Let’s limit guns to sane, responsible gun owners
Terrified by an intruder who had broken into her Walton County home earlier this month, Melinda Herman grabbed a .38-caliber pistol to protect herself and her two children. As the intruder drew closer to their attic hiding spot, Herman called upon her handgun training, practice and motherly protective instinct and fired six shots, five of which struck her target. The barrage drove the wounded intruder out of her home, where he was later arrested and hospitalized.
I do love a happy ending.
You can debate the statistics about how often guns kept in the home are used for good or evil. You can point out the many instances in which such weapons end up in the hands of children or criminals, or in which people mistake a loved one for an intruder, with tragic consequences. Those are facts that every would-be gun owner ought to know and weigh in their personal decision-making. But in this case, for Herman and her family, access to a firearm and the training to use it wisely worked out well.
Since the incident, opponents of gun-safety laws have seized upon Herman’s story as some sort of counterweight to the tragic mass murder of young children in Connecticut that is now driving a reassessment of our national gun laws. But the connection is tenuous at best. No serious gun law proposal in the wake of the Connecticut tragedy — and certainly no gun law that I would ever support — would attempt to disarm Herman or deny her the right to protect herself and her loved ones. That is simply not at issue.
Herman is a law-abiding, rational, trained adult, not a criminal or a person with mental-health problems. Likewise, a .38 pistol kept for home defense is not a semi-automatic high-velocity assault weapon with a large-capacity magazine being marketed as a cure for those insecure in their masculinity. Those distinctions are critical and easily drawn, both in law and in logic, and it’s important that they be recognized.
In other words, let’s keep this reasonable and rational, on all sides of the issue.
Here in Georgia, for example, state Rep. Paul Battles of Cartersville has announced legislation that would allow an administrator in each school — at the discretion of school district leadership — to undergo annual state peace-officer firearm training and be certified to carry a weapon at school. I don’t have a serious problem with that approach, in large part because it is voluntary for districts and because it meets the basic common-sense test of limiting guns to responsible, trained people.
The biggest danger of such an approach is the false sense of security it might create. In the infamous 1999 shooting at Columbine High School, an armed police officer was on duty at the school but found himself outgunned by the two student perpetrators. Of the 13 innocent people killed that day, 11 died after the killers’ initial engagement with armed law enforcement.
The tragic case of Keith Ratliff, a self-described “gun nut” who was found murdered in his Carnesville office earlier this month, surrounded by high-powered weaponry, further demonstrates that guns, like laws, are at best an imperfect defense. There is no solution to such violence; no single answer.
However, limiting gun possession and ammunition purchase to responsible citizens who are trained in their proper use — people such as Melinda Herman — would go a long way in reducing the carnage and heartbreak. In fact, if I could pass just one gun law, it would be a law barring the sale of ammunition to anyone who cannot demonstrate that had taken and passed a gun-safety course within the last five years.
I don’t know why that’s so hard.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
902 comments Add your comment
Adam
January 11th, 2013
11:52 pm
I will say this – I doubt the president (or someone else) would become tyrants without a coordinated effort and the support of others.
And that is why I think it won’t happen.
We may begin to worry if this country every becomes a one party system.
Dt424
January 11th, 2013
11:53 pm
The problem is not the laws. Criminals don’t follow laws, only law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals will get guns even if they are outlawed, and will go after law abiding citizens. Those who don’t want to protect themselves have the right to do so. However those of us who wish to protect ourselves should not be stopped by those who don’t. The children murdered in Sandy Hook was tragic but they were murdered with common handguns not an assault rifle, or high capacity clip. A single shot bushmaster (non assault) rifle was found in the trunk but was not used. If the conversation was started because of this shooting lets examine the issue at hand. Lets, examine the lack of mental health care and the failure of the government to give proper treatment and funding and laws concerning need treatment for problem individuals and reporting of problematic or threatening individuals within a reasonable, non overreactive, actions. For those who have anti-gun agendas and hope to do away with our constitutional rights, shame on you. Guns have saved many lives, believe it or not. Although you may not believe this, country’s that outlaw guns always have seen a rise in crime, criminals have less fear of committing a crime against an unarmed nation.
Towncrier
January 11th, 2013
11:53 pm
“Towncrier: Government censorship doesn’t seem to pull up much except ideas related to governments controlling the internet. Is that what you meant?”
Try this: “arguments against government censorship”. Look at articles and so forth that argue against censorship and see upon what basis the argument is made.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
11:56 pm
But I think part of the original point needs to be established:
Whether or not tyranny can happen in the U.S. has nothing to do with gun rights.
Having or not having them doesn’t make it less likely or more likely, as far as I can tell. Not unless we actually cut the military budget.
Adam
January 11th, 2013
11:59 pm
The problem is not the laws. Criminals don’t follow laws, only law abiding citizens follow laws
Oh please, can we dispense with this nonsense?
It’s like saying “abstinence works.” You win on a technicality for muddying the waters.
Anyone who decides to can become a criminal at any time. It’s a generic sentiment used to muddy the issue, and doesn’t address the realities of the situation, which is that facts and statistics show that gun control legislation in post modern countries DOES reduce the instances of gun violence, and those crimes are not replaced by an equal or greater number of killings or other violence.
Look at Australia if you want an example I can point to readily. And as such this: “Although you may not believe this, country’s that outlaw guns always have seen a rise in crime, criminals have less fear of committing a crime against an unarmed nation.” is not true.
Adam
January 12th, 2013
12:00 am
Towncrier: What I am finding using that search term is either confusing, or about internet censorship.
I am against certain types of censorship and not others. How about that?
Towncrier
January 12th, 2013
12:01 am
“James Carville (the man that ran the Clinton campaign). ”
td, that quote attributed to Carville may well be spurious. It appeared on one website, was copied to others and has not apparently been substantiated.
Towncrier
January 12th, 2013
12:05 am
“Whether or not tyranny can happen in the U.S. has nothing to do with gun rights.”
The potential for tyranny has to do with the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and therefore with gun rights. I would NOT support one’s right to own an AR-15 if I thought this amendment was only to protect the right of people to defend themselves in their homes or to hunt. That wouldn’t make sense.
