Well said!

Silverton - Why is it that you want the U.S to become more like Scotland or the U.K.? What would have happened during the American Revolution if the civilian populace in the U.S. had no guns? What would europe have done during world war I and II if the U.S. and her guns hadn't bailed them out?

How is it that the NRA has bullied you, or me? Shooting is something that is of great release, it's an olypic sport for heavens sake. Advocating for guns to be taken out of civilian hands, is only driving the sales of guns through the roof, so keep on talking!

Comparing any of U.K.'s problems to ours is illogical. Two totally different countries, regions, and governments. I suppose we should have a king and queen as well eh? Why aren't you endorsing the implementation of all their other laws they have over there, you know that gun control isn't the only thing that goes into a lesser crime rate or whatever right? What about all their other laws that we don't have and vice versa? There is a reason why there are borders on a map. BECAUSE THE IDEOLOGIES OF THE COUNTRIES ARE DIFFERENT! From culture to people to laws....every country is different.

People need to stop comparing U.S. problems to anywhere in Europe, it's just not logical!

We don't back the gun control laws 100 percent in this country, as you say, because the Founding Fathers of America didn't want it that way, that's why it's the 2nd amendment.

It's not that hard to find what the U.S. 2nd amendment is all about.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

silverton- You said "I have owned a gun and enjoy target shooting"

So why is it then you would deny other people this happiness? Why is it you would advocate for gun control bans, when you say you owned a gun yourself. You had the right to buy that gun didn't you? And you chose to didn't you? Everything you've stood for you've just...excuse the pun...shot all to pieces.

You had the right to buy a gun (or not to) and you chose to do it. It's not forced upon you one way or the other. That is the key.

Yes, violent video games and movies and television are part of the problem, family divorce and dysfunction is part of the problem, mental illness is part of the problem, but the biggest part of the problem in massacres like this is that someone had access to military style assault weapons of war.

Nobody wants to take anyone's guns away for protection, hunting, or target shooting. But, why can't there be laws against American citizens owning weapons that kill many people in a short amount of time?

Those children and teachers were all shot multiple times and killed within TWO MINUTES.

Let those paranoid individuals who want to stockpile their weapons of mass murder do so if that makes them feel safer, but hold them equally responsible if someone steals those weapons and commits a crime with them.

Silverton ~ Why would you hold someone responsible for a murder if their gun is stolen and used in that murder and they didn't have any role in said murder? That doesn't make ANY sense at all.

"...hold them equally responsible if someone steals those weapons and commits a crime with them."

Without going into details... That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. Just throw away the judges and jury in any murder case while your at it right? Why not do the same things with knives? If someone steals my butterknife out of the drawer, and goes and kills someone with it, I guess I'd be responsible eh?

In countries where there are very strict gun control laws,there are many less deaths by guns.The number of murders of people who have guns and use them in moments of flipping out far outweigh the number of people who are so called saved by having guns.On the highway,a minor accident can turn deadly when someone takes out a gun.Or if someones "respect" is threatened someone takes out a gun and kills the other.There are too many cases of someone being refused a bummed cigarette on the street and they shoot thr person who rejected them.More guns means more deaths.How many more horrifying shootings do we need before this registers?

@bart-

Please...like someone couldn't just as easily pull out a knife and kill someone for refusing to give them a smoke.

again...the billions that it would take to enforce a gun ban would be better spent hiring a cop in every school, for every school day. Or just putting a couple national guard each school.

It's abundantly clear to me that MOST people have never read the actual 2nd Amendment:

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.

And while I fully understand that our Supreme Court, led by activist judges, have decided (at the insistance of lobbyists like the NRA) to decide that only part of this that really mattered was the 2nd clause in the 2nd Amendment, the reality is that historically - the 2nd clause is ruled by the first.

Translation: the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are to be part of a well regulated militia.

Since the 2nd Amendment has been perverted beyond logic, I think it's time that we conclude that everyday americans have the right to bear NUCLEAR ARMS - because it's in the damn constitution and how dare you damn liberal socialist commies take away my rights!

yet, most of you advocating for every idiot american to own guns, would never dream of allowing anyone to have nukes.

on some level, you absolutely get it...but on the most basic and obvious level, you simply refuse to get it.

that well regulated militia, is what is meant to "keep the govt in check"...not you and your silly cache of guns.

For those advocating putting police in the schools to guard our children.

Why dont we just put police/military people every where?

Movie theatre's...Malls...Churches...Community Meet n Greets...

you know, all the places that crazies are shooting up...

of course, that would equal a "POLICE STATE" now wouldnt it?

and well, there went our freedom...

flip a coin folks - what would you rather have, less guns...or a police state?

that appears to be our options...

Jessica - you answered your own question as to why police and military aren't put everywhere, yes, because it would mean more of a police state. But to provide a uniformed police officer, or national guardsmen or two (hrmmm National Guard...actually mean guarding something national?) in a school does not endorse or prove the existence of a police state.

I live in a rather large american city. Many many many elementary schools, high schools..etc. My wife is a teacher, my mother is a teacher, my mother in law is a teacher....

You don't have to have a police state because a cop or national guardsman or two are actually protecting our schools. The high school down the street has a uniformed cop...every school day.

You make protecting our schools seem like a bad thing, and you're twisting it into something it is not. (Police State.)

Again, you'd be spending billions of dollars over the course of years, trying to enforce a gun ban...billions that could be used to actually protect our children, and pay our teachers, and provide security...and even mental health facilities.

The only people making billions off of guns is the NRA.

The stupid comment that "crime didn't go down but went way up" is utter nonsense. The pro-gun folks are spewing garbage like this all over cyberspace. You know what went way down when the UK banned guns? Gun deaths. Only 39 in the whole of the UK last year (more than 9,000 in the U.S.) Yes, criminals can use knives and baseball bats, but it's pretty hard to kill 28 people on a knife or baseball bat rampage. A man in China went on a rampage with a knife in a school shortly before Newtown and injured more than 20 people. Guess what? Nobody died.

banning any specific weapon will only cause a criminal shift to a different weapon. If large capacity magazines are banned they will carry more small capacity magazines.

