90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Inside America’s Gun Culture

With Jane Clayson in for Tom Ashbrook.

We’re looking inside America’s gun culture.

Handguns on display at the table of David Petronis of Mechanicville, N.Y., right, who owns a gun store there, during the heavily attended annual New York State Arms Collectors Association Albany Gun Show at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center, on Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, in Albany, N.Y. (AP)

Handguns on display at the table of David Petronis of Mechanicville, N.Y., right, who owns a gun store there, during the heavily attended annual New York State Arms Collectors Association Albany Gun Show at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center, on Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, in Albany, N.Y. (AP)

Dan Baum is an unlikely advocate for gun rights.  He’s liberal.  A New Jersey boy now living in Boulder.  He fell in love with guns in camp, and has never fallen out of love.

He’s turned off by the NRA.  Feels shunned by the left.  Argues that we should let teachers go to school armed.  That banning assault rifles is not the answer.  He’s driven 15,000 miles across the country to talk to gun guys at gun shows, at firing ranges, in their homes.  Now he wants to share what he’s learned.

This hour, On Point: A “gun guy” weighs in on our fractious debate about gun control.

Guests

Dan Baum, author of “Gun Guys: A Road Trip.” (@danbaum)

Robert Spitzer, leading expert on gun control and the NRA. Author of “The Politics of Gun Control.”

From the Reading List

Dan Baum (The Wall Street Journal) “I recently drove 15,000 miles around the country doing just that, talking to gun guys in their homes and garages, at gun shows and ranges, at gun stores and in the woods, trying to figure out why they are so deeply attracted to firearms and why guns inspire such passion on all sides. In part, it was a voyage of self-discovery. I’m a weirdo hybrid: a lifelong gun guy who is also a lifelong liberal Democrat. I often feel like the child of a bitter divorce who has allegiance to both parents.”

USA Today “Scenes like this, of friends gathering to shoot the breeze along with their guns, are so commonplace across rural America that it misses the mark to call them a way of life. Shooting and hunting are life in these mountains, sure as coal mines and pickups. It is also foreign ground for millions of Americans who have never seen a gun, much less shot one, and who might wonder why anyone needs one.”

Excerpt from “Gun Guys”

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Fiscally_Responsible

    Taking a hard look at gun culture is certainly a welcome topic.  I don’t own guns and don’t like guns.  But other related topics could be taking a look at video game culture and taking a look at violence in TV/movies culture as well.  In the current discussion, news stories have sometimes included showing brief clips from violent video games.  And we all know the amount of violence in movies and TV (just go to Redbox and hover over a movie to see some of the really sick plots with many of these movies).  Not to support censorship, but the level of violence has to at best numb a person to shooting and killing other people.  Is that really what we want our children to be exposed to?  Perhaps if they spent more time reading, doing homework, etc. and the media was more responsible with the entertainment that they create, we would have less violence and we would have more effective citizens.

    • JobExperience

       Adults often forget how impressionable they were before their brains got fully developed. Think how kids used to walk around mumbling “make my day”, maybe having never seen Dirty Harry, but absorbing the idea of glorified gunism for the culture. My only speeding ticket was after a racing movie when I was 16. Warcraft and Grand Theft leave their mark.

      • JGC

        At a go-kart racing field near our home, the road as you exit is posted with huge signs about paying attention to the speed limit: the police sit just outside the property, waiting for people who are still on their adrenaline rush, hoping for easy pickings to issue their speeding tickets.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        thats why kids need some education around guns. as soon as you shoot a real gun you relise the games and movies are bullshit.  we teach them about smoking drinking drugs and sex but not one word about gun safety. there are available cirricula that can be provided free to schools but they wont take them. it does not make sense.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      parents need to choose which media they expose their children to

  • Jeff Kew

    I wonder if the reason many like having guns is because it makes them feel powerful, more powerful than those around them.  Personally, when anyone around me has a gun, even a police officer, it makes me uncomfortable.  The potential for gun related accidents, or abuse of the power of that weapon makes me worry for the safety of me and my family.

    • JobExperience

       I share your perceptions Jeff Kew.
      Last year I believed cellphone cameras would make gunism obsolete, but we ain’t there yet. For instance, you could get shot taking pictures of police. The wars and interventionism in behalf of big business make guns as macho jewelry OK. (Look at the “Zero Dark Thirty” mindset funded by the Pentagon, and the veterans shooting one another over traumatic memories.) Grownups will play cowboy in a predatory bullying society and every gun death leaves a hole.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        glocks are not cheap

    • Steve_in_Vermont

      Perhaps the primary reason we are so divided is the attitude you display. Most people who own and shoot guns don’t feel “powerful”, they simply enjoy guns the same way some people enjoy other pastimes. I grew up around guns, own and shoot them, and don’t feel uncomfortable around them (unless someone is not acting in a safe manner). I can’t relate (and don’t agree with) how you feel but I do respect you and try to understand. I don’t believe you feel the same way towards me, nor does it appear you want to understand me and millions of others like me. Hence we live in the same country but when it comes to guns we live in different worlds.

      • geraldfnord

        Like Muslims and evangelicals and Zionists, you might suffer from the impression the loudest and most intense spokesmen leave; many men I’ve heard talking about gun rights seem to be doing their level best to convince me that they’re not to be trusted with anything more dangerous than a pea-shooter, and by rights we should cut their food for them for safety’s sake.

        I’m sorry that this were so, and hope that this hour and forum will be opportunity for gun non-nuts to make your case.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          thats  not an accident its how the media constructs the narrative. much better ratings to let ted nugent rant than ask me what i think we should do to actually address the flaws in our society that lead to violence

      • Jeff Kew

        I don’t understand why you think I wouldn’t respect and try to understand as much as you would.  Baum himself in this interview said something about guns giving a feeling of power to the one who wields it.  Do you really not understand my wariness of guns at all?  They are, after all, potentially very dangerous?  Do you not see them as dangerous at all?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/IYDRDDOM23LGAGSLYIB6DOUAAM Chad L

          Jeff, Would you shoot someone if you had access to a gun?

          Probably not, right?

          Then why would you assume someone who is armed lawfully, would?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i think he thinks he might. he does not trust himself theu he cannot trust others

    • geraldfnord

      Physicists speak of some interaction rates as being ‘phase-space dominated’, meaning that their variation is determined more by the variable opportunity to occur much more than any variation in the probability that the interaction will take place—old dynamite nearby is likelier to kill you than fresh nearby, but your odds of survival are much better with either far, far, away.

      Despite what TV would have you believe, there are very few violent criminals, and almost none outside of the neighbourhoods we let nurture them so we can punish the residents for being poor (much as we allow prison violence—the Damned are worthy of any torture that befalls them, and such were fitting entertainment for the Elect).

      My opinions on violence’s roots aside, the fact remains that there are very few violent Bad Guys—even most sociopaths are able to get by without direct violence. This means, as statistics seem to bear-out, that you are more likely to be shot by a Good Guy, much as your children are more likely to be molested by you or one of your family and friends than some stranger skell.

      (Hint: there really are very few actual Good Guys and Bad Guys, and sometimes all it takes is strong drink and stronger emotions….)

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        thats not correct since most so called “gun deaths” are the result of illegally owned guns by criminals. the statistic about a gun being more likely to harm a resident than prevent a crime has been shown to be false and retracted by its authors. does a drunk person require a gun to be dangerous?

      • GrueneJim

        Jeffrey Daumer used an electric drill.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you should get one too and then you wont have to be so insecure. i dont carry a gun myself but have had one pointed at me by a crazy person and i did not blame the gun and i would not have done anything different if i had had a gun. once you get some training you learn there are no accidents if you follow the rules. sounds like you could also use some karate training to learn disciplinand not to abuse power its also supposed to be good for self esteem

      • Jeff Kew

        First, I wouldn’t characterize my wariness of guns as insecurity – it is a rational fear because guns are dangerous, especially in the wrong hands.  Second, How would my owning a gun protect my family when, say, my kids are at school?  And Finally, Don’t statistics show that it is more dangerous to my family to have a gun in the home than a gun-free home?

        • GrueneJim

          No, your family is safer with a gun in the home. Statistics show that 99% of all family crimes are committed by the male father figure. By having a gun, your family can stop you when you become violent.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/IYDRDDOM23LGAGSLYIB6DOUAAM Chad L

          Cars are dangerous too. Do you feel the same trepidation ech time you buckle up? No? Perhaps it is because you have become used to them. Have driven or ridden many miles and are considered a decent driver.

          That’s how most firearms owners, especially those who carry (and train) feel. Secure in their abilities and training.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          actually that often cited statistic is 100% false.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      are you afraid you will shoot your family?

  • Gregg Smith

    The opening riffs seem to point to rural America and hunting, fine. But please talk about the gun culture, gang violence and the disastrous affect of black on black crime in Chicago and elsewhere.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it is clearly not a lack of gun control in chicago so they like to ignore that example

  • Shag_Wevera

    It isn’t really a monolithic single culture.  Their are notable subcultures.  My grandpa is a hunter owning several rifles and shotguns.  He doesn’t own any handguns, and would have no interest in owning an AR-15.  I would think he is from an entirely different culture from survivalists and militia wannabees. 

    • GrueneJim

      No one wants to be in a militia because all the leaders are government informants. Its no fun to hang out with these guys.

  • Roy-in-Boise

    It is accepted that a 30 second clip will subliminally send me to buy popcorn and a soda at the cinema but somehow studies indicate that there is no connection between violence in society and the violence depicted in video games and movies.

    • geraldfnord

      It’s not just the culural production, but how it’s consumed: Japanese comics, video games, and films are just as violent as ours, and can be more so. What they don’t have is a sense that a lone man is _entitled_ to wreak vengeance with a gun when they feel they have been wronged*—that kind of behavior is not admired by them except in fantasy, but we seem to revel in it.

      A lot of our righteous heroes are functionally villainous, they kill and maim and torture from an unchangeable position of righteousness but are still Good Guys (see: ‘the persistence of tje Elect’). The late Mr Dorner thought he was the hero of an action film.

      *… or slighted, or ‘looked at funny’….

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yeah they are more into suicide. should we be more like them?

  • JobExperience

     I just remembered my 22 rifle target instructor shouting to ten 8 year old boys. “YOU HAVE TO RESPECT GUNS.” I had been ready to respect authority, until the authority figuratively soiled his own pants. Now I don’t respect either.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      its a shame we dont teach kids anything about guns anymore

  • DrewInGeorgia

    We are not a reflection of Our Violent Media diets, they are a reflection of US.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think to some extent its both like a feedback loop

    • GrueneJim

      I like old silent films.

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

    Gun culture in the US is much more about owning more crap. When people in large numbers train, practice, use their guns on a regular basis, it’s a gun culture – until then it’s not, it’s just people buying more stuff.

    We’re not a food processor culture or crockpot culture just because everyone has one collecting dust in their kitchen.

    • geraldfnord

      I disagree: guns as symbols and marks of manhood and of liberty enjoy a status different to the usual ‘commodity fetiche’ associated with most other possessions. Even more so than for cars, houses, some chef’s knives, pit bulls…the wealth of associations and meaning attached to them can’t be denied.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        it is whatever you think of it as

  • geraldfnord

    I would link gun rules to population density—if you can step just outside your door, fire off 100 rounds in a circle, and reasonably expect not to hit anyone, I don’t care what you’re packing…where I live, it might be five fellow-citizens, where my gun-loving brother lives, it could easily be fifty…’One law for the lion and the ox is oppression. ‘

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the problem is that thats a way that people who live in cities who are generally more minorities are discriminated against to prevent them from owning firearms. we are entitled to equil protection under the law despite where we live in the country

      • GrueneJim

        Good point. It is well known that President Lyndon Baines Johnson supported the Gun Regulations of 1967 in response to Malcolm X’s advocacy of gun ownership for black Americans. Malcolm X recognized the importance of the 2nd Amendment in protecting minorities from the abuses of government.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          <gotta love this guy. gun control is a civil rights issue

  • Human898

    I grew up with guns in a Republican family liking them and having lots of experience with them, I don’t have a need to own a gun. I was once a member of the NRA and a Republican. I left both the NRA and the Republican Party when they became what in my mind and others that did and have done the same, felt they became fanatical, irrational and in many ways, obsessive. Gun ownership is not like skydiving or race car driving, guns were designed as a weapon and while owners might take pride in their care about safety, the risk of accident or heat of the moment use of that weapon with irretreivable dire consequences is increased and not necessarily by the owner, but anyone that might have accidental or permitted access to that object that which was designed with an original purpose in mind, to kill and to wound.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      was obomas gun designed as a weapon?

  • nj_v2

    The lead-in was apparently re-written, in part. Ms. Clayson said that Mr. Baum “fell in love with their [guns'] lethality” (paraphrasing). This is not what is written above.

    WTF?!

  • J__o__h__n

    How many skydivers insist on their rights to land anywhere?  How many race car drivers oppose regulating roads?  I won’t even comment on his stupid gun owner being like a gay person. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what about the gay gun owners? i dont think anyone is asking for a right to shoot guns anywhere for any reason

    • GrueneJim

      Although guns can be provocative phallic symbols, it is tasteless to express such latent homophobic remarks in this forum.

  • NewtonWhale

    When are we going to stop kidding ourselves and admit that gun lovers get a psycho-sexual thrill out of handling and shooting them?

    Are you listening to this guest talk about the rush he gets handling a lethal weapon?

    The Beatles said it all:

    Happiness is a warm gun (bang bang shoot shoot)
    Happiness is a warm gun, mama (bang bang shoot shoot)
    When I hold you in my arms (oh, yeah)
    And I feel my finger on your trigger (oh, yeah)
    I know nobody can do me no harm (oh, yeah)
    Because, (happiness) is a warm gun, mama (bang bang shoot shoot)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qE2Vdcv9Q_o

    • Roy-in-Boise

      The prejudices displayed in some of the comments here towards gun owners is rather intense. For those on the left that would like to ban and confiscate guns whom would you send to accomplish the task? More importantly is the left willing to risk the Republic to achieve these goals? Balkanazation of America is not far fetched. Issues like gun control (and abortion) have the power to split this country into multiple pieces.

      • NewtonWhale

        I don’t want to ban them.

        I agree with this:

        Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

        -Antonin Scalia,  District of Columbia v. Heller,

        http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/why-liberals-should-thank-justice-scalia-for-gun-control-20130119

      • nj_v2

        I think that certain classes and types of weapons should be prohibited for general ownership unless a compelling reason is shown to have them.

        I think that any weapons ownership should be regulated at least as much as motor vehicle ownership—competency testing, registration, insurance.

        I think that the Second Amendment, even as written does not give absolute freedom of gun ownership. Gun ownership is subject to restriction the same way that other “rights” are.

        I think that the Second Amendment is an anachronism, written at a point in our history when the founders opposed a national standing army, and state militias were construed to function as the organization of common defense. 

        The founders could not have imagined the issues of high-powered weaponry in a society centuries slater. IMO, the Second Amendment needs to be repealed or amended.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          our founders still oppose our standing army. all we have done is prove why they were against that. as veterans of a bloody war using cannons and volleys of shot they were keenly aware what carnage guns can be used to cause. on the plus side if we repeal the 2nd amendment we will have all the same rights afforded to Chinese citizens!

        • GrueneJim

          The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the natural rights of man outside the restrictions of the social contract. The Bill of Rights addresses individual rights, not collective rights. The people were protected from the establishment of a state sponsored religion; free to practice the religious faith of our own conscience. There is nothing anachronistic about the right to persoanl safety, personal liberty or private property. You seek to drag us back into the Dark Ages before Magna Carta.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and you want to take their happyness away? will that make you happy?

  • http://www.facebook.com/mike1942 Michael Abrams

    This is a wondeful interview, it decribes me exactly. I am a democrat with more leanings toward being an aparty person. I resigned from the NRA years ago as they have become unreasonably hardcore in their message.

  • M K

    The speaker’s thing about “liberal anti-gun types” is totally mythological.  STRAW MAN.  S-T-R-A-W. I don’t think any real people who advocate gun control are as silly and ignorant as the fictitious figure he constructs; I’ve certainly never heard or heard of one, including in the months of debate since Sandy Hook.   

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you should read some of the comments here

  • bridget_in_wisdom

    If what this guy says is true, that gun owners are for the most part law abiding citizens, then why don’t we just go ahead and license gun ownership the way we license the ownership of cars? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      many states including mass choose to do that. you dont have a federal drivers liscense right?

    • GrueneJim

      Why dont we require voters to carry a government issued ID?

      • Michele

         Because you cannot mow done 20 six year old children with a VOTE.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          unless you votefor  oboma or bush becausebot hof th oes guys has killed waaay more than 20 kids in their wars

  • http://www.facebook.com/nancy.haddouch Nancy Haddouch

    I hope you included interviews with “preppers” who own guns like the mother of Adam Lanza (Sandyhook masacre) who owned an arsenal of guns in order to prepare for her fear of a future armageddon.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/QMDZ3LH5U2B4GAT7J2HS4TCP6E Jim

    Darn… i am a social conservative and fiscal liberal… and i was waiting for so long to have someone like Dan to speak out. I feel the same way.. and I hope my liberal friends can give some respect to gun enthusiasts who are abiding by the law. otherwise, we will never reach out to these people and we would lose a huge voting bloc.

  • andreawilder

    Please get fascinated by something else.
    Has a gun owner threatened to murder you with his gun?
    Happened to me.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      it was a she, but yes, and i did not blame the gun i blamed the crazy person pointing it me

      • andreawilder

        And the gun’s opinion?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          lucky for me it remained silent.

  • http://www.facebook.com/nancy.haddouch Nancy Haddouch

    I hope you included interviews in your book with “preppers” like Adam Lanza’s mother (Sandyhook massacre) who owned an arsenal of guns in order to prepare for her fear of a future armageddon.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i heard she was a competition shooter.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/YMV2HJ2TBKMCN2QRAVI3I2OOGM Jim Jim
    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      there is a guy who open carries in detroit he records some of his encounters with the police its pretty funny.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fubq7KDD0-c

       whats not funny is that people are forgetting that gun rights are a civil rights issue. a gun makes the smallest female equil to the largest man. guns protect even the most vunerable minorities from those who would do violence agains them.

  • Eric Herot

    I have absolutely no problem with “gun people” (I work with several of them every day), but what I would love is for them to have *some* acknowledgement that almost 100 percent of the difference in murder rate between the United States and Britain (where handguns are comparatively hard to get) is attributable to the share of homicides committed with guns.

    It’s an indisputable fact: Where guns are less available, fewer people die.

    This doesn’t mean we have to ban them outright, but we do have to stop having the discussion as if this is not the case.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      oh because besides the guns we are british?
      “It’s an indisputable fact: Where guns are less available, fewer people die.”
      that must be why chicago and washington DC are so safe right?
       guns are no where less legally available (no gun stores even) than chicago and it leads in gun deaths.  now those are somefacts beyond dispute 

      • Eric Herot

         aaaaand just like has been repeatedly pointed out in a dozen or so other comments here, the vast majority of the gun deaths in Chicago and Washington DC are caused by guns purchased out of state.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          duhh the vast majority of cocaine is purchased in other countries. thats how banning things works. you ban something that creates a black market and the demand is met with product from wherever its available. in any third world country you can buy an AK47 for $50. would you like us to import our illegal guns from another country instead of another state?

          • Eric Herot

            Guns and drugs are not similar.  Drugs are readily available in just about every country where there is a demand.  Hand guns, by contrast, are quite scarce in just about every country but the United States.  And what few handguns are available on the black market in the rest of the world are usually purchased legally (through straw purchases) in the United States!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats total baloney. all markets run on supply and demand and demand always creates a supply. if 12 million people and thousands or millions of tons of drugs can get here so can any gun that anamerican wants to pay for dispite any law you want to pass

          • Eric Herot

            Then I ask you again, why are handguns so rare the criminal class of other first world countries?  Surely their usefulness in crime would create a demand in countries other than ours if it were that simple.

          • obamalovesdrones

             Which other first world nations have entire inner cities that consist of gangs fighting over drug turf while being the next door neighbor to one of the drug cartel capitals of the world? 

          • Eric Herot

             The United States is NOT the only Western country with violent street gangs.  Ours just kill a lot more people (and mostly they do it with handguns).

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh we should be likeme xico where gunsa reba nned
            thatw.il l  be safe

          • Eric Herot

            Xico…Mexico?  Are you seriously comparing the US to Mexico?  Also, guess where most of the handguns in Mexico come from: The US!!!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i dont think thats actually the case. can you cite a study

          • GrueneJim

            Hand guns are quite scarce in just about every country but the United States? 

          • Eric Herot

            Yes.

          • Fredlinskip

            American-made guns no doubt (purchased in 3rd world countries).

        • obamalovesdrones

           So criminals don’t obey the law?  You mean to tell me that things like the drug war aren’t keeping drugs off the streets?   

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          actually the vast majority of killings in chicago are caused by chicagoans

          • Eric Herot

            I don’t think anyone’s disputing that…

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you said guns did it

    • obamalovesdrones

      Except this EXACT argument was made well over a decade ago when states were considering passing laws making CCW possible.  Sarah brady and the rest said that more guns equaled more crime, so that more people carrying them would equal more crime, right?

      Wrong.  In the last two decades, the murder rate has fallen in half.  In contrast, places like Chicago that have total gun bans have had skyrocketing murder rates.  So why should people listen to the argument and the people who gave it when they were totally and completely wrong? 

      Making comparisons with another nation is silly for a number of reasons, mostly because the variables are far too many.  As far as your “indisputable fact” goes, then why not compare the murder rates in states like Vermont or New Hampshire where gun ownership is extremely high vs the murder capital of the nation, Chicago, where guns are banned? 

      Or if you insist on an international comparison, Switzerland is flooded with real assault rifles and tons of privately owned firearms that are in the households of a huge percentage of the public – yet why is their murder rate so low? 

      The major variable not taken into account is that those other nations don’t have massive inner city drug wars going on while being next door to Mexico, a major drug cartel drug center of the world.  And not surprisingly, most of the nation is relatively safe and murder free, with the exception of places like Chicago where gangs are fighting over the drug turf.  If only we had a similar situation in this nation before where the govt had a prohibition on a product and crime exploded with gangs fighting over the rights to sell it, then we would know how to handle this situation, right?

      • Eric Herot

        Hmm, where to begin…

        First of all, Switzerland.  I love this one because it is so widely misunderstood.  Switzerland has universal conscription with everyone being required to keep their military issued rifle in their own home.  The similarity to the US basically stops there.  Handgun ownership is tightly restricted and very rare.  Ammunition is inspected annually with stiff penalties for any rounds un-accounted for, so illegal use of these weapons is nearly unheard of.  Firearms training is also mandatory.  Consequently street crime, though it certainly exists, rarely involves guns.

        Second, comparing New Hampshire and Vermont to Boston, New York, or Chicago is…ridiculous?  There are no major cities in either of those states.

        Now, as for the murder rate, it’s important to remember that virtually all crime has been falling steadily since the 80s, not just murder by gun.  But remember that homicides actually make up the minority of gun deaths so by some arguments, this statistic isn’t really important to the debate.

        And most of our nation is not “safe and murder free.” Basically *all* of our major cities (as in cities with populations over, say, 200,000) have a gun homicide problem.  And while I believe you are correct that our street crime problem is uniquely bad for a number of reasons, the high availability of handguns is absolutely among them, with our punitive approach to justice and dealing with drug dealers playing a close second.

        But with such a large portion of the deaths in inner city involving guns (something like 60-70 percent depending on the year and the place being studied), it’s hard to imagine how removing the guns from the situation wouldn’t cut down on the homicide rate even a little.  And again, homicides make up the *minority* of gun deaths.

        And lastly, Chicago.  Irrelevant.  The neighboring towns have all set up gun shops on the border and people absolutely use them to buy guns which are later used in street crime on an alarmingly regular basis.  If guns were equally illegal in the rest of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and even Iowa, the evidence suggest there would be a pretty significant reduction in gun crime in Chicago.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          your statements about switzerland are misleading. handgun laws are done on the “state” level and vary from strict to almost none. the citizen soldiers who are issued ammunition do have to account for it. however they may buy and shoot as much as they like and the government even subsidises the ammuntion purchased at ranges for target practice. why do you think they dont have street crime with guns? its because everyone has one or more. so you think that a total ban would result in less guns being bought by criminals in citys how is th ban on drugs working out. it sounded like you think thewar on drugs is a failure how would a war on guns be any different? please please tell what “evidence” shows there would be a pretty significant reduction in gun crime in chicago?

  • NewtonWhale

    Your guest makes no sense.

    Yes, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh used 4,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995.

    That’s why a number of countries, including Germany, Colombia, Ireland, the Philippines and China, have banned ammonium nitrate fertilizer. And some U.S. states started to regulate its use after the chemical was used in the Oklahoma City bombing.

    Last year, the Afghan government banned ammonium nitrate, as the chemical most often used in bombs targeting American soldiers in Afghanistan. 

    Congress gave the Homeland Security Department the authority to develop a program to regulate the compound, and the federal government is proposing to regulate the sale and transfer of the chemical ammonium nitrate.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20086880.html

    So, by his logic, we should regulate other “inanimate objects” that are used to kill large numbers of people.

    And that means guns.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we can’t ban it here or we wont eat. the point is anything can be turned to a weapon and somethings into very effective weapons we need strong communities and good mental health care to prevent crazy people from mass killings not banning things after the fact.

  • art525

    I grew up playing army too, pretending to have shootouts. Then my cousin was shot and killed in a gun accident when I was ten. Since then I find the idea of guns repellent. Every day, every single day we hear about some crazy gun incident, not just Sandy Hook but last week heare in New York and idiot asked his five year old kid hand him his gun. It went off and seriously injured the kid. It is insane, it is vile. And I am sooooo tired of hearing that guns aren’t the fault, the fault is mental illness or more people are killed by cars blah blah blah, insert your lame excuse  here. I am so sick of it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      that person was an idiot a gun law wont protect his child from his idiocy. he probably would have bought the kid a motercycle if he had not bought that gun. guns dont do anything by themselves and you can’t fix stupid by trying to turn the world into a rubber room. are you as upset by people that buy their kids motercycles or baseball bats or basketballs? kids die doing all of those things regularly

      • art525

        Hysterical. OK first of all I challenge you to find an article covering a tragic incident that reads “His father aksed him to hand him the basketball. When he did it accidentally went off in his hand seriously injuring the five year old”. You can substitute either baseball bat or mortorcycle. And that brings up the second thing- it is spelled motorcycle. (I know I shouldn’t take so lightly the serious increase in basketball related fatalities we have been experiencing lately. But you know if basektballs are outlawed only outlaws will have basketballs.)

    • GrueneJim

      But it wasn’t an accident was it? You shot your cuz while you were playing Army and now you feel guilty and you want to ban all guns! We see how you are!

  • Human898

    The problem with the “inanimate piece of metal” argument is somewhat absurd, since if guns were merely things that sit on a shelf, like a lamp doing nothing, but being inanimate, they would never be picked up and used by any human, offensively or defensively, except as an “inanimate object” type of club. 

    The fact is, those inanimate objects were not intended to be inanimate objects, but objects people use, responsibly, legally, safely, defensively, also offensively, in the heat of the moment, carelessly, by mistake.

    The “inanimate piece of metal” was not designed to be an inanimate piece metal.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so are you advocating some “lamp control” to “prevent lamp violence”

  • Elizabeth_in_RI

    There is a HUGE difference between “gun guys” – people who love the very real engineering beauty of guns – and the insanity we are seeing. There is simply no reason any “needs” to own an assault style weapon – except to prepare for the end of the world (as preppers spend their time and money doing) or to kill our own military and police, or innocents when they are used by insane people.
    My family and I are gun owners – we appreciate them, enjoy the skill of target practice, etc. But we need to recognize that the ease with which guns can be illegally purchased on the street, and the ridiculous capacity of some weapons creates real problems!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so you only want criminal people to easily purchase them on the street but not the legitimate citizens to be able to buy them legally? as a shooter is it not more fun to have a bigger magazine?
      what is an “assault style weapon” anyways?

      • Elizabeth_in_RI

         No – I only want legitimate citizens to be able to buy them legally. So that means making gun owners more liable for their legally purchased guns and guns sellers (private citizens too) more responsible for their gun sales. If you are legally eligible to purchase a gun what’s the big deal with background checks (just like you get when you purchase insurance or volunteer in a school).

        And I’m so sorry, I forgot that it’s all about having fun. Silly me thinking that safety was a concern…

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          we already have background checks and liscences

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    We can have whatever culture we want. America does not need to be held hostage by “gun guys” that are so weak and insecure that they need to compensate by carrying around a lethal piece of technology. The murder-with-gun rate in America is many times that of every other democratic, western, civilized country. It is shameful! It is sick! It is disgusting! These little boy-men need to be told “No!” No, you can’t own nuclear weapons, you can’t own military jets, you can’t own grenades. You aren’t in the military. You aren’t a police officer. You are not John Wayne. We don’t need to die because you have a psychological problem. Get a new hobby. Getting a bigger gun isn’t going to help you with you with your little gun and your insecurity problems.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      when did people start talking about limiting the right of people to own military jets? has that been causing a problem?
      do you have any figures on the murders-with-machete rates? how else can we become #1 without banning guns?
      why would a police officer need a military jet or a grenade? middle aged overweight “gun guys” dont really commit many crimes as a demographic how are they harming you with their hobby exactly?  some guys are into small guns too but that is a way to tell alot about a guy.

  • divine582

    This guest only emphasizes the need for control. He uses the words “power”, “facination” etc. and “chuckles” at the so called ingnorance of those who don’t get it. It seems, by his own characterization of himself, that he just wants to be considered member in the “club” of “manly men”!

  • Steve_the_Repoman

    I am not a gun owner and am undecided on the issue,
    but the professor/expert speaking 29 minutes into the hour chooses the hign point of gun control legislation during the mid 90′s and then calls the blowback since then as a deviation.

    This seems to me to intellectually dishonest.

  • art525

    Twenty six year old kids were killed in Sandy Hook. Every day people are dying. And gun owners feell somehow affronted that their gun “rights” might be curtailed. I really don’t careif their fragile egos are hurt by the prejudice shown toward them. ANd I am sooo tired of this paranoia that the storm troopers in the black helicopters are going to destroy the Republic if you don’t have your gun. You don’t like it? So shoot me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think people died every day before guns were even invented.its pretty much inevitable. no one needs to shoot you to shut you up, we can just wait

      • art525

        Yeah, did crazy people go into schools and slaughter 20 little children with sling shots? I guess wwe should just shrug and ignore it since ‘Hey people die What are you gonna do?”. Nice plan.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          not in mass because sling shots are illegal here. it does seem irrational to ban something thats is so low on the list of causes of death

    • GrueneJim

      The school is responsible for protecting the students in their care. The violent criminals who murdered 500 in Chicago did not fly in on black helicopters. They live right there in the community and the community knows who they are.

  • Steve

    I’m feeling like the host has a preset bias against Dan Baum’s assertion. Bringing Emotional clips in from the mourning parents of Newtown, CT if inflammatory and not helpful to finding effective solutions. They key in my opinion is fixing the Mental Health Crisis, ie if nuts need top be locked up then that’s what we need to do. Background checks are fine with me and I think Gun Shows and Personal sales ought to be made to run through a licensed gun shop. Banning Semi-Automatic Modular rifles, your so called Assault Weapon will do NOTHING, having smaller clips will do NOTHING. And that’s just common sense, if you remove emotion and use reason and logic.

    • loweller

      Steve, with all due respect it’s not just mental health, it’s the LETHALITY of these weapons and extended ammo magazines. Jared Loughner wasn’t overpowered until he finally had to stop to reload his weapon. If Adam Lanza was only armed with a Saturday Night Special he likely couldn’t kill 20 kids and 6 teachers as quickly and easily as he did. I agree that we need an open and reasoned argument, but let’s all get real, shall we?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what if its a saturday night AK47? if we are getting real is it difficult to kill unarmed children locked in a room? i hate to be the guy to say it but in ten minutes he could probably kill the kids locked in that room with a boot.
         jill bidens or obomas 12 gauge shotguns can each shoot 30 9mm pellets in a split second and be reloaded just as quick. a sharp stick is just as “lethal” as an AR15 depending on who is holding it. there is only one level of dead, a gun does not kill any one any “deader” than any other object or someones bare hands.
         thank you for saying magazine instead of “clip”.

      • GrueneJim

        Each person should be mentally prepared to respond to adversity. If faced with violent assault, every person should feel completely confident in fighting back without restraint. If your life is in jeopardy fight back. If you are with a group of people who are unable to defend themselves, you have a moral responsibility to fight back with any and all means necessary. You cannot passively wait for events to unfold. The people of America need to take these attackers out by any means necessary. We are responsible for defending ourselves. Schools are responsible for protecting their students.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1280853308 Wt Davidson

    I had a severe leg injury as a kid, and, like Dan, learned I was quite a good shot at camp. The guy overseeing the range hooked me up with a shooting jacket and glove, etc. Frankly, it’s not that hard, nor that impressive, if you’re not at the super high army sharpshooter level. It’s gun deaths, not the inanimate objects so dear to your heart, which turn off so many Dan. You really don’t get it. Countries with much stronger laws have such radically lower gun deaths and suicides, it’s just not really arguable. Still, the affinity and affection, the defensive and arrogant (‘you don’t know what your messin’ with) posture of these gun guys so loved by Dan is so ingrained, the hoarding of weapons so mind numbing, that the quite modest restrictions recently proposed probably wont’t do much to turn the tide, much to the pleasure of the NRA. They would hate gun control that actually worked, cause remember, they don’t want their arguments undermined. The NRA represents the manufacturers now, far more than the lonely old decent hunter. The NIH is even prohibited from spending money on gun violence research. There’s your reason, your respect. Give me a break. IT IS SAD.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i guess what i dont get is what the difference between a “gun death” and any other form of death is? would you rather they were pushed out of windows?
       hows our suicide rate compare with, oh i don’t know, Japan? how bout south korea? two places where suicide rates are much more than ours and private gun ownership is entirely banned. we are in fact #34 for suicides so the gun=suicides myth is busted.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

    • GrueneJim

      The NRA represents the members. The NRA provides world class training, firearm safety education and the actively advocate for the 2nd Amendment rights of the members. There is no sadness at the NRA, but rather a great sense of history and purpose. We also worry about persons who cozy up to the criminal element.

  • art525

    THis comment was meant to be a response to Roy-In -Boise who was offended by “prejudices displayed here” against gun advocates.

  • Human898

    So if rocket launchers and landmine became a popular money maker and sales item, a demand to own them should drive policy?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      why not? some people own them now. are they causing a problem?

