90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
The Future Of Gun Control

With Wade Goodwyn in for Tom Ashbrook.

Given that the country is awash with guns, is there even a debate to be had about gun control?

James E. Holmes, left, appears in Arapahoe County District Court, with defense attorney Tamara Brady, right, Monday, July 23, 2012, in Centennial, Colo. Holmes is being held on suspicion of first-degree murder, and could also face additional counts of aggravated assault and weapons violations stemming from a mass shooting on Friday, July 20, in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., that killed 12 and injured dozens of others. (AP)

James E. Holmes, left, appears in Arapahoe County District Court, with defense attorney Tamara Brady, right, Monday, July 23, 2012, in Centennial, Colo. Holmes is being held on suspicion of first-degree murder, and could also face additional counts of aggravated assault and weapons violations stemming from a mass shooting on Friday, July 20, in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., that killed 12 and injured dozens of others. (AP)

We don’t talk about gun control unless there’s a massacre. Until some desperately angry, unhappy or mentally ill young man walks into a high school or a university or a movie theatre and slaughters his peers. We don’t talk about it because it’s largely a decided issue: In the U.S., the right to bear arms is unassailable.

The power of the National Rifle Association is unmatched by any lobby — even the banks look on enviously. Is it even worth having a serious conversation about?

This hour, On Point: the hopeless politics of gun control.

-Wade Goodwyn

Guests

Craig Whitney, author of Living With Guns: A Liberal’s Case for the Second Amendment.

Dave Workman, director of communications for the Second Amendment Foundation.

Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its sister organization, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Glenn Rotkovich, owner of the Lead Valley Range, in Byers, Colorado.

From The Reading List

Washington Post “Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.” 

Newsday “Analysts say another thing appears clear: Even with 12 dead and 58 wounded, it’s unlikely the shooting will spur more national gun control — even a reinstatement of the ban on assault rifles that lapsed eight years ago.”

Huffington Post “It feels like I’m stating the obvious and beating a long-dead horse by saying that this country is long overdue for more stringent gun restrictions. The events of the theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado on Thursday night make this claim all the more legitimate.”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Hoo boy, we’ll be wading deep in this hour.

    This subject requires some measure of ability to understand numbers.  Incidents like the one in Aurora are rare, especially in comparison to the number of guns and gun owners in this country.

    This also requires a broader sense of logic.  Gasoline is legal and much less regulated, and as long as that’s the case, a person with the intelligence and insanity of the shooter can choose to make Molotov cocktails.  Anyone who can rent a moving van can ram into a crowd of people.  The list of possible means of causing lots of deaths and injuries is long.

    But in a free society, we have to accept the risk so good citizens–the vast majority of us–can enjoy the benefits that come from freedom.

    • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

      “Hoo boy, we’ll be wading deep in this hour.”

      Next hour too, I feel for Mr. Goodwyn.

    • nj_v2

      And there’s Mr. Camp opening the spigot.

      You want numbers? Here are some numbers:

      • U.S. ranks 12th in per capita firearm-related deaths behind such exemplary countries as South Africa, Columbia, El Salvador, Swaziland, Estonia and Mexico.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate)

      • 58: Murders per year by firearms in Britain
      8,775: Murders per year by firearms in the U.S.

      (http://www.juancole.com/2012/07/58-murders-a-year-by-firearms-in-britain-8775-in-us.html)

      • 90: Number of guns per 100 people in the U.S.

      (http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828)

      Hey, Mr. Camp. What’s a “free society”? One in which any psychopath can walk into any of the thousands of gun shows per year and buy semiautomatic weapons? What are the “benfits” of that “freedom?”

      Damn, i’ve had it with the gun nuts, the gun-nut lobby, the gutless politicians who kowtow to them, and the Nf-ingRA who is arguably the most dangerous domestic terror organization in the country. 

      Hmmm…let’s see…Gasoline can be used in a motor scooter or to make a bomb. A van can be used to transport the Boy Scouts or to ram a crowd of people. Semiautomatic weapons can be used to kill or injure vast numbers of people in minutes, or they can be used for some kind, gentle, beneficial, useful purpose.

      Hey Mr. Camp, why don’t you round out your bogus, false equivalency argument and tell us what that is won’t you?

      We’ll be waiting.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         You neglect to mention that a firearm can be used for self defense.  It can also be used for hunting–I wouldn’t have expected you to advocate food coming only from a plastic-wrapped container in a grocery store.

        But do tell us the benefits of a society that is led from the top down.  You’re all for the 99%, until we start talking about anything more powerful than a hand-painted sign, eh?

        • Don_B1

          The “gun-owners” are NOT “leading from  the bottom” either! 70% of NRA members have supported restrictions on sales at gun shows and even on the number of guns allowed to be purchased per month. Who really needs an AK-47 for “self-defense?” George Zimmerman?

          It is the Washington-based leadership of the NRA who set the agenda for no gun restrictions! Sounds like “top-down” leadership to me!

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             An AK-47 is a fully automatic carbine.  The semiautomatic version is legal to own, but it’s nothing exceptional.

            You bring up George Zimmerman, but that case has yet to be decided.  Let’s not convict the man before his trial.

        • nj_v2

          We’re not talking about “a firearm,” we’re talking about semiautomatic weapons which have no legitimate use in the general populace.

          Do you oppose banning these for general purchase?

          Do you oppose mandatory background checks for any weapons and ammo purchase?

          Or does that impinge on some sacred “freedom” of yours?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Do you mean the kind of firearm that is commonly used in hunting deer?  A lot of those are semiautomatic rifles.

          • nj_v2

            Libertarian cultist Mr Camp once again avoids answering simple questions.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             What question of yours am I avoiding?  Could it be that there have been a lot of comments?

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        You want numbers?  Good.  There are some 100,000,000 gun owners and at least 300,000,000 guns privately held in this country.  The total number of firearms deaths and injuries from all causes represents at most one tenth of one percent–0.001 of the total.  What that says to me is that the vast majority of us are reasonable and safe.

        You mentioned other countries. The UK’s homicide rate is one to two per hundred thousand, while ours is four per hundred thousand. Not a huge difference. The homicide rate of the Czech Republic is also around one per hundred thousand, despite that nation having gun laws much like our own. South Africa’s is thirty-five per hundred thousand, despite having gun laws as draconian as the UK’s. If you look at rates of violence in this country as compared to firearm ownership, there’s no correlation. The causes of violent crime are many and more complex than simply saying that people have access to guns.

        That being said, do we punish everyone for the actions of a tiny few?

        • Eric

          So Mr. Camp, do you just accept that these events are fated to happen and we can’t do anything about it. Columbine, Virginia Tech and Aurora are all just the price we pay for our freedoms. While I agree that we can’t take guns away, we can make them much more difficult to aquire.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             How?  There are hundreds of millions of privately held and unregistered firearms in this country.  We have long and porous borders.  Without violating many amendments of the Constitituion, how would you go about achieving what you advocate?

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HUHWX4TIAZRFNFYCWUE43OZDUQ 7LeagueBoots

        You should look at over all crime rates, not just the tiny portion that related to gun related deaths.  the UK and more than twice the crime rate of the US, despite the gun regulations.

        Switzerland, everyone is required to have an operational firearm, extremely low crime and gun related deaths.  Many of the US states follow similar trends as well (obviously not all).

        Numbers?  What about the number of automobile related fatalities in the US every year?  By your logic we should be banning cars, not guns, but no, that would be inconvenient.

        You have to deal with the people and what pushes them into acting the way they do, not going after an inanimate object.

        When you smack your thumb with a hammer it’s not the hammer’s fault, so don’t blame the hammer.

        • Don_B1

          Laws restricting the use and driver requirements abound in the use of cars; the First Amendment is not paramount in all situations (you cannot yell “Fire” in a crowded theater); so the Second Amendment has to be paramount in every situation? Even Justice Antonin Scalia does not think that.

  • Michiganjf

    Does it really matter what’s said?

    The gun lobby and NRA have brainwashed half the population into believing all the utterly useless, ultra-destructive crap the gun industry hocks is somehow symbolic of their “freedom,” beyond all common sense and reason.

    The pols are paid for and owned, or intimidated beyond integrity and intellect, and they, in turn, help to goad the gullible right into further furor over the sanctity of the asinine NRA argument.

    This country is just going to have to wait until similar slaughters have occured another dozen times, before people are finally convinced to scrape the crap out of their heads.

    Until then, break out the Uzi’s and those hundred round clips!

    • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

      “This country is just going to have to wait until similar slaughters have occured another dozen times, before people are finally convinced to scrape the crap out of their heads.”

      I know this is cynical but I fear that regardless of the number of times these tragedies occur most of us will never scrape the crap out of our heads where gun-control is concerned.

      • 1OldGunny1

        So you believe that criminals will obey new gun-control laws?  What planet are you from?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Or perhaps these incidents are actually rare, and making sweeping changes to the rights of all Americans is an overreaction.

      If it weren’t disturbing, I’d be amused at how “brainwashed” is the term for anyone’s beliefs on the other side of any political issue these days.  A great many of us have arrived at our positions through reason and good faith.  I presume that you have as well.  Can we operate on that basis?

      • Michiganjf

        Well, let’s see just how much you’re NOT brainwashed.

        What is your “rationale” for NEEDING to have the right to buy automatic weapons and 100 round clips?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           1.  Automatic?  I’d have to have a Class III NFA license to own a full-auto gun legally.

          2.  Clips are pieces of metal used to load a gun.  Magazines hold ammunition in the gun.

          3.  Since when does “need” have anything to do with a right?

          • Michiganjf

            Asinine.

            1. avoided the point all together… automatic weapons which are altered so as to be “legal” are easily altered back.

            2.I could care less about semantics… I’m no gun goon.
            Again, you answered nothing.

            3.There are plenty of things to which you don’t have a “right ” because they represent a potential public danger.

            Like I said… “BRAINWASHED” with no common sense or reason whatever!

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Actually, altering a firearm to be full-auto isn’t as easy as you think.  You may call things semantics, but words matter.  But try this question:  How far are you willing to give up your rights for the illusion of safety?

            If you’re going to call me brainwashed, please explain why you call anyone brainwashed who disagrees with you.

          • Michiganjf

            You didn’t “disagree” with me… in fact, you didn’t address a single point I made.

            …and words DO matter, but NOT the distraction of trying to say there’s some importance attached to me calling a magazine a “clip…” it simly means I’m not a gun goon.

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

             It means you are not as informed as you think you are.  You watch the news and regurgitate what you’ve heard.

          • Michiganjf

            Oh? Did I claim somewhere I know something about Goon jargon?

          • 1OldGunny1

            Gostickyour foolishheadbackinto the sandgollum.

          • 1OldGunny1

            ZING!!!

          • 1OldGunny1

            No it means that you are simply ignorant and trying to debate something in which you obviously know nothing about.

          • 1OldGunny1

            Your ignorance is only exceeded by your ignorance.   You have however inspired me to order still another firearm online son.  I have been wanting a Glock 357sig.  www.slickguns.com

        • 1OldGunny1

          Mr. Ignoramus.  First of all you are talking about magazines not “clips”.  Secondly who is talking about Class III fully automatic weapons here besides you? Those are highly controlled and have been since the days of Al Capone and I don’t see anybody talking about owning them.  Why is it that you liberals and anti’s are always so misinformed?

    • Don_B1

      Why don’t we just announce a contest to predict when the next gun-assault tragedy will occur? The winner could get to see the dead and count the wounds.

      Then all the people participating could feel that they contributed to the tragedy unlike just saying, “I’m so sorry!”

      And while they would be directly contributing, it would be little more than the way they contribute to it now, with the acceptance of these tragedies and “moving on.”

    • John in Amherst

       There
      must be a balance between the “right to bear arms” and the opportunity
      for the deranged to rain hell down upon innocent citizens.  In areas of
      the country where learning how to shoot is a right of passage (schools
      where I grew up made attendance optional on the first day of deer
      season), no amount of reason will totally dispel gun mythology.  But
      surely even the NRA draws a line somewhere – RPGs? artillery? WMDs? –
      and moving that line toward a more sane middle ground should be a goal
      for every politician and responsible citizen.
       
      There has got to
      be some mash-up of the REAL second ammendment, where the right to bear
      arms is tied to maintenance of a militia, and the imagined second
      amendment of the gun lobby, in which any curb on gun ownership is a plot
      by the totalitarian government to confiscate everyone’s weapons.  There
      must be a reasonable mean where the legitimate pursuits of hunting and
      self-defense balance against keeping the vast majority of the public
      safer from lunatics armed with weapons designed to kill as many humans
      in as short a time as possible.  And we must recognize several things: 
      That we will never get the genie of guns fully back in the bottle, that
      the truly crazy will always find ways to reek carnage, and that we will
      never get everyone on both extremes of the debate to accept that there
      is and must be a middle ground.  But this is a solid case of not letting
      the “perfect solution” be an enemy of the good.  This will be a
      protracted and rancorous process.

      Perhaps a two-tier system is in order, one in which sport hunters and
      homeowners bent on self-defense have access to guns and ammo relevant
      to routine hunting and self-protection with roughly today’s
      state-by-state gun regs, and those who insist on the right to own
      military style weapons can continue to do so, but only if they ARE part
      of a registered militia that requires some degree of organized
      participation in regular drills akin to the military reserves.  When
      members decide the militia is no longer for them, they forfeit the right
      to own military weapons.  And, come on, squealing gun nuts, you know
      AR-15′s and high capacity weapons are designed for war zones, not
      suburbs or weekend hunting trips.  And if you don’t know this, your
      right to bear arms should be stripped based on mental incompetence.

      There must also be more sanity in “right to carry” and “stand your
      ground” laws.  Colorado has fairly loose gun laws, but those who argue
      that it is tragic that more movie-goers in Aurora were not carrying –
      and ultimately using – loaded weapons in a dark, crowded and smokey
      theater are just plain wrong.  Can anyone really believe that more
      people literally shooting in the dark would have lowered the body
      count?  Or that having several people running around with guns drawn
      when te police showed up would not have lead to lethal confusion?  Or
      that being willing to draw and shoot on someone who is out of the
      ordinary would contribute to public safety?  (What if there had been
      just a person in costume pretending to be a villain as a promo stunt?)
      Or that we really want a larger percentage of the population walking
      around locked and loaded with itchy trigger fingers, waiting to open
      fire?    Yes, criminals will still access banned weapons.  But
      the fewer of these high-power killing devices are in circulation, the
      fewer and farther between will be the episodes of horror and carnage we
      now seem so desperate and powerless to prevent.

      • 1OldGunny1

        You obviously don’t know much about hunting if you think that AR’s are not suited for it. I have a AR15 in a .308 caliber and an AK47 in a 5.56 configuration that I hunt with all the time.  They are semi-automatics not select-fire assault rifles.  The very same actions as many other rifles.  

        There are over 300 million firearms in the hands of the American People.  And you cannot change that. 

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

          You must be a really lousy shot if you need those sorts of weapons.

    • Don_B1
    • 1OldGunny1

      You are highly ignorant son. And those are ‘magazines’ that you are talking about -not “clips”.  Get it right.

  • Santa Monica, CA

    please ban assault weapons.  people can still have handguns etc.  I emailed my congresspeople and representative.  please do so if you agree!~

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Perhaps you could offer a definition of an “assault weapon”?  Before you seek to ban something, it would be good to know of what you speak.

      • Eric

        As the message boards resident gun toter I would think you knew what an assault weapon is…

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          My point is that there is no real definition.  Various legislatures have tried at nonsense, but they can’t come up with a consistent definition that works–beyond listing features that are merely cosmetic.

  • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

    I’m going to apologize in advance for the crap that’s going to get thrown your way in both hours by all of us today Mr. Goodwyn. You did a brilliant job with both the Elliot Spitzer and Mary Kay shows and I regret that your second day at OP has to be these two topics. It’s going to get ugly, please bare with us and don’t let it discourage future opportunities to host the show. Thanks again for the great job Monday.

  • nj_v2

    He’ll be fine. If he can tolerate working in Texas, most anything else is a cakewalk.

    • nj_v2

      Dang Disqus! 

      This was supposed to be under Interloper’s [[ "Hoo boy, we'll be wading deep in this hour."Next hour too, I feel for Mr. Goodwyn. ]]

  • Wm. James from Missouri

    I would like to know the history of this accused shooter. At what point in this persons life did he begin to show signs of mental illness and if there was ever any meaningful intervention attempted that might have prevented this tragedy. Certainly there must have been a point in the “shooters” life that we would consider “normal”. How could someone with this type of mental illness manage to achieve the things he did, without being “marked” as candidate for mental illness ? It would be so easy to lead with a testosterone driven “eye for an eye” reaction or redirect the greater philosophical question of; “Why ? ” with; “ Well, we need to consider the founding fathers and the second amendment, don’t we ? “. Instead of asking about the future of gun control, just maybe, we should take that quantum intellectual leap and ask about the future of mind control ! That is, shouldn’t we seriously consider commanding our schools and institutions to tap into the knowledge that cognitive science can provide, so that we might prevent events of this sort from occurring in the first place ? Shouldn’t we ask our young people  direct questions about their emotions and ask them how they deal with their personal demons ? Shouldn’t we be giving ourselves a “checklist” of “how to deal with …, if such and such happens ? What mental tools might we find useful ? Might Transcendental Meditation work ? How about Mindful Meditation ? Might the discipline of Martial Arts ground us. Living drug free certainly helps. Are there nutritional supplements that will allow us to live without stress and its’ consequences ? Do we really have to “win” to be happy ? Is competition really as good as we have been told ? I think it was Einstein that said something like,‘ I try to make as many mistakes as I can, that way I know I am getting closer to the answer’ . He seemed to know how to turn losing into something to be cherished. Another tool ! Must we defer to our baser emotions, only to lead future generations to the sorrows of their time ?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       As long as I’m not compelled to meditate and as long as “mental health” isn’t imposed from above, I’m willing to hear out this solution.

    • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

      So much attention to “Why?”. Acts of senseless violence are just that: senseless. I’m for universal health care (mental health included) but you’re STILL going to wind up with wack-jobs who go off the deep end. You’re looking for sanity in the mind of the insane and I seriously doubt you’re going to find it. Bad people do bad things, the best we can hope to do is to encourage all that discourages their actions and try to cope with the repercussions when a tragedy like this happens. Maybe you can cure willful malicious intent, if so let me know because I want to do anything I can to help.

  • Canyon Haverfield

    Picture this…. You’ve worked a day shift, gone out for a drink and at midnight, an hour of the day when most healthy folks are considering turning in for some sleep.. you take in a a film, made especially for the dumbed down retarded American and low and behold there’s a guest appearance no one expected, and he’s taking the theatrical part that much of the American viewing audience thrive after.. the role of the macho gun wielding young man.. even with crazy red hair.. and he’s just boldly kicked in the theater door.. dislodged tear gas into the building and unleashing a clip of deadly over the counter lead into the darkened room of some 200 lost souls . Its the same crap most American’s demand of the movie industry.. but now its live and literally in their faces .
        Its not about their being too many gun’s . Its not about whether or not regulations need tweaking… it’s about one thing and one thing only… that most of America is deluded with concepts which are self defeating. We’re destroying our ocean, our air and our farms and forrest , our system of family and our entire infrastructure and all the while most of the US is more emotionally focused on their own self destruction .. be it with drugs,tobacco or booze .  Families no longer eat dinner together, or breakfast of lunch . They don’t go for weekend walks together or stay up late snuggling on the family lawn watching the amazing sky of stars… instead they avoid each other . Instead of opening their arms to each other.. they turn their back away untrustingly to their own neighbors. 
      In my opinion most of America is unfit for human existence at  a healthy level… this incident is a prime example . America you reap what you sow ! 

  • AC

    why would someone need (not want but need) weapons with such high capacity? the only thing i can think of is if i’m being chased by a grizzly or something similar (or if you are in the military/law enforcement)
    if i were supplementing my food supply, these types of guns would ruin the meat, wouldn’t they? it seems a rifle or bow/arrow would be much better…
    just looking for examples…..

    • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

      As far as the pissed off Grizzly is concerned, you’re only hope is going to be a large caliber rifle which will likely be single shot or at best have a five to seven round magazine. Chances of being able to line up an effective shot are going to be slim though unless you were hunting the bear to begin with.

      You’re right about the ridiculousness of semi-auto or converted full-auto weapons being beneficial for hunting. Unless of course you’re hunting mass numbers of people.

      The funniest thing to me is that those who rant and scream about their right to bare full-auto insanity do so because the unspoken refrain is: I need to protect myself from the Government. The majority of the people whose underlying belief that the biggest danger is Governmental over-reach consistently support legislation, politicians, policies, and military action which directly increases the odds of the Government coming knocking at their doors. Now that’s irony for ya.

      • AC

        hmmmm. although i agree, i can’t help but think they could make a case by simply pointing at Syria….
        i mean historically, might has made right – who is to guess how long the wait period would be before this type of paranoia becomes a legitimate need….if the military suddenly did arrive in my neighborhood, the only thing i could do about it is cry and obey…
        i don’t have a stance on this issue btw, only because i think it is a deeper issue than the face value. murder is not ‘new’ or solely american. by knife/poison/hanging….acid ‘kitchen’ accidents…
        taking out mass amounts of people is somehwat ‘new’, but where there are ‘no’ guns, people blow themselves up to take out a few. (or hand out blankets with small pox or whatever)
        i don’t know what to think, but it does seem stupid that no flags went up for law enforcement overseers.
         i mean, don’t they even track what people read? one show talks about our civil rights and privacy violations by these groups, others complain there’s not enough and it’s poorly done !!
        i’m in the middle, trying to figure it out…

        • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

          “i’m in the middle, trying to figure it out…”

          Me too and I’m afraid that’s really the best that any of us can do.

        • Don_B1

          The carnage in Syria will destroy the social fabric there and leave a “state” more unstable than exists now. Already, Christians are moving out of neighborhoods and Sunnis are also moving out of Alawite neighborhoods, etc.

          The Egyptian “revolution” was basically peaceful and while moving slowly with back and forth movements, has a much better prognosis for delivering real control to the majority of the Egyptian people.

  • http://grabida.com/ Doug in Virginia

    As with many debates over political issues, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Does the average American truly need an assault weapon, one that has:
    Detachable magazine? Not really an issue.
    Folding or telescoping stock? No big deal.
    Pistol grip? Again, no big deal.
    Forward grip? No matter.
    Barrel shroud. Keeps the shooter from burning oneself, but really only an issue if using sustained fire.
    Threaded barrel, i.e. accepts an extender or silencer? Very questionable.
    Put it all together, and we’re not talking about personal home safety unless you’re in Baghdad. And hardly a hunting rifle unless you’re getting attacked by a horde of ducks looking for retaliation.

    Ok, so we ban assault weapons. Phew! No more freaks killing innocent people, right? Wrong. A ban doesn’t make them unobtainable. The Holmes, McVeighs, Columbine shooters, and others will inflict carnage whether they obtain assault weapons, regular pistols, or whether they fashion homemade explosives.

    In my opinion, the Second Amendment is a flimsy basis for banning or allowing assault weapons, hunting weapons, or any personal weapons. The ironic part is the Conservatives who have been beating Second Amendment drum, decry the use of the Fourth Amendment to defend abortions. But, in law you have to find something to hang your hat on.

    Debating the ban is about as useful as asking whether violence in movies is cause. If movies were to blame, this would be a weekly occurrence across the nation and the world. A ban is hardly going to stop this kind of violence. As the old saying goes: Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

    • Don_B1

      But having a gun gives people the ability to kill more people than they would otherwise be able to do. Sure the Timothy McVeighs of this world will be able to commit atrocities, but they are much more rare than the type that do commit violence with guns.

  • Yar

    This is the wrong event to use as a reason for gun control.  Now a conversation on universal healthcare, maybe.  We tend focus on events where the body count and wounded are in one location.  I expect more people in the US were killed last week by the combination of cell phones and automobiles than by guns.  On a annual basis automobile related deaths are tops for teenagers.
    My rule and recommendation for my children was to be off the road before midnight.  
    This guy doesn’t deserve the media frenzy around his mental illness or moral depravity, whatever you want to call it.  We are not going to put full body scanners at movie theaters, even though the management would like to catch that candy bar you smuggled from home.
    We live in uncertain times, our youth are stressed about prospects of career, relationship, and even if climate change will make the planet deadly for their generation.
    Stress gets expressed in strange ways, for example a veteran of the recent wars is more likely to die in a motorcycle wreak than he was in combat.  Should we spend the hour talking about the dangers of motorcycles?

    • 1OldGunny1

      Statistics show that those recent Afghani and Iraqi combat veterans were considerably safer out there on the line then if they would have remained a civilian and stayed home.   

  • Chris B

    How many members of the NRA have actually read the Constitution?  How many are actually ABLE to read the Constitution?  How many are gun obsessed as overcompensation for their insecurity over their manhood and general competence?

    • 1OldGunny1

      Tired old libtard argument about penises.  EPIC FAIL.

  • GetReal

    There will be no gun control. The Senate is already bought and paid for. Why don’t we just admit that we have very little control our our government until big changes are made. 

    Yesterday the Senate turned down legislation that would have removed tax breaks that are given to businesses for off-shoring jobs. The legislation would have also given tax incentives to companies that keep jobs in the US. The legislation lost – voted down by out corporate majority Senate.

    The Senate has nothing to do with the average American. The major news outlets are propaganda machines for wealth and power.

    There will be no gun control.  

    • margbi

       FDR once said “he may be an S.O.B., , but he’s our S.O.B.” I believe this account for the NRA’s position.
      They have all the exits covered.

      • 1OldGunny1

        Firearms are our life-preservers.  Never give up your life-preserver!

    • 1OldGunny1

      Vote conservative or risk becoming an unarmed peasant…

  • Vasco DeGrabya

    300 million people + 250 million firearms + 3% rate of schizophrenia + shaky health care mechanisms + competitive culture short on delaying gratification = a mass killing in America every couple of years. 

    • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

      Point well made, but your stat on schizophrenia is off a bit… From wikipedia – ‘Schizophrenia affects around 0.3–0.7% of people at some point in their life’ I’ve seen other higher rates referenced on the web, but not 3%.

      • Vasco DeGrabya

        I’ll take your numbers, no problem.  My source may have been off or as “Dubya” might say, I mis-remebered.

        • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

          Decimal Placement will get ya every time. lol

  • Davidabromowitz

    If You Want to Talk Defense, Defend Us from Weapons of Mass Assault Right Here at Home
     

    In no time, Congressmen and candidates who like to talk tough on defense will let the Aurora slaughter slide into the background, and turn back to pushing Americans to pump up military spending…..

    ***

    So how is it that we can reasonably restrain our First Amendment rights to avoid the serious injury that might result from someone yelling fire in a crowded theater, but we won’t curtail the Second Amendment even enough to keep someone from opening fire in a crowded theater?

     

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-m-abromowitz/assault-weapons-gun-control_b_1696103.html

  • Brett

    I have more than a few friends who either collect and trade guns, hunt, or otherwise have some sense of security by owning guns. The people I know all seem like more than adequately responsible people who take their responsibilities seriously. I don’t want to see restrictions on what they do, albeit their hobbies are not my thing. When I was a teenager, I did use things like a 22 short-shot pistol and 410 shotgun for target practice and had fun, I’ll admit it. I don’t own guns now; I have no personal need. 

    As far as this incident in Colorado goes, nothing really can be gleaned or learned from this. Many people live their whole lives with mental illness and live them without the kind of harm to others that this young man has perpetrated. There is no way to truly determine which person will become unhinged and commit such an atrocity and which one will not. 

    My concern is how gun/weapon purchases/ownership are monitored. At what point when a person is stockpiling ammunition/guns does it/should it raise a red flag? What constitutes terrorist activity? How can the transaction of purchasing guns/ammunition transpire to accurately investigate a person’s background? If a person has had a mental health issue, should he/she be banned from the purchase of guns? How long of a waiting period would be reasonable when a person wants to purchase a gun? What sort of training/testing should a person undergo before being able to purchase a gun? Should there be a national database of gun/ammo transactions for monitoring purposes? If so, where is the demarcation line that delineates when someone has crossed that line? How should society respond to that line being crossed? At what point would this sort of monitoring impose too much on responsible people? These are some of the questions for which I would like to hear reasonable answers. 

    • 1OldGunny1

      How would you like a waiting period before you could post your comments son?

  • Gregg

    What a shame it was that no one in the theater was armed.

    • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

      Don’t I recall you saying in the past you don’t own a gun?

      You know just as well as I do that the most likely result would have been more deaths, not less. Some one in the theater WAS armed and that was problem.

      • Ray in VT

        One of my best friends and I went to see Dark Knight Rises last night, and we were talking about this.  Having more people drawing in a smoke filled, chaotic theater seems to be a recipe for more fatalities.  If some guy two rows down from me draws and fires, and I have my piece with me, then who do I attempt to take down?  Why, the guy with the gun.

        • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

          It’s a perfect solution if everyone in the theater is wearing full body armor. Guess we should all get to work purchasing our suits of armor so that we can enjoy our right to bare arms in public. Some people (thankfully you’re not one of them) take the cake and eat it too.

    • jefe68

      That would have made things worse.
      Could you imagine one or more people shooting, out of fear, with little or no training to deal with this kind of situation. The theater is dark, the shooter has let off smoke bombs and he was wearing body armor.

      So lets see, people start shooting at what? Each other because of the confusion of what was going on.

      That’s not the smartest solution, I’m being polite.

      • Brett

        jefe, your imposing too much common sense!

        • Gregg

          Evidently common sense is in short supply. It seems there are theaters packed with people who if armed would all start killing each other.

          • Brett

            You’ve done nothing but build a straw man, there, Gregg. 

          • Don_B1

            That is Gregg’s most common contribution to these discussions.

          • Gregg

            No, that was Jeffe.

          • BHA in Vermont

             Yep.

            How do all the ‘citizen militia’ people there to watch the movie know that there was only 1 criminal and all the other gunfire is from potential victims protecting themselves and others? You might see the muzzle flash but you won’t know the target of that particualr gun. Especially in a smoke filled room.

            How many people not in the “current” line of fire of the shooter but between the shooter and one of the many guns higher up would be shot while trying to escape just because they stood up at the wrong time?

            Want to get shot? Be one of the people shooting at a crime scene. There isn’t a “white hat / black hat” uniform here.

      • Gregg

        I suppose anyone who automatically assumes a permitted gun carrier would have “little or no training” and would just start randomly shooting would also advocate people be sitting ducks. That’s smart.

        We have the model:

        http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859#.UA6aT5HbQ4I

      • Hidan

         Jeffe you forgot who your dealing with. Smartest solution has never been his thing.

    • lodger

      It’s doubtful that would have been of much benefit. There was tear gas and general panic.  The ‘heroic citizen sharpshooter’ idea is a distraction.  

      I cannot understand why there is any objection to a ban on assault weapons.  They are designed to massacre.  Not to hunt food, or protect your home/family, they are designed to mow down groups of people, quickly.

      The casualties would not have been as high had this lunatic not had access to assault weapons. 

    • margbi

       When Gabby Gifford was shot, the first policeman on the scene did not display his gun, thinking (correctly) that people might mistake him for another gunman. Do you really want a free-for-all in a crowded venue when nobody really knows who are the bad guys?

      • Nutricj

        I am not entirely agreeing with Gregg post, but to your example I would say to consider defending the crowd and that If (giant if) I were in this situation and had a moment and a weapon I would have shot at him (Holmes) and taken/drawn the bullets from law enforcement to the shooter and myself. Also, remember, if he is taking fire, he will either shoot back at the other gun (which saves others from being shot at or he would take cover himself (again stopping him from injuring other victims) or he would be shot and suffering (again helping others to get away). Yes I am trained, have excellent night vision, expert marksman, prior law enforcement and military trained. I do not carry or own weapons these days. But, IF I could have saved even one life by drawing the fire to myself I would have. That is what peacekeepers are trained for. The police officers that did nab Holmes recognized small inaccuracies in his gear which gave them the opportunity to arrest. I think of the brave victims that died or received injury in the theater using only their bodies, and for several, their training to shield their loved ones from death. I wish a cop had been sitting there with a weapon watching the film.

    • Vasco DeGrabya

      Yeah, crossfire injuries would have been beneficial. 

    • Chris B

       Yeah, I bet you would have shown ‘em!

    • Brett

      There were armed individuals at the Gifford shooting…didn’t help much there.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    A license and training is required to operate a car, but not a gun in most states. This is a sad state of affairs: hundreds dead over the years by actions by crazy people like this is not enough; what will be to force Congress to act?

    • Grace

      Cars still kill 3 times as many people as gun homicides though..

      • Brett

        Cars are not intended to kill. Guns are intended to kill or harm…bad comparison.

        • Nitricj

          There are countless cases of intentional vehicular deadly assault and the vehicle can be an “easy to get” deadly weapon. Same as my chefs knives. Humans make weapons and have for all time.

          • Brett

            The purpose of cars being manufactured is not to kill, it’s for transportation. Again, not a good comparison.

          • Nutricj

            And repeat repeat repeat is not a good argument tactic

            I don’t believe the intention of manufacture has anything to do with the second amendment or acts of violence or mentally Ill people performing horrific crimes.

            I am not going to promote bad ideas here with a laundry list- but there are many other ways a psycho will perpetrate his crimes. He didn’t need a gun/s. A crazy person on this sort of disgusting, terrible mission will find a way. Focussing on the weapon misses the much bigger picture, in my view. And the media succeeds at distracting us from the real problem: a person set out to murder an inestimable number of innocent people. We are talking about gun control instead of mental illness, societal problem control.

          • Brett

            The ways in which people use automobiles are tightly regulated, and violations have consequences, since you persist in making that comparison.

  • Brett

    A video of Holmes from when he was 18 and at some science camp surfaced yesterday. I have worked in the mental health field for well over thirty years, and I’d say he was having trouble even back then. Like the young man who shot Gifford in Arizona, there seem to be clear signs of trouble that have been around for a while (in both cases). Holmes’s mother was very telling when she was first contacted. It is sad that no one decided to encroach enough on these individuals’ lives to help them get at some of their problems. In a free society, however,  we wouldn’t want to take away their rights to privacy, or even unchecked illness, in an effort to mark them potentially dangerous. 