Wilbo
January 12th, 2013
12:21 am
Jay, you are pretty much my least favorite writer, blogger whatever. It’s really difficult for me to say much about you w/o being vulgar. This is the first thing you’ve written I ever remember agreeing with.
keith
January 12th, 2013
12:53 am
Lets limit the freedom of the press to only sane and responsible AJC contributors. Its only fair since they cannot comprehend what SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means!!
keith
January 12th, 2013
1:24 am
The legal use of tobacco products kill about 500,000 people in the U.S. each year.
The legal use of alcohol kills about 80,000 in the U.S. each year.
Lifestyle choices (what people eat for example) accounts for about 200,000 or more deaths in the U.S. each year.
Deaths related to firearms are not even close to the above numbers.
Joel Edge
January 12th, 2013
6:33 am
“I don’t know why that’s so hard.”
Because while I believe you are honest guy with good intentions, Jay, I unfortunately know that good intentions aren’t always enough.
“Likewise, a .38 pistol kept for home defense is not a semi-automatic high-velocity assault weapon”
Fortunately in this case it was.
http://goo.gl/Rmh9u
The end result was the same. Lives saved. And for people who actually know, the same tool was used. There is no difference between a 38, a 9mm, a 45, and an automatic rifle (which aren’t assault weapons, BTW) except for some cosmetic differences. What I worry about is that some people can’t see the distinction, Jay.
Christian Conservative
January 12th, 2013
9:19 am
Limit guns to sane law abiding citizens! That’s a real “silver bullet” that will certainly stop all the craz folks from doing crazy things… You libs are sickening…..
DownInAlbany
January 12th, 2013
9:47 am
There are dozens of psychiatric diagnoses. They range from Anxiety Disorder Due to Medical Condition, to Female Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder Due to Medical Condition, to Psychotic Disorder Due to Medical Condition, with Hallucinations. How are you going to determine which person is potentially dangerous because they are “insane?” Just because you are “insane” doesn’t make you prone to violence nor does being prone to violence necessarily make you “insane.” What happens if a physician determines that a partcular person is not a threat to society and they go out and and shoot up a movie theater? Do we then hold the physician liable? Does that then put the pressure on the medical field to “diagnose” more and more people as “insane?” What if you are controlled by medication and then, unknown to anyone, you stop taking your meds?
It’s real easy to simply say, “only sane folks should own guns…” without putting much thought into implementation of that policy.
mae brown
January 12th, 2013
10:57 am
and who determines “sane” or sane one moment and driven mad the next…I refuse to own and possess a gun because in a moment of pure rage who knows what one might do judging by newspapers and other media outlets
Adam
January 12th, 2013
11:26 am
I do not believe we are completely incapable of determining a person’s mental state, nor do I think a court should be the way to determine various mental states. Mental health professionals are more than capable of determining this without the court sticking its nose in and some lawyer arguing that a person with simple depression is a danger to society.
fled
January 12th, 2013
11:37 am
“Assault Rifles” as many call them are NOT meant for “killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible” they are meant to provide an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire. That is where the “assault” portion of the nomenclature cones from. It isn’t about killing as much as its about not being killed. Stopping to reload while exposed to fire is a bad deal. Sustained fire they keeps opponents from firing back and allows you to close on objective, good deal. Very good defensive weapons too. High volume of fire means harder for multiple opponents to advance unprotected. High velocity rounds reduce cover to concealment only. When “good” governments go bad best to have both weapons and tactics they will use to route you to defend against them. Common sense really. Precision shooting is only good for hunting or long range now. Volume fire is only way to advance in light of technology. Fire and maneuver.
Jay
January 12th, 2013
12:01 pm
““Assault Rifles” as many call them are NOT meant for “killing as many people as possible, as quickly as possible” they are meant to provide an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire.”
However, in civilian life, there is no setting in which a person is required “to provide an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire.” In civilian life, its purpose is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible.
Jay
January 12th, 2013
12:05 pm
“There is no difference between a 38, a 9mm, a 45, and an automatic rifle (which aren’t assault weapons, BTW) except for some cosmetic differences. What I worry about is that some people can’t see the distinction, Jay.”
I see the NRA supporters making two conflicting arguments:
1.) There is no difference between “assault weapons” and other types of weapons.
2.) We can’t ban “assault weapons” because they are a unique and necessary type of weapon (see the argument above about providing”an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire.” Can you do that with .38?
Jm
January 12th, 2013
1:34 pm
Obama’ssecond term is shaping up as a disaster
Trying to do too much
And much of it may fail
We’ll see
DownInAlbany
January 12th, 2013
2:09 pm
Jay, if you are monitoring, I just left a gun show here with a bit of an education about gun shows and firearms. That was the main reason for going. I was curious about the “gun show loophole.” I had no intention of purchasing either guns or ammo. The so-called “gun-show” loophole is totally non-existent. Scare tactic of the left? At every booth was an area for folks to sit down and complete back-ground checks. I talked to three different firearms dealers and asked specifically, “…if I want to purchase a shotgun, rifle or handgun from you, am I subject to a background check?…” All three said “yes.” I asked two about the loop-hole and one responded, “…in order for me to sell these guns, I have a federal fire-arms permit. I would put my license and therefore my livelihood on the line if I sold you a gun without the proper background check.”
fled
January 12th, 2013
2:28 pm
“However, in civilian life, there is no setting in which a person is required “to provide an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire.” In civilian life, its purpose is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. ”
Human rights groups are warning of the decline of civil rights in most developed nations. The UK is said to be the pinnacle of that phenomena currently with the US having an “endangered” status. Only Canada and Germany are said to have any “significant legal protections” in place to guard against further degradations to basic civil rights. So I’d say its not so short a trip to a collapse of civil order in this country, the government knows this and rather than back away from these degradations they seem to be furthering their efforts while militarizing enforcement and during up their own protection FROM the public and ensuring their own continuity. They have contingencies, so do we…. Study the application of “Murphy’s Law” in military doctrine and you will see redundancy is the best preparation against failure. Or continue with your head in the sand, your choice really. And please don’t call me paranoid its a cheap tactic, I’ve got nothing to fear.
fled
January 12th, 2013
3:12 pm
“However, in civilian life, there is no setting in which a person is required “to provide an easily sustained volume of fire against an objective while maneuvering against it under fire.” In civilian life, its purpose is to kill as many as possible in as short a time as possible. ”
One easily memorable incident where a higher volume of fire would have made things easier is the UT tower shootings where the shooter was armed with a simple bolt action rifle but was in a protected and geographically superior position. Civilians ( mostly armed with hunting rifles) struggled to keep the shooter suppressed while law enforcement came and routed the shooter. The slow low volume of return fire couldn’t adequately suppress the shooter and he remained capable of deadly fire right up to his demise.