  • Ray in VT

    I think that it is interesting that Mr. Baum just said that the AR-15 is the most popular gun in America.  That may be true.  If it is, then I think that it says something about gun culture nationally that I have not really seen here in rural Vermont.  I know quite a few gun owners, and I am one myself, yet I only know one person who owns an AR-15.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      probably because a decent one cost about $2000. i don’t feel like you are that in tune witht he gun culture as you also said that no one you know ever conceal carries. if it is true that no one in vermont owns them maybe the total lack of gun restrictions in vermont is a good way to curb their ownership if people believe thats a desirable outcome

      • Ray in VT

        As I’ve said before, I’m a gun owner, and many of the people who I know do own guns, but the people I know mainly have and use guns as tools (hunting, pest control).  I do know a few collectors, and I have known a couple of people who have kept them in their vehicles, but I’ve never known anyone who routinely carries a firearm on their person as a matter of course.  Part of that may be because people don’t feel that such weapons are necessary for day to day use.  There is relatively little crime in Vermont, especially random crime, and I don’t think that people generally feel threatened enough to compel them to arm themselves when they go out to the grocery or hardware store.  Whatever “the gun culture” is, I think that it is highly at odds with what has traditionally existed in rural Vermont.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

       Honestly then you don’t get to the range often in VT. I’ve seen quite a few any they’re quite common for hunting in VT, as well as in NH and Maine. Don’t own one myself, they’re too expensive and never felt the .223 adequate for hunting or self-defense anyway (and that’s coming from someone who carried an M-16 on active duty.)

      • Ray in VT

        I don’t go to the range.  The woods that my neighbor and I own have always been more than adequate.

  • nj_v2

    Mr. Baum is a keen observer and excellent writer, but i can’t agree with the conclusions he draws from his observations.

    As others have noted here, “the gun culture” is an abstract over-generalization. There are any number of subcultures of gun owners that have little or nothing to do with each other.

    Mr. Baum has written that the Democrats’ generally perceived stance toward gun control alienates many gun owners who would otherwise join the party, which would then gain traction to deal with the other, arguably—in Mr. Baum’s view—larger issues such as the economy, climate change, etc.

    This is faulty in two ways: I think many in the “gun community” would choose to have anything to do with the current Democrats, gun issues aside. And Mr. Baum seems to naively think that the current incarnation of the Dems gives much of a whit about the issues that Mr. Baum seems to think they care about. As if the Dems aren’t as controlled and influenced by corporate (including gun companies) power as the Cons.

    His foundational argument that there are just so many guns already in circulation that any attempt at regulation is futile, is, on its face, defeatist. We can look back on any number of large problems of the past and conclude that they were just too large and entrenched to deal with.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “His foundational argument that there are just so many guns already in circulation that any attempt at regulation is futile, is, on its face, defeatist. We can look back on any number of large problems of the past and conclude that they were just too large and entrenched to deal with.”

      exactly, just like we used to have an alcohol problem then we banned it and now today alcohol is non-existant. i bet the 20,001 law will be the one that keeps anything bad from every happening again

  • bridget_in_wisdom

    We legislate and register the use of cars, why not use the same arguments to legislate and register the use of guns? Responsible use, background checks and so on…

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      states already do exactly like cars

    • GrueneJim

      Most fatal auto accident are caused by women. If strict auto regulations were enforced, men would be forced to take charge of all driving for safety’s sake.

  • Kathy

    So here’s the guest’s point of view. Gun owners are crybabies who despite tens of thousands of needless deaths won’t accept any sort of restriction on guns at all because it offends their delicate sensitivities.

    Further, the M16 or AR15 or whatever they’re calling it shouldn’t be banned because the American gun culture is so overtaken by Rambo wannabees that it’s the best selling gun, despite the fact that it’s only use is military. Again, gun owners are crybabies who can’t accept any sort of reasonable limits.
    Let’s grow up. Limit handguns to gun ranges. Limit long guns to shotguns and small clip hunting rifles. Require everyone to submit to training and licensure.

    • http://www.facebook.com/dana.seero Dana Seero

      I replied above, but in Massachusetts all the measures you suggest have been implemented since 1998 – and the percentage of homicides committed with guns has increased since that time. 

      Lawful gun owners and gun-haters have something in common – the desire to reduce gun violence as much as possible. They have common ground.

      Neither side is listening to the pragmatic middle. The surest way to reduce gun violence is police feet on the street.

      • Eric Herot

        The murder rate in MA has been roughly flat since 1998, so I’m not sure where that stat comes from.  But even if it wasn’t, it doesn’t really matter.  According to the Boston Police Department, much like in every other major city or state with strict gun laws (Chicago, IL, Washington, DC, etc.), the vast majority of guns used in crimes in Boston come from New Hampshire.  Trafficking of guns across state lines is profitable and rampant.  Thus, national adoption of these same laws is really the only thing that’s going to make a difference.

        And it’s worth noting that while our murder rate has stayed the same, our overall gun death rate is down significantly.  One thing that’s often overlooked by gun rights advocates is the fact that most gun deaths aren’t homicides at all.  They’re suicides, kids shooting their friends accidentally, and stray gunfire.  All reasons, in my opinion, to substantially limit the availability of hand guns, even if we’re not going to ban them outright.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          Trafficking of guns across state lines is profitable and rampant. Thus, national adoption of these same laws is really the only thing that’s going to make a difference”.
          that should do the trick because our national borders are so secure that nothing can get in right? gimme a break
          yes 2/3 of guns deaths are suicides. are you saying owning guns is why people kill themselves? then why are we 34th for sucides and south korea number one where private firearmes are totally banned? “accidental shootings” could be easilyu prevented with education. stray gunfire is the result of gang conflicts fueled by prohibition.

          • Eric Herot

            And where would we be trafficking these guns from exactly?  The United States is the world’s only major handgun maker.  Most of the handguns trafficked elsewhere in the world come from here.

            For the suicide statistic, South Korea (and Japan, for that matter) is not a good point of comparison for the United States.  Their cultural relationship with suicide is very different from ours.  In countries more similar to us (like the UK or Canada, which is about as close as you can get), the suicide rate by means *other* than shooting is roughly the same, but the rate by handgun is much higher in the United States.  A difference like this cannot simply be explained by people being more suicidal because that would require a proportional increase in all types of suicide.

            And “accidental shootings” cannot be prevented by education, as usually it is the uneducated children or friends of the gun owner that do the shooting.  Perhaps if we were to seriously punish the gun owner for injuries inflicted by their gun at someone else’s hands people would be more careful, but years and years of gun rights advocates preaching “education” doesn’t seem to have put even the slightest dent in this problem.  Yes, education is vitally important, but there needs to be a system in place to ensure that only educated users can fire a gun.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

             Actually accidental shootings have gone dramatically in recent decades, largely because of education, most of it funded by that fount of evil, the NRA. So yes, education plays a tremendous role.

          • GrueneJim

            The US is the world’s only major handgun maker!

          • Eric Herot

            Except for Glock, of course, which barely sells any guns in Austria (they are, as is true in most EU countries, somewhat difficult to buy there).

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it would be funny how little you know if only youw ere not advocating against my freedom. never heard of FN? why am i not surprised

          • Eric Herot

            Like so many foreign gun manufacturers, FN only sells to military and police customers outside of the US, both of which are tiny by comparison to the US consumer market.  When coupled with the fact that FN makes guns for the US market in Columbia, South Carolina, my original statement, that we make far more guns here in the US than any other country, still holds.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so we should give up a profitable manufacturing sector to forigners?

          • Eric Herot

            Yes.  Let them have it.  It’s not worth the carnage.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            all children should be educated in gun safety. just like sex drugs alcohol strangers thin ice traffic bullys and flu 

          • Eric Herot

            Many of the children injured by guns in the household are between the ages of 3 and 8.  How do you educate a 3 year old on “gun safety?”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            very easy. its called “Stop, don’t touch, leave the area, tell an adult”
            the NRA provides coloring books and other materials for gun safety education. go look up eddie eagle

        • GrueneJim

          Most murder victims lay flat on the ground.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        well said

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so in order to “grow up” everyone should be treated like children?
      Clearly AR15s are not for only military uses. they were not desinged as a military weapon but as a civilian hunting arm. millions and millions have been sold here in the use but very few are used for crimes maybe because most street thugs dont have $2000 to plunk down on a gun they cant fit under their hoodie

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      nobody uses an AR-15 for military purposes….it would be foolish. a military rifle, the M16/M4 has a rate of fire of 950 rounds per minute. an AR-15 has a rate of rife of ~60 round per minute. 

      DC v. Heller protects firearms in common use -not “usual”- at the time for lawful purposes. you cannot arbitrarily ban and confiscate a whole class of firearms in common use because you “don’t like them”, and if the government wants to abridge a constitutional right he has to do so in a narrowly tailored fashion to advance a compelling government interest.

      “assault weapons” kill an average of 35 people per year (Feinstein numbers). 

      there is no “compelling government interest” given the gun violence problem has other roots. unless you want to ban everything (which is preempted by Heller).

    • obamalovesdrones

       At least you are honest about being a gun banner.  Too bad you are a tiny fringe in the american public according to gallup, but at least an honest one unlike the rest of your gun prohibition movement currently. 

      Suggestion:  to do so, you would have to repeal the second amendment.  Why don’t you advocate that?

    • GrueneJim

      What about the crocodile tears of crybabies who use machetes, knives, clubs, and fists? Do you feel these weapons are more manly?

  • andreawilder

    Unbelievable.  Add a little alcohol and a benign gun guy can turn into a monster….been there, know it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      with alcohol a benign non gun guy can turn into a monster(did you see that kid who just stangled his girlfirend?) and an unarmed smaller female can’t do anything to protect herself unless she is a gun girl

      • andreawilder

        Yeah, but there is a possibility I can outrun the monster, can’t outrun a bullet.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          actually if you are unarmed running from a man with a gun is a very effective strategy, if you have an avenue of escape. if you dont you can either choose to protect yourself with a hand gun, become a master of karate, or be the victim of violence. i think women ought to have the right to choose

  • J__o__h__n

    I don’t think the debate between a limit of ten or twenty or thirty is trivial.  The number of the victims is directly related to that. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you know guns can be reloaded right? (maybe i should not have told you that or you will try to make it like california where you have to use a tool to reload) its good that they can be reloaded because after dr jill biden shoots her double barrel out the back door she will need to reload because her gun will be empty. anyways even if they could not then you could just carry more than one. a cowpoke with 2 six guns has a 12 round semi automatic capability. one state has already passed a law banning magazines with more than 7 rounds.  did you know that a 12 gauge like dr jill’s when loaded with 00 3in buckshot puts the equivilent of 15 rounds of 9mm (which is larger than .223) down range?since its a double barrel it shoots 30 of those pellets at one time potentially.

  • jim_thompson

    I am a Concealed Weapon Permit holder, own 9MM, .22 and .380 handguns and am a Democrat.  I support sensible background checks and registration on the state level.  I am not even too bothered by open carry.  However I am alarmed by too many here in South Carolina and other states that want to extend the right to carry a concealed wepon to anyone who owns a gun.  That is just wrong.  If you have a CWP you’ve been trained in laws, safety rules and shooting along with going through a VERY thorough background check.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we have a class here for ccw its great. sometimes the police decide not to issue liscenses even if people take the class and have no  legal prohibitions from doing so.

       i am about as pro gun as it gets and i have no problem with the safety class requirement and am not even bothered by background checks as they are.
       regulators need to learn that no matter what laws requiring background checks are passed it will always be a matter of optional compliance so to extend them as a requirement seems like it would have zero effect on the illegal gun trade. i think private citizens being allowed to do background checks before selling their gun would be a great compromise and people would take advantage of it since no one wants their gun to fall into the wrong hands. to require it just sows mistrust and noncompliance which then burdens the legal system further

    • GrueneJim

      How did you slip through the cracks?

  • NewtonWhale

    The argument about the Second Amendment is ridiculous. We know exactly what the founders intended, because they wrote about it.

    Federalist 29, by Alexander Hamilton, makes it crystal clear that the intent was to provide for a well regulated militia, as distinct from 1) a large standing army and 2) reliance on an armed citizenry.

    Hamilton made it plain that he considered the minuteman model an enormous waste of resources and ineffective as well:

    The Federalist No. 29

    Concerning the Militia
    Independent Journal Wednesday, January 9, 1788
    [Alexander Hamilton]

    “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.”

    THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

    It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. 

    This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. 

    To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. 

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      go and read DC v. Heller…the debate around the 2A was a bit more complex that you make it sound, especially where it merely acknowledges the common law right to self-defense in case of confrontation. 

      and you are not gonna change that SCOTUS decision as much as you are not gonna decide Roe v. Wade…so stop trying

    • obamalovesdrones

       Except for the fact that:

      “well regulated” in those days meant well functioning, it had nothing to do with govt law

      “the militia” in those days was literally every able bodied male except for a few members of the govt. 

    • obamalovesdrones

      Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess
      over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of
      subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which
      the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the
      enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple
      government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military
      establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as
      far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to
      trust the people with arms.

      And it is not certain, that with this aid
      alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the
      people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen
      by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the
      national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these
      governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be
      affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny
      in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which
      surround it.

              
      —James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

      We established however some, although not all its [self-government]
      important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert,
      that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by
      themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as
      in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding
      by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is
      involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally
      chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;

              —Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

      [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great
      Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was
      governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and
      most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it
      openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are
      the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few
      public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future
      day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the
      future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and
      poor…

              
      —George Mason

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341700562 Tom Farrell

    I don’t believe the gun owner is being heard. We talk and are allowed to talk, but we are not heard. Gov. Malloy is already pushing his agenda through although all of the committes he took the time to appoint and spent tons of money on, have not yet given their chance to give their findings. As far as the NRA, it is not some behemoth lobby that does what it wants, it is a representative for responsible gun owners across the country. We are spoken of with vitriole, often by otherwise intelligent people who have said anyone in the nra should be shot? This is how we speak of fellow human beings when we are trying to have a dialogue about fixing the problem? Guns are not bad, and America would not be what it is toady without guns. The second amendment is not about unting, it is about keeping a tyrannical government in check. Why should my government, who works from me tell me what I can have? If one person in Aurora or sandy hook had a gun that day, those cowards would have been stopped.

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      That is a myth. More guns make situations more dangerous. See Mother Jones research on the internet:

      http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

      http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2012/12/guns-in-america-mass-shootings

      • obamalovesdrones

        That motherjones article is hilarious!  I can name off the top of my head two examples where it is completely wrong.  It claims that 0 mass shootings where stopped by a firearm?  WRONG!

        The Pearl, MS teacher stopped an attempted columbine by going out to his truck and getting his 45.  The shooter gave up after having a firearm pointed at him by the principal.  In Boone, NC, two law students had firearms and stopped an attempted shooting spree.

        Mother Jones is being very selective about their data to try and mold it to a conclusion that they want.  Their way of getting around the “zero stopped mass shootings” is to ignore the fact that neither of those two situations – among others – turned into huge bodycount numbers precisely because civilians with firearms stopped the carnage before it got out of control. 

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      It is 2013. You owning a gun is giving you zero control over your government. In a modern-day civilized country, the ballet box has completely replaced the need for armed internal revolts. You aren’t going to be overturning the government in an armed coup. This is pure fantasy.

      Your government tells you what you can and can’t have all the time. You live in a society of laws and regulations.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

         In a modern-day civilized country, the ballet box has completely replaced the need for armed internal revolts.
        and thats why we have world peace everywhere!

      • GrueneJim

        In the modern world of today, you can be detained without any reason for years in a secret prison. You can be tortured and forced to confess to anything. You can be executed by executive order for things you never did. Not a fantasy.

    • art525

      You know who won’t be heard any more? Those 6 year old kids in Sandy Hook.
        I don’t know  if anyone had a gun  at Aurora but if they did 1.) There was no time to react 2.) there would have been chaos and cross fire that would have made the situation worse. Keep in mind it was a darkened movie theater. And someone had a gun when Gabby Gifford was shot. His name is Joe Zamudio. He doesn’t know why but he didn’t pull his gun. Instead he lunged and grabbed the shooter and pulled him to the ground. Only problem- the guy wasn’t the shooter. If he had pulled his gun he might have killed an innocent bystander. He is of course releived. I am so tired of this trope that if someone had had a gun……… It doesn’t happen.
       And finally my heart breaks for you that the government tells you what you can have. But you know what, I don’t think you should have a rocket launcher either. Yes I know it’s really unfair. 

      • obamalovesdrones

        Neither will the thousands that have died as a result of Obama’s drone strikes.  No one will hear from them, either – but those civilians and kids being killed seem to be ok with his cheerleaders.

        And Obama has also told you – in federal court – that you don’t have the right to be charged or tried before he executes you, as he already did to a 16 year old US citizen. 

        Does your heart ache for him? 

      • GrueneJim

        So you were at the movie and you did nothing but crawl around on the spilled popcorn? That is spineless.

        • art525

          Sorry Duane, I’m due back on Planet Earth.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        he knows why he did not pull his gun. he said it was because did not have a clear shot. no law abiding person was permitted to carry in the theater but i guss the guy at the giffords incident is our best indication of what would have happened and no one would have been harmed in the theater by anyone who had been allowed to carry in that gun free zone.
        millions of americans defend them selves and their familys every year so in fact it does happen and quite often.
        so whats your problem with rocket launchers? have they been a problem ever? thanks for illustrating that gun control is not about guns its about control and not rational concerns for safety

  • Futureboy68

    So let’s get this straight, Dan Baum, a self-professed fat kid in the 60′s couldn’t play sports, felt like an outlier at camp and guns “helped” his self confidence!? That in itself speaks to the problem of some guys needing guns just to cover for their own personal insecurities and inadequacies. Perhaps those are the people the much talked-about mental health focus should shift towards.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so you are upset he found a sport he was good at? whats wrong or abnormal about that?

      • Futureboy68

        No, I just get the feeling that if someone gave him a pair of runners back in the day his book might be called “Running Man”…oh wait, that one is taken…”Run Guys”. It’s clear that for some, guns provide confidence and power, much like alcohol or drugs do for people. At least we better legislate those self-help devices a bit better…and THAT’S saying something consider we barely do a better job at it. At least you need a photo id to buy some a case of beer. 
        I’d also add that the term “sport” to me involves athletic endeavor. I’ve found that shooting, even at skeets, is marginally athletic at best.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          20,000 laws seem like more than a little bit.  shooting sports are much much safer than any other team sport for kids. i am sure lots of ladies feel mor confident and powerful with their gun in thier handbag. is that a bad thing?

          • Futureboy68

            Providing they could actually grab that gun quickly enough to protect themselves if ever attacked, I’m sure it would be a good thing. However, statistcs show there’s a better chance their child will find the gun and use it by accident instead.
            Safer than ANY other kids sports? Really!? Good god, most kids play SOCCER!
            While I’m not suggesting that kids are shooting themselves or each other at target practice, considering some of the ills upon the youth of America, physical exertion via sporting activity wouldn’t only be more beneficial to society as a whole but to the betterment of the future health of the child as well.  

          • obamalovesdrones

            Those stats were long ago discredited.  Sorry, but they are worthless. 

            I personally know THREE different people, all elderly, who have defended robbery/home invasion attempts with firearms.  One is a 70 something year old woman, and the police only took 30 minutes to arrive after she ran off the would be home invader with her firearm. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wow and each did not shoot a family member 43 times?

          • Fredlinskip

            Nope which helps illustrate the point of there being little need for multi-capacity clips.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “clips”? anyways i know three people who were home invaded in all cases it was multiple armed invaders. so jill bidens gun (which she already emptied out theba ck door) would need to be reloaded 3 times to shoot them all

          • Fredlinskip

            No room below. Good nickname for you would be:
             “Shoot them all Futo”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            However, statistcs show there’s a better chance their child will find the gun and use it by accident instead.
            Wrong stop repeating this lie it has been disproven for over 20 years.
            kids die all the time playing soccer, and baseball and basketball from injury, heart attacks and over exertion
            youth turkey hunting is statistically the safest youth sport.
            what would help is if we actually educated kids about gun safety like we do with drugs bullies alcohol sexting date rape strangers traffic lights crosswalks swimming pools ice ect.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tamas.gal.121 Tamas Gal

    I grew up in Europe. You won’t understand the benefits of gun control unless you lived in a country with strict gun control. Sure, criminals would have guns there too but they would use them much less frequently because they are hard to get. Here in the US you assume that the other guy has a gun so you won’t stand up to a jerk who says something to your wife on the street and you ask the car thief nicely to get out of your car when his hacking the stereo out of it because you are afraid. Is that freedom? Sure, there are nice and intelligent gun owners in the US, just like the guy on the program. That guy would be able to get a gun in Europe as well. But if you had to go through multiple psychiatric exams (not talking about looking up someone in a database, but actually being evaluated by a psychiatrist) it would be much less lunatic running around with guns in the US.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      well the current lunatic stole his guns from his mom. would a test have predicted that? also this idiot was trying to emulate a child shooting rampage that happened in europe but was 2x as bad. so hows that working out? germany has 2 of the worst 4 school shootings so thats great evidence that gun control laws cannot prevent any thing of the sort

      • http://www.facebook.com/tamas.gal.121 Tamas Gal

        Well, that’s what you guys don’t understand. MOM WOULD NOT HAVE GUN!

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          welcome to america where “need” is irrelevent since we have rights here

      • Eric Herot

        Germany has had mass shootings, but we’ve had *lots* of them.  And as the original commenter pointed out: The vast majority of our gun crimes are not necessarily committed by the mentally ill, but the ready availability of guns means that one must literally always be afraid of being shot and consequently tend to avoid confrontation even in places where it is probably a good idea.  And all too often when there is a confrontation (especially in the case of street violence), death by gunshot is the result.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          well you have a mcuh better chance of being struck by lightning than being shot with an AR15. so i would not lose too much sleep. avoiding confrontation is always the path to certian victory reguardless of who is armed in what fashion.
          germany is a tiny little country and 2 of the worst 4 school shootings were there despite their draconian gun laws.

          • Eric Herot

            Honestly it’s the handguns I’m worried about.  I tend to agree that, despite all the hype, the people buying the military-style weapons aren’t really the problem.  And is avoiding confrontation really what we want?  That’s a little bit like “stifling free speech” if you think about it.

            And as far as Germany’s draconian laws, they may not be preventing the relatively rare mass shootings, but they seem to work quite well at preventing guns being used in street violence, suicides, and domestic violence.  All of which are a statistically much bigger problem than mass shootings.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thanks for admitting the end game is to ban handguns which the supream court defines as an arm thats constitutionally protected

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      In Switzerland we have a real assault rifle in each home with males between age 18 and 45. And we can buy ammo at will at gun ranges. Yet, we are a pretty functioning democracy. Also, I can buy AR-15-like rifles in the following countries: Italy, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Finland, …

      American gun violence has deep roots in inner cities poverty, poor welfare…and enough with this myth of a weapon-less Europe, it’s B.S. 

      That would be true of the UK and little else.

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

         PH,  You’re absolutely right. Here in the U.S. unfortunately we also have a far higher non-gun murder rate than Europeans. No one talks in these discussions about the 6,000 murders a year committed with weapons other than guns.

        • Scott B

           That doesn’t follow because those items usually have a purpose beyond killing someone, if injuring a body at all.  Plenty of people have been whacked over the head with a lead pipe or hammer, or stabbed with kitchen knife, but those items were designed to kill someone any more than nature created the rock for the first cave man to kill another cave man. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

            You missed the point entirely. Our non-gun murder rate is higher than many, many other countries and it’s mainly concentrated in poor, urban areas. A prevalence of guns doesn’t equal more murder, violent criminals equal more murder. There are states in the U.S. awash with guns with few gun laws and with little violent crime.  There are countries like New Zealand or Switzerland that have lots of guns (more per capita than some U.S. states) with little gun crime.

            Anti-gunners are never interested in addressing violent crime, only one particular means of committing it. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yet Able is still just as dead as anyone who has been shot. please get a grip on the “guns only purpose is to kill people” BS because wrll over 99.999+ of weapons are never fired at a human so clearly they have many other purposes. can you tell me of a gun you think was designed to kill people with?

          • Scott B

            Again, by your own logic, then we shouldn’t have any rule about weapons use and by who, because that implement wasn’t used as how you think they were intended. How’s that work? “You didn’t know the butter  knife was going to kill him when you stabbed him because it wasn’t made to kill. No jail time. Case closed.”  How the #^$# does that work?

            They’re all guns, they all kill. Period.

            The AR is the “civilian” version of the M16, basically the same gun without being able to go full-auto out right of the box. The M16 was designed to kill people. Our soldiers in Nam weren’t out there with .22s shooting to sting the VC in the ass. Colt Peacemakers weren’t designed to go hunt with, either. Nor was the M1 Garrand.. Nor the Springfield carbine… You want the whole list?

      • Michele

         American gun violence has deep roots in the way this country was settled.  The territories were lawless areas with incredibly high murder rates. Gun violence in this country goes back alot further than your inner city, poverty, welfare theory.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          gangs and such as we know them today are a product of alcohol and now drug prohibition. after alcohol prohibition ended the murder rate dropped 99%

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        thank god someone from switzerland can clear up some myths

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yeah in europe they just kidnap your wife and sell her into sex slavery and the unarmed men can do nothing about it

  • Eric Herot

    Bullshit you can’t ban something we already have a ton of. You can absolutely make it mandatory that people surrender what they have with the penalty that if you’re caught with it in any context you pay a fine or go to jail.  We’ve done it before and we can do it again.  It does not require a house by house search.

    • Scott B

       I think that would be seen almost as having the authorities invade the home to confiscate guns.  Better to grandfather them in so they can be sold to family members (unlike NYS where you can’t sell it in the state), let them be used and kept at a gun range (they just dropped $$$$ on a gun, they could spend another few $ to keep them out of the public), or better – Give the owners willing to turn them in funds or some kind of tax credit (etc) equal to the price of the gun.  Perhaps even get Walmart and other gun sellers to offer a descent discount off a another gun that isn’t an assault weapon. I  know people that would trade in their assault weapon, and ammo, if they could get a another gun they had long had their eye on. Then give the gun seller a tax credit for ever gun turned into authorities. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i will trade with em those things cost about $2000

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yup and guess what? no one is turning them in, ever. so thats a good way to make law abiding citizens into criminals. and we know that the actual criminals will buy whatever they want with no reguard to the law

      • Eric Herot

        And where are they going to buy them?  A substantial majority of the guns used in street crime were originally purchased legally (usually in an adjacent state).  If that avenue were closed to criminals, and guns continued to be confiscated from drug dealers and other street criminals at the rate they are today, there would be a pretty substantial reduction in the number of guns available to these people in ten years or less.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you answered your own question! the drug dealers will get their guns the same place they get their drugs from. how much has the drug rate declined over the last 80 years? the gun rate would go down about as fast

          • Eric Herot

            The difference is that poor people in rural Afghanistan or Columbia cannot simply pick up gun manufacturing as a way to make a buck.  Not to mention they are much harder to smuggle.  Mass producing guns is not the sort of thing is easily done clandestinely.

            And again, countries where guns are banned HAVE FEWER GUNS.  The same cannot be said for drugs of basically any kind!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            actually guns are pretty easy to make. anyone with a drill press can make an ar15 or an AK47. but afganistan columbia and other third world nations do not need to make any to exportt hem to us since we have sent them millions of automatic weapons over the years. i would think a person was hard to smuggle yet 12 million or so have been smuggled in.

  • Scott B

    The .223 round is designed to inflict a massive amount of damage by tumbling and splintering into shrapnel.   People are unaware what that does to a body. It make it look like the wound exploded. 

    Noah Posner, 6, of the Sandy Hook tragedy was hit over 10 times in those few seconds, one round took his jaw off, another his left hand. Think about that. No, it’s not pretty. With more that 10 rounds striking him it’s doubtful he would have survived anyway. But the next time someone talks about how an AK is like any other rifle, tell them to imagine their child, grandchild, nephew, niece, the kid next door without a hand, without a jaw, from two bullets.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      wrong. that property was an accidental consequence of early m16s due to the wrong twist rate in the barrel. it makes the gun less accurate and has since been changed. a .223 round is only slighly larger than a .22 round. are you talking about the AK47 or the AK74? joe bidens wifes shotgun is much more deadly than any AK or AR.

      • Scott B

         A shotgun at close range, perhaps. But a shot gun is very limited in load capacity. There’s a reason these people are walking into places with these weapons and high capacity magazines.

        Again, those rounds with that weapon were designed to do that kind of damage.

         I watched a program in History Channel (I  believe)  about how law enforcement and the armed forces are using frangibles (ammo that wounds but more or less destintergrates in place and not turning into shrapnel and tumbling through the body with explosive force) because that ammo does such violence to the body, which isn’t always the desired effect when dealing with certain unlawful elements.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

           Well, that IS what most hunting ammunition is designed to do—expand rather than go through an animal and out the other side. The military has only used frangible ammunition in limited circumstances but for the most part uses metal jacketed rounds, in accordance with the Hague Convention.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          whats nice about a shotgun is you can load one shoot one and have 4-11 still in the magazine. the tumbling of early M16s was a design flaw that has been corrected. thats not accurate about frangables

          • Scott B

             No.The M16 round is designed to tumble and fracture inside the body.

             They are a weapon of war. They want whomever is on the other side dead, or at least never pointing a gun at them again. They designed that weapon and ammo to be simple, fast, accurate, and devastating.

             He is accurrate about frangibles. They are designed to have punch without massive damage much beyond the entry point, so no shrapnel blowing out softball-sized holes. No entering a shoulder and coming out the hip or lower.

            Futo, do yourself a favor and go read a book.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            actually its better to wound your enemy in war than to kill him. a wonded soldier requires the help of others therefore removing several people from the battle to care for the wounded man.  look up the development of the AR15 its an interesting history of a sporting arm adopted for military use. The biggest driver in the militarys choice was that the ammo is light and you can carry lots of it.
             from wikipedia:
            Frangible bullets will disintegrate upon contact with a surface harder than the bullet itself. Frangible bullets are often used by shooters engaging in close quarter combat training to avoid ricochets; targets are placed on steel backing plates that serve to completely fragment the bullet. Frangible bullets are typically made of non-toxic metals, and are frequently used on “green” ranges and outdoor ranges where lead abatement is a concern.
             It has nothing to do with overpenatration in humans it is designed not to overpenetrate steel plates and walls.
            you may be confused with hollowpoints which are designed to expand inside a body.
            let me know what book you  read that said these things so i know to avoid it

        • kringlebertfistyebuns

          AIUI, most of why law enforcement uses frangible ammo is that it has rather less tendency to overpenetrate and hit things the shooter does not intend to shoot.

          • Scott B

            TADA! Exactly!

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

       That’s absolute gibberish, Scott. Futo already explained the origin of the urban myth about the lethality of the 5.56/.223.   The 5.56mm (the military doesn’t use the .223, though the rounds are similar) doesn’t have the killing power of far more powerful hunting rounds or rifles from pre-Vietnam wars.. It was designed as a wounding round, the theory being you could take more enemy soldiers out of commission by wounding them. You wound a soldier and it takes 1-3 others to carry him off the field. 
            
           As noted in Baum’s article, the .223 is underpowered and is illegal to use for deer hunting because it is too weak.

      • Scott B

        I have friends that were in various services, including a couple of SEALS, and they’d beg to  differ.  The doctors that see the results of shooting from assault-style weapons will also tell you that the difference is night and day from  on-AR-type weapon.  I’ve shot them, and I can tell you the damage is not the same

        Those rounds, regardless of how anal you want to be on caliber and power, are devastating to a body.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

          Sure, any bullet can be devastating to the human body but the round fire by the M-16 or the Armalite 15 is less devastating than that fired by an ordinary hunting rifle. As I mentioned it was designed as a wounding round. You can easily google numerous ballistic tests done by the military and police rather than just rely on anecdotal evidence.

          And besides, these rounds are common in bolt action rifles and other semi-autos no one is talking about banning–at the moment. It really isn’t the bullet, it’s the cosmetics of certain guns that’s on the table–and magazine size.

          You know, I can actually see the rationale for a magazine ban. That has a logic based on lethality that is completely lacking in a proposed law to ban guns based on their black plastic stocks but not their functionality. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yup what sad is that people dont seem to understand certian guns are being discriminated against just because they are black. its not right in 2013

        • kringlebertfistyebuns

          I think the discussion of various rounds’ relative lethality is pretty much meaningless in this context.  

          If someone is shooting little kids at close range, as in Newtown, it doesn’t really matter *what* cartridge they’re using.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it would be if they were not portraying a relativly weak round as one thats “high powered”

          • Scott B

            You couldn’t be more wrong. Go talk to your local cops or the docs at the trauma center.

          • kringlebertfistyebuns

            Can you explain why a .223 would be more lethal at indoor-distance ranges versus, say, a 9mm?  

            I’m contending that at short ranges (like 3m), round choice is really not going to make a significant difference, particularly in a small body.  Either way the victim is likely to die. In the case of Noah Posner, he was evidently shot 11 times – it especially wouldn’t have mattered there.

            Also, your cited cops and ER docs aren’t likely to be a reliable source of info on rifle wounds, since they aren’t likely to see many of them.

            Rather, given the immense over-weighting of gun violence towards handguns, they’re far more likely to see wounds from pistol-caliber rounds like the 9mm, .40 S&W, etc.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          ask you seal friends why they are trained to do a double tap since its such a devistating round. i heard a gun expert when asked if a .22 was a good enough self defense round and he said ” i would not want to be shot by anything”
           if anything a SBR in .223 is less powerful than one with a longer barrel which is why many military units are choosing slightly longer barrels

          • Scott B

            They do a double tap for the same reason all LEOs and Servicemen are – To make sure they’re down and stay down, dead or alive.  It’s the same for deer as it is for people. You have no idea where that bullet went. One way it could hit the heart and their dead. Or it could travel right on through and they keep going, and that’s not what you want with another guy with a gun pointed at you, or a deer that wants to make you chase it for the next 2 miles before it finds the deepest ravine it can fall into then die.

            There’s a huge difference between a .22LR and a .223. I’ve seen .22 rounds bounce off stiff pair of work pants (lucky bastard). .223 rounds are a whole ‘nother animal, that’s why they’re used in combination with the M/AR rifles and we don’t have our troops out in the sand with lever action Marlin 39A, bane to pop cans and paper targets everywhere.

              The longer the barrel the more control the shooter has. The longer the rifling grooves in the barrel of the rifle, shotgun, or pistol, the more spin that can be put on the bullet, the more accurate the round flies. That’s gunmanship 101.

              Ammo that’s just bigger, or faster or more powder, doesn’t make automatically make it more effective.  It has to do with the design and manufacture of the the round. Go look at a picture of a .22LR for that lever action popcan killer and the .223 that’s made for the M/AK rifles. Even an idiot can see that those two rounds are radically different.

            BTW, two of my SEAL friends were snipers. One in Nam, and the other started in the first Gulf War, and I’ve has many discussions with them over this subject over the years. 
            Go take your .22 peas shooter to a range with some LR rounds to a range and get someone with an AR  and both of you go unload a round or two on a watermellon and see for yourself.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i did not say a .22lr was the same as a .223.
              you do a double tap when deer hunting? maybe you should get rid of the .223 and get a real deer rifle.

