper in a Lowe’s in Cheyenne, WY. And lastly, we had one more family member allegedly mistaken for an intruder and shot this week.

            If you have a few minutes, the accidents that hapen are enlightening and frightening; including police officers that shoot themselves or shoot into the floor or whatever:

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/08/1265789/-Welcome-to-Lowe-s-How-may-I-shoot-you-P-S-23-kids-accidentally-shot-last-week-GunFAIL-LI?detail=email

          6. Leftout January 18, 2014

            I’ve been there almost, a friend at a gun range placed 45 down, on a target change , and it went off, could have repeated but it was the last round. Thanks for link.

          7. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            Why don’t you take a nice stroll in a dark downtown area of LA, NY, LV….and let me know if you feel the same way?

          8. Independent1 January 21, 2014

            Only a totally clueless idiot such as yourself would do a foolish thing such as you suggest. And to even suggest t that one purposely take a stroll in high crime areas to try and justify the need for gun ownership is nothing more than pure evidence of ones greatly reduced mental capabilities.

            FACT IS: of the 25 states in America with the highest rates of firearms mortality, everyone of them has a gun ownership rate over 35%; the highest murder rates occur in the states with the highest gun ownership. You can take your fake harvard study and cram it. It’s not worth the effort to read. For every such scam study you can produce I can produce ten that say exactly the opposite. And here’s the link to just another one:

            Report Links High Rates of Gun Violence to Weak State Regulations

            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/us/report-links-high-rates-of-gun-violence-to-weak-laws.html?_r=0

          9. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            I truly believe in the theory of ‘moral decay.’

            The states on this list with higher gun violence tend to have much less
            stringent gun laws than other states with less violence like New Jersey,
            Connecticut and Hawaii.

            Even as President Obama and leaders in states such as New York and
            Connecticut have pushed for tighter gun control following high-profile
            mass shootings in the past couple of years, these states have moved in
            the opposite direction.

            Of course, not everyone agrees with the Center for American Progress. In
            states with looser gun laws, homicides could be higher since more
            people are able to use a gun to defend themselves, argues David Kopel,
            research director for the conservative think tank Independence
            Institute. He estimates that anywhere between 7% and 12% of homicides
            consist of self-defense, in addition to countless cases where
            law-abiding gun owners serve as a deterrent.

            Read more: States With the Most Gun Violence – 24/7 Wall St. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/#ixzz2r3O7kP5Y

            Follow us: @247wallst on Twitter | 247wallst on Facebook

            Lax laws and moral decay have led to more gun crimes not the use of guns for self defense or recreation. You can say what you want but the statistics for violence seem to follow not enforcing stricter laws and not in the way you think.

            The highest rate of crime come from many of the Liberal states where gun enforcement is lax…..District of Columbia coming in as the highest, California, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan.

            The reason I believe the suppression of criminal gun use works is because I know of someone who lived overseas over 50 years ago. Criminals were brutally punished for committing crimes of any kind. The result was the freedom for the common citizen to go where they wanted any time of night or day without anyone touching them.

            Even you would be terrified to be killed if you walked the streets at night. So what does that tell you?

            I would much rather be safe in carrying a gun down a dark city alley than by not having one. If we felt safe enough to walk down a city alleyway without the fear of being accosted then we can talk about eliminating weapons of any kind. Kapeesch….

          10. Independent1 January 21, 2014

            Fact is that of the 11,000 or so average firearms related homicides each year, less than 3% of them are justifiable homicides for the purpose of self-defense – that’s less than 330 out of 11,000. There are numberous studies being published which show a clear link between gun owership and firearms related mortality. As I’ve noted before, just having a gun in a home raises the probablity that someone in that home will be killed by a gun by a factor of almost 5 times. For you to try and dispell these studies with studies done by gun loving organizations is pure nonsense.

            The link I published earlier from the Utah Educational Department says it best of all. Nothing you say or no right-wing biased, NRA manipulated studies are going to change THE FACTS!!! Especially since I’ve looked at a lot of raw statistics myself which clearly come to the same conclusion: owning a gun is more of a liability than it will ever be a self-defense mechanism for the vast majority of Americans that aren’t directly involved in some type of security or police work.

            This link tells it all:

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

          11. DEFENDER88 January 21, 2014

            .
            Joe, I am sending this to you since I mention you in it. I will leave it up to you to send it on to Independent1 if you want.

            Independant1
            You might want to consider that you may not have the License on the truth and the facts
            Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy
            The Harvard study is far from fake. It includes at least 150 documented, footnoted, sources – way more thorough than the NYT(which you cite) would be willing to pay for.
            All those numbers you see in the Harvard Study at the end of sentences and paragraphs 7,8,9,150.. etal are footnote references to other documented studies.
            And more personally, on a more gut level, YOU KNOW that good people who own guns are not the ones using them to commit crimes, murder etc. Just sit and think about the good people you know vs the criminal types.
            What you may not know is that studies also show that burglar predators do not fear the police, they DO fear armed home owners. They know the police will not get there in time to catch them. That study comes from prison inmate interviews.
            And most WILL KILL YOU if necassary to get what they want.
            You should be more careful about calling people idiots and other names. It shows ignorance and immaturity.
            I am pretty sure Joe was not saying you should actually go into a dark ally. He was just trying to emphasize a point – there are dangerouse places everywhere where it would be advised that you be able to defend youself with equal force if you cannot avoid it.
            Good thing you dont own a gun with your demonstrated anger problem.
            You might also want to consider taking an anger management session.
            It is not the guns it is the mantal state of good honest people vs criminals, predators, etc and the answer is Education, training etc for both/all groups.