Adam
January 12th, 2013
3:28 pm
Hey DownInAlbany: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v_anCtvpkY
So, still think it doesn’t exist?
Adam
January 12th, 2013
3:31 pm
Basically, private sellers have no such requirement, and they can set up at a gun show if they want to. The federally licensed people aren’t who we’re talking about.
Aharon
January 12th, 2013
4:27 pm
There is the first report of this incident where I have read or heard the mother had all this ‘training’. Elsewhere, I’ve read that her husband showed her how to use the gun a couple weeks ago. Thats it.
I do like the idea of gun safety courses. A national database of loonies would also be good. Requiring that gun owners safely store there guns would reduce criminal incidents.
DownInAlbany
January 12th, 2013
4:32 pm
I understand Adam, but, the leftie loonies make out like anyone can walk into any gun show in the country and walk out with a tricked-out fully automatic high capacity firearm. They give the impression that just because sellers are at a gun show then all of a sudden they are not subject to federal law. That simply is not the case, as histerical as so many on the left want to be. The only way that you can possess a automatic weapon is by having a federal firearms permit. IF I owned a fully auto gun, I cannot sell it to anyone who does not also have a FFP. Also, those with FFPs better dang sure have possession of the registered gun when / if the feds come knocking on your door.
But, anyway, you folks still haven’t explained to me how/who you expect to determine who is “insane.” And at what level means you are a danger to society.
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
6:23 pm
But, anyway, you folks still haven’t explained to me how/who you expect to determine who is “insane.” And at what level means you are a danger to society.
I think me and you should pick them Mr. Down. We’ll just set down over a beer once or twice a week and go through the applications. They need two votes to pass……. mine and yourn.
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
6:25 pm
Jay: Do you own a handgun, rifle, or shotgun? Have you ever? Do you hunt? Have you ever?
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
6:27 pm
I know it means I’m a sick twisted individual, but THIS is how I like a criminal that shoots a police officer to look in his booking photo:
http://www.ajc.com/photo/news/local/atlanta-police-officer-shot-in-face-suspect-held/pnCwC/
fled
January 12th, 2013
6:40 pm
Funny thing about the AR-15. It was actually available as a civilian purchase well before our military even considered it as a service rifle. The first AR’s purchased by any US military branch were purchased by fledgling US Navy SEAL Teams during the Cuban missile crisis. The SEAL teams were so new that they had not yet established an armory or procured arms from the Navy. They needed guns for possible deployment to Cuba so the unit amorer and a few SEAL cadre drove from Chesapeake VA to the Montgomery Wards department store in Baltimore Maryland and bought CIVILIAN sale AR-15’s and Smith and Wesson revolvers to outfit the unit. The US Air Force was the first to officially test and adopt the AR-15 for base security forces. The Army’s adoption came later with the full military version the M-16. AR’s were very popular with ranchers for predator control in the South and Southwest and for law enforcement agencies prior to ever being considered an adequate (sorta) selection as a main battle rifle. Gotta know your history….
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 12th, 2013
7:06 pm
But in a posting Friday on the White House website, Paul Shawcross, an administration adviser on science and space, says a Death Star would cost too much to build — an estimated $850 quadrillion — at a time the White House is working to reduce the federal budget.
Oh damnation. I wanted to see how the Red Dawn crowd was going to connect with the 2d Amendment “Force” to stop the Death Star.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 12th, 2013
7:10 pm
Besides, Shawcross says, the Obama administration “does not support blowing up planets.”
But we all know in 1993 when asked in a questionnaire “would you favor the total destruction of a orb” he answered “yes”. He will confiscate our deathstars!
td
January 12th, 2013
7:54 pm
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
6:27 pm
I know it means I’m a sick twisted individual, but THIS is how I like a criminal that shoots a police officer to look in his booking photo:
Someone took it too easy because he is still alive.
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
9:34 pm
Someone took it too easy because he is still alive.
The Neanderthal part of me wants to agree, but the part that seperates me from Republicans and mindless animals, (that was redundant), says that we have laws and if we act like the scum we need to put away we are no better than they are……. that’s why we don’t torture prisoners……. well except under Bush…….
keith
January 12th, 2013
11:39 pm
fortunately there are many honorable, patriotic law enforcers that will not enforce radical leftwing laws. for example”
Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman is making it clear that no law that violates the Constitution will be upheld in his county.
This especially applies to new gun control edicts Obama & Co. are trying to push onto the American people.
Said Peyman: “My office will not comply with any federal action which violates the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution which I swore uphold.”
And far from worrying about repercussions for doing this, Peyman sees the gun control push as a sign of weakness that will crumble in the face of real opposition: “Just a few of us have to be willing to stand up to political opposition putting our people at risk. The other side will back down.”
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have found a patriot. And his name is Sheriff Denny Peyman.
Fred ™
January 12th, 2013
11:50 pm
keith: you really took the time to post that hypocritical crap?
You are a Southern Baptist aren’t you?
Adam
January 12th, 2013
11:58 pm
Fred: So then you’re not one of the ones that subscribes to the ridiculous idea that because criminals break a law (that was also redundant) that we shouldn’t have that law?
I am asking rhetorically of course. It just fascinates me when people make such an obviously fallacious argument.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
1:26 am
Sooo this is where everyone is…..
Mama Says
January 13th, 2013
3:04 am
Jay as you know I am conservative, I support what you said 100%.
The constitution does not mandate gun sales to people with mental issues. With that said I would go further. We shouldn’t be selling ammo or guns to the mentally ill.
AND
We should have strictly enforced laws that demand that the gun owners secure the weapons and ammo in a safe that cannot be removed from the house.