    I also feel that all human beings, even if mentally unstable, need to accept responsibility for their actions. It may very well just be semantics, but I never have liked the term, “not guilty by reason of insanity.” I would prefer, “guilty by reason of insanity.” And make no mistake, spending one’s life in a hospital, on a ward for the criminally insane, is as severe as prison. I just am not comfortable with the part where they get better and are deemed suitable for re-entry into unsupervised society. James Holmes, for example, should never be in the general population of society ever again. I am also against the death penalty, no matter how much my emotions would like to say otherwise. 

    • Don_B1

      With the current status of neuropathology, your position on releasing people like James Holmes is certainly reasonable. But with fMRIs and other abilities to understand what is going on in our brains, this might not be true in the future.

      • Brett

        Don, you touch on an interesting point. 

        Given that much of the efficacy of medication is hit or miss, and as much as psychiatrists pretend to understand what is going on neurologically in a patient with classic mental illness, we can’t reduce mental wellness to a proper balance of serotonin, dopamine, norepinephrine, or any other neurotransmitter. This indicates there is a whole host of things going on in the brain of someone who is mentally ill. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts in this realm, for sure. Additionally, there are so many stimuli triggers in our society that a psychiatric team would need technologies akin to a crystal ball in determining any guarantees of violence not returning. Your MRI ideas of perhaps what might afford us more insight in the future, as interesting to me as they are, is in the future. I’m also not completely convinced such ways will yield enough insight to determine who is and who isn’t going to be inclined to “decompensate,” as they say, after receiving treatment over time and being given less supervision after a demonstratively consistent display of wellness. I’ve worked with so many people who’ve become stable for long periods of time; however, when their supports are reduced, they backslide. There is also a bit of a chicken and egg quandary surrounding the etiology of mental illness in terms of neurological basis. Given the nature of Holmes’s actions, for example, it would be too much of a risk to let him go out unsupervised or be left to his own devices to follow a medication administration schedule, and so on, even after years of treatment, no matter how stable he might become.As much as I’m an advocate of and for people with mental health issues, I also think society should have some assurances of protection from people who’ve displayed violence on the scale of a James Holmes. Call it overprotection, call it a punitive component, each of which seem just and prudent considering the crime. 

        • Brett

          Sorry, Don, but for some reason DISQUS didn’t print the line breaks.

  • jefe68

    One would hope that reason and common sense would prevail in this country over what the 2nd Amendment can and cannot be used for.

    One would think that the need for all that ammunition could be justified, but a special clip that turns the AR 15 into a kind of machine gun is not something I think people need.
    Also there was a ban on assault rifles for years and people who wanted to collect guns did so without having their toys taken away. 

    • Brett

      I agree. Also, didn’t that ban expire in 2004?

      • http://twitter.com/Interloping101 Interloper

        Yep. And there is zero political will to reinstate it on both sides of the aisle.

    • Sandy Untermyer

      “Never miss a great opportunity to shut up.” JR Ewing on Dallas. Yes, we see your point. Only, it’s not very sharp. It’s not even sharp enough to be a point, really….

    • 1OldGunny1

      “Clips” don’t turn AR15′s into machine guns. Where do you get this from?  Comic books?   And they are MAGAZINES not clips and they don’t do that either.   

      And all the ban on those supposed “Assault rifles” did was keep high-capacity magazines from being sold *with* the weapon (nothing to stop folks from placing pre-ban mags into them or even purchasing those) plus ban those deadly and dreaded sling-swivels, threaded barrels and pistol-grips.  In other words the postban firearms were born without those. Wow! Boy was that life-changing.   

      All-in-all the “assault” weapons ban was much ado about nothing. It accomplished nothing except raise the price of firearms and cause more people to buy and even stockpile them.  It was merely feel good sugar pill legislation for the ignorant and the liberals.  Which one are you?  

      • jefe68

        I’m the kind of person who thinks people who are obsessed about guns, such as yourself, are the ones who are messed up. I don’t need a gun unless I want to go deer or duck hunting. If I wanted to protect my home I would buy a shotgun.

        Anyone who buys and uses assault weapons is really kind of out to lunch in my view. Maybe your manhood is not up to much or maybe there is some other kind of male thing going on to make people obsess on guns such as AR15′s.
        It’s a little boy thing, shooting at a target with a big gun.
        As to the criminal not abiding to the gun laws, well they are criminals and one would the very nature of being one kind of means that they don’t much care for the laws full stop. That argument is really dumb, really.

        • 1OldGunny1

          Obsessed? I am a retired 30-year veteran of the Marine Corps and I was an armorer son. Get it? Not obsessed. Firearms were my life (and that of others). I have a shotgun that I keep in my bedroom too btw.

          I don’t own any “assault weapons”. But I do hunt feral hogs with an AK47 in a .308 configuration. Do you have a problem with that? Hogs cause massive damage to the environment and my ranch.

          I don’t obsess with AR15′s either. I only own one.

          You really are one very ignorant fellow. Why do you care if folks enjoy shooting at targets or hunting? You liberals are all alike. You just love to try to micromanage every one else’s lives because you can’t think outside the box and/or realize that everybody is different. But yet you and your ilk often try to claim that conservatives don’t respect diversity. Go figure?

          Bumpersticker: It’s not the guns it’s the criminals.STUPID.

  • Brett

    Of course, the 24-7 news cycle has turned this into a circus of contentious speculation and pseudo-science. Both sides of the debate can get pretty ridiculous. Yesterday, I heard someone, presumably a gun rights advocate/Second Amendment protector, talk about our citizenry needing to be as well armed as the military/government/police. 

    On that note, I want a nuclear missile silo in my backyard! It’s my right! God and our founders say so! 

    [sarcasm]

  • Hidan

    I agree with Yar’s earlier comment that nows not the time for talk of gun control.

    As for Micheal Bloomberg’s comment the guys an authoritarian toolbag. I rather Onpoint focus on all the Health Care cost that the survivors will occur from our broken system

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HUHWX4TIAZRFNFYCWUE43OZDUQ 7LeagueBoots

    We need to address the reasons WHY PEOPLE do bad things to each other, rather than attempt to shift the blame onto an inanimate object.

    Firearms are low-hanging fruit, easy to gain political capital from on either side of the aisle.  The debate over them is about political power, not how many people are killed.  If it was they’d be advocating banning automobiles, but that would be political suicide, so it’s not done.

    If firearms are banned we still wouldn’t have addressed any of the issues leading people to behave the way they do and no closer to actually solving any problems.

    • Gary Trees

      I blame a damaged amydala.

    • Don_B1

      But the country does not need to provide the weapon for those with mental problems without some kind of checks.

      • 1OldGunny1

        All federally licensed dealers must perform a NICS background check run by the FBI before sales of any handgun or long gun to John Q. Public.   

  • Vasco DeGrabya

    If you’ve ever done any reading on the subject of schizophrenia, you get the sense that it is really poorly understood.  Many perpetrators of crimes like this do not survive the event.  Hopefully Mr Holmes can provide some useful information during his incarceration.

  • Carl

    The Federalist Papers (#28, 29, & 46) written by Hamilton & Madison, clearly supported the idea of state militias being able to resist any federal tyranny, should it arise.
    As you know, having had Mr. Glenn Greenwald on in the past, there is a serious question of federal authority overruling Constitutional rights.
    We now have a government that can indefinitely detain citizens (Bush wanted citizens to go to Guantanamo, while Obama signed the NDAA 2012 act), the targeted assassination of US citizens without due process (see: Anwar al-Awlaki, his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan), the shipping of our National Guard to serve as an occupying army overseas and the general federalization of the Guard despite state protest (see Perpich vs DoD & the attempt in the John Warner NDAA of 2007).
     - in light of all that, there is at least, room to argue, that there should be some way of arming the populace so that it may more evenly match any federal army. Does that mean individuals should have access to nuclear weapons, obviously not. Only that the matter is frustratingly full of grey areas that suggest a simple ban might not be the best option.

  • Eric

    Nothing will be done, now or in the future. We must accept these tragic shootings as a part of life and expect that they will happen regularly.

  • Sandy Untermyer

    No, I’m not an NRA member, and I oppose their efforts, generally. However, I don’t accept that having guns around in the quantity we do is all that unsafe. 

    Our rate for auto deaths, per automobile, FAR exceeds the rate for gun murders, whether NPR is  counting per gun or per gun owner. Look around — we have 5 out of 6 Americans (80%) owning cars, compared with about 9 guns for every 10 adults (90%). Even so, we get only 13,000 gun homicides per year, total. Which compares, incidentally, to about 16,000 murdered by knives.

    Sure, there’s another 650 accidental deaths. But even if we compare our annual 13,650 gun deaths to the carnage wreaked by that 80% of our population using their automobiles — accounting for roughly 34,000 deaths per year — it’s not even close!! 

    In fact, it’s not even close counting all our gun murders AND all our knife murders — combined!!

    If you want a real killer, try American hospitals: Our hospitals do in about 60,000 of us a year, by accident. That’s about twice as many of us as were killed in Vietnam on purpose by the enemy over a period of nearly two decades. 

    Or, how about obesity? Nearly two out of every three Americans are either overweight or obese, and one out of every eight deaths in America – that’s 300,000 deaths every year — is attributable to illness directly related to obesity.

    That compares to 12 dead, so far, in the Aurora CO. Including the ones killed by gas as well as guns. 

    _______________

    Well, almost 160,000 Americans are injured by toilets every year. That’s right, toilets. More are killed by toilets than by sharks. Do we want to ban toilets now?

    ____________

    Which is NOT to say I’m not disgusted by the very real travesty now taking place in Aurora CO. Because I certainly am. Since I blame news vultures for inspiring such mass murders in the first place, as well as for the public pressure to continue them for our entertainment.

    Y’know, not many of us are aware that Jack the Ripper began our modern serial-killer game. But he did. Before him, killing was confined to motives like greed, jealousy, fear, love, and hate, and mass killings were confined to war, rebellion, or acts of piracy. It had gone on that way for thousands of years. Now, it’s all about publicity. 

    Because Jack needed the London crime reporters just as much as they needed him. He sold their papers, so they gave him the publicity he craved. 

    And ever since Jack the Ripper, mass murderers and serial killers have flourished. Along with the media frenzy, including NPR now,  that’s created our need for serial killers and mass murderers in the first place.

    ___________

    Millions of children are starving to death right now. Another hundred died violently yesterday in Syria. So what’s the big deal over the 12 dead in Aurora last weekend? What’s On Point really going on about here?

    Oh, the GUN, of course. Now we understand, now we get it!! A GUN!! It’s GUNS, and their use in all these recent mass shootings. 

    Well, pardon me if I’m not all that impressed. Hey, it wasn’t just guns that made possible those ugly Aurora CO events, the guy used poison gas, too. Also, fireworks and gasoline. 

    Which of those might somebody want to ban?

    __________

    Here’s what REALLY killed those people and here’s who NPR can blame: First, NPR’s listeners — for becoming avid consumers of our pornography of violence. If it bleeds, it leads. On local news or NPR. 

    Face it, we ourselves, your listeners, make the market for the gore we want. Even worse, as citizens we own the bandwidth NPR uses. Do we ever complain to the FCC?

    Next, our media, including NPR, but also MS/NBC, ABC, CNN, Fox News, etc., etc.,for selling us the suffering and blood of our fellow citizens just to make a buck from advertising sales. 

    Well, I hope you guys think the Miller Lite and the Hondas — or, in NPR’s case, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Gates Foundation –that’s been paying for this bloody orgy over the past few days have been worth it. 

    Face it, if MS/NBC couldn’t make a dime off this spectacle, Brian Williams wouldn’t be be paid tens of millions to show up on our HDTV screens in Aurora. Thereby causing distorted little twerps with twisted little minds to be inspired to perform future hateful acts for our amusement, while we watch from the couch.

    __________

    In the end, On Point can EITHER continue to encourage the next crazy to act out sometime in the future by continuing to blame a machine that’s less murderous than the knife we used to cut our bread this morning and our steaks last night…

    … OR… 

    … else not.

    (Mr.) Sandy Untermyer (un-ter-MY-er)
    Appling GA

    • Gary Trees

      TL;DR

      Car accidents != Vehicular homicide

    • nj_v2

      Unwrapping this ramble, Mr. UnterMYer’s points seem to be that 1) accidental deaths resulting from misuse of common items (cars) and mistakes (hospitals) are somehow equivalent to deliberate acts of violence using powerful weapons, whose only purpose is inflicting harm, and 2) acts of violence aren’t worthy news items.

    • Don_B1

      Automobiles are used on a nearly daily basis; guns are NOT.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

    Being able to possess the means to self-defense is a basic human right. Period. All utilitarian arguments about gun ownership vs. violent crime aside, this is at its core a moral issue about human rights because, as we’ve seen, when seconds matter the police are only minutes away.

    • Gary Trees

      But then, where does it stop Kyle? Should you own an uzi for self defense from the criminals in your city?  But then they can own one too.  Never forget to bring your uzi to the uzi fight.  That would be a terrible mistake.

      But then how can you be defended from those who you can’t see because they are plotting against you from Bahrain (You know those people in Bahrain are plotting against YOU, right?) You now need an ICBM.  ICBM’S FOR EVERYONE!

      • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

        Your straw man is a little wet. I think most people are happy to leave defense against invasion up to the government (although I’m not quite sure why they put so much faith in a government that regularly invades countries that pose no threat to the US…) Personal firearms suitable for self-defense, including rifles, shotguns, and handguns, are clearly what I am talking about.

        Note I also make no appeal to the 2nd amendment. The Constitution is toilet paper nowadays, and gun rights advocates would do well to internalize that message.

        • Gary Trees

          Fair enough.  I did enjoy typing that though…just absurd.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         If you can tell me how a private citizen can use a nuclear weapon legitimately and safely, I’ll support your idea.  Guns are not nukes.  We can use them in appropriate ways.

  • corb

    Restricting access to weapons IS a form of self-defense.  How did this guy get hand grenades, and an automatic weapon and “Homeland security” doesn’t blink.

    • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      No, it isn’t: it’s security theater, like patting down grandmas and children at airports. Everyone wants to think gun control works, but the reality is it doesn’t, as is evident from the mass shootings that occur in countries with strict gun laws.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=513409898 Ethan Rogati

    “Given that the country is awash with guns”? That’s not a given. 

    • pslong9

      This is from 2007, but a study reported that there are 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US.

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/28/us-world-firearms-idUSL2834893820070828 

      • BHA in Vermont

         Especially considering about 60% of households own ZERO guns.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=513409898 Ethan Rogati

        Certain parts of the country have a lot of guns, other parts have very few. The stat is accurate, but is used improperly here. There are enough guns in the United States for almost every citizen to have one. However, the number of citizens who actually DO is not 90%. I stand by my post.

  • Mike in PA

    Well said Ethan.  Nonetheless, come on Congress!  Even as a pro-2nd Amendment person, I do not see why we can’t put our heads together and develop stricter mandated reporter policies for gun dealers, gun shows, and gun clubs.  It would not have required much for the those internet dealers to say, “Hey Homeland, we’ve got a guy purchasing a ton of ammo, go and check up on him.”  We also have the right to walk down the street everyday, but the police also have the right to stop and talk to us. 

  • vito33

    “Given that the country is awash with guns…”, the reality is that anyone who wants a gun can get one, and that’s not going to change no matter how many draconian purchase laws are passed. (And you’re never going to stop a madman no matter what you do.)

    But draconian PENALTIES for gun crimes could help:

    Found with an illegal gun – 25 years, no parole.
    Found ‘concealed-carrying’ without a license – 30 years, no parole.
    In possession of a gun while committing a crime – Life, no parole.

    (Since nearly 70% of the prison population right now are non-violent offenders, we could easily make room for these folks.)

    In six months there would be a dramatic dip in gun violence.

     

  • Denis

    It seems that, as in the time of the ancient Greeks, once the contents of Pandora’s Box are out of the box you cannot put them back. We need to learn new ways to combat many of our social issues.

  • pslong9

    Our gun homicide rate is 2.84 per 100,000 citizens.  Other modern countries like Canada, the UK, and Germany are below 0.25 gun deaths per 100,000 citizens.  Clearly we’re doing something wrong.  

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Clearly, you need to look at those numbers again.  They’re not that different.  If guns are the problem, our rate should be far higher, since we have a lot more guns.

      • pslong9

        They have 91% fewer gun deaths per 100,000 citizens.  That’s “not that different”?  Really?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           The point is that our homicide rates are about the same, while our gun ownership rates are wildly different.  That suggests that guns aren’t the problem.

          • pslong9

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
            US: 4.8 per 100,000
            Canada: 1.8 per 100,000
            UK: 1.23 per 100,000
            Germany: 0.81 per 100,000

            If you have proof that supports your point, I’d like to see it.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Compare South Africa.  That country has strict gun laws, and yet their murder rate is 35 per 100,000.  Apparently, guns aren’t the cause.

  • Hopeglory

    Abolish the second amendemendment! It’s that simple!

    • http://www.facebook.com/kyle.rose Kyle Rose

      Yes, make it clear that one of the freedoms in the Bill of Rights must be abolished on the road to utopia. Not sure how successful that approach will be politically, but at least it’s honest.

    • Steve_T

       If you rule out one you open the door and it wont close until there all gone.

      Be very careful what you wish for, you may get more than you want.

      When it comes to liberties and freedoms, we never give them away we fight for them!

  • John in Amherst

    There must be a balance between the “right to bear arms” and the opportunity for the deranged to rain hell down upon innocent citizens.  In areas of the country where learning how to shoot is a right of passage (schools where I grew up made attendance optional on the first day of deer season), no amount of reason will totally dispel gun mythology.  But surely even the NRA draws a line somewhere – RPGs? artillery? WMDs? – and moving that line toward a more sane middle ground should be a goal for every politician and responsible citizen.
     
    There has got to be some mash-up of the REAL second ammendment, where the right to bear arms is tied to maintenance of a militia, and the imagined second amendment of the gun lobby, in which any curb on gun ownership is a plot by the totalitarian government to confiscate everyone’s weapons.  There must be a reasonable mean where the legitimate pursuits of hunting and self-defense balance against keeping the vast majority of the public safer from lunatics armed with weapons designed to kill as many humans in as short a time as possible.  And we must recognize several things:  That we will never get the genie of guns fully back in the bottle, that the truly crazy will always find ways to reek carnage, and that we will never get everyone on both extremes of the debate to accept that there is and must be a middle ground.  But this is a solid case of not letting the “perfect solution” be an enemy of the good.  This will be a protracted and rancorous process.

    Perhaps a two-tier system is in order, one in which sport hunters and homeowners bent on self-defense have access to guns and ammo relevant to routine hunting and self-protection with roughly today’s state-by-state gun regs, and those who insist on the right to own military style weapons can continue to do so, but only if they ARE part of a registered militia that requires some degree of organized participation in regular drills akin to the military reserves.  When members decide the militia is no longer for them, they forfeit the right to own military weapons.  And, come on, squealing gun nuts, you know AR-15′s and high capacity weapons are designed for war zones, not suburbs or weekend hunting trips.  And if you don’t know this, your right to bear arms should be stripped based on mental incompetence.

    There must also be more sanity in “right to carry” and “stand your ground” laws.  Colorado has fairly loose gun laws, but those who argue that it is tragic that more movie-goers in Aurora were not carrying – and ultimately using – loaded weapons in a dark, crowded and smokey theater are just plain wrong.  Can anyone really believe that more people literally shooting in the dark would have lowered the body count?  Or that having several people running around with guns drawn when te police showed up would not have lead to lethal confusion?  Or that being willing to draw and shoot on someone who is out of the ordinary would contribute to public safety?  (What if there had been just a person in costume pretending to be a villain as a promo stunt?) Or that we really want a larger percentage of the population walking around locked and loaded with itchy trigger fingers, waiting to open fire? 
     
    Yes, criminals will still access banned weapons.  But the fewer of these high-power killing devices are in circulation, the fewer and farther between will be the episodes of horror and carnage we now seem so desperate and powerless to prevent.

    • Greyman

      “There must be a reasonable mean . . .”: nice intro. But then, you lurch into the irrational with the putative act of balancing “legitimate pursuits of hunting and self-defense” with “keeping the vast majority of the public safe(r) . . .”– do you REALLY think that the vast majority of the American public is daily threatened by outbreaks from armed lunatics? Most deaths in the US implicating firearms are suicides, not homicides. Automobiles kill almost three times as many Americans annually as die from gun violence (meaning: guns used in homicides). Where else will “reason” take your argumentation? Why, in other words, is the status quo NOT the “reasonable mean” you claim fidelity to? The status quo may well in fact be the “reasonable mean” you purport to subscribe to.  

      • John in Amherst

         Do you rally believe the vast majority of Americans ever truly face situations in which pulling a gun of any sort is helpful?  What are the stats of people who have successfully gunned down a threatening criminal, and how do those numbers stack up against the accidental shootings, suicides by firearms, and murders committed because guns are so ubiquitous?  Even more rare are cases where a simple 6 or 10 shot hand gun or shotgun would not deter the potential criminal(s).  People who own high capacity military style weapons are living in a paranoid fantasy, and yet politicians coddle them because they are backed by the NRA.  Enough of the bull, already. 

        • Greyman

          Good
          luck finding reliable statistics: I doubt you’ll find any reliable source that
          breaks down by “type of firearm”. I do not refrain from guessing,
          however, that the total number of annual fatalities (intentional and accidental
          both) resulting from use of a gun with a high-capacity magazine is not
          stratospherically high, either (certainly, such weapons would not seem likely choices
          in cases of suicide, which again outnumber homicides by firearm on the order of
          3:2). Granted, few people “need” weapons with high-capacity magazines, but
          then, no one “needs” a Maserati, Porsche, or Lamborghini: the motive for
          acquisition quite likely has little to do with paranoia (btw: I cite you here
          for engaging in “DSM politics”, ascribing mental aberration or emotional
          maladaptation to persons who simply espouse contrary or contradictory political
          views without your having any rational basis for such ascription).

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    Gun violence is a hallmark of US culture – as American as apple pie and Mom. Why would anyone want to change that?

  • pslong9

    And for those who are saying now is not the time, when is the time?  After Columbine (13 dead, 21 injured)?  After a gunman in Mississippi opened fire in a factory (6 dead, 8 injured)?  After the Virginia Tech shootings (32 dead, 17 injured)?  After a gunman in Nebraska opened fire in a mall (8 dead, 4 injured)?  After any of the other numerous incidents of shootings with multiple people killed?  There are lots of those incidents.  Are we not allowed to ever talk about it?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman
  • Nancylee B

    The very fact that a “lay” person seeks to own such a killing device as an assault rifle is evidence enough that they should not have one. These are military weapons designed for war – which is a shame enough.  The reasoning of owning firearms for hunting or protection does not apply here.  It boils down to money- the arms manufactures make money selling these.  They have blood on their hands – and so do the politicians who do not press for making these guns more difficult/impossible to own.

  • John C

    Most gun owners do not own a single gun, we own multiple weapons for different purposes.  A .22 for plinking, a shotgun for hunting/home defense.  Maybe a high power rifle for hunting, and a pistol for personal defense.  It’s not inconceivable that there are more than 400 million firearms (functional) in the US today.

    It is a horrible tragedy that this theater massacre happened.  Do you suppose a responsible, carrying gun owner would have changed the end result?

  • BHA in Vermont

    I continually fail to understand WHY the NRA has such pull. They are a SMALL voting block with a NARROW scope (no pun intended).

    Politicians should ignore them when they are told by the NRA: “We won’t vote for you if you vote for ANY form of gun control”.

    There is NO valid reason ANY private citizen “needs” to own:
    - an assault rifle
    - a clip with more than 9 bullets
    - an automatic weapon
    - thousands of rounds of ammunition

    If you are part of a militia (ie the National Guard), you will be given weapons appropriate to your tasks in protecting the “State”.

    If you hunt, none of the above are appropriate weapons

    • MrNutso

      Because they mobilize a cadre of single issue voters.  People who will cast their vote only on gun issues.  That in itself is enough to swing an election.

    • ZK

      Not to argue the rest of your point, but the NRA has something like 4 Million members, without another few million who will tell pollsters they’re members (but don’t pay dues). Right or wrong in their views, they’re sure not small.

      • BHA in Vermont

        - How many are old enough to vote?
        - What percentage of the voting public in any given district belong to the NRA?
        - How many think there SHOULD be some restrictions on the types of guns private citizens can own?

        The power of “we” is that it doesn’t specify how many of the voting age members will vote for a candidate even if the NRA is against them.

        I’m not saying the NRA is bad; responsible gun ownership and education is imperative. And there is certainly a place for recreational hunting and target shooting. But the “no restrictions on guns whether they can be used for legitimate purposes or not” stance is just not acceptable and the politicians should not bend to that.

        There are 10 times as many AARP members and they are all old enough to vote. If the NRA says NO to a candidate, all they need to do is get a YES from AARP and the NRA becomes an unheard voice.  

  • Tina

    This amendment was NOT carved out in the Spirit of Freedom, but rather as another shackle in the history of our Slave Economy!

    I want everyone to remember that the Second Amendment was NOT enacted to help protect us from an invasion by the British or other foreign forces.  There was a deal between the North and the South that created the amendment.  The South feared that the Abolitionists in the North would create anti-gun legislation.  Meanwhile, wealthy plantation owners needed to enlist less wealthy Southerners to help the wealthy capture any of their runaway slaves.  The South feared that the North would support a law that would allow state militias, but NOT the armaments the militias would need.  I do forget what the North needed, but a deal was struck because of their sectional needs, and that deal was the Second Amendment.

  • KayJay

    It’s completely hopeless.  Touching this is the equivalent to political suicide.  Nobody can do anything about this and the gun lobby is so strong that they can, with a few words, destroy anybody who tries to do anything that they believe goes against them.  Meanwhile, we just call a shooter “crazy” and “deranged” and ….. on to the next.  (I think the gun-range owner is not telling the truth.  I cannot believe they are listening to him on NPR )  We protect the right to have arms, even over-the-top arms, but we don’t really care about the right to not be shot BY ANYBODY, not a person that is “crazy” and not even a person in uniform.  We’ve seen it too many times.  Even cops shoot first and ask questions later.  A fact.

  • Bob Selby

    Once and for all I would like a gun advocate to answer a simple question:  “Why does the Second Amendment begin with the phrase: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, . . .’ Were the framers of the constitution in the habit of incorporating superfluous phrases in the document?  If not, why is the phrase there and why does it precede the statement of the right?”

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Vitamin C being necessary to the health of sailors, the right of the people to keep and bear citrus fruit shall not be infringed.

      The first part of the clause gives the reason for ennumerating the right, but it does not define the right, nor does it limit the right.

  • Judy

    I do NOT believe that reasonable, common sense gun control is a settled issue.  If the vast majority of sane, law abiding citizens in this country would let their elected representatives know that  we want limits on the availability of automatic and assault weapons and the ammunition that goes with them, we could start to turn the conversation in a safer direction.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       But we gun owners are sending them the message not to touch the subject.  Can you believe that this is democracy in action, or do you have to see a nefarious conspiracy?

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    I’m seeing the old line about why anyone would “need” a fill-in-the-blank firearm.  Need isn’t the right question.  Here’s why:

    Ask yourself who needs to read questionable books.  How many books does anyone “need” to own?  Should a person be allowed to sell books across state lines?  Should we be able to evaluate the contents of the book before allowing someone to buy it?  How about licensing and registration for book owners?

    And yes, books and other writings do kill.  Consider “Common Sense,” “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” the Declaration of Independence, and on and on.

    • J__o__h__n

      Censorship is not the same as limiting access to weapons.  More speech is the antidote to “dangerous” books.  A person with a gun with a large clip can take out a room full of people before you can even read the jacket blurbs on the back of Mein Kampf.  More people with guns will make us safer? 

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Ask yourself that question if you have to walk down the street at night.  Ask yourself that question when you hear a crash in your house at 2:00 in the morning.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Let’s note that the shooter in Colorado bought his guns legally and passed the background checks.  He had no criminal record.  To ban that person is to ban every American.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

     The theater in Aurora was officially a gun-free zone.  How well did that work?  What we see here is that a determined person will not be deterred by a sign.

  • nj_v2

    Cogent argument for sensible gun control. Rational gun owners even support this. Mandatory background checks and ban on assault/semiautomatic weapons (a ban which Romney signed when he was governor of Mass.).

    Listen here (~8 minutes): 

    http://radioboston.wbur.org/2012/07/23/gun-control-aurora

    Time to step up. Join http://www.stophandgunviolence.org/

  • plant789

    I think if the whole of the amendment were considered, the part about the well regulted militia, which is ALWAYS ignored, might give people pause.  When the United States was threatened by an outside force, the British, it was necessary to give people permission to carry guns so that they could be part of a unified defense force.  This is not currently the case.  The only thing that is unifying us to buy guns are the armament manufacturers that is protected by the propoganda of the NRA.  The United Statesdoes not have security and is not a free state because of the repeated misinterpretaion of the second amendment which says……A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Ask Michael Bloomberg about the gun laws in New York State and City.  That’s his idea of gun rights.  No thank you.

  • http://en-gb.facebook.com/onanov Donald Baxter

    I wouldn’t say the politics are hopeless for gun supporters; they seem to win most of their political battles.  Those who support the second amendment are one group–the NRA isn’t so much that as an industry trade group that accepts individual members. They have lots of money and they want to sell a product to everyone they can.  This is not principle. This is the representation of shareholder interests.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

    Everytime this kind of atrocity erupts in public the 2nd Amendment debate gets more inflamed. I do not want to live in a nation where everybody is armed with a gun for their own personal “safety”. If others in that theatre had started firing blindly, many more innocent victims would have become “collateral damage”.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Having them unarmed worked out so well.

  • TFRX

    Isn’t the mainstream press lagging voters’ interest in gun control discussions, let alone effective legislation?

  • J__o__h__n

    Dave Workman, thanks for protecting the rights of a well-regulated militia. 

  • Dan

    Why did the owner of Lead Valley Range not contact the proper authorities, when he refused James Holmes admission to his gun club. This tragedy could have been prevented.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Because having a funny message on your answering machine isn’t a crime.  By your logic, we should bar lots of people who just don’t “feel” right to us.

  • ulTRAX

    SECOND AMENDMENT: RIGHT OR MANDATE?In the Heller decision Scalia writes that the 2ed Amendment protected a preexisting right to bear a firearm for self-protection… at least for people who weren’t slaves. “The People” sounds all inclusive to us but never meant everyone in the US.

    Yet the well regulated militia clause is there in the 2ed for a reason and the Constitution gave Congress in Article 1 Sec 8, the power to set the standards for this citizen militia. These standards were codified in the Militia Acts of 1792 which specify that membership in the militia was NOT voluntary:

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia..”

    and they were mandated to have a firearm with specified equipment and ammunition whether they wanted to own a firearm or not:

    “That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service….”
    Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htmLeaving aside the issue of whether this was the first mandate citizens must purchase something they may not want, this hardly looks like the 2ed was written to protect an individual right for own a firearm for self-protection or hunting. It’s a government MANDATE that militia members must own a firearm.

    If there’s an individual right to own a firearm for self-protection then it’s not in the 2ed no matter how much it’s bastardized to claim one. It’s an unenumerated right in the Ninth. But then neither the Dems and especially the GOP respect the Ninth. As Bork once said, it’s an inkblot on the Constitution beneath which we’ll never know the Framers’ intent.

    • Richard

      That’s a good elucidation there. Many people don’t realise that the constitution is a pioneering work that is meant to evolve and suit contemporary times and needs as we move forward as a nation. Yet it is rather thought of, by an ignorant but loud few, that the constitution is the be all and end all of American sociopoliticoecomic… life. 
      The real intent of the framers in certain cases can never be known. And so if we tie ourselves to the ‘infallibility’ of the constitution religiously and interprete clauses and statements only to suit politcal agenda and ideologies then we are bound to fail as a nation. 
      It is not surprising then that recently a US supreme court justice visiting Egypt advised them to the effect not to write a constitution in the mold of the US constitution but rather they should write one that will suit their needs and purposes as time changes.   

      • ulTRAX

         
        The Ninth is one of the Rosetta Stones for interpreting the Constitution’s balance between retained rights and government powers. It’s a confirmation that the Constitution was intended to protect Natural Rights… and that it’s the government that has to prove legitimate intent before limiting rights instead of what Scalia wants: people having to fight for their rights… a process that could take years, decades, generations. The Second is merely a prohibition on government that it can’t disarm the well-regulated state militias. Since they are now the state National Guards, the Second protects them… and almost pointless “right” since the Guard has been integrated into the Army. The right to own a gun for the rest of us is protected by the Ninth.

  • rickterp

    We have seen clearly that violent people will commit violent acts and we can’t always stop them from killing people. What we can control, though, is the efficiency of the weapons that a violent person can use. If Holmes could have used a nuclear weapon, he could have killed many more people. How do we decide, as a society, when a weapon has too much killing efficiency to be put into the hands of someone like Holmes? Would the NRA advocate that letting citizens buy nukes is justified by the Second Amendment? If not, why not?

  • KayJay

    0ur country is NOT known to the world for smarts, or learning from the past, or anything that seems RATI0NAL.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    The NRA does not manufacture guns, nor do I, and I want looser gun laws, not stricter.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Why? Are you under the threat of being raped, robbed or murdered everyday? Do you hunt for your own food? I fail to see your logic, here.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         You’ve heard of mugging?  You’ve heard of home invasions?

    • ana

      How much looser can they get?  Please tell.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         I have a carry license, but not every state recognizes it.  My driver’s license lets me drive in every state in the Union.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

    About shooting the shooter – the theatre disallowed guns in  their business. Are we going to change the laws to force people and businesses to allow guns to brought onto their own private property?