TraceyS

"The stupid comment that "crime didn't go down but went way up" is utter nonsense. The pro-gun folks are spewing garbage like this all over cyberspace. You know what went way down when the UK banned guns? Gun deaths!"

TraceyS do not make the mistake of trying to apply logic or equate with the truth anything said by the gun nut lobby. Their job is to distort and mislead and they have no other function. This nation has been poisoned with firearms and ammunition that very few actually need. The same day as the Newtown incident a maniac in China attacked a school and knifed 20+ children. The difference - all of those kids survived! A horrible incident but those parents still have their children. That's the reality they do not wish to accept.

Astounding- You cant stab someone from 100 feet away or through a wall. Comparing a gun to knife is fukn retarded. And BTW our founding fathers did not have to deal with citizens owning automatic assault rifles. GET A CLUE AND JOIN US HERE IN THE 21ST CENTURY!

Astounding, I hate to break it to you, but the year is 2012, not 1776. No foreign enemy will waste its time on invading the US. The real military threats to the US all have nukes and will use those, not ground forces. As for protecting us from our own government, are you and others who use this excuse (and yes, it is just an excuse) really so paranoid as to think the US military will fire on US civilians, or that is they did, your Ar-15's, 9mm pistols, and pre-1985 machine guns will stand up to an Abrams A1A2 tank or an Apache helicopter? Seriously? Wow.

I, and other sane people, have faith in the men and women that serve in the armed forces and in law enforcement not to carry out such an order, no matter who gives it. I am sorry you and other delusional people feel the need to shame our brave service people and law enforcement members. I truly feel sorry for you that your world view is so dark and scary. We sane people will pray for you all.

Greyfox, isn't it better that a criminal or an insane person bent on mass killing will have to stop to reload repeatedly than what we have now? Is it a total fix - no of course not, but anything that helps minimize mass killings is a step in the right direction. Gun law loopholes, such as sale by private citizens (not required to do background checks) and gun shows (often don't need to do a background check and have been shown on such shows as Dateline to allow sales of the trigger parts to turn a semi-auto weapon into a full auto weapon by buying the parts from different dealers) is also needed, as is a frank discussion on all aspects of these mass shootings, including psychiatric experts, weapon experts, (I think it silly, but) Hollywood, Video game makers, and toy makers, as well as gun owners (not the NRA who shill for the gun makers, not their members) and politicians from both sides, as well as people whose lives have been touched by gun violence. We need an open, honest debate to reach meaningful solutions. Can we ever stop such killings totally? No, never going to happen, but we can make them harder to commit these heinous acts. We may need to do baby steps to get there, but we cannot just sit passively by anymore and forget a week after such events occur.

We need to act, and the sooner the better so more innocent lives, especially children, don't get killed by someone looking for his/her posthumous fifteen minutes of fame. In this regard I wish the media, all media would simply stop reporting on the killer, because the next nut who does this will likely look to top this act. What to read/watch/listen to how a maternity ward got shot up? I for one do not, nor do I think any sane person would ever want to hear that tragedy. So I respectfully ask NBC and all other media, be it print, radio, TV, Cable or Internet to stop talking about the killers. They don't deserve the air time, or the ink (digital or real). The victims, be they killed, wounded or the families of those two groups are who should get 100% of the coverage. Treat the killers as they deserve to be treated, as filth that is beneath contempt. Reporting constantly on the lives of these monsters only glorifies them in sick minds, and we know copycats exist. Focus on the victims and show people who might just be sick enough to want to emulate the killers that they get no fame, no coverage, no glory, only silence. Of course this won't stop all such people, any more than banning guns will, but every little bit helps, and there are 20 tiny, but very important reasons being buried this week, plus their teachers, for why this should be the way media covers such events. Plus, do you in the media really think anyone outside the now dead killer will ever truly know why he did what he did? Yes, he was mentally ill, but that is a diagnosis, not a reason for the why, or why now. Forget him, as i have, which is why I will not type his name, and focus on helping the survivors (wounded and families) to survive, not just this week, but the rest of their lives. They will never be whole, but constant stories about this monster will not aid them in recovering to a point where they can live with the pain, as it reopens the wounds every single time. My wife and I had a friend killed in front of her five year old son for the $6 in the tip jar in her restaurant. The family had to move to another state because they couldn't take the constant reminder every time the killer came up for some hearing or court filing (yes he was caught and is serving life without parole). The media needs to balance news and the best things they can do for the families and survivors, and they should err on the side of the victims. Monsters, whether dead or caught should be remanded to the dust bin of history, only mentioned as being a monster and if caught, when they are sentenced (and hopefully that sentence will be for life, no parole, no good behavior), and at no other time. Just my humble opinion, but turning them into celebrities, even if that is not the intent, only makes others with equally sick minds emulate them.

Why do people automatically assume that NBC is reporting the facts and jump into a frenzy? I am from Scotland. Yes a complete ban on privately held handguns occurred in response to the tragedy in Dunblane. What they don't tell you is that it was virtually impossible to privately own a handgun before as the laws were so restrictive.

They also fail to mention that the were relatively few firearms in private hands in the uk, the majority of which were shotguns owned by farmers and hunters the average citizen could not meet the strict requirements to own even these.

When you look at a the facts you see that you can legislate gun ownership almost to extinction yet a nutcase still shot all those poor people in Dunblane.

You cant stop crime with legislation. All legislation does is diminish the rights of law abiding citizens.