          12. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            Absolutely, and I explained that further down:) Thank you for clarifying. I never refer to anyone as stupid or idiots because that is simply not the truth. It means to me that you have no rebuff or facts to back your points. As far as I know this is still a free country, having a perspective whether it is something you believe in or not is our own priority. It shows an intelligence to think independently whether you are a Conservative, Libertarian, Liberal, Communist etc….. Remember Education is power and the more educated you are the more you are able to weigh out situations that arise. As are life experiences. Problem is our Country is trying to dumb us down and you need to fight that at all costs…..

          13. DEFENDER88 January 19, 2014

            Your data is misleading – of the 11,000 homicides you always mention, 10,000 of those are gang or drug related usually in bigger cities by known criminals. Rare is the occasion that you hear of a Permitted Concealed carry person, or even the average gun owner shooting anyone, even more rare killing anyone. You never mention the 2-3 million crimes that are prevented and or stopped every year by average people who own guns.
            Also the claim that the presence of guns leads to an increase in crime is totally false, Acording to a Harvard Law Study – what leads to gun violence and crime are the true underlying,systemic problems of poverty, lack of jobs, poor education, the mental health issue/problem, etc.
            The study shows, when guns are banned, people find other ways to visit violence on and kill each other.
            The underlying root problem, aside from above, is the propensity for violence, not the availability of guns.
            When guns are taken away the level of violence and death rate does not drop. And that goes across several different countries and also areas within the US.
            Example – guns are banned in Detroit, yet they still have the highest murder rate.
            Noone wants to address the root problems since that is hard work and will cost money.
            Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy [Vol. 30
            Where guns are scarce other weapons are substituted in killings.”8
            While American gun ownership is quite high, Table 1 shows many other
            developed nations (e.g., Norway, Finland, Germany, France,
            Denmark) with high rates of gun ownership. These countries,
            however, have murder rates as low or lower than many developed
            nations in which gun ownership is much rarer. For example,
            Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership
            of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times
            higher than Germany in 2002.9
            International evidence and comparisons have long been offered
            as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that
            fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths.1 Unfortunately, such
            discussions are all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and
            factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative.
            It may be useful to begin with a few examples. There is a compound
            assertion that (a) guns are uniquely available in the United
            States compared with other modern developed nations, which is
            why (b) the United States has by far the highest murder rate.
            Though these assertions have been endlessly repeated, statement
            (b) is, in fact, false and statement (a) is substantially so

          14. Independent1 January 19, 2014

            Keep living in those NRA lies. There are no 2-3 million crimes that are prevented by guns – that’s total BS. And the gangland killings by known criminals are not included in the 11,000; the FBI maintains those in a separate database. The 11,000 homicides are killings that result from breakins, spouses that shoot one another, yeah!, maybe some intercity gang violence by hoods (not known criminals). But keep on sucking up those lies until you’re the one who ends up dead trying to use a gun to stop a crime by someone who knows far more about using a gun than you – which is why the vast majority of noncriminal gun owners end up dead when they try to pull that kind of stupid stunt.

          15. DEFENDER88 January 19, 2014

            Like most everything else you say, you have no idea what my capabilities are with firearms and spew out very disputable information to forward your oun political agenda because of your own fears and misguided agenda/s.
            Fact is, I assist local Sheriff depts in self defense firearms training.(on a volunteer basis-no I dont make money at this so I am not “in the “business”,
            I am retired).
            After I had been attacked and shot at 3 times(and me with no gun) I undertook the training to get to that level. I now personally train at least weekly and sometimes daily.
            If you are wrong about me(as you were here), one has to ask what else might you be wrong about? I can produce verified studies that refute most everything you say. If you dont want to defend yourself that is fine(your choice). But trying to disarm everyone else is not.
            You would do better putting your intellect to solving problems with the mentally ill and the root cause problems of crime. Rather than trying to disarm honest good people.
            In case you dont know it – most predators out there Will Kill You, if necessary, to get what they want.
            And some will kill you for no good reason, even if you comply.
            Disarming criminals, the mentally unstable, etc yes, But NO, you want everyone disarmed and defensless. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc did that then massacred millions under the false guise of making things safer, like you.

          16. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            Totally agree, my brother in law is retired LAPD and now works for the local Sheriffs department. He would disagree with many of the posts found here:)

            Of course, the people on this site don’t have a clue. Most are in LaLa Land. Got a question for most of you here. How would you feel if you were left alone on the backstreets or alleyway of some big city? Would you feel safe to walk there alone? You tell me if you feel safe…..I rest my case.

          17. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            ….and you keep living in your lies….like a seal swimming with the sharks……

          18. bhaggen January 21, 2014

            It came in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy.
            Because Pres Obama was skeptical about the “NRA lies”, as you call them, he commissioned a $10 million study by the CDC as part of 23 executive orders he signed January 2013. As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. The study was released June 2013, & found “consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies” The report also stated that “annual defensive uses range to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.” It also found no evidence “that passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.” and that proposed “gun turn-in programs are ineffective in reducing crime” The mainstream media gave this study no coverage so ignorant people like yourself were left unaware of its existence. I first read about it on CALGUNS and subsequently confirmed it on CDC’s own website.

          19. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            Accidental shootings? That is just plain negligence by users.

            Harvard study:

            ‘Because the findings so clearly demonstrate that more gun laws may in fact increase death rates, the study says that “the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths” is wrong.

            For example, when the study shows numbers for Eastern European gun ownership and corresponding murder rates, it is readily apparent that less guns to do not mean less death. In Russia, where the rate of gun ownership is 4,000 per 100,000 inhabitants, the murder rate was 20.52 per 100,000 in 2002. That same year in Finland, where the rater of gun ownership is exceedingly higher–39,000 per 100,000–the murder rate was almost nill, at 1.98 per 100,000.