      • Scott B

         The .223  round are NOT underpowered. There’s a reason why the went into war with out servicemen.  A “less powerful” round, especially of that caliber, can be more damaging, and that’s what these rounds are designed to do. If they were designed differently they’d just make a small hole and stop,or just keep in truckin’ on through with lesser damage. By making them not as big and zippy, the bullet hits the body differently, It starts tumbling and splintering, basically “exploding”, causing massive damage.

        As far as hunting. When I used to hunt I wanted the meat the same way I like my gasoline :lead free. Intact is good too, as I used to eat steak and an AR rips the good muscle to shreds.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          the 5.56 is a lot lighter than a 7.62 and a soldier can carry more of them through a jungle. thats why they were chosen by our military. you relise that since vietnam they use a different twist in the barrel to make the round not tumble right?
          were you a bow hunter or did you use non-lead ammunition?
          i hear a few states allow a .223 for deer hunting but i don’t know anyone  who thinks its ethical

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      then answer me: why the Feinstein bill is banning everything from a.17 HMR to .22LR, from .223 to a .45 caliber AR-rifle if the purpose is to ban the supposedly more damaging .223/5.56×45 round?

      and why the Feinstein bill bans the AR15 but not the ruger mini-14 ranch rifle that shoots the same identical .223 round with similarly large magazines?

      do you know that the ruger mini-14 is the rifle used in Norway to kill those 77 kids 2 years ago? yet, even the current proposed assault weapon ban cannot ban it. trying to set aside the AR-15 rifle from other similar action rifles is an arbitrary exercise in futility.

      Plus not all .223 is born alike: military 62 grain M857 5.56 rounds are not that same as smaller .55 0r 40 grain hunting .223s….223 were born as hunting rounds during the 1950s, so there are literally hundreds of hunting rifles chambered for it. Do you think those rifle would be gentler on a little body of a child? 

      I have seen head shots with common hunting .308 and 7mm rounds or with shotgun rounds in 00. it is not pretty either. it never is. do you think a different round would have had a different death toll or lesser wounds?

      thinking that a mass shooting in a classroom full of defenseless kids done with a pump shotgun loaded in 00 buckshot would be less lethal and make less grizzly wounds is an indication of delusion and little understanding of firearms.

      • Scott B

        Feinstein’s bill is wrong-minded about ammo. There was an idea in NYS put forth that any gun .38 and up should be limited or banned.  The thing there is I’d rather get shot with a .38 than a .357, which is technically a “smaller” round, but  much more devastating to a body. 

        I’ve seen deer that have been dropped by a single .22LR from a lever action rifle.

        A pump-action shotgun, sawed -off and with the right load, can be devastating, no doubt. But the further away, even a few feet, the power of a load of buckshot is reduced. Cheney blasted his friend in the face just out of point-blank range and his friend walked out of the hospital with a few bandaids and stitches.  Shotguns also don’t have the capacity remotely near what an AR does, and you have to pump the gun to load the next round. That all takes time, and limits the damage.

        Is everyone going to be saved? Sadly, no. But that some keep denying facts, and would have nothing done because of some flawed logic they have that says “If you can’t stop everybody, then we should do nothing” is wrong logically,morally, and legally.  That’s like saying no law or regulation should be enacted because someone, somewhere is going to do the wrong thing and  hurt or kill someone.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          cheney was not using buckshot he was hunting birds and thus using birdshot. you seem to know enough to know those are completly different so why neglect to mention that?  an autoloading shotgun does not need to be pumped. the advantage of a shotgun in combat is that you can load a round without removing the magazine. men who carry these weapons in combat practice a “shoot one, load one” so their gun is always full should they need to take several shots at once. also i am sure you are aware of slugs which  are better for longer ranges.
           the fact is the shooter in CT had 10 minutes before the police arrived and in 10 minutes you can get a lot of lead downrange no matter what you are using so you are kidding yourself if you think a different gun or a different magazine would have made any difference.
          doing something just to “do something” has never worked out very well.

  • ericd725

     we don’t need to protect ourselves from the govt. with guns. ” The powers that be” (either aliens, or a well organized group of super rich white men) who use the govt. as a tool to wash our brains, have already taken almost every ounce of our free will.  Short of a chip in our brains linked to satilites, we have already taken huge numbers of casualties in this war of “Destination control”.   No, I’m pretty sure guns are only gonna help “them” control the population, or weed out the wrong ones, or whatever.  the only thing that gives us any chance against “the govt.” is our collective brain power.  Stay in school!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      hows that working out in china?

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    Magazine size matters. We are not held hostage by “gun guys.” We are a country of laws. You live in a civilized society. There are restrictions in every area of life. It is part of the social contract. I only hear “gun guys” caring about themselves. I do not think they care about the safety of others or this country.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      please explian why a person who has had a background check and the permission of their police chief shuld be commiting a felony if they put 8 rounds in a gun they legally purchased that was designed to hold ten? please tell whats so important about limiting magazine size? this whole safety argument is bunk. 99.9+ percent of guns are never shot at anyone ever

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        Around the same time that Newtown happened, a madman in China attacked 20 young school children. He only had a knife. They all lived. That is the difference.

        Limiting magazine size will save lives. Less killed. It is a fact. Needing to reload gives more time for victims to escape or tackle the murder.

        99.9+% of nuclear weapons haven’t been detonated. So what? Doesn’t mean we don’t restrict them.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          its not a fact since the last time we did so no fewer deaths resulted. the guys on 911 killed several thousand americans with boxcutters where there is a will there is a way and guns are one of many things that can be used to harm groups of people. jill bidens 12 gauge can fire 30 9mm pellets in a split second be reloaded in a split second and then do it again.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Using your logic, all guns, by law, should have to have a 1000-magazine capability, since that would certainly save lives.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yup that would be impossible to carry

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i guess you misunderstood my question.please explian why a person who has had a background check and the permission of their police chief shuld be commiting a felony if they put 8 rounds in a gun they legally purchased that was designed to hold ten?

        • kringlebertfistyebuns

          Putting aside Futo’s comments…

          A focused shooter can switch magazines very quickly, with only a little skill and practice, whether those magazines hold 10 or 20 or more rounds.

          I’m actually fairly neutral on the subject of magazine size limits, but that one second while reloading seems like a very small thing to hang your hopes on.

    • Justin Busa

      There should never be restrictions on amendments. If you are allowed the first you should be allowed the second. As a gun guy I do care. If something ever goes wrong and your near me I will help before the police get there and you would be glad I did.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        You cannot falsely yell fire in a crowded movie theater. The first amendment has restrictions. Guns should, too.

        More guns = More murders. I will be safer if more people are unarmed, than armed. During a crises, on average, more will go wrong than right. The wanna-be John Wayne will turn a non-lethal situation into a lethal one, will shoot the wrong person, will have their gun taken away from them and used against innocent people. That is the reality versus the fantasy. During the Giffords tragedy, a by-stander with a gun came within milliseconds of shooting the wrong person (the person who had tackled the shooter and taken his gun away). That is documented fact:

        http://www.nbcnews.com/id/41018893/ns/slatecom/#.UTTc2aKG0t0

         

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          the actual evidence is not that clear cut. for instance, there is no obvious increase in accidents in states where concealed carry is more widespread, and when it comes to gun accidents, police cause way more than civilians.  plus it is known that in 95% of cases mass shooter chose places that advertize themselves as “gun free”…

          Sure there are restrictions to the second amendments: My State of Massachusetts has about 450 pages of laws in the books, the federal law ATF manual concerning firearms is close to 1000 pages,  modern machine guns are basically out since 1986, “dangerous AND unusual” weapons are out, but firearms in common use for lawful purpose are in.  DC . Heller.  I like constitutional precendent when it comes to Roe v. Wade. and I like the DC v. heller precendent as well….

          now, AR-15s of all calibers represent 20% of sold rifles in america: if that is not in “common use” what is it?

          could you ban in a narrow way certain firearms and not others if there is a compelling government interest? yes, but it turns out that “assault weapons are rarely used in common crimes and mass shootings, and that the more mundane .22LR or the 9mm pistol are the preferred weapons of mass shooters. besides, at front of a 12000 death toll, mainly caused by handguns, it is hard for the government to make the case for a sweeping ban that prohibits entire classes of firearms spanning from a .22LR M&P15-22 to a .50beowolf AR platform and everything in between with anything semiautomatic that can function as a “grip”, because what it comes to an enumerated right the government has to regulate the right only in a narrowly tailored fashion, in analogy to the first amendment. 

          so, it is more complex than you make it sound, and the discussion would be better served if people were to read -and understand- the technicalities of the bills they claim to support for fervently…

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            The more guns -> the more murders. The more drugs -> the more drug addicts. The more cars -> the more car accidents. That’s the reality. Nothing you said refutes it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats not accurate but lets pretend itis . byyo ur logic we should see less drugs because they areilleg al buti n fact we see more

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you arenta llowedto  shootgun s in a theater. so there you go

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actuallywe  want everyone to have guns so they can be sa fe

  • distractedriver

     Banning drum/magazine size is a sensible measure.  It’s like banning butterfly knives and switchblades.  It’s not a law banning the ownership of having a knife, only certain kinds.  So why the complaint?  Do boy scouts need butterfly knives?  Do outdoors men need switchblades?  They haven’t gone up in arms, so why are gun enthusiasts going nuts over this specific restriction?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      you dont really know what you are talking about huh? those things are banned at the state level and only in silly states. if the states, and one has already, want to pass those laws they can untill they get overturned by the SC but the feds have no business doing it. also when has a drum magazine been used in a crime? ever? oh i forgot the gangsters in the 20s with the tommy guns. we all accept that violence was caused as a result of alcohol prohibition why cant we see that the crime we have now is not caused by guns but by prohibition

      • distractedriver

        So I can’t use a state regulation prohibiting certain knives as a valid comparison to restricting ammo magazines? I made a point of saying that the knife owning public (in MA.) didn’t go nuts like guns owners when a restriction was imposed/suggested. Read it again; a restriction, not an all-out ban.

        And in terms of not knowing what you’re talking about, you must have Alzheimer’s disease if you can only recall black and white movies with gangsters using drum magazines in crimes. Can you remember July 20th, 2012? Aurora, CO. ring a bell? James Holmes used a 100 round drum magazine in his AR15. Thankfully it jammed, or it could have been MUCH worse.

        Here’s another OnPoint broadcast I think you should listen to;
        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/06/internet-trolls
        It seems like you make a habit of not actually doing any work and only ignorantly commenting on anything you might have no knowledgeable input on.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          100 round magazines always jam. when have we ever been told what weapon james holmes actually used? i was hoping that you had a link to that info but instead it was a childish dig. an AWB is on the table and the B stands for ban

    • Michele

        You have a good point.  Assault rifles were previously banned and the Universe did not implode.

  • Eric Herot

    The legal gun owners are NOT the problem.  It’s all of the OTHER guns out there that are the problem!!!!

  • newtownmom

    I was open to listening to Mr. Baum’s opinions, until he flippantly coined the phrase “marquee massacre” in reference to the carnage that happened here in Newtown, where I live. How disrespectful and disgusting. Please don’t ever have him on as a guest again. To trivialize what happened here is an abomination.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yeah like when the president put all those kids on the stage?

      • art525

        No not like that. I’m sorry I have to explain the difference. Mr Baum was glib, flippant, cynical. The PResident was honoring and acknowledging those who went through unspeakable tragedy. Got it now?

        • obamalovesdrones

           Which tragedy?  The CT shooting, or all of the kids he has blown away in drone strikes? 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          thats funny i found obomas use of childrens painto ad vance his political agenda repugnant

  • http://twitter.com/brwalsh brwalsh

    Not sure why Baum’s observation that the best selling high capacity guns “are the gun business” is relevant to anything. I’ll bet that smoking indoors was once more then 50% of the “market”, yet smoking indoors has been banned most everywhere for the safety and health of smokers and non-smokers alike. Smokers still smoke, but outdoors, with restrictions, at a risk to no one but themselves. Gun ownership needs similar restrictions that reduce the risk to all of us.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      except in indoor ranges people tend to shoot outside already so wish granted!

  • J__o__h__n

    Yet another straw guy argument.  Only one gun owner was responsible for Sandy Hook.  All people who oppose reasonable regulations like background checks and banning large capacity magazines are responsible. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      everyone who supports gun free zones should take responsibility

  • art525

    It is too cute by half that Dan Baum calls them ‘gun guys”. Makes them seem like your charming next door neighbor. Maybe some are but I can’t help but feel that anyone with any kind of soul would be rethinking that he would want to be a part of that club of “gun guys” and defend gun ownership when we see 20 dead children. Could Mr Baum look the parents of those dead children in the eye and have this discusiion with them?  Anyone who could do that is the last person who should be allowed to have a gun. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      Guess what your neighbor has a 40-50% chance of being a gun owner. legal gun owners are nothing to fear. go to a shooting range some time its lots of fun
      so we should all just throw reason out the window and blindly have a knee jerk reaction of tossing our liberty out because of a criminal? some of those kids parents have advocated for the right to bear arms but for some reason the media does not publicise that.

      • art525

        Guess what my neighbor is very unlikely to be a gun owner. I live in New York City where we have strict and sane gun laws. The one worry we have is people sneaking in guns illegally from places like Virginia. Ane we have a very low rate of gun crime per capita. I can think of many things I would less want to do than go to a gun range. (Yes I’m sure I would meet lotd of lovely people there and find very engaging conversation but still I’ll pass). It’s right up there with a big foot truck show. And the only case I know of of a Sandy Hook parent advocating for gun rights is one the NRA and the gun loving loyalists trotted out that turned out not to be true. While the guy passed himself off as a Sandy Hook resident he actually lived seven miles away.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

           Guess what? My neighbors are likely to all be gunowners and we have a FAR lower rate of gun crime/violent crime than you. You live in a violent cesspool. I’m sorry  for you, I truly am, but stop trying to drag the rest of us down with you.

          • art525

            I have to laugh. It must be so freeing to be unincumbered by things like facts and information. This is from Wikipedia.

            Violent crime in New York City has been dropping since 1990.[1][2] In 2012, there were 414 homicides, the lowest number since at least 1963 when reliable statistics were first kept. Among the 182 U.S. cities with populations of more than 100,000, New York City ranked 136th in overall crime.[12]

            414 homicides in a population of 8 million. And with our strict gun laws the crimes have been decreasing every year.  I am very happy living in my “violent cesspool”. I have lived here for thirty years and never felt threatened, never felt the need to have a gun to protect myself.Don’t worry I am not going to encourage you to join us here. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

             I’m aware that things have improved there and I’m happy to visit NYC on occasion but just as happy get out. Still, with all the improvements your murder rate is still 6.6 per 100,000. That would be carnage here but I’m glad you see that as an improvement. (and it IS an improvement from years ago) Here in northern NE it hovers at under .50 per 100,000 consistently and we’re awash in guns, especially VT and Maine. Lots of guns do not mean violence.

          • art525

            Funny I have never felt the slightest threat living in New York. It has never ever crossed my mind that I wanted a gun. It’s not a matter of it getting better because it has never seemed bad. It’s funny though, I spend summers in Maine. Last summer I was at a friend’s place in Chushing and heard on the radio that five minutes away in Friendship a guy shot and killed another guy in his driveway over a drug deal. I don’t hear about things like that in my neighborhood. I have also heard various stories of lobstermen shooting each other over fishing disputes. There was a big story on Matinicus a couple of years ago. Recently there was a shoot out between some guy and cops on 95 near Portland. ANd hey what was that big shooting in NH a few months ago. I seem to remember that a guy shot his beauty queen girl friend. And a college student who was missing and found dead in NH.Those are just the ones I recall off the top of my head.  

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

             Sure, such things happen. People move here from NY. :-) But they’re still pretty compared to NYC. Hell, a lot of people around here still don’t lock their doors. Foolish I admit but there is still a sense of security lacking elsewhere.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            go walk to brooklin or the bronx alone   some evening. a person beings hot in NYC in a drug deal is not goingt o make the news there because its not newworthy unless its a white guy

          • art525

            Hey check this out. The rate in Vermont is 9.6 per 100,000. Jeez you said NYC is 6.6. That’s a whole lot more. Maine is 6.5. Jeez about the same. New Hampshire a little less- 5.8. Here’s the link-http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

             Nice try but completely bogus. The Guardian newspaper has a nice interactive site comparing murder and homicide rates by state. They used real stats from the FBI. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

            These stats are easy to verify elsewhere but the map makes comparison quite easy.

            In VT in 2011  the murder rate was .75 per 100,000 (8 murders, 4 with a gun), in 2010 it was .32 per 100,000.
                                  In NH in 2011 it .53 per 100k (16 murders, 38% involved guns). In 2010 .38 per 100k.

            In Maine in 2011 the murder rate was .9 (25 murders, 48% with a gun) In 2010 the rate was .84.

            Interestingly, the same site showed the state of NY as only being 4.12 for 2011 with 774 murders, 57% with a gun.  Obviously NYC kills (get it?) the state’s stats.

          • GrueneJim

            Wow, no crime in New York.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do you lock your door?

        • GrueneJim

          New York has hundreds of unsolved homicides dating back decades. How many locks do you have on your door?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          nope  at least one of the actual parents was pro gun rights. new york city is onloy safe relative to chicago. the difference is that in new york concealed carry is legal but in chicago it is not. i guess you monster truck reference was some sort of elitist dig. if you actually went to a range
          1 you would have fun
          2 you would find out your stereotype was bogus

    • http://www.facebook.com/dana.seero Dana Seero

      How do you feel about automobiles? Swimming pools? According to another NPR article 

      “Nearly a million children worldwide die every year as a
      result of unintentional injuries, and the biggest killer is traffic accidents, according to a report from the World Health Organization.

      The report said traffic accidents, followed by drowning, fires and burns, falls, and poisoning, are the five major causes of unintentional injuries. About 830,000 children under 18 die every year.”

      In the US, about 500 children are injured in car accidents EVERY DAY, but is anyone calling for stricter licensing or driver training requirements?

      • art525

        I am so tired of this trope, this cliche always trotted out by gun lovers. I even mentioned this nonsense in another post I posted here. Where to start. First of all you ask if there should be stricter licensing- OK the point is there is licensing. You need a license to drive and you need to take a test to get that license.  And secondly the point of a car is to get from one place to another. The point of a swimming pool is to swim. There can be accidents where when used wrong they can cause injureis or death. Operative word- accident. If a person is killed in a car or a swimming pool it is because they are using them worn g. If a person is killed with a gun it is because they are using it right. Cars transport you, pools let you swim. Guns serve one purpose. To kill. (Or to practice your killing skills at a gun range. And finally there are many more people using cars everyday and creating the opportuinty for accidents to happen. When guns come out I am sure thta there is a greater likelihood that someone will be seriously harmed. So your argumetn is just more of the nonsense propagated by the NRA and their followers. 

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          the point of a gun is self-defense, which can go as far as lethal force when jeopardy, ability and opportunity for bodily harm exist. Self-defense is a constitutional right. 
          your driving on the other hand is a privilege. The government can take it way any time and you can do zip about it. how about that?

          • art525

            I hear that Lee Iococca gave the Founding Fathers a piece of his mind for not including  the right to drive as one of our founding principles. 
            Constitutional rights? Those twenty kids at Sandy Hook had the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness taken away from them. I think those people who went to the movies in Aurora Colorado had some constitutional rights too. And as I remember it the constitution guarantees the right for a “well regulated militia” to bear arms not every whack job that wants one.

          • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

            your argument from emotions is flawed. do you have an actual argument?

            the specific wack job at hand had to shoot her mom in her head to get hold of the firearms. sure, we can do a better job at keeping mentally disable or defective people from possessing firearms. but that can be done without disarming myself and 130 millions of gun owners. 

            you are playing the same game as republicans did after 9/11: playing on our fears and emotions to piss on the constitution (read: Patriot Act, various wars). do you realize that?

            what’s next? get rid of the right again unwarranted search and seizures to prevent crime?

          • art525

            I guess you were referring to Lanza and meant to say “shoot his mom…” Yes my argument is emotional because twenty innocent kids were slaughtered and gun owners just make excuses and try to deflect blame. Wheter it’s video games, or cars kill more people or therre needs to be more mental health treatement the bottom line is America is over run witrh guns. Every day you hear of some crazy incident. And you gun owners hide behindf a misreading of the second amendment and blame everything but the guns themselves. If people fired up by video games, if the mentally ill if these people didn’t have guns there wouldn’t be this continuing slaughter. But no you want your guns.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            how else can i defend myselffr om the criminals and whackos?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            too badwe putp  eople in poitions where they were unableto  legally defend themselves. gunf ree zones kill

          • art525

            So Patrick Henry (cute name) I guess your rallying cry is “Give me a gun or give me death” Huh? 

          • Human898

            self-defense is not synonymous with guns and some people are wondering if they might have a right to defend themselves against people with guns in the same way people with guns seem to think it is their right to defend themselves against people with guns, only instead of defending themselves by becoming what they want to defend themselves against, they defend themselves against people with guns by voting as a democratic society based in a republic, to regulate and limit the types of arms people may possess to defend themselves with.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah i am sure the criminals will comply andn o one will be shot again

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          baloney. guns are fun to shoot. no one wants to shoot people.
          no one needs to swim or drive and those things are much more deadly

  • ThirdWayForward

    Nobody is talking about taking away existing guns, even assault-style weapons. This is such a red herring, Dan Baum. Limiting the number of rounds in a magazine affects only a very small minority of “gun guys”, so why are they so hysterical (up in arms) about proposals to limit these capacities?

    We need to take measures to make it more difficult for the violently mentally-ill and the belligerent to easily acquire weapons that can kill many people very quickly.

    Dan Baum, you and your gun culture ARE partly responsible for Sandy Hook (man up, take responsibility). The mainstreaming of gun as sport put deadly weapons in the hands of someone who never should have been allowed anywhere near such weapons.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      wrong, the law in NY will force people to sell or dispose of certian magazines.  one company sold 3 million 30 round magazines in a month recently. they are very popular and useful for many everyday uses.
      something does need to be done about the mentally ill but taking the guns from law abiding sane people is not the answer to that.
      its pretty repugnant to put the blame for a massacre on a person and a culture that had nothing to do with it. if anything blame the mother who was bound by law to prevent her son access to the firearms he used. just because someone is crazy does not mean they are stupid if they want to kill people they will and no law can stop them. (in fact they do not require any guns to do so)
       shooting sprees is not part of any gun culture its a part of video games and movies that are much more mainstream than gun ownership

      • ThirdWayForward

        Wrong, dead wrong. The magazines don’t cost much and still nobody is talking about taking away existing guns, just those accessories. There could be magazine buy-back programs with a ban on large magazines, easily accomplished.

        There are plenty of unstable gun nuts who will go ballistic if there were any attempt to take away existing weapons. 

        We say that the gun culture is PARTLY responsible (and so, to a much lesser degree, are violent videogames, but you cannot commit mass murder in a virtual world — the easiest way by far is to get a gun. Also if you think it is reprehensible to assign partial blame to the gun culture, you are assigning blame to videogame culture — think it through, at least try to be consistent). 

        The Newtown mother was in deadly error introducing her son to shooting and not securing her firearms, but sport shooting should not market itself as a safe sport for everyone. There should be restrictions on the mentally ill and the belligerent engaging in shooting sports. It was not that long ago when a young boy (in CT also?) was killed while shooting an automatic weapon. These lapses of common sense are truly amazing.

        The argument that laws won’t stop people from mass murder is ridiculous on its face. Some violent moron like a Jared Loughner is MUCH LESS LIKELY to find a way to kill many people at once if he cannot simply go to the local Walmart and purchase what he needs without any questions asked.

        Speeding laws don’t absolutely prevent all speeding on the highways, but they do calm things down and thereby save lives. That is all we want to do for the gun situation — calm things down and make it harder for unstable people to act out violent impulses.

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          if standard capacity magazine (15-17 rounds for pistols, 20-30 rounds for AR rifles) are not useful for self defense, why do your cops on the beat use them ALL THE TIME? take theirs ways first, if you really believe they are useless for self-defense.

          and how low is low enough for you anyway? 10, 7, …1 round? a standard semiautomatic 9 mm pistol can accept in the grip without protruding conspicuously 15 or 17 rounds. that should be the limit that is acceptable to me and won’t affect self defense.

          so 30 round pistol magazines and larger than 30 round rifle magazine can be banned all day long: cops and military forces don’t use them. that would be a fair and more logical standard.

          • obamalovesdrones

             http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/another-gun-control-myth/

            “Under Sheriff Campbell’s supervision,” he explained, “two shooters –
            an experienced man and a novice female – are able to repeatedly fire
            30-round shot strings at three targets, using 15-, ten- and six-round
            magazines, all in under 30 seconds.”

            The male demonstrator fired 30 rounds from a pistol, first with two
            15-round magazines, in 20.64 seconds, then with three ten-rounders in
            18.05 seconds and finally with five six-round magazines in 21.45
            seconds. The woman fired the same magazine sequence, with two 15-round
            magazines in 22.9 seconds, three ten-rounders in 25.51 seconds and the
            final five six-round magazines in 26.93 seconds.

            In addition, the man then fires 20 rounds from an AR-15 rifle using a
            single magazine, in 12.16 seconds. He then fired 20 rounds using two
            ten-round magazines in less time, 10.73 seconds!

            “Imposing magazine capacity limits creates a horribly false sense of
            security,” Gottlieb observed. “This video puts the lie to this
            politically-motivated disarmament strategy.”

            The magazine myth promoted by gun banners is completely destroyed in this test and video. 

            The idea that criminals wouldn’t either do what David Gregory did and just simply break the law, or just carry multiple firearms and mags – like the va tech shooter did – is ridiculous.  It is right up there with the bans on alcohol and “drugs.” 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          not really. oh a  buy back programw ill makee veryone happily give up their magazines? an old lady iw ast alking to from new york said she would never give hers up. ever
          video games are all about commiting virtual mass murder its part ofthe g amingc ulture iti sn ot partof th e gunc culture.
          studies show people drive about 70 reguardless of what the speed limit is.
          unstable people are not always stupid. far more american have been killed by bombings that mass shootings

    • GrueneJim

      The vanguard of the gun control movement is working to dismantle the Bill of Rights. After the 2nd Amendment is stripped away, the authorities will be free to use enhanced interrogation to obtain confessions from uncooperative detainees. And, of course no one is talking about it openly. Its supposed to be a secret.

      • obamalovesdrones

         Not a coincidence that the same people cheering on banning guns and attacking the second amendment are cheerleaders for obama and his NDAA and Patriot Act renewal bills that he pushed through.  If they are attacking the second, they might as well attack the fourth, fifth, and first amendments. 

        Who cares about that silly right to be charged and tried before being executed?  I trust Obama to do the right thing!

  • distractedriver

    Of course the mother was responsible for supplying her son with the weapons used in Sandy Hook!  I know it’s a stretch, but hear me out.  If you have season tickets to the Patriots and you let one of your friends go in your place and they act like A-holes and get kicked out, who are they going to punish?  The season ticket holder who was stupid enough to let his buddy use it.  Now, with guns it’s obviously more dire of a situation.  The mother purchased the guns, and she obviously didn’t lock’em up and implicitly (obviously not explicitly) gave her son access to them because she either didn’t use a gun safe, or didn’t hide the key/code well enough. That’s not responsible gun ownership.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and it was illegal un der CT law for her to not secure her firearms from her son

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    so there are americans without TVs? seems like every time i turn mine on i see images of guns on the commercials and programs

  • Human898

    How is it other nations that had plenty of guns prior to their bans or regulation were able to greatly reduce their per capita gun death and gun injury rate compared to our nation.  To suggest that gun regulation does not work is absurd.  There is plenty of evidence in the world that it does.   As well, even within this nation, there is no consistency in statistics with regard to the effectiveness of regulation or not.  Some places with little or no regulation have low incidents of gun death and injury, some places with little or no regulation have very high rates of gun death and injury.   The same with places that have lots of gun regulation.  Some still have high rates of gun death and injury, some have low rates.   This may suggest that regulation has less impact on gun death and injury than genral attitude about guns.   As one caller mentioned, I stopped hunting when several people claiming to know all about gun safety did similar things the woman mentioned her grandfather encounters with regard to failing to be aware of the deadly nature of the “inaimate object” they hold in their hands.   When I got sprayed by gunshot several times, it became obvious to me that “law abiding citizens” with guns in their hands is not synonymous with gun safety, respect for the damage and harm the “inanimate object” in their hands represents and preventable tragedy.

    • Justin Busa

      Your right GUN crime goes down and VIOLENT crime goes up. Why is that? Because criminals know you cant defend yourself. In every country you talk about the amount of rape, mugging, and murder all skyrocketed after gun bans.

      • Human898

        You might do further investigation into the stats you cite.  There were changes in the way stats were measured at the same time more control went into effect.  Also gun crime IS violent crime, thus your statement makes little sense.

    • GrueneJim

      Yeah but you guys were drinking and smoking weed when you started shooting each other. Plus, you are pretty annoying.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      stop hunting with cheney

  • nj_v2

    Mr Baum is fond of analogizing the number of weapons in circulation with gravity. He has deployed this in some of the few pieces of his i’ve read.

    It’s an obviously bogus comparison. We can genuinely do nothing about gravity, an inherent feature of the physics of the large objects of the solar system. Like any human construct, guns—built, bought, used by people—can be controlled by people, hard as it may be. It’s not inherently impossible the way controlling gravity would be.

    • Ray in VT

      I don’t think that one of his early comments was entirely accurate.  He said that ownership rates had tripled over the past 20-30 years, or something like that.  It is true that the number of guns or even the number of guns per person has gone up by about that, but the percentage of people who own a firearm is relatively unchanged.  I suppose it depends upon how one defines rate.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        The number of guns has gone up. The number of gun owners has gone down.

        • GrueneJim

          The number of unsolved homicides across the country is up. Many of these unsolved crimes are more than two decades old.

    • DeJay79

       I thought the same thing, it is a very weak analogy. Humans do not make gravity, we can not regulate it and we can not chose to own it or not. There is absolutely not connection to be made between humans and guns AND humans and gravity.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dana.seero Dana Seero

    “Let’s grow up. Limit handguns to gun ranges. Limit long guns to shotguns and small clip hunting rifles. Require everyone to submit to training and licensure.”

    Kathy – Massachusetts has an assault weapon ban, a capacity limit on magazines, and a secure storage law. All lawful gun owners must take training and be licensed – and ALL guns and gun sales must be registered with the state. And the result of all these laws is that more criminals use guns in crimes than ever before – because these laws are not strictly enforced. Boston PD has been hurt by budget cutbacks just like other programs.

    Without more law enforcement, passing more and more laws amounts to nothing more than high-visibility pandering by politicians.  Massachusetts has a mandatory one year jail sentence for illegal gun possession: less than 20% of those charged ever serve that time.

    If you are in favor of more gun laws, surely you must be in favor of enforcing existing laws? Demand of those politicians that they give the police adequate resources to prevent gun violence in the first place. 

    • Human898

      Arms escalation is a natural progression without intervention.  It’s what the Cold War was all about and why so many are concerned about the “wrong” people or nations having a “right” to keep and bear the same arms others have to “defend” themselves.  

      Leaders lead the way with regard to where they want others to follow.  It is hypocrisy to suggest others should do what one will not do themselves.   People cannot expect anyone to lay down arms unless that do.   I also find it interesting to note how many believers in a Christian Testament and books of the Bible, including the Book of Matthew, Chapters 5 and 6 appear to feel it is perfectly consistent with their beliefs to hold a bible in one hand, a weapon labled “assault” (for a reason) in their other hand.

      While full funding for full enforcement of laws would be optimal. tossing out any enforcement or regulation because it cannot be fully enforced does not appear to be a better solution.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i find it interesting that Dianne Fienstein hsa a concealed weapons permitand  your boy bloomberg has a bevy of armed guards around him at all times. nice leadership

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

       Mass has the strictest gun control laws in the country and the highest violent crime rate in New England, despite most of the rest of New England (especially ME, NH and VT) having pretty lax gun laws.

    • GrueneJim

      The law enforcement organizations and courts already know who the violent felons are and where they live. Why do they need more money?

  • newtownmom

    I was open to listening to Mr. Baum until he flippantly called what happened here in my town a “marquee massacre.” How disrespectful and disgusting. To trivialize what happened here is an abomination. Please don’t pollute your airwaves. I am a devoted listener, but I had to turn the radio off.

    • Human898

      I agree with your feelings about Mr. Baum’s characterization, but I do not agree with the notion that NPR should either know or be responsible for all their guests say and I would say it is important to hear what people have to say so we can formulate our thoughts from hearing what someone has to say, firsthand.  

      In my opinion, Mr. Baum did not harm the program for having him as a guest, if anything, he only reinforced positions for more gun control and helped demostrate an epitomization of what some feel to be the fanaticism, irrationality and obsession of the vocal minority of gun owners. While he may have found some buyers for his book, he may have also lost as many or more sales.

  • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

    My takeaway from this program is that gun owners (who Baum said “go into a defensive crouch” when any gun control issues are raised) are so concerned about gun ownership that they simply can’t, or won’t, hear what the rest of us are saying: gun violence in unacceptable. And the only thing they can come up with is, “it’s a mental health problem.”

    • http://www.facebook.com/dana.seero Dana Seero

      There is a saying that “A man convinced against his will – is of the same opinion still” so is it fair to say that you were of this same opinion before listening to the show, and that nothing you heard changed your mind?

      Lawful gun owners deplore firearm violence every bit as much as the most ardent anti-gun proponent. 

      Lawful gun owners tend to be “Law & Order” types, and I believe the point they are making is that passing more and more gun laws will not have any real impact on gun violence – because those laws are not effectively enforced.

      • art525

        And so we dhrugf our shoulders and do nothing and another twenty six year old kids get killed. Right?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          lets ban pools! for the children!
          From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
          knowing that will you still do nothinga bout pools?

      • Human898

        Every unlawful person in the history of humankind was lawful, the moment before they acted in such a way that made them a criminal.  Being “lawful” in any one moment does not warranty anyone being lawful a moment later.  

        I would also like to do a survey of all the “lawful” folks on the highways of American who obey the speed limit and other traffic laws.  

        The validity of the argument for limiting the odds of use of the “inanimate object” that magically seems to be able to do so much harm, by limiting either the type or the number of available “inanimate objects” is that all criminals were at one time “law abiding”.

        • GrueneJim

          If you are such a gifted sleuth and problem solver, why don’t you volunteer to go find the thousands of illegal guns owned by violent criminals?