It's abundantly clear to me that MOST people have never read the actual 2nd Amendment:

My absolute favorite part of the above statement is the clear understanding that while historical scholars and grammatical scholars have debated their entire lives on every facet of the meaning behind the verbiage that makes up the 2nd amendment, determining meaning based on wording, based on grammatical rules applied during the time period, illustrating the reasoning for the commas where they are and why, bringing about the historical beliefs of the individuals that wrote it, etc...

here comes Jessica to say, "most people don't know what they're talking about with it but here's exactly what they meant a couple hundred years ago when they came up the with the concept and the verbiage".

I guess those that have spent their lives studying and writing about it can all stop now - she has the definitive answer to it.

/* facepalm */

Well stated Celtic

To the citizens of Dunblane...Thank You.

astounding

Gun control is not the answer. You take away the peoples weapons, then they are defenseless, from their own government to an invasion. Not to mention the Constitution.

I believe gun control is an answer. It may not be the best solution, but it will help. If the point of having weapons is mainly to protect ourselves against gov. invasion, then u have a failing argument. We have had only one civil war in the entire history of our nation and that was about 150 yrs ago. The probability of that happening again are virtually nil. Besides, if it did happen again, there would be local armories to supply the citizens.

"...That Eurystheus, though a Tyrant, is still a man like other men, and if he rules, it is because other men will to be ruled."

"Really?" said Iolaus. "I thought it was because the other men didn't have guns."

"Oh, every household in the realm has at least one gun," said Dyanera. "Our Lord encourages it, so that we can better prepare for war. But he keeps all the tanks."

from "Hercules in a Yugo," chapter 10.

http://www.fanfiction.net/s/8733676/10/Hercules-in-a-Yugo

If people won't give up their handguns and assault weapons, then ban all guns, and let them fight for their hunting rifles.

We can't compromise when we give away everything we would concede to in the first place. Haggle means that we take away everything, and then maybe add something back.

Sorry folks, but the world must not sacrifice virgins to the dragons.

I am sick of "reasonable" people who are tyrants and aide and abet murder.

Guns are needed [?] to protect ourselves from the gummit, whom we elect, and whom we could go to Washington D.C., just as easily as the millionaires, and sit on the doorstep of the office buildings lobbying the Senators and Representatives so that they listen to people, not just corporations. And the people could ban the big campaign spending too.

Tobacco is needed to kill people over 65, even though there is no statute of limitations on murder, and the tobacco executives have NEVER stood criminal trial for mass murder.

It is O.K. to contaminate food and drugs with molds that are visible in the workplaces, mice droppings, roaches and other insects, and bacteria that can easily be tested. It's fine if people die (see above about the tobacco industry) because these are corporate executives who are above the law even though there is no statute of limitations on murder.

It is just fine to frack the ground under our feet, releasing methane that will warm the planet and won't be used for fuel, and also pouring chemicals that will kill us (see above about the tobacco industry and the food and drug industries), and also use up all the usable fresh water that could save crops in extreme drought that was caused by... the methane release.

No problem building those nuclear power plants next to oceans; it only will destroy foreign countries, even though New Jersey came awfully close to the same problem as Fukushima after hurricane Sandy. How about building coal and nuclear plants on fault lines too, while we're at it?

It's all good, clean, fun; rugged individualism (except that it is the corporations, not individuals that get away with it). Yes, count the gun manufacturers. They are corporations too, and it is their business to scare you. Just think who has been making all the profits in the last few years? If you try any of this yourself as a rugged individual, you will likely either go away for life without parole, or more likely you will be facing lethal injection. But it's OK, in fact, it must be protected by the U.S. Constitution if a corporation does it.

For all Americans that want all firearms made illegal they are free to move to those countries who ban all firearms. Everytime a mentally disturbed person causes mass murder the knee jerk reaction is to compare the United States with countries who do not allow their citizens to own firearms.Instead of writing to your representatives about guns why not write to them about the Patients Rights Bill.

usa1967,

Oh, but you are so wrong because after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland, the UK banned not only handguns, but automatic and semi-automatic weapons, and now the United Kingdom has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.

Now is the time to stand up and speak out, America.

Email the White House, your State Governor, Senators, and Congressmen, and let them know that we will back them 100% for enforcing new gun laws that ban these assault military style weapons. Tell those politicians whether they are Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc., that we will remember if they had a backbone when it came to standing up to the NRA.

I heard yesterday on the news, one of the family members of child that was murdered in Newtown said that some of the families have already started talking about getting together and trying to do something about these weapons of mass slaughter. We should all put our voices and votes behind them and tell them that we grieve with them and will support their efforts.

TELL THE NRA THAT WE WON'T LET THEM BULLY US ANYMORE.

For more than a century the US Supreme Court did NOT interpret the 2nd Amendment as a right of private ownership but in terms of a militia. It is possible that the 2008 decision was NOT was the founders intended.

Yes, if you outlaw high-capacity magazines, criminals will just switch to carrying around multiple small-capacity magazines.

But that will still save lives. Don't you remember why Loughner (the Giffords shooter) stopped killing people? He had to reload, and was subdued by unarmed people.

From Wikipedia: Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.^[24] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the 14th injury.^[25] The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger,^[26] who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman

Hey, Mr. TomTom-72, it's still early. But, I think the assault rifles will get hit with restrictions, but handguns probably not.

Hope springs eternal. We need to change our culture about guns. Why does anybody need to own an assault rifle? For hunting? If you need 30 rounds to bring down a deer, you are a menace and have no business either shooting such a firearm or hunting in general.

We need to change our culture about guns.

We need to change our culture about VIOLENCE.

One of the things I've found incredible for years is that people will eat dinner while watching a televised drama featuring a woman being raped or graphic scenes of murder and its aftermath. They consider it entertaining! Something to watch while eating dinner! Now that is SICK.

In a society that loves violence so much that it is featured in entertainment, games, and even music, gun-control isn't going to work at all. It's only going to create a thriving black-market that will beget more violence. It's an ineffectual band-aid so the government and public can pretend they're addressing the problem.

A guy is searching the ground one night under a streetlight. His friend walks up and asks him what he's doing.
"Looking for the ring I lost."
"You lost it here?"
"No, but this is where the light is."