            Looking at Western Europe, the study shows that Norway “has far and away Western Europe’s highest household gun ownership rate (32%), but also its lowest murder rate.”

            And when the study focuses on intentional deaths by looking at the U.S. vs Continental Europe, the findings are no less revealing. The U.S., which is so often labeled as the most violent nation in the world by gun control proponents, comes in 7th–behind Russia, Estonia, Lativa, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine–in murders. America also only ranks 22nd in suicides.

            The murder rate in Russia, where handguns are banned, is 30.6; the rate in the U.S. is 7.8.

            The authors of the study conclude that the burden of proof rests on those who claim more guns equal more death and violent crime; such proponents should “at the very least [be able] to show a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that impose stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide).” But after intense study the authors conclude “those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared around the world.”

            In fact, the numbers presented in the Harvard study support the contention that among the nations studied, those with more gun control tend toward higher death rates.’

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/08/27/Harvard-Study-Shows-No-Correlation-Between-Strict-Gun-Control-And-Less-Crime-Violence

            Read the whole study here:

            http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

            Be more than happy to provide even more evidence if you like……

          20. elw January 18, 2014

            So are you saying that you walk around with a concealed weapon all the time, anywhere because you might run into a Mountain Lion? Not likely to happen in the middle of the movie theater, or in church, is it? Having common sense laws that apply to gun use is a far cry from not allowing guns at all. I do not think the man who was carrying in the incident in the story was worried about Mountain Lions or any other large wild animal. Once more he was a retired Police Officer, he knew how to handle gun. Your example is just plain silly and certainly does not apply to this situation.

          21. Leftout January 18, 2014

            No, only unconcealed if I am possibly going to use it, as in remote areas. As stated by Indep 1, there is no use of weapon after the incident is over. Even in New Hampshire one can walk around with their gun exposed. Not much dangerous stuff there except for an occasional bear. …or Bernie Sanders next door in Vermont.

          22. elw January 18, 2014

            Why does anyone need to walk around with a gun on their hip unless there is a good reason to use it. I agree with when you are traveling in places where there are large predators it might be handy. But in the streets of a City or small town, where there is police and other emergency responders – I do not see the point. I personally do not have a gun, but have no problem with people who keep one in their home for extra protection – it just I like my very large guard dog better. People being allowed to carry guns everywhere is just asking for problems, as the statistic show we have.

          23. Leftout January 18, 2014

            Agreed and well said, Indeed, a dog is best first alarm, then you can get other alternate systems prepared. If there is no warning like a dog or screaming wife, one would have to scramble quickly to get the weapon, load it perhaps after you found it and put it to effective use. Hopefully these situations are few and far between, but frightening. Police and other emergency responders are great but they arrive after the incident has occurred.
            . I believe the best is educating everyone to the value of each other, or kill them if they do not want to participate in this re- education process.

          24. elw January 19, 2014

            I still choose a dog and a big bat by the side of my bed.

          25. dpaano January 20, 2014

            I’ve got a big German rottweiler….gentle as a lamb unless someone tries to get into the house that doesn’t belong there. Works MUCH better than a gun and makes MORE noise! Heidi also could exert a lot of damage to someone without actually killing them. Kinda tries to “teach them a lesson” that they won’t soon forget. I think I’ll keep her….better than any gun I could have (and noisier too). Of course, I have to obey certain laws with her also, and she is well trained not to bite or attack randomly. She’s smart; she knows when and who are going to be dangerous.

          26. Leftout January 20, 2014

            Have a dog also, but always wondered if it would have more interests in a piece of meat given by an intruder,rather than barking….but the dogs bark has never let me down. Rodney Dangerfield once said that in his house the dog only stopped barking when Rodney was made to leave the house by his own dog. Made me chuckle.

          27. elw January 20, 2014

            My dog is not as big as a Rottweiler, but she is very scary when she curls up those lips and cowls. She is gentle and sweet to anyone I let in the door, but has scared more than one salesperson away when they knock. She is trained to stand down when I command her to. Nothing like a large dog for protection and companionship.

          28. Independent1 January 19, 2014

            And having a gun in the home increases the probability that someone in the home with a gun will be at some point shot by a gun by almost 5 times.

            Here’s an excerpt on home protection using guns from a very good article on what guns are doing in America:

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

            Here’s a link to the whole article:

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

          29. elw January 19, 2014

            Personally, I have no desire for a gun. Even through I know how to use them, it just seems that they are not worth the risked involved.

          30. I Zheet M'Drawz January 20, 2014

            Chicago & Detroit have some pretty nasty predators as does NYC & Boston.

          31. elw January 20, 2014

            Most places have nasty predators. So what I would bet those nasty predators know how to handle people with guns better than most gun owners know how to use their guns.

          32. dpaano January 20, 2014

            I think they just want people to think they are “manly….” something like that. It’s the reason that many people drive around in their cars with their music blasting….they want people to know they are cool because they are listening to a certain type of music. It makes no sense! If you want to have a gun, it doesn’t need to be on your hip where everyone can see it…..unless you want to show them what a “big man” you are. Again, just MY opinion.

          33. elw January 20, 2014

            I agree, that far too many gun owners brag about it and they do so because they think it makes them a bigger person than they are or feel.

          34. Independent1 January 18, 2014

            Here’s the link to an article that is not only enlightening but also can be very frightening as what is described are just the accidents over about a one week period that the author has picked up the statistics on. It’s obviously just a small sample as there are on average, over 500 shooting accidents in the country every day (over 200,000 a year):

            http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/08/1265789/-Welcome-to-Lowe-s-How-may-I-shoot-you-P-S-23-kids-accidentally-shot-last-week-GunFAIL-LI?detail=email

          35. elw January 18, 2014

            Sickening isn’t it?