Should a gun be used in a crime the registered owner should face punishment unless they can or have shown that the gun was stolen from them.
Above all we must enforce all current gun laws.
BBQ MAN
January 13th, 2013
7:30 am
oh yeah. I can just see all of the thugs and gangbangers taking that class LOL Liberals are so shorted-sighted.
Democrat Man
January 13th, 2013
7:58 am
How would any of your proposals stopped or prevented the situation in Connecticut?
TWayne
January 13th, 2013
8:27 am
There are existing laws on the books that require background checks. Background checks are required for a GA weapons permit. So adding more laws is the answer???????
As far as the Federal Government getting more involved, that is a recipe for disaster. Everything the Feds touch only gets worse. The Feds will find a way to raise revenue off of any plan they come up with, money that will be wasted based on their record of managing tax payers money.
I suggest you do some research on Eric Holder’s and Barrack Hussein Obama’s record and past statements on gun ownership. I do not believe these men believe the Constitution of the United States of America and I do not trust them to defend it.
The fact is criminals do not buy guns legally and cannot be expected to use them in a responsible manner.
John
January 13th, 2013
9:30 am
Bookman’s idea would automatically eliminate all of the liberals. Will the same apply to alcohol and marijuana use too?
curious
January 13th, 2013
9:48 am
Granted we are the most armed civilian populace of all industrialized nations, how does our overall crime rate (not just gun related) compare to those same nations?
Fred ™
January 13th, 2013
10:17 am
TWayne
January 13th, 2013
8:27 am
There are existing laws on the books that require background checks. Background checks are required for a GA weapons permit. So adding more laws is the answer???????
As far as the Federal Government getting more involved, that is a recipe for disaster.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Do you realize how utterly stupid you sound mindlessly parroting talk radio/FOXBOT BS lies and bumper sticker phrases?
So our military is privatized dummy? How many Aircraft Carriers does wallstreeet own?
How is that interstate system working out for you? How about the INTERNET system that you used to post your ignorant crap on this blog?
WHat fortune 500 company was it that financed the research that got us into space and the moon? To mars with the mars lander?
How about the police force that keeps you safe at night punkin? The Border Patrol that keeps out the terrorists and the FBI that tracks down the ones that get in? Oh wait, that’s not the Federal Gov’t, that’s Park Atlanta, right brainless?
Do I need to continue? Naw, there is no need you wouldn’t understand it anyway, you would have to have Rush repeat it 5000 times before it soaked into your tiny little mind. Besides, you won’t be back, that was just a mindless drive through form a mindless person.
Fred ™
January 13th, 2013
10:17 am
John
January 13th, 2013
9:30 am
Bookman’s idea would automatically eliminate all of the liberals. Will the same apply to alcohol and marijuana use too?
++++++++++++++++
yuk yuk yuk Aren’t YOU just the funny one. I’ll bet you are the life of your tupperware parties………
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
10:32 am
Mama Says: Jay as you know I am conservative, I support what you said 100%
OMG!! I’ve got to go to mass this week — the world is near its end!!
===============
Democrat Man: How would any of your proposals stopped or prevented the situation in Connecticut?
Here’s a better question — We have laws on the books about Jaywalking, does it stop Jaywalkers? What about the people who embezzle money — have laws stopped them? Have laws on the books stopped ANY of the following:
Illegal drug use?
Drug dealers?
Bank Robbers?
People who drive without insurance or driver’s licenses?
Murderers?
Child pornography?
People who have loud parties and disturb the peace?
IOW – What the HELL does your question have to do with reality?
===============
TWayne: So adding more laws is the answer???????
No we shouldn’t have ANY laws! That would solve everything!
=============
John: Will the same apply to alcohol and marijuana use too?
See my answer to TWayne…….
==============
Curious: Granted we are the most armed civilian populace of all industrialized nations, how does our overall crime rate (not just gun related) compare to those same nations?
Why let me google that for you…..
=========
Morning Fred!!
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
10:59 am
Do Concealed-Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime?
Suffice to say there is academic disagreement on this issue. Crime is down dramatically right now — even in states that have not passed such laws. To prove causation, which Gohmert’s statement implies, would require that those doing the study discern what would have happened if not for the law, and that is almost impossible to model.
More recently, Donohue co-authored a paper in 2012 that concluded “aggravated assault rises when RTC (right to carry) laws are adopted. For every other crime category, there is little or no indication of any consistent RTC impact on crime.”
First, only a tiny percentage of the population seeks to obtain a concealed weapon permit. And those who do tend to be from groups who are at relatively low risk for either crime perpetration or victimization. They are generally older, higher-income, rural whites.
Both sides accuse the other of personal bias on the issue. Indeed, there are two underlying schools of thought about concealed-carry laws. The first is that if there are more people carrying concealed weapons, criminals are less likely to commit crimes, because they fear someone may defend themselves with a gun. National Rifle Association CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre sums up the philosophy this way: “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
The second is that more concealed guns mean more disputes resolved with guns, and that it leads to more violent crime.
Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, is convinced the Lott data is weak (for example, she said, if you take the outlier Florida out of the mix, the results change remarkably). But more important, she said, is that there is simply a dearth of good data.
“We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to,” Sorenson.
In part, she said, that’s because the gold standard for scientists — a randomly assigned study in which you gave one group of people guns, and another none — is simply not possible.
Why can’t a statistical relationship prove a causal one? There are many other factors besides the presence of guns. Adam Lanza, the shooter in the elementary school killings in Newtown, “had lots of things going on in his life and one of them was access to multiple weapons,” says Wellford, himself a gun owner. “It’s hard to parse out what the effect is of having the gun, but there’s no question there’s some effect.” But is it 2 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent of the causal model? “We don’t know.”
There’s also a chicken-and-egg question when it comes to gun violence. Did the violence come first, and then the guns followed, or the other way around?
One thing that is clear: Guns are effective lethal weapons. “If there were no guns, the lethality of crimes would be less,” says Wellford. “You can’t have a drive-by knifing.”
http://factcheck.org/2012/12/gun-rhetoric-vs-gun-facts/
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
11:09 am
Another myth dispelled:
Private arsenal doesn’t protect gun dealer
Motive a mystery in murder of northeast Georgia man who made guns and popular YouTube videos on weaponry.