          • Human898

            Perhaps if you are so worried about being left unarmed, you seek out the same source of weapons you say all the crooks buy their weapons from?   One of the biggest sources of illegal guns are guns stolen from those who make legal purchases or from people who hire others without a criminal record to buy the guns legally.    You might also try to comprehend that a legal gun owner can become an illegal gun owner in a split second.  All they need to do is use their weapon to commit a felony, thus the notion that only legal gun owners will be stifled by restrictions or bans on certain types of weapons  makes no logical sense.    If people wthout records who intend to to harm with a gun can buy their gun legally, why wouldn’t they?   If they cannot purchase the gun they want legally, they might seek to do so illegally.  While it may not be hard to do, there is an added difficulty and risk to it as opposed to being able to walk in and purchase what they want legally and without restriction as the gun culture desires.   If possession of certain types of weapons are illegal, one has reason to stop those in possession of such weapons.  if they are legal, the only way to distinguish the law breakers from the law abiders is after they start shooting.  If they carry an illegal weapon, there is a greater chance they can be stopped before they start shooting as possession of the weapon, not just shooting it offensively is breaking the law.  

            It should be obvious why law enforcement does not like the idea of dozens of armed citizens showing up to a real or perceived alarm of a threat or real action because people in plain clothes with guns drawn can’t be distinguished from shooters in plain clothes with gun drawn.   If one is trying to isolate and take down a shooter or potential shooter, dozens of people with guns drawn hinder, not help that effort and make it dangerous for all in the vicinity.  

            No one believes tragedies will drop to zero, but they do believe they can be decreased in number and severity by taking steps to make such events more difficult to pull off and instead of encourage more of what the shooters do, buy guns and perhaps look for some excuse to use them. lead and teach the idea that the answer to one’s problems is not solved by reaching for an inanimate object designed specifically, originally and primarily for the purpose of efficiently killing and wounding. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “Perhaps if you are so worried about being left unarmed, you seek out the same source of weapons you say all the crooks buy their weapons from.”
            thats exactly what will happen legitimate people will become prisoners afterb eing forced into the balck market. leadingo t muchm oer crime just like the balck market for drugs.

          • Human898

            What about slavery?  Because it was outlawed and there is a black market in it, it should be made legal?   What is the fear that people have of others that makes them believe buying a gun is necessary?   Fear is the factor in both sides of the issue, some fear to the extent they buy guns to feel safe in their own surroundings and some fear the type of society that has been reduced to the fear that makes everyone in that society feel they have to have a gun to defend themselves or to feel safe in their own home.   In addition, if our nation is so full of “law abiding citizens”  why would there be more crime? Guns aren’t drugs and there is a black market for nukes too, let’s just open up that market to anyone who walks in the door and wants one, right?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            can you afford one?i f you bought one would you set it off?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          that sounds like a great argument against the utility  of background checks.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

        I won’t argue about most gun owners deploring gun violence. The several gun owners I know certainly do. My beef is with that “defensive crouch.” It’s not conducive to meaningful and constructive solutions. 

    • Gary Martin

      You are a FOOL Mr Cox. You have NO information concerning Homicides committed by Firearms because you listen to the likes of Chris Matthews. Do you know that more people were Murdered in 2010 with Hammers(clubs) that with Rifles?  I say lets Outlaw hammers that weigh more than 8 ounces!! Again, get informed. The above statistic provided by FBI CRIME REPORTS.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        and swimming pools
        From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2

      • Michele

         So, how low are you crouching?

      • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

        Geez, and I thought the other guy was straying from topic [insert big eye-roll and index finger twirling next to temple].

    • GrueneJim

      Criminal violence is the problem. Disarming lawful citizens while ignoring known violent felons is a dereliction of duty.

      • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

        Hold on! When did I say anything about disarming lawful citizens? See? It’s this reflexive, fearful type of reaction that’s making many of us uneasy about you “gun guys”. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          others have proposed just that

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      but non”gun violence ” is fine?

      • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

        Let’s stay on topic, shall we?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          as soon as you can explain what the difference is. do guns kill you “deader”

          • http://www.facebook.com/tim.cox.106 Tim Cox

            Well, maybe just “kill” though they aren’t the only way to do it, I know. Regardless, the show was about guns and that’s why I suggested you stay on the topic. This is what irks so many: that gun folk are putting more energy into talking about something else — mental health, other means of killing people (cars, knives, etc.), to name two — than they do into speaking constructively about solving the problem. I know that guns aren’t going away soon, I don’t even think that’s necessary. What I do think is necessary is that gun people, if they wish to maintain their right to bear arms, step up to the plate in a thoughtful and serious manner and offer something that sounds like thoughtful and serious proposals about putting an end to the gun problem. Or am I simply asking too much?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            why does anyone need to justify or discuss their god given constitutionally enshrined right?

  • DeJay79

    To speak to the “NEED” question about military grade assault rifles.

    When multiple events happen where someone kills dozens of people with military grade TV sets, computers, cell phones, et cetra and there is an option for people to still own a TV that is not military grade then I would consider restricting those also. 

    This is why “Need” is a relevant questions when it come to these weapons. because their whole reason for existing and the purpose for their design was to kill lots of people very quickly.

    There is no other product for sale to US customers that compares. unless you are suggesting we should allow the sale of nuclear devices and not ask the “need” question.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

       I know you probably know this judging by your specious comment and really don’t care about what is true or not but I’ll note anyway that civilians can’t buy military grade assault rifles, though they can buy rifles that look like them. Functionally they are quite different.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        dont muddy the water with facts

      • DeJay79

         see reply below

    • GrueneJim

      In Rwanda, nearly a million people were killed in less than seven days with cheap machetes. They did not use guns and none of the civilians murdered were able to defend themselves.

      • DeJay79

          see reply below

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
      no one needs boats or swimming pools. lets ban em. think of the children

      • DeJay79

         

        Each of you missed my point entirely.  So, No futo or Gruene, I am not suggesting
        that we ban or outlaw ownership of things that when used may result in the death
        of someone, accidental or not. Yes you can kill someone with a shovel, boat or
        a machete but that is not what they were designed for or their only use.  Also, Decius, I am sorry I was not fully
        aware of the differences between military grade assault rifles and military style
        assault rifles but after doing more research into the civilian AR-15 I still
        stand by my claim.

        Just as I stated with TV’s, Cell phones, and computers, I
        guess I should have included boats and machetes. So if there was a type of boat
        that was designed for killing people (lots of them at once) while all other
        types of boats still existed that were not meant to kill people and then if in frequent
         events that boat was used to fully its intended
         purpose by, while being controlled by a
        person, resulted in the death of tens of dozens of people. Then Yes I would
        consider asking the question of NEED as it pertains to that boat, however we
        can both agree that is not the case.

        And for the machete, a large knife useful in cutting a path
        through thick jungle, I imagine that there was more than one person using them,
        which would mean that it was a movement in that society. A very sad course in
        human history if you ask me, but it is completely irrelevant to this discussion,
        unless  your point was that the citizens
        of that country undefended and if they had guns that violence would not have happened
        or it may have been that all the people welding the machetes’ would have been
        the ones to be killed. But given what I know about that part of the world I am
        betting that the men in power would have secured all the weapons that they
        possible could be attempting to massacre the other side which would have included
        the use of firearms. Really no one knows what might have happened if they were
        all armed.  Yet all of that is also irrelevant
        because there are many types of guns that are useful in self-defense. A shotgun
        or hand gun none of which I was talking about.

        The Question that I have and have yet to get a satisfactory
        answer to is:

        Is there anything that military-style assault rifles are
        useful for other than killing multiple people that there is not another gun on
        the market that can do that same thing better?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          not according to the DHS they say the AR15 is suitable for sefl defense and have bought thousands of them. they are not planning on killing multiple people with them are they?

  • Blue_To_Shoe

    _________________________________________
    -
    -
    Did anyone catch the syndicated tabloid program ‘Inside Edition’ about a week ago where the 24 year old, very pregnant mother, already with a small child, showed off her AR-17 or 18 (whatever the name of the gun used in the school massacre), a ‘glock’, and an old-fashioned giant ‘Dirty Harry’ blue steel six shooter?
    Apparently, she was the one whom elicited the “buy a shotgun” response from Vice-President Biden that went viral.

    Unfortunately, I agree with Dan Baum on the Liberal elitism around guns likely backfiring on them: just too much trash talk by Liberal media elites.
    Democrats have just become too comfortable with a Democrat in the White House, and are about to really mess up with this gun stuff.

    I do feel that Mr Baum is elevating (ennobling) the motives of ‘Gun Guys’ a little too much though.

    The Discovery Channel – although recently criticized by some for seemingly focusing too much on exploitive (stereotypical) ‘rural’ content instead of science of late – does have a good eye for current sub-culture trends.
    Owning /showing off guns is just the new cool thing for spoiled baby-boomers to indulge in.

    Gun pop culture is just the current replacement for Harley Motorcycle pop culture.
    ‘American Chopper’ and ‘Biker Build Off’ have simply been replaced with ‘American Guns’ and ‘Sons of Guns’.
    Chrome-plated, engraved, V-Twin engines have now been replaced with chrome-plated, engraved guns.
    -
    -
    _________________________________________

    • Human898

      I’m not a Democrat, was once a Republican and was a member of the NRA and a gun owner. 

      My thoughts about what you have said is that you demonstrate the “elitism” many Democrats, non-gun owners and many gun owners, (who do not march in lock-step with the very vocal minority of gun owners, who own many guns apiece), feel about the characterization the NRA and that very vocal minority have of non-gun owners, Democrats and anyone that disagrees with them.

      • Blue_To_Shoe

        _________________________________________
        -
        -
        Unfortunately, you are misconstruing my assertions regarding the overall character of gun owners.

        What I’m saying is that not all gun owners are created equal.
        It’s about ‘checking’ people – a lot of people are just ‘full o’ beans’!

        Personally…and I don’t want to come off cold here…but I couldn’t care less about this gun stuff.
        As a wannabe-liberal, I wholly feel people should be able to own all the guns they want.

        In terms of gun popularism however, some ARE ‘compromised’ in regards to their idealism: it’s not just purely a 2nd Amendment ‘thing’.

        For example, the aforementioned 24 year old pregnant mother’s glock held the ‘infamous’ 30 round clip; and she even bragged about (and showed) a bullet being in the chamber.
        I’m sorry….but you cannot tell me that “showing off” like this (especially in terms of CURRENT popular gun culture iconography) does not in-of-itself play a motive.

        Would she be waving around a 30 round clip glock if this were not a current popular element of gun culture strata?
        -
        -
        _________________________________________

        • Human898

          I agree totally that it has become a pop-culture, trendy thing, like all the other “gotta-have-one-a-those” to be “cool” trends Americans seem to let themselves be herded into.  I don’t agree with you and Mr. Baum that “elitism” about gun ownership or gun culture comes only from Democrats.   There is as much “elitism” in a different format coming from the opposite side.  

          The Catch 22 in all of this is that the pop-culture thing and an apparent exposition of fanaticism, paranoia (about someone taking the “toys” away) and obsession about offering illogical justifications, slogans and fear mongering about gun grabbing as much as fear mongering about being defenseless victims of a criminal race of humans that have infiltrated and dominated America to be vanquished by the fictional hero, the forever and eternal “law abiding citizen” or the “law abiding” race of humans that never ever, well maybe on the highways of America, break any laws and their past record is proof of their future record, supported by the fantasy that no law abiding citizen ever, since the beginning of time, went from being law abiding to being a crimnal in a fraction of a second because of the way they used a “legally purchased” gun in a criminal way.  

          Guns are not Barbie Dolls for men or toys by any stretch of a sane non-delusional mind.  Yes they might be fun and make people feel powerful, but as you point out in a roundabout way, the pop-culture trendy aspect of gun ownership dilutes if not dangerously diminishes the very real and very harsh aspect of those poor innocent little “inanimate objects”.   As suggested by so many older gun owners, this “culture” you speak of and the general disregard and disrespect it appears to present for the seriouslness of the damage a gun can inflict based on what it was primarily designed to do (as opposed to all other inanimate objects often brought up by the gun pop culture in an attempt at an analogy to an equivalence of harm done.   I have experienced just the sort of disrespect for the reality of what some hold in their hand and their power and the seriousness and concentration needed to both and keep such an item for their own safety and for the safety of others around them.  

          That so many people might and do purchase a gun they load and keep in their night table because the NRA and gun manufacturers told them that is the way for them to be safe and “everybody’s doing it”.  

          No gun is effective as a weapon of personal defense unless it is kept close and at the ready.    That readiness presents a safety danger and serious, not casual, respect for the added risk for the owner and their loved ones and the extra safety needed to keep a weapon in such a way, much less how to use it if needed. All that before and without any threat from others comes into play. 

          As you point out and as I have experienced, there are people who purchase firearms and shove them loaded and ready to use in a closet or a night table.  Ask them about that and you might get a response like, I don’t know, they told me I’d be safer if I bought this thing, I don’t know how to use it and I think I loaded it, here, take a look” (as they take it out and hand it to you, barrel pointing at you).

              

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          she must be emulating david gregory

    • Gary Martin

      Do you have any idea how many deaths occur each year from “Assault Rifles”? Neither do I, but I do know for a fact(FBI Crime Statistics) that it was less than 358 for 2010, and that stat includes ALL RIFLES!! 

      • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

        Diane Feinstein knows…. at the last senate hearing she said “35 people on average died every year because of assault weapons between 2004 and 2012″. that’s it. 35 out of 12,000 non-suicide related gun deaths. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2

    • GrueneJim

      Its about time. Motorcycles are way too dangerous for public ownership.

      • 1Brett1

        Yeah, cuz guns and motorcycles are exactly the same, right? …Did you think that up all on your own or did you have help?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          no one needs a motercycle all they do is kill people

  • Human898

    One thing that most, perhaps all, on all sides of the issue have in common is fear of people with apparently “inanimate objects” in the hands of others that manage to do great harm with an “inanimate object”.The difference is the various solutions to how to deal with the common fear.Some seem to believe the best solution is more of what they fear, guns, in the hands of people they cannot warranty will not use those weapons against them. Some others, find the solution to their fears in the limiting and lowering of the odds that a “law abiding citizen”, with an “inanimate object” in their hands, will go from being “law abiding” in one moment, by using the “inanimate object” in their hands to wound and kill other human being, to become a criminal, a spilt second later. Many of the same people also feel that heat-of-the moment use of that “inanimate object” for harm to one’s self or anger against a family member or someone known to them could be reduced by reduced numbers of “inanimate objects” in circulation. Along the same vein, they also feel that reduced numbers of “inanimate objects” would also have an impact on the incidents of accidents where a child, unaware of the harm that “inanimate object” can do could do harm to themselves or someone else. They feel they could reduce that “one time” a “law abiding”, “careful”, “good” gun (guy) owner, has a lapse in their perfection or otherwise, falls prey to the affliction mere humans fall to, simply being human like all other humans.

  • Old Easterner

    “and she obviously didn’t lock’em up and implicitly (obviously not explicitly) gave her son access to them because she either didn’t use a gun safe, or didn’t hide the key/code well enough. ”

    How do you know that when there has been no police report released yet?

    I assume that the murderer got an acetylene torch and cut open her safe while she was on her three-day winter getaway.  She returned the evening before the murders.

    He shot her in bed before she found out that the her safe had been breeched.

    • jefe68

       I’m wondering why this has not been reported as it would be good to know one way or another. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        facts would muddy the waters.the goal is a gun ban and they need irrational emotion to achieve hatt

    • Old Easterner

      My point was, “Why assume that the murdered mother was not responsible, when we have no details about the inside of the house?” 

      I assume that murderer was more devious and creepy than his mother could have imagined.

      The crazy thing is that legislatures are passing laws to prevent this one time event (attack on first-graders), and we don’t even have the detailed police report from which we might deduce what could be done to prevent it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      good pointt hat wed ont have nay facts aboutt hat case. we don’t even know if he actually used the AR15 just thatth e mom owned one. she was bound by law to keep her guns away from her child yet she failed to do so however it happened

  • Gary Martin

    As usual, NPR does a “dumb down” piece about the gun industry, the NRA, and gun owners in general.  If you are going to conduct a smear piece, just come out and say so, it would give you more credibility. The real problem I have with the segment is your apparent inability to recognize fact from fiction. You accept statistical information that supports your viewpoint even when it is in error, either from ignorance or on purpose.  You had an emotional caller that cited “the 10′s of thousands to 100′s of thousands of Firearms Deaths per year” and the need to control high cap. magazines on “assault” rifles.  One needs only to Google the FBI’s own Firearms related death figures to see what a gross misrepresentation that “fact” happened to be. For the last 5 years Firearms Deaths have gone down EVERY SINGLE YEAR. The latest statistical year being 2010, supports the fact that more people were Murdered with HAMMERS and CLUBS than with Rifles!! Look it up!! 2010 Firearms Deaths 8,775. Rifle Deaths (ALL RIFLES NOT JUST ASSAULT CLASS RIFLES) 358. Also, it would be helpful to inform yourself just exactly what the 2nd Amendment is actually about. So I conclude with a simple message: Get your facts straight BEFORE you do a piece that has extreme consequences for the American public. 

    • SouthRoyaltonSteve

      Gary
      Blah blah blah blah…..etc.
      Dude, try something original. 
      Citing your glorious statistics, are 358 RIFLE deaths now acceptable?
      And the 2nd Amendment’s actual meaning has been so twisted (yes even by the Supreme Court’s conservative majority) that it’s no longer meaningful or true to it’s original intent.
      It was crafted in the 18th century when times and the world were a lot different, like when SLAVERY was legal and condoned by the Founding Fathers, remember?
      But no point in telling you, you have all the FACTS on your side right?

      • http://profile.yahoo.com/BZBHPJHWTQC2PC2SU4BGUE7ADU Decius

         SouthRoyaltonSteve,
        Those facts ARE rather inconvenient, aren’t they? Your post sums up succinctly why it is difficult to have rational discussions about this issue.

        Gun rights advocate: Facts, numbers, rational points.  Poor person foolishly thinking person on other side is speaking in good faith.

        Gun control advocate: “Blah blah blah blah…..etc.”
        Sidestep facts, go onto emotion, “slavery,” personal attack.

        Thanks for being honest anyway.

        • SouthRoyaltonSteve

          Well honesty hasn’t been an issue for me.
          And some background:  I’m a gun owner, FORMER NRA member (they no longer represent my thinking and couldn’t be more tone deaf), hunter & independent voter who voted for McCain & Obama last time.
          I agree that we accomplish nothing if we shout at each other from the barricades but where do we start?  It seems that civil discussion and compromise are dirty words now (see ANY type of political issue).  
          Thanks for your comments though.

      • GrueneJim

        The Bill of Rights is about protecting individual human rights. The 2nd Amendment protects the 3 great rights of personal safety, personal liberty and private property. The 4th Amendment protects individuals form unlawful search and seizure. The 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination forced by torture. Human rights and aspirations have not changed. The dark side of power and corruption has also remained the same. The Bill of Rights did not grant the right to a life of criminal violence.

        • 1Brett1

          I see, so when the government comes to herd you down a hole your gun will protect you? Or…you know, words to that effect. Maybe just a tad little much visions of Revolutionary War dancing in your head? A) Do you really believe the government could very well impose such tyranny that you’d have to hole up in your fortress, er, house and shoot back? B) If so, do you think you really have a chance anyway if such an absurd Red Dawnish situation were to arise? 

          Really, what that mentality amounts to is, “hey, if the government uses weaponry against me, I won’t stand a chance but at least I’ll take a few people out on my my way to my grave”…you people are such nonsense. 

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/IYDRDDOM23LGAGSLYIB6DOUAAM Chad L

            So what you are saying is that if in some such alternate reality that the US government DID become more tyranical… you’d go along willingly because they have guns.. did I get that right?

          • 1Brett1

            So, you’re saying just before they kill you you want to pick off a few as you die? 

            Your Revolution scenario is ridiculous: there, that’s what I’m saying. Get it?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            everyone has their own choice of whether to die on their feet or live on their knees

          • Fredlinskip

            You’re living a fantasy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what size kneepads would you like?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
        if you really cared about people you would try to ban boats and pools

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so what do you think its original intent was that we should return to?

  • 1Brett1

    One hears all the various components of this issue with guns being mentioned as not only a problem but THE problem. Gun rights advocates often mention mental illness/violence in video games, movies, and tv shows. What I don’t seem to hear are reasonable solutions to those issues. If it is solely a problem of untreated mental illness, what are the solutions to that problem on a large societal scale? If it is video games, likewise, what is a large-scale solution? If it is both in concert, how do we as a society address those problems systemically and systematically?

    It seems solutions to those problems, on a scale that would make a difference in preventing gun violence, would mean a lot of legislation as well as limiting people’s rights and freedoms. There would have to be laws limiting what people can and can’t put in film, tv shows or video games. It would also seem that a national database of an individual’s activity in seeking therapy for any kind of mental health issue would need to be implemented and very closely monitored. 

    • OnPointComments

      It’s a harsh reality, but the federal government can’t, and probably shouldn’t, try to legislate away all of life’s tragedies, even ones as terrible as Sandy Hook.  In a free society there will always be deranged people who must be dealt with on an individual basis, and not by taking away the rights and freedoms of the entire population.  I, for one, do not want a national censor who will decide whether a video game or movie is too violent, nor do I want a database of individuals in therapy.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        Which is exactly why the way to do it is to monitor and restrict the lethal piece of technology itself and the person who wants to own it. It is the same with any lethal technology. It would be ridiculous to restrict the mentioning of nuclear weapons in video games or in movies. It would be ridiculous to “address” the alleged “mental health” of a country. So, what we do is monitor and restrict nuclear weapons. The same should be done with guns.

        Is OnPointComments the producer of the show or just a user with an inappropriate handle?

        • OnPointComments

          An article and comment from last Saturday’s newspaper is attached. 

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            What a non sequitur. You proved that non-gun violence occurs? Who said it didn’t? Let’s make the roads and drivers safer. Yeah, but accidents happen in the kitchen, too! What?

            He survived the hammer attack. He would not have survived a bullet. Thanks for making my point. The only thing remarkable about that article is that a 36-year old has grandchildren.

          • OnPointComments

            When we outlaw hammers, only outlaws will have hammers.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            It is a good thing that the attacker did not have a gun in hand. That person who had spent his whole life as a law abiding citizen, only had a hammer in hand when he snapped. It is good that he didn’t have a gun. Even better that he didn’t have a gun with a 100-round magazine. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            those 100 round mags are such a joke. to heavy and they always jam

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            It is a shame that your God-given and constitutional right to a 100-round magazine is being interfered with by the God of Jamming Guns. You should call up Zeus.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            no thats just the risks of freedom

        • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

          I imagine you know that the worse mass killing in an american school was a bombing in 1927 (Bath School)….

          you have to avoid conflating two problems together when trying to find a solution. mass killings in America are rare events, trending down and carried out by committed individuals who will always find a way to bring their evil to society. american gun violence is for the most part an inner city, gang/drug war problem. there the problem is illegal possession of firearms by prohibited persons (minors/felons). 

          to fix that you don’t have to disarm me, a trained, certified and permitted gun owner who is willing to jump all the many many hoops to responsibly protect myself with a firearm…yet, that seems to be the focus of the gun grabbers.

          is that so hard to understand?

          • 1Brett1

            Inner city violence/gang-related violence are problems, sure…now, how do you propose fixing that problem?

            I don’t know the answer to this question; maybe you do? How many innocent people died from gang-related gun violence in the last year (those who were not criminals and not in gangs getting shot and killed by a criminals/gang crossfire)? How many people were killed in mass shootings last year?

          • obamalovesdrones

             End the drug war, and violence will plummet.  In fact, most of the nation has very low crime levels, but inner city areas where drug turf is fought over has huge crime rates, just like the last time the govt tried prohibition of a product. 

          • 1Brett1

            Ending the drug war is a good straight-forward answer, and I appreciate that. Is all gang violence about drug deals? (I’m asking, as I haven’t really studied gang activity patterns.)

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            all gang violence is caused by the war on drugs. drug money is what finances their illegal gun purchases. ending prohibition of alcohol led to a 99% decrease in the murder rate.

          • GrueneJim

            More than 500 dead in Chicago. More than 400 dead in New York. Many of the murders unsolved because residents are fearful of retaliation. You know the answer but you are afraid to speak the truth.

          • 1Brett1

            What the hell are you talking about? Instead of sounding cryptic (and instead of being presumptuous) why not just offer your opinion? Besides, you didn’t even begin to understand or answer my question.

          • 1Brett1

            Sorry, there, GJ, about asking for your opinion. I now have read a few of your simplistic comments…nevermind

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its easy and we could do it tomorrow. we have done it before. end prohibition.

            so the real question is why have we not ended prohibition?

        • obamalovesdrones

           I agree – we need to pass new laws limiting Obama from killing all of the people he has been blowing away with drone strikes, including american citizens.

        • GrueneJim

          Before you try to regulate nuclear weapons, you need to tackle the problem of inner city gangs who commit violent crimes against residents of our major cities. Roll up your sleeves and get to work.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            right but to do that we would have ot end the war on drugs that creates the drug gangs and violence. and the prison industrial complex would hate that

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          those efforts with nukes have failed why would they work with guns which everyone already has?

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Right. Nukes go off all the time. Maybe even today, two feet in front of you. You better get under your desk for protection.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            efforts to curb their spread have failed. as have efforts to control guns.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            You are deluded. Your all or nothing thinking is the hallmark of an irrational person.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you cant seem to understand the difference between owning a gun and shooting people with one

      • 1Brett1

        I wouldn’t want to see either censorship or a big brother on the mental health field, so on that we can agree. I would like to see better access to community mental health services, but that’s another forum/topic entirely and has nothing to do with any monitoring by law enforcement (although I do think mental health professionals should contact authorities if a patient expresses very specific threats against others). 

        I don’t think it’s unreasonable for universal, uniform background checks on purchases of firearms, in all sales, no matter what the circumstances. Having to show demonstrable proof of having skill and safe handling regarding firearm ownership also seems reasonable (like a license that needs renewing every few years). 

        I believe our current society often reflects a bad combination of depression, paranoia and reactiveness…I’m not sure how that sort of problem can be legislated away, though. 

        I do thank you for your reply…I have no answers that I can say I am sure would ameliorate perfect storms that occur setting the stage in mass shootings.

    • GrueneJim

      A really effective solution would be to limit the rights and freedoms of violent criminals. This would take more courage than attacking lawful gun owners.

      • 1Brett1

        Specificity rather than generalizations and platitudes is sort of what I was after…

        Violent criminals shouldn’t have access to guns, sure, but how does a society prevent criminals from being, well, criminal? Wait, don’t tell me your answer…it’s something like: “lock up all violent criminals and throw away the key” or some such facile nonsense?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          much better to pass a law saying no one can have guns. that will work

          • 1Brett1

            Is anyone “pass[ing] a law saying no one can have guns”? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            chicago

          • 1Brett1

            Wrong, again! 

            “Chicago requires that all firearms be registered with the police department.[22] Gun owners are required to have a Chicago Firearm Permit.[23] The city has banned the possession of certain semi-automatic firearms that it defines as assault weapons, as well as magazines that can hold more than 12 rounds of ammunition.[24] Chicago residents must “immediately” report a firearm that is stolen or lost, and must report the transfer of a firearm at least 48 hours in advance.[25] Chicago also prohibits the sale of firearms within city limits.” -Wikipedia

            That is a far cry from “no one can have guns”! Typical, you take a half truth and distort it to the point it becomes an out-and-out lie!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            good luck getting a permit. did wiki mention that?
            also the question was where weret hey trying to pass that law not what laws are passed. nice try

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      nope, we need to return to putting insane people in institutions instead of handing them a bottle of pills and sending them on their way.  and we should really consider that many of these mass shooters are on pharmacuetical drugs. they even sell pills that say “may cause suicidal thoughts or actions” right on the label and there is no national discussion about them.  as far as movies and video games we do not need to censor htem but we can do more to restrict their access to children. watchingp rime time tv commercials for movies seem chocked full of improper gun use. lets make it like tobacco and not advertise those movies where kids can see them. the anti gunners are currently calling for mass mental testing and access by the government to private medical records. its disgusting wrong and bound to fail

      • 1Brett1

        You believe recreating institutions of yesteryear to throw people into who show signs of any mental illness? And then you condemn pharmaceutical drugs for mental illness treatment?…Okay then.

        Besides, can you show proof that the four mass shootings in the last year were caused by pharmaceutical drug reactions?

        You bemoan that “anti gunners” (your phrase_ demonize gun ownership and use, then you say showing guns in movies to children is bad?

        Name three “anti gunners” calling for mass mental health testing and record keeping?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i believe i providing effective treatment. in some cases inpatient treatment is the best option for the patient and society. i am concerned they sell pills to people that may cause suicidal thoughts or actions right on the label.
          Since we are not provided with such facts how can we know what they were on? is there any information of that sort available? do you ever wonder why?  Despite no actual information being provided i would bet they were all on the drugs. i know that a lot of the women woho kill all their children in “post partum depression” are on the drugs. the drugs are designed to make you do what you would normally not do.
          oh i need to name three? our govener and rep david linsky are not enough?

          • 1Brett1

            “I believe in providing effective treatment. in some cases inpatient treatment is the best option for the patient and society.”

            Well, the problem with this statement of yours is that there is no way to predict with absolute certainty who will become violent and who won’t; so, like in the early part of the 20th century, when people were locked up for all sorts of things (and if family, friends, or staff at institutions wanted them to stay locked up, the person never got out), human rights violations would increase…I know, I’ve worked with people institutionalized in the ’20s, ’30s, and ’40s for mild mental illness who never got out. I can remember in the ’70s seeing staff push a patients buttons so much that he/she would throw a glass against a wall or something…then it became, “oh, oh, so-and-so is dangerous and must be locked in restraints or put in seclusion.” I don’t wish to see mental health services become de facto jails. 

            Now, I believe your idea is sincere, and I believe you truly wish to see problems of people being a danger to others being ameliorated, but it’s a tough sell. I agree with your point that some people can not be effectively treated without the kind of close monitoring in a 24-7 facility, but (and this is in regards to schizophrenia and severe bipolar) this pertains to monitoring to ensure they take their medication, the very thing you malign so much. The SSRIs can sometimes bring on thoughts of suicide and aggression, but the two aforementioned classic mental illnesses would not be treated with those. 

            Talking about extreme cases of postpartum depression in this context is really just obfuscation and muddies the whole gun debate with dirty broad brush.

            Rep. David Linsky’s bill doesn’t seem draconian, but maybe you’re more familiar with the details than I? If someone (like the guy who did the shooting at Va. Tech) had his name in a database showing he had thoughts of violence in therapy, wouldn’t that be a good disqualifier from his purchasing a gun? However, let’s presume Linsky’s bill is a little heavy handed, for the sake of argument. Isn’t your idea of locking people away in institutions who display such thoughts/have demonstrated such things in therapy even more draconian? 

            You seem to contradict yourself. e.g., mentally ill people need to be forced to take their medication, but medication causes violence in mentally ill people; and. people with a history of mental illness shouldn’t be put into a database for background checks when purchasing guns, but we should lock them up indefinitely in mental institutions… and so on. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            perhaps nuance is lost on you but it seems more like you want to intentionally misunderstandw hat i have said. i dont know if i can help you. go read linskys proposed bill. tell me how you will make a database of everyone who has ever expressed violent thoughts in a therepy session? if such a database is createdw ill that lead more people to seek treatment or less.  people in patient on drugs are supervised and in an inpatient setting. sendingt hose same people home with a bottle of pillsa nd no supervision is what we reda oing now and its not good for the paitents or society. does giving some one a pill that may cause suicidal thoughtso ra ctions unsupervised sound likea  safe thing to do?

  • Michele

    Isn’t there a department in the Fed Govt called Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire Arms?  In this country we regulate and tax alcohol and tobacco. What happened to guns?

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      are you serious? do you actually have any idea of what you are talking about? ever tried to be a lawful gun owner in Massachusetts, for instance?

      guns are one of the most regulated items in America.ATF has a manual “summarizing” state and local firearm laws and ordinances that as 2010 counts 526 pages: http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-5-2011/2009-30th-edition.pdf

      that is without all the federal laws, which is another 243-page summary book:
      http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

      add to that 18 additional publications on regulations:
      http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

      and the dozen of forms for everything firearm commerce related….and the hundreds of case law and technical interpretations…

      to this add the fact that every FFL transaction is recorded and stored by the FFL: my name, address, ssn is checked agains an FBI database of prohibited persons every time I buy a firearm from an FFL.

      people make the stupid comparison with cars, wishing guns were regulated as cars: I wish they were!

      I can buy and drive a car without license, registration and insurance, if I drive it in my private property, if I need to be licensed for public way driving, it is a 20-question test plus a ride around the block with a cop that even morons and minors can pass and you get your license in no time.

      think about applying the same standards to guns….

      guns in america are hyper regulated. sure, there are areas of little regulation, but they cover a minority of gun transactions. 

      we can discuss about that perhaps, but let’s not pretend we don’t have plenty of regulation already.

      • obamalovesdrones

        Great point – the professor is extremely ignorant of some relatively basic info on the gun issue and is relying on talking points from outspoken gun banners like sarah brady.  The idea that guns aren’t heavily regulated is absolutely hilarious and completely false.

      • Michele

         And yet I can walk into Walmart and purchase a gun. That’s regulated?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          are you a felon or mentally ill?

    • http://twitter.com/Givemeliberty92 Patrick Henry

      sure… guns can kill more easily than a kick or a knife.

      that is exactly why cops use them for self defense. they like to stay alive if they have a confrontation.why should a private individual not to wishing the same level of self-defense?

      • GrueneJim

        In order to be politically correct we must be willing to lay down our lives and give the criminally insane a target for their justifiable rage over the injustices they have suffered at our hands. Do I have that right?

    • GrueneJim

      The FBI reports that an estimated 300 serial murderers are at large in our nation today. Serial murderers do not use guns. They use blunt force trauma, strangulation, knives, torture and even starvation. The gun owning public is not a threat to the nation. You should vent your frustration on the authorities who seem unable to solve the thousands of cold case homicides on the books.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        It’s OK. We are going to work on all violent crime. It isn’t a choice of do we reduce gun-murder or non-gun murder. We reduce both. Your either-or nonsense is ridiculous and false.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

           and violent crime has been on the decline ever since the last assault weapons ban expired.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            What is on the decline is the number of gun owners. You are a dying breed and America will be better when you all die out.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats funny wbur just said its growing at a record pace. an america without guns would be a ecological nightmare.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Wrong. Number of guns up. Number of gun owners down. Been going down for 100 years. It is mainly just white men and now old white men. Soon the new generation takes over. A saner America.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            100% bull go read the WBUR article about GOAL firearms classes. record numbers of new applications mostly women. nice lie

    • obamalovesdrones

       Interestingly though, knives are used FIVE TIMES more often than all forms of rifles for homicides, and bare fists twice as much, and blunt objects like clubs are used more than all forms of rifles (bolt, lever, semi, etc) combined. 