An old, not-very-funny joke. Certainly assault weapons should not be legal, but gun ownership is neither the problem not the solution.

bc33324, exactly rght! When I began deer hunting in the early 70's, I carried a single shot 20 gauge. I believed then and yet do today, that in the true sense of sportsmanship, that if you miss with the first shot you probably don't deserve a second.

Why does anybody need to own an assault rifle? For hunting?

If only the 2nd Amendment said anything at all about hunting.

Gun control is not the answer. You take away the peoples weapons, then they are defenseless, from their own government to an invasion. Not to mention the Constitution.

The answer isn't to force our teachers to carry guns, nor is it right to disarm the civilian populace, which would trample our constitional right. Put a cop or national guard or two in EVERY school.

We can afford to give 8 billion dollars to Egypt, an Islamic country, dictatorship, and unfriendly in many ways...but we can't secure our schools? Yes it would cost money, but is it not worth it? The money is already there, we can spend 800billion to bail out GM and Chrysler, but we can't spend a few bil on our own schools? Pay our teachers better! Protect our children better. Stop spending billions in aid to countries like Egypt, who just use the money to further their totalitarian mindset.

"That was 17 years ago, but memories of the incident, which led to a total ban on the private ownership of handguns in the U.K." Will the American egotistical rambo, redneck, macho, gangsta 'Don't f with me' mentality ever allow this to happen here? They are so much more civilized in Europe.

I need an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine because I want one, and it's my legal right, a right I refuse to give up without a fight and blooodshed. I assure you I'm an excellent shot, have yet to meet a police officer who has outshot me on the range and I was the best shooter in my batallion and department. If they want my assault rifles, they are going to have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers, after climing over the bodies of dozens of dead cops. How much blood are you willing to spill to enforce a knee jerk law? If you liberal pieces of @!$%# want our guns come and get them, I @!$%#ing dare you!

MolonLabe,

You are part of the problem, not part of the answer. You think selfishly instead of what is best for the nation as a whole.

Why is the NRA silent during this time?

Oh, that's right ... they have the blood of innocent children on their hands.

They are so much more civilized in Europe.

I like there, but I want to live here, so I'll force changes here make it like there instead of moving. Might want to come up with a new strategy.

Why is the NRA silent during this time?

Oh, that's right ... they have the blood of innocent children on their hands.

I thought for sure I had read this was the work of one deranged individual. Are you saying that 4.3 million people came to this school and shot it up?

Common Sense-2004266

I like the knee jerk reaction to guns ownership in America. The truth is everything is so dramatic to you liberals. Total handgun ban for one persons actions. Then to top it off by a country who would have used guns to keep us a part of their nation. Liberals are using this as a political tool, using the twenty school children to justify their position. Who is really the evil person, the gun owner or those who would use this for political gain? I know, do you? After the massacre in Norway the chif Justice stood up to the calls for action and I very much like how he put it.

"Stoltenberg called the attack a "national tragedy" and the worst atrocity in Norway since World War II. Stoltenberg further vowed that the attack would not hurt Norwegian democracy, and said the proper answer to the violence was "more democracy, more openness, but not naivety"

I think he hit the nail on the head.

Cudos patter123, you hit the nail on the head. Even with the joke.

Gun laws do not stop gun crime. It just increases the black market value of the weapon.

"If these handgun denials were successful in preventing violence-prone people from arming themselves, we would expect to see a larger reduction in gun crimes committed in the 32 Brady states compared with the non-Brady states. Disappointingly, our study did not find significant trend differences between the Brady and non-Brady states in the most reliably measured gun crime - homicide. Thus the direct effect on gun crime that advocates expected from denying disqualified adults in the Brady states does not reveal itself in our data."

Taken from DukeToday (original article ran in the Charlotte Observer, Aug. 15, 2000). Let's hear from professor Cook at Duke University. In 2003, Professor Philip J. Cook was regarded by many as the foremost expert on gun control...but here, this was what Virginia Law had to say about him and what he said respectively

"Regarded as the nation's foremost authority on gun control, Cook spoke on "Evaluating the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act" to inaugurate a new lecture series on public health, law and ethics issues."

Data shows a slow gradual decline in gun homicides from 1993 to the present, a trend that started before the Brady Bill passed, but figures from both the control and treatment states track virtually identically. "Control and treatment states had the same gun homicide rates before and after the Brady law passed," Cook said. "It made no discernable difference. There is no statistically significant effect."

Data on gun suicides showed the same trends, though Cook said there is "some hint of an effect" on the gun suicide rate for persons over age 55, some of whom appear to be deterred by the waiting period. But overall suicide rates do not decline, suggesting that some people simply changed their method when they couldn't get a gun more easily.

So, yeah...I could put more up here, but I don't want to make this quite that long. The point is, this is just two examples if you google "Brady Bill Crime Effect". Let's google some more, just for the fun of it. Let's try something like "Gun Control Law Effects Black Market", whataya say?

Many surveys suggest criminals obtain their weapons through this illegal firearms market. One study indicated that in 37 percent of their arrests the criminal said they could obtain a gun in less than a week, while another 20 percent said they could get a firearm in a day or less. Therefore the biggest problem is not that cities either have too many or too few laws pertaining to gun control, but more the amount of firearms (mostly handguns) that are sold each year on the black market.

That was from Examiner.com. Let's try Firearmsandliberty.com. Quick question to get you thinking from the article first.

Why, though, would one think that federal policing of illegal firearms would be
better than local policing? The logic of that argument is far from clear.
Cities, after all, are comparatively small places. Washington, DC, for example,
has an area of less than 45,000 acres. Yet local officers have had little luck
repressing the illegal firearms trade there. Why should federal officers do any
better watching the United States' 12,000 miles of coastline and millions of
square miles of interior? Criminals should be able to frustrate federal police
forces just as well as they can local ones. Ten years of increasingly stringent
federal efforts to abate cocaine trafficking, for example, have not succeeded in
raising the street price of the drug.