          36. Independent1 January 19, 2014

            It sure is. Something really needs to change the gun loving mentality in a lot of Americans’ minds.

          37. bhaggen January 18, 2014

            Isn’t it becoming quite obvious that the police need to have their guns taken away? This guy would have a gun anyway because he’s got police connections. In L.A. it’s occurring on a weekly basis & they are very rarely held accountable. I’m far more concerned about the police than a concealed carrier. One doesn’t even have to throw popcorn at them to get gunned down. Too many Barneys, not enough Andys.

          38. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            Oh that’s just great take away guns from the police. That will only add to the burdens of society. OMG, that is just plain nuts! I think you would rather see this country turn into a band of anarchists. Humans need some kind of order and laws otherwise you have complete lawlessness and chaos….. Is this how far you want to take it. Geez, you people are getting nuttier by the day.

          39. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            You just don’t get it. The statistics are there.

            ‘So what happens if all guns are banned? Would that put an end to crimes committed with guns?

            Remember, we didn’t always have guns. There were still crimes and murders before guns were ever invented. Cain murdered Abel with what he had at his disposal. It could have been a rock, a stick, or his bare hands. When someone gets to the point where they want to kill someone, they will use whatever tools are available to them. If it’s a gun, they’ll use it. If they can only use a knife, they’ll use that too. Or maybe they’ll just hire someone to make the hit.

            Furthermore, banning guns doesn’t guarantee that they would no longer be available for criminals to use. Many drugs are illegal, but purchasing those illegal drugs isn’t the hardest thing in the world to do. They can’t even keep hard drugs out of prisons! What makes anyone think that banning guns would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals?’

            http://mcfloogle.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/taking-away-guns-wont-prevent-violent-crimes/

            Makes sense to me:)

          40. elw January 21, 2014

            You seem to approach this from an all or nothing place. First of all no one is talking about banning all gun use. Secondly, there are a number of studies that show more guns translates into more murders. In this Country, according to the FBI, violent crime rates have been steadily declining for decades and yet the rates of firearms deaths are increasing. Between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were killed by firearms, more than twice the numbers that were murdered from all other means combined. These number do not even include the number of people who were injured and survived. It is nonsense to say that restricting gun owner ship or putting stricter regulations in place is silly because it will not completely eliminate death by firearms. Just imagine if we applied that reasoning to cars and let people drive under the influence, speed where and when they wanted or used their care to run people over when they please: how about letting industry continually pollute your water supply because sooner or later they will anyway. We have long regulated dangerous equipment and tools that people use in order to protect the public and that should apply to guns and their use. As far as I am concerned if the murder rate by firearms is decrease, even a little bit, it is worth it.

          41. adler56 January 18, 2014

            yEAH- popcorn needs to be outlawed.

          42. CherMoe January 20, 2014

            But less likely to act on the killing impulses when they can’t just shoot and run in a few seconds and commit mass carnage all within a minute or two. It would take consider strength, fortitude and TIME to commit mass carnage with a fork, a knife or other object, even a baseball bat … because by that time, chances are a few people would overcome you and pin you to the ground. I don’t think a room full of people would let you wield your fork or knife or bat and lay still for you to club them. Taking away guns buys people time to defend themselves. To disable the criminal. Or the angry husband. Common sense and a love of fellow man are two concepts that the gun wackos don’t have. They will defend guns over the lives of their own children. Guns make them feel invincible, so they talk that way. And after a while, guns are all that matter to them.

          43. Leftout January 20, 2014

            I have a love for my fellow man as well as a need for guns. Most carnage crimes are commited by the mentally deranged , by knife or gun. but due to our politically correct school systems we are required to assimilate and mainstream these people , and make their identities unknown to the everyone, whether they be students or co- workers.
            Carnage crimes are rare, but no less horrific. Most cases could have been prevented by proper incarceration of offenders. But there is one other reason for owning weapons as defined by the constitution, and it was for the reasons we won the revolution, it may seem anachronistic in this day and age, but….it can occur. A strange story….two people came to be for a job one from Yugoslavia, and one from Romania, approx 1993+, they came by way of Australia and needed sponsorship. We were not able to provide it, they were both medical scientists. It was heart breaking in that they were not able to use their talents in their own countries. I asked each, why did you not fight for my our country……..these were two women ……and the answer theynrespondednwith immediately , without hesitation….” We did not have guns.” …….I was stunned, by the replies. The North Vietnamese gave us a lot of angst by using hit and run tactics, these are the same tactics we used on the British during the American Revolution. It was easy to spot Red Coats in the forests. The same is occurring today in Afganistan, Iraq, hit and run tactics maybe learned from out own history. It seems far fetched that this could occur here….or could it occur here……again.

          44. dpaano January 20, 2014

            Look at all the school shootings we’ve had in the past week or so…..it’s getting crazier and crazier. We can’t even trust sending our children to school any longer. When is this going to stop?

          45. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            ….and you don’t think modern society has anything to do with that?

          46. joe schmo January 21, 2014

            I beg to differ…..I have a family member who is a life time cop. He says the most personal weapon to kill another family member is a knife. You take guns away and you will have more violence because criminals will find any way to kill. It is the morality of a society and the structure that is missing nowadays because of decadent ideology. However you would have us think common sense and love of fellow man are all that is needed….Not!

        2. Sand_Cat January 19, 2014

          Why do I get the feeling that Leftout’s screed was rather heavily laced with irony? Perhaps the line about banning popcorn and texting in theaters?