  • Ellen Dibble

    I hear that people are targets in places like malls and movie theaters.  I’m thinking there is an alternative to carrying a concealed weapon.  Why aren’t we considering it?  You could wear a neck protector like Holmes wore.   Where did he get that?  And you could bring your gas mask, and otherwise keep enough body armor to feel safe.  If people in general did this — on buses, in grocery stores, at churches and post offices and parks — then maybe people wouldn’t feel the need to carry weapons.  That would be a kind of armored sit-in, demonstrating a sort of push-back.
         If people feel the need to do target practice, I’d suggest bow and arrow; it’s probably more of a sport, more of a skill set.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_Y6CO5C2HE4WM2OYGCDVWGPRXXM oldman

      This just makes too much sense – why aren’t people afraid of being shot, or people wanting to be able to “defend” themselves wearing body armor, kevlar, whatever? It would be much more protective than carrying a firearm. It would have saved lives in that theatre.

      • Ellen Dibble

        Ironically, I believe what I’ve heard is that the theater in question is now forbidding any body armor in the theater.  Is that backwards and upside down or what?

  • r b-j

    hey Greg Camp,

    6-year-old girl.  her name is or was Veronica. 

    how many children are you willing to sacrifice to your god (The Second Amendment) with acolytes of the NRA the GOP and other nutcase organizations?

    how many?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      I take it that you don’t see gun ownership and carry as a right.  If you did, you wouldn’t pose your question that way.

      • r b-j

        didn’t answer the question.  did you?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Because you asked a nonsense question.

          The fact is, though, that a free society comes with risks.  If you want a police state, you can feel safe.  It’ll be an illusion, but you’ll feel better.

          • r b-j

            perfectly clear question.

            how many more Aurora or Columbine or Virginia Tech or multiple schools in the nation, how many more shootings like that, where more dead children are added to the scores of dead children, do we, as a nation, have to witness before we do something about it.

            evidently your answer to my perfectly clear question is “no limit”.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             These are not common events.  You want to restrict rights for everyone on the basis of what a tiny few do.

          • r b-j

            they’re far more common in the U.S. than they are in nations with sensible gun control.

            still won’t answer the question?

            you coward.
             

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             What question?  You asked how many people I’m willing to sacrifice.  I said that rights have costs.  There’s no way to give you a specific number.  What I say is that we have risks because we have freedom.

            But what a heroic person you are, calling me a coward from far away.

  • JK

    Lets face the facts here….Guns are NOT going away…PERIOD. They are protected by the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court.

    So the only thing left is education.  We can teach drivers ed and sex ed in classes at school….why not gun education and safety. 

    With today’s society….most people are getting desensitized about violence.  Just look at all the stuff out there today, from TV, to movies, online content and finally video games.

    Education is the key….teach what guns are, how they work and what they do, not the fanatsy world we see them in.

    • Richard

      You’ve made a good case there. But look at it this way. Do you realise that deaths by gun violence in the US far surpasses death by road accidents the world over? Take a look at the countries with stricter gun control laws and see if they have relatively high death rates through gun violence. It doesn’t matter if the constitution protects gun ownership and use or upheld same by the Supreme court, the congress can do something about it. Believe me. But this can be possible only if the NRA is extricated from the campaign stashes of our politicians.

      • JK

        I’d like to see your stats on gun violence having killed more people than car accidents.  That is a very bold statement considering in the US there are more deaths via car accidents than gun violence.  Please post that stat. Here are mine.

        http://listosaur.com/miscellaneous/top-5-causes-of-accidental-death-in-the-united-states.html

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_preventable_causes_of_death

        Of those deaths by firearms….how many where accidental that could have been prevented by education?  Such as how to handle, or properly store gun/ammo, etc.

        I am appalled at the shooting in Colorado…but I again ask…if education could have saved more lives?

        Has anyone asked if the shooter was required to have a safety course before the purchase of the weapons?

         

        • 1OldGunny1

          Very few are accidental.  Very very few. And accidental shootings are at a 50 year low…

      • 1OldGunny1

        When you filter out all the legitimate or justifiable homicides such as committed by law-enforcement officers, or armed citizens.  And also those poor misguided souls that commit suicide what essentially do you have left that isn’t somehow gang or drug related?

    • rwscid

      No – education is not the key. Ending the Drug War is the key, as it will eliminate perhaps 50% of gun violence. After that, education might be useful.

    • 1OldGunny1

      Education is already working. Despite the high-profile and media exploited mass-shooter cases, crime and homicides by firearms has actually gone down significantly despite the fact that all states allow concealed-carry now except Hawaii and Illinois and those permits are at record-breaking levels.  

  • Michael Hillinger

    Could you ask your Mr. Workman how if he believes that there is any way under current gun laws that this tragedy could have been prevented.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       No, there isn’t.  The shooter was an insane man who happened to be intelligent enough to plan this.  We can’t stop people like that without turning the whole society into a police state.

      • rickterp

        This is true, but we CAN limit the efficiency of the weapons he had access to. Are you comfortable with Holmes buying a nuke? If not, why do you support a “police state” that doesn’t let him buy one?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Lay off that old line, will you?  There’s no way for a private citizen to use a nuke legitimately.  Guns are different.

          • rickterp

            Huh? I thought the whole point of the Second Amendment was to make sure that armed citizens can overthrow a dictatorial government if necessary. Why are you denying your fellow citizens the right to use ALL weapons that could be used effectively toward that end?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Let the strawman be, and look at the history.  Private citizens could raise a unit to fight, but it was sanctioned by the government.  A private citizen who owned a sailing vessel could get a license–a letter of marque–to fight the nation’s enemies.  What the Second Amendment covers is personal weapons.  Not crew-served weapons.  Not WMDs.

  • Mary

    In this age of terrorists, doesn’t’ the FBI track purchases of guns and bullets??????? Everything I do is tracked all because I visit a daughter who lives in a Muslim country! Wouldn’t a purchase of 6,000 rounds of ammunition set off a flag?????? How can this be???

    • 1OldGunny1

      Go back to bed Mary….

  • Matt

    would the host/producers please look at this and have the guests address it?

    http://hecatedemeter.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/what-i-learned-in-law-school/

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    The Aurora shooter passed background checks!  He hadn’t been adjudicated mentally ill.

    • Robert

       ….& that includes the 7000 rounds of ammunition he bought online?? I don’t think he passed a background check for that.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         There are no background checks in most states for ammunition, but what’s your point?  A person who practices regularly goes through a lot of ammo.

        • Robert

           $15,000.00 worth of weaponry purchased over the course of 3 months with very little vetting is a big problem.
          I don’t know any individual who can go through 7000 rounds of ammunition in any any reasonable amount of time just for “practice”.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             You just met one–I buy a lot of ammunition for practice.  I also buy guns from time to time.  I collect them and practice with them.  Your problem?

          • BHA in Vermont

             How many rounds per day/week/month?

            And what caliber? .22s at ~$0.03 each is cheap entertainment, especially when you spend much more time checking your results, setting up new targets and reloading than you do shooting. You can go through a LOT of money in little time with larger caliber ammo at $0.20+ per round.

            It seems to us non gun owners that 7,000 rounds is a LOT more ammunition than the average target shooter would need at one time. OK, so you find a sale and stock up. But 7,000 rounds?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            That’s a large number, perhaps, but he didn’t use all that ammo in the incident.  The number is irrelevant.

            By the way, Vermont has basically good gun laws.  Anyone who is legally allowed to own a handgun can carry without a license there.  It’s been that way a long time.  I’d like to see that across the whole country.

          • jefe68

            Glad I’m not your neighbor.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Why?  I mow my yard, put my trash in the barrels provided, and I’m not threat to you.

    • timwesley

      So the reasoning is that if you can find once incident which a measure wouldn’t have helped prevent, then just go ahead and take it off the table?

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         No, my reasoning is that incidents like this aren’t a cause for banning or restricting guns.

        • timwesley

          Nor do I think they should be, but there are two distinct issues here. The problem is that this incident brought up the gun control debate for the wrong reasons.

          1) What could we have done to stop this from happening?
          - nothing.

          2) Does it make sense for anyone to be able to go and pickup (just about) any gun without a background check?
          - not in my opinion

          What is happening with comments like your previous one, is the debate turns into: “If we were to make all guns illegal and had a time machine, would this one particular incident have happened?”, which is just nonsense.

  • Moorejayne2002

    I’m sorry about your brother, Mr. Gross, but the person from the people have every right to defend themselves AND their views with out being called extremists.  The gun lobby is supported by real people, the name calling is inappropriate.  Trappers, conservationists, mothers… like me.

    • rwscid

      But why doesn’t the gun lobby work to end the War on Drugs? It causes 50% of gun violence in the US – is the gun lobby serious about reducing gun violence or do they just want to argue about gun control laws?

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Hearing Dan Gross say that he supports the Second Amendment is laughable.  When has he done anything to promote the rights of free citizens to own and carry guns?

  • jim_thompson

    I am a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment, a gun owner and a CWP permit holder…having said all that, there is no doubt in my mind that something is wrong when it is easier to buy thousands of rounds of ammo and multiple semi-automatic weapons than it is to buy cold medicine.

    • 1OldGunny1

      Actually there is something wrong with you.  You are not a pro Second Amendment person.  You are a liberal.

  • Scott B, Jamestown NY

     Ordinary, untrained, people in such situations tend to misidentify the threat, and can’t shoot at the target.  There’s a famous video of a police officer and and person he had pulled over, having gun fight at pointblank range, with well over a down shots being fired, and neither hit the other person. People think that returning to the law of Texas in 1880 is going to
    somehow turn every citizen into John McClane in “Die Hard”, when study
    after study shows that nothing could be further from the truth.

    • 1OldGunny1

      Many of us “ordinary” citizens with concealed-carry permits are highly skilled and trained however.  Even more so then most police officers.

  • MadMarkTheCodeWarrior

    Background checks are all well and good if the agencies required to execute them are properly funded by… taxes, but wait… Chairman Norquist of the People’s Republican Party says “No new taxes!” for any reason.

  • AndyF

    I am so sick and tired of hearing gun advocates and the NRA talking about the Second Amendment and their “rights”.  When written, the Founding Fathers were talking about muskets, NOT AR15′s with 6,000 rounds of ammo!!!  If the Colorado shooter had been using a musket, we’d have maybe 1 dead or wounded – NOT 12 dead and nearly 60 wounded!!!  It is my firm prayer that Wayne LaPierre and all these gun-crazy morons live through losing a loved ones to the violence they strive so hard to protect.  Maybe then they would know what theyre talking about – right now?  They are uninformed paranoid idiots.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Dangerous, uninformed & paranoid idiots. What abourt OUR RIGHT to NOT be shot by a 2nd Amendment-mad, weekend-warrior, fun-shooter?  Why do their rights have more clout under the law than ours? Somebody answer that, please. Why?

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      Dangerous, uninformed & paranoid idiots. What abourt OUR RIGHT to NOT be shot by a 2nd Amendment-mad, weekend-warrior, fun-shooter?  Why do their rights have more clout under the law than ours? Somebody answer that, please. Why?

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         I don’t shoot anyone.  I have no intention to shoot anyone who isn’t posing an imminent threat to my life.  So how am I a danger to you?

        • ana

          How do you decide an imminent threat to your life?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             That’s a long discussion, but surely you’d agree that if someone is attacking me, that’s an example.

          • jefe68

            So if someone came up to you one the street and took a punch at you, you might shoot them?

            Or would pull your weapon and warn them to back down and maybe fire a warning shot.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            To be legal, a shot has to be justified by the threat of deadly force.  There’s no permission to fire a “warning shot” just in case.

            But look at what you said.  Someone who attacks me with the kind of force that you named has obvious intentions to cause harm.  How far will it go?  I can’t answer that, but the law doesn’t require me to wait to be killed before I can respond.  It says that I have to be in reasonable fear for my life.  That reasonable standard is the same that applies to juries.  It’s the same that applies in many cases where we have to make decisions.

            If your side would stop characterizing us as trigger-happy monsters, we could have a better discussion.

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

             This is the kind of point that people like to make after an incident has occurred.  You do realize that people have killed people by punching them right?

            If I’m peacefully walking down the street and someone twice my size approaches me and begins to assault me, I am only allowed to respond with equal force? 

            I’m sorry, but if I am being beaten about the head, my life is very much in danger.

          • 1OldGunny1

            Murder with bare hands statistically happens more often then most would think.  

          • 1OldGunny1

            Oh maybe somebody waltzing in through your kicked in door at any hour of the day?  

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

          From the way you write, Greg, be sure that I never want to encounter you on the street or any place else. Seem to have a LOT of unresolved anger issues & a desire to attract negative attention. Reeks of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Get help soon.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            No thank you.  Where have I been angry?  I’m making an argument, but I’m not shouting insults, nor am I attempting to diagnose someone without any evidence.  You would benefit from getting to know some gun owners.  Go to a range–bring ear muffs.  Talk to the many good citizens who exercise their rights.  You’ll find that we’re a polite and helpful group, by and large.

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

             The problem is that many people have already made up their mind about gun owners.

          • 1OldGunny1

            The same kind of good folks that she would see at church on Sunday. Oh wait, maybe not….

          • 1OldGunny1

            Ewww the psycho analyst type. That really turns me on baby…

        • jefe68

          Define threat? Maybe you have an argument with someone and you’ve had a few.
          It escalates and you decide it’s time to get all Wyatt Earp on him. Mind you Wyatt Earp used the butt of his colt more than he would use the trigger.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            When I’ve “had a few,” I’m not carrying a firearm.  Don’t presume that I know nothing about safety.  Nor would I shoot someone over an argument.  The law specifically states that I must be in reasonable fear of death or major injury.  That’s the same kind of reasonable standard that we apply in many different situations.

          • jefe68

            No one has that much control.
            So you never drink in your home and you never get into arguments?

            I’m glad you don’t drink and carry. So I guess you’re all for laws prohibiting people carrying guns anywhere.

            My brother-in-law owns a bar in Scottsdale and he has to post a sign to keep people from entering his bar with firearms. When you go to Scottsdale you notice a lot of these signs.

            The words that scares me are “reasonable standard”, ones reason may not be the same as someone else.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             When I’m out in public, I rarely drink alcohol.  It’s best to reserve that for my home or the home of a friend.  I’m usually the driver, anyway.  But consider this:  As I understand things, there was just the kind of “gun-free zone” sign at the theater in Aurora.  People intent on committing murder don’t pay attention to those signs.  Those signs only disarm the ones who aren’t the problem in the first place.

          • 1OldGunny1

            What’s to keep law-enforcement officers from imbibing and then going all “Wyatt Earp” on people?  Get real.   

            And those signs that your brother-in-law posts won’t deter a criminal.  

            Why is that law-abiding folks with firearms frighten you so much?  What about the criminals?

          • 1OldGunny1

            I have been carrying a firearm on my person since retiring from the Marine Corps 22 years ago son. And that hasn’t happened yet.  

        • 1OldGunny1

          I and many of my neighbors here in East Texas are armed everywhere we go.  Even when we visit one another.  We carry in our truck and/or on our persons.   I don’t fear any of them and they don’t fear me.  The various scofflaws out there do however which is why most home burglaries happen in the daytime now when most people are at work.  They kick in the doors and grab and run.  In and out.   It’s very rare that we have any problems at night any more except for construction sites.

      • 1OldGunny1

        Maybe you should just stay indoors because some big bad boogeyman is going to get you.  At any rate turn off your noobtube TV because the overall crime rate is going down in this country and a lot of it is thanks to armed citizens and homeowners helping to turn the tide.

    • rwscid

      Gun control laws may or may not reduce gun violence – the academic evidence is extremely ambiguous. Ending the Drug War would absolutely reduce gun violence, perhaps by 50% – the academic evidence is overwhelming. Why talk about the small stuff, until we have taken care of the big stuff?

    • 1OldGunny1

      6,000 rounds of ammo had absolutely nothing to do with the equation in Aurora.  The shooter only used what?  Under 100 rounds total? He could have just as easily purchased those at Wal-mart.  Yes they sell .223, shotgun shells and all handgun loads.  You are extremely ignorant son.  

  • Mishman

    Instead of various, inconsistent state gun laws across the country there should be a single set of national laws and a single nationsl pistol carry permit.

  • Jcopecaldwell

    If Zimmerman had not had a gun, he would never have left his car.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       You should look into the actual events, rather than taking what rumors you’ve heard.

      • r b-j

        coward.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Talking about yourself?  It doesn’t take much bravery to shout insults over the Internet.

          • jefe68

            But he is correct, you are coward.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             That’s an easy word to toss around, especially when there are no consequences.  Would you care to support your assertion, or are you just blowing smoke?

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

             Greg, people often resort to insults when they’ve lost a debate.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Yup, but I keep trying to give everyone a chance.

          • 1OldGunny1

            English isn’t your first language is it slick?

    • 1OldGunny1

      Crayon Martin brought fists to a gunfight.   Typical hood rat mentality to commit assault & battery for merely being followed and asked a few questions (which is totally legal in all 57 states the last time that I checked while assault & battery isn’t).

  • Bevpatkev1

    According to an Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms representative on a New Orleans news show stated he problem is that not all states report people who have been adjudicated mentally ill to the federal database used for background check.

  • TFRX

    Current caller saying people want to ban guns a la Prohibition  (34 minutes) is just strawmanning.

    • Robert

       He even tried to invoke suicide bombers and Molotov cocktails. lol

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Your point?  Yes, he could have used those devices.  Should be ban gasoline?

        • jefe68

          Strawman argument.
          Why do you need a high velocity rifle designed to kill people? I mean it’s not a target rife, which are now designed for that sport. It’s not designed for hunting.
          It’s not designed for home protection, ask any cop and they will tell you that the best gun for your home is a shotgun with a pistol grip or short stock.
          Spare the histrionics already.
           

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            High velocity?  You don’t know much about firearms, I take it.  A commonly used deer cartridge, the .30-’06, leaves the muzzle at about 2,700 feet per second.  The 7.62 x 39–the AK-47 round–runs around 2,400 feet per second.

            But I have listened to police officers and other experts who say that a carbine–AK-47 pattern or AR-15 pattern–is the best for home defense.

            You should learn more about the subject.

          • jefe68

            Well not the police I know.
            My neighbors are police and they all say the best home protection weapon is a shotgun.  

            You knew what I meant, stop trying to be so cute. You’re not. In fact you are not helping your argument whatsoever. The belligerent macho male who somehow feels that owning big guns makes up for something he lacks.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Have I made any comments to that effect?  Please, gun control advocates want to make something Freudian out of guns, but that’s just an attempt to change the subject.

          • 1OldGunny1

            Why are you libtards all so fixated on the penis all the time?

  • Robert

    It is harder to buy Claritin or sudafed than it is to buy  7000 rounds of ammunition. 
    Ban guns and stop with all the strawman arguments.
    Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson never envisioned military assault machine guns and arms that are intended for massacres.

    • rwscid

      Banning guns may or may not reduce gun violence significantly – the academic evidence is simply ambiguous. Ending the War on Drugs would definitely eliminate huge amounts of gun violence, possibly as much as 50%. Academic evidence is overwhelming. I can’t understand why we don’t do the obvious first, and argue about the secondary points later.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      The weapons that they had were state of the art at the time.

  • Bubba

    Wade and Guest;
                           Thankfully we have a “Constitution” !!
    Second amendment, Thankfully we have that too.
    Is there NO responsibility to the business establishment to provide. “security” ? Years back there ” were” numerous ushers to monitor the customers and the ” EXITS”. Have you seen the “Bottom Lines” of the movie makers? Second amendment another “smoke screen”.

    • Robert

       oh… it’s the Movie theater’s fault then huh? Such nonsense.

      • Steve_T

         Stop and think, if there were workers watching the exits and Peripheral entrances, would or could this have happened? 

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Yes, Dan Gross, I write off your ideas.  Your organization was once called Hangun Control Incorporated.  Your organization is on record as supporting gun bans.  Your organization supported the laws in Chicago and D.C.  You want us to trust you now?

  • Karen

    Could one of your guests please explain how the gun lobby/NRA has gotten such a grip on our politicians and the public discourse on this subject.  I am baffled and don’t understand it?  By the way, the Brady Campaign is always part of our charitable giving.

    • rwscid

      Are you serious about reducing gun violence? Will you support ending the War on Drugs? I am an NRA member and it drives me crazy when they do not support this obvious means of ending gun violence.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       You’re baffled?  Could it be that many American voters support gun rights?

  • ilovedogs792

    Constitutional rights are subject to “reasonable” limitations because the rights of the individuals have to be weighed against harm to the state in some instances.  Free speech: you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater, you can’t create child pornography, etc.  

    Also, what are the “arms” described by the 2nd amendment?  Can I keep grenades, missiles and bombs?  

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Arms refers to the kinds of weapons traditionally owned and used by a gentleman–handgun, rifle, shotgun, sword.

      • Robert

         no AK 47s Greg?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           An AK-47 is a kind of rifle.

          • r b-j

            coward.

          • jefe68

            Really? Do tell?
            So when was the last time you went out to bag a buck with an AK47?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             The Second Amendment isn’t about hunting.

          • jefe68

            And assault rifles are not about the 2nd amendment.

            You are a coward, you hide behind the 2nd Amendment and use nothing but obtuse arguments to support your childish gun fetish.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             There goes that “coward” accusation.  You people who don’t like guns do enjoy taunting gun owners, don’t you.

            But read the text.  It says “arms.”  Not matchlocks or flintlocks or any other such term.  Let’s take a parallel example.  The First Amendment doesn’t mention the Internet.  Shall we then restrict speech on-line only to approved subjects?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             But yes, the 7.62 x 39 round that such a pattern of carbine fires can be used in deer hunting.  It’s ballistically about the same as the old lever action 30-30.

          • jefe68

            I sue to live in Vermont, were there is a long tradition to hunting deer, mostly.
            No real hunter would ever use an AK 47 or AR 15 to hunt. 

            If you want to present reasonable and commonsense arguments to support your position on the 2nd Amendment, you are failing. Big time.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Actually, hunters do use AR-15s to hunt deer.  And in Vermont, good citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns without a license.  It hasn’t been a problem there.

            But hunting isn’t the point of the amendment.  Nor is punching holes in paper.  The point is the defense–personal and common–of the citizens of this country.

  • rwscid

    Neither of these guests is serious about ending gun violence,or they would be supporting an end to the Drug War. That would take care of about 50% of all gun violence in the US … but they would rather argue about gun control.

  • nj_v2

    Bogus argument from caller: There are other, violent ways to inflict harm (molotov cocktails, body bombs) so we should do nothing about guns, because “that wouldn’t solve the problem.”

    This “reasoning” is so absurd on its face, anyone making it should be embarrassed for themself.

    • Robert

       and yet all those drooling NRA cult members believe this argument.

      • nj_v2

        The NRA should be prosecuted as a domestic terrorist organization.

  • Hilary Stookey

     I don’t agree that you can’t stop a madman.  I think it’s possible.  It’s the seasoned criminal who you won’t stop finding a gun.  You need to do this:
    1. Any applicant for a gun completes a standardized form which asks for
    (i) driving license #
    (ii) addresses over last 10 years;
    (ii) how many guns already owned;
    (iii) if applicant has a violent criminal record and if so, the details
    (iv) Any medications details
    These questions are already a part of required paperwork for many activities in an American community. There should be no reason why they should not be provided for obtaining a gun.

    Just the act of writing these details down may be a preventative in itself.  The record also holds the gun seller accountable for obtaining such details.

    2. Applicant has to pay a hefty deposit to gun seller. This ensures seller’s confidence that should the person go somewhere else to then obtain a gun (eg. an illegal source), the gun seller at least retains the hefty deposit.   If the application is refused, the deposit is returned, minus small application administration fee.

    3. A required waiting period of ?4-7 days, during which the form is faxed to 3 locations to be checked:
    (i) National center where violent crime records are recorded.
    (ii) National base which records warnings that a person might do something harmful, from:
    - members of a family, friends, neighbors. 
    - physicians
    - police
    - educational facilities or organization/company
    They have to leave their own contact details for this warning to be recorded. Details will be totally protected.
    (iii) National base of NRA records, detailing the number of guns registered to a person and the amount of ammunition bought + dates.

    No amount of extra monies to create a computer system or labor to streamline these 3 national bases can compare to the mental and physical damage caused by the random killings that take place in American society.  The NRA should be involved to support prevention of such destructive behavior when it is their product the shooters are using.

    4. There should be a ban on all assault weaponry where magazines can shoot so many bullets.  They have no place in the everyday life of a community, they are made for a battlefield.  And if a hunter needs one to down a deer then hunting prowess is not part of that picture, there is something else going on there

    Police officers are trained meticulously to learn to react – in a split second.  Having an ordinary member of the public carrying a gun does not guarantee either their own protection or those around them.  They may be able to perfect a shot at a range but when there is pressure, screaming, noise and chaos, the training isn’t there to guarantee you’re going to be able to aim your gun at the right person and shoot them.  And even all the security officers around Ronald Reagen did not prevent him from being shot.

  • Mass_Mark

    Mr. Workman, your response to the victims of gun violence is appalling. “Maybe she stole it,” you say. It’s a big man who questions the integrity of a mother and daughter victim of horrific violence.

     One can support gun rights and rational gun control simultaneously. This is not an “all or nothing” issue, a rational, logical system can be created, if only people like you didn’t strong-arm any kind of progressive policy. And even in the face of tragedies, you deny any responsibility. Shame on you.

  • Peter

    Why don’t we try to see this issue by comparing guns to cars: We expect people to be licensed, and their vehicles to be registered and insured when they drive… Why don’t we do the same with firearms.
    And no, it won’t completely prevent criminal, sociopathic, or psychopathic use of firearms, but it might just weed out some potential negative uses that in the current framework have almost free access to guns.

    • nj_v2

      Good point. The gun-nut advocates for “gun rights” use the arguments—often simultaneously—that 1) cars cause more deaths than guns, and that 2) gun regulations don’t prevent gun violence or keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

      Why not extend their reasoning? Why have any sort of motor vehicle laws, since we have all these laws and people still die from driving motor vehicles? 

  • ana

    I have never seen a gun up close.  No one in my large estended family has ever owned a gun, nor have they been endangered because of this.  I have NO desire to own a gun and if the NRA thinks that we all should be armed to the teeth, it is they whose  thinking is warped.  Most people are non-violent.  The NRA would have us believe that  we are  all being stalked for  attack and best be prepared..  Just owning a handgun can set one up for conflict as any perceived threat can be met with deadly force.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      I have seen guns up close and way too personally, from the wrong end of the barrel. My father was a gunsmith, weapons collector & small town cop. He lacked the ability to manage his anger & frequently used loaded guns to work out his problems. It was OK when he only fired at the range but when he started using his wife & kids as practice “targets” it became a very deadly form of therapy. We all developed PTSD in some form or another before we even made it to adulthood. (Lucky me, I was the first to seek help & learn about the longterm damages of gun violence in the home.)
      It’s all insane. End of story.

    • 1OldGunny1

      Please come down to Texas and explain all that to the kind folks that live in rural unincorporated areas of counties with only 2 sheriff’s deputies on patrol at night. Where sounders of feral hogs swarm in groups of 100 or more and there are plenty of coyotes (both human and the traditional Wile E. variety), drug smugglers, tweakers, crackheads, venomous snakes, panthers, bears and wild dogs.    You sure look at the world from your very narrow and misguided perspective dearie.

  • Kayjay

    I find crazy and deranged the people who think they NEED guns because of muggins and occasional home invasions…..  Geez.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=591295803 Amina Jan

    Why does anyone need an assault weapon? If this looney can get it no question asked, so can any terrorist. Is that what you want? Are we complacent about sensible gun restrictions when insane white people commit mass murder like this, but when brown Islamic terrorists start doing it we will finally get a clue? Wake up America, NO ONE but our Military should be able to aquire these types of weapons.

    • X-Ray

      A real “assault weapon” is capable of full automatic fire. They are not available to civilians. The “assault weapons ban” defines an “assault weapon” in non-function terms, such as if it had a predominate type grip, has a flash suppressor, etc. These are not really assault weapons and only an invention of those who would ban firearms.

    • 1OldGunny1

      The Aurora shooter did not have an “assault weapon”.  Go back to bed.   And nobody said everyone needs one.

  • Maureen O’Neill – Davis

    Examiner.com
    Date sub.:         7/23/12
    Article Title:   Aurora, CO massacre; Gun control vs. mental health crisis
    Word count:     481
    By Maureen A. O’Neill – Davis; Torrington, CT
     
    In the wake of the tragic Aurora, Colorado massacre; an unbelievable, unacceptable and horrific event, the Country’s conversation has once again shifted to gun control. While the alleged shooter, silent and emotionless, faced a judge for the first time this morning, politicians and impassioned citizens alike are opening voicing their opinion regarding access to military grade assault weapons, lax gun control laws and outdated sales and ownership tracking practices. But is gun control just a more familiar and easier conversation to have than the more complicated topic at hand? Isn’t the real topic the identification, diagnosis and treatment of underlying mental health instabilities?
    When the alleged shooter’s mother was questioned, an NBC News official reported that she stated “…you have the right person.” Why would a mother of a budding young man, believed to possess above average intelligence, presumably an overachiever, express so a matter-of-factly, that she can imagine her son committing such a horrendous crime? Crimes like this are senseless to the sane, but were there signs of mental health instability in this alleged shooter that went either unnoticed or unaddressed?
    According to a January 8, 2011 report by NBC contributor, Bill Dedman, a1999 Secret Service study of 83 assassins found that only a third had previously received a mental health evaluation and less than a fifth had actually been diagnosed with mental health or behavioral disorders prior to committing a political assassination. The study also found that “most attackers exhibited a history of suicide attempts or suicidal thought…” and had a documented history of elevated depression or feelings of desperation. These individuals also tend to be known as loners, shy and reserved, unable to make or keep close friendships, and seen as ‘keeping to themselves’. A fellow camp counselor who worked with the Aurora shooter described him in exactly that way.
    As the Nation and the Aurora community process Friday morning’s event and the senseless loss of life, perhaps the conversation should turn to addressing the escalating social threat of inadequate diagnosis and treatment protocols relative to those with budding and developed mental health dysfunctions. The signs are often crystal clear to their loved ones or teachers, years in advance of a mental break or the manifestation of criminal acts.
    With senseless mass crimes, like this weekend’s theater tragedy, on the rise, how does society begin to protect itself? Screening may be the answer. Perhaps preliminary evaluations could be developed and administered to identify early indicators of mental and emotional instability in our school aged children. Later, utilized solely as a tool, such screening results could provide parents and educators insight into the possibility of future mental health dysfunctions. The information could remain with the individuals permanent school records. Later if necessary, data could be accessed by parents, educator, medical and mental health providers, and law enforcement. Perhaps it’s time to have a ‘real’ conversation about mental health in America.

  • Greyman

    How much of this show results directly from the fact that Smith & Wesson (based in Springfield, Massachusetts) seems not to sponsor or underwrite WBUR and NPR programming with any kind of notable generosity?

  • TFRX

    Wade,

    I’d like you to comment on whether you’ve heard Wayne LaPierre speak lately.

  • Irene Moore

    There is the matter of the social attitude.  If the society has a permissive attitude to assault weapons, violence, murder, and mayhem (for sport and entertainment) then there will always be  those who find a way to see this behaviour as heroic and justified or as a means for resolving conflict or removing a problem.  If society has a non-permissive attitude about the use of violence, murder, and mayhem as useful behaviours, then using the behaviour will have no reward even in the most warped mind.  There will always be those who feel compelled to externalize their internal torment, but there is no good reason for a society to facilitate this.  The gun lobby is not about self-protection it is about a major profit-seeking weapons industry that wants no restriction.  Where are the statistics about the weapons industry?

    • 1OldGunny1

      What assault weapons?  The ones that the police and military use or the ones in the hands of a handful of Class III weapons holders?

  • Xenopus50

    I have to take exception to the caller who said that anyone can walk into a gun show and it’s “cash and carry”. I’ve attended many gun shows, and they fill out the same paperwork as a store does. ID’s are mandatory to purchase a firearm. The sellers at gun shows are dealers and have to follow the rules, at least here in CT that’s the case. I don’t know if it’s different in other states.  

  • Bevpatkev1

     Continuation of my comment about not all states reporting to the database about the adjudicated mentally ill:  this is a huge flaw.  States need to be required to report these people to the database to improve the system.  However, that doesn’t solve the problem of this most recent shooter.  I support clear-headed research by ALL PARTIES (for and against more regulation) to institute measures that could STOP this.  I’d like to hear all parties on your show agree to this.  Thank you!

    • bearwatcher

      and, not all people with mental illnesses are dangerous.  There are many such people who manage their illness with medicine and therapy who live and work in- and contribute to -our society. They deserve privacy. Mental illness, in itself, should not become a matter of public record.   It is the cases of untreated or undiagnosed mental illnesses which usually pose the problems.  Tracking those who are unaware that they are ill or those who refuse to take medication, or are incapable of doing so (they can’t afford it, they have other medical issues, etc.), is a difficult [impossible] task.  What will help?  Dialogue can’t hurt.  It is easier to limit the access to weapons (and certainly, assault weapons) than to expect to successfully keep them out of the hands of the dangerously ill.

  • shiraz

    Just because one goes to a gun store does not mean the proper paperwork nor background checks are performed. I went with a friend who was buying a handgun. As we understood it, there should have been a short waiting peroid of a few days for the checks to be conducted. However, when my friend asked the clerk when he could expect to pick the gun up, the clerk just smiled and said “How long does it take to walk to the register.”

    This attitude is an issue which needs to be fixed.

  • A concerned citizen

    These are not guns, we’re talking about assault weapons – they are not used for sport or for personal protection, they are designed to kill large numbers of people! The second amendment does not give us the right to build explosive devices or keep rations of chemical weapons. The argument for not making these entirely illegal is moronic.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Define assault weapon.

      • jefe68

        Are you really that thick?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           No, the term is an empty phrase.

          • r b-j

            coward.

          • jefe68

            Get real already, it’s used to define a type of rifle the same way a one uses the word Elephant gun, or a hunting rifle. Again, are you really this thick or do you think playing it coy is cute.
            All assault rifles should be banned.
            You don’t need one for any practical reason except getting your jollies out on the firing range.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Assault rifles are already heavily regulated.  To be an assault rifle, the firearm has to have the capability of firing in fully automatic mode.  Semiautomatic only doesn’t qualify.

          • 1OldGunny1

            You are correct sir.  They have to be ‘select-fire’ operation.  The term “assault rifles’  is often erroneously used by the media and anti’s to further their agenda, sell more copy, mislead the ignorant and make everything seem more foreboding and dramatic.  

          • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

            Greg is correct.  The AR-15 rifle that was used in the shooting is not an automatic weapon.  It is a semi-automatic weapon which has a sporting use.  Maybe if you attended some shooting competitions, you would witness it’s sporting use.

            Also, insulting Greg is not going to help you get your point across.

          • jefe68

            The AR 15 used in the shooting was also equipped with a 100 round drum clip. Give me a break, you don’t need this kind of magazine to go target shooting. You can parse this anyway you want to. There are not enough controls on gun sales and ammunition in this country.
            Fine keep your toys, but lets use common sense with the kind of ammo clips you can buy. You do not need a 100 round ammo clip. If you think you do, grow up.

            In my book anyone who posts comments that say guns rights trump the Constitution deserves to be insulted.

          • 1OldGunny1

            No it wasn’t.  It had a magazine not a clip.  Why do you liberals insist on acting like know-it-alls when you are so blatantly ignorant on the subject?

          • 1OldGunny1

            The 2nd Amendment isn’t about sporting use.

    • 1OldGunny1

      No we are talking about semi-automatic rifles not “assault” weapons.  They are not capable of select-fire operation. FAIL but you are free to try again…

  • Ellen Dibble

    Who defines “dangerously mentally ill”?
        The caller John from Boston who pointed out that 33 states have available guns without background checks — it would make tons of sense to have a national policy for background checks.      But check for what?  I believe just about everybody has moments of mental imbalance.  The issue isn’t whether or not someone seems grounded the moment they walk into a gun store, it seems to me.      Also, it seems to me that exactly when a person is drifting into a vitiated relationship with reality, they feel terribly vulnerable, trending toward paranoid, and think they need to start collecting guns and identifying threats.  So I think they don’t go for a dangerousness screening BEFORE buying guns.  That might happen later.  But you can’t say that someone is dangerous by virtue of having been something of a loner since childhood.   We make big issues of massacres like the recent one, but people are irresponsible with guns without the big news story.   Multiply X number of gun crimes per day and the number begins to go up.  

  • D-gann

    What law do you pass to restrict this person described below from buying a gun without violating the 2nd Ammendment rights of all?

    James E. Holmes is described by those who know him as a doctoral student as clean-cut, quiet and responsible

  • Robert

    the only solution is banning all assault rifles with the exception of muskets. How about that? 

    • rwscid

      Why argue at all, about the small stuff. Ending the War on Drugs immediately eliminates about 50% of all gun violence in the US. Do that first, then see if we have anything to argue about.

  • Tanner

    How can a citizenry defend themselves against a tyrannical government if they are denied the tools with which to do so against the most advanced military in the world?

    • Robert

       what??

    • jefe68

      So, you think the US government is tyrannical?
      And you want to own a gun?

    • nj_v2

      Hard to tell if you’re being serious or ironic.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Convicted felons get their guns through the black market.  We’ve tried to ban illegal drugs for decades.  How’s that working out?

    • r b-j

      coward.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Notice how I’m not demanding that you join me in a duel because of what you called me?  I respect your right to run your mouth at will.

    • Realist

      Well as we know from an earlier show they use straw buyers.  Columbine shooters got theirs from a gun show through straw buyers.  Lots of “law abiding” individuals participate in this.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         What I’ve seen is that most crime guns are being passed around between felons.  Criminals don’t go to FFL dealers, and I doubt that they spend much time in gun shows.  Those have security cameras and lots of people.  Illegal gun buys happen in private.

  • Larry Capodilupo

    If we’re going to use the Patriot Act for anything, shouldn’t we be tracking people who purchase multiple firearms and 6,000 rounds of ammunition? Isn’t that the sort of thing that ought to raise a red flag or two?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Teddy Kennedy ended up on the No-Fly list.  Do you trust the government to spy on people from behind the scenes?

      • r b-j

        coward.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          You keep saying that.  What’s your support?

    • rwscid

      Why argue at all, about the small stuff. Ending the War on Drugs immediately eliminates about 50% of all gun violence in the US. Do that first, then see if we have anything to argue about.

  • Frank S.

    I own guns. I used to hunt. I see no reason for any citizen to own a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. I’d welcome a renewal of the assault rifle ban and a buy back program. That or let’s embrace the original intent of the framers and limit guns to muzzle loaders.

    • nj_v2

      Thank you!

    • rwscid

      Why argue at all, about the small stuff. Ending the War on Drugs immediately eliminates about 50% of all gun violence in the US. Do that first, then see if we have anything to argue about.

      • X-Ray

        Do you have any evidence to support your claim or is it just something you made up?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       The Framers didn’t intend us to have only muzzle-loaders.  That was state of the art at the time.  State of the art today is something else.  There’s no limit named in the Second Amendment to only a muzzle-loader.

      • r b-j

        coward.

    • 1OldGunny1

      I highly doubt that you own firearms.  You are an obvious anti-gunner.  Go back to chewing your cud Frank.  

  • Bevpatkev1

    We have to let the state know when we sell/buy a car.  Why not require each firearm to be registered to A PERSON and then require a states to be notified of change of ownership AND to report this to a federal database, along with all mentally ill (adjudicated) to be reported to the federal database. In this way, the ATF has CHANCE to find abnormal behavior and stop it.  

    • rwscid

      Why argue at all, about the small stuff. Ending the War on Drugs immediately eliminates about 50% of all gun violence in the US. Do that first, then see if we have anything to argue about.

      • TFRX

        Are you a bot?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           No, it’s the truth.

          • X-Ray

            Do you have any evidence to support your claim or is it just something you made up?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Look at the crime statistics.  A lot of the violence in this country is caused by our failed drug war.

          • r b-j

            coward.

        • rwscid

          No – I’m a real person tired of both sides of the gun control debate ignoring the cause of 50% of actual gun violence – the War on Drugs. Pure hypocrisy.

        • nj_v2

          I’d flag it.

      • rwscid

        I have a file cabinet of evidence and would be glad to mail some to you if you will provide your address. Let’s start with ‘Crack and homicide in New York City, 1988: a conceptually based event analysis, published in the Contemporary Drug Problems/Winter 1989 issue. Summary – 26% of NY homicides were caused by crack being illegal. Most of my evidence comes from economic journals.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    No, it’s not separate from the Brady Bunch.  And it’ll do about as much good.

    • r b-j

      coward.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        How so?

        • r b-j

          you won’t answer a simple question put to you.

          coward.

  • Witterquick

    Military weapons and military armor should be kept with the military.  There is no reason that assault weapons built to kill people in mass numbers should be standard issue to any citizen with a buck. 

  • Kayjay

    NOT every person who shoots innocent people is deranged.  Stop it.  If people didn’t have guns, perhaps they would throw a punch every now and then, and the result would be a bloody nose – not a LIFE lost.

  • Tribaguitars

    The key to getting reasonable gun control is to keep in mind that all politics is local.  When the local police chiefs, sheriffs, etc., stand up and make their case for the issue, then the country might have a decent chance of what these law enforcement officials keep bringing up as “reasonable gun control laws”:
    - Get rid of the cheap imported guns. Legit gun owners want guns that work and aren’t afraid to pay for it. This is not  make all guns priced out of range of anyone.

    - Background checks that don’t get erased after X-many days. 

    - Close the gun show loop hole. This comes up in every gun control discussion, every time.  There’s a reason for that.

    - Ban the large capacity ammo clips.  For what reason does the avg citizen need one of  these? Hunting? If someone needs 100 rounds to bring down a deer, they’re not a good hunter. Plus, the meat would be ruined with even a few shots from an assault weapon, as the rounds are designed to tumble and cause maximum damage to tissue.

    - Require training to obtain a gun license.  States require traing to drive a car, so they’re not a threat to society, but not a gun that’s designed maim and kill?

    - A several day waiting period.  Is a gun ever an impulse buy, like a candy bar?  If someone really has a head of steam worked up about hurting someone wouldn’t giving them some time to cool off be a good thing? If they truly want to shoot someone, a few days isn’t going to matter to them.

  • Capt Phil

    There is a simple solution which will not infringe on the right to own arms: TAX THE HECK OUT OF THEM! Require a 100% federal excise tax on purchase of assault rifles, then a hefty annual license renewal. Make it too expensive for someone to so casually buy their own measure of chaos.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1408098372 Mari McAvenia

      2 words : Black market. If you think only the rich will be able to afford guns, you have no idea how the world really works.

      • Capt Phil

        Thanks for your interest. I know full well taxes will do nothing to stop the underground trade, but it will make it more difficult for someone to, as I wrote above, so casually buy their own measure of chaos.

  • Cindy

    I am concerned about the mental health issues surrounding this event.  Young men may show no signs of mental illness until they are in their late teens or early twenties, yet parents, who may be in the best position to help, lose all rights once a child turns 18. Privacy laws prevent doctors from discussing the child’s health, and prevent colleges from informing parents of ongoing academic, medical or social issues.  Without the child’s permission, parents are forced to watch helplessly as their sons or daughters fall apart.

  • John in Vermont

    Wouldn’t it be nice if Romney & Obama cooperated on a gun position and take it out of the campaign? This is what’s needed to take it away from the NRA and zealots like Limburger.

  • GMG

    I think the idea that these people can do the same damage without guns is not correct.  As I understand it, it is actually quite difficult now, post 9/11, to get bomb-making materials, and there’s no way Timothy McVeigh could get away with what he did today.  

    There is an excellent interview on the subject here, pointing out that reinstating the pre-existing assault weapons ban would reduce the severity and and frequency of massacres, without altering the availability of the less deadly varieties:

    http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/23/are_we_going_to_wait_for 

  • Paulrugg

    Wade,  Molitove coctail are not legal, high capacity magazines are…I can knok down and disable a shooter who reloads a 6-shooter.  Can do it with a guy weilding a rifle with a 1000 shot capicity.  These weapons have one use; killing people.  They might be suitable for the battfield, but that’s it.

    • rwscid

      Only after we end the Drug War and thus eliminate 50% of all gun violence in the US.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    What’s a fair number of books for a person to own reasonably?

    • Robert

      books are not the same as guns. Just saying..

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         No one has died because of what was written in  a book?

        • Ray in VT

          I don’t know of any instances where someone used a book to bludgeon someone to death.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             You’ve never heard of a book inspiring someone to start a revolution?  A war?  A uprising?

          • Ray in VT

            Oh, I’m well aware of inspiration and incitement.  If we went with that route, though, wouldn’t the Bible and the Koran end up very near or at the top of that list.  There are also cases of people getting worked up after an argument with a spouse or co-worker and killing them.  Should we then ban talking to each other?  A gun is a weapon in a way that a book can be, although, again, I’m not readily aware of a case of someone using a book to kill someone, although I’m willing to bet that it has happened.  My disposable pen could be lethal when used properly.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             My point is that the right to express ourselves isn’t a safe right.

          • r b-j

            coward.

      • nj_v2

        Mr Camp is the master of false equivalencies.

      • Dave

        You can’t argue with Greg Camp logically, which you would know if you’ve been around here any amount of time. You’ll notice that he’s drawing his gun on us in his picture, and, if you look at his website–which he constantly advertises here–you’ll see that it’s very, very strange. Apart from that, I wonder why the pro-gun people always come across as agitated and emotional. That seems like a bad combination to me.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           It’s so strange to advocate for personal liberty?  I support gay marriage for the same reason.  I support the right of persons to live their own lives.  So strange. . .

          • nj_v2

            Typical libertarian cultism. As if “personal liberty” was some sort of absolute concept that could not have reasonable caveats.

          • nj_v2

            Typical libertarian cultism. As if “personal liberty” was some sort of absolute concept that could not have reasonable caveats.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Let’s take another example.  I support the right of a woman to have an abortion if she chooses during the first two trimesters.  I support the right to have medically necessary abortions in the third.  That’s my libertarianism coming through.

            I support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry with the same benefits and responsibilities that straight couples have.  That’s also my libertarianism.

            What I don’t want is the government deciding how each of us will live our lives.  The job of government is to defend the nation, help the citizens where it can, and get out of the way of the rest.

    • J__o__h__n

      I’m probably more likely to be killed from one of my overflowing bookcases or piles of books collapsing on me than a gun.

  • Mel

    I am so tired of hearing that the person could blow the people up.  Here is my take…anyone who buys a gun should always be MADE to be part of the malitia.  They have to go to Afganistan or anyplace that the malitia is called by the government.  Also, since the guns can be purchased and that is tough to regulate, we regulate what can be manufactured.  In many cases the gun in the possession of a person causes the deaths, not the person without a gun.
    `

  • Robert

    The guest says he knows people who buy one firearm a month. That is very disturbing. 

  • Tribaguitars

    The callers that say, “He could have used a bomb” , or driven a car into a crowd, or some other method of mass harm, don’t make a good case.  The fact is that that Holmes didn’t.  It doesn’t matter what he could have done, or with what.  He got 6000 round of ammo without setting off any kind of flag, and used a high capacity clip to cause far more damage and tragedy that he would not have been able to had he not had the ability. 

    • Greyman

      In this one case, though, the alleged perpetrator COULD well have used a bomb, as the Aurora police discovered when they visited his apartment. I have not heard any reliable report yet on how many fatalities and injuries resulted from the weapon with the “high capacity clip”; I have heard that likely he would have killed and injured more had one of his weapons not jammed (was it in fact the weapon with the high capacity clip?). He may in fact have killed and injured more with the shotgun and handguns he was carrying. But if you KNOW that most of the carnage resulted from the weapon with the high-capacity magazine, do feel free to post a link that verifies your contention or supposition. 

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Exactly–the old man in Ocala with a pocket gun saved the day.  There’s an example of how concealed carry is good.

    • Realist

      he did nothing of the kind.  I saw the video.  he put everyone around him in danger.  I have no problem with him carrying a gun for personal protection but he’s not the police (who by the way regularly shoot each other and innocents).  He should have hid the gun and given up his wallet.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Hidden his gun and handed over his wallet?  What’s wrong with you?  You surrender to every thug who makes a demand?

        Those thugs were there threatening the lives of everyone in the room.  He stopped that threat.  Good for him.

  • Peter

    The idea that what happened in Norway is proof that gun control does not work is illogical. Should we allow drunk driving because the laws against it are violated?

  • ST

    Mr. Gross says that he refuses to listen to arguments against gun control but also refuses to see that gun control in this instance would have done nothing to prevent this violence. Sorry buddy but you’ve got a tough row to hoe in your battle to convince gun owners that they should be restricted. This whole discussion is like talking about how to make the symptoms of a cold more bearable. Lets talk about prevention instead.

  • Info

    Uh, the “slippery slope” cliche. This guy’s not arguing with facts, but with fear.

    Also, citing Norway as proof that our gun culture here isn’t a problem is dishonest. That was an exceptional incident. What’s the murder-rate in Norway, compared to the U.S.? How many of those murders are gun-related?

    Anecdote over data = deception

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Wade Goodwyn, so you won’t let the supporter of gun rights answer?  Dan Gross has been running his mouth most of the hour.

    • nj_v2

      You mean the supporter of the people who profit from selling more weapons and ammunition. “Gun rights” my ass.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        No, I meant what I said–gun rights.

        • r b-j

          coward.

  • Manpc

    will somebody explain to me and the rest of the public who listen
    what is the small arms treaty really about ,and in your opinion will it hurt us the people of the USA  in agreeing to it.

  • D-gann

    It’s too bad the older gentleman from Florida wasn’t in the theater!

  • Richard

    I have reservations about the veracity of the statements of the Colorado gun range owner. my suspicion is that he enrolled Mr. Holmes only for him to later realise that the man was the culprit in the cinema theater shootings. So he quickly expels his name from the records and says that he left a message and … Holmes voices was hoarse?… Give me a brake.
    I believe Mr.Glenn Rotkovitch is ready to make money quickly from his range school at the least opportunity.
    But to the point that your guest was making in favor of gun ownership and use. In the current status quo, less people have possession and use of guns and here we have a clear problem with public safety, then what will be the situation if majority now is armed and at the ready to use their legally acquired guns?
     

  • Robert

    ouch. That 2nd amendment foundation just got pwned! 

  • AC

    what just happened? that seemed kind of tense…

    • Robert

       yeah..  the gun loving nut was basically told to shut his pie hole. lol

  • Brian

    If you dont like guns and you dont like rights……..why are you living in the United States?

    • Robert

       because we are citizens of this country and we have as much of a right to be here as you do. Saying that those who don’t like guns don’t like rights is very ignorant.

    • Briansadope

      Dumb question.

  • Holland

    The press has a role to play in solving this problem as well. Celebrity is the goal of many of these mass killers, so if they weren’t guaranteed to have their face on the front page of every paper etc. then they might not take this easiest road to fame. Perhaps the media could try an experiment where they redact the name and censor (blur or black out) any photos thereby thwarting the aim of these killers- instant notoriety. Even if only three quarters of the media agreed to participate it could have a huge impact.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I don’t buy that, about the aim of notoriety.  It doesn’t take too much brain power to see that perpetrators of massively publicized crimes end up with boring lives with limited opportunities for ego development, to say the least.  What kind of world tells people that if you want to have an impact, if you want to exist in a meaningful way, you have to somehow make yourself into a player in a movie, someone dressed up as someone else, someone who for the span of a scene in a movie has exorbitant power, but in what sort of reality context?

         Somehow the sense of self here seems to have spun out of control, and I think the media (digital reality overall) might have been a part of it, the whole sense of alternate realities, without any reference to what the news coverage might be.  He apparently scrubbed his tracks on the net, but I doubt your man-on-the-street, without any exposure to modern movies, celebrity culture, computer games and so on, would seek to define himself like this.  He clearly could have perpetrated his idea without guns, but he did use them.

  • Stefan

    Why is the conversation always about guns and not about whether/how our culture has more violence than other cultures?

  • Harrietjo2003

    I find it interesting that we are talking so much about gun control when I think We need to address our lack of adequate mental health care in this culture.When someone is catastrophically ill with cancer we have benefits and foundations and pink ribbons. When someone is catastrophically mentally ill we throw them in jail and sentence them to death.

    • J__o__h__n

      or worse, we leave them free to kill people and then they claim not to be responsible after. 

    • Nutricj

      Cheers to that!!!!

    • Ellen Dibble

      Nobody counts how many people are prevented from this kind of denouement by the well-functioning of our mental health providers.  Well, also the well-functioning of families, of law enforcement who surely at times know when certain people are, um, vulnerable, and manage to be respectful and …  Well, police could surely tell us a lot.

  • Julia

    Dave Workman, by being so rude to your fellow guest, you proved Dan Gross’ point. Well done! And kudos to Wade for being a good host and reminding Mr. Workman of his place.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      But never reminding Gross of his. . .

    • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

       Dan was the rude one who wouldn’t let Dave get a word in otherwise.  It wasn’t until the end when Dave tried to stand up for himself and was cut off by Wade.

      Dan even insulted Dave with his whole stammering comment.  Did you even listen to the same show that I did?

  • David S Wilkie

    Why not simply tax ammunition at a rate that makes drive by shootings and purchasing 3,000 rounds unaffordable.  If a bullet or shotgun cartridge had a $10-15 tax that would not prevent citizens from asserting their 2nd amendment rights, but it would make gun use (not ownership) more expensive.

    • J__o__h__n

      Grover Nordquist would stop that. 

  • Mishman

    What about alcohol sales? How many innocent people are killed daily by drunk drivers? Where are all the arguments to ban alcohol sales. Sure you say that gun lobbyists are all for profits for gun manufacturers, doesn’t the same apply for the alcohol producers?

    • Realist

      There are places in this country where alcohol sales are banned. The difference is that its very difficult for localities to put controls on guns sales, see Heller Vs DC.

    • J__o__h__n

      Alcohol sales and use are regulated.  The total ban didn’t work and few people are advocating a total ban of guns.  Are drinkers claiming that drunk driving laws and other sensible restrictions are the start of a slippery slope to ban all alcohol? 

    • db

      That’s an irrelevant comparison. With alcohol one harms oneself. With guns one inherently harms others.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HLMXNRFKZNHHRCZUOUZWM4H6BA D

    Great show, Wade. The ending was a perfect metaphor for how insoluble this problem is. (My fear is that enough people haven’t died, that there must yet be more human sacrifices.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jessepattersonct Jesse Patterson

    The story about the 71 year old man who stopped armed men from terrorizing a store in Florida was particularly relevant.  (Link, anyone?)

    The relevant point: Guns can also have the power to stop violence.  Shame on the other guest for turning the last five minutes into an ad hominem attack on gun rights advocates.

    edit: Link: http://patriotstatesman.com/2012/07/video-71-year-old-florida-resident-defends-internet-cafe-patrons-in-shootout/

    edit 2: Link 2:  http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/18/florida-customer-shoots-suspects-during-internet-cafe-robbery/#ixzz211wRLhKi

    • Realist

      There was no violence until he started shooting.  He put everyone in the place in danger. If he hadn’t had the gun he would have lost what was in his wallet.  I suspect he started shooting because he realized if he did not he would lose his gun.  It’s an example of how guns cause violence not of how they prevent it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/jessepattersonct Jesse Patterson

        I would say that pointing a gun at someone is an inherently violent act.  The intruders were committing violence by making people get up and walk towards them under the threat of death.

        (Also, note in the video the man smashing a table with a bat.)

      • Steve_T

         That’s just your imagination. You weren’t their, you don’t know if they would have killed one or all in the store. If you had been their you may have come away with a different attitude. Especially after someone may have just saved your life.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_HLMXNRFKZNHHRCZUOUZWM4H6BA D

    Because that undercuts the belief in American exceptionalism. 

  • Ellen Dibble

    The slippery slope has been skidded right to the bottom.  If you think about how many extra houses we built in the 2000s, and how long it’ll take for that part of our economy to start to need more of them, that is nothing compared to the excess number of weapons.  How many guns does a person need?  I go to babysit, and the toddler pulls out a gun from the bedside table and points it at the sitter.  Is that enough?  There are guns buried in the woods, and the teens know where to find them.  They are all over the place, basically.  You could have a total ban, and there would be enough to arm everybody several times over.

         So — to me it is sensible to say if you are not in an urban setting where police are around the corner, then you’d better have a gun for use in your home in case of home invasion.  If you’re planning on having an official duel, in the manner of the gentlemen of the 19th century, say over which of us was twisting the LIBOR or scamming the small investor, then you need a gun.  Not a submachine gun, but a gun.  One gun apiece.  (Or is that illegal too?)

  • Moderate Guest

    I have to say that Mr. Goodwyn’s bias became more than obvious at the end of that feature.  Im not generally slanted to look for such situations but I have to say that his handling of the confrontation was less than professional and obviously slanted in the direction of Mr. Gross.  I will say that Mr. Workman’s refusal to concede was also less than professional, but Mr. Goodwyn’s role as a mediator for this conversation was completely and totally compromised by the final moments of the feature.  

    • Harold from Iowa

      I agree. I do not own guns, I will never own guns.  But, the way Mr. Workman was cut off during several answers was rude and the end of the program was embarrassing.

      • Perry

        Totally agree with Moderate Guest and Harold from Iowa!!!  As I said elsewhere, it was sort of strange that Mr. Gross kept requesting a “dialogue” on the subject … yet he did continue to engage in rather lengthy “monologues” — that made the same point(s) over and over.  Like a friend of mine usually says:  “I’m a man of few words … yet I keep using them over and over”.

  • Billy

    It started out as a balanced conversation with well stated points, but quickly deteriorated…  I am a gun owner and proponent of legal gun ownership and expanded concealed carry.  However, gun shows and private sales are the big loop hole allowing unsuitable people from legally purchasing a firearm.  A good step that would increase safety and not infringe on gun rights would be to require background checks with ALL gun purchases.  I can’t imagine why the gun lobby does not support this – I am sure that guns sales would not decrease because of this requirement.  In fact when purchasing an average priced gun ($500) a $10 background check is nominal.

  • D-gann

    The Supreme Court has recently ruled, yet again, on the 2nd Amendment and made clear, yet again, the Constitutional Right to “Own and Bear Arms” applies to all law abiding citizens.

    • J__o__h__n

      This was a very recent interpretation of the amendment.  “Yet again” is counter factual. 

  • Craig from Omaha

    What about all of the gun violence in Mexico that has followed the lifting of the ban on assult weapons in the United States?  The drug cartels have gotten most of their weapons in States that border Mexico.

  • Milly

    I don’t understand why we, the great majority of Americans, are still being held hostage by the NRA and the gun lobby.  (Well, yes, I do understand, but that’s a separate issue.)  The Second Amendment was written in order to enable citizens to form a militia; the Founding Fathers had nothing more deadly than muskets in mind.  Guns have changed, society has changed, and neither for the better.  We need sensible legislation that allows sane, law-abiding people to protect themselves, while restricting the kinds of guns and ammo on the market and keeping track of who buys what.  

  • ST

    So the discussion is over? Hmm… Sounds like someone got up and left the room. Yeah, I bet we can come to a resolution on this issue real soon. Not!

  • Chapel Hill, NC

    Wade Goodwyn is doing a great job substituting while Tom is gone!  No one measures up to Tom, but he’s the best one so far.

    • r b-j

      Dick Gordon (The Connection) whom Tom replaced was pretty good.  I was very disappointed, but Tom has done very well since they turned Dick out.
       

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         I thought Dick Gordon was much better.  What was the internal politics that pushed Gordon out?

        • Ellen Dibble

          I found Dick Gordon on the net as hosting a sort of Story Corps show out of North Carolina.  He seems to have moved about some; I’d like to hear about it all.  I do recall before he left caller/s telling him on air that “we know that you’re really just trying to get us off the air ASAP,” and it seems the role of callers in the success of the program wasn’t as clear to him as it is to Tom.  Also, Tom’s background in news and his years in various cultures seem to have given him an edge; and he’s less edgy, more moderate, in an age of sharp and biting issues.  

          I wouldn’t listen to Tom for years, but I’ve come to see the switch as a cool bit of executive action.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            I always thought that Gordon kept callers from ranting and raving.  He had experts on the show who had informed things to say.

      • Cindy

         I liked Dick Gordon even more than Tom!

  • Iesenv

    If Mr. Workman were to be diagnosed with a brain tumor, and a treatment for that tumor was 70% effective, would he forgo treatment because it wasn’t 100% effective?  Not likely.  Does it make sense to oppose stricter gun regulation on the grounds that the regulation would not completely eliminate gun crimes?  Should we eliminate drunk driving laws because some people drive drunk anyway?

    Re Mr Workman’s story about the man who stopped a robbery in a public building (restaurant?) by shooting at the robbers:  That is true, but is not the whole story.  The man continued to shoot at the robbers after they ran out the door and into the street!  Luckily he did not hit anyone.  Does this sound like a good idea?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Your tumor analogy gives us a hint as to how you think about guns, I take it.

      • r b-j

        coward.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Really?  Why don’t you explain your reason for saying that.  I say that you’re not brave enough.

          • r b-j

            i answered you before.  (your “How so?”)

            you are a coward.  you will not answer a simple and straight-forward question put to you.

            coward!
             

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I did answer your question.  You didn’t like my answer.

          • r b-j

            no you didn’t.

            you implied you didn’t have to answer it. the question wasn’t worthy of your answer.

            now you’re a mendacious coward.

    • Ellen Dibble

      I would be surprised if no one in the Colorado theater had a gun.  Are those removed at the ticket counter?  Held until after?  Anyway, the perpetrator was wearing extensive body armor, and apparently set off either tear gas or a smoke canister, either/or, both of which would have foiled retaliation.  If people are disarmed in a theater, then I suppose the ushers should be armed.  My own solution would be to wear body armor myself — as a protest against the idea Americans are basically walking around as sitting ducks (walking ducks), if they aren’t ready at any time to engage in warfare.

  • vito33

    WOW! Dave Workman got through that entire hour without answering one question directly! A tour de force in obfuscation and misdirection.

    Pretteeeeeeeeeeeeey good.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      It’s hard to get a word in edgewise with Dan Gross talking.

      • r b-j

        loquacious coward.

      • Perry

        It is rather strange that he did keep requesting a “dialogue” yet he also kept engaging in a “monologue”

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Gun control advocates always call for common sense, reasonable restrictions, and dialogue, but when we try to engage in a discussion with them, they become dismissive and angry.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    The good news here is that Dan Gross can go on all he likes, but Congress isn’t going to touch this.  If only we could get our elected officials to support all of our rights, not just gun rights, things would be much better.

    • r b-j

      coward.

      celebrating the cowardice in Congress.
       

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        You’ve said your piece to me.  That’s your right, existing by virtue of your humanity and ennumerated to you by our Constitution.  I have the same right.  We also have the right to own and carry firearms.

        • r b-j

          still won’t answer a simple and straight-forward question.

          still a coward.

          and evidently not done saying your “piece” to the rest of us.

    • jefe68

      Somehow I see this as a cowardly act, hiding behind the 2nd Amendment.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         How am I hiding?  I’ve stated my position.  Gun rights are deeper than just the Constitution.  Our founding document ennumerates some rights, but it doesn’t given them to us, nor is it comprehensive.

        Unless you’re just taunting from the safety of cyberspace, what do you mean by cowardly?

        • jefe68

          “Gun rights are deeper than just the Constitution.”

          That statement is absurd and really shows the kind of mindset you have regarding the 2nd Amendment.
          The very idea that your right to carry a loaded gun outstrips the entire Constitution, that the 2nd Amendment is held above all others is very, very misguided. 

          My reason for using the word coward is that every time this subject comes up people of your ilk hide behind the 2nd amendment and refuse to use any common sense.
          Capisce?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             No.  I see human beings as having fundamental rights that are logically prior to any national document.  The Constitution does not issue us our rights.  Nor does it name every right that we have.  What it does is ennumerate specific rights that the Framers felt necessary to specify.

            We’re not hiding behind anything.  How am I hiding?  I’ve stated my position openly.  I’m not concealing any fact or secret motivation here.

            But let’s note one irony.  You feel safe enough to call us cowards.  Apparently, we’re not as violent and unstable as you claim.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=64701112 Dana Covitz Hackley

    Can we get a link to the wecandobetter petition?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       We are doing better.  Gun restrictions are falling all over the country.

      • r b-j

        gregory camp = coward.

  • jim

    Right… this guy is insane with nothing clear to his thoughts.

    solution: death penalty…

    right… that will solve the problem, ya. 

    well, i hate to disappoint you folks in Colorado. We will revisit this event again.

    btw. only third world nations like us would think the death penalty is the solution.

  • Memeacher

    I am Mary Meacher the woman who was on the show this morning and was shot in the head chest and arm in an incident in Mason NH, and whose daughter was shot in the hand and boyfriend was shot in the back. I don’t know how to or to whom to clarify a point, but the woman who shot me had indeed been released from a psychiactric hospital. She purchased her gun from a gun dealer in NH and also took classes in how to shoot. We don’t know how she passed a check or if one was even done on her, but she did obtain the gun legally and from a dealer. I am not opposed to the second amendment, I just believe that more stringent laws and controls need to be set and followed. We regulate car emissions, registrations, who can legally drive based on health, eyesight,  etc. Why can’t we do this for guns and gun owners?

    • r b-j

      she was released *after* shooting you and your daughter and boyfriend?

      i live in VT, in the 90s i lived in Enfield NH, and i know that NH is a sorta minimalist government, but i cannot fathom *any* government releasing someone at large after a multiple shooting where one victim was SHOT IN THE HEAD!!!  that is attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated assault, and multiple other felonies.  i can’t imagine the bail being set low enough for her to make bail.

      how did this b1tch get out of detention or a secure psych ward?

      • jefe68

        I think you are misunderstanding what Mrs. Meacher posted. She stated that the woman who shot her was released from a mental health facility prior to the shooting, not after. 

        • r b-j

          on the air, i thought that she said that the woman was released afterward and had subsequently killed herself.  does anyone else remember that?  because i don’t think the audio is online yet.

      • Memeacher

        No, no, she was released just a few weeks BEFORE she shot us, for trying to slit her wrists.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Then legally, she was a prohibited person.  It does take time for this to be reported to the background check system.  People like her, though, are rare in comparison to the vast majority of gun owners in this country.

        • r b-j

          didn’t you say she killed herself?  or is she now in jail or detention for, what should be pretty obviously a charge of multiple violent crimes?

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SOAZCZCHU43WNZB7ITM6M74LFU Former

    And once again this site has blocked me from posting new comments. Why? WHY??? Please moderator, if I say something inappropriate just tell me and then remove the comment. I don’t understand what your problem with me is. I have made a concerted effort to avoid any inflammatory or derogatory statements and still you persist. Is this how you encourage open discussion and participation from your site’s contributors? I honestly don’t get it and I am far beyond being sick of your unwarranted censorship.

    I went to log back in to tell Mr. Goodwyn how impressed I was once again with his work in the past two days and was greeted with the same nightmare I’ve run into three times now. It’s beyond ridiculous. If I do something wrong please, for the First Amendment’s sake, just tell me. I would say thanks for your consideration but I have seen no such thing of the sort thus far and am highly doubtful I will in the future either.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       I don’t think that it’s censorship.  It’s probably just the comment software acting up.  Try reloading the page.  It also helps–somewhat–to use one of the comment services–Disqus, for example.  I’ve had the same problem.  The page will say that comments aren’t allowed.  When I log in, that goes away.

      • r b-j

        coward.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/SOAZCZCHU43WNZB7ITM6M74LFU Former

        It is not the comment software acting up, I just spent the last hour making sure it wasn’t the Good Ol’ Discuss hiccup. I am the last person to immediately assume the nefarious and make certain I understand what is going on before I try to address it. The site said nothing until i logged in and I ensured that it wasn’t the typical glitch. I love OP and am deeply grateful for the interaction I (until recently) have been able to have with everyone here. I’m really getting sick of it though. If I hadn’t already written off every other public forum on the planet it wouldn’t bother me so much. This is truly my last source for engaging in discussion with the outside world and I really don’t want to add OP to the long list of failures when it comes to places that make it impossible to engage in rational discussion.

        Thanks for your reply Greg, I really do appreciate it.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Computers often mystify me, but I wish I had an answer.  Will WBUR talk to you about this?