Ok, on to the quotes.

Is a state large enough to be an effective island, then? Suppose Illinois adopted Chicago's handgun ban. Same problem again. Some people could just get guns elsewhere: Indiana actually borders the city, and Wisconsin is only forty miles away. Though federal law prohibits the sale of handguns in one state to residents of another, thousands of Chicagoans with summer homes in other states could buy handguns there. And, of course, a black market would serve the needs of other customers

Gun-control laws don't work. What is worse, they act perversely. While
legitimate users of firearms encounter intense regulation, scrutiny, and
bureaucratic control, illicit markets easily adapt to whatever difficulties a
free society throws in their way. Also, efforts to curtail the supply of
firearms inflict collateral damage on freedom and privacy interests that have
long been considered central to American public life. Thanks to the seemingly
never-ending war on drugs and long experience attempting to suppress
prostitution and pornography, we know a great deal about how illicit markets
function and how costly to the public attempts to control them can be. It is
essential that we make use of this experience in coming to grips with gun
control.

That articl is from March 1994 in The Atlantic Monthly entitled "The False Promise of Gun Control" by Daniel D. Polsby. Wonder what the ACLU says.

The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the
right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on
gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the
regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.

See, this is where I disagree with the ACLU (and not the only thing I disagree with), but that's the purpose of this orgainzation. To constantly debate, while protecting the integrety of the Bill of Rights. It's good to debate and talk about these things. It expands your thoughts on them.

So again, I say that all these new gun control bans will not have the desired effect on crime. Until we find a way to make common sense laws, which are enforcable and deal with the people problem, we not get the desired result. Targetting one kind of weapon only effects the law of Supply and Demand, it does not effect the crime rate.

~Silverton The NRA released a statement yesterday. And how is it "they" have blood on their hands? You realized you just tried to implicate 4 million people right, I mean, that's what the NRA is made up of. This was the work of a distraught and mentally struggling teen, who was proven to be in a state of mental instability well before the shooting. Newton is NOT the work of the NRA, we don't need to change to European laws...etc.

~Molon

There is a proper way to deal with guns and an incorrect way. You are leaning toward the incorrect way.

NRA stays silent. Although, I imagine they are quietly slipping a few more bucks to their friends in Washington.

Hey, all you politicians, we are watching you and seeing how fast you scurry to keep our nation from going over the fiscal cliff, and how fast you stand up to the NRA that's been bankrolling your new sailboats and vacation homes for the past decades.

The citizens of America are watching what you do and how you vote, and we will remember in 2014.

Stop thinking of yourselves and your own pockets.

Silverton, you are an idiot. I hope you learn quickly to shut up.

Sorry, but neither you nor the NRA is going to bully us anymore.

Silverton - How exactly are they bullying you or anyone else? Define "us" for me please.

MolonLabe, given that you, in your own words, would be willing to kill several people (that would be just doing their jobs) to keep a possession just because 'you want one', you are the last person that I would want to have an assault rifle and one wonders how you ever managed to pass a background check. It is clear that a psychological exam is not part of the check.

To "astounding" --

The NRA has bullied and bribed politicians for decades until those elected officials are scared to death to even mention gun control of any kind.

Just look at the remarks most of the politicians are making right now. They are vague and really don't say anything, except ... oh, we need to do something to stop the murder of children, etc.

The NRA and its fanatic supporters have bullied American citizens who want stricter gun laws -- not laws banning guns, but laws banning military style weapons that should not be in the hands of the average American citizen.

Fortunately, since the deaths of these innocent children and their teachers, people have finally had enough of the stranglehold of the NRA and are speaking out in the thousands.

WE WILL NOT LET THE NRA OR ITS SUPPORTERS BULLY US ANYMORE.

Silverton ~ There have been thousands of gun ban advocates speaking out for decades, it's nothing new.

You keep saying "WE" ... like you represent a greater population. If there are more like you, who think that the entire NRA is guilty of this crime, that we should have Chinese laws and U.K. laws, that everyone who has a gun stolen and said gun is used in a homicide is guilty....all these things you have endorsed in previous posts.... it just amazes me, the ignorance.

All those hundreds of millions of dollars you'd use to try and enforce such a ban could immediately be used to hire a cop or two in every school across america and pay our teachers better. Wouldn't that be a more logical solution?

I know of NOBODY who has been bullied by the NRA. This isn't grade school. You just can't cry out "bully!" and assume all your arguments are going to disappear. Stop blaming four million americans (the NRA) for the death of these school children! THEY had nothing to do with any of it, and it's absolute nonense to try and say all of those people are bullying you.

The work of mental instability in a teen, who happened to have access to guns, and did NOT have access to a mental health facility. All those billions of dollars you'd use trying to implement gun bans...again...could be used for facilities like this and many other things...such as actually paying our teachers!

The only people making billions off of guns is the NRA.

Silverton my boy, the first step to having a rich and fullfilling life is to educate yourself. Has the NRA done as you have suggested? Probably. But aren't there other groups which do that too? Did you know that the roots of the Klan are in the Democratic National Party?

History shows that the Ku Klux Klan was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party. This ugly fact about the Democrat Party is detailed in the book, A Short History of Reconstruction, (Harper & Row Publishers, Inc., 1990) by Dr. Eric Foner, the renown liberal historian who is the DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University. As a further testament to his impeccable credentials, Professor Foner is only the second person to serve as president of the three major professional organizations: the Organization of American Historians, American Historical Association, and Society of American Historians.
Democrats in the last century did not hide their connections to the Ku Klux Klan. Georgia-born Democrat Nathan Bedford Forrest, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan wrote on page 21 of the September 1928 edition of the Klan’s “The Kourier Magazine”: “I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party.”

Taken from NationalBlackRepublicans.com. The article by Francis Rice is entitled KKK:Terrorist Arm of the Democratic Party.