He even shot a video contending that ordinary citizens should be able to own “true military arms, real assault weapons” to defend themselves “from all enemies no matter where they rise from.”
But despite his formidable arsenal, Ratliff was unable to protect himself from an assassin’s bullet. On Jan. 3, the 32-year-old father of three was found dead in his office, killed by a single bullet to the head. His SUV, with a holster on the driver’s seat, boxes of bullets in the cargo area and a “Don’t Tread on Me” tag on the front still sat in front a week after his death.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional/private-arsenal-doesnt-protect-gun-dealer/nTts4/
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 13th, 2013
11:15 am
wow, some clown sheriff decides he is the one who determines what is or is not constitutional and what laws will be enforced and suddenly he is a patriot. That is not a patriot that is an idiot who decides to ignore laws, a judicial system, government…..so he declares himself a dictator and the conned want to claim he is a hero. Appalling.
middle of the road
January 13th, 2013
11:24 am
“So you agree that if I want to own a Bushmaster with a 30 round clip, as long as I don’t break any laws with it, it’s noone’s damn business?”
So you should be able to own a thermonuclear device if you promise not to use it, right? I know some Muslim terrorists who PROMISE they will not use it if you just give it to them.
middle of the road
January 13th, 2013
11:29 am
If I want to possess of handle explosives, I have to go through rigorous licensing and paperwork requirements. But if I want to possess an assault weapon and thousands of rounds of ammunition, I can buy one from a private individual and NOT HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING? You know, it would be perfectly legal for me to go buy a Tek-9 and take it down to south Atlanta and sell it to a convicted felon (just as long as I did not sell too many per year)? Or I could sell it to a just-released mentally ill person? All perfectly legal and happens ever day. I could even claim the gun was “stolen” after I sold it.
zeke
January 13th, 2013
11:31 am
Training in the law and in the use of firearms, pistols especially for concealed carry should be mandatory! there is a current dispute between South Carolina and Georgia regarding recognition of their concealed carry permits. Georgia will not recognize South Carolina permits because South Carolina does not recognize Georgia permits! Normally that would be OK IF THE TWO PERMITS WERE EQUAL! However, South Carolina requires class training in the laws and use as well as a shooting range qualification! You must make a “passing” grade on both segments, be fingerprinted, have a State Law Enforcement and FBI background check to be approved! Then you must reapply for renewal every 4 years! In Georgia, all you do is go to the county courthouse, apply, be finger printed and get the background check! NOTHING MORE! That is why S.C. will not recognize the Georgia permits! Georgia’s concealed carry law is not adequate!!!
middle of the road
January 13th, 2013
11:38 am
People talk about how much LESS dangerous semi-automatic weapons are vs. automatic weapons. Oh, the Bushmaster is only a SEMI-automatic weapon. So how many LESS people can you kill with a semi-automatic weapon? With an automatic weapon, you pull the trigger and it continuously fires as you “sweep” around, not aiming? So if you have 20 first-graders cornered in a room, how many less would you kill when you aim and fire as fast as you can pull the trigger? Even a semi-automatic pistol can spew out a lot of bullets. The bullets just aren’t as deadly as an assault rifle bullet, nor is the pistol as accurate.
My wife wants us to get another gun for “home protection”. I said, fine, we’ll get a 20-gauge semi-automatic shotgun. It is easy for her to shoot, doesn’t kick much, you don’t have to have good aim in an emergency, and will certainly scare off an intruder. Plus, if she mistakenly shoots me when I come in late at night, I might still live. Of course, this weapon would not hold off a gang of 100 crazed terorists hell-bent on invading our house. Maybe we should get that Bushmaster…plus I hear it makes your penis longer.
Jeff
January 13th, 2013
11:38 am
Surprisingly, Jay makes a couple of good points. However, I echo what Simple Truths said on Jan. 11 at 11:26 a.m. — “Who gets to decide what qualifies as “sane” and “responsible”? As that commenter also said, what if I proposed that we limit voting to sane, responsible voters? I would be burned the stake as a heretic. What if I proposed that we limit procreation to sane, responsible adults? What if I said only sane, responsible people could buy houses and live in certain neighborhoods? or could buy alcohol? or could possess steak knives? or baseball bats? or cars? You can’t tell me that every driver out there today is “sane and responsible.” All you have to do is confirm your address and pass an eye test occasionally, and the state renews your license. Now those renewals can stretch for 10 YEARS. Do all of you people see where this is going??? More and more government control and bureaucracy IS NOT the answer. ONLY by living up to high moral standards, ONLY by emphasizing through social stigmas the importance of integrity and high character, and ONLY by at least acknowledging that we need to live by the BASICS of Judeo-Christian beliefs — the 10 Commandments — will we EVER see any improvement in our society’s behavior.
The answer is not found in education, legislation, legalization, sterilization, or any other “ations.” The only answer is if we, individually and collectively, start living up to a higher standard of behavior, set forth by God — and if we implore and lead others to live up to that expectation via being living examples and by exerting compassion WITH integrity and discipline. Until we commit as a society to do that, and until we start forsaking the stupid, the silly, the shallow, the materialistic, the selfish, and the immoral elements in our world, then we won’t see any improvement in our world’s behavior. That’s just a fact, folks — we need to start taking things seriously.
ASHLEY
January 13th, 2013
11:55 am
Wow… If only Adam Lanza and the others had only taken a few gun safety course all of this could have been prevented?
Shine
January 13th, 2013
11:59 am
Good lord, “assault weapons” and large capacity clips are “dangerous” just like a large vocabulary when exercising fee speech. Lets limit vocabularies for public safety.
middle of the road
January 13th, 2013
12:05 pm
“Wow… If only Adam Lanza and the others had only taken a few gun safety course all of this could have been prevented?”
Or if his mom had recognized that she had a dangerous, unstable, mentally unfit son and not kept these weapons where he could get to them. SHE was the one that needed training and a reasonable law that says you cannot own an assault rifle if you have a mentally unfit person in your household.
Morality?