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/SOAZCZCHU43WNZB7ITM6M74LFU Former

            Nope, tried that. I am not here to be liked, I’m here to engage in discussion. I see trolls throwing up comments that are designed to incite others on a daily basis and they are just allowed to continue to spread their hatred. Maybe none here like what I have to say and that’s fine by me. I’m not looking to win a popularity contest just to voice opinions and concerns. Thanks again for the replies, you and I don’t always agree but we do usually somehow mange to get along.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             That’s what I hope for–a rational discussion.  It’s how a democracy has to work.  I am glad we do get along.

  • Greyman

    Question I’ve not seen asked here, maybe someone will know the answer: how many characters are killed through gun violence in the new Batman/Dark Knight spectacle? Id est: how much is the American “spectacle of violence” industry (read: Hollywood) culpable for outbreaks of gun violence? Obviously, Hollywood’s presentations warp our perceptions, because many more characters are killed in H’wood productions (whether for theater, cable, satellite audiences) airing each and every day of the year than are killed in the real world. I offer no defense and no excuse, but maybe the alleged perpetrator in this case saw himself bringing home to the sitting audience what they actually paid to see.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       This is the responsibility that comes with freedom.  We have the duty to make our own choices with the freedoms acknowledge in the First Amendment.  We will get the society that we earn.

      • r b-j

        coward.

        take what this guys says with a grain of salt.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           So your answer to someone who disagrees with you is to put your fingers in your ears and scream?

          • r b-j

            you will not answer a simple and straight-forward question put to you.  i am identifying *cowardice* as the motivating reason for your avoidance of that simple and straight-forward question.

            prove that wrong.

            otherwise, you’re just a coward.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            There’s been a lot said today, and you’re not the only person in the discussion.  If I haven’t answered your specific question, you can just deal with it.

            But ask again.  I’ll try once more.

      • nj_v2

        Unlike Mr Camp’s opacity, “freedom” is not absolute.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           To be sure, but are you in favor of strict controls in all areas?  How about abortion?  How about building mosques?  How about political speech on a blog?  How about medical marijuana?

          I’m in favor of broad personal liberty in all areas.  There’s nothing opaque about that.

          • nj_v2

            Gregg’s continues his reliance on bogus equivalencies and distortions.

            Now he calls what most people would regard as reasonable gun-control legislation “strict,” and extends his distortion to irrelevant comparisons to other realms.

            Such are the rhetorical gymnastics that libertarian cultists need to resort to.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Now who’s not answering questions?  Yes, I’m a libertarian in many areas.  Are you a state cultist?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            I’ve told you before, Gregg and I are two different individuals.  Lay off the extra “g”–would you?

          • Stateless

             Not everyone thinks State control over individuals is reasonable. The reason Americans are violent and full of rage is because the State in this country has polluted society. US govt uses drones and troops to massacre civilians around the world…. so many pointless comments about isolated gun violence within US borders. So much more is happening around the world in the name of American citizens.

      • Alan in NH

         I’m not sure what the specific stats are but I’ve read in numerous locations that the U.S. is one of the more violent industrialized societies at present.  If this is the case, doesn’t it make you wonder why? What is going on here that isn’t going on in England, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, Denmark, Sweden…that makes us feel we need guns and so much protection?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          That “much more violent” statistic is actually an artifact of low numbers.  Our rate is about four per hundred thousand, while those other countries have around one to two per hundred thousand.  Yes, that’s four times as much, but it’s still small, especially when compared to South Africa or Jamaica–two nations with strict gun laws.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/SOAZCZCHU43WNZB7ITM6M74LFU Former

    Thank you Mr. Goodwyn for another day of great hosting here at On Point. I hope that you are the sole consideration for Mr. Ashbrook’s relief pitcher in the future. To go a step further, little would please me more than if you were to become the permanent host of the show. Great work! Thanks so much!

  • Yar

    Since most gun violence is perpetrated by men, and the idea for protection is for more people to carry weapons, maybe the best solution is to require  women to learn how to use weapons and give them the responsibility to subdue “the guy with the gun.”
    Before you attack this comment, understand it is made with tongue in cheek, however it may have a kernel of logic in it.
    I am for two years of public service for all 18 to 25 year olds’, in which they would learn proper use of firearms among other things.  It would also teach people how to work together and help sort out the truly mentally ill.  That with universal healthcare could solve a lot of our problems.
    Women who bare arms has always attracted me. But that is a different point.  The first lady has some awesome guns.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Actually, women increasingly are buying guns and getting training.  Equal rights is a good thing.

      • r b-j

        coward.

  • TheDailyBuzzherd

    I’ll say it: Guns may, MAY, have had their value up to The 1800s, but today, what’s the point other than to reinforce racism? For the “haves” to protect themselves from the “have nots”? Why are there walls in certain communities in large cities? Why did so many whites escape the city to the ‘burbs all those years ago? Why did these same people buy so many guns? Why do people continue to buy guns that have no obvious hunting value? Where are the British? Where are the Russians? Why do people pretend we need these things?

    Why? Simple: We have an industry that’s well financed to buy protection. I’m all for people wanting to hunt within reason, whatever that means, target practice and all, but it’s clear we have an unending frontier love fantasy for an America that’s been gone since The 1870s. First, the enemy was “The Indian”. Then, it was free blacks. Now, it’s everyone else. I don’t want a gun. I’ve enjoyed shooting at rifle ranges in the past. I live in a redneck-rich town, with a few token black families. The REAL horror is the fact so many folks seem secure WITH a gun or two. That’s America for ya. Scared and distrustful and not at all secure with its own history.

    The best plan I’ve known is a national background check database to be used anywhere guns are sold. It’s not perfect; forget perfect, there’s no such thing. It’ll go a long way to save lives and allow us to move on to solve other problems. The fact we’re stuck on this issue still shows just how bought our legislatures are, which truly is the father problem of the gun issue.

    I think it’s time the American public grew up and look at things as they really are, and stop looking in the rear view mirror for a country that no longer exists.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       We recognize that dangers still exist, even in a largely peaceful society.  But perhaps you should look into the racist past of gun control.  Gun laws in many parts of this country were passed to keep former slaves from owning the weapons that they could have used to defend themselves.

      On the subject of background checks, that might be a good idea if it were practical.  But there are hundreds of millions of guns in this country, and most of them are not registered.  We already require background checks when guns are purchased from licensed dealers.  Private sales, though, are just about impossible to regulate.  If the law forbid private sales, they’d still happen.  Look at the black market for drugs.

      • jefe68

        Straw-man argument if there ever was one.
        There are laws against driving drunk and without a license and there are millions of cars on the road.
        By your reasoning should we do away with laws pertaining to driving? We have CORI checks for almost any type of job these days as well.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Not so.  Many drugs are illegal, and we can’t stop them from coming in and being used.  I’m getting at the practical difficulties in the kind of gun control that I see advocated from time to time.  How would you stop two persons from meeting up somewhere private to exchange a gun for money?

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            Greg, as I typed, there’s no perfect fix. To do nothing, as you seem to insinuate, is worse. Bans may not work either, so start with banning the manufacture of assault weapons for the commercial market.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             And how do you distinguish the “assault weapons” from the standard semiautomatic deer rifles that many hunters use?  Try learning about the subject before you wish to take something away.

          • Ray in VT

            One can easily make the determination between as 30-06 with a six round magazine and an AK style rifle with a 30 round high capacity magazine.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             The .30-’06 is much more powerful?  Is that what you’re going for?  The AK style carbine is harder to shoot well?

            We’re talking about things that aren’t fundamental to the tool in question.  The effort to ban “assault weapons” is an attempt to subdivide guns to make getting rid of all of them easier.

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            It’s that fear of banning ALL guns outright which keeps things from getting safer, guns out of the wrong hands. Moreover, it’s dishonest. The chance of all guns becoming banned: ZERO. No chance at all. Those who continue to argue against rational gun laws with this point aid and abet the killers.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Oh?  We’ve seen the pushes from the gun control side to ban this and ban that.  It hasn’t been a call for a comprehensive ban in a while, but that’s because the contorl freaks are getting smarter.  But since gun owners can’t trust control advocates, we’ll fight death by a thousand regulations.

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

             
             
            I’m not siding with “control freaks”. I side with those who act responsibly with their arms,
            arms being defined as any gun for non-military applications. That red-haired guy had a
            military-style assault rifle and had some 6000 rounds. Not for hunting deer, for hunting
            humans.

            If I were you, I’d be more afraid and certain you’re gonna be screwed by a bankster than
            some gun lobby activist.

            In other news, how many more times can we respond to this thread before they’re wedged
            clean off the page? Lulz …

          • TheDailyBuzzherd

            Greg, what Ray said. ‘sides, hunting with a semi is hardly hunting, in my opinion. Only people who are legally blind need ‘em to shoot at a moving target.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Sometimes, an animal doesn’t go down, and a followup shot is needed.  Creatures like brown bears often require more than one round.

            But think about this:  Oswald killed Kennedy with the kind of bolt-action rifle that you apparently don’t mind us owning.

          • http://www.facebook.com/Santana.1A Alexander Santana

            You dont stop to people that meet in private to exchange a gun for money, you put a law that say “do this and this will happen” …under your logic we should just let everything slide because as far as im concerned people are still being killed and thats illegal  

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I want actual harm to be illegal.  Murdering someone is rightly against the law.  But selling or owning a gun isn’t in itself a harm.  Some in this country are far too willing to regulate behavior that isn’t harming anyone.

          • Ray in VT

            No, selling or owning a gun is not in and of itself a harm, just as a gun is just a thing and it is how it is used that counts.  On the other hand, certainly we can take measures to keep people who have previous a history of criminality or violence from easily or legally obtaining weapons if their condition or history is determined to be a likely indicator of future actions.

            Selling a gun is not a harm, but selling a gun to a convicted armed robber or someone with a history of severe mental illness seems like a reasonable limit.  Can they get weapons in other ways?  Sure.  Should we make it easy for such people?  No, and I know that there are various measures already in place that address these issues in some ways.

    • Tim

      I understand where you’re coming from, but your view is definitely skewed.  This world is STILL a dangerous place, don’t kid yourself.  By police recommendation, I have had to be ready protect my family with a firearm.  You can just keep believing what you do and spend more time on the “Its a Small World” ride at Disneyland, but the day the police aren’t there to protect you, you will be at the mercy of people who don’t give a damn about the law or your life. 
      Besides the civilian threats that exist, the first thing any totalarian state does is to disarm the population.  I always say, in 1936 if every Jewish family shot and killed 1 SS when they showed up at the door with trucks destined for concentration camps, there would have been several million less Nazis to wreak their evil havoc on the world. 

      And that’s why you will only pry our guns from our cold dead hands.  Never again will we be herded like sheep into gas chambers at the behest of some political faction or corporation.  So be it.

      Peace.

      • TheDailyBuzzherd

         Tim, we don’t have a police station in town. Only one state trooper on duty, same with the town next door. Maybe my neighbors have guns in light of this, but I still don’t want a gun. There is no threat. There are burglaries, but no outright threat. There are drugs, but we don’t use, so we don’t need a gun. There are burglaries in conjunction with that culture, but we aren’t threatened by this.

        In other words, “threat” and “totalitarian” are loaded words for loaded minds. People who feel threatened by either The Fed or Johnny Crackhead will buy the NRA’s KoolAid®.

  • bearwatcher

    I clicked a box by mistake.  I want to stop the comments coming to my email. How do I accomplish that? 

    • r b-j

       oooh, i feel sorry for you.

      i think it is limited to this show or thread.  but yer gonna have an Inbox fulla crap for a couple of days.

    • nj_v2

      Hover your cursor over the “DISQUS” logo at the top right of the comments section.

      In the menus that appears, click on “Edit Profile,” then “Notifications.”

  • Tribaguitars

    The future I can see happening, is that the FBI, NSA, and every other nation security agency starts tracking anyone ordering a helmet, or a gas mask, or any other item Holmes was wearing or carrying, except the guns, ammo, and large capacity clips, thanks to the fear of the wrath of the NRA.

    • Tim

      Actually, what is happening now is that they are tracking everythng we are saying, everything you do on Facebook, and all your buying habits.  Everything is digital now, so even phone coversations can be scanned and analyzed by computers.  But I suppose the sarcasm in your comments indicate that they should not be taken seriously anyway.

        The NRA is no where near as powerful as say, Monsanto, who is working hard to copywrite the genetics of all of our food sources so they can reap infinite profits, and use the miltaries and other power structures to enforce their domination.  You should be more worried about what corporations are doing to control our once “democratic” society and the populations of the world, than people who feel the need to protect themselves against it and other less monumental thugs.  Watch Bill Moyers interiew with Chris Hedges or the woman from India last week and you might gain a better understanding of the real threats that are looming over us.   

      • Tribaguitars

         How many people in Congress do we see standing up to the NRA?  Columbine, Virginia Tech, Gabby Gifford, and now this – all done by people that should have had set red flags off, all with guns gotten through a loophole and/or extra-capacity clips – and ZERO Congressional outcry.  All we hear is, “This is not the time for talk about gun control.”  Really?  Seems to be the talk everyone else is having, but we’re (as the general public) aren’t in an election year.

        It’s not the guns! It’s the damned clips! Ask gun owners who needs to have clips that hold 30, 40, 50, 100 rounds?  

        The NRA waves the 2nd Amendment like it was written on a tablet on a mountain by our founding fathers. Our founding fathers meant for the Constitution to be revisited again and again.  If it wasn’t we’d still have slaves and women couldn’t vote. 

    • Frank

      Regarding control, there is currently a bill in congress to mandate GPS tracking systems in all vehicles starting next year.  They will know where you are all the time, how fast you’re driving, everything. 
      What’s next, track what notes you play on your guitar?
      The “central scrutinizer” author said it a long time ago- “your mind is totally controlled, you have been stuffed into their mold, and you will do as you are told, until the rights to you are sold”.  Google it.  Free yourself from their Matrix.

      • Tribaguitars

         I don’t see how they can mandate GPS in a car, the SCOTUS having stuck down the cops wanting warrant-less GPS tracking.  However, with more and more cars having nav systems in them from the factory it’s not any different than the GPS that’s in today’s smartphones, computers, and even digital cameras that record where you took a pic. So,  if your nav system is on you’re broadcasting your location to anyone that wants to know, be that the pizza shop looking to send out a Groupon, 4Square buddies, or any law enforcement groups that want to look. 

        This is where people really need to remember that the Electronic Freedom Foundation and ACLU exist for a reason, as we enter the fishbowl of the future.

  • r b-j

    Gregory Camp (a.k.a. the coward) sez:
    “There’s
    been a lot said today, and you’re not the only person in the
    discussion.  If I haven’t answered your specific question, you can just
    deal with it.

    But ask again.  I’ll try once more.” so Gregory Camp,How many more children, like 6-year-old Veronica (who was shot and killed in Aurora) do we, as a nation, sacrifice on the alter of the 2nd amendment?hundreds?thousands?no limit?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       It’s not about numbers.  I’m telling you that your question is invalid.  There are many dangers in life, and we can’t legislate them out of existence.  I’m not being a coward when I tell you that your question cannot be answered.

      But look at the numbers.  Incidents like this are exceedingly rare.  In addition, stopping an incident like this one is impossible.  You apparently want to pass some law in response, but what you don’t realize is that no law would work here.  I don’t support the passing of knee-jerk legislation–like the PATRIOT Act, to name another of that kind–just to have the illusion of safety.

      Now I’ve answered your question again.  You may like it or not.  You may accept it or not.

      • Guest

        For some (maybe like rb-j), it is too disconcerting to think that this is a random act of violence committed by a disturbed individual, and it couldn’t have been prevented.  They are looking for someone to blame, so it must be the fault of the NRA, or the GOP, or the writers of the Constitution, or something/anything so that it can be fixed and doesn’t happen again.  Unfortunately life doesn’t work that way.  When a lone, demented individual decides to wreak havoc, sometimes we can’t prevent it, no one is to blame other than the perpetrator, and a law can’t fix it.

        • Tim

          This is absolutely correct.  The urge to apply gun control as a solution is a psychological reaction to balance out a horrific occurance which would have happened with or without guns.  Ironically, it is similar to those who call for the death penalty as a deterrent against these kinds of actions.  This shoorter in Co. did not care about a death sentence.  We can execute him if it makes us feel better, but its not going to stop the next guy who veers off into mental instability.  We should be focusing on what caused him to do it and not so much the instruments of his demented actions, but that is much more difficult than simply blaming the accessablity of the device.  Get a clue, people, the world is a dangerous place no matter how we try to insulate ourselves from it. 

          • AGD

            Except the police said, if Internet regulations weren’t so lax, he would have never been able to buy the quantity and type of weapons online that he purchased.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       By the way, is that you, Democommie?

  • KyrstenW

    Mr. Goodwyn, I appreciated the dialog until you cut off one guest in favor of the other one with whom you agreed. No, it’s not YOUR show. Technically, it’s Tom Ashbrook’s show and I look forward to his return. I appreciate Tom’s efforts to keep the show open to both sides of the argument. He is much better at not shutting down the conversation to favor own his opinion.

    • jefe68

      No you are wrong. He was the moderator and it was his show for the day. Mr.Workman tried to interrupt Mr.Gross who was responding to his comment. That you did not like this is telling.

    • JustSaying

      I don’t listen to “agenda radio” and like that public radio usually gives a balanced view on topics.  This show made me cringe.  The gun control proponent was given 5x the air time of the other guest and was allowed to make personally derogatory statements and call conflicting opinions “insanity” without being challenged.  When Mr Goodwyn ANGRILY shut down Mr. Workman’s reply to an answer, I had to change stations.  Sad that the topic couldn’t be handled with professionalism and courtesy all around.

  • Debbie Welch

    I was really surprised to learn that there is no limit for the ordinary person to purchase weapons on-line or i and/or gun shops as long as their background check turns out okay.  In my opinion if the person is not involved with police/detective work, or in a hunting vocation, why would they need a stockpile of guns and ammo?  Yes – the gunman could have bombed the theatre instead of firing weapons and the destruction could have been much greater – so what does than mean?  There are many sides to this issue for the future of guns and violence with everyday life and people.  Maybe more restrictions should be made with buying automatic assult rifles and buying a magazine of 100 rounds of ammo.  People need protection – yes – especially if they live in a high crime area – but something has gone way out of control.  Horrific events are happening – something in the future needs to be done.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      It’s illegal to sell a gun across state lines without going through a licensed dealer who will run a background check.  Be careful about what you’ve heard.  Dan Gross and the Brady Campagin are well known for making erroneous assertions.

      And by the way, a hundred rounds in a box of ammunition is a standard number. Go look at the ammo section in your local retailer.

    • Tim

      I am a gun rights advocate, but agree that certain regulations which ARE in place in a number of states are justified.  I see no need for 100 round clips like the Aurora shooter possessed.  (Ironically, that clip may have saved lives compared to 10 round clips because it jammed, which smaller clips rarely do!)  However, the term “assault rifle” is really arbitrary and practically meaningless if you understand guns at all.  In fact what happened in Calif. with the assault weapon ban is that it spawned a whole new generation of modular systems that can be assembled to make many flavors of weapons that have the same firepower as the classic AR 15. 
      Aside from all of these arguments, the simple fact of the matter is that bad guys don’t follow any laws anyway, and will use whatever weapons they want against their victims.  So while law abiding citizens would be stripped of their ability to protect themselves, ruthless thugs and gangs would have ultimate power over everyone else. 

      Come on people, use your brain!

  • raymccann

    There will always be madmen. You cannot legislate them out of existence. Thank goodness that James Holmes chose a firearm to carry out his madness. Guns used to kill are selective killing devices, usually one person at a time. What if James Holmes had chosen Molotov cocktails as his weapon of destruction? Many more people would probably have died. If he had done so, would there be an outcry to ban gasoline?

  • Junobob

    Is there any proof at all that having more guns in a place has made it safer or is this just another lie that gun fanatics like to spread?   I read a news report that in the Gabby Gifford incident some guy with a concealed weapon rushing over to “help” was going to shoot the wrong person until he was stopped.

    • Akilez Castillo

      Crime is actually less in places where people own guns. Washington, D.C., is a case in point. It has the strictest gun laws, but who has the highest crime rate in the country? Washington, D.C

      • Akilez Castillo

        And New Orleans.

    • Tim

      The proof is the absense of even more stories of people being victimized, but that can’t be measured like the opposite (random killings, etc.) can.  In my family, we have been told by law enforcement authorites 3 times over the course of 2 generations that we must be ready to defend ourselves with deadly force (fireams) because they could not protect us.  The most recent was after the ’89 earthquake when my wife was compelled by the DA to testify as a primary witness against someone who was being tried for arson (burned down his damaged house down for insurance $) issued threats against my children. They gave me specific guidelines on the use of deadly force.  Failing to testify would result in obstruction of justice charges.  Great, what a choice.  Fortunately he did not attempt to harm us, but instead hired a really good lawyer who got him off.  So much for justice.  (Epilogue: The insurance company did not have to pay because of the evidence against him, and we never heard from him again.)

    • HUAG

      There is no scientific evidence other than evidence to prove the opposite. Other developed countries show lower child, teen accidental deaths and suicides; and lower murder rates, though they do not all show lower home break in rates, but that is also usually correlated to income…ie. wealthier neighborhoods tend to experience more breakins with or without guns on the perpetrators.

    • CAGW

       Proof:
      “Massachusetts has some of
      the toughest gun laws in the nation, and the state has the lowest
      firearm death rate….Robinson said the illegal gun pipeline runs across
      the borders to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. In those states, you
      can buy an AK-47 for about $350 at a gun show. There isn’t a criminal
      background check requirement. Since 2004, when Congress allowed the
      assault weapons ban to expire, it’s legal in many states to buy the
      high-powered firearm.” http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/25/massachusetts-gun-laws

      and…some more truth: http://www.vpc.org/press/1204death.htm

  • Akilez Castillo

    As a strong supporter of our 2nd Amendment rights, I believe tougher enforcement of our nation’s existing gun laws must be done before any more laws are enacted and put on the books.
    Eighty-six percent of the gun death of children under the age of 14 internationally is right here in the United States of America. It is madness.

  • Akilez Castillo

    Gun control means control. It means control for the government and the government starts controlling the people.

  • Akilez Castillo

    A man with a briefcase can steal millions more than any man with a gun.

  • Harrogate

    If tougher laws won’t work, how do you account for the huge difference in gun deaths between the U.S. and almost everywhere else in the world, including the UK, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, etc.?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       But not a huge difference in homicide rates.  In other countries, murderers choose other methods.

      • Harrogate

        Not true. Look at the homicide rates in those countries and compare them to the US. Also much lower outside of the US.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Rates per hundred thousand:

          U.K.:  1.23 with strict gun laws
          Czech Republic: 1.67 with laws like ours
          U.S.:  4.8
          South Africa:  32 with strict gun laws
          Jamaica:  39 with strict gun laws

          The U.S. is in the same group as most other first world nations.  We have a much larger population, which accounts for the small differences.  But note that the Czech Republic, a country with gun laws similar to ours and a thriving firearms industry, has a low murder rate, while South Africa and Jamaica, countries that make civilian ownership of firearms all but impossible legally, have a far larger rate.

          • CAGW

            In 1996 (the most recent year for which data are available), 34,040
            people died from gunfire in the United States. Of these deaths,
            approximately 54 percent resulted from suicide, 41 percent resulted from
            homicide, and 3 percent were unintentional (see figure 2). Firearm
            injuries are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States. In
            addition, for every fatal shooting, there are roughly three nonfatal
            shootings.1

            Figure 2. 1996 Firearm Deaths by Intent

            Gun-related crime peaked in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s. Since that
            time, the United States has made steady improvement in reducing
            gun-related violence (see figure 3). Gun-related homicides have declined
            by 33 percent since 1993, including a 35-percent drop in handgun
            homicides. Meanwhile, from 1992 to 1996, murder rates declined by 20
            percent, aggravated assaults by 12 percent, and the overall violent
            crime rate by 16 percent.2 The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Uniform Crime Report
            data for 1997 show that these trends are continuing, with murder and
            robbery totals declining by 7 percent over the previous year and the
            total of all violent crimes declining by 3 percent.3 Nonetheless, gun violence remains a serious national problem.

            Figure 3. Murders, Robberies, and Aggravated Assaults in Which Firearms Were Used

            The impact of gun violence is especially pronounced among juveniles and
            adolescents. The firearm homicide rate for children under 15 years of
            age is 16 times higher in the United States than in 25 other
            industrialized countries combined. Among those ages 15 to 24, the U.S.
            firearm homicide rate is 5times higher than in neighboring Canada and
            30times higher than in Japan, and the firearm homicide rate for the 15-
            to 24-year-old age group increased 158 percent during the 10-year period
            from 1984 to 1993 (see figure 4). This contrasts with a 19-percent
            decline in gun-related homicides for those 25 and older. A teenager in
            the United States today is more likely to die of a gunshot wound than
            from all the “natural” causes of death combined.4

  • Hennorama

    In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, according to the NHTSA.  According to the CDC, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

    According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, in 2009, Homicides by Firearm totaled 11,493.

    One can argue that these causes of death involve activities that involve the use of machines that are very useful when used properly, for transportation and hunting, to name just one example each for autos and small arms.  Interestingly, autos and guns are owned in roughly the same numbers in the US – 254 million private autos and an estimated 270 million private firearms.

    Clearly, both autos and firearms are dangerous when used improperly.  Both are legal to own, with some restrictions on who can use them.

    So … why don’t we simply require firearm owners to carry gun insurance, similar to the way we require auto insurance for vehicles that are used on roadways?

    Insurance companies would quickly determine how to underwrite the risks of handguns vs. shotguns, younger owners vs. older owners, semi-automatic weapons vs. single shot rifles, etc., etc.  Over time, insurers would also be able to refine their rates based on the firearm owners’ history of use or abuse of their weapons.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       I have an Arkansas driver’s license.  With it, I can legally drive in any state in the Union.  I also have a carry license, but not every state recognizes that.

      A sixteen-year-old passes a simple test and gets to drive for the rest of his days with just a small renewal fee.  Carry licenses require new testing and a large fee every several years–five, usually.

      A person gets a speeding ticket and doesn’t lose the right to drive.  A person gets even a minor firearms violation–something like accidentally exposing a concealed handgun, for exampe–and can lose gun rights forever.

      I can own a car and drive it on my private property without any licenses or registration.  The license is for driving on public roads, something like the license to carry in public.

      I’m allowed to drive on any public road.  I can park in a store’s parking lot.  Many locations ban the carrying of handguns.

      Guns are already regulated–too much, I say.

      • Hennorama

        The idea of requiring gun insurance for firearm owners and users would also be similar to auto insurance in that it would not be required for firearms used only on one’s own property (and obviously not fired toward or onto others’ property).

        You cannot legally drive or park an uninsured vehicle on public roads.  In a similar fashion, one would not be allowed to carry or use a firearm off one’s property without being insured.

        The concept here is to require adequate monetary protection to the general public for the risks related to the public carrying and usage of firearms, in a fashion similar to automobiles.

        As I stated above, both autos and firearms are dangerous when used improperly.  Requiring insurance simply acknowledges this fact and attempts to mitigate the potential for harm.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Are there any other specifically ennumerated constitutional rights that you’d like to require insurance to exercise?

          • Hennorama

            An interesting rhetorical construct.

            I will counter quite simply – the right to life (to not be killed or injured or abused) is paramount.

            Firearms are inherently dangerous and pose a danger to the right to life.

            The right “… to keep and bear arms …” is the only constitutional right that can pose a direct threat of physical harm or death to an individual.  It is NOT an unlimited right.

            As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man’s nose begins.”

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            And my gun remains concealed unless someone starts swinging fists at me or some other form of direct threat to my life.

    • Navin_Johnson

       Unless you want to compare people that deliberately murdered people with *their cars* then your comparison is useless.

      • Hennorama

        The actual total number of firearms deaths in the U.S.  (again, per the CDC) for 2009 was 31,347, which is very similar to the number of motor vehicle deaths.  My separate numeration of homicides by firearms was due to the fact that this topic arose mainly due to the mass murder in Aurora a few days ago.

        The total firearms deaths include homicide, suicide and accidents, just as the motor vehicle deaths include suicide, drunken driving, distcracted driving, vehicle equipment failures and other causes.

        Hope that makes my comments more useful to you.  

    • Logan

      Not a terrible idea, but honestly, what impact do you expect insurance rates to have on gun violence or killing sprees?   I seriously doubt that a killers first thought after a such an incident is “damn, now my premiums are probably going to go through the roof.”

    • CAGW

       If we increase the infrastructure for public transportation nationwide, vehicular fatalities would drop. ;)

  • Junobob

     According to the logic of the gun not on the show:

    Since we’ll always have bad drivers anyway we should get rid of speed limits & traffic safety laws.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Speed limits?  Yes, since those are often more about raising money for the county than about safety.  Traffic lights make good sense.

      • Ray in VT

        I disagree with your statement regarding speed limits.  I see there being plenty of regard for public safety behind speed limits.  50 mph between towns but 25-35 in town because there are likely to be people crossing the streets.

        If you like traffic lights better than limits, then what would be a traffic light for guns as opposed to autos?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           I can accept requiring a carry license to have a concealed handgun on one’s person while in public, so long as that license is issued to anyone with no felonies or other violent crime convictions.

  • Akilez Castillo

    James E. Holmes Has a very high IQ probably more than 100 percent but he has a very low Emotional Intelligence around 10 percent.

    In order to be successful in life IQ is not important. it’s the Emotional Intelligence of a person that will decide to over come the challenges of life.

  • Pingback: Comparing Ferdaus And Holmes: What Do These Cases Teach Us About Law Enforcement? | Radio Boston

  • Akilez Castillo

    I grew up with 12 gauge shotgun. 357 magnum revolver Federal issue, 38 Special, a 22 rifle, air pistol, sling shot and a jungle bolo.

    I never shot or killed someone even though I had those in my father’s arsenal. We eventually sold them and left with jungle bolo, shotgun and slingshot.

    My friends are much worst like M-60 and M-203 grenade/assault weapons.

  • Rraeburn

    The idea that, as your guest suggests, an armed movie goer could have stopped this gunman is absurd and offensive.  Should we really be expected to go into public armed against lunatics like this?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Many of us do exactly that.  Ask yourself how being unarmed worked.

      • Ray in VT

        It didn’t work so well, however, the idea that having multiple people potentially banging away in a tear-gas filled theater fills me with even more dread.

        Anyways, I hope that I never feel the need, either justified or not, to be armed whenever I go out in order to protect myself and my family from random violence of this sort.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Do you wear a seatbelt when you drive?  Do you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen?  It’s not about going around in fear.  It’s about recognizing that bad things can happen, and some steps of preparedness improve the odds.

          • Ray in VT

            It is also far more likely that a grease fire could start in my kitchen or that an oncoming driver could fall asleep at the wheel.  When I was a kid, which was not terribly long ago, we didn’t even lock our doors at night or when we went away, because, quite frankly, we didn’t really have to.  And given that there are so few acts of random violence where I live, both gun and otherwise, carrying a piece with me wherever I go (and here open carry is perfectly legal) makes about as much sense as keeping SCUBA gear in my car just in case I get caught in a flash flood.

            Bad things can indeed happen, but where the hell are we as a country if we have to go around armed all of the time?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I agree that the chances of facing a violent act are low, and I don’t feel that I “have” to go armed.  I do so because it’s easy, and carrying does give me more of a chance if something bad does happen.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, if you jump through the hoops that you need to in order to do it legally and it makes you feel better, then more power to you I guess.  I just hope that I never feel that it’s necessary.  If I do, then I think that we will truly have lost a part of our way of life here, and by that I mean here in Vermont specifically.  The only thing that I’ve ever pulled out one of my guns for was a black bear, and that’s been it so far.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             See, you don’t have to jump through hoops to carry in Vermont.  If you are legally allowed to own a handgun, you can carry it concealed without a license.

          • Ray in VT

            There aren’t many gun laws here.  I think that you can’t have a loaded rifle in your vehicle due to concerns regarding deer jacking.

            We have a largely rural population and a long hunting tradition, and I think that that has a lot to due with both our lack of laws and gun crimes.  We have open carry, but I have never seen anyone actually do it, and none of the gun owners who I know very well carry concealed, but I’ve known plenty of people who have them under their car seats.

        • CAGW

          Agreed, I live in a major city and I’ve been here 20 years. I would never want to be so terrified that I feel like I have to arm myself all the time. It is one thing to street smart, it’s another to be paranoid. Being prepared to shoot another person is way different than putting on your seat belt or having a fire extinguisher in your house. Those are preventative measures…arming yourself is an aggressive act against another…you are anticipating that you will need to kill someone else out of fear. And in the process, we have one of the highest child mortality rates due to guns in the developed world.

          • CAGW

             Though, if you are that afraid of “what if,” you could just stay inside your whole life…then you wouldn’t kill anyone else. Agoraphobia is the official diagnosis, when it’s really bad.

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Let’s recall that Timothy McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to cause a much larger number of deaths.  Part of what motivated him to do that was reading a book, The Turner Diaries.  Adding new laws that burden the law-abiding won’t prevent these incidents.

    • Akilez Castillo

      People will always blame guns. Because people think it is the medium of violence or killing. But in real world studies.

      People who grew up with guns are the people who avoid violence.

      They said people who are engaged in sports are more likely to be violent than the people who grew up with guns.

    • Brett

      What gun laws, say, in Arkansas, where you live, Greg, would you consider unduly burdensome? I have to say, I don’t have any answers and have considerable ambivalence about the issues of gun control. I respect you enough to want to know what you consider, specifically, to be too many restrictions in your part of the US. I’m sure you could cherry pick some laws, somewhere, to make your point, but that’s not what I’m asking you.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        Arkansas is actually quite good.  I’d like to be able to carry into my campus’s buildings, since if we’re attacked, at present all I could do is stack chairs by the door and hope.  Basically, in my state, we’re talking about improvements at the margins.  I’d like to see national reciprocity for my carry license, but an Arkansas license lets me carry in forty states.  We’re tied with Michigan for the best in that regard.  I have family in California, though, and am about to have someone in Boston.  Neither place welcomes me.

        What I want to see is a national understanding of gun rights, the same as I want to see for many other civil rights like gay marriage and so forth.