          I may be wrong, but I think your arguments are pointed at the wrong person.

      2. adler56 January 18, 2014

        Lets eliminate wacko retired cops from movies- give them a gift certificate to a shooting range- who knows what will happen IN A PLACE WHERE EVERYBODY HAS AT LEAST ONE GUN.

        1. Leftout January 18, 2014

          No pop corn, nor doughnuts allowed. We should disarm all cops as in the UK. And try that for awhile as a working model. Chicago would be a good place to start , the results would be seen immediately. And we could try it elsewhere, if it is successful.

          1. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

            troll

          2. Leftout January 19, 2014

            A little humor, sorry.

        2. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

          what does your comment have to do with anything?
          Nothing.

      3. I Zheet M'Drawz January 20, 2014

        Rocks, I think rocks should be the weapon of choice. It is in the Middle East.

        1. Leftout January 20, 2014

          The Middle East, has returned to basics, or it has never left its roots. Terrorist Moslems are not allowed to use modern Westernized conveniences of any type, it is a sin. They can not even use condoms. Of course , some of the faces of women hiding under the burkas are contraceptives in themselves….so I have been told anyway……no personal affirmations.

    2. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      agreed…classic “actual verses potential”logic question with an easy answer.
      Which came first—-the chicken or the egg?
      The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

      Which came first?
      The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
      Answer: The Gun.

      Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly and
      boosts the chances of lethal accidents.

      1. T.J. Fuller, Jr. January 19, 2014

        You keep posting that “chicken vs egg” bit, but I don’t get either what it has to do with this or how your use of it ties into your second Q&A.

        Besides, it’s the egg. The genes of the two not-quite-“chicken”s form an offspring that is an outright “chicken” (but this is painting evolution as an extremely rapid process, where the offspring of the former generation is an entirely different species than its parents).

        1. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

          Have you read Aristotle? Apparently not…

          You have no clue to the logic of the “actual always precedes the potential…..when arguing a premise.

          If you base your opinion on a “false premise” (the actual)…all your thoughts (the potenial) after that are false.

          Like your introduction of genetics…

          Which came first—-the chicken(actual) or the egg (potential)?
          The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

          Which came first?
          The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
          Answer: The Gun. Gotta have the gun to kill someone…

          Nothing to do with genetics so why are you distracting this?

          1. T.J. Fuller, Jr. January 19, 2014

            I have not read Aristotle. I really should’ve disclaimed that whatever comes out of my fingertips, it’s often just how I’ve figured it, as I’m not nearly as learned as I should be to state what I do so firmly.

            This admittance out there, how would a literal egg be “potential” when its genes are already defined (unless they can change due to its environment during the chick’s development)?

            I do get what you mean now, though: Without a gun, there’s no potential for gun violence. With a gun, there’s always the potential of its use in committed violence.

          2. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

            Has nothing to do with genes.

  2. stcroixcarp January 18, 2014

    People have to stop agreeing with the NRA nonsense “Guns don’t kill people, People kill people!” GUNS in the hands of PEOPLE do kill people! Guns are weapons of destruction and death and should be treated as such. When that stupid “Guns don’t kill people” thing comes up again, counter with a phrase like, “Guns are the tools of DEATH.”

    Reply
    1. yes2freespeach January 20, 2014

      drones are the tools of death……

      1. stcroixcarp January 20, 2014

        Yes, Drones are tools of death. So are land mines. rocket propelled grenades, chemical and biological weapons. We are really evil creatures.

        1. yes2freespeach January 20, 2014

          yes, evil, and dark. MLK said “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Leaders and people who claim to represent us that divide people and spread lies are also darkness. Their words are tools of death.

  3. Allan Richardson January 18, 2014

    If any human being carrying a gun can have a wild moment, reach for the gun, and turn into a killer instantly, then perhaps the background check for mentally disturbed people should include all of us. Maybe only law-abiding VULCANS, who have no emotions, should carry guns?

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      Could we then have background checks for our elected leaders too?
      Not being Facetious—seriously…lets have every American who wants to own a gun get through background checks, mental evaluations etc..

      Don’t think GOP House would pass..

      1. Allan Richardson January 18, 2014

        I was being partly facetious about only allowing Vulcans to have guns; a bit of Star Trek humor. But you may be onto something. Pass a law that every candidate, to get on the ballot, must get a psychiatric evaluation from a neutral doctor, and the results appear on the ballot next to the name. Even if you fall for a lying ad campaign, and intend to vote for Joe Blow, when you see “Joe Blow (R) paranoid schizophrenic” on the ballot you may have second thoughts. Maybe an IQ test result, or results of his/her SAT from high school, as well.

        1. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

          I got it…..but tehe way GOP and Senate have been acting and thinking lately…well…

        2. Leftout January 19, 2014

          Are you saying we should have access to all candidates academic records……just sayin

    2. yes2freespeach January 20, 2014

      ok, but NOT undocumented vulcans….

      1. Allan Richardson January 20, 2014

        Like the ones that met Zephrem Cochrane? Maybe we Trekkers should explain that to the non-geeks on the site ;~)

  4. Bill Thompson January 18, 2014

    As Cynthia Tucker writes about facts, logic and consequences,it is all good news in the eyes of the gun owners and the gun lobby. It just proves that the liberal, pinko, commie, sharia law loving Liberals want to take our guns. To all politicians this is a sure fired way to lose an election, facts logic and consequences notwithstanding. Commonsense reform for example keeping the guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, universal background checks and prohibited sales at the gun shows without background checks are all attempts to take our guns in the future. At this point any politician that stands for commonsense reforms is almost guaranteed to be elected out of office and they know it. At this point in time this is simply a hands off issue.