January 13th, 2013
12:28 pm
JAY – “Limit guns to the sane and responsible” …….. guess that leaves out the politicians in Hollywood north aka Washington, D.C.
john
January 13th, 2013
12:31 pm
I guess your comments means you can’t have one.
Adam
January 13th, 2013
12:39 pm
Voting doesn’t kill. The act of voting doesn’t kill. Your use of a vote does not kill. Voting cannot in any way be compared to guns. WTF people?!?!?
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
12:45 pm
DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
11:09 am
Another myth dispelled:
Private arsenal doesn’t protect gun dealer
Debbie, you usually present more informed opinions than this one. You want to take one example of the “private aresenal…” argument and suddenly a “myth is dispelled.”
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
12:49 pm
“Another myth dispelled: Private arsenal doesn’t protect gun dealer.”
Hmmm…I wonder if anyone wearing seat belts ever gets killed in a car crash?
DDR, just for you: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
12:56 pm
“Voting doesn’t kill. The act of voting doesn’t kill. Your use of a vote does not kill. Voting cannot in any way be compared to guns.”
Guns don’t fire themselves. Knives don’t stab by themselves. Dynamite does explode itself. Alcohol doesn’t consume itself. Baseball bats don’t swing themselves. Arrows don’t propel themselves. Poisons don’t disperse themselves. Fists or objects don’t strike hapless children by themselves.
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
12:57 pm
in·sane /inˈsān/ Adjective
1.In a state of mind that prevents normal perception, behavior, or social interaction; seriously mentally ill.
2.(of an action or quality) Characterized or caused by madness. Synonyms mad – crazy – demented – lunatic
In the medical field, mental disorders range from Attention Deficit Disorder, Developmental Reading Disorder, Transient Insomnia, to Sadism. These disorders can lead to states of mind that prevent normal perception. It does not mean that you are prone to violence. Being “insane” does not mean that you are violent. Being violent does not mean that you are “insane.”
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
12:59 pm
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
12:49 pm
“Another myth dispelled: Private arsenal doesn’t protect gun dealer.”
Hmmm…I wonder if anyone wearing seat belts ever gets killed in a car crash?
Exactly, my brother was the sole survivor in a car where everyone else had on their seat belt.
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
12:59 pm
“Wow… If only Adam Lanza and the others had only taken a few gun safety course all of this could have been prevented?”
No, silly. He would also have had to write a 500 word essay on how hitting pillows is the best way to let off steam.
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
1:02 pm
“Exactly, my brother was the sole survivor in a car where everyone else had on their seat belt.”
He, and the families of the survivors, have my heartfelt sympathy.
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
1:06 pm
The second is that more concealed guns mean more disputes resolved with guns, and that it leads to more violent crime.
I could also argue that folks knowing that the person they are arguing with may be armed could serve as a deterrent…
Keep Up the Good Fight!
January 13th, 2013
11:15 am
But, it’s ok for Obama to ignore the law of the land and bypass Congress with executive orders?
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
1:08 pm
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
1:02 pm
“Exactly, my brother was the sole survivor in a car where everyone else had on their seat belt.”
He, and the families of the survivors, have my heartfelt sympathy.
Thanks, crier. That was a long time ago. My father refused to wear a seat belt for years after that.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
1:23 pm
Hmm I see that TC and DIA are stroking each others egos; and pontificating on how “right” they are.
Fellows, your arguments have big gaping holes in them:
a) DIA – “But, it’s ok for Obama to ignore the law of the land and bypass Congress with executive orders?” — Which law(s) is Obama ignoring? and WHAT executive order has he passed? Please explain.
b) TC – “Guns don’t fire themselves. Knives don’t stab by themselves. Dynamite does explode itself.” — That’s right, they all have PEOPLE behind them to do the dirty work.
c) DIA – ” Being “insane” does not mean that you are violent. Being violent does not mean that you are “insane.”” AND? So you’re advocating knowing MORE than the psychiatrists/psychologists and are telling them how to do their job? Do they come to McDonald’s and show you how to make burgers? Let’s let the professionals do the talking……makes more sense.
d) TC – “Hmmm…I wonder if anyone wearing seat belts ever gets killed in a car crash?” — TC, I wonder if anyone eating meat sometimes chokes on a pork chop? How about anyone who doesn’t drink getting killed by a drunk driver? Let’s not stop there, lets take this old school………what are the odds of anyone over 95 living to be 105? IOW — Whats your point TC?
e) DIA – “Debbie, you usually present more informed opinions than this one. You want to take one example of the “private aresenal…” argument and suddenly a “myth is dispelled.”” — DIA, well if you can correlate drunk driving to gun violence, I figured anything was game!
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
1:31 pm
” Whats your point TC?”
If you don’t already know, then read a book on logic and see if you can figure out what my point was in response to the implication of your post. I can’t help you think straight.
Mahopinion
January 13th, 2013
1:49 pm
godless heathen
January 11th, 2013
10:55 am
You don’t have to have a drivers license to own a car.
——————
You also don’t need a license to operate the car. It only matters when you get caught.
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
1:57 pm
“You also don’t need a license to operate the car. It only matters when you get caught.”
You don’t have to be a citizen or have some kind of visa to reside in our country. And it rarely matters when you get caught.
Concerned for our safety
January 13th, 2013
1:59 pm
Agreed. We need to: (1) reinstate the assault weapons ban and include the assault weapon Lanza used to murder the children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary (obviously if this ban had been in effect beforehand Lanza could not have done what he did with the weapon he used); and (2) require a background check and waiting period to do the check before all gun sales to make sure the buyer has no serious criminal record and no history of mental illness. No one needs an assault weapon. And, if one can be trusted with a gun, he or she can easily pass a background check.
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
2:05 pm
Debbie, Debbie, Debbie.
The last time I looked, O had issued 139 executive orders. We could be here a while.
Let’s let the professionals do the talking……makes more sense. So, I guess you should shut up too. Are you really going to throw in the “McDonald’s” analogy? Really?
Show me where I EVER correlated drunk driving to gun violence, or admit that you are a liar!
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
3:02 pm
TC: If you don’t already know, then read a book on logic and see if you can figure out what my point was in response to the implication of your post. I can’t help you think straight.
HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! OMG You are soooo funny TC!! Who knew you had skills like that? Dude, you can be the next comic genius!! It’s been a while since I’ve read anything else as hilarious as your post! YOu? LOGICAL? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OMG can’t stop laughing……..can’t stop laughing…….can’t stop……. You’e on your way TC!! You’re on your way! JEff Foxworthy better look out! HAHAHAHAAH…..can’t stop laughing……
===========
DIA: Debbie, Debbie, Debbie. The last time I looked, O had issued 139 executive orders. We could be here a while.
Yes but which one usurps the Constitution and is trying to away your liberties (you know, the ORIGINAL question that I asked)? You don’t know? FIGURES……
DIA: Are you really going to throw in the “McDonald’s” analogy? Really?
Yes. Really.
DIA: Show me where I EVER correlated drunk driving to gun violence, or admit that you are a liar!
Well, in honor of “playing fair with the weak minded”, I’ll wait until you show me which of those Hundreds of executive orders that Pres. O issued were the ones that supercedes the Constitution and supresses your liberty.
Your turn.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
3:22 pm
Where does the road to “Our Gubment Is Out To Get Us” lead to?:
(Female) Cop-Killer Executed in Alabama
(AP) ^ | DAVE BRYAN
Posted on Friday, May 10, 2002 1:58:19 AM by Dallas
ATMORE, Ala. —
Lynda Lyon Block, A political extremist convicted of murdering a policeman in 1993 was put to death in the electric chair Friday, becoming the first woman executed in Alabama in 45 years.
Lynda Lyon Block declined to pursue final appeals late Thursday, claiming the courts were corrupt and lacked jurisdiction in her case. She was put to death shortly after midnight.
Among Lynda’s “extreme political views” were that the Constitution and constitutional statutes should be regarded as law in the courts; that resistance to false arrest is lawful; and that defense of self or of another, who is believed to be under unlawful threat of deadly force, by the use of deadly force – even if the assailant is a policeman – is lawful.
Her husband’s Obit for his wife:
In February of 1991 Lynda had met me when she joined the Libertarian Party, and we became friends, discovering many shared, and complimentary traits
Together we studied the Constitution and laws and discovered the devices used to deceive Americans into surrendering freedom.
While we were in Opelika, Alabama on October 4, 1993 Lynda came to my defense when an attempted false arrest by a city policeman, who first reached for his gun, turned into a gunfight between him and me.
She was murdered by barbarians because she knew too much about their conspiracy to enslave and loot Americans, because she dared to engage in combat – successfully – with one of their enforcers while defending me and her son, and because she refused to apologize for her actions. Lynda conducted herself heroically and with dignity to the very end, and deserves to be remembered as a hero.
George Everette Sibley
August 2002
Moral of the story? — Well, if you live your life like the government is the enemy and is out to get you, then they probably will
Just saying…….
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
3:44 pm
Yes but which one usurps the Constitution and is trying to away your liberties (you know, the ORIGINAL question that I asked)? You don’t know? FIGURES……
You attempt to put words in my mouth…again.
Well, in honor of “playing fair with the weak minded”, I’ll wait until you show me which of those Hundreds of executive orders that Pres. O issued
Again, I said there are “139.” Your lack of reading comprehension fails you…again.
I’m not going to do your leg-work. Google is a wonderful tool. You should try it sometime. The point is this, when Obama was on the campaign trail, he constantly chided then Prez Bush for signing executive orders.
hypocrite
(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.
(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 13th, 2013
4:07 pm
DIA: I’m not going to do your leg-work.
IOW You’ve got nuthin, nada, zilch, zip, zero!
Google is a wonderful tool. You should try it sometime. The point is this, when Obama was on the campaign trail, he constantly chided then Prez Bush for signing executive orders.
AGAIN you are just making up sh3#t — either that or you were DREAMING, WISHING and HOPING that’s what Obama said and/or did! Tell you what — The next time If you even dream of making up faux poutrage concerning Obama, or if you eve dream about trying to get me with that crappy “YOU google it Debbie” line, you’d better wake up call me and apologize.
DIA: hypocrite
(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.
JackAZZ — (noun)
(1) See picture here.
A stupid person.
A male ass or donkey.
Adam
January 13th, 2013
4:21 pm
Towncrier: Guns don’t fire themselves. Knives don’t stab by themselves. Dynamite does explode itself. Alcohol doesn’t consume itself. Baseball bats don’t swing themselves. Arrows don’t propel themselves. Poisons don’t disperse themselves. Fists or objects don’t strike hapless children by themselves.
And every single one of those is NOT VOTING.
And most of them are heavily regulated, dude.
curious
January 13th, 2013
4:37 pm
With all the guns we have in individual’s hands, our crime rate must be almost non-existent.
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
5:10 pm
“HAHAHAHAHAHAA!! OMG You are soooo funny TC!! Who knew you had skills like that? Dude, you can be the next comic genius!! It’s been a while since I’ve read anything else as hilarious as your post! YOu? LOGICAL? HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! OMG can’t stop laughing……..can’t stop laughing…….can’t stop……. You’e on your way TC!! You’re on your way! JEff Foxworthy better look out! HAHAHAHAAH…..can’t stop laughing……”
Thanks for making my point – that you can’t think very well – by resorting to playground tactics. Do yourself a favor:
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416
Towncrier
January 13th, 2013
5:13 pm
“AGAIN you are just making up sh3#t — either that or you were DREAMING, WISHING and HOPING that’s what Obama said and/or did! Tell you what — The next time If you even dream of making up faux poutrage concerning Obama, or if you eve dream about trying to get me with that crappy “YOU google it Debbie” line, you’d better wake up call me and apologize.”
Here you are, babbling again. Do yourself a favor:
http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Mark-Zegarelli/dp/0471799416
Mahopinion
January 13th, 2013
7:47 pm
“Moral of the story? — Well, if you live your life like the government is the enemy and is out to get you, then they probably will”.
Well, then you were right to live your life that way.
Adam
January 13th, 2013
8:24 pm
This is a test of the word troll.
Adam
January 13th, 2013
8:25 pm
Well, then you were right to live your life that way.
No, you were creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Trolls do this crap all the time on a smaller scale: Keep on being incendiary until someone reacts, then you can yell and scream about how “libruls” are mean and violent.