        • Brett

          Well, I can generally agree with you about uniformity of laws from state to state (whether those laws pertain to guns or not). I know to some that sounds too centralized, non-states-rights kind of thinking, but such uniformity makes abiding by laws and enforcement of laws easier, a kind of proviso being that each region of the country might well have conditions which render the need for some uniqueness that is germane to a particular state/region, i.e., there might be a particular need in a large city for certain restrictions but similar laws in a rural area in another part of the country might not be necessary. 

          In my home town when, once upon a time, only a handful of people had dogs and there were no leash laws, all dog owners lived in harmony, if you will. Now, after a significant population increase, and after numerous dog fights, people getting bit by dogs, and so on, leash laws were enacted. Some people felt a kind of governmental encroachment and were pissed that perhaps some of their freedoms were being taken away, and they were. It became necessary, though, to do something, as a problem was mounting exponentially. 

          Anyway, would you go so far as to consider  restrictions on the kinds of weapons people could own (the typical extremes of weapons such as flame throwers, nuclear missiles, etc., notwithstanding)? Or how about the need for restrictions in how guns can be used in certain areas? I don’t have much land, but some of my friends, for example, have enough land that they allow people to hunt on their land, that is as long as they get a sense the hunters are going to be responsible and observe safety as their top priority. In this example, self- policing is all that is required; however, in another, perhaps similar situation, self-policing might not be enough to ensure safety and good sense. 

          To me, some form of background check, waiting period (however short or long), a test for both proficiency in using a particular weapon as well as demonstrative evidence that the prospective gun owner has a modicum of sense, in addition to some limit of how much ammunition can be purchased within a certain reasonable period of time, all seem prudent. The gun owners with whom I am friends don’t particularly need such laws, but then I am thinking of others I know who probably shouldn’t have so much as a slingshot. 

          As a society, we can’t devise all manner of laws to always protect the foolish (or to protect us from the foolish), all we can do in a free society is provide some form of consequence should certain members of our society show poor judgement or propensity for violence. Some will, obviously, violate the spirit of societal standards, no matter how many or few laws are in place, others will abide by sensible standards, whether there are guidelines, laws, or threat of merely suffering ostracism from fellow members of their community. 

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I have no problem with banning the discharge of weapons in a city, for example, so long as there’s a defensive use exception.  But when it comes to what I can own, that makes no sense.  Guns all work basically the same way.

  • Akilez Castillo

    In the Philippines every stores,movie theater, banks,schools,offices, hotels etc etc etc.

    Security guard are present armed and ready to engage violent criminals. Guards that inspect bags or shopping bags for guns or bimbs. before that individual causes any violent act inside any establishments.

    • Akilez Castillo

      LOL!!! I meant bombs not bimbs

  • Gene

    I have not had an opportunity to listen to the show, and while I have read through some of these comments, I have not read them all. I am open to this debate but one thing disturbs me. When talking heads, politicians, and so-called experts discuss guns/gun control, they narrow the debate to what an individual’s responsibility is and the role of society in regulating guns and making us all safer. That is fine. Gun owners need to be responsible and society has the right to expect safety. But the role of firearms in the hands of the government is never discussed.

    I heard Mayor Nutter of Philly say the only people who should possess certain firearms are law enforcement. I’m sorry but it has gotten to the point that one can’t even peacefully assemble without getting a face full of pepper spray and/or a stick over the head. I understand there are certain areas where the police may be outgunned but the increasing militarization of our police forces is disturbing. Most police forces do not need the civilian equivalent of armored personnel carriers and assault weapons. The increasing militarization of our police forces is quite alarming.

    I think many people are willing to address guns and gun control at all levels if the conversation also includes why it is our government is so fearful of its own citizens that it has to snipe people in the case of Ruby Ridge (federal govt) and gas, pepper spray and club people for doing nothing more than exercising their first amendment rights in the case of the Occupy Movement and other protests (local police). The abuse of power and the misuse of certain tools (i.e. firearms and other weaponry) is not just a problem of the citizenry. The government is also guilty and cannot credibly make the case for disarming the public while they are gassing and beating non-violent protesters. One question about Mayor Bloomberg and his anti-gun stance. While he is telling the public that they do not need firearms (except for maybe hunting and sport), does he have an armed security detail? It’s funny how many of those telling the public to lay down their personal arms have a personal armed security detail themselves. Pretty elitist if you ask me.   

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      In many places, the police can break into your home, and you can’t respond.  There have been several incidents in which the cops got the wrong house.  That kind of thing is rare, just like spree killers, but when the government gets to say “oops,” we’re all in danger.

      • Gene

        Indiana just passed a law that changes all of that. Though the passed version is quite watered down compared to the introduced version, it does give people the right to defend themselves against forced police entry in certain situations. Like I said, it was watered down in the end but hopefully it will make the police think of other less forceful methods for apprehending someone before barging into the wrong home in the dark of the night with flash bangs, gas, and guns a blazing. 

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Yup, I had that one in mind as the place that has changed the rules.  Much more than the regulations, I’m concerned about the attitude behind them.  When the government too easily feels that it can control what good citizens do, we’re in trouble.

  • Akilez Castillo

    I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent – Gandhi

  • Akilez Castillo

    Speed limits warns you to slow down to avoid accidents in congested area. Gun control is to control our 2nd Amendment.

    • Sam Walworth

       Right, I dont care about speed limits anyway..

      Govt trying to control my freedom of speed..  what a socialist world we are in :(

  • Akilez Castillo

    Being emotional unstable can kill not guns.

  • Tim

    This world is STILL a dangerous place, don’t kid yourself. By police recommendation, I have had to be ready protect my family with a firearm.  People who think otherwise can just keep believing what they do and spend more time on the “Its a Small World” ride at Disneyland, but the day the police aren’t there to protect them, they will be at the mercy of people who don’t give a damn about the law or their lives.  (Look at Mexico where guns are largely illegal….And the way Wall St. and other greedy corporate interests are controlling our politics and crushing our prosperity it won’t be long until we mirror their destitution.)
     
    Besides the civilian threats that exist, the first thing any totalarian state does is to disarm the population. I always say, in 1936 if every Jewish family shot and killed 1 SS when they showed up at the door with trucks destined for concentration camps, there would have been several million less Nazis to wreak their evil havoc on the world.

    And that’s why you will only pry our guns from our cold dead hands. Never again will we be herded like sheep into gas chambers at the behest of some political faction or corporation. So be it.

    Peace, love & understanding to you all!

    • CAGW

      Why do you want to live in a town where you that afraid all the time, Tim?

  • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

    Also note:  Massachusetts, a state with onerous gun laws, has a murder rate of 3.2 per hundred thousand, while New Hampshire with its far less restrictive laws has a rate of one per hundred thousand.

    Both of those are tiny, though, in comparison with Puerto Rico.  The rate in that territory is 22.5 per hundred thousand.  Puerto Rico also has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation.

  • Whatsup

    some facts :

    There are unarmed police forces in some countries and
    guess what they have low crime rates !!

    What is the limit of control if assault weapons are
    allowed what about tanks , hand grenades

    The argument that having  people with arms deter people firing in
    public. Not sure the person who knows he is going to be caught will be deterred
    by presence of other guns.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Then why do spree killers pick out areas where good citizens are disarmed–schools, churches, theaters?  I’ve never heard of a spree shooter going to a gun range.

    • Jeff

      Tanks, Hand Grenades, Mines, Tow Missles… They are in different legal categories (such as destructive devices).
      Assault Weapons… do you know that all semi-automatic weapons can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. Magazine capacity is the feature that determines how many bullets can be discharged without reloading.
      Reloading, by the way, can also be done very quickly.
      These statements always seem to divert the discussion into arguements. Isn’t there reasonable rules we can agree on to work to prevent unstable people from unlawfully killing people?

  • Hennorama

    Just wanted to say that it’s nice to see a calm discussion in here, without name calling and shouting.  It would be nice to see similar discussions in the halls of Congress and in the Presidential campaign, but this is unlikely.

  • Logan

    A family friendly gun range…  because learning how to safely and accurately commit murder should be a vital part of childhood.  Like using a stove.

    • Gene

      Going to a gun range has nothing to do with learning how to commit murder. Though I do admit that the stove analogy is pretty silly.

      • Logan

        The entire purpose of a gun is to kill, or threaten to kill.   Learning to use it, is learning to kill.  Self defense is certainly a real issue, but should kids be learning how to use a tool with no useful purpose other than to kill?

        • Gene

          I know this might be hard for you to believe, especially if you are coming to this with an anti-gun attitude, but I know people who never take their gun out for anything but target shooting. That may not be your idea of fun, but soccer is not my idea of fun. People like all types of different activities and you can’t understand why anyone would want to shoot at targets. Fair enough. But I can tell you people do enjoy it and they shouldn’t be stereotyped as having a blood lust.

          • CAGW

             Maybe…but you don’t need an assault rifle to go target shooting.

          • CAGW

             A kid in MA went to a target range with his dad, picked up an automatic rifle…and was too small to handle it. Ended up shooting himself in the head while his father watched him. That’s just a lovely way to bond with your kid.

          • CAGW

             And yes..that’s true…and yes, the 11 year old is dead.

          • Zing

             I doubt it

          • Sam Walworth
          • Cal

            I was wrong…he was 8 years old, which apparently more acceptable to you. Interesting. http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/14/massachusetts.gun.show.verdict/index.html

          • Gene

             Cal, perhaps arguments such as yours are part of the reason (along with the NRA on the other side) that there can’t be a serious debate about guns. If what you speak of is true, it is a tragedy, but there are countless people who attend gun ranges without incident. And yes, this might offend your sensibilities, but they might even bond with their children. You have taken a legitimate issue about gun violence and super imposed your bias about gun ranges and the people who use them. Let’s have a serious debate, please. Lest you come off sounding like an elitist with your ‘lovely way to bond with your kid’ comment.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             You don’t go target shooting much, do you.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           The purpose of a firearm is to ignite powder that propels a projectile down the barrel and out in a ballistic trajectory.  That’s all a gun is designed to do.  It’s target is up to the human being holding the gun.

          • Alan in NH

             Aren’t you confusing a function with a purpose? I want to see the list of all the other creative ways in which guns can be used.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Hunting
            Target shooting
            Collecting for investment value
            Collecting for historical value
            Mechanical study

            That enough?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      If you ever are in northwest Arkansas, feel free to look me up.  I’ll take you to the range and show you how there are all kinds of things to learn that have nothing to do with murdering anyone.

  • Grifdog

    I too am not against legal gun ownership by responsible & capable people.
    I cant believe the multiple knuckleheads that I have heard from all corners of this discussion that represent as the right way to resolve this problem is to fix the mental health system in this country.
    This is the same crowd… who find no redeeming value in Health Care Reform and increased access for more sick people. The common sense way of making the fastest and most comprehensive difference is to pass and enforce laws that make illegal to disrtibute assault weapons to anyone with $ 300 in their hand.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Actually, you’re wrong.  I support gun rights, and I want to see a working national health system.  Be careful in how you evaluate people according to only one characteristic.

  • Ray in VT

    Did any of you look at this?

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

    It has some interesting data, and the color coded map is nice.

    • Zing

       That map and two bucks might get you a cup of dunkin

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Note that there is no correlation between gun laws and gun violence.

      • Ray in VT

        Are you saying that lax guns laws don’t equal lower crime?  I assume that Texas gun laws are fairly lax when compared to Massachusetts, but it has a much higher gun violence and homicide rate, and I’m figuring that Tennessee and South Carolina are also fairly lax. 

        I tried doing a quick look to see if anything jumped out comparing state gun violence with urbanization within the state.  I’m not sure that there is, and I couldn’t find any stats breaking down gun violence to the county level.  I wonder if there is a correlation with poverty?  I think that part of the difference is related to culture and how people have been raised to think about and handle fire arms.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           I’ve looked into this question a lot over the last several years.  The evidence is that there is no correlation between levels of gun control and the degree of violence in a given area.  Some states have strict laws and lots of crime, while some strict states have little crime.  Some states have lax gun laws, and lots of crime, while some lax states are peaceful.

          http://www.visionofhumanity.org/uspeaceindex/

          The only correlation that I can see there is that the warmer the climate, the more violent the state, and even that’s a slight matchup.

  • harverd phd

    One thing for sure: no Democrat is going anywhere near gun control in an election year.

  • Still Here

    Awash in guns … please, is this hyperbole necessary?

    • Hennorama

      Since gun registration is not universally required, it is impossible to know exactly how many firearms are in private hands in the U.S.  Most estimates indicate that there are more guns (an estimated 270 million) than autos (254 million).  This is nearly one gun and one auto for each U.S. resident.  This is not per adult, but rather per resident of any age.

      Approximately 30% of ALL known private small arms in the entire world are in the U.S., and over 55% of  new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States.

      Seems like a lot.  Definitely couldn’t describe it as a shortage.  “Awash in guns” isn’t hyperbole given this info.  How else would you describe this phenonenon?

  • Paul

    There are lots of great reasons to enact gun control, but using a single tragedy like this is like using a 110 degree day as an excuse to enact global warming legislation.

  • CAL

    Here’s something interesting to read about gun statistics: http://www.jhsph.edu/news/stories/2007/vernick_gun_trafficking.html

  • CAL

    The United States prioritizes the right to keep and bear arms over the protection of citizens’ lives and personal security and exercises lax firearm possession control, causing rampant gun ownership. The US people hold between 35 percent and 50 percent of the world’ s civilian-owned guns, with every 100 people having 90 guns (Online edition of the Foreign Policy, Jan 9, 2011). According to a Gallup poll in October 2011, 47 percent of American adults reported that they had a gun. That was an increase of six percentage points from a year ago and the highest Gallup had recorded since 1993. Fifty-two percent of middle-aged adults, aged between 35 and 54, reported to own guns, and the adults’ gun ownership in the south region was 54 percent (The China Press, Oct 28, 2011). The New York Times reported on Nov 14, 2011, that since 1995, more than 3,300 felons and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors had regained their gun rights in the state of Washington and of that number, more than 400 had subsequently committed new crimes, including shooting and other felonies (The New York Times, Nov 14, 2011). The United States is the leader among the world’s developed countries in gun violence and gun deaths. According to a report of the Foreign Policy on Jan 9, 2011, over 30,000 Americans die every year from gun violence and another 200,000 Americans are estimated to be injured each year due to guns (Online edition of the Foreign Policy, Jan 9, 2011). According to statistics released by the US Department of Justice, among the 480,760 robbery cases and 188,380 rape and sexual assault cases in 2010, the rates of victimization involving firearms were 29 percent and 7 percent, respectively (www.bjs.gov). On Jun 2, 2011, a shooting rampage in Arizona left six people dead and one injured (The China Press, Jun 3, 2011). In Chicago, more than 10 overnight shooting incidents took place just between the evening of Jun 3 and the morning of Jun 4 (Chicago Tribune, Jun 4, 2011). Another five overnight shootings occurred between Aug 12 evening and Aug 13 morning in Chicago. These incidents have caused a number of deaths and injuries (Chicago Tribune, Aug 13, 2011). Shooting spree cases involving one gunman shooting dead over five people also happened in the states of Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Nevada and Southern California (The New York Times, Oct 13, 2011; CNN, Jul 8, 2011; CBS, Jul 23, 2011;USA Today, Aug 9, 2011). High incidence of gun-related crimes has long ignited complaints of the US people and they stage multiple protests every year, demanding the government strictly control the private possession of arms. The US government, however, fails to pay due attention to this issue.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       If only that pesky Constitution weren’t in the way.  But you should consider that if you come after a right that we care about, someday someone may come after a right that you care about.  Those of us who support civil rights ought to work together to preserve all of them, rather than picking and choosing.

      • Cal

        The right you speak of is for a regulated militia, not unregulated individuals…read the constitution some day.

        • Cal

          And maybe actually read the child gun related mortality statistics. Or wait…are you one of those people who don’t care about the right to life. That would probably be ironic…all those children are guaranteed the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But maybe you individual rights out weigh theirs? ;)

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          Are you familiar with the rules of English grammar?  The well-regulated clause is dependent, while the keep and bear clause is independent.  That means that the right exists, regardless of the explanation added on.  Otherwise, the amendment would declare the right as belonging to the militia or the state only.  It actually declares the right as belonging to the people.

          And yes, I do care about children, but I recognize a couple of points:

          1.  We can’t do everything solely “for the children.”  We live in an adult world.

          2.  Gun control wouldn’t actually save that many children.

          3.  The cost of gun control would be much higher, both in terms of the lives of people who couldn’t protect themselves and in terms of the loss of freedom.

          • Cal

            The bulk of child fatalities occur in the home…read the statistics. We also have one of the highest teen suicide rates of any developed country…Guns also obtained by gun owners in the home. You can call me an elitist, all it means is someone who actually looked at the data, published free to all from our own government agencies, university research, and public health organizations. If actually reading and asking questions, makes me elitist…I’d rather be that than willfully ignorant.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             And where do all kinds of child fatalities occur?  What you raise isn’t a question of guns; it’s a matter of irresponsible parents, in many cases.  That separate and worthy of its own consideration, but when you bring it into a discussion about gun control, you lose the support of people who might otherwise agree.

  • Carolyn

    If this murderer were black, he would not have walked away from that theater massacre alive.  He would have had at least 1,000 bullets in him.  Also, why are there no studies looking into why young, white males are the ones who overwhelmingly commit these heinous acts?  I think if black males were committing these massacres, you would see how quickly the gun restrictions would become more stringent.

  • Jeff

    Background Checks and IDs are required at gun shows.
    Strange to hear the wrong information being broadcast to people that wouldn’t know otherwise.

  • Isskah
    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Yes, you do.  Many of those incidents happened outside the United States.  Given our population, though, it’s not surprising that we have the most.  Still, what solution do you propose?  It’s not obvious just from the one article that you cite.

  • Jeff

    I thought the whole idea of “Assault Weapons” was put out of it’s misery long ago…
    All semi-automatic weapons will “shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger”. Whether it’s a “military style” black gun or a finely finished wood stock weapon. I would love to hear a clean discussion on how the system can be improved without the reactionary propaganda trying to spin the arguement. There is common ground between reasonable people. Let’s remember in all these cases the killers violated many laws that we all agree on!

    • 1OldGunny1

      ZING!!!

  • Jon Larson

    So, your commentator said, “Most people own guns.” He seriously has a responsibility to prove that. My 10-year old nieces do not own guns. (Their father does but their 20-year old brother does not. And their mother does not.) So, call this guy on what I believe to be a deliberate lie unless he can prove through the number of registrations in the United States of America attached to people at verifiable addresses (or whatever other empirical means, testable, that he proposes to use to prove the statement that I believe to be a lie). I believe (but do not know) that most people (in the world and, for that matter, in the United States) do not own guns. Since this fellow, without qualification (and thus, seems to apply to the entire population of the world), says, “Most people own guns,” let him prove it. If he cannot prove it, he either (a) has no respect for demonstrating his statements or, worse, (b) he knows that what he is saying is a lie and he is deliberately choosing to mislead people.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       A Gallup poll from last year found that about fifty percent of American households reported having at least one gun.  Most may be an exaggeration, but not by much.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

        “Most people own guns.”  You justify that pronouncement on the show by this statement:

        “Most may be an exaggeration, but not by much.”

        50% is not even close to being that.

        50% of something is half of something. 

        Still, even that percentage is pretty horrifying. Obviously the rest of us hope that many households have large gun collections to qualify this number as realistic.

  • Wellsdm2002

    How did he buy Kevlar and why can’t I buy it for my kids? How many would have survived if Kevlar jackets were sold at Walmart?

  • na

    Finally got around to listening to this show. So basically the majority of the show was a plug for the Gun Control lobby. Did not hear enough from the other side to form any kind of opinion on this issue. What a waste of time.

  • Anoynmous

    No need to increase the gun control.  On the other hand I think that we should likewise legalize all drugs… many notable people have taken some sort of drugs… take your pick – this is well known.  And the plus is that we will increase tax revenues and reduce our debt… not a bad deal.

    Sorry, this whole gun thing is run by the NRA… whether you’re pro or against, we don’t really have a say; the NRA and their lobbyists do.  

    • Pajarito

      Excellent point… we seem to make a big deal about the freedom or right to carry guns (and kill people with them). Where’s our right to take drugs?  At least we just kill ourselves.

      Some may say the constitution… but didn’t the constitution also allow for slavery originally?  Yes (abolished in the 13th).  Didn’t the constitution disallow women from voting? Yes (19th).  The constitution is only good if it’s allowed to evolve.  When is the last time the constitution evolved?  Maybe it’s time.

  • Mike Card

    Someone in these 600 comments mentioned it earlier, but it bears repeating:  the NRA is a trade organization hiding behind the 2nd Amendment–and only 1/2 of the 2nd Amendment, at that.  The NRA cares about gun ownership only because it exists for the purpose of promoting gun sales.  They never mention the part about “a well-regulated [need I repeat? a well-REGULATED] militia.”

    Do you think the Susan Komen Foundation wants to cure cancer?  And lose all those peachy contributions?  Do you think the Farm Bureau exists to convince people to be farmers?  And close all those lobbyists’ offices all over the damned country?  Along with their 6-figure salaried “Executive Directors?”  Do you think the NRA is an organiation of volunteers and Charleton Heston gives all of his time gratis?

    This organization–and the NRA is among the most insidious–sells guns by playing on your fears:  Buy guns, kill intruders, protect your family, keep the gumint fum gittin’ yo freedom!

    As long as you keep drinking this Kool Aid, we will have people doing things–not necessrily because they are misanthropic–because it remains too fricking easy.  Is it so awful to put up barriers that allow time for someone to come down from a drug-induced high or an alcohol-induced rage or a perceived insult?

    The NRA says we need access to new guns and new ammo 24/7–that is just stupid, unless we want to live in the 19th century American frontier vigilante world. And that’s the core of the debte that never happens.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       And the AMA is a trade group for doctors, the NEA for teachers, and on and on.  Do you object to trade organizations?  How do you feel about the ACLU and the NAACP?  They’re organizations for interest groups.  Remember that the First Amendment ennumerates the right of assembly.  Do you wish to throw that aside, along with gun rights?

      But you should look at the text of the Second Amendment again.  The well-regulated clause is the explanation, but the right is described in the keep and bear arms clause.  In grammatical terms, the former is a subordinate clause, while the latter is independent.

      • Mike Card

        That is your reading, which may override the previous courts’ interpretations.  You say gun rights, I beleive gun obligations is more accurate.  I certainly object to trade organizations that advocate for child raping, for example; and am certainly within my 1st Amendment rights to do so.

        Are you willing to stipulate that the 2nd Amendment pertains to muzzle-loading muskets?  We can agree, if you do.

        • Gene

           Sure, if you are willing to stipulate that the 1st amendment pertains only to screaming from the street corner and handing out pamphlets printed on archaic printing machines.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           I’m not familiar with organizations that advocate in favor of raping children, but certainly the NRA doesn’t do that.  I will object to such organizations, if there are any.

          As others have said, First Amendment rights are not limited to writing printed on paper.  We carry our rights forward into the new technologies, not throw aside rights that some no longer want.

          • Mike Card

            NAMBLA?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Ah, yes.  I certainly do object to them if they do anything but talk.  They have a right to do that.  If they go beyond into action, I want them put in prison for a long time.

            I still don’t see how they’re relevant to this discussion.

    • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

       The NRA represents me as a gun owner.  They do so with money that I provide as well as the rest of the gun owners in our country.  How is it bad that an organization is representing a group of voters who want to be heard?

  • Vtennyson

    NPR itself filed a brief with the Supreme Court to defend 1st amendment rights of the [terrible] protests of the Westboro Baptist Church.  I agree with the philosophy of the importance of defending [perceived] “vulgar” speech or art as protected by the Bill of Rights.
    I have no relationship to my own 2nd amendment rights but I have to believe that the same logic should apply.
    Maybe we should also apply the same concepts to guns as we do to education about sex or drugs.
    If urban teen-agers had the same perception about guns as their rural peers; it might not prevent events like this but it may make a difference for the 31,500 shooting victims that seem to happen almost casually each year.

    • Sam Walworth

       wow 31.5 k die every year via gun violence, never thought about it..

      • Vtennyson

         To clarify, I didn’t say “die”. I said “shooting victims”….statistics from Paul Barrett’s book, “Glock”.

      • Hennorama

        That’s correct.  The actual total number of firearms deaths in the U.S. (per the CDC) for 2009 was 31,347.  This includes deaths by homicide, suicide and accidents.  Again, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, in 2009, Homicides by Firearm totaled 11,493.

        Over 85 firearms deaths PER DAY and over 31 homicides PER DAY.  This is what we all should be shocked and outraged over.  While tragic, the deaths from the Aurora incident were less than HALF an average day’s gun homicide total for the U.S.

        By the way, this is very similar to the rate and number of motor vehicle deaths in the U.S..  In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States, according to the NHTSA,  and according to the CDC, 10,839 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes.

  • Pam

    Unfortunately  these mass shootings will continue as long as almost everyone can get as many guns and rounds as they want, legally.  That is the price people must be willing to pay for our lack of strict gun laws.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Unfortunately, terrorist attacks will continue as long as the government is unable to look secretly into the private communications of all citizens.  That is the price that we must pay for Fourth Amendment rights.

      Do you see the problem with your reasoning?

      • Pam

        I really see no corelation to the government listening to private conversation and our gun laws. People having a conversation and carry around loaded guns are two competely different things.  I’m not advocating taking away all guns, but nobody needs automatic/assault weapons and high capacity ammo clips.  We need better background checks and laws to prevent mentally unstable people from obtaining weapons and armor. 

        • Gene

          Perhaps you see them differently because you value one constitutionally protected right over another. It is fine to talk about background checks and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies. But these debates never seem to get into specifics. What would be looked for in a background check? Would anybody who has ever been convicted of a crime be stripped of their rights? How about felons? There are nonviolent felons? Should they be stripped? Maybe we should strip people of their rights for merely being arrested for a crime regardless of whether or not they have been convicted. I constantly hear that reasonable people should be for reasonable gun control. Fine. But I don’t want it to be arbitrary. Limiting the constitutional rights of citizens should not be taken lightly. Unfortunately I get the sense from many gun control advocates that when it comes to the second amendment, they are quite eager to throw that one under the bus. However, many of them would raise hell if the same insensitivity was leveled at the first amendment.

          • DecakarCane12

             The 1st amendment does not allow for the direct potential to kill others.

          • Gene

             Merely a rationalization for valuing one amendment over the other. By the way, there have been many despots who have feared speech every bit as much as guns.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             But speech can lead to killing.  You’ve never heard of incitement to violence?  That’s illegal, just like murder, but the right to free speech makes incitement much harder to prevent.  Control advocates surely want to limit speech rights for our safety, no?

          • DecakarCane12

             But it does not grant the means to kill

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             So as long as a right is only indirectly dangerous, it’s O.K. with you?  Or are there other rights that you’re ready to give up for the hope of safety?

          • DecakarCane12

             There are not other rights for safety, just this one. The direct purpose of a gun is to fire a lethal projectile. I’m not advocating that all guns be banned, merely more control is needed when they are so easily accessible and easy to use by anyone.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Where are the limits of the control that you propose?  My experience with control advocates is that they see no end to the banning and restrictions.  The fact is that we can’t trust you.  Until that changes, we’ll continue pushing for everything that we can get.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           So you get to decide the list of rights that remain sacred and the ones that we can do without?  You’ll have to excuse me for not complying with your goals.

          But you glibly passed over my point.  Two persons can communicate with each other, using Internet technologies, and pass plans for a terrorist attack back and forth.  Or they could be talking about their love for each other or one could be counseling the other about sexual orientation.  The list goes on.  How are we to know?  For our own safety, we have to give up our Fourth Amendment rights, no?

          • Cal

            The right to bear arms is based in the formulation of a militia…ie. military. Scholars have already discussed this over and over again. It has been distorted by individuals who have an over aggressive need to do whatever they want at the expense of their neighbor or fellow citizens.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Wrong and wrong.  The militia was considered to be all free men of appropriate age.  But the right exists not for the militia, but for the people.  That’s what the text says.

            But more than that, you seem to believe that I’m harming others simply by having guns in my possession.  How can that be?  In fact, during the time that I’ve owned them, my guns have neither killed nor injured anyone.  (Some of them are antiques or war surplus, so I can’t account for their pasts.)

        • Bigleyjoshua

           I support taking away all guns–keep them locked up in regulated shooting ranges for recreation and training–including hunting rifles–hunting rifles can be signed out for hunting during hunting season by licensed sportsman who have proven themselves to be stable human beings over a lengthy trial period–like a driver’s license–first you must get a permit to be used only with a licensed hunter and guide.

          Then in the event of invasion–everyone is still trained and guns will be distributed to regulated militias as the 2nd amendment states!!!  Booo-Ya!

      • Bigleyjoshua

         no–but is see the problem with yours.  Why dont you defend our other bill of rigght?  Why do you support only the 2nd amd and applaud at the destruction of all the others–how very nazi of you

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Apparently, you don’t pay attention to what I say.  I support all the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, as well as others.

  • crystalle

    Gun controll is not the issue that we should dicussing. I don’t own guns but believe people kill others, not guns. The issue is peoples dissconnect with each other. What has happened to us as a human culture that we treat others with such dissrespect & dissregard? Society & how we relate to eachother is the issue.

    • Bigleyjoshua

       they may be true but they still have guns and society is still sick and not getting any better–better take away the toys that are designed to kill kill kill people

  • DeckardCane12

    100% of the gun related deaths are by people who are using guns. If self defense is the issue backed by the 2nd amendment, why not look to other non lethal means of protection that are just as effective, such as pepper spray or tazers. If the gun advocates had it their way with the justification that people who carry guns have the ability of more protection, this would likely cause a fire fight to ensue and more innocent casualties caught in the crossfires.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1421796688 Marsha Bowers Langdon

      Deckard, to stop someone with pepper spray you have to be within 15 ft of that person. If you are that close, you have already been shot and your pepper spray might be half way to the gunman. As far as tazers, you can kill people with a tazer as easily as with a gun. If you hit them in the chest it is almost guaranteed that it will stop their heart. The only people who kill with guns are criminals and wackos. People who own guns and know how to use them are alot more likely to use them to defend theirselves against said criminals or wackos. If someone with weapons knowledge in that theatre in Colorado had been there and had been armed I would be willing to bet that fewer people would have been harmed or killed.. There would more than likely be one less wacko though.  

      • DecakarCane12

        Good point with the limited range of pepper spray. I do not have the answers, I would just like to see more regulation on who can access these weapons and regulation on which weapons can be carried. For rational minded people who train them selves on the proper and effective use of weapons I do not have as much of a problem with, but I feel you give people too much credit. Look at Aaron Berry from the Detroit lions brandishing his gun at an occupant of a vehicle “he” nearly hit.

    • AGB

      I would also say its a circular problem. People who feel the need to protect themselves from others (fear), want to protect themselves from people who have guns…yet if there were stricter regulations, fewer people would have guns and they’d have less to be afraid of. I was trained to use a handgun and a rifle, but I don’t own one and don’t want to. I don’t need it to hunt, and true survival versus perceived is the only valid reason to own one….unless you are in the military or law enforcement.

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.edmonds1 Christopher Edmonds

    Government CAN NOT legislate morality. What people do with the things they posses despite any law is ultimately up to the individual. Guns kill people the same way pencils miss
    spell words. It’s “illegal” to kill people but that sure didn’t stop anyone. Criminals are not going to obey laws, In Australia where they banned guns they now have a new form of crime called “home invasions” where a criminal runs into your house with a knife and robs you. In a society like Switzerland where the populace is trained to use weapons and everyone owns one they NEVER have problems with mass shootings.

    • DecakarCane12

       Would pepper spray or tazers not provide the same level of protection from such acts without lethal force as well as prevent countless acts of violence from people who use guns “immorally”?

      • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.edmonds1 Christopher Edmonds

        Definitely not. Have you ever seen a cop try to stop a man messed up on PCP with a tazer, Doesn’t work, What makes you think that you trying to stop a drug addict with a tazer or pepper spray will be any different? They will rip the probes out of their flesh. Now what are you going to do with that PCP head coming at you with a tie iron? Another thing is “isoroku yamamoto” the admiral of    the imperial Japanese navy said ”
        You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass”  This speaks volumes across the globe of how strong of a nation we once had http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tO0k9SHljCc

        • DecakarCane12

           The military is still regarded as the strongest in the world and I would prefer to leave the gun handling to the trained defenders in the military.

          Pepper spray is an effective means of disarming an opponent. A PCP head may try to charge with a tire iron, but the influence of PCP cannot overcome the chemical reactions with the eyes and other senses.

    • AGB

      We legislate morality all the time…Murder…illegal; prostitution…illegal; polygamy…illegal; sexual assault of a minor or an adult…illegal. Not to mention other laws that protect community…anti-pollution, chemical regulations, medical malpractice, for example. We have a grand history of legislating morality, right back to the constitution.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1421796688 Marsha Bowers Langdon

    I would agree except for one issue. On thursday of last week there was a vote, and honestly I am not sure if it was in congress or what, to do with signing over our gun control over to the U.N. If indeed this happens, our 2nd ammendment rights are history. Obama and his lunatics are working under the wire to feverishly pass as many controversial bills as they can. Their reason for this? Socialist/communist countries only have one party and that party is democratic. If Obama is re-elected we are totally screwed or are looking at a really nasty civil war.

    • Gene

       What are you talking about? Serious debate only please.

      • Bigleyjoshua

        what are you talking about?????–do you seriously think that anything these gun toters have said is serious–it’s a farce, a child’s debate–a lunatics debate.  This is precisely why the founding fathers designed the electoral college–to protect democracy against nuts and ignorant ramblings disguised as serious.

    • Vtennyson

      You’re absolutely right Marsha. Do you know that the president is not even an American?! He is actually a member of the Klingon Empire.
      I’m not sure if it was in congress or what, but they voted to allow him to serve anyway.

      • Bigleyjoshua

         i heard he has very good klingon–and he is also a candidate for Darth Vader and plans to rule the universe as black man and white man.