    Reply
    1. i2grok January 18, 2014

      Conservative Kool-Aid talking?

      1. Bill Thompson January 18, 2014

        To be clear I believe in commonsense reform. What I wrote is the view of the right, sarcasm intended. Trust me I’m not drinking any conservative Kool-Aid. The fact remains politicians of any political stripes are frightened of this issue and know it will cost them major votes.

        1. progressiveandproud January 18, 2014

          Unfortunately, you are correct. Until middle America stands up and fights back, the crazies will continue to make policies and laws; and the country as a whole will suffer.

    2. Bodine666 January 18, 2014

      —— liberal, pinko, commie, sharia law loving Liberals ——

      You do understand these ideologies are all at odds with each other, don’t you?

      1. Bill Thompson January 18, 2014

        Once again sarcasm intended next time I write with sarcasm will have to make that more clear.

        1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

          ignore the troll…he is a serial poster advertising his blogs everywhere…

      2. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

        Which came first—-the chicken or the egg?
        The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

        Which came first?
        The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
        Answer: The Gun.

        Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly

      3. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

        What is your point troll?

    3. i2grok January 18, 2014

      Democrats, Republicans, and Independents are have members of thei parties who are easily swayed by pressure. Currently, Conservatives and republicans seem to be the easiest to influence. But all share blame
      .
      The question mark indicated that I thought it might be sarcasm.

    4. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      no it isn’t…it is a hands on issue ….weapons of mass destruction in te wrong hands is insane.

      1. yes2freespeach January 20, 2014

        agreed, weapons of mass destruction in the wrong hands is insane..

  5. Tom S Brown January 18, 2014

    That’s why I don’t carry, but can!

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      your chance then of being killed by a gun is evident eh?

  6. howa4x January 18, 2014

    The NRA is funded by the gun manufactures and acts more like an advertising agency than a sportsman’s group. They make more when gun sales go up. That is where the big money comes from to funnel to candidates seeking to liberalize the gun laws. It is almost oxymoronic to have a conservative republican group trying to liberalize something, since being called a liberal is like being called a devil worshiper. That should give people pause. The death toll has become meaningless, since this is about big business, market share and all that. Events like this are twisted by the NRA to say that if the deceased was armed this wouldn’t have happened. True in a way since if he saw Reeves pull a gun he could have pulled his and opened fire. That way maybe all 4 both husbands and wives could have died and each side could claim victory

    Reply
  7. elw January 18, 2014

    Common sense would tell you that most likely nothing could have stopped the physical fight that was bound to happen between these two men. The gun, however, change the fight between them from a fist throwing, black eye, bloody nose kind of thingy to one were someone died and someone else is going to jail. Two lives destroyed instead of learning hard lessons. Gun are not toys, they should not be used by weak individual as their ego booster and just like any other deadly machinery, tools and processes they should be strictly regulated and be limited to those who have passed a test to demonstrate they know how to use them safely. It is more than a matter of constitutional right, it is a matter of public safety. If both of those men had had guns there would have been more than just one person dead and other injured, just imagine several bullet let lose in that movie theater. Oh, wait, no one needs to imagine because we have all seen and heard about what can happen already, a number of time. It is time to do something about guns in this Country, how many innocent people need to die before we do something to end the ongoing unnecessary deaths?

    Reply
    1. Independent1 January 18, 2014

      This incident is exactly one of the reasons why America trails so many other nations in the world with respect to longevity; since other countries have severe restrictions on gun use, this incident would most likely have only turned into a fist fight in most foreign countries, and although one or both of them may have needed medical care, as you point out, they both would still be alive. It’s the fact that guns or so numerous in America (there’s actually almost as many guns as people in our country), that results in violence – which is very similar in all countries, to end up with someone going to the morgue in America, whereas in other countries they generally may end up just going to the hospital.

      1. elw January 18, 2014

        Agree. concealed weapon do not belong in any crowed space or anywhere where people are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

        1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

          Which came first—-the chicken or the egg?
          The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

          Which came first?
          The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
          Answer: The Gun.

          Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly…

          1. elw January 19, 2014

            I guess you could say that guns are “overkill”

    2. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      Answer: all of them…until citizens realize it is a premise based upon a false assumption that all guns should be legal.

  8. adler56 January 18, 2014

    Cops -most of them- have anger issues from childhood that they totally deny- but actions speak louder than words. More and more unarmed people are being killed by cops. This is not the America I grew up in.

    Reply
    1. Bodine666 January 18, 2014

      Cops have always killed unarmed people. It just wasn’t considered newsworthy before. Just as kids have always taken guns to school to shoot other kids with. That happened at my high school when I was in the 9th grade. I’m 60 now.

      1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

        Hey bodine…are you posting this stuff at your blog?

        Where you the shooter that did this in 9th grade?

        Which came first?
        The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
        Answer: The Gun.

        Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly and boosts the chances of lethal accidents.

  9. i2grok January 18, 2014

    Suicide by popcorn?

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

      go away

  10. daniel bostdorf January 18, 2014

    This is a classic “actual verses potential”logic question with an easy answer.

    Which came first—-the chicken or the egg?

    The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

    Which came first?
    The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.

    Answer: The Gun.

    Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly and
    boosts the chances of lethal accidents. Look through statistics compiled
    by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/robwaters/2012/07/24/gun-violence-the-public-health-issue-politicians-want-to-ignore/

    The Supreme Court recognized that this 2nd amendment right did not include all weapons. The Court recognized that many longstanding restrictions on gun ownership and brandishing remained constitutional…

    It’s time to explore more options, and there are many wise policies
    which would be perfectly constitutional to enact. Just last month, the Congressional Research Service published a guide to the state of play
    of current federal legislation and bills recently proposed. It’s worth a
    read. Former Justice John Paul Stevens, now retired, addressed the
    Brady Campaign in a speech he noted:

    While the post-decision commentary by historians and other
    scholars has reinforced my conviction that the Court’s decision to
    expand the coverage of the Second Amendment was incorrect, [] good
    things about the Court’s opinion merit special comment…. [T]he Court
    did not overrule Miller. Instead, it “read Miller to
    say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not
    typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as
    short-barreled shotguns.” On the preceding page of its opinion, the
    Court had made it clear that even though machine guns were useful in
    warfare in 1939, they were not among the types of weapons protected by
    the Second Amendment because the protected class of weapons was limited
    to those in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense. Even
    though a sawed-off shotgun or a machine gun might well be kept at home
    and be useful for self-defense, neither machine guns nor sawed-off
    shotguns satisfy the “common use” requirement.

    Thus, even as generously
    construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle
    to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of
    automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia,
    Colorado and Arizona in recent years.

    The failure of Congress to
    take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future
    cannot be blamed on the Court’s decision in Heller.

    Reply
  11. Harmiclir January 18, 2014

    The futility of criticizing the gun culture is almost as futile as this article, itself. The American gun culture will not be changed. The American people have decided that they are willing to accept vast numbers of people killed by guns in order to be “free” to own one.

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

      Hardly futile.

      You are semantically and factually incorrect when you state:
      “The American people have decided that they are willing to accept vast
      numbers of people killed by guns in order to be “free” to own one.”

      The majority of pollster clearly shows that the majority of Americans DO want controll of weapons of mass destruction ie assault rifles and ammunition magazine capacity.

      Your support of NRA and the propaganda that you posted above is self evident.

      Here:

      Poll: Americans still favor background checks, assault weapons ban, gun magazine capacity limits
      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/16/1202305/-Poll-Americans-still-favor-background-checks-assault-weapons-ban-gun-magazine-capacity-limits

      Here:

      Americans Want Stricter Gun Laws, Still Oppose Bans

      Support for strengthening gun sale laws has surged 15 percentage points since 2011
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspxThat is a start. And the dialogue will continue even after you pronounce it “futile.”

      here:

      60 percent of Americans want stricter gun laws

      http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/03/17572210-morning-joe-poll-60-percent-of-americans-want-stricter-gun-laws?lite

  12. yes2freespeach January 19, 2014

    guns don’t kill people, people kill people

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 19, 2014

      No guns do kill people…

      This is a classic “actual verses potential”logic question with an easy answer.

      Which came first—-the chicken or the egg?
      The chicken…gotta have the actual chicken to lay the potential egg.

      Which came first?
      The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
      Answer: The Gun.

  13. yes2freespeach January 20, 2014

    diversity is good

    Reply
  14. I Zheet M'Drawz January 20, 2014

    Then I guess the anti gun crowd would feel a lot better if killers threw a bucket of gasoline on their victims & lit them on fire.
    Would that make you feel better?
    Or maybe push the victim out of 10th floor window, will that work for you?
    If guns were registered, licensed & regulated at the Fed level these problems would become more manageable over time.

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 21, 2014

      Most of the “gun controll crowd” are talking about weapons of mass destruction like assault weapons, high round magazines etc….not licensed hand guns.

      This is factually incoorect and a mere opinion” “If guns were registered, licensed & regulated at the Fed level these problems would become more manageable over time.”

      Nonsense. Gunns are registered, licensed and regulated quite successfully at all levels government in clusing states.

      So what is yourreal point other than to rant.

      Most of the “gun controll crowd” here, after reading your troll rant essentually know that what you post is twaddle.lame throwing post next time? “I guess the anti gun crowd would feel a lot better if killers threw a
      bucket of gasoline on their victims & lit them on fire.
      Would that make you feel better?”

      How about a throughtful non flame throwing post next time..

    2. Faraday_Cat January 27, 2014

      What would make me feel better is if everyone would at the very least reach for a non-lethal “solution” first…what if this guy had pepper spray, or a stun gun, or even rubber bullets (not sure how feasible that would be on the weapon he used, but still)? Why was a bullet to the chest “necessary”, wouldn’t something else have worked but not killed the man?

  15. Tom Harvey January 20, 2014

    “Reeves could hardly be better trained in the use of firearm” It not training in shooting that needed it’s training in not shooting. How much of the training that we do is on making sure that the threat is real, on finding a less dangerous way to deal with a situation than shooting, on not panicking, on not hitting the wrong target in crowds or the dark or with fast moving situations. It takes 900 hours of schooling to train a welder, 5000 hours to train an airline pilot. No-one has the training to be safe with guns, so those who have them should have a good enough reason to accept being a danger to all around them.

    Reply
  16. leadvillexp January 20, 2014

    I find it ironic that none of the comments mentioned that the shooter was a retired police officer. They are allowed to carry to protect themselves from all the criminials that they have arrested in the past. The police know they can not protect their own retirees so they get to carry. Private citizens have to do much more to get that right. The police can not protect them either. The shooter had a mental problem and it was not addressed. While I am against most gun control because it is not logical, it is emotional, I am not against all. How about licensing all firearms owners and users. It could be done like HAZMAT is done on CDLs with a five year background check and put on the drivers licence. It would not affect the Second Amendment as you would not be registering weapons, only people. It would also set a level standard for all states and act the same way a drivers licence does.This way the people could be checked every five years. Also we need to do more with mental health.