      And I bet you are in favor of a rifle ban, even though it contradicts your own statement, right?

      • GrueneJim

        In Rwanda they used machetes but the target population was defenseless.

        • obamalovesdrones

           Good point.  With a disarmed public – the stated goal of the gun control movement as late as 2000, then it doesn’t exactly require advanced technology to murder a lot of people.  After all, governments in the last century murdered over 200 million of their own people – not including wars with other nations, which probably should be counted, too.  In each instance, the public was disarmed prior to the democide taking place.

        • Wotan

          The Hutus only used machetes because they’re obviously cheaper to purchase and they had run out of mortar bombs, grenades, AKs, ammo and so forth. It’s folly to think a genocide of such magnitude can be waged with hand weapons alone.

          “As Minister of Foreign Affairs in Egypt, Boutros-Ghali facilitated an arms deal in 1990, which was to result in $26 million (£18m) of mortar bombs, rocket launchers, grenades and ammunition being flown from Cairo to Rwanda. The arms were used by Hutus in attacks which led to up to a million deaths.”

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/sep/03/unitednations1

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yet in africa it seems like we hear of machete violence all the time. they need some background checks for machetes over there right?

          • Wotan

            Another stupid reply. How many kids are killed in Japan or South Korea by mass knife violence? If you’re so fixated on the third or fourth world, take you guns to Africa and go fight the criminals there.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats what oboma did. whats stupid the idea of machete control or the idea that gun control is any different? kids in japan and south korea just kill themselves. theya re #9 and #1 in the world for suicides and guns are banned there.

          • Wotan

            I find most of the what you wrote incomprehensible but what little I could make out was the part about rates of suicides in South Korea and Japan. Yes, suicide rates are high. That’s a different issue altogether. I know more about it than you would because I’ve lived in one of these countries and still speak the language fluently.

            The point, however, is gun violence and culture. In gang culture of both countries, the yakuza and the kkang pes, gangster who use guns are thought of as the bottom of the barrel. South Korea also has mandator military commitment for all their men. There are some medical exceptions and lone child exception to this but these are just that, exceptions. Like the Swiss, all able bodied men must serve. Unlike the Swiss, it’s a two year commitment in which they learn how to respect and use the gun.

            Again, both Japan and ROK have some of the lowest gun crimes and violent crime rates of all developed countries.

            More guns do not make you safe and there are cases after cases to cite this. Stop arguing counterfactuals as if they were facts.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yeah buddy you are the only one who has ever left america me so jelous you so smart. (get real bro)
            cite your case that guns do not make me safer. please save me the trouble of correcting you by not citing the kellerman study

          • Wotan

            What’s with the broken English and the defensiveness? I told you that I know more about suicides in Korea and Japan because I grew up in one of the countries, speak the language fluently and visit the other often. Therefore, I know about their suicide problem more than you. I’ve spoken to practicing psychologists based in South Korea about it. It’s not because they have too strict gun laws. It has nothing to do with guns or their gun laws period. Unless you can add something of worth, there’s really no needs to be so defensive and pointless. The Koreans and Japanese are NOT killing kids en mass with knives or machetes, and especially guns because they have such strict gun laws.

            And you want me to cite another case after I told you about ROK and Japan being some of the safest countries in the developed world despite having strict gun laws? How about UK (don’t give the NRA BS talking point about how crime has surged of late because their Home Office and public crime stats counter the tabloid false reporting), Australia, Scandinavian countries and so forth.

            But I’lll tell you what, I’ll also give you extra credit for having performed so poorly if and when you look up the Kennedy, Braga, et al study from Harvard. It’s about Boston and what this town had been like during the crack epidemic and how crime fell drastically during Willie Bratton’s tenure as PD chief here. Bratton as you might recall was also the NYC PD chief when gun crimes also plummeted, and he later became LA PD chief. Bratton was heavily influenced by the Kennedy Braga study in fighting gun crimes. Part of the multi-pronged approach was a focus on getting guns off the streets, locking up gun law violators and cracking down on gun trafficking.

            Crime, as you gun advocates are quick to toss out as a talking point out of context, has declined since the early to mid 90s and this includes the inner cities like Dorchester. Gun crimes, however, is really like cancer. It can lie in remission and reemerge if and when neglected. The latest uptick in gun crimes in pockets of Boston is a product of not having paid enough attention and dedicated the proper funding, resources, man-power and social services. The point is, we nevertheless have a good foundation on how to combat gun crimes, and it isn’t to saturate neighborhoods with guns. It’s to take guns off the streets so that pre-teen girls sitting on their front porch are not killed by stray bullets.

            Do you or any of your gun nut buddies have anything else?

      • 1Brett1

        I suppose you’d just as soon get shot at by an assault rifle as punched in the mouth?

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

           I would rather shoot back at a home intruder with an assault rifle than use harsh language to get him to leave.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i would rather be shot by an “assault rifle” than strangled. actually i would rather not be killed at all so i would perfer to shoot whoever is trying to kill me before they do

      • Michele

         I’m not in favor of a rifle ban.  I am in favor of stricter laws to OBTAIN a gun. I am also in favor of reinstating the assault rifle ban and banning large capacity magazines.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so why reinstate a law which every study shows was 100% ineffective? how does that make rational sense? it sounds like an emotional knee jerk response

          • Michele

            It was not 100% ineffective, that is an emotional overblown description. Don’t be disingenuous. Yes, there were loopholes in the law. That just means that this time around the law cannot have so many loopholes not that it was not a sound idea.  If you don’t get it completely right the first time, don’t ever try again?  How would anything ever get done if that was a universal attitude? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nope, it is what the government studies have all shown. feel free to provide me with one that shows it had an effect on anything but increasing the sales of black semiauto rifles.  also since all rifles “assault or not” are assoicated with fewer deaths than knives or beatings what rational basis is there for banning them?

          • Michele

             The ATF itself states that the 1994 Assault Rifle Ban resulted in 66% less assault rifles being traced to violent crime.  I think you also missed my main argument.  TAKE THE LOOPHOLES OUT and the law will have even more impact.  Just what you are afraid of…

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well the ATf has no reason to be misleading LOL whats an “assault rifle”?

    • GrueneJim

      Oh yeah. The ATF supplied the assault rifles to the drug cartels in Mexico. Is this effective regulation?

      • obamalovesdrones

         Don’t forget to Libyan and Syrian rebels with links to al queda – Obama gave them rifles, too.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

       it’s also much easier to defend myself with a firearm than if I tried to fight back with my fists.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        especially for women elderly and the disabled

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      5 times as many people are stabbed to death as shot with rifles. guns are already regulated as you pointed out we even have an ATF

  • tbiskillingme

    How come no one ever brings up the argument for assault rifles for personal protection against our government?  I choose to own an assault rifle due to the fact that if I have to overthrow my government just as the founders did, I don’t want to have a pistol against drones and other high-tech weapons.  It is my right to own an assault rifle and its greatly needed in times like these.

  • tbiskillingme

    How come no one brings up the argument for assault rifles to defend ourselves from our country in the time that we need to overthrow our government just as our founders did? I choose to own an assault rifle because I do not want to have a pistol against drones and other high-tech weapons.  It is my right and it is an important right in times like these.  All governments fall sometime or later and I don’t want to have the problems that Syria is having… yea this sad massacre happened with 23 children but look at how many tens of thousands of innocent children and innocent citizens in the middle east who are defenseless and getting slaughtered.

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      You do not live in Syria. You live in the Unites States of America. We overthrow the government at the ballot box, not with guns. It is 2013 and not 1776. The US defeats its enemies in WWI and WWII, and crushes countries in the Middle East. The US can quell any gun-nut uprising like a giant swatting a fly. You will not be overrunning Washington and defeating the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and the police force. Ever. Wake up from your violent fantasy world.

      • tbiskillingme

        Do you believe our government falling would be any different from theirs? I’ve never seen a non-violent civil revolution where there was mass change in governance.  And a whole nation with rifles? doubt there will be any fly swatting

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          Our government won’t fall. Our government changes due to public will. We don’t have a dictator or monarch that opposes public will to the point of civil revolution. You and your gun buddies will never storm the White House lawn. Ever. It is all your fantasy life.

          • tbiskillingme

             “our government wont fall” .. This is ridiculous. its why we are foolish as a species. We do not learn from history obviously.. tell me anytime in the thousands of years in history where there was a government who did not fail.  All governments fail. Go back to elementary history and you would learn that

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            This is the 21st century, Mr. Cave Man. The modern western state with its level of interconnectedness and technology has never existed before. You will not be attacking Washington and planting your little flag there, no matter how cool of a fantasy it seems to you. We don’t have to live an unsafe existence in this country because you cannot get a grip on reality.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            Grip on reality? We are one round of welfare checks away from disaster. What would most urban areas look like when the borrowing ends, China stops propping us up, and the money stops flowing in?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh so now we are so advanced we cannot repeat history and there are currently no civil wars or failing governments anywhere!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            because we can we dont have to. no one wants mutually assured destruction and it keeps both sides in check

      • GrueneJim

        You misspelled Untied Snakes of Amerika.

        • 1Brett1

          It’s an idiot who thinks such sophomoric nonsense is clever.

      • obamalovesdrones

        Just like the American empire crushed Vietnam and has conquered Afghanistan, eh?  Empire after empire throughout history has said the same thing.  The British said that about the colonies, the Soviets said that about Afghanistan, the Americans said it about Vietnam and then Afghanistan, etc. 

        Not to mention how one mediocre (and gun control advocate) cop in LA made the entire department look foolish and basically tied them all up for several days single handedly.  And that was one person who was mediocre even by cop standards when it came to shooting, and that standard isn’t exactly high to begin with. 

        Take this from someone who actually served in the military – a guerilla war like in all of the above scenarios isn’t about “winning” – it is about making it so tough for the other side that it isn’t worth fighting.  Furthermore, depending on the circumstances in what would cause such a fight to happen, it is also very arrogant to assume that the entire military would be on the government’s side. 

        For all of the talk about “crazy gun nuts” that leftist elitists like to use, I can tell that almost none of them have actually interacted with large numbers of active or reserve military members.  They are without a doubt on average even more “gun nut” and pro 2nd amendment than the average american citizen that is mocked endlessly by the NPR types.  Think about the implications of that if a gun ban and confiscation attempt were ever made – which, as a reminder, is what set off the american revolution.

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          The military people I have met are very skeptical of some poorly trained and paid school security guard or teacher being armed. They see all that could go wrong. The police are against large magazine clips, no real background checks, purchasing at guns shows, and armor-piecing bullets. To say that the military personal and police are the same as the gun enthusiasts, is just wrong.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

             is that why numerous sheriff’s associations around the country has opposed obama’s gun control measures. Numerous former military members as well as cops work in the firearms industry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you know you have a background check at gun shows right?

      • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

         Funny, goat herders with 60 year old guns and fertilizer bombs give our military a run for the money the world over, daily.  One man crippled California a couple weeks ago.

        Ten thousand armed men walking into Washington will result in a bloodless coup.  The politicos have no spine.

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          You will not find 10,000 Americans willing to gun down American military and police officers. It won’t happen. 

          If it does happen, it will not be bloodless and it won’t be victorious. There aren’t enough shrubs and bushes in Washington for you to hide behind and conduct fantasy guerrilla warfare in America.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so you assume the police and or military(if the military is policing domestically we have much bigger problems) will fire upon their fellow citizens?

        • nj_v2

          ^ Delusional. Ignorant of the history of the Second Amendment. Pathetic.

        • 1Brett1

          Make up your mind! So, people can stop whole communities with only a couple of guns, but you need the right to have a whole arsenal of semi-automatic weapons in your basement to protect yourself? If a goat herder can stop our military with a sixty year old gun, then you don’t need an AK-47. Ralph “Red Dawn” Brooks.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            Go read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and maybe even a few biographies of men like Adams, Washington, Arnold, Jefferson, and Franklin. 

            That’s only for starters but it will get you familiar with a little bit of our history and the well founded reasoning behind each and every article within the two documents mentioned above.

            All fo these rights and obligations come as a package, one to protect the other. Citing an imaginary world where “that could never happen here” is a baseless argument. It can.

            Imagine what it might be like if we reach a tipping point where the economy does not recover, the government checks stop, and the food programs end. Millions of angry, hungry, scared people couldn’t possibly pose a problem now, could they?

            Just something to think about. A little knowledge goes a long way.

          • 1Brett1

            Oh, please…I grew up in the heart of Virginia just miles away from Monpelier and later lived in the shadow of Mount Vernon. As a Virginian I know founding history well. The Bill of Rights wouldn’t even be part of our history if the founders (especially Madison who wrote them) hadn’t calculated that there weren’t enough voted from southern states to ratify the Constitution.

            Your end of civilization scenario is silly. You think you need an arsenal of weapons and unlimited ammunition to protect yourself against an angry mob when the country collapses? 

            In your case knowledge would do you no good; you don’t have much of a brain.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            how would you defend yourself against an angry mob? maybe post an indignant tweet?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            AK47 is 66 years old.

          • 1Brett1

            Who cares? Would you wish to have a discussion if I had said AR-15? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you might have made more sense, except that the AR15 is also  60 years old

          • 1Brett1

            How about the Glock 9mm? …I thought the Ar-15 was modified from the m-16 and was mostly in military use until about 20 years ago? I thought it was modified so that it could still be sold during the assault weapons ban?

            I could be wrong; you would know more it seems. But, what does it matter how long the weapons have been manufactured? How long have thirty-round magazines been available to the general public?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            all of the above are wrong. not sure about 30 round magazines but 50 round magazines have been available tot hep ublic since at least hte 1920s. you had implyed that all we needed was 60 year old guns. i think you are right and thats all we want to retain.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes before any of the battles of teh revolution here in worcester 2500 armed men showed up when the british tried to open a courthouse here. the british changed their mind and retreated without a shot fired

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yes syria already has all the proposed gun control laws!

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          You gonna shoot a cop or military personnel?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am not going to shoot anyone. do you want to follow syrias lead?

    • Wotan

      Some 90 miles west of where OnPoint is produced, the Springfield Armory is still open to the public. You might look into its history, especially as it pertains to a guy named Daniel Shays, and how both are relevant to not only the spirit of the founding fathers but also to how the constitution itself was written. It gave Congress the power to call and employ the services of the militia in cases of emergency in putting down insurrections.

      Good luck with your assault rifle if you’ve plans to engage the government with violence.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        LOL even the french were able to overthrow their government. it cant be that hard as long as you have the arms available

        • Wotan

          Your snide and childish insinuation of the French aside, they overthrew a despotic monarchy. No matter how much you and your cohorts try to distort the debate into some the “freedom seeking people” who are really gun nuts and the anti-social militia sorts, our current system of government is not a monarchy.

          But given your stupid attitude, I suggest you try to find out for yourself how easy it is to mount an open insurrection against your government. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            correct currently we are not a despotic monarchy. why do you think that is? maybe because we overthrew a despotic monarchy with our guns. i think people would like to remain armed so that no despots can ever take power here ever again. why would you like to open that door?

          • Wotan

            That was more than 200 years ago and the government that was overthrown was hardly despotic. You may want to look up the term despotic. The UK monarchy was hardly that even in the 18th century.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you might want to review the declaration of independance. they had quite a list of serious complaints are you saying we should not have had the american revolution? wow i did not know we still had torries  running around

          • Wotan

            The point is that the British crown was not a despotic monarchy any way your frame it. A despotic society isn’t in the habit of writing the Magna Carta and producing thinkers who extolled the virtues of a Social Contract. I’d appreciate it if you stick to the germain and not argue strawman. This latter tactic is exactly why so many of us pro-public safety advocates think so many gun rights advocates are actually gun nuts who are not interested in public debate and the exchange of ideas. You only claim to be but a few exchanges reveal your colors fast enough. Stick to the topic and be…ON POINT!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            charles the 3 fits all the reqirements to be called a despot in his oversight of the colonies. at this point i have no idea what any of this has to do with any topic. oh were you saying the old “it can never happen here again and if it does you could not do anything about it” line of BS? that is a bit of a tangent

          • Wotan

            What? Who the hell is “charles the 3″ who oversaw the “colonies.” Did you not take American history or European history in junior high? And it’s up to you to keep up with what’s being debated. I, nor anyone else, can or will do that for you.

            And don’t put words in my mouth. I never said “it can never happen here.” You’re arguing a strawman. I never said anything about my thoughts on the Second Amendment either. Thus, the BS seems all to be in your mind and yours alone.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol charles, george. what difference does it make? you know that america used to be 13 colonies right?  your argument was essentially “it cant happen here”. if it was different please explain what point you were trying to make

          • Wotan

            When arguing history and how despotism influenced or did not influence the formation of the USA, then history itself matters. And no, King George was not a despot.

            Also, it’s you who’s trying to make the case that the British monarchy of the 17th – 18th century were “despotic” in nature, and it’s you who mentioned some “charles 3.” So lose the “you know that america used to be 13 colonies right” condescension after you’ve so thoroughly flubbed whatever point you were trying to make. It just makes your continuing arguments seem more desperate and sillier.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i think if you asked the men who risked their lives to break the shackles of british rule if he was a despot they would have certianly agreed. they had no representation.
            good job deflecting and making an ad hominum attack on me without ever having to defend your own nonsensical point.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lol its important aspect of their argument that “it can’t happen here” because we are so “civilised” ROFL history is bound for a repeat

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    The number of gun owners has not tripled or doubled, it has gone down. Just the number of guns has gone up. More guns, less gun owners is the reality.

    • Dubious_Dave

       Duly noted. I was only looking at the math. My bad.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      then why are we breakingr ecords for new applicants?

  • Mike_Card

    I may have missed it, but did this gun lover serve in the military?

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      No way. He would have learned respect for guns and human life in the military. He is a weak, insecure man who admits guns are the only thing that makes him feel like a man.

      • obamalovesdrones

        So what does that make Obama and his drone strikes that have blown away countless civilians, including a 16 year old US citizen?  And by extension, what does that make Obama’s supporters who have either been silent or have been outright cheerleaders for his violent foreign policy and belief that he can assassinate any US citizen he deems to be a threat?  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe you have him confused with your buddy dorner

  • obamalovesdrones

    What is interesting to me is that the same people who are advocating banning guns are almost all lined up in support for Obama.  Every single argument they have given about gun violence applies to what Obama has done in the drone war against civilians all over the world.

    Yet these people are complete cheerleaders for the Obama admin blowing away kids, but there has been no serious discussion about banning drones or ending the drone war now that their guy is power. 

    I guess violence against certain people is ok, especially if they are muslim kids. 

  • obamalovesdrones

    No one has followed up with Biden to understand the following contradiction
    with his own statements in recent days:

    1. AR15s need to be banned because they make it really easy for people to go
    on mass shooting sprees and kill lots of people

    2. AR15s are hard to use even for those with training, so a long and heavy
    double barreled two shot shotgun is better for home defense

    Which is it? Are AR15s hard to use even with a high level of training, or do
    they need to be banned because they make it easy to kill a lot of people
    quickly, even if the FBI stats show that rifles were linked to 323 deaths in
    2011?

    His advice about just shooting down a balcony or through a door is
    also complete ignorance and exactly how innocent people are shot. One of the
    first rules of firearm safety is to always know where you are shooting at and
    who is in the area. Pretty funny for someone who claims to be about “gun
    safety” to urge people to just randomly shoot down a balcony or through a door if they
    “think there is an intruder” – I believe someone is being charged in
    South Africa right now for that very same mindset.

  • obamalovesdrones

    The professor needs to go back to school with some of those completely ignorant statements.  One of them was that the Chinese made a knockoff of the AK to import to America called the SKS.  That is some very basic info that is completely false – the SKS and the AK designs have nothing to do with one another. 

    Another is with his repeated use of “assault weapon” or “assault rifle” – by definition, assault rifles are capable of firing on automatic bursts.  None of the weapons in the latest gun ban (that isn’t a gun ban!) attempt are assault rifles because they are all semi-automatic. 

    His claims about the NRA being only 3 million members is both hilarious and wrong.  Hundreds of thousands have been signing up at a minimum of $35 since the latest gun prohibitionist attempts became public, and they were over 4 million before the latest surge in membership that increases whenever a gun banner like Biden opens up his ignorant mouth.  Please, keep talking! 

    It is also interesting that an attempt is made to say that if there are only 4 million plus members, they aren’t big enough to matter – when the group that is quoted from over and over again in the media and the professor received his taling points from, the brady bunch group, had 20 thousand members in the last numbers I saw.  That isn’t a figure given out too often because it shows just what a fringe minority group the gun banners actually are. 

    The claim that magazine size – not “clip” as he incorrectly called it – would matter is also false as seen here:

    http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/another-gun-control-myth/

    Besides, the shootings only stopped in AZ and CO when the idiots attempted to use huge capacity mags that were not originally designed for the weapons and they caused malfunctions.  The 100 AR round drum in CO and the 33 round mag for the Glock 19 in AZ. 

    Had the shooters been educated about firearms, and stuck with standard cap mags, a lot more people would be dead because their weapons would not have malfunctioned.  As the video link above shows, it takes almost no time to change mags, so even if a mag cap ban took place – as if nbc gun criminal david gregory didn’t show how easy those laws are to break – then the shooter can simply do what the VA Tech shooter did when he has a building full of defenseless people – bring 19 spare mags and two handguns with him and no one could stop him.   

    To quote the Obama admin memo, a mag capacity ban would not amount to much since there are so many mags already out there.  It also goes on to point out that the proposed AWB would not affect crime much at all since rifles are rarely used, yet that is the target of gun banners.  FBI stats show that in 2011 a total of 323 homicides were done with a rifle of any type – which is a raw number including LEO shootings – meaning five times as many people were stabbed to death, twice as many were beaten to death with fists, and well over 18 times as many shot with a pistol.  Yet the focus remains on rifles for the supposed purpose of stopping violence and crime.  Why is that? 

    Nevermind the fact that it comes from the same people who over a decade ago were screaming that gun crime and murders were about to explode as states passed CCW laws and the AWB lapsed – yet they were totally and completely wrong when the murder rate in this nation fell by 50 percent in the last two decades.  Why should we listen to the same people who were as wrong as could be just a few years ago?

    I also like the mantra that gun prohibitionists like him have been using lately – it isn’t a gun ban, just because we are trying to ban guns.  Yeah, that makes about as much sense as a typical Biden speech.  I will let all of the liberal obama supporters get back to cheering on his drone strikes and blowing away a 16 year old US citizen while claiming that the nation needs to ban the same sort of rifles that obama has provided to the Mexican drug cartels and actual terrorists in libya and syria.    

  • obamalovesdrones

    “The weapons’ menacing
    looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic
    machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that
    looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only
    increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these
    weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for
    these guns.”

    Josh Sugarmann – Executive Director of the Violence Policy
    Center

    • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

       Classic MSM misdirection.

      • 1Brett1

        Classic tired talking point. For someone who’s so worried about being led around by his nose, you sure don’t seem to think for yourself. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          they do decide which guns are “assault weapons” by looking at pictures of them. its bizarre. do you think that is rational?

  • obamalovesdrones

    The last topic I will address is the ridiculous argument from the professor that just because he is calling for a gun ban doesn’t mean he is a gun banner or the movement wants to ban all guns.  We don’t have to theorize that this is the goal – we have already been told that this was the goal over and over from the same gun banning advocates and media figures who are now pushing for new laws!  Examples:

    “In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect
    either on the crime rate or on personal security.  Nonetheless, it is a
    good idea . . . .  Its only real justification is not to reduce crime
    but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

                   Charles Krauthammer (columnist), Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

    “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step
    is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very
    modest. . . .  [W]e’ll have to start working again to strengthen
    that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and
    again.  Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but
    with a slice.  Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the
    United States — is going to take time. . . .  The first problem is to
    slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this
    country.  The second problem is to get handguns registered.  The final
    problem is to make possession of all handguns and all
    handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security
    guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.”

                

     Richard Harris, A Reporter at Large: Handguns,  New Yorker, July 26, 1976, at 53, 58 (quoting Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc.)

    “Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? 
    Because it’s the only alternative to the present insanity.  Without
    both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to
    reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer.”

                   Editorial, Taming The Monster: Get Rid of the Guns, Los Angeles Times, Dec. 28, 1993

    “No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons.”

                 

    Editorial, Guns Along the Campaign Trail, Washington Post, July 19, 1999

    “There is no reason for anyone in this country, anyone except a
    police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use a
    handgun.

                  I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws
    about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers,
    by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers.

                  I now think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns.  And the only way to do that is to change the Constitution.”

                  Michael Gartner (then president of NBC News), Glut of Guns: What Can We Do About Them?, USA Today, Jan. 16, 1992

     
    “My guess [is] . . . that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment.
    . . .  I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of
    guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we’re
    prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely — the handguns, the semis and the automatics.”
           
           Roger Rosenblatt (Time Magazine columnist), Get Rid of the Damned Things, Time, Aug. 9, 1999

    Time national correspondent Jack E. White one-upped Mr. 
    Thomas:  “Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby.  I mean,
    for example, we’re talking about limiting people to one gun purchase or
    handgun purchase a month.  Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one?  Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles?  Nobody needs one.”

                 

    L. Brent Bozell III, Lock-and-Load Mode Against the 2nd, Washington Times, May 8, 1999

    “A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President
    Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls — such as expanding
    background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity
    magazines — and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching
    industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act
    introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and
    Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island.  Their
    measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority
    over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority
    would ban handguns.”

                 

    Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

      
    “We will never fully solve our nation’s horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons.”

                  Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993, at 11A

    “The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.”

       Michael K. Beard, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Letters to the Editor, Wall. St. J., July 23, 1997

    The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States.

                   Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000

    • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

       Yes, never let them tell you that complete disarmament and helplessness isn’t the ultimate goal.  It is, it has been stated, and the gauntlet has been thrown.

      • 1Brett1

        Who’s “them”? Sounds like you’ve been watching too many bad movies like Red Dawn over and over…Who has stated the bit about completely disarming citizens and making them helpless? Names and exact quotes, please.

        “The gauntlet has been thrown”? That would be funny if it weren’t something you truly believe. 

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

           Feinstein told everyone that if she had enough votes, we wanted everyone to turn them their guns. Cuomo thought confiscation could be an option. Numerous state legislators have proposed bills banning entire classes of firearms.

          • 1Brett1

            Quotes and citations? Your comment just isn’t acceptable and verifiable in its present form.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            Using quotes and citations of fact to establish a person’s or group’s stance on an issue is no longer a legitimate way to frame a point?

            What will you use to frame yours – hysteria?

          • 1Brett1

            Nice way to avoid substantiating your point with actual facts.

          • 1Brett1

            “Using quotes and citations of fact to establish a person’s or group’s stance on an issue is no longer a legitimate way to frame a point?”

            YES! That is what I asked you for, but you didn’t provide them, now did you.

  • JGC

    The only reason we are having this “conversation” is because plutocrats like Mayor Bloomberg are financing it. It doesn’t matter that I think it is a good idea for some firearms restrictions, or that you may agree with me, or that you over there are totally against it. What matters is that someone in the 1% has finally made this a priority to counter the other 1% against firearms restrictions. And that is why this is a topic at all today.  Do you think it is a coincidence that Sandy Hook is in the back yard of Wall Street?

  • Montag_Man

    I am German permanent resident. This debate and Dan’s arguments are mostly silly. To me it is exactly like the heated debate in Autobahn Germany about speed limit. “Free driving for free citizens ” . The debate is irrational as it is about habits, culture and irrational love for some thing. My friends in Germany cannot understand that I do not mind driving 65 mph. Back in Germany I am mostly meanwhile a very slow driver. I don’t care most of the time. However, if I feel alert and good and have a decent car, of course I go 200 mph! Why not? How about VIN for guns and clips? Speed control- clip size? Don’t get so hysterical you gun lovers . Your wining is pathetic. Fast powerful guns need a speed limit. You guys accept 55 mph but whine when limiting 2000 bph (bullets per hour)? Wake up!

    • obamalovesdrones

      Germans certainly had a noteworthy experience with gun control in the last century. 

      • 1Brett1

        What a punk! Instead of having a discussion with the man you insult him? How old are you? 17? By the way, if you are going to start that Nazi taking everyone’s guns away BS, why don’t you look at historical fact. The Treaty of Versailles (1919) was the draconian gun control measure that took Germans’ guns away; the Nazi regime loosened up laws considerably and allowed people to own who were restricted by the 1919 laws.

        You have that “angry young man” aroma of all attitude, no intellect, and lots of one-dimensional opinions.

        • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

           Sure, they loosened up regulations so that loyalists could be armed.  Not the jews.

          Sounds like your poster child for gun control, Diane Feinstein.  Guns are bad — Except hers.

          Sorry, we’re not fooled.  I’ll die on my feet before being led to the cattle car.

          • 1Brett1

            Yeah, sure, Germany downed France, Poland, just about fell England, but some Jews with guns would have made the difference…

            And what’s that nonsense about dying on your feet before being led to a cattle car? Spare me the “Oh, I might end up like the Jews in Nazi Germany if I can’t have a whole arsenal of semi-automatic weapons in my rec. room.” 

            “Sorry, we’re not fooled”

            Sounds like you’re just a fool.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            It would have mattered to those Jews.

          • 1Brett1

            Don’t you think it’s just a little bit offensive to compare a gun owner in the US who is in a debate about the demarcation line of gun ownership in the same category as a Holocaust victim?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            time will tell

        • 45VT

          Pointing out a historical fact doesn’t make someone a punk. Careful, you’re resorting to the liberal strategy of bullying and name calling when you start losing an argument. If I say I disagree with President Obama are you going to call me a racist? Here’s another historical fact: our constitution guarantees the right for individual citizens to be armed TO DEFEND THEIR LIBERTY. End of discussion. If you don’t like guns, get out of America.

          • 1Brett1

            So, any time a German person raises an opinion about gun control another doesn’t like, out comes the  invocation from Germany’s dark past?

            I didn’t say anything about Obama; I didn’t say I don’t like guns. 

            That’s the trouble with you neocons; you make crap up and argue against the crap you made up.

            I have more respect for someone who just wants to own a gun to either hunt, target practice or for self-protection much more so than the lofty “defend liberty” crap. You may believe that you seriously need to stockpile weaponry and ammo to defend your liberty; I don’t. 

            You talk of defending liberty but tell me to leave my country because my views are different than yours; now that’s fresh.

          • 45VT

            It’s just a convenient illustration of how harmful gun control is, and what it allows the government to do. And yes, I do have a problem with a German citizen telling me how my country should be run. If he doesn’t care enough to become an American Citizen, he can keep his mouth closed and accept our country the way it is.

            My point is that the reason we have the 2nd ammendment is for the protection of our liberties. I’m not making that up. I do believe it is up to the people to maintain the freedoms we have. As we see every day, big government is not a friend of the people.

            You can have any opinions you want, and you can shout about them all day long – I don’t have a problem with that. But, if you think you need to change the Constitution and take away our rights, then yes, you should leave and go somewhere where they already have no rights.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yeah they did not take everyones guns away just the jews

          • 1Brett1

            Nope, you’re wrong

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            gypsies too?

        • GrueneJim

          Educate us on the legal precedents that led to the use of imported machetes in Rwanda to commit genocide. If we could go back in time, would you be against arming the victims?

    • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

       We have a constitutional right to guns.  There is no such right for cars.  Right vs. Privilege, that is the only response needed to this invalid, played-out argument.

      • 1Brett1

        Well, not really. A right can’t be taken away. Owning a gun is a privilege. You can’t act all armchair Constitutional scholar and whatnot, but A person’s ability to won a gun can be revoked, e.g., a person adjudicated mentally incompetent, a convicted felon…do you want more examples? 

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

           yes, rights can be taken away. Prisoners don’t have the right to vote, so technically speaking, voting is a privilege, according to you.

          • 1Brett1

            Prisoners don’t walk freely in society. Felons can’t vote in some states, and there are those who wold like to see those states overturn such laws. It’s not a Federal law, nor is it a Constitutional law…apples and oranges.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            read the 14th amendment

        • 45VT

          Learn how to type.

          Of course a person’s right to ‘won’ a gun can be revoked, just like their right to liberty (jail) and life (capital punishment). The revocation of a right is based on their individual actions. This doesn’t mean you can take away the rights of law abiding citizens.

          • 1Brett1

            I guess you wish to focus on the typo won (that is supposed to be own)? Okay then. 

            Have your rights been taken away?

          • 45VT

            My point is that you need to think your point through before spouting off. When I see such an obvious typo, it tells me that the person posting isn’t thinking through their comment.

            There is talk of an across the board gun ban (unlikely I know). No, my rights haven’t been taken away, I am trying to prevent that. If we wait until the right is gone, it will never be regained.

          • 1Brett1

            I person makes a simple typo by reversing two letters and he/she hasn’t thought out the post? 

            Actually, isn’t a simple typo of two letters being reversed better than misspellings? Or, in your case, insults and idiotic arguments?

          • GrueneJim

            Typographic errors are, in point of fact, symptomatic of serious psychological defects.

          • 1Brett1

            If you’re not going to say anything intelligent, at least try to be funny, please.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup the 14th amendment allows that.

        • GrueneJim

          The Bill of Rights does not give individuals the right to commit crimes. The Bill of Rights also limits the power of government to infringe on the rights of individuals. 

          • 1Brett1

            Wow! I’m impressed, you are studying! I’m pulling for ya; I think you’ll pass your GED with flying colors!

    • 45VT

      Go back to Germany then.

      Don’t come over here and start spewing your European socialism. Gun ownership is a right put in OUR constitution to preserve our rights. OUR founding fathers left Europe to get away from government control over everything, and people like you would have us go right back there. So a solution to speeding is a speed limit? And no one breaks the speed limit, do they? Your argument is pathetic. By necessity, individual citizens need to be armed as adequately as the military and police, to prevent the government from usurping its authority and becoming tyrannical. This sentiment is echoed many times by our founding fathers, the framers of our constitution. Not everyone agrees with a 55 mph speed limit, by the way.

      • 1Brett1

        “individual citizens need to be armed as adequately as the military and police, to prevent the government from usurping its authority and becoming tyrannical.”

        Unless, of course, they are criminals, in gangs, etc…You were just telling me to get out of America because you didn’t like my views; now you’re telling this man to go back to Germany because you don’t want to hear his views…I see a pattern! And you call your self a freedom-loving American?

        • GrueneJim

          The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone the right to commit violent crime. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we already require serial numbers on guns. you are right the speed laws are foolish.

  • Wotan

    Dan Baum thinks the voice of the gun-owners haven’t been represented? WTH? Has he just been released from Gitmo? They’re like locusts in most every single debate on issues of public safety, showing up by the hordes and drowning out any semblance of rational, adult debates via pack mentality disinformation tactics. 