    • Mark Rutledge

      Please come to this discussion with real facts, not fabrications of truth. I am frankly getting very frustrated when people make up facts with respect to Obama. There may be good reasons to vote against him but one of them isn’t his outsourcing gun control to the UN. And the idea that Obama is a socialist is totally preposterous. 20 years ago Obama would viewed as a liberal Republican and his policy approaches are middle of the road. So Marsha stop the scare mongering please.

    • Roy-in-Boise

       @Marsha … You are speaking of the UN small arms treaty. That is a sky is falling issue. All treaties must be ratified by the Senate and very few ever are to include the WW1 Treaty of verses snopes has a big article on what you are referring to and I hate to say it but Obama’s fingerprints are nowhere to be found….

    • Bigleyjoshua

       are you in a pych ward by any chance–you ideas are complete delusional.  Stop watch fox and playing with fox friends!  Your health depends on it.  Might be time to take the meds.  Everything you said–EVERYTHING–is compete hogwash.

  • Tkurtz1

    You know what, I listened to this segment and while I am in general a supporter of gun right, I just wanted to say that I like how Wade Goodwin moderated the show. I secretly made a fist pump when he told Dave that he has had his time to speak. It was pretty clear that Dave was trying to derail the conversation into a different area at that point.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      And the fact that Dan Gross was talking for most of the time doesn’t bother you?

      • Vtennyson

        I agree with tkurtz1….Wade Goodwin evaded a discussion from degenerating into a mindless shout-fest.  I thought it was nicely done.

        • Vtennyson

          sorry….”prevented”

    • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

      Dan interrupted Dave throughout the show.  Dave tried to stand up for himself at the end and Wade prevented it.

  • ulTRAX

    NRA HAS BLOOD ON ITS HANDS Greg Camp wrote elsewhere: “Let’s note that the shooter in Colorado bought his guns legally and passed the background checks. He had no criminal record. To ban that person is to ban every American.”   Inherent in your argument is that current gun control is inadequate. So you’re suggesting that a psychological test might have red flagged the shooter as not “suitable” for gun ownership and stopped this senseless slaughter? We might agree!  I don’t buy the phony Second Amendment argument that it protects an individual right to own a gun. I’m a gun owner but I’m not a member of any state run “well-regulated militia”. My individual right comes from the NINTH Amendment. As such a state can place reasonable restrictions on my “gun rights”. When we allow a demented Gun Nut group like the NRA that bastardizes the Second Amendment to set our political agenda, we do so at our own peril. They, and all the slavish and cowardly politicians who refuse to stand up to the NRA’s insanity have blood on their hands.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      Gun control advocates want to treat all Americans as pre-criminals.  We have to prove ourselves worthy of exercising a right.  But the principle of a republic is that we are all worthy citizens until compelling evidence proves otherwise.  I shouldn’t have to prove my worthiness to own a gun any more than my worthiness to vote or speak.  The government should have to show–through much due process–that I’m not.

      And we can debate which amendment states a particular right, but our rights exist prior to any national document.  We have rights by virtue of being human.  The Constitution protects certain particular rights, but it doesn’t give them to us, nor does it define all rights that we have.

      • ulTRAX

        I believe in the simple principle that we have the right to do anything that doesn’t harm others. I also believe in the principle that the burden should be on government to limit our rights… not on citizens to gain them. So, for example, I believe responsible adults have the right to use some recreational drugs… and no law should exceed legitimate intent to protect minors or society.

        When it comes to a “right” that can permit someone to easily deprive others of their rights… in this case their lives, then it is reasonable to expect government find the balance between protecting individual rights and social rights. A individual psychological test might be preferable to limitations such as on gun sales, ammo purchases etc. Why would anyone have a problem with this?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Because for one I don’t trust psychologists.  They practice an art, poorly understood, not a science.  Even if they did, far too many people claim to know what “normal” means and want to impose it on others for me to feel comfortable.  In addition, there are more than a hundred million gun owners in this country.  There aren’t enough psychologists and enough couches around to process that many.

          But you just told me that some recreational drugs are fine, so far as you’re concerned.  Alcohol is one example.  Look at the deaths and injuries caused each year by that drug.  Look at tobacco deaths and illnesses.  Those take far more lives than guns do.  And yet, because we’re a free society–in most places–we still allow citizens to make choices  As long as I don’t drive drunk, I can drink myself to death, if I so choose.

          The same logic should apply to guns.  As long as I kill no innocent person, my guns aren’t your problem.  Yes, guns have powerful potential.  So do automobiles and alcohol.  In a free society, we decide that until someone is proven guilty, that person is a good citizen with full rights.  That’s the risk.  I wouldn’t have it any other way.

          • ulTRAX

            Your fixation on guns over other “rights” is telling. Have you been here for the past 12 hours defending them? But then that’s probably central to your western pretensions.

            If someone drinks or does drugs and affects no one else… then fine. I believe alcohol and drugs should be taxed in direct proportion to their social costs. So what if we did the same with guns and ammo? But how do we factor in the costs of 12 needlessly dead into these prices?  As for restrictions on rights, perhaps they need to be made more individualistic… that the interest of the state errs on the side of caution in some areas. Perhaps new teenage drivers should NOT get a full licensee until they meet some criteria beside mere age… something that proves responsibility. And the same with guns… why should there NOT be a state interest in insuring lunatics don’t get guns? Given the harm some of these lunatics cause with guns, perhaps some sort of psychological hurdle seems appropriate. Enough with this Second Amendment bullsh*t that it protects an unalienable individual right. The original intent of the militia MANDATED gun ownership. There was no “right” there.   

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             Fine with me–where do I line up to receive my government issued M-4?

            But are you seriously unaware that those adjudicated mentally incompetent are prohibited from buying guns?  Yes, some slip through the cracks.  We live in an imperfect world.  Some get guns through private sales.  Given the number of guns in this country and our porous borders, that won’t change, no matter how many burdens you impose on good gun owners.

            I should have thought it was obvious that I value many rights, including that of free expression.  I recognize your right to the same.  My principle is that if you harm no innocent person, you get to do as you wish–guns included.

          • ulTRAX

             GC wrote: ‘But are you seriously unaware that those adjudicated mentally incompetent are prohibited from buying guns?”You DO realize I’m suggesting something beyond trying to stop the already proven mentally ill from getting guns. I’m clearly suggesting something more proactive. Some test that protects both individual AND social rights BEFORE a nutcase is allowed to buy a gun. Otherwise we’re stuck with your NRA approach… that there’s no point in having gun control since there are other ways to kill innocents. So why bother. 12 more dead is simply the cost we must accept to satisfy the Gun Nut lobby and their cowardly bought and paid for politicians… or hypocritical judges and justices who pretend they revere Original Intent even as they work to undermine it through the back door. Scalia comes to mind. He’s so afraid people will use the Ninth Amendment to demand rights the far Right doesn’t approve of that he’ll bastardize the whole Constitution to accomplish that.

          • Bigleyjoshua

             um you dont get it–think mcfly–think!  mandated the militia (enlisted guard) carry weapons–not you!  Squirrels like nuts.  Killers like guns.

          • Bigleyjoshua

             wrong–we dont allow people to smoke pot and its not hurting anyone.  Smoking cigarettes should be illegal in all public places and in the home if children are involved–this should be considered child abuse–you are a lousy uncaring cruel person if you are smoking around children–and a very bad role-model. 

            Alcohol is deadly and far more dangerous than pot–alcohol is actually the gateway drug, not pot. 

            All our laws are wacky–designed for the benefit of sociopaths.  Proof–look at our culture–mass murder at home and genocide abroad–genocide in our heart in our history and heritage.  Americans are f–up!

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I’m comfortable with legalizing marijuana, and my reasoning is the same for that as for guns.

        • Bigleyjoshua

           the point is we all have a right to life–government should protect that–ban guns.  end of discussion.

          guns and drugs are not the same thing–drugs are willfully taken–and pushed (drugs like date-rape should be prosecuted for life)–guns are designed to do one thing–slaughter people!

          • ulTRAX

            The citizen militias of old are now the National Guards and they are provided weapons. As far as ordinary citizens are concerned, the Second Amendment is moot despite the propaganda put out by the NRA. Our gun rights now, like any Natural Right, are protected by the long-ignored Ninth Amendment. Sadly, both Parties but especially social conservatives on the Right, deny the Ninth has any meaning. They fear it will be the source of rights they don’t want people to have: same sex marriage, the right to choose, birth control, etc.

             
            I own a gun I bought for self-protection because I camped alone out in the middle of nowhere… but under the Ninth I should also have the freedom to own a gun for hunting or recreation. The Ninth places on government the burden of justifying any restrictions on those rights… but it doesn’t prohibit those rights from reasonable restrictions. Even the right to free speech is limited. So the question is… what are reasonable restrictions on gun ownership that protects both gun owner rights AND the safety of the public?

          • 1OldGunny1

            Actually many firearms are designed from the ground up for competition shooting, not kiIIing anything.  But what do you know?

        • 1OldGunny1

          How about the same tests before someone like you (or me) can even post or debate on this subject?

      • Bigleyjoshua

         you are flat out wrong–people like me do think you are criminal–but I am one person.  Nobody thinks like me.  Nobody would make that argument except me–you being irrational.  Ultrax has clearly pointed out the flaw in your thinking and the inherent contradiction.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           In this country, if you accuse someone of being criminal, you have to have evidence.  Accusation isn’t enough.  You’ve shown yourself to favor authoritarianism.

          • ulTRAX

            My god, is gun ownership some sort of whacky religion for you? Why should gun ownership have looser standards than the right to drive? We don’t just assume any knucklehead teen knows how to operate a car. They have to be tested and there may be additional restrictions… a probation period before s/he gets full driver rights. Such laws balance individual rights AND society’s right to be free of lunatic drivers. These laws do NOT presuppose these teens are “criminals” until proven innocent. But they do consider unskilled and possibly not yet mature to deal with the responsibility of driving on public streets.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I’ve told you that I can accept requiring shall-issue licenses to carry a gun in public–a civil right that must be preserved unless there’s a conviction of a crime.  That’s the analogy to driving.  Owning, though, is a basic right.

          • Bigleyjoshua

             your straw brain is astounding–how can i be authoritarian when i clearly state this is just my opinion but i recognize others–that is democracy not the totalitarianism gun nuts love–at the barrel of a gun,  When you dont like something gun nuts march into town halls with guns and demand  ignorance be law or march into other countries and kill millions–hmmmm–who is authoritarian?

            i advocate putting down guns and having civil discussion–gun nuts advocate bullets and blood. Sounds Nazi to me.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

            Your position is interesting, but what happens when someone refuses to put down his gun?  Now you’re disarmed, and he isn’t.  Certainly, in a civil society, we can have rational discussions without the need for violence.  We do that all the time here in America.  But you apparently fail to see that not everyone is willing to be rational.

            But you should know that I have never threatened anyone with a gun for any reason.  I vote, and I speak, and I teach.  If you weren’t blinded by your own prejudices, you’d see that we’re not the evil people that you believe us to be.

    • 1OldGunny1

      May God-Bless Texas, Miss Lillie & the N.R.A.

  • Ce

    Right to carry doesn’t always protect unless the most trustworthy individuals can carry almost anywhere … like the movie theater that was the scene of the crime.  James E. Holmes may have got off a few rounds … his body bag would have been the next scene!

  • Avid Hunter

    I am an avid hunter and gun owner.  I am also an advocate of enhanced gun control.  The owner of the gun range made a good point when he described his reaction to Holmes answering machine message: “Something wasn’t right.”  The point being that gun ownerhsip should be restricted to only those who are responsible and stable.  This could be confirmed by requiring that:

    a) All gun owners must pass a gun safety course and possess a license to own a firearm or buy ammunition.  The license would require periodic renewal similar to a drivers’ license.  Eligibility for the gun safety course would include a background check.

    b) As a licensed gun owner you would be responsible for registering your guns.  You woudl also be responsible for securely store your guns (cabinet, trigger locks etc.)

    c) If your registered gun is stolen the theft must be reported immediately.  If your gun is used in a crime and was not reported as stolen you would be fined. 

    The NRA (of which I am not a member) has espoused responsible and safe gun ownership.  I’m curious what their stand woudl be on this proposal.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       In other words, so long as your rights aren’t infringed, ours are fair game?  You do realize, don’t you, that if the control advocates get done with our semiautomatic rifles, your bolt-action deer rifle with a scope is next.  After all, it could be used as a sniper’s weapon.  Your ammunition will penetrate a police officer’s vest, too.  For the sake of safety, you’ll be the next one to give up rights.

      I hope that you’re just unaware.  Please look up the term, Fudd, and don’t be one.

      • Avid Hunter

        I reread my post and did not see a statement regarding outlawing semiautomatic rifles or any other guns.  Guns must be kept out of the hands of irresponsible individuals, ciminals, mentally unstable, and the like.  I take you to be a responsible gun owner.  Would you object to having to possess a license to operate a firearm for the same reason you must be licensed to operate a car, drive a semi, or cut hair?

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

          I absolutely would object to requiring a lciense to exercise a basic right.  I’ll give you the same answer if you ask whether I should have to have a license to practice a religion.  I think that it’s ridiculous to require licenses for cutting hair.

          As for driving licenses, we have licenses for carry, too, and as long as the latter are shall-issue to anyone who isn’t a violent criminal–convicted, not suspected–I’ll accept that, so long as the fees are low.

          You called for registration.  Are you unaware that registration is the necessary step for confiscation to work?  Handguns were registered in the U.K., and now they’re banned.  The government has a much harder time taking away what it doesn’t know exists.

          • Avid Hunter

            There’s little to no harm to the public created by the right to free worship.  We can’t say the same abouth the right to bear arms.

            Does the license to carry require anything more than a clean background check?  Do you need to demonstrate you know how to store, properly handle, and safely use a firearm when you obtain a license to carry?

            I’ll do my homework on the UK gun registration statement.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             It differs by state.  Some these days allow carry without a license–Vermont always has–some simply run a background check, some require training in addition, while a small number insist that the applicant has to show a need to carry.  My preference is toward the Vermont end, rather than the New Jersey end of that spectrum.

        • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

          Operating a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a right.  Owning a firearm is a right. Just as Roy said.

          • Roy-in-Boise

             Thank you.

          • guest

            So is voting, but we still have to register to vote, criminals are not allowed to vote, neither are some criminals who have served their jail time, and there are all these voter ID laws now that you have to show your drivers license/state issued ID to vote.  If I have to do that just to exercise my RIGHT to Vote (see 14th amendment) why don’t you have to register to own a firearm?

          • Bigleyjoshua

             is owning cluster bombs a right?
            the constitution says ‘arms’ –now we know that probably meant musket rifles–one shot gunpowder packing hunks of junk–not the kinds of weapons of mass destruction we have to day–but the word ‘arms’ could be construed to mean knife, sword, cutlass, hoe, rake, pike, halberd, slingblade, rock, stone, stick…it does not specify type of weapon–that is to be interpreted by future generations.  WE should do that now.

            Do you think that if we have the right to bear ‘arms’ in order to overthrow a tyrannical gov no longer serving the people–like now–then we should be able to bear equal weapons of mass destruction–do you think we have a right to cluster bombs, nukes, missiles, poison gas, napalm, tanks, aircraft carriers, F-18 hornets–pleasse.  This is a lunatics debate.

            The fathers did not say guns–they said ;arms’–so we could determine our own future–not worship the bible or 18th century–it’s time to make laws for our generation–no guns.  sorry.  it’s time we stopped letting democracy be beholden, held hostage to lunatics that determine the fate of our world whether it be wars and genocide, guns and killings, bullying, education, health care, or the environment. 

      • Bigleyjoshua

         I would yes–but dont be ridiculous–its not the same thing and they will not go after rifles–at least not inn your life time.  Stop fanning flames.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Do enjoy your trust in those who wish to control you.  They’ll appreciate that.

          • Bigleyjoshua

             if you dont trust them go exercise those fabulous gun rights for what they were apparently designed to do–unseat our tyrannical absurd corporate government–i do not trust them but i dont advocate murderous weapons of mass destruction in the hands of loonatics.–corporate, Blackwater, government or texans and red states–nor do iwant these kind of people unseating democracy or the current fascists just to install something worse and uneducated.

            Change comes from reason, activism, civil disobedience, and democracy–human interaction in a sfae environemnt without fear of bullies, reasonable conversations with open hearts and open minds–not at the barrel of a gun–never has, never will–her coems the new boss same as the old boss!  new nut replacesold nut.  bunch of squirrels.

            But i bet you would consider pleasantly my opinion if i was chewing to-baccy, and holding a gun–you’d like that, then i wouldn’t be so warped

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             I don’t use tobacco, but if you do, that’s your choice.  It won’t change my opinion of your character.

            Nothing in what you said speaks to my points.  I’m speaking about basic rights here–the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, and the right to control my own property.  I’m not advocating armed revolution.  We have a working system.  Within that system is a respect for individual choices.

            I’m not the one trying to bully anybody.  You’re the one who wants to take away rights.  That sounds like a bully to me.  You’re the one who has a prejudiced attitude about gun owners.

            You’re also incorrect in your labelling of guns as weapons of mass destruction.

    • Roy-in-Boise

      Licenses are for privileges. The second amendment guarantees rights. Apples & Oranges.

      • Bigleyjoshua

         the 2nd amendment guarantees nothing

    • Bigleyjoshua

       timothy McVeigh was never considered insane–he was trained by the murderous military and would have passed all screenings.  Nevertheless–he was a mass murderer.  The truth is–murderers like bombs and guns.  i always distrust a gun owner–every one i ever met brags about killing animals and talks about killing humans–openly with fellow gun nuts–they don’t want to shoot white humans–but ‘colored humans’ in foreign wars and such…they are maniacs.  But online of course they will talk pretty. 

      In the military, it was the same: all weapons personnel and marines had murder and blood lust in the heart–they talked about it like it was turkey dinner, and one of the most frequent words–the N word.  The profile fits. Marines chant–kill, kill, kill!   Gun owners have something wrong in the core, in the heart, in the brain.  There is simply no need for it.  Then put them in a grim violent inhuman war and when they come home they are crazed sociopaths, suicidal murderous lunatics set off by –who knows what–but its going to happen again and again and again. 

      The ancient Romans recognized this and began separating soldiers from the population.  We cant necessarily do that–but we can separate guns from the hands of potential killers–the problem we cant always be sure who that is–better to just make the public safe and ban all guns.  If we dont–all other rhetoric about security in the war on terror is nonsense and a lie and a fraud!!

      What did we lose all our other rights for?!  In the name of security.  its time to ban guns.  NOW.

      • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

         I don’t know where you got all that from…  But it seems like a pretty warped point of view and I think you may need to seek help.  Seriously.

        • Bigleyjoshua

           evidence?  how?  why?  do you a have any thoughts or just warped opinions?  how can  you say democracy, peace, stability, safety, reason, community, understanding is warped–hmmm–better get down that yellow brick road.  Instead of offering logical empathetic reasonable democratic solutions or opposing arguments you just say, well (belch) you’re warped!  Is that how democracy works in a ‘free’ country–belittle, disparage, bully, shooot people…?  really?  really?  you’re warped–yep, have another plug of Copenhagen–go spittin all over the house…

      • Roy-in-Boise

        Hmmm … The world and solutions that you are describing seem just a tad bit egocentric.

        • Bigleyjoshua

           um how?  im advocating a world for community–not myself–not my–MY MINE right to own a weapon of mass destruction–seems the others have the egocentric probelem.  HMMMMMMMMM.

          BOise–no wonder.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    Gun control is an issue that would lead to succession of states. Whether there is a second American Civil War would remain to be seen. People from liberal eastern states that wish for gun control might get it but implementing it in the south and the west would take force.
    Some folks just refuse to believe that states like Texas, Utah, Wyoming and yes Colorado just might opt out of the USA over it but they would. Additionally there would never be enough law enforcement personal to enforce bans unless the military were employed and then what posse commentates?

    Al Gore didn’t loose the 200 election in Florida. He lost it by not carrying his home state of Tennessee and he did not carry Tennessee because he supported the original gun bans … This is a 3rd rail issue for Obama and the Democrats. If they are wise they will not touch it. But the loyal left will push just as the loyal right pushed the war on women. It is the same sort of polarization.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

      That’s sadly a possible scenario.  The good news is that for now, Congress won’t pass any gun control, and the courts are mostly on our side.

    • truth is power

      This is the tragedy of the gun lobby and the marketing of
      guns by the gun industry.  The “explosion” of gun sales has
      happened because the gun industry latched on to  American consumerism and
      by marketing the idea that everyone “needs” a gun to be safe, just as
      people think they have to have the latest phone or other gizmo, gun industry
      sales have skyrocketed.  And therein lies the incentive for pumping up the
      2nd amendment rhetoric.  It’s all about money and the NRA cares nothing
      for the human loss that has resulted in gun-owning frenzy.

      Thirty years ago, the only people with guns were hunters and cops.  Nobody
      needed a concealed weapon.  It’s insane.

  • http://www.facebook.com/will.dell.54 Will Dell

    The show tonight was a joke.  Dan Gross monopolized the conversation and interrupted Dave Workman every time Dave tried to make a point.  At the end of the show when Dave tried to prevent Dan from doing this one more time, Wade rudely cut Dave off and let Dan run the show once again.

    I would say that it’s pretty obvious that Wade was taking Dan’s side in this discussion.

    Dan invited Dave to “come to the table” and discuss options for preventing gun violence in the future.  How would anyone be able to discuss anything with Dan Gross when he will not allow any point to be made other than his own.

    I found this evenings show very frustrating to listen to because of it’s obvious bias and I won’t be tuning in again. 

    • Zmars

      Even though I come down on the side of Dan Gross, I agree with you Will.  Wade did a poor job of giving equal time, and I was interested in the arguments that Dave was making.  Tom Ashbrook is usually much better at hearing all sides.

  • prosecute gun owners

    Outrageous!  Why is it that republicans, and their teabagger friends, KKK|NRA friends and cowboy he-haws always hoot and holler over gun control–the so-called 2nd-amendment–but always support and encourage the destruction of every other amendment in the bill of rights–rights that protect freedom and democracy–rights they dont care about and always support their god (presidents) and God (a loonatic mass murderer) and government in extreme security–murderous wars, torture, assassination, corporate-media, corporate rights, criminalization of constitutional protesting and activism–why are activists demonized when that is what democracy is a ll about–you dont hear these nuts defending the recent cancellation of every the amendment in the bill of rights.

    Moreover–the supreme court is illegitimate–corporate shills and gun nuts themselves–on the bank roll of the NRA!

    The 2nd amendment clearly states a well-regulated militia–a nation guard–not cowboys hooting and hollering yeehaw!

    These gun supporters are clearly wacko–murderous and insane–INSANE! 

    Moreover, this is not the 18th century–this is the 21st C–times change and we must adapt.  In 1000 years will you nuts still worship the constitution written in antiquity?!!!!!  I guess you would–you still worship Bibles–which is the equivalent to FOX news propaganda.  But you still worship the insane lies–a fable.  Wackos!

    Guns need to be illegal–period.  Anyone advocating guns need must  must must have a psych eval and monitored 24 hours–wackos!  Guarantee they all republican or libertarians who support illegal american wars, bullying, brutality, genocide, infanticide–(sanctions), and torture/ 

    Why do we hear the same heated arguments on the radio in the media ove rthe recent loss of our other 9 bill of rights in the constitution–everyone is mysteriously quiet on that!  Americans are wacko–period–insanity.  Look at Canada, look at Europe–we dont see these problems. In china–NEVER!  In China they  literally see Americans as completey lunatic and a danger to the world!  I a totally understand.

    Get a grip loonatics–gun nuts.  Crazy f….

    it is truly time for secession–New England needs to join Quebec and become its own nation.  Let pea-brained texas heehaws and the rest of blood red cowboy tea bag states shoot it out.

    • prosecute gun owners

       ban all gun shows.  Children always cry when you take away dangerous toys–but they get over it. 

      • cowboy

        nerd

        • Bigleyjoshua

           murderous cowboy.  is that it? is that all you can muster?  thats what democracy has come to–no wonder we all want the right slaughter and kill and bully and shout ho ha–yeippee, hoorah! 

          lone star–get your gun out of my face–before i take it from you and knock your teeth out!

      • CL

        In my state (Michigan) see Article 1 Sec 6-MI constitution–

        “EVERY citizen has the RIGHT to keep and BEAR arms for the DEFENSE of HIMSELF and the STATE” and maybe you..

        I beleive MI is not the only one that dont require the ‘militia’ to be in charge as you think..
        Thank you

    • Bigleyjoshua

       Why DONT we hear the same heated arguments in the media over the loss of all our other rights protected under the BoR?

      Why are unions and Eco-activists and peace activists demonized and gun wavers sanctified? 

    • Gene

       Listen to yourself. And you call those who disagree with wackos? You can hardly make an argument through your hysterical ranting. You are so CERTAIN. Must be nice. But the problem is you are wrong. Not everyone who supports the 2nd Amendment is a bible thumping wacko who watched FOX. A serious debate about guns needs to be had, but people like you cannot be taken seriously.

      • Bigleyjoshua

         once again, your argument makes no sense–you say it must be nice to be so certain and then say –I am wrong!  um, must be nice to be so certain. 

        I dont think there should be a debate about the right of mass murder and the possession of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a sick society–sorry.

        Consider this–i used to think the same way you do: i’ve hunted, i’ve killed, i’ve served my country–but i was able to reflect on the matter and think outside the box–especially the TV box.  My mind and thinking evolves and transforms all the time because i allow it to be open to new ideas and consider new perspectives.

        Emancipate your mind.  i do not come to my decisions from cultured conditioned rhetoric as most of you.  Take a deep breath and really think about what you think you are saying you need and want.

        Also, if you read other posts–i clearly state that i recognize this as my marginal opinion and that others have come to other nuanced conclusions–and that for now, i would be content with stricter laws because that’s what most people want.  I recognize that and reserve the right as an American citizen in a democracy to share my marginal opinion–but consider this–the greatest ideas in history came from the margins–not the herd.

  • travis

    The problem with people like Dan Gross is that the only solutions they are interested in “discussing” are there own.  They are just better at sugar-coating it than the NRA. i.e. ‘I respect your opinion; however, we should do this my because everybody [whoever that is] agrees.’

  • Bigleyjoshua

    what about the rights of us who dont want to be slaughtered in movie theaters and inn schools?  What about the right to safety and peace?  Why is that never discussed.

    I tell you why–the media–inlcuding on point serves the the status qou–and will always protect it.  Not true journalists.

    • UHAG

      The right to life is trumped by the “right” to conceal a weapon.

  • Bigleyjoshua

    Squirrels like nuts.  Killers like guns.

  • Bigleyjoshua

     I support taking away all guns–keep them locked up in regulated
    shooting ranges for recreation and training–including hunting
    rifles–hunting rifles can be signed out for hunting during hunting
    season by licensed sportsman who have proven themselves to be stable
    human beings over a lengthy trial period–like a driver’s license–first
    you must get a permit to be used only with a licensed hunter and guide.

    Then in the event of invasion–everyone is still trained and guns
    will be distributed to regulated militias as the 2nd amendment
    states!!!

    • Gene

      I know it is not PC to say this, but the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or shooting on a range. It is there to be a check on a the government and other threats to the people. That’s not to say that there can’t be reasonable limits, but to take away all guns is not a reasonable limit, and if one really cares about the constitution, the 2nd Amendment should not be so readily thrown under the bus lest the whole idea of the Bill of Rights rings hollow. That includes your right to speak freely, your right to worship fictional deities, and all the other rights enshrined in the first 10 amendments.

      • jefe68

        I don’t here anyone saying the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. I know I’m not advocating for that. I’m advocating for some common sense with the regard to the sale of guns and ammo.

        When I see a comment that say guns rights trump the Constitution I’m not inclined to think this person is very much into being reasonable on this subject.

        • Gene

          I never said it should trump. I think a debate on reasonable restrictions is one that should be had. But many, not all, but many who push for gun control do not treat the 2nd with the same deference as they treat the amendments. Which makes me think that they are not going to be very reasonable on the subject.

          • Gene

            Last post should read “other amendments”

      • Bigleyjoshua

         if you really cared about the bill of rights you would be outraged by the Patriot act and the the fact that the bill of rights–accept the 2nd amend has all ready been cancelled.  You have no rights accept to carry a gun.

        Now, do you really think we should worship the 18th century-?  The founding fascists could not have conceived of such weapons and if they knew of them surely would not put them in the hands of all citizens.  In that you would be a fool to think so.

        If you are so damn worried about your right to defend your self from a government that no longer represents the people and commits atrocities–you Have IT NOW –now–stand up with your weapons and fight–BUT YOU DON’T BECAUSE YOU ARE ALL TALK–and this is not the reason at all–now if somebody comes along–millions even with differing opinions than fascism and war-and sees the gov for what it is–but being peaceful law-biding citizens that they are have no guns–you gun owners waving flags and bibles would mow us all down with the bible and flag in one hand and an assault weapon in the other to defend your corporate totalitarian government!

        Don’t use your talking points with me–it doesn’t stand up.  You better get down that yellow brick road–Off the to see the wizard!

      • Bigleyjoshua

         your rights were all ready annihilated smart one–face it,deal with it.  That’s what you claim to need and want.

        when is this fictitious day of wonder supposed to be–if not now–how much  more fascism do you want before you throw out the tea

    • Kenbow19

      The great thing about America is Freedom, you have it to leave, move to a country that supports your ideals. I hear Mexico does not allow it’s subjects weapons.

      • Bigleyjoshua

         yeah that makes great sense smart guy–because in a democracy you’re not allowed to have a difference of opinion–everyone has his marching orders must wear flag on lapel, hail republican presidents and carry tow six shooters on his hip–thats what democracy is all about–and if you don’t like go live in Guantanamo.  Yeah, you are brilliant.  And I must say, have a full grasp of democracy, America the Beautiful, and reality. 

        How many shirts do you own with the red white and blue? 

        If i don’t like it —I CHANGE IT–thats how democracy works in civil society. 

        If you don’t like it–why do you wave a flag that represents these ideals–go LiVE in TEXAs. where you can be happy with other democracy hating racist uneducated bigot billionaires that bomb nations and kill foreign babies with flag and bible in hand.

    • Citizen

      Yes, then we should also have all cars locked up in a central garage, so that when you need it, you have to get to the garage and sign out your car. But you must take a guide with you.

      Then, in the event you have to drive somewhere in a hurry (like evacuating because of natural disaster), everyone will still be trained how to drive, and the cars will be distributed to people who can get to the place the cars are stored.

      Yes. Let’s do that.

      • Bigleyjoshua

        In the even of such an emergency the roads would be congested and you would not be able to go anywhere–and what a ridiculous statement anyway.

        Uh, And yes, community cars is  Brilliant idea–sign up and go–bring back with full tank.  There is no need for so many private cars.    Goo idea awesome citizen!  You’re not just a scarecrow afterall. 

        The armory would be in every community–village, etc–so easily accesses by locals.  But hey, guess what the idea was intended to have humor in it–actually I think the squirrels should have their nuts taken away forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/cwooley89 Charles Wooley

    we always talk about gun control after a massacre but the fact is that you just can’t legislate away crazy

  • Amgwilliams

    I see three trends in the arguments in this discussion against gun control regulations:

    1. I’m afraid therefore I must carry to “protect” MYSELF
    2. I don’t care what the scientists say, so I’m going to hide from the facts; which is related to
    3. My individual “rights” are more important to me than living in a society, community, or neighborhood of people…the toddler argument, also known as “me,me,me” or “I want, I want, I want.”

    I find none of them compelling because they are all selfish.

    • Gene

      And the NRA on the one side and people such as yourself on the other make it nearly impossible to have a serious debate. The people who disagree with you MUST be selfish. People who disagree with you MUST be afraid. They are all me,me,me or I want, I want, I want. It is quite impressive that you know all about those you disagree with. I wish I was so CERTAIN. Really, please read your above comment again. Maybe it will strike you how close minded and elitist you sound. Would it not be elitist of me to so readily call you selfish and to describe a right that you care about as “rights” in quotations?

      Really, you brought nothing to the side you claim to represent. You did how ever feel smug enough to characterize those who you disagree with. Bravo! You get an A+ in debate!

      • HUAG

        There’s enough dialogue in this feed to prove my summary, if you read the dialogue with an open mind. The major differences between the arguments…some people are coming at it from a defensive stance, and “I” before all others mentality…just read the dialogue and you can see that. Others are arguing from a systems or community perspective…those are generally those wanting to regulations against easy access. You can play the name-calling card about elitism all you want…it doesn’t have any meaning other than republican rhetoric against people who choose to educate themselves either on their own or through higher Ed. It’s defensive posturing based on nothing. I know hunters who believe the same thing I do as well as police. They don’t need to have to deal with people with concealed weapons along with

        • HUAG

          And seriously…if you live in a town where you feel so unsafe that you have to carry a concealed weapon around all the time…maybe you should move. I know hundreds of people who don’t feel that way…they’re street smart, but their not running around afraid and wanting to attack other people.

          • Gene

            I live in a safe town and you are proving my point. I am not a Republican. I am pro-union, hold a masters degree, believe in a single payer healthcare system, believe corporations have too much power, that climate change is a serious issue, that we need to get off of fossil fuels, and I am a death penalty opponent. I could go on and on with my progressive ‘credentials’. I am not repeating a Republican talking point. You come off as elitist. The Republicans did not invent that word. Of course the police want tighter restrictions on guns. Just like they want fewer restrictions on searches, wiretapping, etc. They usually want anything that makes their jobs easier even if it is at the expense of civil liberties. You say cops should not have to deal with people with concealed weapons. I say nonviolent protesters should not have to tolerate the police brutality that is prevalent when progressives gather to make their voices heard. This is not an argument that protesters should be carrying weapons to demonstrations. I am just saying that a more reasoned debate about violence and guns will include a discussion about why cops must be armed to the teeth as well as the people. Like I said, I live in a safe town. Yet the police here have two armored personnel carriers and a tactical unit. Do you know what a tactical unit is? They carry assault weapons. Why in a safe town do we need a militarized police force? There are certain people who will never discuss this with you if you continue to paint them all with the same brush and refuse to discuss the violence that comes at the hands of the state while you are trying to convince others that they need to disarm. By the way, I never said I, I, I in any of my posts.