Wonder what that fact has effected when Democrats have control of the country?

Reinstate guns laws that ban automatic and semi-automatic weapons of war.

I like the knee jerk reaction to guns ownership in America. The truth is everything is so dramatic to you liberals.

I guess I'm one of those "liberals", and I guess I'm thinking that my knee jerk reaction is to limit ASSAULT weapons. But that probably won't work, as the "conservative" knee jerk reaction would be that we have to have ASSAULT weapons so the government can't get us...geez...talk about knee jerk.

"I need an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine because I want one, and it's my legal right, a right I refuse to give up without a fight and blooodshed. I assure you I'm an excellent shot, have yet to meet a police officer who has outshot me on the range and I was the best shooter in my batallion and department. If they want my assault rifles, they are going to have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers, after climing over the bodies of dozens of dead cops. How much blood are you willing to spill to enforce a knee jerk law? If you liberal pieces of @!$%# want our guns come and get them, I @!$%#ing dare you!"

A perfect example of why we need to control gun violence in this country.Here would be the poster-boy for people who should never have guns.This type is unstable,violence prone,with no consideration for society.You can see this type in prison any day of the week,or on the news after being taken out in a SWAT operation.

JD -1203795

Cudos patter123, you hit the nail on the head. Even with the joke.

Gun laws do not stop gun crime. It just increases the black market value of the weapon.

By enforcing a ban you removed them from the black market. Guns if bought legally are easily traceable to the owner.

@MolonLabe5.56

I need an assault rifle with a 30 round magazine because I want one, and it's my legal right, a right I refuse to give up without a fight and blooodshed. I assure you I'm an excellent shot, have yet to meet a police officer who has outshot me on the range and I was the best shooter in my batallion and department. If they want my assault rifles, they are going to have to pry them out of my cold, dead fingers, after climing over the bodies of dozens of dead cops

Well, I suppose someone will, just as they have other shooters and suicides. Not being able to use spell-check nor the edit features on Newsvine sure doesn't bode well for the appearance of patience and the thought process. So sad that your so-called need is your obviously self-centered pride.

Aw, c'mon, MolonLabe is just kidding you. If he were serious, he would know that NBCNEWS has his IP address and is fully capable of passing it along to law enforcement where he lives, for threatening to use his weapons on them. He is just having good clean fun as a rugged individual that is totally serving the gun corporations that are using him to make a huge amount of money at his expense.

Well the liberal liars are out in force today, lets set the record straight. The NRA doesn't make billions off of gun sales, they are run by dues and donations. As an endowment member I donate heavily.

Politicians shaking in their boots over the NRA? THEY DAMN WELL BETTER! A voting block of over four million had better make politicians stand up and pay attention. Is our government or is it not, of the people, for the people, by the people? Four million is a LOT of people. A bunch of whiny fascist progressives don't make a majority.

There is one gun for every man, woman, and child in this country. In addition we share a huge border with Mexico. Gun bans are impossible no matter what the budget. Did alcohol bans work? Drugs? Not only did they fail but they triggered a huge crime wave in both instances. The vast majority of gun deaths in this country are drug related.

You want our gun deaths in line with other countries? End the drug war and decriminalize them.

You can't say that more guns = more deaths, Switzerland is heavily armed with citizens owning automatic weapons. You can't say less guns = less deaths, Mexico has a complete ban yet deaths are staggering.

Despite the RARE mass shooting, as gun laws have been relaxed, all violent crimes have been reduced. 49 states allow conceal carry and IL is under court order to be the fiftieth. This is because the FBI statistics that more guns = less crime are irrefutable.

Finally the assault weapons/large magazine ban is nothing but a shameless fascist exploitation of innocents. The vast majority of mass shootings have been with garden variety guns and average sized magazines. Of the two that were with assault weapons, (a completely made up term about how a weapon looks, NOT how deadly it is!), if they were totally banned the shooter would have just used ordinary guns like the rest.

What do liberal idiots think - "Gee I can't use assault weapons so I guess I just won't do it." ???? Stupid. Not one of those lives would have been saved by a complete ban on assault weapons.

As mentioned earlier, if large magazines weren't available, is easy to change mag's as fast as you can shoot. Small mag's are only an inconvenience, NOT a deterrent. Again the vast majority of gun deaths are with garden variety guns, even six shooters like the .38 that doesn't even have a magazine.

Idiot liberals still can't accept the constitution and will do anything to subvert it and a judge that interprets the constitution by studying the founding father's opinions and writings on a subject are NOT activist, it's the ones who make it up as they go along totally ignoring the founding fathers rulings that are activist.

Yes it isn't 1776, yet our constitution has been surprisingly relevant even in the 21st century. Fascists would have you believe otherwise.

US violent crime rate = 4.2, Europe = 1.1.

I Googled it.

The murder rate in America is more than 5 times that of Europe. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

The article above is about the United Kingdom. As of 2008, the U.K. had 1,600 'violent crimes against the person' per 100,000. The United States, as of 2009, had 3,466 per 100,000. That is more than twice the rate of the U.K.

In 2008, there were 14,180 murders in America -- about 1 in 24,000 -- of which about 2/3rds were via firearms. Last year, there were only 550 murders in England and Wales -- about 1 in 125,000. The U.S. murder rate is about 5 times greater.

Only Africa has a higher murder rate. Murders are plentiful in Asia but the population is so enormous that comparatively few have guns, so their overall rate is lower.

Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_statistics_in_the_United_Kingdom

OH right, wiki told you.... sigh

All you have to do is pick up a news paper in La, Chicago, DC and read it. It will TELL YOU THAT GUN BANS DO NOT WORK! What more proof do you need???? ALL TIME murder and crime rates! Sheesh!

NYC, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, is among the safest, if not the safest, large city in the US. Perhaps enforced gun laws do work.