    Hell, they’ve even shown up to presidential appearances packing. As if a minority of people with guns overwhelming public debate isn’t bad enough, Baum think they also need PR advocates too? What a sensitive, thoughtful guy. Not sure why they can’t extend the same sensitivity and compassion to the thousands and growing number of Americans shattered by gun violence.

    Yeah, yeah…cars kill more people as do bacon burgers. We know already so save it.

    • obamalovesdrones

       “growing number of Americans” – false.  The murder rate has fallen in half over the last twenty years and declines every year.

      What is growing, however, are the number of people Obama has killed with drone strikes.  Large portions of the rest of the world could ask the exact same thing – where is the compassion for the many, many innocents that Obama has killed? 

      • Wotan

        ” “growing number of Americans” – false.” 

        My usage wasn’t comparative and the statement is true. Understand what’s been written before replying impulsively. I’m also not biting on your cut and paste Obama drone rant. That’s all.

      • 1Brett1

        Off topic.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes the murder of hundreds of thousands is fine because its in another country and being done by the govt?

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        It needs to fall farther. It is not good enough, as you are implying.

    • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

       “Don’t attempt to confuse me with the facts.”

      Fine, Mr. Liberal.  Feel free to replace your head in the sand and pretend you’re crusading against a prime threat instead of a statistical insignificance.  It’s what you do best.

      • Wotan

         “It’s what you do best.”
        LOL. And you are? Not that you’ll ever matter, but I’ll try to remember you as someone who tries hard to nag someone to irritation.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

      Please illuminate us with objective data which shows that “thousands and growing” claim. Even the DOJ studies cite a steady decline over ten years in spite of growing firearm sales.

      • Wotan

        Actually, I don’t need to pull out stats to support what I wrote. The growing list of Americans affected by gun violence can be seen following every mass shooting, every accidental death of a child, every domestic murder rampage and so forth. The number of victims are indeed growing and no matter how much you and your lot dishonestly labor to spin the argument into one that was neither said or implied, you’ll just all fail and end up looking like you’re incapable of basic reading comprehension.

        What is it with you gun nuts?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

          Anonymous, condescending, offensive and unwilling to live in a fact based reality.  It’s certainly convenient but not respectable.

          • Wotan

            Clearly, I stated a fact: that there are growing number of Americans who are tragically affected by gun violence. That simple fact I noted has been twisted and spun with now you, being the latest moron, to whine about the lack of facts.

            Let’s keep going, shall we. And here’s another condescending clue, like I said before, learn to read and understand what’s been written before employing ad hominem. I don’t take kindly to them and will retort in kind.

            But in the absence of facts or any point worth considering actually, keep whining and tell yourself no one noticed this stupidity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

            Clearly by your choice of words your intent is simply to offend others rather than debate. Growing? The homicide rate is down in nearly all categories including gun related. I know you’ve already seen this and choose to dismiss it but I’ll post it again anyway, because I can’t stand to make a statement without backing it up and I don’t want to argue “ad hominem” as you say.
            http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8
            Your turn to not argue “ad hominem”.

          • Wotan

            Actually, you began with an ad hominem in your first sentence. And no, clearly it is not my intention to offend others here, but I’ve no problem doing so in reply. That should be clear.

            And not that someone like you or anyone here who took my simple sentence and twisted to mean ONLY what you wanted it to mean while hurling insults, I said nothing about homicide rates. I said there were growing Americans whose lives were destroyed by gun violence. That number is still growing. It shouldn’t be this hard for you to understand this, and it’s only hard because you’re not intent on having a rational discussion while propping up this silly and stupid card about how you’re interested in facts and a rational discussion.

            Get back to me with more links. And while you’re at it, you and your buddies might come to terms with that we’re no longer fighting a crack epidemic. But that shouldn’t explain the decline in murder rates, now should it? DUH!

            What is it with you gun nuts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Soulrole Steven Bunn

    Mental status is the issue here. Gun haters are on an “I told you so!” campaign, and it makes me nauseous.

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      Reducing needless deaths is the issue here. You are not going to cure human madness in the human species. Laws and regulations shape societies and control humans. They are needed. A criminal is a law abiding citizen for their whole life until the day they snap. When they snap, let’s make sure they are not armed to the teeth with military weaponry that should be left under the control and in the hands of the military. Other countries have humans that snap, yet they don’t have murder-with-gun rates like we do.

      • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

         We lose more children to swimming pools in a year than we do to AR rifles in ten, but we’re concentrating on the statistically insignificant item that has a constitutional amendment behind it.

        …Ban pools, much more effective and no nasty Bill Of Rights in the way.

        • Expanded_Consciousness

          Swimming pools are an enjoyment we choose, despite the risks. Gun-love is an enjoyment that America can and needs to do without. Your choice of swimming in a pool only endangers you. Your choice to flood America with dangerous weapons, and block laws and regulations controlling the ownership of dangerous weapons, effects and endangers us all. That is the difference. Go swim in a pool if you want.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

             No, it’s something that you can do without. But not so for millions of other Americans like myself who use them for self-defense. Your choice to deny us our right to self-defense endangers us even more.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            So you support gun control, because you certainly want real background checks and a limit on magazines, right?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol “real background checks” how will you get a illegal gun dealer to do the checks? what a joke

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wrong, pools can be accessed by anyone willing to jump in. they are known as an attractive nuisence. why are you fine with children drowning but up in arms about children shooting themselves unintentionally?

          • GrueneJim

            You pretend to want gun control but you really want power over innocent people. Why don’t you go after the dangerous hardened criminals who actually commit violent crimes?

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Every law, rule, regulation is power over an innocent person. Do not do this or else. An innocent person cannot drive 100 mph or they are guilty. Gun laws and regulations do the same thing. Draw boundaries. We’ll go after every danger: A, B, and C, and not just C. Thank you. If you support a country flooded with military-style weaponry and no real background checks, then you are no longer innocent in my eyes. You are guilty of being part of the problem.

          • GrueneJim

            So you are afraid of the violent criminals, is that what you are trying to say?

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Violent criminals are not just hardened, repeat offenders. Violent criminals also includes your innocent people that live their whole life as a law-abiding citizen until they day they snap. So, your dividing people into innocent and violent, and the fantasy that you can arm all the innocents and disarm all the criminals, is misguided. It is about constructing a safer society through more gun regulations. If you are an innocent person, then you should welcome a society that performs real background checks and limits the type of arsenal available.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i think its more a beliefe that therea re more good people than bad so if the bad people are armed reguardless of the laws we whould arm the good people also because they outnumbert he bad and if one ofthems  naps thenthere will be plenty of good armed people to deal with it

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats a “real” background check?

        • 1Brett1

          If swimming pools are outlawed only outlaws will have swimming pools! 

          Let’s see, where are the data to support what you say? And, if true, maybe it has something to do with the fact that more kids swim in swimming pools than play with guns? How many people died from semi-automatic weapons in the last ten? How many children died from swimming pools last year? More than the people from guns in the last ten?

          Does the Second Amendment mention semi-automatic weapons? Are deaths from gun violence “statistically insignificant”? Really? …Oh, I see, compared to people dying of heart disease or some such false equivalent nonsense? How about infected splinters? Let’s just make all arguments the same gravity as discussions about guns in society. 

          As far as the “Bill of Rights,” it seems you don’t just wish to protect yourself but kill in mass quantities in the process.
           

           

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

             no, we just want the right to defend ourselves. the 2nd amendment mentions arms and is a protection of an individual right.

          • 1Brett1

            You can still do that with universal background checks, licenses, and limits on certain types of weaponry and ammunition.

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            Like I said already, you can express yourself. On parchment. With a quill pen. You have no grounds for limiting rights that you hapen to disagree with.

          • 1Brett1

            Owning an AK-47 with a 30 round magazine is a right? How a 100 round barrel?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats a 100 round barrel?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            guess what? we already have all those things!

          • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

            You can have your say here because of the first amendment rights you enjoy. By the logic you posted above, consider that the founders would not have anticipated radio, television or the internet so it follows that your right of expression should only apply to quill pens and a town crier. 

            And you are projecting when you said “”you want to kill in mass quantities”. How do you know what anyone else is thinking? That is a useless generalization and only shows the weakness of an argument.

            You can’t trash one right while insisting you keep the other. Funny how Liberty works. Unless you grant it to everyone nobody can have it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            kill in mass quantities?with a gun? gimme a break

          • 1Brett1

            Is it me, or are 26 people a “quantity” at what point is a shooting a “mass” shooting?

          • GrueneJim

            A school district that fails to provide reasonable protection to the persons in its charge is responsible for incidents of violence that could have been prevented. The good people of America are not responsible for the carelessness of a few individuals.

          • 1Brett1

            Again, that has NOTHING to do with my reply to Futo Buddy! You have a reading comprehension problem big time. 

            FB and I were in disagreement over the term “mass” as it applies to shootings. 

            If you wish to make a comment similar to your reply to the one you just made, then just make a comment up top rather than reply as a non-sequitur to my comment; it would at least show you have a modicum of intelligence. 

          • GrueneJim

            It has everything to do with this program and all the manipulative comments by opponents to the 2nd Amendment. You cannot continue to hide behind this irresponsible defense of a school district that failed to prepare for a worst case scenario.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            killing 20,000 civilians in dresden germany is killing mass quantities. killing 100,000 japonese with nuclear weapons was mass killings. the genocides in china and russia and the ones going on as we speak are mass killings. killing 3000 with a boxcutter in NYC was a mass killing. killing 300+ in OKC was a mass killing.
            Its all relative.
            Newtown was a terrible tragedy that should have shown the folly of gun free zones but has been used a a political tool to strip our rights from us

        • Shark2007

          If you join the national guard, you will be part of a well regulated militia, and will be able to play with all kinds of guns in complete consistency with the 2nd Amendment.

          • GrueneJim

            The 2nd Amendment is about the individual right to bear arms. Being a member of the militia is not an individual right. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            good news i registered withthe selective service

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        whats the difference between being shot and having you head chopped off with a machete? whats special about guns?

      • GrueneJim

        Criminals don’t snap. Criminals make deliberate choices to cheat on college exams, move to big cities, lie on their 4473 background checks, and falsify their tax returns.

  • Shark2007

    Perhaps I missed it; however, I didn’t hear any suggestions from Mr. Baum on how to deal with the firearms death by murder, suicide and accident. Looking at some of the gun nut comments makes one wonder whether these particular individuals would be allowed to own guns if they were required to have rigorous mental tests prior to being allowed to own same.

    • 45VT

      Suicide/murder: he’s not a psychiatrist. The problem there is mental illness. In regard to the accidents, gun owners need to be responsible and train their spouses, kids, etc. in the proper use of firearms, just like they would with any other tool. Since you’re throwing out labels (gun nut), I’ll tag you as an intolerant communist.

  • Shark2007

    Perhaps I missed it; however, I didn’t hear any suggestions from Mr. Baum on how to deal with the firearms death by murder, suicide and accident. Looking at some of the gun nut comments makes one wonder whether these particular individuals would be allowed to own guns if they were required to have rigorous mental tests prior to being allowed to own same.

    • http://www.facebook.com/theralphness Ralph Brooks

       You are aware that well over 90% of gun deaths occur with stolen or otherwise illegally obtained guns.

      How would extra mental tests on me, a law abiding normal person, prevent that?

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        I’d take and celebrate a reduction by 10% of needless murder-by-gun tragedies. The cliched reply of you-can’t-get-it-to-zero-so let’s-do-nothing is meaningless. All or nothing thinking is fallacious and not laudable.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

          And the myopic argument of “if it only saves one life…” falls on it’s face when compared to the extent of infringement upon people’s God given rights. 

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            This is a nation of laws that are developed through reason. This is not a theocracy. You have no right to block background checks. You have no right to the latest military technology. You need to volunteer your life to be the one not saved, since you are so caviler and callous about human life.

            Thou shall not kill!

            And thou shall not block laws and regulations that prevent killings! Doing so makes you morally responsible for the killing!

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            simmer down. if we thought more laws, we have 20,000 or so, were going to save lives i am sure we would be all for it. ths simple fact is that it wont savew any and potentially put many more people in jeopardy because they are unarmed

          • PaulD

            Ok, I propose a law that requires everyone to always wear a helmet.  It’d obviously make driving a car safer but it would also prevent head injuries in a fall and thereby probably save some lives.  You have no right to block that law.  

            I’m also going to push for a law banning skiing, skateboarding, motorcycles and anything else that can cause death.  Don’t try to block it or you’ll be morally responsible for those deaths.

            Oh, and religion, that’s caused millions of deaths. gotta ban that too.

          • GrueneJim

            If the US Department of Justice enforced the criminal penalty for persons who submit false 4473 background check forms, far fewer criminals would be free to commit violent crimes with illegal weapons. The Bill of Rights does not grant individuals or groups the right to a life of crime.

          • Shark2007

            So owning a gun is a sky fairy given right? Why not rely on the sky fairy to give you a gun?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so you would rather they were pushed out of windows?

      • 1Brett1

        You don’t think anything should be done about stolen or illegally obtained guns? All people are normal and law abiding until they aren’t…think about that.

        • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

          How about we start by punishing the hell out of the criminals? Would you ban diamonds and gold to stop jewelry thefts?

          • nj_v2

            Another mind-numbingly stupid analogy. Keep ‘em coming.

          • 1Brett1

            Where do you come up with these stupid analogies of yours?

          • GrueneJim

            We are just trying to stoop to your level, but its hard to be that dumb.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes those people should be prosecuted for violating the laws we already have

          • GrueneJim

            They can’t be prosecuted because they are members of “protected groups”.

        • GrueneJim

          You want to declare all legal gun owners criminals. Do you also want to deprive Americans of our protection from torture under the 5th Amendment?

          • 1Brett1

            When did I say that? Are you now having auditory/visual hallucinations?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what we really need is a precrime division right?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

      suicide is something you cannot change even if you ban guns. Case in point, Japan has a much higher suicide rate than the US, and banned guns. It’s a societal issue. For accidents, cars are registered and require licensing, and there are actually more guns than cars in the US, yet you are still 68 times more likely to die in a car accident than in a gun accident. For death by murder, just realize that 62 countries are higher homicide rates than the US and yet their gun ownership rate is far less.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        So please, by all means, do nothing to improve the US. All is good enough already. So says yahoouser.

        Fact: Less guns, less successful suicides.

        Car deaths and gun deaths are unrelated. No stat can make the number of gun deaths look OK. In US: 9000 gun homicides/year. UK: 42. Scotland: 4.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          Fact: Less guns, less successful suicides
          putting the word fact before a statement does not make it true, even if you want it to be. we are number 34 for suicides s korea is number one and guns are completly banned there also japan is in the top ten and guns are completly banned there as well. people who really want to kill themselves will. even you ban houshold chemicals, tall things, trains, vehicle exhaust, ropes, sharp things, plastic bags or anything else we can  think of that could be used to kill your self then they will think of something else to do it

        • GrueneJim

          The United Kingdom allowed whipping as punishment for certain crimes well into the 20th century.

      • Shark2007

        You fail to acknowledge that suicide attempts with a gun are more likely to be successful then most other methods. It is simple probability, more guns, more gun incidents, other factors held constant.

        • GrueneJim

          Homicide rates are down for one simple reason. Individual American citizens decided to take up arms in their own defense and violent criminals are backing down. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          nope. people who do “Suicide attempts” like eat a bunch of pills are just crying for help. people who really want to kill themselves do whether or not they havea  gun. they make it real  hard to kill yourself in prison but people do all the time. should we make society like a prison then even though it does not work there? lets knock down all the bridges and buildings and cliffs so no one can jump off of them. the guns= suicides is nonsense since we are #1 or 2 for guns but 34 for suicide and the top of the list for suicides includes places where guns are entirely and effectivly banned like ejapan and #1 on the list south korea

    • GrueneJim

      Many insane persons have computers and post passive aggressive nonsense on the internet. Although your comments are amusing, they are not persuasive.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/BWSI4U3QXYMZB43LPCANMFW7J4 Howard

    Gun proponents love to say guns don’t kill people, people do.  But this is just an empty saying that makes little sense.
    To deny that limiting guns would reduce gun violence is just denying facts.

       Countries with lowest gun ownership have much less murder rates.

        Everyone seems to agree that the way to limit risk of nuclear warfare (weapons of mass destruction) is to reduce numbers of nuclear warheads, and to limit countries which may have access to these weapons.  That is why we have nuclear reduction treaties and why we try to limit spread to new countries like Iran and North Korea.  I never heard anyone say, nuclear weapons don’t kill people, its those people who launch them.  The same logic would apply to any weapon which can cause mass destruction of life like those military assault weapons.  Limiting numbers and access will save lives.

        The argument given is just like saying cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer, its just those darn people who light them up and smoke them.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

       62 countries of the world have lower gun ownership rates than the US and still have much more homicides.

    • 45VT

      Okay, Howard, let’s deal with some facts.

      Fact 1: Guns are here to stay. You can dream all day about a utopia where guns don’t exist, but it just won’t happen. What has the government done by trying to ‘limit’ the supply of drugs? Do you really think that their efforts here have been effective? If you do, you’re dilusional. I’m not advocating for legalizing drugs, but do you see my point? Banning certain types of guns, or guns altogether, as some people like to propose, WON’T limit their availability to those willing to commit crimes. If our government can’t keep drugs from flowing in through our border with Mexico, or people, for that matter; how do you expect it to keep guns from making the same journey? If the liberal gun control nuts have their way, we will be a country of citizens beholden to the will of criminals. 

      Fact 2: The right to bear arms was specifically put in our CONSTITUTION to preserve the freedoms we enjoy. This makes gun ownership a specific, constitutional right that ‘shall not be infringed.’ George Washington himself said “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” It doesn’t get much more plain than that, does it? It’s pretty clear that he wasn’t talking about hunting, as the liberal block heads like to say. If you really think that there is no danger of ANY government, including the US usurping their authority and becoming tyrannical; you clearly are not a student of history, and you should educate yourself before advocating for something you clearly don’t understand.

      Fact 3: Guns DON’T kill people. If you really think guns kill people, you should be committed. To your point about cigarettes, THEY DON”T CAUSE CANCER either! You’re right, if no one smoked them, then those people wouldn’t get cancer! Anti-freeze is a useful tool, it doesn’t cause my dog to die; but if I leave a bowl of it on the porch, my dog will be poisoned. I could go on and on, but I suspect no amount of common sense will penetrate into your head. A gun is a tool, plain and simple. In the right hands, it is useful for self defense, sport, and hunting. In the wrong hands, it can be used for destruction; just like a car, a plane, a knife, a baseball bat, or a van full of fertilizer. The problem is with people, not guns.

      • Shark2007

        You don’t to seem to have much faith in elections. Overthrow the government, you and Timmy McVeigh, how pathetic.

        • GrueneJim

          Elections do not cancel the Bill of Rights.

        • 45VT

          First, pulling a McVeigh inference from my comments is petty and pin headed. He was a criminal and a murderer, I totally condemn what he did and what he stood for. I didn’t say anything about overthrowing the government, simply maintaining our freedoms. A well armed citizenry is a hedge against the government being willing to usurp it’s authority.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          wait tim mcveigh is bad for the narrative of guns being the best way to mass murder
          -1

      • Fredlinskip

        The right to bear arms was put in constitution explicitly so the “people” could come to nation’s aid in time of need.
        Why in constitution would it read ““Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: 
        **“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” 
         And then in B of R “ “(Because) of the need for a (disciplined, trained) militia , the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed”. 

        They were granting the privilege of bearing arms specifically so “well-disciplined” folks would be prepared to aid our nation in time of need – *at DISCRETION OF CONGRESS.

        A major reason that propelled Washington to attend the Constitutional Convention (Jefferson did not attend- so his views are a WHOLE lot less relevant), is because of his great concern of the recent Shay’s rebellion. This was an incident where people in Massachusetts rose up against alleged government tyranny. A militia was raised to put this rebellion down, although it went on for almost a year. 
        This was EXACTLY what was envisioned and written into law in the Constitution.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

      And hammers, and hands, and rocks, and cars, and knives, and ropes, and fists kill people too. Consider that each event has one commonality in that it required a willful act of violence on the part of some person to utilize an inanimate object in the commission of a murder. 
      Yet you still blame the object.  

      • 45VT

        Guns are ‘scary’ and they don’t understand them, so they demonize them. I can tell you one thing, if someone with a gun breaks into their house, you bet they’re hoping the cops show up with their guns quickly!

        • Tyranipocrit

           im not scared of–i was trained with them to kill–and I am against them because they kill and you dont need one.  You make a lto of stupid assumptions making your argument meaningless and ignorant and not worth listening to.  When you grow up you can be a part our human society.

          • 45VT

            If my arguments aren’t worth listening to, why do you keep replying and paying attention? What assumptions am I making? If a criminal with a gun breaks into your house and starts threatening you and your family, you wouldn’t want a friend with a gun to show up and protect you? You’re telling me that you were trained with weapons, you know what they can do to people, and you still think that I don’t need one to protect my family from criminals – WHO HAVE GUNS? You are making alot of assumptions too. Calling gun owners ‘cowards’ for example – that argument is baseless and insane. Assuming that gun control measures will limit the supply of guns to criminals, which an rational person will admit they will not. So now your going to call me a child, and tell me to ‘grow up’ – nice argument. I bet you pull out the ‘I’m rubber your glue’ argument next.

          • Tyranipocrit

            criminals are not coming after you–it’s okay–it’s okay–it’s okay, breathe breathe, nobody is trying to get you and there are no monsters under the bed. Put the gun down, put the gun down, put the gun down–oh wait–oh shoot, he shot himself. I dont fear sb trying to shoot me because i am not in a war zone. i am in a civil society–mired by gun nuts. I learn from mistakes. I know that when you pick up a gun you use it, eventually. Please don’t respond to me and i wont respond to you . uh-duh uh yeah i go grow up now because i’m the one that sees everyone as a criminal that needs to be shot. Again, nobody is trying to get you. they do have doctors for your kind of paranoid delusions. But i sympathize with you tho because every time i go out of the house i wear a rubber hat with a grounding wire just in case the big bad lightning strikes me.

      • Shark2007

        Guns are much more effective and easier to use for killing people. You question this?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          more effective than what? not more effective than a saudi arabian on a plane with a box cutter. (BTW the TSA announced today that small knives are once again allowed on planes)  Clearly far less effective than a hillbilly with a ryder truck full of fuel oil and fertalizer. actually a gun will not make you any deader than a bat a knife or just a plain old smothering or strangling. maybe we should ban pillows to prevent smothering. whern will we address “pillow violence” as a society. no one needs a pillow right? some here have already decided that something that helps you sleep at night is not a “need”

      • Tyranipocrit

         fists can be defended against–and victims can be aided.  you are irrational.  Guns are for cowards.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      there is a guy here who like to label things hyperbolic. i wonder where he is when we need him.
      go ban ciggeretts then and tell me how that works out

    • Fredlinskip

      Guns may not “kill people”, but people couldn’t commit mass murder if they hadn’t easy access to these types of weapons.

  • nj_v2

    Disqus fail

  • nj_v2

    #@%*& Disqus fail again. Useless.

  • nj_v2

    Three Disqus strikes. I’m out. Top posts when responding to a post. But, hey, the slide-in pop-up still works!

    • Expanded_Consciousness

      The slide-in-other-show message each time refreshing the page is so annoying.

  • Tyranipocrit

    guns are for cowards.  Anybody can shoot a person from a distance–(and separate themselves form humanity and mortality), anybody can pull a trigger–but if a real man was threatened or wanted to threaten someone they would put their life in danger–and take another man on hand to hand–to do otherwise is the act of a coward.  All armies are just hordes of cowards.  It takes a lot more courage to stand up to corporate tyranny–aristocratic tyranny–and say no–you go fight pig–i’m not going to kill for you.  Guns are for cowards.  The minute you pick up a gun you invite violence into your life.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

      Some of the “real men” (please define your idea of a real man) in the world happen to be small of stature, or not particularly strong, or suffer from disabilities which would make them uniquely qualified as victims under your scenario. 
      Guns level the field. Be certain that when you, “real man” come to rob some disabled “less real” man,  they will be ready to turn the tables on you faster than you could ever imagine.
      Your post suggests that only the big and strong should prevail. How civilized, a cretin’s philosophy..

      • Tyranipocrit

        why are you so afraid–a cretin–wow–you support guns and murder and you call me a cretin.  You tiwst words–how very repugnant–but always in the nature of a repugnatcon conservative.  I for one see no reason anyone needs to be violent in any form.  My point–mr”pacifist” is that cowards who like to point guns and clearly fell like such a man with a gun in thie hand–should fight like a man if they are so tough.  If a i am in a wheel chair–i would much rather have a “cretin” come afte rme with fists than a weapon of mass destruction.  Wheel chair or not–a bullet will kill form a distance without any danger on the part of the killer–that deosnt require courage or nobility or honor–it is the act of a coward.  Dont twist my words–that is the act of a cretinous coward.  Ther eis no reason to live in such fear–especailly when guns are rmoved from the equation–the reason ytou are afradi is because you encourage the sale of guns and viloence in our community.  So its your own fault.  Furthermore, the anit-gun citizin, big or small, can actually come to your aid if you ar ein a wheel chair if you are attacked by a man with his hands–but he cant help you when bullets fly–and bullets have no name.

        gun enthusiastas are criminal elements.–maybe unwittingly–but certainly responsible for the deaths of children.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i can’t believe you are for real

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      is a woman who defends herself or her children with a gun a coward? should she fight him like a man?

    • PaulD

      So, if another person breaks into my house and has a gun, it’s better to “fight like a man” with no gun?  If I then “die like a man” and can’t continue to provide for my family, have a died with some sort of honor?  

      • Tyranipocrit

         you are more likely to be hit by a car checking your mail–your tired old baseless argument is mundane and hollow.  With that reason i suppose you could argu that iran should have–iraq should have had–nuclear weapons–and so should alqeida.

        • PaulD

          There were more than 2 million burglaries in the US in 2009.  Check the FBI uniform crime report.  By contrast, the chances of being hit by a car are far less: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year#2010_Detailed_Statistics

          If you’re going to say something, at least see if it’s easily disproven.  As for Iran and Iraq, what are you talking about?  How is that relevant?  You make yourself sound completely absurd with statements like that.

          Speaking of statistics, this whole argument is a result of an event where you have a 1 in 3,000,000 chance of being in.  That is a lower chance than being hit by lightning.  Check the recent Time cover story about gun control.

          • Tyranipocrit

            You do not make yourself clear at all–oyu have no argument. WHy dont you do YOUR research and find out how many of theose burglaries–were shed, garages, nobody home, family, friends, unsolved–nobody harmed…im sure that in all those cases people didnt have a gu nin their face. I wm willing to bet almost none–most burlars are opportunists and seek homes unoccupied. A more relavent question would be–why is ther so much crime? and is there really? how can we alleviate it? I think you will find crime is directly proportianate to income inequality and corruption. A war crazed society doesn’t help either. mentally scarred soldiers have trouble adjusting. Why do we have so many homeless veterans? Drugged addict veterans? Suicidal veterans? Homicidal veterans?

          • Tyranipocrit

            many people who join the service are gun enthusiasts drooling over weapons and eager to use them–fact. Our war culture is a symptom of our savage nature as Americans–conditioned to be violent, a violent culture buoyed by gun nuts, and gun manufacturers who sponsor and manufacture wars–creating terrorists and monsters at home and abroad–a vicious cycle. I dont put a lot of faith in TIme or other mainstream publications who all have special interests connected to the status qou. But thank you for proving to me that your awareness of the world stems from pulp fiction. Which makes your argument as credible as elmer fudd. Your firing blanks–rubbber bullets.

  • Tyranipocrit

    nobody is asking gun lovers to hear gun control advocates–but this guy get son here and wants us to understand them–when they are killing each other and us all over america and the world–it snot just white schools punk–its black neighborhoods too–but nobody cares.  And who sells the guns to people of color in the hood?

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/I5L2ISPUFSW26XVI44KXG57EXA Seravo

      Other people in the hood, who do you think.

      • Tyranipocrit

        where do those guns come from and who makes them?–tax supported private industries headed by white executives.

  • Tyranipocrit

    why is that people only care when white middle class people die–minorities have been on the front lines for generations.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i blame the media. that shooting in texas had live coverage untill they relised it was a black on black crime then it fell right off the radar.
      also it does not fit with the narrative that gun control will make a difference

  • Tyranipocrit

    is gun violence rational?  is mass murder rational?  dud–you are a joke.

  • Tyranipocrit

    when you ban guns it keeps them off the streets–especially when police can then be reprogrammed to hunt for guns–gun depot son every corner–like bosnia–turn in your guns.  Every country that has banned guns proves–PROVES–THat the ban works–the only people that would be mystified by them are crazy nuts and killers.

    China sells guns to america–i had no idea–one more reason to be angry with china.  And they act so innocent–like we are so violent and they are so pure–but they flood our markets with guns–and darfur, among other unstable regions.  Is china peaceful?  NO.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

      then why are there 62 countries that have stricter gun control than the US and still have more homicides? 

      • Tyranipocrit

         no one has more homicides than america except war torn countries torn by america

    • 45VT

      You honestly want a police force in the streets ‘hunting for guns’? You are truly insane. Why don’t you move to Bosnia?

      • Tyranipocrit

         i did

        • 45VT

          You did what?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so we should have a “war on guns”? sounds like it will be even more bloody and violent and destructive to the basic fabric than the war on drugs. great idea

    • shaneSL

       The Nazis were defeated in 1945, but their racism lives on till this day.

      The enemy of humanity is racism. These are individuals that continually seek to degrade and dehumanise others and their cultures. They find multiple excuses to blame their target race. For the Nazis, the blame always lay with the Jews. For some, that blame always lies with China and the Chinese.

      Humanity is more than this. I hope you will consider your words and actions and reflect upon them. There is no worse crime than to dehumanise and portray another race or country in as negative light as possible. Hitler did it before, and let us hope his spirit and ideas die out with him.

      It is also sad that the Chinese actually have such a positive opinion of America and Americans. It is a tragedy of our humanity.

      • Tyranipocrit

         judging a government and discriminating against people is two different things–syou are so dramatic.  The chinese governemnt is clearly not as peaceful as they pretend to be.  Dumping guns on america which clearly has a gun poblem is a hostile act with hostile intentions.  I will clarify for you–i should have said–”the chinese government” 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/P2RZJVIPNWQ3BYHJCTDO75MFIM yahoouser

     then please explain why NICS checks are at an all-time high.

    • GrueneJim

      Because lawful citizens are purchasing firearms and filing the required form 4473.

  • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

    I keep hearing people ask why one would need an assault rifle for self-defense.

    To borrow from Pres. Clinton:  “It’s the civil disorder, stupid!”

    It’s not nutty, feral, paranoid defense of gun rights in preparation for the zombie apocalypse, or to throw off the yoke of tyranny as applied by jack-booted Federals.  It’s about dialing 911 and no one answering.  This stuff *really happens*!

    Remember Katrina?  Here’s an article from NPR itself:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5063796

    And some quotes to emphasize my point:

    “Experts say it was the perfect environment to commit a crime, and the worst environment to report a crime. The police department — reeling from desertions, flooding and the immensity of the disaster — was in a survival mode itself. Civil order had completely broken down.”

    “[The victim] says thugs were still wandering the streets of her neighborhood more than a week after the flood.”

    I was in NJ during Sandy.  The police (local & state) were busy guarding gas stations.  Yep, that’s right, gas stations.  Their priority is to protect critical infrastructure, not to show up at your house and scare off burglars.  Simply put: under a dire state of emergency, you are on your own.

    Remember that the next time a truckload of armed thugs pulls up to your house, looking for your generator, your fuel, your food, and your daughters, and be sure to thank your lucky stars that the cops had that gas station under control.

    Last point: it’s truly tragic what happened in Aurora and Newtown.  Yes, something must be done to make kids safe, but myopic persecution of lawful gun owners is not it.  A greater threat looms: in a post-911 world, how did those sad schmucks ever get close to those places?  Those tragedies are a wake-up call to our own vulnerability.  We saw what AQI and AQIM are capable of.  Do you think they’re not already here?  Maybe not.  Will you stake our children’s lives on it?  No way.  Taking guns away from lawful gun owners won’t help us with that.  Staffing our schools with trained, armed security professionals will.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    in the media its pretty onesided. adnwh ys hould someone who knows nothing get so much air time whilepe ople who know what they are talking about are ignored?

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    To sum up the program and the 500+ comments: Gun lovers only care about themselves, their feelings, and their deluded fantasy life, and not the society they live in. 

    If rules and regulations will make the country and society as a whole safer, they are against it. Are they all felons that don’t want background checks? No. Do they need 100-round magazines for self-defense or hunting? No. Do they need military weaponry to shoot police and military personal in a fantasized coup of the government in Washington? No. Do they feel manly enough? No. Do rational laws and regulations make them “feel” weak? Pathetically, yes.

    You live in a society. Part of the social contract is to make the society safer on whole. That is what it means to be a man. That is what it means to be moral and civilized. It is not all about you, the individual, your wants, desires, fantasies. To be part of civilization, you must join society and do what is best for society. That is what you do in exchange for all the benefits and protections society gives you. You need to keep your part of the bargain. Your part of the social contract.

    • 1Brett1

      “Are they all felons that don’t want background checks? No. Do they need 100-round magazines for self-defense or hunting? No. Do they need military weaponry to shoot police and military personal in a fantasized coup of the government in Washington?”

      These are what interfere with a valuable conversation with them, in my view. It’s all some abstract distortion of reality and intent of laws. 

      • GrueneJim

        As Chairman Mao said – “The country surrounds the city.” We grow weary of your chest beating.

        • 1Brett1

          You just proved my point. How can one have a reasonable discussion with you about modern society’s concerns regarding guns when a reply from you starts with a Chairman Mao quote and ends with a characterization of my opinions as “chest beating”? 

          I’ve lived in NYC and I’ve lived in the rural hills of North Carolina, and grew up in rural Virginia…urban cultures as they pertain to guns are very different than rural cultures.

          The odds that you’ll win the Powerball lottery are far better than your having to  pick up arms against the US government, yet you talk as if that’s a distinct possibility and that citizens need to be heavily armed with weaponry that matches elite military forces. Your ilk uses some argument about personal protection that sounds like one should be prepared at all times for a home invasion rivaling a bank robbery performed by a SWAT team of criminals, and so on. You ruin whatever powers of persuasion you might have by exaggeration that is to the point of absurdity. That’s my point. 

          You seem to miss my point, or at least, ostensibly, because your replies are either platitudes or extreme fantasies.

          I have a lot of friends who are hunters; I have friends who collect antique guns; I have friends who like to go to the shooting range. I went to the shooting range with friends as a teenager. I don’t want to take away anyone’s hobby, right to protect themselves, or hunt for their food, but I do expect that guns, and their ownership and usage are strictly regulated. 