          • CAGW

             Agreed, on this point, “I say nonviolent protesters should not have to tolerate the police
            brutality that is prevalent when progressives gather to make their
            voices heard.” But, I come from a state, and a city, where this is appreciated as a concept generally. We are all rather progressive here. We also have the strictest firearm laws and the lowest firearm death rate. 

          • Amgwiliams

            Agreed also, on “I say nonviolent protesters should not have to tolerate the police
            brutality that is prevalent when progressives gather to make their
            voices heard.” and I’m glad your progressive in part of your life.

          • Gene

            “and I’m glad your progressive in part of your life.”

            Elitist. I rest my case. 

          • Amgwilliams

             sticks and stones…

          • Gene

            You’re not a serious person. I’m done. Have a nice and progressive day!

          • Amgwilliams

             Sorry I hurt your feelings, Gene. Thanks, you have a nice day too.

          • Amgwilliams

            I just realized you personalized your last sentence. It’s not about you. It’s about us.

    • Advocate

       I find nothing you say compelling, because it’s dripping with contempt.

    • CL

      If you dont like em, dont buy em. That is what is so great about this country.

      If you ban em, you might want one next week-then what??

      Propose that all news ‘shows’ submit their textx today for broadcat tomorrow and see what kind of arguments you get?? Why not require that> The founding fathers did not envision TV so it is not constitutionally protected. Only one/two lantgerns hanging in a bell tower are protected as that is what they had at that time..

  • Nne67

    Wade Goodwin is doing a great job filling in for Tom – composure under pressure!

    • Slipstream66

       I also like Wade Goodwin, and it is good to hear Southern voice coming from the moderator’s chair.  Why not – it is a national program.

  • Kevin

    Well regulated means well trained. The militia were private citizens coming to serve with their own weapons, to fight for and preserve liberty. The Founding Fathers assumed private gun ownership not only as a right but as a duty of free citizens. Each month NRA’s magazine highlights stories where lives where saved by a private citizen using a gun. Just brandishing a gun stops many crimes, several hundred thousand a year by FBI estimates. Guns are the great equalizers. The level the field in respect to gender, age, strength, and numbers. Not too long ago in the news, and they under report such incidents, a young single mother saved her life and her child’s life from a male attacker. Better she die than your ideology not be upheld, right? A concealed carrier at the theater could have ended the slaughter. But self defense is evil, right? We should be obedient sheep, and wait until the police arrive minutes later, when seconds count. The Founding Fathers knew human nature, and knew many if not most will surrender liberties for the illusion of safety. Sad. 

    • truth is power

      You said, “a concealed carrier could have ended the violence.”  Really?  And how would they do that when this man was covered in protective armor?

      Better to have bans on assault weapons and high count  ammunition magazines.  You will say he could have gotten the weapons anyway.  Well, maybe not.  Maybe it would have been more difficult.  Maybe he would have been frustrated by stricter laws.  I would rather have a firewall erected than to just allow these sales of mass murder weapons openly.  Any intelligent person recognizes that these weapons are made exclusively for murdering human beings.

      • Advocate

        Where to begin… Okay, first, all armor is not created equal. Look up armor levels. Second, even if his particular brand of armor can stand up to whatever is being fired at him, you think he’s just going to stand there and get shot? No, he’s going to take cover, because that’s what people do when they get shot at. It’s reflexive – you play too many video games – and if he’s running to cover he’s not executing people. And third, I’ll go out on a limb and say that you don’t know the differences between the actual definition of assault weapon and the legal definition of assault weapon. Because it matters, and it’s bogus.

  • CAGW

    “Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, and the state has the lowest firearm death rate….Robinson said the illegal gun pipeline runs across the borders to Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. In those states, you can buy an AK-47 for about $350 at a gun show. There isn’t a criminal background check requirement. Since 2004, when Congress allowed the assault weapons ban to expire, it’s legal in many states to buy the high-powered firearm.” http://www.wbur.org/2012/07/25/massachusetts-gun-laws

  • Amgwilliams
  • DrewInGeorgia

    40 plus percent increase in Gun Sales in Colorado since the Aurora tragedy.

    We sure are anxious to shoot ourselves in the foot.

  • Slipstream

    Lax gun laws lead to more gun violence.  It is that simple.  And why for heaven’s sake do we need to let people buy machine guns and huge magazines?  What possible use could these things have if not to shoot and kill people?

    Kudos to Workman and Whitney for at least appearing on the program.  Gun nuts in general do not like to even discuss the possibility of limiting access to their beloved weapons.  What is also behind this, although it did not come up in the show, is the belief that some people have that they should be allowed to build up arsenals to engage in firefights against the U.S. and local governments if they feel the need to do so.

    • Marcy Fleming

       Wrong, Slip, see More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott.
      Areas with the strictest laws like Massachusetts, DC,
      Chicago, New Jersey and California have the highest crime.
      Only an imbecile would believe the Nazi-Communist line that only government officials should have guns.
      We have two enemies, private criminals and governmental criminals.

      • Guest

        except…. that doesn’t work in Reality.  Did you even read what she wrote?  You need a machine gun or a military grade semi-automatic weapon  with a huge magazine why?  I mean really justify to me why you need to be able to walk around in America with an AK-47.  Justify it.  You can’t justify it to me because I’ve been to a country where people do that.  I’ve been to a country where there is no gun control and people do in fact walk around with AK-47′s, police cannot control the criminal element because the criminal element is just as heavily (actually more heavily armed) than they are.  Private citizens cannot do protect themselves either because one person with a gun cannot protect himself from 5 armed assailants with a machine guns.  Living in a country where every house in a fortified compound is not the happy fantasy land you crazy people think it is.  Seeing police with automatic weapons, private security guards, military checkpoints, every time you want to go shopping you go through a metal detector and get frisked, every time you want to eat at a restaurant.  It’s not heaven, it’s hell.  You live in fear every day of your life because today may be your last day.  It’s incredibly mentally draining.  You don’t know if it’s the criminal gangs who are going to get you or the militants who are going to get you.  An armed society is not a civil society, it is a chaotic and bloody society.  Every person says “I have a gun, therefore I can do whatever I want” society.  Someone wants something from you, they will take it from you because they have a gun and they can.  Go live in Pakistan and see for yourself.  

        • Citizen

          Justify
          walking around with an AK47, OK… Arab Spring… Look at Lybia and Syria. They
          tried the peacful protest route and the government pounded on them. Now they
          are getting weapons so they can fight back. Our founding fathers wanted to make
          sure that didn’t happen to us, so they wrote an amendment to the Consitution to
          give us the right to keep and bear arms.

          Please do
          not forget that ruthless criminals commit acts of atrocities every day. Acts so
          heinous that if the media were to report the full detail of the crime, you
          would vomit where you stand. Yes, even though we have police, our loved ones
          are kidnapped, tourtured, mutilated, beaten, raped and murdered at the hands of
          violent criminals that have no understanding of the law. Innocent people are accosted
          in the streets by thug gangs and beaten to death for no reason.

          It would
          be awesome to live in a utopian society where no one committed a crime. A
          society where we could all trust that our politians are not dirty dealing in
          corruption, police are not brutalizing the public and the military is … well,
          who needs a military in Utopia?

          Ask
          yourself, if you are ever in a situation where there is a repeat violent
          offender about to beat you down and commit unspeakable acts on you and your
          loved ones, would you rather have a gun or a phone?

          • Guest

            Tunisia they didn’t need guns.  Egypt they didn’t need guns.  The government, the AMERICAN government, in AMERICA, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED GOVERNMENT which is OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE is not turning on us.  Our military is representative of the people, the entire people.  We cannot compare America to Lybia or Syria.  In Lybia you have a tribal society and the revolution happened along tribal lines.  The same is true in Syria where you have and extreme Allowite minority oppressing the majority.  In Egypt where the Military came from the people, when the revolution happened the military sided with the people and the government fell fast.  There are still issues in Egypt, but there has been relatively little violence and I don’t think you can really make the case that the military there is oppressing the people and they need to take up arms against the government.  Certainly in the United States where we have democratic institutions there is no need at all.  You don’t need the bullet when you’ve got the ballot.  In America if the government went crazy and tried to send the military after the people, how do you think that would work out?  Maybe they could do it after a small minority of people, they were able to send the Japanese to internment camps in WWII for instance, but do you really think our incredibly diverse military which represents families of every race, ethnicity, religion, socioeconomic background, could really be convinced to fire on the majority of American indiscriminately?  I do believe they would fire on the Government first.  Have some common sense.  

            Did you read about the case in Texas recently?  Father finds his daughter being raped and beats the rapist to death with his bare hands.  He didn’t need a gun to do that.  Indeed mankind had been murdering lethally for millennia before firearms.  People having been making the case that without a gun, Colorado would have happened.  Conversely, without a gun you can still kill anyone, including an intruder in your home.  You can kill him with a baseball bat, a throwing knife, your bare hands, there are innumerable ways to kill people that don’t involve firearms.  I’m pretty sure if we re-instituted the assault weapons ban you’d still be able to defend your home.    

          • Advocate

             So, your argument is, “You don’t need guns to kill people. You are perfectly capable of killing people without them.” I fail to see how that helps the case of gun control.

          • CL

            Maybe it means there is not a GUN problem??

            Those pushing gun control really just want people control.

        • CL

          Had 100 M1 rifles and 500 cartridges been
          ‘infused’ into every town in Poland , Hungry and add a couple of other countries of your choice back in 1940s, how long do you suppose the shooting lasted before those people would have been free?? If you had overslept youd have missed the shooting.

      • CL

        Guns have two enemies–RUST and CONGRESS.

        Guns will lay on a shelf or in the sock drawer for YEARS and never shoot anyone.

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Look at the gun laws in Vermont.  They’re about as lax as it gets, and yet, gun violence there is almost nil.  Look, by contrast, at Puerto Rico.  Gun laws there are strict, and their gun violence rate is the highest in the United States.

    • CL

      One canNOT by machine guns without a great deal of paperwork and about $10,000 of cash. Every MACHINE GUN has to have a $200 tax to transfer it to someone checked out very carefully.

      Know what you are talking about before posting.

      WEe have THOUSANDS of unenforced/unenforcable gun laws in the USA and very few are LAX.

      We are still waiting for the first gun to shoot someone just like TEDDY car.

  • Marcy Fleming

    Stupid commentary, AIPAC, the Israel Lobby, brags correctly that it can get over 400 House Members and 95 Senators to sign to anything Israel wants. The NRA or even the AARP can’t begin to match this ! As a Jew I am ashamed of the cowardice of commentators who won’t take this Lobby of lobbies on.

    • guest

      One can only pray that this kind of lobbying won’t lead us to war with Iran, which would be disastrous for both the USA and Israel.  

  • Pingback: Don’t Tell Me How to Defend My Family

  • listener#lots

    First time commenting.  I think Mr. Goodwyn did a poor job keeping control of this show.  Dan Gross came off as kinda rabid, and to me, did very little to make a good case for himself, mostly just going back to certain yelling points.  I was extremely disappointed with this show.

  • http://www.facebook.com/christopher.edmonds1 Christopher Edmonds
  • Derecho

    The public understands that the police have no duty, or ability to protect them. At a deep visceral level, they know that the police in many big cities across this nation shoot far more people in a year than this deranged orange-headed nutjobs. The POLICE WAITED OUTSIDE while this killer continued his moment of glory, and only nabbed him when he stepped outside to clear his gas mask – and the door locked behind him.

    Americans know through hard experience that the only way to stop a psycho killer is to be ready with the means to stop him. So as you go about your life, you are either prepared, and responsible for your own protection (and incidentally that of those around you) or you are willing to hand your life over to the guy with the orange hair.

    • CL

      “….waited outside ” just like in another CO shooting scene the high school with the two mal-adjusted shooters. One name was Clairborn or so.

  • ulTRAX

    WHO ARE THE GUN NUTS?

    I believe the true gun nuts are those who have turned gun ownership into a religion. They are fanatics who only see the world though the eyes of gun politics. They are Second Amendment absolutists even if their position rests on an intellectually dishonest interpretation of the Second Amendment. They believe they have the right to be totally free to keep and bear arms even if those that specified Second Amendment right was intended for the well-regulated militia of which they are not members. They then live in perpetual paranoia that more reasonable people are out to take their imagined “rights” away. They are not content with their Ninth Amendment right to own a weapon for self-protection, recreation, or hunting.

    • DrewInGeorgia

      Based on the past ten years they’re not too concerned about First Amendment Rights either.

      • ulTRAX

        Those I call Gun Nuts… to distinguish them from sane gun owners such as myself, is they place gun “rights” above all else and their solution to gun violence is, of course MORE GUNS! And when that doesn’t work the onus will be on citizens to wear body armor.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Actually, it was a student who wrote a paper on this topic that brought me over to the gun rights side.  He quoted the argument put forth by left-wing legal theorists that if we give up a right named in one amendment, even if we don’t like it, we risk losing every right.  A government that can ignore one part of the Constitution can ignore the whole thing.

          And yes, it disturbs me how often our government has done just that over the years that I’ve been watching.

        • CL

          The solution is MORE guns-you said it. How many guns were in that theater??

          Since most states have some form of CCW the crime rate id waaayyy down–ie since the very late 90s till today..

          The last time Aurora had a potential mass shooting, it was ended by an off duty officer-in her church on a Sunday morning-one dead-plus one shooter=2, not 12 and 50+ having life changing injuries.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

        I’m a writer, and I teach writing.  I’m also a citizen.  That being the case, I see freedom of expression as another fundamental right.  But go look at blogs, for example, that advocate for gun rights.  You’ll see that we value the First Amendment as well.

  • Erdevereux

    Beyond the failure of either presidential candidate to live up to their own professed beliefs in an election year [see Derrick Jackson's Boston Globe Opinion, July 25, 2012], it’s VERY disappointing that neither the politicians supporting Obama and Romney or their other supporters have stepped up to lead a proper conversation. Yesterday NPR couldn’t seem able to find any one to go public with the obvious reasons better gun control is needed; we were reduced to hearing experts who spent their time touting the diminishing murder rates in the last 20 years, as if having more guns available had anything to do with that trend. The main reason for lower violence in this period is well-documented: the decision to concentrate police vigilance in targeted crime zones is responsible for the improvement. 
    As if neglecting to counter that specious argument were not bad enough, the moderator allowed his guests to cite misleading statistics about gun ownership trends in the USA, allowing listeners to believe that half the country owns guns and most people feel safer as a result. Huh? Gun ownership per household in the last 40 years has plummeted from 1 in 2, to 1 in 5 households [New Yorker, Spring, 2012]. But with enough guns available and changing hands on the streets, our homicide rate with guns is over twenty times the rate in any other developed nation. 

    Those who defend the status quo with gun control like opportunities like Aurora when people are prone to believe that the insane mass murderer in question might have gotten ahold of guns regardless of how difficult they might be to procure. But this sort of occasional killing is not what gives us an insanely high gun murder rate as a nation. Their argument echoes the silliness of slogans like Americans don’t want their government to tax success [then who do they want it to tax - failures who can't pay but could fill up a debtors' prison for a private company paid for with public money that's gotten from - exactly where?]
    Every nation has people who are passionate about some stupid things (treacle, bag pipes), but find anyone elsewhere who understands why buying and concealing guns is about as easy here as buying an alcoholic beverage. Maybe we should make it as easy to buy guns in order to please everyone [huh?] and thereby accelerate the number of domestic hand gun murders committed in a drunken rage  by family members. Further broaden the legality of carrying concealed weapons in state houses and elsewhere, and before long we’ll enjoy good old western shoot-em-ups on the evening news. 
    Some time ago, legislators thought to pass laws against driving with open alcoholic beverages in the car. Certainly, the ability to carry loaded guns in cars is just as great an invitation to trouble. 
    Do you want to be followed by someone with road rage and loaded weapons? I don’t.  
    PS - By the way, I see nothing wrong with responsible gun ownership and use, but don’t think guns should be inexpensive or easy to buy. But when the NRA hits me with robo-calls about how ‘Warshington wants to take away our guns’, I start shooting off rounds of profanity. And yes, I did receive such a call this year. Rick DevereuxNeedham, Ma 02492

  • guest

    All of the people saying that owning a Gun is a constitutional right, so they shouldn’t have to pass any checks and there should be no restrictions… So is voting, but we still have to register to vote, criminals are not allowed to vote, neither are some criminals who have served their jail time, and there are all these voter ID laws now that you have to show your drivers license/state issued ID to vote even after you have registered.  If I have to do that just to exercise my RIGHT to Vote (see 14th amendment among other amendments if you don’t believe that voting is a constitutional RIGHT) why don’t you have to register to own a firearm?

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

      Owning a gun IS a Constitutional Right.

  • Aaaa

    ..

  • huevetas

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    Notice “Militia”, a group of people… a club.  Is there such a thing?  Then it also says “well regulated”.  We’re far from that… if you have a pulse you can get one.  There should be strict rules and tests (psychological, motor, capacity) to pass before owning a gun.  There should be an obligation also to pass these tests every few years… just like a driver’s license or holding a passport.

    Finally, I don’t think in the 2nd amendment they were thinking about automatic weapons or current military grade weapons.  Although I can own an airplane, I cannot own a jet-fighter.  Where’s my freedom?

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Vitamin C being necessary for the health of a human beings, the right to keep and eat citrus fruit shall not be infringed.

      Does that sentence say that I can’t put a lemon rind in my martini?  Am I not allowed to make a pie?  What if I want to eat an orange just because I like the taste?

      You see, the keep and bear clause is the independent part of that amendment’s sentence.  The militia clause explains why the framers wanted the amendment included, but the amendment itself specifies the right as belonging to the people, not to the state and not to a militia.

      • huevetas

        I don’t fully get your argument and the martini – though I do enjoy a good martini!  My point was around the group.  In your case, you mentioned human beings, the second amendment mentions a militia.  I consider myself to be part of the “human beings” group; I am sure most civil gun owners (99%) are not part of a militia.  

        If your argument is that the militia bears no consequence on the law… then someone please go and edit the constitution and its amendments.  Apparently it’s full of language that does not add any value rendering it a big waste of space… or even worse!  It’s left to interpretation which will happen to be whatever or whomever is in power.

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           The militia clause is the reason for writing the amendment, but the right is contained in the keep and bear clause.  That right is identified as belonging to the people.  Not to the militia.  Not to the state.  How much clearer can that be?

          • huevetas

            Again, waste of space.  The amendment could just as well say: “for no reason whatsoever, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed”.  Whats the purpose to do this at all then?  Just for fun? 

            I think my point now is not whether it is added or not.  The point is that these laws are too loosely written… leaving place to too many holes which get closed little by little.  And at the end of the day the group of people (and companies) with the most money… wins.  

            Thanks God for big banks that are too big to fail.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             No, the good news is that the courts and legislatures of this country are largely on the side of gun rights.  Gun control loses just about everywhere, even in states with wretched reputations for not allowing people to be free.

          • huevetas

            Not sure if that’s the “good news”… rather call it the news.  Wether they’re good news or bad is up to the reader.  I don’t make any assumptions   here.

            The constitution has evolved and abolished slavery, given the right of vote to women, among others.    As you can see, these will not harm anyone no matter how intelligent (or not) or how likely you’re about to make a mistake.  The moment gun rights are added, you’re adding risk to the society at large.

            Gun right advocates are taking the history of the US and its constitution as hostage in the name of politics.    Is this good or bad?  Not sure… I’ll let you decide.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             The changes that you named were the result of amendments.  If you want to get rid of the Second Amendment, try.  You’ll get a good laugh as your bill goes down in flames.

            And yes, that’s a good thing.

          • huevetas

            I’m glad we pay the government to wast their time and our money.  right…

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

       It also says, The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. In every instance where the word “People” is used in the Constitution, it is referring to the rights of the individual.

  • Bigleyjoshua

       is owning cluster bombs a right?
    the
    constitution says ‘arms’ –now we know that probably meant musket
    rifles–one shot gunpowder packing hunks of junk–not the kinds of
    weapons of mass destruction we have to day–but the word ‘arms’ could be
    construed to mean knife, sword, cutlass, hoe, rake, pike, halberd,
    slingblade, rock, stone, stick…it does not specify type of
    weapon–that is to be interpreted by future generations.  WE should do
    that now.

    Do you think that if we have the right to bear ‘arms’ in order to
    overthrow a tyrannical gov no longer serving the people–like now–then
    we should be able to bear equal weapons of mass destruction–do you
    think we have a right to cluster bombs, nukes, missiles, poison gas,
    napalm, tanks, aircraft carriers, F-18 hornets–pleasse.  This is a
    lunatics debate.

    The fathers did not say guns–they said ;arms’–so we could determine
    our own future–not worship the bible or 18th century–it’s time to
    make laws for our generation–no guns.  sorry.  it’s time we stopped
    letting democracy be beholden, held hostage to lunatics that determine
    the fate of our world whether it be wars and genocide, guns and
    killings, bullying, education, health care, or the environment. 

    • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

       Arms refers to the kinds of weapons that one person can use individually, so yes, blades, rocks, sticks, and the like are included.

      Weapons of mass destruction are not.  There is no legitimate purpose for me to have a nuclear weapon.  I can’t use one in any manner that won’t hurt innocent people.  Guns are different.  I can hunt.  I can practice on a target range.  I can collect guns for their monetary value.  And I can defend myself if someone tries to kill me.  All of those are legitimate uses.

      But please do explain how our nation is held hostage.  During the healthcare debates, I saw reports of lots of vigorous townhall meetings, but nothing about armed gangs preventing legislation.  The same is true about your other cases.

      • huevetas

        You go hunting with multi-round automatic weapons?  I’ve done clay pigeon shooting, but I used a shotgun.  I truly used it for the sport.  I feel if the government told me I can’t use it, well, then I wouldn’t… just like I can’t drive faster than 55mph or whatever.

        And by the way, why can’t we own automatic guns manufactured after 1986?  Doesn’t that go against the exact same 2nd amendment we all argue about??

        • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

           Yes, it is a violation that we can’t buy full-auto arms made after 1986.  At the moment, it’s a matter of picking one’s battles.

          But consider the speed limit that you named.  Many states pushed for a change, and now, the limit is typically seventy on the interstate highways.

          Also yes, hunters do use semiautomatic rifles.  Not many people have fully automatic weapons, so those aren’t typically used in hunting.  There are semiautomatic shotguns used in trap shooting, by the way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

             You can legally own a fully automatic machine gun…you just have to get a license for it.

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             It has to have been manufactured before May of 1986, and you have to get the approval of the head of your local law enforcement.  There’s also a $200 tax.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

            What about a medical clearance first?  How does the head of local law enforcement know what you are like if you’ve never caused law enforcement any problems so far?

          • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

             How about recognizing that rights are rights.  We don’t demand a medical exam for voting or free speech.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

            Voting or free speech is not putting into the hands of somebody a weapon which can physically kill others.  It’s ridiculous that you need a medical prescription for some very regular meds these days but you can get a gun without any checkout at all.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

            Why in heaven’s name would you want a fully automatic machine gun?  For hunting animals?  Your writers of the Constitution used a far more primitive weapon.  Worked for them.  That’s the sort of gun they were referring to because the technology to produce your fully automatic machine gun hadn’t been invented.  Why don’t you stick with the weapons of their era if you want to stick with the terminology of their Amendment? 

            Because things change, don’t they?  Your guns have been improved upon.  This world is not their world as far as firearms are concerned. But you want to keep to their world, their frame of reference, whilst moving with your modern guns into the new era. 

            Seems you want to take advantage of an older era’s lack of knowledge to avoid the regulations appropriate for the current era. 

            You want to have your cake and eat it too.

            The rest of us are talking about regulations being tightened, we’re not talking about taking your wretched guns away from (most of) you.  Unless you don’t pass updated clearance rules.  Maybe that’s the fear – that there is a percentage of you who would NOT pass those rules?

    • guy

      I would note that ‘arms’ of the time did include cannons, many of which were privately owned.  I’d rank a cannon somewhat higher on the firepower scale than an AR-15.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

       They have places for people like you…they are called insane asylums…because you are crazy if you think we are going to let anyone take away our Constitutional Rights.

  • Citizen

    Pushing the debate to the extreme ends is not going to get
    either party into a rational discussion.

    For the sake of debate, let’s say that the there are enough
    votes to amend the Constitution and strike the Second Amendment. Thereby, the
    right some people enjoy is removed. Following that, the Federal Government or
    individual states may start enacting laws prohibiting guns in some way, either
    by outlawing sales, or total prohibition on ownership and possession.

    Now what? Please provide a rational, affordable, working
    model of enforcing the new law(s). A ban on sales is easy to enforce as
    compared to trying to actually remove guns from people, so how does that
    happen?

    Should the police start a house to house investigation to
    see who has guns and who does not? Should the searches be only via warrant or
    can they just do surprise inspections? Should the police be able to excavate a
    private individual’s land in search of buried caches of weapons? What about
    safety deposit boxes in banks? Should the police be able to raid all of them to
    see what is inside? Guns and ammunition, if properly packaged, will last for
    years and years in storage. There are millions of guns that could be anywhere
    and everywhere.

    Unfortunately, enforcing the law is a difficult and
    expensive endeavor that we as a country continually struggle with. Think of all
    the things that are illegal to own and or do, that are still done every day.
    Imprisoned people are bought and sold and used as slaves, drugs of all kinds
    come in and out of the country and are used by millions of people. Wild animals
    are illegally kept as pets. There is already a black market for guns as well.
    We have yet to eliminate any of these issues in our country.

    There was once a Constitutional ban on the manufacture and
    sale of alcohol. Somehow that didn’t work out very well, and there is no
    mention of alcohol as a right that shall not be infringed, be it as a member of
    a drinking club or not.

    Whoever can come up with a workable solution to all of this
    will surely earn themselves a Nobel Peace Prize. Simply banning possession will
    not solve the problem.

    • huevetas

      This is exactly why I think we should legalize drugs… too difficult to enforce.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

         Sounds like you have already been taking them.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

       The Second Amendment is the one Right that guarantees the preservation of all the other Rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

      • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY yahoo-2IM6PH3ISJMJ5AWK46TZJDA4ZY

        Those creating the Constitution never could have foreseen how technological advancement would create automatic weapons. 

  • Citizen

    To those who want to equate the Second Amendment to a
    militia;

    In the entire text of the US Constitution and Amendments,
    the word, “People” is used a total of eight (8) times. In each of the seven (7)
    other uses of the word, is there any dispute from anyone that the intent of the
    word is to mean each and every person, man, woman and child, that is a citizen of
    the United States? Does anyone read into those clauses and phrases that “People”
    have to have some other association to an organized or regulated group in order
    to be included into the protections that are granted?

    The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia,
    being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to
    keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Please explain how the meaning of
    the word “people” in this statement should be thought of as a different meaning
    than in the other statements.

    People: The citizens of a country, esp. when considered in
    relation to those who govern them.

    • huevetas

      Like I said below… someone should cleanup the constitution then.  Apparently it’s full of completely useless language.

      • http://gregorycamp.wordpress.com/ Greg Camp

         Rights do get in the way of an autocrat’s wishes.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

         No, it is perfectly clear to most of us. You should study the Constitution more closely. You will have a better understanding of your rights.

  • Advocate

    I hear the comparison between gun and car ownership a LOT. I think it’s flawed because of the vast discrepency in the intent of the design. So, let me offer another comparison:

    Should I be forced to go through a background check, and waiting period, to enroll in a cyber-security class in college? Should cyber-security training be banned all together? Should I be legally disallowed from learning how to make and exploit backdoors in software? Or, perhaps we should start restricting the sale of computers?

    What about people who pick locks as a hobby? Their entire hobby revolves around an activity that penetrates really the ONLY core physical security measure we have a society. But the only laws restricting that activity are “Don’t use it to commit a crime’.

    There’s a lot of fear injected into the public perception of guns. But it’s fear through lack of education, like anything else. Hackers and lockpick artists terrify me, but that’s because I don’t know how they do what they do. I’m not going to start screaming for regulation over the tools they use.

  • Great Yig

    is this a joke? you cant stop people from mass murder ever. stop living in a fucking liberal over protective utopia. If just one of those people in the theater had a gun, that would have been fucked so fast.

    • smartypants

      Nice… that was mature.  You get an A!

  • ranndino

    The same tired arguments from the gun lobby reps. He could’ve done it with Molotov cocktails or a bomb, if someone was carrying a fire arm in that theater they could’ve taken him on, etc. What a bunch of utter nonsense!

    Statistics clearly show that the US has one of the highest rates of gun violence in the world when compared to other first world, well to do countries. The example of the massacre in Norway that the gun lobbyist cited actually works against him because it’s notable precisely because this type of thing has never happened in Norway before. In the US these rampages have become so rampant that they barely shock anyone anymore. 
    And to say that someone in that theater could’ve done something if they were carrying is to completely ignore the facts of this case or to believe that Rambo actually exists. The shooter had every tactical advantage. The element of surprise, the darkness further enhanced by launching smoke bombs & tear gas, his position, the type of weapons and the amount of ammo & finally being dressed in a fully bullet proof riot gear including a helmet! Please tell me what person in their right mind can think that someone in that theater could’ve really put up effective resistance under these circumstances! Now, also imagine that not one, but multiple people would’ve been armed. What do you think this would’ve have resulted in? It would only increase the chaos because no one would have any idea who the bad shooter was and most likely many more people would get shot with a high likelihood of our gun toting heroic cowboys shooting each other instead of this nutjob.I’m not some liberal hippy either. I like guns. Yet I swear listening to comments by ideologically brainwashed people boggles my mind. All sense of logic or reason gets completely thrown out the window and we have to be subjected time and time again to comments worthy of an 8-year old who’s been hit one too many times in the head with a frying pan.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Larry-Lindsey-Phd/1126533415 Larry Lindsey Phd

       My wife and I were supposed to be in that theater that night, but changed our plans at the last minute. I am a former combat Marine and expert marksman with a pistol, an international competitive shooter for more than 30 years, former NRA handgun, rifle and shotgun instructor and I have trained military, CIA, Secret Service, FBI and local law enforcement officers and helped to develop one of the Marine Corps sniper rifles – the very first dedicated sniper rifle, the AR-50A1 in .50 BMG and I can assure you that one trained, armed civilian in that theater would have saved most of those people. Even though James Holmes was armed to the teeth and wore body armor, there was enough time between the time he threw the first smoke bomb and when he started shooting for an armed citizen to engage him. He also experienced a malfunction of his primary weapon, an AK-47, after only 3-4 rounds were fired. He apparently spent quite a few seconds trying to clear the jam before switching to a different weapon – more than enough time for an armed citizen to engage him. James Holmes was not experienced in combat and was not anticipating any resistance. As soon as a round hit him, regardless of whether it was a lethal hit or not, this coward would most likely have panicked, dropped everything and ran. Even if he did not, repeated multiple hits with a 230 grain slug at 1,180 fps would have taken its toll even through body armor, even to the point of broken ribs and painful contusions. He would have suffered major trauma in the legs, arms that would have even been lethal it major arteries were hit, and most certainly any hit to the unprotected areas of the groin, neck, face or sides of the torso. At theater distances, which would be approximately 60 feet maximum, especially with the laser and night sights on my Custom Kimber 1911 .45 ACP, a head shot is not out of the question, even in a darkened theater. Even if the bullet were deflected by the kevlar, the impact would have rendered him unconscious. Without question, had an armed individual, willing to defend himself and others, been in that theater that night. James Holmes might well have been the only casualty.

      • ranndino

        The only way we’d know exactly how realistic your assessment of the situation is if you were indeed there that night. I stand by what I said. The guy had a major advantage in terms of the element of surprise, position, weapons, body armor & not having to care about hitting bystanders since he didn’t have a specific target. I think your assessment of your own actions, had you been there, is more than a little optimistic which makes me doubt your self professed expertise.

  • 1OldGunny1

    Fact:  There are over 22,000 gun-control laws in this country at the federal, state, county, city and local municipality levels.  And they all have one thing in common – none of them work for the simple fact that criminals traditionally do not obey laws and gun-control laws only control the law-abiding citizens.  

ONPOINT
TODAY
Sep 1, 2014
This Friday, Aug. 22, 2014 photo shows a mural in in the Pullman neighborhood of Chicago dedicated to the history of the Pullman railcar company and the significance for its place in revolutionizing the railroad industry and its contributions to the African-American labor movement. (AP)

On Labor Day, we’ll check in on the American labor force, with labor activist Van Jones, and more.

Sep 1, 2014
Pittsburgh Steelers outside linebacker Jarvis Jones (95) recovers a fumble by Carolina Panthers quarterback Derek Anderson (3) in the second quarter of the NFL preseason football game on Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014 in Pittsburgh. (AP)

One outspoken fan’s reluctant manifesto against football, and the big push to reform the game.

RECENT
SHOWS
Aug 29, 2014
Beyoncé performs at the 2014 MTV Music Video Awards on Sunday, August 24, 2014 in Inglewood, California. (Getty)

Sex, power and Beyoncé’s feminism. The message to young women.

 
Aug 29, 2014
Ukrainian forces guard a checkpoint in the town of Mariupol, eastern Ukraine, Thursday, Aug. 28, 2014. Ukraine's president Petro Poroshenko called an emergency meeting of the nation's security council and canceled a foreign trip Thursday, declaring that "Russian forces have entered Ukraine," as concerns grew about the opening of a new front in the conflict.  (AP)

War moves over Syria, Ukraine. Burger King moves to Canada. Nine-year-olds and Uzis. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Our Week In The Web: August 29, 2014
Friday, Aug 29, 2014

On hypothetical questions, Beyoncé and the unending flow of social media.

More »
Comment
 
Drew Bledsoe Is Scoring Touchdowns (In The Vineyards)
Thursday, Aug 28, 2014

Football great — and vineyard owner — Drew Bledsoe talks wine, onions and the weird way they intersect sometimes in Walla Walla, Washington.

More »
Comment
 
Poutine Whoppers? Why Burger King Is Bailing Out For Canada
Tuesday, Aug 26, 2014

Why is Burger King buying a Canadian coffee and doughnut chain? (We’ll give you a hint: tax rates).

More »
1 Comment