All the time, I see people trying to use Chicago's gun ban to make their point that bans do not work. Well genius, just because a city bans them, jump in your car, drive 10 minutes, and you are out of the city. No gun ban there.

Greg -

Gun homicide rate in 1993 - 6.6 per 100,000. In 2011 - 3.2 in 100,000.

446 school age children were killed in Chicago this year. WHY hasn't the left cried over their deaths?? Are they RACIST??? OR is it does not fir in their little rampage?? YOU see Chicago has on of the strictest GUN laws in the country...And it DOES NOT WORK!!!!

@golfleft

You can't compare ALL of europe to america. It's impossible. First of all, every country is different, from laws to taxes to age, to poverty, to government...etc. You can't say "Europe" 1.1 percet...and U.S. another. You just grouped Maine for instance with Nevada and Arizona. Totally different numbers as are the numbers from one european country to another. Google it some more.

Furthermore, AMERICA IS NOT EUROPE!

By your logic, we should just blindly do everything EU does, because apparently they have a 1.1 percent crime rate. I don't agree with that at all, mainly because that number will shift from month to month, year to year.

Then we have the history of disarming the populace. If a government disarms the populace, they have no way to defend themselves, against their own government or another.

Europes problems our not ours, as America's problems are NOT European. Half of Europe doesn't even have a space program, so, I guess we should abandon that too? What about every other law?

We don't have to force teachers to carry guns. We don't need to trample the constitutional right to bear arms. All there needs to be is a cop or two in EVERY school, or national guardsmen.

@greg
And you sir may have "researched" asia and Europe as well, what's your point? Asia is full of communists...should we also follow their government? Where does it stop? Why would you even bring up Asia and then not provide any numbers? Not that it would matter, because again...two totally different regions, and countries. If you people are going to start comparing entire regions, such as Europe or Asia, shouldn't you just be grouping ALL of North America as you have done Europe and Asia? Which....would give you an inaccurate number, because Mexico's numbers are way different that Canada, but apparently that bothers neither you greg or golfsleft....because you did the same thing in Europe. Why are you comparing an entire continent (Europoe) to one country (U.S.A)?

Inaccurate information, and furthermore, becoming more like Europe is the last thing the U.S. should want. We are NOT europe, we have always been able to defend and protect ourselves.

Since banning handguns, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.

Since banning handguns, the United Kingdom has one of the lowest gun homicide rates in the world.

And one of the highest rates of violent crime in the world. Just sayin'

Well,

we are talking about gun laws in this thread. I don't know about the UK's violent crime rate, but their gun homicides are definitely lower since banning handguns. So, that proves that taking these types of weapons out of the hands of the average citizen actually works to lower gun deaths.

Those children and teachers in Newtown were killed in TWO MINUTES, EACH SHOT BETWEEN 3-11 TIMES.

It would be hard to kill that many people so quickly with a knife or even an ordinary gun. The crazy nut in China that knifed 22 children only wounded them, but they did not die. If he had had an automatic weapon like the ones used in Newtown, those little children would all be dead now, too.

BAN ALL AUTOMATIC AND SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS OF WAR.

we are talking about gun laws in this thread. I don't know about the UK's violent crime rate, but their gun homicides are definitely lower since banning handguns. So, that proves that taking these types of weapons out of the hands of the average citizen actually works to lower gun deaths.

So you would trade a drop in gun violence for an increase in overall violence? Our gun homicide rates have dropped by half over the last 12 years and our violent crimes have dropped during the same period. Gun ownership during this period has grown to 310 million guns in the hands of the public. You do see how the increase in gun ownership has not led to increased violence don't you? So what is it you are after in reality?

Silverton - You obviously believe what you want to believe. U.K. this and China that...who the freak cares? America is NOT China, it is not the U.K. There are borders on a map for a reason. Are you actually endorsing China's laws for the civilian populace?

There is sooooo much more than weapons bans that go into a lower crime rate, for you to sit there and so blindly lean on your argument...it's just silly.

So if we're going to start basing our laws off of what China and the U.K. does, where does it end?

How long have your forefathers been in this country? (Rhetorical question. Not that you would really provide an answer anyway.)

If you like it in China or the U.K so much, why are you in the U.S? I have the RIGHT to bear arms, as it says I have the RIGHT to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Silverton - You obviously believe what you want to believe. U.K. this and China that...who the freak cares? America is NOT China, it is not the U.K. There are borders on a map for a reason. Are you actually endorsing China's laws for the civilian populace?

There is sooooo much more than weapons bans that go into a lower crime rate, for you to sit there and so blindly lean on your argument...it's just silly.

So if we're going to start basing our laws off of what China and the U.K. does, where does it end?

How long have your forefathers been in this country? (Rhetorical question. Not that you would really provide an answer anyway.)

If you like it in China or the U.K so much, why are you in the U.S? I have the RIGHT to bear arms, as it says I have the RIGHT to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

x

All you paranoid gun enthusiasts better start stockpiling your already well-stocked arsenal because new gun laws are on the way. Just be sure nobody steals your automatic weapons of war because you will be held responsible for that as well.

It may surprise you that I have owned a gun and enjoy target shooting.

My son and his young wife also have permits to carry a concealed weapon and do so at times. I have no problem with that.

Nobody is trying to take away your weapons for protection, hunting, and target practice. But, those automatic and semi-automatic military-style guns that kill scores of people in a matter of seconds do not need to be in the hands of the average American citizen. They should be reserved for the police and military alone.

Those children and their teachers were shot multiple times within TWO MINUTES.

Just be sure nobody steals your automatic weapons of war because you will be held responsible for that as well.

I am already held responsible for the disposition of my firearms. It is the law.

But, those automatic and semi-automatic military-style guns that kill scores of people in a matter of seconds do not need to be in the hands of the average American citizen. They should be reserved for the police and military alone.

Two things here. You don't get to say what I need and the police should never be able to outgun the public. Which is why they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Nope, those laws were written back when people had muskets and did not have police protection or military protection like we have today.