          One can’t have a nuanced conversation with you, however, as you seem to want to dwell in some weird, parallel, B-movie universe where Red Dawn will erupt any time, diabolical, highly-armed armies of criminals are waiting for the right moment to overtake your home and Liberals want to take away ALL guns and set the stage for Nazism, and it’s an absurd, simplistic nonsensical sophomoric debate strategy on your part.

          • GrueneJim

            Limit your rants to 25 words or less. Less is more. Small is beautiful.

          • 1Brett1

            I get it, you’re a slow reader; I understand. You know there are always Yahoo forums; your brand of commentary would fit right in.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the long rants are my favortie part as long as people try to refrain from too much cut and paste

          • Cenomanian Turonian

            You are deluded if you don’t think that horrible things like what happened in Russia, Germany, Rwanda, Serbia, Syria, etc, etc, etc (countless others) could not happen in the US in the next 500, 1000, 1500 years. Just because you had the privilege of growing up during peaceful and prosperous times does not make you an expert on the natural order of civilization. Good people defend your rights by simply owning guns, they don’t even have to use them – it is all about checks and balances. Dianne Feinstein has EXPLICITLY stated she wants ALL guns gone. If we go down that road, we make it less likely that our children’s children would be able to prevent or oppose any kind of consolidation or projection of power in the future.  

          • Fredlinskip

            There are extremists on both ends, please don’t believe ALL guns will be “gone”.
                I think it childish fantasy that the American people will some day rise up to overthrow our government.
              This notion is CERTAINLY not justified by anything written in our constitution, which I happen to respect.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i know of at least three cases of home invasion personally. in all cases there were more than two invaders up to 6 at a time. in all cases the invaders were armed in some fashion. so tell me more about the one home invader fantasy.

        • Fredlinskip

          I haven’t examined all other 700 comments, but is there any rationale that you espouse for your ‘Tyrannical government” beliefs or is it simply macho fantasy propelled  by far right media?

          • GrueneJim

            Chairman Mao was not a rationale far right macho fantasy propeller. He was pretty far left and seems to be someone you would eagerly espouse.

          • Fredlinskip

            Disqus is not allowing me to reply to this comment- I’ll try one last time.
            Mao aside:
            How do you interpret the line in our constitution which reads:”Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: 
            **“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” ??
            This, bearing in mind that 2nd amendment grants right to keep in bear arms (because of need for) well-regulated militia.

          • GrueneJim

            A substantial scholarly literature agrees that the 2nd Amendment exists in part to provide a shield from tyranny by the national government. The antiquated notion that our 2nd Amendment only gives individuals the “right” to serve in a militia is wrong. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right with historical precedent that goes back to Magna Carta. The right to bear arms is not connected to military service. The right to bear arms does not depend on whether militias exist. The Bill of Rights was designed to give the American people confidence that our new government would respect the rights of individuals to personal safety, personal liberty and private property. The abuses of British colonial occupation were also violations of the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The Bill of Rights is work of genius and must be preserved in order to preserve human rights.

          • PaulD

            I interpret that line to mean that Congress can use the militia.  How does it logically flow that if Congress can use the militia, they can also restrict the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the 2A? 

            Article II Section 2 says the president can call up the militia in times of need.  How does that somehow imply that the president can undermine the 2A?  It doesn’t logically flow.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            is there any rational reason to believe that a goverment will remain stable and  secure and a people free indefinatly, especially without considering that might be possible and planning to avoid it? can you name such a nation from history?

    • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

      Hi, please have a look at my post, below.  The civil society argument presumes continuity of civil order, and that’s just not 100% feasible.  You and I have a right to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and each other when the government (administrators of society, preservers of  lawful order) can’t.  So, let’s look for practical solutions to keeping our kids safe.  Even law enforcement says the assault weapons ban is not very effective (saw it on CNN), but limiting the size of mags can be.  Better, consider staffing schools with trained, professional security.  The next guy to attempt a breach might not be a sad, mentally-disturbed person.  It might be AQIA.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        do you think AQIA will abide by the magazine limits. moreover studies show that the size of a magazine only slightly affects how many rounds you can get down range

    • GrueneJim

      Your description of civilization sounds like a pep rally for pudgy power hungry bellicose bureaucrats. 

    • Cenomanian Turonian

      Don’t look now, but your Leninism is showing. 

      • Fredlinskip

        Don’t look now but your ignorance flares brightly.
        You “socialism, communism” crowd really need  get a grip. 
        “we the people” in your views seems to be a “socialist” concept.
        Why don’t you go set up your own little country of Warlords somewhere and be “free” (as you naively perceive it) somewhere else.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      trust me i am making society much safer. moreover i am making my family much safer. being unable to protect yoursefl or others is irresponsible you have a civil duty to become armed to protect society as a whole

      • Fredlinskip

        I believe statistics show that guns in the home purchased for self-protection more often end up being used against someone in that household as they do in protection of that household.
        You may indeed be exception to that rule- but that does not mean that society as a whole should not advocate for common sense change.
        Meanwhile Gov is not coming for your gun, so you have all the protection you imagine you need.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if you found out that statistic was false would you stop using it? because it is false. guns are used several million times every year for self protection. are there 43 million gun deaths a year? if that wasw right there should be 43 times as many gun death as legitimate self defense uses. thats clearly not whats happening. that statistic has been disproved for over 20 years, even retracted by its own authors. yet it continues to persist. i have not bought my AR15 yet because they are very expensive but i want to make sure that i can when i can afford it.
          now that you know that that statistic is 100% false what do you have to say?

          • Fredlinskip

            I’ve NEVER been wrong about anything!
             Kidding.I’ll look into it.Right now I need go shovel some snow.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i saw a bumper sticker that said “save the planet, kill yourself” your argument made me think of that

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        No, no, no. By all means, pretend you are saving yourself (a cowardly act), as you stand in the way of any law that will make this country safer. The next time school kids, movie goers, congress women, etc. are shot or murdered, you will at least know you did everything you could to make sure it will happen again.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so you think i am a coward because i want to be able to defend myself and my family and that me doing so is somehow harmful to “society”? how is that harming society? prohibition of drugs is harming society and responsible for 100% of gang violence. if you actually cared at all about society you would advocate against gun free zones because i have not heard any proposals that would have prevented any of those tragedies but getting rid of gun free zones may have.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000093382558 Pamela Cooper

    I was struck by Don Baum’s description of his open carry activities in Boulder, Colorado and his confidence that no one said anything at Whole Foods or the Apple Store because they were perfectly OK with it. Just like the naked man who was able to shop at Walmart without being confronted for a half an hour before the police arrived, I have a strong feeling that people were just too uncomfortable to say anything to him. This activity on the part of gun owners is nothing less than bullying to the rest of us and is a strong indicator of the misguided and unrealistic belief that silence is approval that so many of them subscribe to.

    • http://twitter.com/mschwa1967 Mark Schwartz

      They probably thought he was a cop or security guy.  Those are the only ones that I see doing open carry in MA, so that’s how I react.

      I wouldn’t go so far as to call it bullying in that specific situation. Intimidating, yes, and it’s a valid point.  That’s why people don’t open carry in MA even though they can: one can land a disturbing the peace charge.

      So, they carry concealed in Whole Foods instead, and no one has to be upset.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        and we are mostly afraid of getting any attention because the police here can pull your liscense for no reason so if they have one they certianly will

    • Wotan

      Baum is right in that Boulder is very earthy crunchy. The people there are for the most part intelligent and rational. So a much simpler interpretation of their actions would be: why would any intelligent and rational person engage someone who’s exhibiting severe anti-social behavior and who has a gun. It’s common sense to know where they are and to STAY FAR AWAY from people like this.

      • 45VT

        Another typical irrational liberal. Guns suddenly make someone anti-social? Someone you need to stay far away from? In light of all of the shootings we have by CRAZY people, don’t you think it would make sense to be nearby a law abiding citizen who has a gun? You clearly don’t understand guns or those who own and carry them.

        • Wotan

          Typical stupid gun nut who can’t read things in context. As I said, Bouler CO is one of the most peaceful, “earthy crunchy” places I’ve visited in the USA. No one goes around town with a gun. Only a gun nut would not be able to tell that walking into a Whole Food in such a city isn’t anti-social behavior. 

          Try getting a clue.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol are you offended that people are taking guns in the vicinity of hippies?

          • Wotan

            No, I’m not offended. I wasn’t there nor am I a resident of Boulder. That really was NOT the point, now was it. Rather, we’re talking about the conclusion reached by Baum on his anti-social behavior of carrying a weapon in plain sight into the Apple Store and Whole Foods and then reaching the wrong-headed conclusion that the “hippies” as you described them -there were few hippies I saw in Boulder but that’s besides the point – we ok with his openly carrying weapons. If you want to turn this into a circle jerk with your next reply, the feel free to do so.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            if carrying a weapon in public is anitsocial every policeman must be antisocial. there have to be a few cops that are not psychopaths. Its not his fault if his carrying a firearm gets peoples panties in a twist. it says more about their mental deficiency than his. personally i would rather everyone carry their firearm openly then you know who has one. i am confused as to what your point is are you saying if something you do or wear may make some people uncomfortable then you are a sociopath for doing or wearing that thing? would you say the same thing of a gay couple who want to kiss at the chic -fil-a, even if they are not doing it for political reasons?

          • Wotan

            Arguing another red herring does nothing to support your case nor to attract your rhetoric into the more mainstream. Most of the social people do recognize the need for cops as an institution of civil society. And we equip the police with guns because we recognize that to be tools of their trade. As you’re all quick to point out, there are enough bad guys out there and demonizing cops so that you can advance your twisted, anti-social cause really proves your a gun nutter and nothing more.

            But to bring it back into the germain, the scenario that Baum had conjured up is vastly different with a cop in uniform whose job is public safety. We as a society have not assigned Baun the job, the uniform, the training and the badge to allow his walking into an APple Store and a Whole Food with a gun in an Earthy Crunchy city. That you cannot or are unwilling to relent that this is anti-social behavior speaks more to the bad faith nature of your replies. This is hardly uncommon with the gun nutters and Baum had set out to dispel these stereotypes. Evidently, most of you pro-gun people who’ve chimed in in legion following the story are more comfortable with perpetuating these unflattering stereotypes of gun nutters.

            Well done.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            calling names doesnt do much for your argument. actually if your argument was not calling names there might not be much left so do your thing pal. maybe instead of being rude and childish you could try a reasoned argument for why you think its “antisocial” to carry a gun.

          • Wotan

            This in a nutshell is why I think you’re all total pussies. You’ve all shown up in droves (I’ve never seen most of your here actually), began ad hominem attacks and arguments, presumed bad faith, destructive dialogue (they’re actually monologues with one talking point after another) and when you’re met with the same spirit of retort, you all begin to whine about how its impossible to debate us.

            Actually, I’m not new to this debate and I’m not new to people like you or your gun nut buddies. You’ve been a dime a dozen and your antics are similar. That you all claim to be interested in rational debate is laughable as your points, counterpoints or lack thereof, arguments and retorts have been. 

            This is exactly why you’ve all been losing the public opinion battle and the hearts and minds.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

      Bullying? Look at this another way. Does seeing two people of the same gender kissing make you uncomfortable? If not, then why would someone, who is minding their own business and not in any way approaching you, impeding you or otherwise occupying your time make you feel bullied? If you are uncomfortable by same gender kissing, I’m going to assume that despite your feelings, you feel that they are entitled to do so as consenting adults who are responsible for their own lives. So wouldn’t the same philosophy apply to people who carry guns. Should your personal opinions on what make you comfortable dictate how others conduct their lives. Gun rights are no different than any other civil right that is protected by the constitution.

      • Wotan

        This is a thread about gun culture. It’s utter folly to omit guns from such analogies. Therefore, if there were two homosexual couples engaged in public display of affection with one couple visibly sporting a gun, how many rational people will elect to tell the non-gun toting couple to “get a room” rather than confronting the gun couple?

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

          Rational is relative I suppose. I think people who value freedom wouldn’t say anything to either couple. You make this automatic assumption that people who carry guns or own guns are irrational. It’s unfortunate that you don’t see how bigoted you are. People fighting for civil rights have a good track track record of eventually overcoming such bigotry, thank goodness.

          • Wotan

            When they do so to solicit a response and then base some faulty assumption on the lack of a response, then you’re being entirely irrational.

            And people fighting civil rights, like Martin Luther King, did so via non-violence and were gunned down.

            Do you have a point here?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so the man pictured on the left was not for civil rights? thats an AK47 malcom is holding there. MLK applied for a concealed carry permit. so get your facts straight and stop trying to take away the civil rights of women and minorities

          • Wotan

            All means necessary. There was a reason for that, no? It’s what happens when a large population of the citizenry is excluded from basic civil liberties, deprived of basic rights far more nefarious than gun ownership rights and the police as an institution were enforcing racist policies. We’ve since passed federal laws and police are no longer the instruments of overt, systemic racism, now are they?

            And MLK applied for gun permits, which he was denied, during the late 50s because he and his family were the target of daily death threats. It’s odd that you’d raise this and hide behind civil rights without noting that his killer was a convicted felon who still was able to purchase guns and went on to assassinate Rev. King.

            This being 2013, go to any black neighborhood and ask them if they think more guns keep their neighborhoods safe.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            systemic racism is still in effect in america. never heard of “stop and frisk” or how about the stories of the NYPD and their abuses of muslim americans? Gun ownership is a basic human right go read Fletcher V Haas. oh i should go to a “black neighborhood” and ask “them” and “they” will all say the same thing? it seems like racism is still alive and well in 2013

          • Wotan

            2013, we have the Civil Rights laws and police are NOT the blunt instruments that often lynch blacks and minorities, now are they? Are you not able to distinguished systemic racism and institutionalized racism? The Mulsim Americans were not rounded up wholesale and jailed or brutalized without right to vote or file criminal or civil complaints. Further, ask the Sikhs in MN what they think of gun violence and your perverted interpretation of the second amendment.

            Lastly, gun ownership isn’t a human right. It’s a US citizen’s right and even at that, there are limitations and restrictions in place. You and the author you cite clearly have no idea what basic human rights are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am going to reply to this above where there is more room if you dont mind

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the 2nd amendment is a civil rights law.
            “The Mulsim Americans were not rounded up wholesale and jailed or brutalized without right to vote or file criminal or civil complaints.” oh really? since when? yeah we havent admitted to torturing a muslim for at least a couple years now. Gun ownership is a human right. go read Fletcher v Haas 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            its called projection

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          so you are saying a rational person should confront the gay couple for some reason? thank you for illustrating how guns protect the rights of minorities in this country.
          http://www.gayswithguns.net/

          • Wotan

            Aw…look. A pop up photo of a guy with a gun. Is that suppose to do something for me either way? And my point was clear when I made it. It’s unnecessary for you to turn it into something that wasn’t said, now is it?

            Keep trying, Futo Maki.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you asked”how many rational people will elect to tell the non-gun toting couple to “get a room” rather than confronting the gun couple?” tell me why a rational person would confront them in either case. your scenerio was a great example of how mearly possessing a gun helps prevent harrassment of minorities. are guns special or unique in some way that precludes there from being any analogues?

          • Wotan

            “tell me why a rational person would confront them in either case. ”

            You need to ask the gun lover why he came up with the analogy and to what end. I just leveled the playing field and reintroduced the gun factor.

            “your scenerio was a great example of how mearly possessing a gun helps prevent harrassment of minorities.”

            I lived in a city some 25 years ago that was the lesbian capital of the USA. Public display of affection by same sex couples even back then was common and I don’t recall an instance where anyone confronted any of the couples. Many became my friends when I began dating women from the all-women’s college that was in the city. There was also very low hang gun ownership and virtually no violent crimes. And again, you’ll need to ask Collette why he chose to equate homosexual public display of affection to brandishing a gun at an Apple Store and a Whole Foods market in one the most earthy crunchy cities in the USA. Last I recall, a dozen plus children cannot be mowed down by homosexual kisses, now can they. And you still don’t understand the point of my having reintroduced guns into Collette’s analogy?

            Lastly. no, I wasn’t too distracted by the picture. Cheap theatrics is easily dismissed. I also don’t take such seriously so no, I didn’t read any of the links. Presentation does matter.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you made up the gays with and without guns and implied a rational person should feel free to say “get a room” to them.  when have a “dozen people been mowed down” by someone exercising their right of open carry at a whole foods or anywhere else? the island of sappho sounds like a utopia but i cant see what it has to do with anything. i have never heard any one ever complain about girls kissing lol. were you the intended audience for that presentation? i think all the point he was trying to make that gay men kissing and open carry both make small groups of extreamists irrationally upset but that is irrelevent and clearly not anti social in any way.

          • Wotan

            “you made up the gays with and without guns and implied a rational person should feel free to say “get a room” to them.”
            You’ve proven in the course of this thread that you’re simply either incapable or unwilling to understand what had been written to something which you presume to respond. And once again, in the above, I said and did no such a thing. Look at the context and what I had actually written – it’s there for you as plainly written as it was when first it appeared serval days ao – and responde appropriately. 

            Days of having read and answer your stupid nonsense, and I’ve frankly lost interest. I see that you’ve also replied to my other comment, but in the interest of not wasting any more of my time reading your dishonest strawman, I can’t be bothered to even read it. 

            Be better informed if you presume to engage people who are far beyond you. You can’t get through life BSing with a feeble mind.

            That’s all. We’re done so feel free to reply with some twisted notion of a “last word” which no one would have read. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol so “far beyond” that you believe you are the only one who ever visited Korea. i enjoy your quirky mixture of self aggrandizement, incoherance and deflection.  

          • Wotan

            Fine, you want to keep acting like some internet punk, then let’s do this, boy.

            And no, so “far beyond” in that I can actually read and understand what you had tried to write and failed miserably in doing. And I can actually make a rational point and write it unlike you and your ESL scribbles.

            But way to confirm that you were not at all interested in civil debate as you had insisted and were in fact lying all along. If you’ve been to Korea or Japan, why would you argue that gun control has little or nothing to do with low crime rates?

            And lose the “lol.” It just makes you seem that much more stupid and childish.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so i guess you lied when you said you were not going to write any more posts to me. i don’t feel the need to use former grammer on a internet post. i am sorry that bothers you so much. I never made any argument about the crime rates in japan and korea i made a point about their suicide rates. you have not shown much interest in adult debate with all your insults, childish rude comments and distortion. you really come off as a narcissist. if you want to debate gun control or whatever topic the articles are about in the future thats fine but you seem more interested in personal attacks. no more LOL? how bout this: when i saw that you wrote another post to me i was ROFL

          • Guest

            That’s no lying. That’s changing my mind because I want to enjoy seeing you squirm and act out like a five year old on line.

            Keep trying, Futo Maki.

          • Wotan

            That’s not lying. That’s called changing my mind because I enjoy making you look stupid and watching you get your panties in a bunch. Keep whining with your steady stream of bilge, Futo Maki.

            And what did you do in Korea. Were you stationed there? I would not be surprised given your stupidity.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am not here to deal with narcissists. i am sorry you have such bad energy and i forgive you for your bad bahavior.  

          • Wotan

            What a tool. You began this bad faith attempt and you clearly had nothing of substance to offer other than the ploy of replying for the sake of replying with strawmen, red herring, whines and a series of accusations. 

            If narcissistic to you means someone who actually knows what despotic means and who understand that “charles 3″ had nothing to do with colonial America, then I welcome this term even if attempted as an epithet.

            You’ve got nothing except your stupid guns. Now go give them a nice cleaning.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      actually in many places people don’t freak out just beacuse someone has a gun. in some places they do. i bet you have seem plenty of men with guns that did not make you freak out. you have armed police where you live right? why would you care if someone has a holstered gun on their hip? the part where people freak out is why we have concealed carry laws anyways

    • 45VT

      Do you get nervous when you see the police walking around with guns on their hips? As a group, they are just as unstable as the rest of society, as illustrated so tragically in the recent incident in California. Typical liberal – be ‘tolerant’ until you find someone who disagrees with you, then demonize them as ‘bullies’.

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    that wouldwo rk 100% do you know how much 1000 round magazin would weight?
    by my logic all gunsa re just as dnagerous and less dangerous than nother things

    • Fredlinskip

      Put the bottle away, would you?

  • 1Brett1

    How can you expect to have a conversation on here if you’re just going to blindly, offensively say derogatory things to people because you don’t agree with them?

    • GrueneJim

      How can you expect anyone to listen when you openly advocate criminalizing 100,000,000 American citizens who have broken no law?

      • 1Brett1

        Dude, that has nothing to do with my reply to 45VT. 

        How does wanting background checks, licensing and strict controls on certain weapons criminalizing 1/3 of the US population? Hyperbolize much? Jeesh!

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          we already have those things. so you must be happy right?

          • Tyranipocrit

             no we dont

      • Tyranipocrit

         what do you thin is happening right now–we have more people in prsion than nearly every country combined–millions for petty crimes.  We have a war on drugs–pot.  We criminalize americans for being Hispanic, black, Muslim…we live with a class war everyday–thousands are sent to illegal wars for rich people–using poor people as useless inhuman cannon fodder-there is all ready 300 million people in this country being crimninalized.  How do i rationalize criminalizing guns–you use them to kill–period.  And the most uneducated, bigoted people in the country use them and support them.  But you are being irrational–nobody except me actually said ypou are criminals–they just want to regulate guns.  So calm down–dont go shooting people bueford.

  • 21114

    This guy verbalized what I maintain is the reason people have guns. He admitted that it was compensating for physical and/or emotional shortcomings. That doesn’t make me want people to be able to stroll on down to the Wal-Mart and pick up the means to commit mass murder with their toilet paper and toothpaste. Guns are simply a way for the mentally weak to feel empowered.

    Do the math, people. You are statistically much safer if you don’t own a gun, PERIOD. To say otherwise is simply a lie. I have known several people in my life who have been murdered or died in accidental shootings, but I have never know anyone outside of law enforcement or military personnel who successfully defended themselves or their families with a gun.

    I am not against private gun ownership per se, but it should only be permitted with the utmost in government oversight (Yeah, the Second Amendment says “A well-regulated militia…), all funded by gun manufacturers and gun owners. A gun permit should require a minimum of 160 classroom hours and an annual psychological evaluation done by a certified mental health professional, as well as a polygraph test regarding criminal/seditious activity. If the applicant can’t pass the psych eval, then, yes, the democratically elected government representing the people of the United States of America should seize these guns in the name of public safety.

    And by the way, I am continually amused when engaging in discussions with self-proclaimed Second Amendment advocates by the fact that they have no idea what the Second Amendment actually says (A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). It’s a despicable, if unsurprising display of American ignorance and false sense of entitlement.

    • OnPointComments

      Do the math, 21114.  You are statistically much safer if you don’t ride in a car, PERIOD. To say otherwise is simply a lie.  I’m keeping my car, but I suppose you’ll give yours up since statistics prove the inherent danger of vehicles.
       
      And by the way, I am continually amused when engaging in discussions with self-proclaimed Second Amendment interpreters that they pontificate with absolute certainty, and completely ignore rulings of the Supreme Court and lesser courts.  It’s a despicable, if unsurprising, display of arrogance and conceit.  The hubris of these interpreters is exceeded only by how uninformed they are.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        People who prove themselves unfit to drive are deprived of their driver’s license and can no longer use the technology of the automobile. People who prove themselves unfit to own a gun should likewise be deprived of gun technology. 

        No one has a right to use a car as they see fit. There are laws and regulations dictating how cars are manufactured and how they are used. The same should be done with guns.

        When someone loses their license, when a new stop sign is put on the road, when a new driving law is passed, where is the irrational outcry like there is with guns? Where are the car-lovers saying that no law can be passed infringing on their God-given right? Saying that it is a slippery slope and soon there will be no cars? Saying that it is a government plot to deprive us of automobiles and therefore make us weaker, so that a tyrannical government can eventually take us over?

        • OnPointComments

          A person is statistically more likely to be killed driving a car than from assault by a firearm, yet people make the choice every day to drive cars.  Citing the statistics and emploring people to “do the math” is a strawman’s argument.

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            Wrong. Society, as a whole, decides to make driving legal under licence, and a whole lot rules and regulations. Society wants to do the same with guns. Saying that people die by other means than guns is saying nothing, and is the straw man fallacy. In the benefit-risk analysis cars win and guns are losing. Cars are worth it and guns (as easily purchased as they are now) are not. We get places with cars. We are getting too much unnecessary death with guns.

          • OnPointComments

            You think cars are worth it and guns aren’t; others differ.  Isn’t it great to live in a free country?

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            You have been misinformed. You live in a country of rules, regulations, and laws. Your possibilities are restricted and your actions are shaped at every corner. You are not, and have never been, totally free. It is the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that this country stands for. You, and your ilk, are standing in the way of those ideals.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            wow so we should be free by taking our rights away? oh i forgot these days slavery is freedom  and war is peace

          • Fredlinskip

            Conservatives were the advocates of slavery too- I have feeling you’d have been there with them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i guess you did not “get” my reference to 1984. go read it its good

          • Clark MGB

            He would never “get” it. And would probably extoll the virtures of newspeak. It’s my favorite book.  

          • GrueneJim

            The Bill of Rights protects individual rights and is not about collective rights. Our nation’s Constitution is about limited government power and protection of human rights. Our social compact does not give government the power to infringe on our individual rights. Your passionate argument for a return to the Dark Ages is un-American at the very least.

          • Fredlinskip

            Again where in Constitution does it say folks need lots of guns in case they need overthrow govenrment?
             *If lots of folks were running around with live hand grenades on them, their rationale being, “you never know when you might need one” this would be the same rationale as yours for carrying weapons that have the same potential.
                What about the “individual rights” of those who have the right to live where “psychopathic” individuals like these are not the norm?
               A BALANCE must be reached before we do enter “Dark Ages” akin to MAd Max flicks.

          • GrueneJim

            The people we should fear are the people in government who have a thirst for power over others. Responsible, lawful citizens are the lifeblood that nourishes our Nation. We follow the law, we revere other’s Human Rights and we treasure our Constitutional heritage. Your petty verbal abuse tells everyone what you stand for. 

          • Fredlinskip

            Where in my response was “verbal abuse”? Or does simply offering argument in disagreement with  your views qualify?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            20,000 rules and regulations seems like a “whole lot” to me.

            if someone kicks down your door at 3am could you think of a use for a gun if you had one handy? guns are used to prevent crime and violence millions of times a year. thats is just one thing that makes them “worth it” i could think of others

          • Shark2007

            Cars are useful for transporting yourself and your stuff. Guns are only useful for target practice and killing. How often does one desire to do the former versus the latter.

          • OnPointComments

            Usefulness, desire, and frequency of use are irrelevant

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats funny is city slickers do not understand ecology. do you know what would happen if people stopped hunting? go read about snow geese

          • Michele

            Cars were invented as transportation to get from point A to point B.  What purpose were guns invented for? Stating that statistically someone is more likely to die driving than via a gun is disingenuous and not all the point of people calling for more regulation on WEAPONS.

          • OnPointComments

            My comment was in response to 21114′s comment that people are “statiscally safer if you don’t own a gun.”  If statistical safety is a concern for some, then they should avoid cars.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            guns are invented for hunting target shooting and self defense. something is not a weapon untill it is used as such.

        • Cenomanian Turonian

          No, there aren’t.  You can have any kind of car you want on your own property and drive it any way you want and there’s nothing the government can do about it.  The regulations only apply to operating a car on public roads. 

          Also, the NEED for guns is not acknowledged at all from the anti-gun people.  The Second Amendment must allow of an armed citizenry capable of at least somewhat balancing power with other centers of power in this country – corporate power, government power, private power, religious power, foreign power, the list goes on.  That is the point, period.  We can have a discussion about gun control as long as that point is left alone.  Things can be done which do not diminish the power of good people to defend the American values of freedom, equality, and peace. 

          • Fredlinskip

            This I believe to be a REALLY bizarre & dangerous rationale that is propelled by watching too many action Hero movies.
               You are not going to rise up “and set your people free” with your guns. 
            This mentality belongs in a country of Warlords, not in America.
               This notion is certainly in no shape or form suggested in our constitution, which is the relevant document.

          • Clark MGB

            Yes it is, and if you don’t like it go change the constitution.

          • Fredlinskip

            Where, pray tell? I see the part where it says
            “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: **“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” 
            AND
            “right to bear arms (because we need a disciplined militia)”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you understand that statement is designed to limit the power of the congress not the power of the people right?

          • Fredlinskip

            It is granting the Congress right to call on militias in times of need; such as supressing insurrections of a bunch of wacked out gun owners.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            correct it does not limit the rights of the people to keep and bear arms but what the government amy ask them to do with those arms

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          #1 we have all the laws for guns you suggested.
          2. people get mad about traffic signs and controls all  the time try going to a zoning or planning board meeting some time
          3. also there is no right to own or drive a car in the constitition speciffically enumerated but you can bet people would be pretty upset if the govt tried to take them away

      • Shark2007

        You ignore the fact that the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is new with the Roberts Court. So it should be no surprise that informed laymen would ask what did the Supreme Court get wrong for the two hundred years before the Roberts court discarded precedence and radically changed the interpretation.

        • OnPointComments

          How often were there handgun bans that were challenged in court before the Heller case?

        • PaulD

          You seem to not understand how the Supreme Court works.  The current interpretation is the only interpretation that absolutely says the 2A guarantees a right to keep a firearm for personal protection.  Before that there really was no interpretation because it had never come up.  It’s called a precedent and none existed previously.

          Miller vs. US was a previous case where the 2A was addressed.  It talked about whether a sawed off shotgun was protected by the 2A.  It was evaluated in the context of whether or not it had a place in a well regulated militia.  They determined it wasn’t, thereby saying that the 2A only protected arms in common use and that have a valid place in a well regulated militia and would be kept by individuals for that purpose.

          By that standard, the AR15 is certainly common and is often demonized as “military style”.  Therefore, it seems that would have a place in a militia and should be protected.

    • PaulD

      It amazes me how often people hear what they want to hear.

      The guy said he found a skill he was naturally good at.  He never said it was somehow compensating for a physical deficiency.  You use the typical claptrap of someone who has absolutely no experience with what you’re trying to eliminate.

      As for what the 2nd Amendment says, you ought to do a little research.  “Well regulated” means coordinated, or regulated like a precise watch.  In other words, back in the days of muskets, there was a reason everyone on a firing line shot in a coordinated manner because if a spark came from one musket, it could ignite the powder on another.  

      Finally, yes, the original intent was to prevent tyranny.  Everything you want will just facilitate tyranny.

      • Expanded_Consciousness

        OK, you can have a musket.

        • PaulD

          How about if I join a militia?  Can I have a full auto M16 at that point?  

          • Expanded_Consciousness

            If you advocate and plan on overthrowing the government of the United States of America, how about we charge you with sedition and treason?

          • PaulD

            Where did I say I was, or do you necessarily equate being in a militia being an act of treason?  
            And to directly address your previous comment, do you really think the founding fathers couldn’t foresee technology advancements?  It’s also worth noting at this point that the Supreme Court has already weighed in with the Miller, Heller and MacDonald decisions.  Do you discount those?  

            Or were you just saying these things because you can’t have a rational conversation on the topic?

          • jefe68

            You mean the National Guard, right?

          • PaulD

            The “militia” is not the National Guard.  Please study the writings of the founding fathers, George Mason in particular on this one.

          • Shark2007

            Join the National Guard and the Government will provide you with the weapon. In case you hadn’t noticed the National Guard is the well regulated militia the 2nd Amendment speaks of.

          • 45VT

            Nice opinion, far from fact. To fulfill the 2nd ammendment the government shouldn’t be providing you with anything. If they provided it, they can easily take it away. Think about what you’re saying.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            thats funny i registered with selective service when i turned 18

      • Shark2007

        So you think the framers were trying to suggest best way to organize a skirmish line, worrying about flying sparks in the 2nd Amendment. You get that from the NRA? LOL.

        • PaulD

          Your comment below regarding militias belies your knowledge on this subject.  The NRA says nothing about this.  It comes from reading history.  I suggest you read some also.

          I’m surprised you didn’t say the right only pertains to muskets like other commentators here.

      • TJPhoto40

        Actually, Dan Baum did say pretty clearly that he discovered a proficiency with guns gave him gratification after he proved ineffectual at other physical pursuits.  Is that really the only means of feeling fulfilled for a man with obvious intelligence and imagination?  I don’t think so.  What he describes is reminiscent of people who find they’re good at video games, so they dive into more video game play.  Except, in this case, the tool is one designed for actual destruction of life.  And his rationalizations don’t persuade me that guns should be a plaything or a means of gratification for anyone who wants to join in.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if he is having fun and clearly harming no one whats your problem?

    • Cenomanian Turonian

      You are completely wrong. Go read Federalist No. 46. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe we should require mental tests and 160 hours of classroom training to post on the internet or vote?

    • GrueneJim

      So, you are against the 1st Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 5th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. You want to force law abiding citizens to submit to medical tests (sounds very Teutonic) and inadmissable lie detector tests without due process. You want the Majority to trample on the rights of minorities and you believe human rights are trivial entitlements. You are a threat to our Constitutional government.

  • OnPointComments

    James Alan Fox remarks on government response to mass shootings
    Elizabeth College
    February 20, 2013
     
    James Alan Fox, Northeastern University Criminology, Law & Public Policy Professor 
    National’s Leading Criminologist – USA TODAY 
    Member of Pres. Clinton’s Advisory Cmte. on School Safety 
    Author 18 books, including Violence & Security on Campus, The Will to Kill & Extreme Killing

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/311092-1

  • PaulD

    Spitzer is allegedly a gun control “expert”.  However, he states that “assault weapons” (a term coined by a political operative writing gun control legislation) can’t be used for personal defense.  Recently, the DHS stated they wanted to purchase a large number of “Personal Defense Weapons”.  These Personal Defense Weapons are otherwise known as AR15s.

    He also states that guns are far less regulated than most consumer products. This is absolutely false. There is a whole government agency that exists for regulating them, the ATF. How many consumer products have that? Further, if you want to manufacture guns for sale, you have to have a federal licenses to even start. What other products require that? Cars are about the only product that is more regulated than guns. 

    Further, he ought to study some actual statistics, like these guys did: http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/02/14/how-to-think-about-guns-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

    • Shark2007

      What about alcohol, medical devices, pharmaceuticals?

      • PaulD

        If by alcohol you mean spirits, yes, a federal license is required (though not for beer or wine), but the actual production methods aren’t dictated by the government.  With guns the government stipulates features, distribution methods, requires licenses for retailers and requires background checks on all new guns sold.  

        You have a good point about pharmaceuticals and medical devices.  Do you have any other examples?  Certainly the tangible items that most people purchase, short of these, arent’ regulated as much as guns.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        how is regulating those pharmacueticals working out?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

    As I’ve read through the comments, it astounds me how generally good and peaceful people, who believe in civil rights (women’s rights, LBGT rights, freedom of speech, etc.) toss the notion that a peaceful individual who happens to own a gun should not be afforded the same rights, to determine best how they insure their own security.   So you feel uncomfortable around a gun.  So what.  If feeling uncomfortable were justification for restricting the rights of others most of the freedoms that you enjoy would be gone.  Ask anyone who has had to fight for those rights.