By the way, you can thank conservative trolls for Obama’s second term. They kept pushing a false message and feeding themselves their own bullsh*t in a bubble known as epistimic closure, and when liberals reacted to that by getting a backbone, well… the rest is history.
You should have just let them continue to be the whiners. Now it’s you guys. (Go ahead, tell me all about how you’re not “you guys” and prove the very thing I’m talking about).
Adam
January 13th, 2013
8:49 pm
By the way, want to know what happens if you have conceal carry and are faced with a mass shooter? Watch these:
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
Part Two: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLN6_s66wTg
And finally, imagine Samuel L. Jackson pointing a gun at you and saying “Say ‘liberal media one more time!”
Adam
January 13th, 2013
8:49 pm
Note the date on the videos too, btw
DownInAlbany
January 13th, 2013
10:21 pm
Debbie, I guess I made this sh3#t up also?
The President, in accordance with to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, must submit a budget to Congress each year. In its current form, federal budget legislation law (31 U.S.C. 1105(a)) specifies that the President submit a budget between the first Monday in January and the first Monday in February. Mr. Obama has missed the legally required budget deadline more than any U.S. president since the 1920s.
And yet: “America wonders why it is in this town why you can’t get stuff done in an organized timetable,” said Mr. Obama. “Why everything has to always wait until the last minute. We’re now at the last minute. The American people are not going to have any patience for a politically self-inflicted wound to our economy.”
“Let’s not miss this deadline,” Obama said. “That’s the bare minimum we should be able to get done.” (it’s spelled, “hypocrite” see definition above.
During the recent campaign, O urged defense contractors to ignore lay-off laws. He had no legal authority to do this.
Launching an illegal war in Libya. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Under the congressionally-enacted War Powers Act, Mr. Obama had 60 days to get congressional approval after U.S. bombs started dropping in Tripoli, but he didn’t bother. Putting the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of yet another Arab nation appeared to be a higher priority than following the law.
Obama’s filming of a campaign ad in the White House in violation of FEC laws.
Creating a taxpayer-funded position, Director of Progressive Media & Online Response, to promote Obama’s incumbent candidacy, in violation of the Hatch Act.
Adam
January 13th, 2013
10:52 pm
Launching an illegal war in Libya.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh boy. Yeah, you’re SOOOOOO upset about illegal wars, arencha?
Adam
January 13th, 2013
10:53 pm
Tell you what, why don’t you write Darrell Issa with all that and let me know what he tells you about if he will investigate
Joe Hussein Mama
January 14th, 2013
9:26 am
DIA — “Launching an illegal war in Libya. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war. Under the congressionally-enacted War Powers Act, Mr. Obama had 60 days to get congressional approval after U.S. bombs started dropping in Tripoli, but he didn’t bother.”
If you’d like to discuss the specifics and particulars of this matter, I’m your huckleberry.
stands for decibels
January 14th, 2013
10:49 am
Voting doesn’t kill. The act of voting doesn’t kill. Your use of a vote does not kill. Voting cannot in any way be compared to guns. WTF people?
I was going to let that stupid analogy slide, myself, but since you ask:
I’m sure that to gun nuts, the notion of a “right to vote” is every bit as suspect and conditional as they think “librulz” believe the right to bear arms, to be.
so they figure if they have to give back a bit of their unfettered access to weaponry, we should give up some of our brown people voting, or something along those lines.
stands for decibels
January 14th, 2013
10:49 am
ladyparts SHEETZ!
Mahopinion
January 14th, 2013
2:12 pm
“Well, then you were right to live your life that way.
No, you were creating a self fulfilling prophecy. Trolls do this crap all the time on a smaller scale: Keep on being incendiary until someone reacts, then you can yell and scream about how “libruls” are mean and violent.
By the way, you can thank conservative trolls for Obama’s second term. They kept pushing a false message and feeding themselves their own bullsh*t in a bubble known as epistimic closure, and when liberals reacted to that by getting a backbone, well… the rest is history.
You should have just let them continue to be the whiners. Now it’s you guys. (Go ahead, tell me all about how you’re not “you guys” and prove the very thing I’m talking about).”
———-
No Adam.
What you call a self fulfilling prophecy I call seeing and reacting to what is going on around you.
BTW, I don’t appreciate being called a troll, conservative or otherwise. I’m just someone who has a different opinion from you. Thankfully, I’m still allowed to express that opinion even though it doesn’t fit with your agenda.
Mahopinion
January 14th, 2013
2:28 pm
While we are at it Adam, please explain to me how well banning drugs has done. Bans only work if people are inclined to follow them. If you aren’t, then all the laws in the world won’t prevent something. Ban drugs? Hello cartels. Ban guns? Criminals will continue to have them. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws on the books, yet this year reached a new high in the murder rate.
Lets look at some more bans now being put in to effect. New York has banned the sale of sodas over a certain size in an effort to reduce obesity. Nobel intentions, I’m sure. Yet there is zero effort being made to introduce the very things that truly reduce obesity rates in children, namely physical activity.
The newest is a ban on public hospitals and pharmacies from dispensing more than 3 days of Vicodin. That will stop addicts, right? Never mind that the hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens who have a legitimate need for pain control will be unable to get adequate relief. Punish the many for the actions of the few is the motto of the day.
BTW, I don’t own a gun, nor do I plan to. That doesn’t mean, however, that I stand in agreement with reactionary laws to prevent honest people from purchasing guns and ammunition. Unlike some of you here, I believe the MAJORITY of people have enough common sense that they don’t require someone else telling them what is right and wrong.
Adam
January 14th, 2013
3:27 pm
You know, we have “banned murder” and “banned stealing” and “banned going over a certain speed limit” and people do all those things. Does that mean we should eliminate all the laws pertaining to that?
The answer is no, of course not.
A criminal is, by definition, someone who breaks laws. To say that because criminals break laws we shouldn’t have a particular law is a tautological argument. Find a better one.
theRob
January 14th, 2013
5:09 pm
if she had used a pistol with a “high capacity” magazine or an “assault” style rifle she could have gotten off more rounds and killed this criminal, now she may face a lawsuit from him. they could loose everything.