    Reply
  17. joe schmo January 21, 2014

    Are you kidding me….People are more likely to kill you when you do not have a gun. The statistics show that. I can certainly include proof. Country’s against gun laws have more crime than Countries that have guns. Come on. It all has to do with the ideology of lax laws which lead to lawlessness. Criminals will still have guns, knives, baseball bats……… I need proof that these facts are wrong and I don’t think you will be able to do that….

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 21, 2014

      Logic does not support your statement. Real statistical facts from the FBI do not support your statement: “People are more likely to kill you when you do not have a gun. ”

      Nor does logic support your opinion:

      Which came first?
      The gun or the person using a gun to kill someone.
      Answer: The Gun.

      Here are the provable facts you requested:

      According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010
      47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.

      2013 stats here….go read them:

      http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2013/september/latest-crime-stats-released/latest-crime-stats-released

      and more stats here to read: Guns don’t cause violence but access to guns turns violence deadly and boosts the chances of lethal accidents. Look through statistics compiled by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/robwaters/2012/07/24/gun-violence-the-public-health-issue-politicians-want-to-ignore/

      The second amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to
      own guns (or any weapon) considered weapons of mass destruction like military assault rifles and gun clips with a hundred rounds of ammo….

      Tucker states it dead on:
      “Human beings have a limitless capacity
      for irrational acts, bizarre confrontations, moments of utter craziness —
      and that includes those of us who are usually mature, sane and rational
      beings. If we allow firearms everywhere, we simply increase the odds
      that one of those crazy moments will result in bloodshed.”

      PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO KILL WHEN THEY HAVE A GUN!

      1. joe schmo January 21, 2014

        The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of any citizen to own guns. If that were true then no American since its inception would have had a gun…..and even if you took away Military assault rifles and gun clips what would come next….the .22 then the BB gun. Come on let’s just take away more and more of our rights.. At the moment, your Massiah is taking away the rights on the Right. What happens when the Left starts taking away yours as well?

        A gun is just that an inanimate object. Yes, humans have a limitless capacity to use guns if they want, but if the laws are lax and criminals get away with crimes they are more apt to use a gun. Even if they had no gun they would still find other objects in which to maim, kill and injure.

        If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens, Criminals will still have them and how would you feel if someone came up to you with a gun, pointed it at you and you had no defense from that weapon. They are just as likely to wield a knife and put it to your throat what would you do then? Take away all knives. You see it is not the weapon be it a gun, knife, club, bomb that does the killing it is the mentality of the human doing that. Our country is way to distressed mentally to eliminate weapons. There is really no rational in your contradiction.

        Countries that have stringent laws against crime have less crime. Until that happens here….I won’t change my opinion. I don’t like the fact that I have to run around afraid for my life all the time.

        1. daniel bostdorf January 21, 2014

          Again….you are simply factually challenged. Go read the 2nd Amendment. As well as the crime statistics I posted that answers your questions as to the reality of gun violence.

          As far as your other false premised hyperbolic opinions….well–you have a right to express them even though they lead to false conclusions…

          it is Hyperbole…..hyperbolic….

          Definition of hyperbole?…. “exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally or seriously.

          As is one of your statements ( “At the moment, your Massiah is taking away the rights on the Right.
          What happens when the Left starts taking away yours as well? You need to watch out for what is to come. You have noooo clue….”) …. that is absurdly exaggerated…..

          as well as this gem: “You see it is not the weapon be it a gun, knife, club, bomb that does the killing it is the mentality of the human doing that. Our country is way to distressed mentally to eliminate weapons and I believe that is due to moral decay. There is really no rational in your contradiction….”

          Your post and replies does nothing to move
          this discussion forward.

          It is meant to lure or bait people and/or me into negative, disruptive rhetoric…and I won’t go there in response to you.

          Back to the articles purpose as stated…..

          Tucker states it dead on:

          “Human beings have a limitless capacity for irrational acts, bizarre confrontations, moments of utter craziness — and that includes those of us who are usually mature, sane and rational beings. If we allow firearms everywhere, we simply increase the odds that one of those crazy moments will result in bloodshed.”

          PEOPLE ARE MORE LIKELY TO KILL WHEN THEY HAVE A GUN!

          That is the premise of the article…

  18. chino49p January 21, 2014

    I am a gun owner since my teen years. I now have a concealed carry permit & sometimes do carry my 45. It is fact that while a gun can be used for self protection against an attack, it is also fact that many people who carry a gun are more likely to be emboldened to do things that actually cause an escalation of violence leading to them using that weapon when if they didn’t have that weapon they would have talked out the situation or done something else to end the situation without deadly violence.
    For too many people, carrying a deadly weapon only increases thier sense of bravado, and often increases thier own aggression which will escalate a confrontation into a dangerous situation which they then “solve” by pulling the trigger. its not good.
    Very few people actually use a gun to rescue themselves from a situation which they did not help to cause. Guns actually do more harm than good. Fact is that a person with a gun is much more likely to hurt someone–even a family member, than a person with a knife. People with guns kill people.

    Reply
    1. daniel bostdorf January 21, 2014

      agree

  19. lazerJets79 January 22, 2014

    In related video we find Hussein Obama referring to debt increases as “unpatriotic”: http://youtu.be/DyLmru6no4U?t=5s

    Reply
  20. thaddeusbuttmunchmd January 25, 2014

    even London in the UK, which is somewhat of an echo of America (and vice versa read your history book) has wayyy less of all violent crime especially murders even per capita. Australia France Canada there is NO comparison among first world nations to the US. That said we DO have a culture of violence one parent families and DRUGS. In the UK addicts can get drugs legally and THAT cuts wayy down on all the burgling mugging and car jackings.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

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