    The second thing that I notice about most people who are anti-gun is that they cannot take responsibility for their fear.  They try to justify it by “making it go away”.   Do people like getting needles or having their teeth drilled?  Not really but we get through it.   We don’t say the dentist or Dr. is afraid because they carry a tool that scares you and does the job for them that it needs to.  People who own guns are not afraid.  Quite the opposite, they are ready.  Most often it appears that people who are anti-gun are afraid of things in general, as evidenced by the fact that they won’t even post their real names in forums like this.
    Don’t preach tolerance unless you’re able to practice it, even when you’re uncomfortable.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000093382558 Pamela Cooper

      It is not appropriate to go out in public displaying such “rights” as pedophilia? Sure it would be “tolerant” to allow it but society does not.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

        Pedophilia is an offense not a defense. If what you are trying to say is that no one has a right to assault someone with a gun, you would be right and nobody wants to tolerate assault of any kind. People don’t have a right to assault someone with a bat either but we’re not taking those away. You might even agree that someone has a right to use a bat to defend themselves. But what happens when someone uses a bat against a little old lady, (or even a man like in the Cheshire home invasion), what then? Lie down and take it? (http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/21487553/retired-widow-holds-burglar-at-gun-point)
        I have two children and a wife. I would never, ever want to have something like the Cheshire home invasion occur and then have the slightest doubt in my mind that I didn’t do the best I could to protect them. Pistols are VERY hard to shoot accurately. If you have not tried it, you cannot know what I mean. Getting “on paper” at 20 ft is difficult without a lot of practice. Giving Biden the benefit of the doubt, perhaps a shotgun works in his home, but in my home (with its layout, children present, etc.) I’d be more likely to injure my own family. The first time I picked up an AR I could shoot a 1 inch group with absolutely no effort. I don’t play pretend soldier in the desert. I don’t shoot beer cans off the wall. (Both of which are actually not a bad thing because it doesn’t hurt anyone). I can barely afford to use the thing with ammunition costing 50 cents a round. I have it because it is the best option, for my situation, to protect my family, especially if more than one person were to come into my house, which happens far more frequently these days. It is securely locked, and I know that the benefit of keeping it locked far outweighs the risk that I might not get it out in time.
        I don’t come to your house and say that “carbon based fuel burning furnace has to go because it’s ruining the atmosphere” and slowly killing our planet. I don’t tell you what locks to put on the door. I don’t tell you what car to drive. When I’m not coming into your life and telling you how to live it, when I am not injuring anyone in this society by owning a gun for my own defense, how is it that you presume that you can tell me how to live mine, especially when my actions are for love of my family?

      • Cenomanian Turonian

        That lack of logic here is astounding.  It doesn’t even warrant the beautifully crafted response it got. 

      • Clark MGB

        Whoa! Lady, pedophilia is NOT a right! 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what i think is the motavation for their emotional reaction comes from trust issues. these people who want guns banned do not trust that they would be safe with a gun, they must have fantasised about shooting themselves or others and they think if they had a gun handy they just might. so they do not trust themselves. if you do not trust yourself how can you trust others? its like how someone has to learn to love themselves before they can love another.

      • Fredlinskip

        I do not love the fact that gun violence is so high in this country. You are deluded if you think arming EVERYONE to teeth is going to remedy this.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i do not like the fact that violence is so high and it dosent matter to me or the victims of that crime what the means was used to commit those crimes.  why is “gun violence” blamed on the gun but no one will argue that such a thing as “knife violence” exists?
           i know that many people are armed already some of whom are sketchy i choose to arm myself to protect myself from them because a whistle is not a good defense against a MAC -10 which the gangsters and thugs have and will have despite any law that can be passed.

          • Fredlinskip

            America is so saturated with weapons that a “ban” will not make a meaningful difference for quite some time.
            BUT sticking our heads in sand and not acknowledging there is a problem is not an “effective” strategy either.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so until it “makes a difference” (the last awb did nothing for a decade) law abiding citizens should be at the mercy of armed thugs? what exactly do you see the “problem” as being?
            (guns do not have expiration dates on them and properly maintained shold last close to forever)

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1422573333 Richard Collette

    And what forms the basis that the second amendment is no longer relevant?  I could just as easily say that the first amendment is no longer relevant, because clearly there is no reason to oppose any one else’s ideas the way you do? The idea that relevance is gone because there is no immediate threat of tyranny is like saying that tyranny existed in at only one point in time and never repeated itself.   It’s a rather myopic point of view, one that I could say is dangerous enough that such an opinion should not be allowed, but I do grant you your first amendment right to express it.

  • sarahVT2011

    First, I’m confused as to how this conversation is supposed to engage me, as a woman — instead, I listened feeling very much an awkward outsider.  Why is this conversation regarding gun ownership and gun activists yet again painting the incorrect image that such individuals in this country are only men?  Why wasn’t point this discussed?  Forgive me if I missed something in this segment, but I question how the title of this book cannot be challenged. 

    Second, “A Barbie for men” . . . Really?  As a child, I played with Barbies partly because they were a toy strongly marketed towards young girls, and partly because I liked to use them to pretend to play ‘doctor’, ‘teacher’, or ‘house’.  These toys enabled my imagination to pretend that I was nurturing, building, teaching, helping, directing, and/or doing something positive in my society, however large or small I imagined it to be.  (For the purposes of my quick argument, I will ignore here the false body images I might have subconsciously learned from playing with Barbies).  Barbies did not fill a shallow void for me, nor did I worship them purely as pieces of beauty.  They were a part of my positive, imaginative play.  To make the comparison that, to a developing child, guns AND Barbies are equal fillers for a personal void is quite a general, ignorant, and baseless statement.  Guns have two purposes: to hit a target, and/or to kill a living creature.  If they enable a person to feel more powerful, is that only because the person hit a target correctly?  Or also because they hold a tool with the power to take a life?  

    Do boys and girls play with Barbies to feel more powerful than another in their social circles?  

    • Cenomanian Turonian

      It’s a joke. It’s meant to be funny. You are reading way too much into it. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i was also offended that women are ignored when they are the fastest growing segment of gun owners and clearly they have their own motavations for their choice to own firearms. i think that a woman shooter speaking passionatly about her experinces would not fit with the stereotype they are trying to portray in the media of all gun owners being impotent crazy old white men.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wamclaughlin William A. McLaughlin

    I am concerned that so-called experts talking about Assault Rifles and Assault Weapons interchangeably without regard for their definitions. An Assault rifle is a fully Automatic rifle such as an M-16. an Ar-15 is Semi-auto (It fires only when you pull the trigger each time). The AR-15 was developed for the Air Force but not Adopted. Its design was sold to Colt for civilian use. LATER the M-16 was developed based on the earlier AR-15. Semi-Auto rifles a mechanically similar. Many of the Features of the AR-15 have been adapted to hunting and target rifles such as detachable magazines, pistol grip stocks and offset sights because they work. If you want to purchase an Assault Rifle such as an M-16 or AK-47 you need a Class 3 Federal license. You and your guests have an obligation to get your facts right.

    • Shark2007

      So how fast can you kill 24 children with an AR15 with a large clip versus a lever action rifle with a 5 bullet clip?

      • Cenomanian Turonian

        Find a lever action with a clip, rofl.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        which lever action is that?
         i dont know about children but custer might be able to tell you about how effective a combat arm a lever action rifle is.
         they did an experiment with a inexperinced shooter and an experienced shooter and both were able to get 30 rounds down range in about 22 seconds reguardless of how large or small the magazines are. (AR15 don’t use “clips”) Also with a little practice you can use a shotgun like jill bidens or obomas and put about 30 rounds per minute downrange easily. and not tiny .223 rounds you can put 30 9mm pellets downrange everytime you shoot both barrles. basically killing children is not very difficult even if you have no gun at all. 

        • Shark2007

          So how many shells fit in Obama’s shot gun and how long would it take him to reload? How many shots in a Winchester 94, and how long to reload? How do you shoot both “barrles”? I’ve heard of double barreled shut guns, how fast can you reload both those barrels and fire again.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            obomas holds 2 at a time and takes between a half second and 2 seconds to reload. each shell can hold 15 9mm pellets. a AR15 can only shoot one 5.56 mm round at a time

          • Shark2007

            What’s the spread of those pellets at various distances from the shooter? How many people can pull two expended casings out and put two new ones in, repeatedly at a two second per discharge rate, to be the equivalent of a 30 or 60 bullet magazine AR15 where you can shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. A box of 12 gauge shells doesn’t exactly fit in the palm of your hand.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the spread of those pellets in almost infinatly variable depending on many factors.
            they have handy dandy pouches that go on your belt that conviently hold 25 rounds ( 1 box) which is perfect when oboma is on the range as thats how many you shoot in a game of trap. they also have need little speed caddys so you can grab up to 5 at a time. these things are all basic equipment in the sports they are used in.
            if youtube is any indication lots of people can can shoot both types of guns very fast. in ten minutes a militia man could get 30 rounds per minute down range with a musket. As the hilldog once said what difference does it make? if we are talking about the sandyhook incident the police took ten minutes to show up so the type of arm used was irrelevent. shooting up a room full of kids does not require any sort of “assault weapon” so limiting magazine size,even pretenting that would somehow preclude a motavated individual to obtain one illegally on the expanded black market that would be created by such a ban, would not have prevented the carnage at sandy hook. studies also show that both new and seasoned shooters can get about the same amount of rounds down range using different sized magazines so there is just no reason to believe that any good would come of such a ban and its more fun to have a larger magazine on the range.

          • Shark2007

            Clearly you having fun on the range is the most important consideration. You make similar arguments against speed limits and drunk driving laws?

            So you are claiming you could accurately shoot 30 rounds a minute from a double barreled shot gun while chasing folks around a school getting shells out of your pouch?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            actually i am against speeding and drunk driving laws as well. they have been shown to have little effect. we should promote responsible driving like we do using advertisements and such.
            I could never shoot any rounds at a child. thats terrible

        • Shark2007

          That must explain why the twenty+ children stabbed by a lunatic in China survived.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            perhaps the police showed up there sooner than 10 minutes

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            cheap chinese knife

  • Fredlinskip

    It seems there is not a real focused “plan” of action. Until there is, not much will get done.  There are plenty of gun owners that believe the NRA is out of line on this issue. These folks are needed for support so as to provide the most relevant info as far as which weapons, clips, etc, if banned could make most “difference” long run.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i think polls to that effect are not accurate. you can tell because more people are joining the NRA than ever before. why would they do that if they disagree?
      which drug that we have banned has made a “difference in the long run”?

      • Fredlinskip

        There are lots of folks out there. 
        My perception is that the “gotta get guns so as to fight our own own Gov crowd”-  (in other words, the deluded ones that should be seeking mental help)- these are the folks that are joining NRA.
           On the other hand there are gun owners who are actually reasonable people and would advocate for change if commonsensical approaches were taken.
            Unfortunately, the left, who are all over the place on this issue, are alienating this crowd.
         
           I think we banned arsenic for ingestion for some time now. Oh wait, you’re right, W raised allowable levels of arsenic in Clean Ar and Water Act

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          i joined the NRA because i want them to help secure and expand the liberties we enjoy. i dont have any desire for an armed conflict with the govt. i think our private ownership of guns actually prevents such a conflict. none of what has been proposed makes any sense, common or otherwise. wasent it arsenic that they just found in the rice?

          • Fredlinskip

            I would say that this is one of your more reasonable posts. Maybe you are human after all.
               My only problem is that I disagree with you concerning needs to be some cut-off line where enough is enough- people do not need to own these (fill in blank) weapons &/or magazines. 
              I think it would take gun-owners who are most knowledgeable of gun capacity to fill in the blank most properly.
              But for what I can see you’re not for banning purchase of anything.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            we already have very serious federal controls on automatic weapons. i think most people are fine with that.  i can’t justify banningand particular weapon because i know how badly the attempt to ban drugs has failed and what havoc it has caused in our society. moreover the weapons that are under consideration for banning just are not used in very many crimes at all. i do appreciate that at least you acknowlege that people who know about guns should decide whats reasonable to limit.  it wont make any practical difference to how much lead you can put downrange if you have a shotgun like obomas or jill bidens or an AR15 with a 30 round clip. thanks for acknowledging my humanity now if you can just accept my human right to bear arms we will be all set

          • Fredlinskip

            People become addicted to drugs.
            Are you “addicted” to “AW’s”?
            I acknowledge your right to bear arms.
            I also acknowledge that if laws can be created that perhaps make more sense than the ones on books now, that ban the sale of certain weapons that are really only appropriate for military situations, then I would be for it.

            I acknowledge that without enlisting the help of and winning the hearts of many gun owners (many of whom are good people and should not be stereotyped otherwise) ,meaningful legislation will not likely be passed.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what guns are only appropriate for military situations? i hope you are not referring to the AR15s. The DHS recently declared that they were suitable for personal defense. also most police agencies use them for personal defense.  so clearly the govt has confirmed that AR15s are useful tools for self defense. at this point with 20,000 laws on the books our best bet would be to get rid of more than a few. for example the summery of the mass laws is 500 pages long. how many of those laws do you think gangbangers are even aware of?

          • Shark2007

            Seems the only right the NRA is concerned about is the right to shoot and the responsiblity to get shot.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i have never heard of a right to shoot. how do you come up with  this stuff? it sounds like the loonies who want to ban legal guns are the ones advocating letting yourself be shot by criminals fo the greater good

        • Shark2007

          Actually arsenic compounds are included in chicken feed for factory farm chickens to control disease. Doesn’t make the manure too attractive as fertilizer, so now they are thinking of incineration, so you can breath the arsenic.

        • Fredlinskip

          experimenting with blog post:
          Gun Related Death Rate

  • TJPhoto40

    This program presented the arguments well enough, and I’m more than welcoming of a discussion with rational, concerned citizens who own guns. I agree that we’re not likely to resolve issues of gun violence until there’s a healthy discussion and an attempt at finding common ground.  But I’m troubled by several things Dan Baum says in his description of personal experience with guns and interaction with other gun owners in his travels.  With his intelligence and best intentions, he still manages to perpetuate a host of questionable ideas and assumptions. 

    Baum quotes gun owners and the cliches of gun rights advocates without deep reflection or questioning of the sentiments.  Such ideas are not right or sensible because they’re believed and repeated. He remarks that gun owners frequently feel exasperated at the fact that guns are blamed rather than the people who use them, as if guns are somehow neutral in this equation.  It’s pretty clear that many suicides and homicides would not have occurred if there wasn’t ready access to guns.  It’s not just easier to kill someone with a gun than another tool, as Robert Spitzer says, it’s empowering to those who might otherwise have to rethink their urge to kill others or themselves.    

    I think it’s absurd to claim that bans don’t work, they actually make matters worse.  It depends on what you’re proposing to ban.  We ban murder and rape, for example, with laws prohibiting such behavior, for good reason–the stabilizing effect on society.  Would the situation be better if we didn’t have laws against such behavior?  

    What I keep hearing is that most gun owners view the activity of shooting guns as a kind of serious hobby, but with a lethal weapon at its center.  Baum himself has nothing more profound than that to explain his own affection for gun play. Maybe they should find another hobby.  This isn’t about a “well-regulated militia”.  It’s not a good comparison to say it’s like people who want a bigger, faster car, and we don’t deny them that.  I’m not disposed to grant everyone license to play with a gun, but at the very least the licensing and restrictions should be more serious than driving a car.  

    I don’t believe the Second Amendment should be viewed as sacrosanct or that the court rulings related to it are free of political bias or even consistent with what the Founding Fathers had in mind, however outdated much of that is now. The founders thought property dictated more rights, that blacks and women were inferior and shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and other notions we’ve since progressed from.  There’s no doubt it would be extremely difficult to ban all firearms, as Australia has done successfully (but not without resistance at the start) and with positive results.  And I recognize that, short of such comprehensive bans, it will be difficult to cut down drastically on gun violence in a country so deeply mired in gun obsession and fascination with violence as a means to deal with problems.

    But we have to at least consider how to make some sensible changes now, and I hope most gun owners will participate in the debate with the goal of finding common ground and taking action.  Polls suggest many gun owners do recognize a need to at least improve current restrictions.  It won’t do to keep falling back on the notion that it’s futile to control guns when people are at fault, not their weapons.  That argument is tired, cynical and polarizing as well as spurious.

    • Cenomanian Turonian

      “It’s pretty clear that many suicides and homicides would not have occurred if there wasn’t ready access to guns.  It’s not just easier to kill someone with a gun than another tool, as Robert Spitzer says, it’s empowering to those who might otherwise have to rethink their urge to kill others or themselves.”

      Maybe you’re right. Maybe for the good of society we ban all guns, and we make it harder for people to murder each other or heaven forbid make the “big kid” decision to end their own lives (which is arguably their own choice). But what you are completely discounting as “obsolete” is the fact that armed people serve as a check on other centers of power in this country.  I have several guns, in part because it is a civic duty.  I believe in this country, and I believe in equality, liberty, and peace.  I would give my life for those values, and a lot of my like-minded friends would too.  The overwhelming odds are that I will not have to, but I would.  I don’t fantasize about resisting Tyranny, nor do I irrationally fear the government.  I still might sound nutso to you, but it is really what the Founding Fathers intended.  I take issue with your “obsolete” statement – one need only to look to Syria to see that opinion completely refuted.  

      Before we get into an asinine argument about whether civilians armed with ARs could defeat the government, I want to point out that just 4% of all gun owners represents a force larger than the Chinese army, the largest standing army in the world.  Military and law enforcement members are actually pretty pro-Constitution and pro-American people, so I don’t see any conflict being as cut and dry as civilians vs. The Government.  I also want to point out that we do not know what the power structures of this country will look like in the next 500-1000 years.  Who knows how things might turn out?  Are you honestly completely unwilling to even concede that there is at least a form of wisdom in the Founding Father’s notion of armed citizenry?  Are you unwilling to concede that the VAST majority of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding, good people who would risk their lives to preserve your inalienable right to disagree with them?  The ‘gun culture’ could someday prevent genocide or foreign invasion for all we know.  Maybe it already has?

      We’re talking very big picture, here, and I know its easy for you to roll your eyes and shrug these arguments off completely.  These notions are important, and throwing these notions out will alienate most gun owners.  Many of us really do see ourselves as guardians of peace, liberty, and equality – not because we feel those values are imminently threatened, but because those are American values which need to be preserved through the generations, by all means. 

      We can do things to prevent horrible tragedies and statistics, but we need to at least TRY to stay true to the original spirit of the Second Amendment: a check on the power centers, on the elite, on any force which would usurp liberty from the people.  (Read Federalist No. 46 by James Madison, seriously, do it).  That means ARs in the hands of good people, and their children, and their children’s children, etc.  

      We so need to make society better, yes.  We need to fix broken homes, mental illness, poverty, depression.  We need to fix drug abuse, rape, violence.  We also need to protect and defend all the good in this country, even from potential scenarios which seem so far-fetched our humanity can barely fathom them, even though they have occurred countless times throughout history.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        c’mon man no one “needs” to live in a free republic

      • Shark2007

        Elections don’t work for you? Admittedly the Republicans in VA are trying to change the election law so Romney would have gotten more electoral votes than Obama with given the 2012 popular vote in VA, but I would guess that is a kind of change you might support.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so you want a ban because you believe it will lead tofewer problems involving people and guns? hows that ban on certian drugs working out? they are like impossible to get now and like no one ever has any problems because of them right?
      its funny how you criticized gun owners for using cliche arguments then you threw out every broken false cliche that anti freedom crusaders have.
      maybe you should find another hobby

      • Tyranipocrit

         people who wield guns and violence are ant-freedom crusaders–and clearly dont know what a cliche is.  Look people like you cant be reasoned with because not enough cylinders are firing up there in that noggin of yours.  The fact is you are a danger to society.  You troll around the internet regurgitating on people in sites, you never frequent, to support your mad delusions.  What are you going to do with that gun under your mattress when the burglar sneaks in on silent feet and runs a sword through your face before you wake up?  Do you have booby-traps?  If you are so paranoid–then you need to seek immediate help and probably should be institutionalized and examined by a qualified doctor every day. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          ninjas are not my concern and i dont think there is much i could do to protect myself from them if they did exist. I lock my doors at night and have a guard dog and an alarm system so it would take a really good ninja to sneak up on me. sounds like you are pretty crazy if you think there are ninjas after you. i dont think you have any interest in reasoning with anyone based on your attitude and seeming lack of coherance  and wit in your posts. i have been listening to WBUR for over 30 years so take your BS assumptions down the road. are you sure you are supposed to be in the day room right now?

    • Tyranipocrit

       well said–thanks for taking the time to write it.  Your argument provides a perfect counterbalance to my typo-mired rants.

  • Clark MGB

    OK folks its this simple, a ban on guns will not work unless we ban ALL guns. Since it’s unconstitutional to ban all guns what all you gun haters have to do is go change the constitution.  Good luck with that.

    • Fredlinskip

        That’s “simple” all right, but offers no explanation banning some weapons & clips “won’t work”. 
        I can understand how those that think they need enough weapons to fend off our government, might “hate” our constitution being it is constitution is what gave our gov legitimacy. 
         There are terrorist organizations that would be happy to enlist these folks, but hopefully they seek the professional mental health they need before they try that.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        who hates the constitution?

        • Fredlinskip

          I used “hate” only because Clarke used the word in his comment. I will modify:
            I can understand how those that think they need enough weapons to fend off our government, might “dislike” our constitution seeing being it is constitution is what gave our gov legitimacy. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            those people all seem to love the constitution what are you talking about?

          • Fredlinskip

            How can I make this easy for you. Constitution legitimizes government. To enter armed conflict with your own government is NOT “legitimized” by the Constitution. Therefore armed insurrection is an “illegal” act. Only someone deluded as to meaning of constitution could believe otherwise.

            Hey why don’t you remove all those out of context comments up above and put ‘em in the conversations you intended to?
            Just sayin’

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

             is some one planning an armed insurrection?
            this comment program is whacky and does not work half the time lol
            “just sayin’” you are one of those? 

    • Tyranipocrit

       its not unconstitutional.  and slavery was once supported by the constitution–oh right i forgot the same people supported that too.  you dont need a gun.  guns are for bullies and cowards.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so is a woman who defends her children with a gun a bully or a coward?

        • Tyranipocrit

           why does a women need to defend her child with a gun?  she sounds a lunatic to me.  first of all–if there are no guns, nobody can attack you with a gun, and few people–except criminals would have them–and they probably want nothing to do with you or your child–they are probably fighting internal drug wars or gang wars.  i dont think your scenario is very likely–you watch to much hollywood- or fox news–its like lightning striking–do you walk around with tinfoil on your head or a rubber helmet with a grounding wire, everywhere you go–because you are afraid of lightning striking?  It is a lunatic presumption.  So yes–if she carries a gun because she is afraid of lightning striking–she is a coward, and delusional.  Perhaps she is a bully too–because she uses the gun down at the town hall to enforce her tea bag delusions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            home invasions are not rare nor are assaults on women. crimes against women are less in states with concealed carry permits. i know three people who have had armed groups of thugs break into their homes while they were there. are you for real? the criminals will have them and if the non criminals do not then they will be at the mercy of those criminals. your fantasy land where hundreds of millions of guns magically vanish sounds pretty crazy to me.  your chance of being shot in  a mass shooting is actually less than being struck by lightning so who is being irrational? how is being a defensless victim brave? i am not a fox news person or a “tea bag” so take your rude childish assumptions down the road.  i don’t think you want a debate at all but just to spout mindless offensive nonsense.
            PS in your case i support your decision to not own a gun.

      • Clark MGB

        Read the Thirteenth Amendment. I rest my case.

  • Tyranipocrit

     you make a lot of assumptions.  Typical of you people “runnig your mouth about things you dont understand from the motherbird”

    Whydont you come shoot me–come on be a man–shoot me–shoot me in the head.  And so much anger.  First of all choit–ive been trained with weapons and used them in war.  I have tanned skin–from exposure to the sun all my life.  I climb mountains.  I sail oceans.  I’ve circled the globe.  I think you should calm down, take your finger off that trigger–violence is not the answer–i know you like to kil–but people dont like to be killed and you DO noT have that right–it is not protected by the constitution–and newsflashh–none of your rights are protected by the constitution anymore–not since 911.  Put the gun down, get off the crack pipe, take your meds, get an education……..wait, you are online posting comments–you musst be so pasty faced–perhaps you took moment to smoke your boyfriend between d&D rounds and make some trollish comments.

  • Tyranipocrit

    you gun talkers claim you need guns to take down the gov–”thats your right”–false–but, guns dont determine wh ois right, only who is left over.  You talk a big game about rights but sticking a gun in someones face and demanding that your way be the “THE WAy” is not freedom or democracy or civil–its barbaric and savage and its called terror.  That makes you criminals.  If you wer going to use your “rights” to take down the tryannical gov you would have doe it by now–it has never been nmore incompetent with republicans controlling the debate.  Our gov is controlled by a corporate aristocracy and has stripped of the bill of rights and yet you do nothing–so i can assume you your just cowards with guns which makes you cowards.  BUt even if youcowards did muster the courage to rebel–nobody wants ignorant gun toting tyrants to replace the smiling tyrants we have now.   I wil take smiling fascism over gun toting terrorists anyday.  GUns dont solve problems–they make them.  Change only occurs voluntary thru civil action, education, and example.  YOu are part of the problem.  ONly when we can talk like grown up and have civil discussinon without gun nut s waving guns around in town halls, will we ever have a civil society.  people with guns kill people–and children.

  • Fredlinskip

    Disqus

  • Fredlinskip

    Mao aside, how would you interpret the line in constitution which reads:
    “Congress is granted the power to use U.S. militia for three specific missions: 
    **“.. to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” ??-Bearing in mind that 2nd amendment grants right to keep in bear arms (because of need for) well-regulated militia?

    • Tyranipocrit

       i would say gun-owners and users are not regulated–we need to regulate you–with strict gun laws (and perhaps training)–with guns provided and contained in a gun-range armory.   i would say that insurrections are deabatable–and if bankers own the governemtn proabbly justified and therefore a milita manipulated to kill its won people is a terrorist organization.  Who is Mao–and what does that have to do with our civil discussion.

      • Fredlinskip

        Mao was misprint- I was having troubles with disqus (as Futo is above).
           If you think a (am assuming) government “manipulated militia” ..” to kill it’s own people  is a terrorist organization” than you would be in disagreement with George Washington, as he organized such militias a # of times (Whiskey Rebellion, John Brown’s revolt) and you would be in disagreement with the constitution.

        Please don’t pretend otherwise.
         That’s all I’m sayin’

        • Tyranipocrit

           I am not pretending otherwise–Washington was a joke–i wish those rebellions were successful.  Washington was a tyrant. many popular uprising were put down by the forefathers during the revolution because the forefathers were no different than the so-called British tyrants.  The poor saw that they were being manipulated and mistreated and marginalized and were not really a part of the new nation.  Washington and his aristocrats killed lots of innocent people.  And they were slave owners–in my mind they were illegitimate rulers and their idea of freedom and democracy only pertained to the 1%.  A farce.  These people were killers.  They worshipeped wealth–the revolutin was not about people or rights–it was about rich people power mad and against other power mad rich people–using the poor as cannon fodder. 

          There are many things wrong with the constituion buddy that need to be changed–thats why we have uh uh uh –dare i say, oh my god–amendments.  The constitution is not a holy document nor should it be considered such.  F–the forefathers.  I never pretend–but you clearly do. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      read heller

      • Fredlinskip

        Scalia’s an “idjut”- with all due respect.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          oh? what specifically in the heller decision did you find idiotic? he did not decide by himself

  • Fredlinskip

    disqus

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    lol i was having a computer issue

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    i think you will want to look up the kellerman study. it was so bad thats why they wont fund reserch in to gun safety anymore

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    well dont worry the gun manufactuers are currently refusing to sell to agencies of the govenrment and states that support gun control so they wont be getting tax money for long

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    of course we do all of them

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    or drones- those work crazy good

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    so whats you plan when 4-6 junkies kick in your door in the middle of the night?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    which “loopholes” would you like to remove and how will thatg et the guns out of the hands of criminals. what is an “assault rifle”?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    what loopholes? what is an “assault rifle” and how many are used in crimes in a given year?

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    what do you see the “gun problem” as being? providing analogies seems relevent since we would not aproach the issue in the same way if it was any other right

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    yeah they are american made AK47s you really seem qualified to comment about guns

  • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

    yeah you can vote for George Bush and kill thousands of them

  • Expanded_Consciousness

    Great arguments here, by Jeff McMahan, regarding what it means to live in a society and not just as an individual, only out for yourself.

    Sun, 17 February 2013

    Jeff McMahan on Gun Control

    Jeff McMahan argues against the private ownership of guns in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. Philosophy Bites is made in association with the Institute of Philosophy.

    http://philosophybites.libsyn.com/jeff-mc-mahan-on-gun-control

  • Shark2007

    Gun violence is now costing more than drunk driving. Maybe because the government has taken actions against drunk driving, but has ignored gun violence until now.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      20,000+ gun laws

  • Rick Gary

    Dan Baum said that he walked around Whole Foods in Boulder with a big holstered pistol and no one said anything, probably because they didn’t believe their eyes.  As someone who shops at Whole Foods in Boulder, I’d suggest that people here are not quite as gobsmacked by guns as Dan might believe.  

  • Scott B

    Futo seems to think that because someone is always going to fall through the crack, then why bother?  Why do background checks when an illegal dealer won’t? Why make people register gun when most are never pointed at a person? Why bother with anything?  Because they’re guns! They’re mean to put a hole in a body, the AR-style in particular. Those are NOT made for hunting, and while many people do use them legally, they do seem to be the weapon of choice for mass murderers and there’s a reason for that: “They are a weapon of war” (Gen McChrystal) and are designed (along with their ammo) to cause the maximum amount of damage to a body (or bodies) in a short amount of time, with ease.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they are “suitable for personal defense” according to DHS.  
      “Because they’re guns!” does a gun kill you any more dead than any other weapon? 
      I read an interesting statistic that said a hunter is more likely to drown than to get shot while hunting.
      they are good for several types of hunting just not something as large as a deer. they are excellent and popular “varmint guns” used for pest control in rural areas.  they are also very popular for shooting competitions. rifles of all types are used in less than %1 of all crimes involving guns so any sort of focus on them seems quite misplaced. more people are stabbed or beaten to death than shot with rifles of all sorts. in terms of “mass murders”, in the cases where we actually know what weapon the shooter used and not just what they owned like aurora and CT, they also seem to perfer pistols like the gabby giffords and virginia tech shootings. of course the most horrific mass murders in our country have been caused by truck bombs and saidi’s with boxcutters but i digress

      • ExcellentNews

        The most horrific mass murders in our country have been committed in the corporate boardrooms of tobacco, food and energy companies, by smoothly smiling executives with dazzling hairdos.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          like when don rumsfeld used his political influance to get nutrasweet approved to be put in food despite the fact its posion. i think there have been a few decent mass murders planned in the pentagon and the ATF headquarters

  • ExcellentNews

    Mr. Baum makes a lot of sense. After all, the BIG problem we have is the war the oligarchy is waging against working people. The looting of the Republic by bankers and “executives”. In that light, we liberals should not dwell on low-yield, divisive issues like gun control. Focus on justice, freedom and honesty. Remember Democrats – when the Cheneys, the Nordquists, the Kochs, the Murdochs, and the rest of oligarchs end up owning everything and everyone – the last thing left free may be our guns.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Pocono-Shooting-Range/100001567268553 Pocono Shooting Range

    The purpose of the Second Amendment is to arm people in order to prevent future tyranny. They need the tools to do this. 

    The term “Well Regulated” in the Second Amendment meant “Well Manned and Equipped ” in 1791 as was determined in the 1939 United States v. Miller case after referencing the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. The concept of Government Regulation, as we understand it today, did not exist at the time. 

    United States v. Miller also determined that the term “Arms” refers to “Ordinary Military Weapons” (not crew operated). American Citizens have the right to Keep and Bear, which means Own and Carry, any weapons that a soldier carries into battle. That includes past, present and future weapons. A Militia consisted of armed volunteers willing to fight with their personal arms and not under government control.

    The 2008 Heller v. Washington DC decision reaffirmed that the Right to Bear Arms was an Individual right. The 2010 McDonald v. Chicago decision reaffirmed it yet again and made it clear  that it applies to every state, every city and every town in the United States.

    To limit the Second Amendment to muskets would be the equivalent of limiting the First Amendment to writings in quill pens. 

    Liberty is worth the risk of death!

  • Pingback: Hunt If You Must, But Don’t Call It Sport | Cognoscenti

ONPOINT
TODAY
Jul 31, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin heads the Cabinet meeting in the Novo-Ogaryovo residence, outside Moscow, Russia, Wednesday, July 30, 2014.  (AP)

The US and Europe face off against Russia. Are we looking at Cold War II? Something hotter?

Jul 31, 2014
A comical sign suggest the modern workplace is anything but collegial . (KW Reinsch / Flickr)

When the boss is a bad apple. How some pretty dark traits can push some to the top.

RECENT
SHOWS
Jul 30, 2014
Janitta Swain, Writer/Exec. Producer/Co-Director Dinesh D'Souza, John Koopman, Caroline Granger and Don Taylor seen at the World Premiere of 'America: Imagine The World Without Her' at Regal Cinemas LA Live on Monday, June 30, 2014, in Los Angeles, CA. (AP)

Conservative firebrand Dinesh D’Souza says he wants an America without apologies. He’s also facing jail time. We’ll hear him out.

 
Jul 30, 2014
Smoke and fire from the explosion of an Israeli strike rises over Gaza City, Tuesday, July 29, 2014. Israel escalated its military campaign against Hamas on Tuesday, striking symbols of the group's control in Gaza and firing tank shells that shut down the strip's only power plant in the heaviest bombardment in the fighting so far. (AP)

Social media is changing how the world sees and talks about Israel and Gaza, Israelis and Palestinians. We’ll look at the impact.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
Criticism, Conservatism And Dinesh D’Souza
Thursday, Jul 31, 2014

Best-selling conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza and On Point host Tom Ashbrook disagree about what makes America great…or do they?

More »
2 Comments
 
This 15-Year-Old Caller Is Really Disappointed With Congress
Tuesday, Jul 29, 2014

In which a 15-year-old caller from Nashville expertly and elegantly analyzes our bickering, mostly ineffective 113th Congress.

More »
6 Comments
 
Our Week In The Web: July 25, 2014
Friday, Jul 25, 2014

Why the key to web victory is often taking a break and looking around, and more pie for your viewing (not eating) pleasure.

More »
Comment