That's the biggest problem with paranoid NRA supporters -- they think of our government, our military, and our police as enemies.

You forget that those guys are on OUR side.

Nope, those laws were written back when people had muskets and did not have police protection or military protection like we have today.

Irrelevant. There is no such thing as police protection according to the Supreme Court. They are a reactionary force. The military protects the government, not the individual. Like it or not, you are required to look after yourself. You cannot pawn it off to somebody else.

That's the biggest problem with paranoid NRA supporters -- they think of our government, our military, and our police as enemies.

Not true at all. We think of them as an extension of ourselves that work for the good of the people and not for the good of the government. I think of the government as a tool shed. They help provide the tools and I create. Not the other way around.

Silveton ~ You have said twice now that people who have their guns stolen are going to be held responsible for the gun being stolen and used in a crime...where do you get this info? Why would you do such a thing. What if someone steals my butter knife and kills someone with it? Am I held responisble for that in your new government?

Of course, I'm arguing with you... the person who has said over and over again the entire NRA has bullied you and everyone who doesn't own a gun, and that they are responsible for Newton.

It's ashame people like you actually influence others. Read aforementioned posts...you have no argument, and I'm done. You'd spend billions and billions trying to enforce a gun ban, but still the schools would have no security or protection, or even nearby mental health facilities. How many 20 million dollar health facilities can 8 billion dollars buy? How many teacher pay raises could we support if we weren't spending billions in foreign aid to countries that hate us (like Egypt and Afghanistan)? How much would 100 billion buy? That's only 1/8th of what we spent to bail out the Automotive Industry, and yet you saying we should spend billions and billions trying to ban guns all together....it just wouldn't work.

BILLIONS FOLKS. You'd spend it enacting laws that disarm the populace and put more guns in the hands of the government, instead of paying our teachers and protecting our children. Just ashame.

The only people making billions of dollars off of guns is the NRA and the politicians they pay to keep quiet.

The only people making billions of dollars off of guns is the NRA.

I guess it is true....You can't fix stupid.

LettyLane-1334471

446 school age children were killed in Chicago this year. WHY hasn't the left cried over their deaths?? Are they RACIST??? OR is it does not fir in their little rampage?? YOU see Chicago has on of the strictest GUN laws in the country...And it DOES NOT WORK!!!!

Let's not start using the race card randomly. Think about it. Over the course of the year thousands are killed with guns regardless of race, every year. It is a stat that happens so routinely, we can predict how many will be killed the following yr. It is something we have unfortunately grown accustom to. Mass murder is not an everyday occurrence. We hold children closer to our hearts than most others. Put it together, mass murder involving children, well, u have one of the biggest attention getter's of all time. That is why i think it is receiving so much attention and questions about what can be done about it.

Ruger-I guess it is true....You can't fix stupid.

My thoughts exactly after reading your posts. But while we can't "fix" stupid. We can make sure they aren't armed with assault rifles.

Got anything of substance to offer, Uncle Bob?

We do not need to sacrifice virgins to dragons. That is substance.

Or how about we need a sane society so that our country does not fall apart.

Liberal liars: NRA makes billions off of gun sales

Liberal liars: You are responsible if your stolen gun is used in a crime

Liberal liars: Oooh, the NRA INTIMIDATES me!

Nobody believes you, get over it.

SORRY, Valhalla,

Neither you nor the NRA can bully America citizens anymore.

Total bull sh1t!

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

@golfsLeft

I will take the word of the ACTUAL Australians vs. the LEFTEST AGENDA DRIVEN FACTCHECK.ORG!

I know, I know, facts are always agenda driven. When it comes to organizations like the Heritage Foundation or Fox News, there is certainly some truth to that statement.

mbob, provide a link to your ACTUAL Australians.

Never let facts get in the way of a right wing, fascist agenda driven story, eh bob?

"There are three kinds of lies. Lies, damn lies and statistics." Mark Twain

Lets go with the country that has laws that work Look up Switzerland!!! EVERY adult is given a gun by the government they are requied to learn to use it...they have the lowest murder rate in the civilized world!!! PROVEN IT WORKS!!!!!!

In Switzerland it is ILLEGAL for a person to store ammunition for that gun in their home. The Swiss government keeps very strict control over AMMUNITION and while the government sponsors gun training and target shooting competitions, ALL ammunition must be used only at these events.

The above applies to members of the Swiss home militia. They have never had a standing army. All males must serve in the militia until the age of 34. They are issued a weapon to be kept at home. Each and every one. They may not keep ammunition for that gun at home.

How about it Letty? NO AMMUNITION !!!!PROVEN IT WORKS!!!

Factcheck.org is a leftist propaganda outlet funded buy George Soros, just like MoveOn.org and a number of other sites. He also funds NPR and other outlets for the same purpose.

Gun Control in Australia

Q: Did gun control in Australia lead to more murders there last year?

A: This ‘Gun History Lesson’ is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.

FULL QUESTION

Is this true??

FULL ANSWER

The e-mail says that "[i]t has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms." Actually, it’s been 13 years since Australian gun law was originally changed. In 1996, the government banned some types of guns, instituted a buyback program and imposed stricter licensing and registration requirements. Gun ownership rates in Australia declinedfrom 7 percent to 5 percent. Another law in 2002 http://www.handgunbuyback.gov.au/">tightened restrictions a bit more, restricting caliber, barrel length and capacity for sport shooting handguns.

Have murders increased since the gun law change, as claimed? Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.

Furthermore, murders using firearms have declined even more sharply than murders in general since the 1996 gun law. In the seven years prior to 1997, firearms were used in 24 percent of all Australian homicides. But most recently, firearms were used in only 11 percent of Australian homicides, according to figures for the 12 months ending July 1, 2007. That’s a decline of more than half since enactment of the gun law to which this message refers.

Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.

So there’s no consensus about whether the changes decreased gun violence or had little to no effect. But the only argument we’ve seen arguing that it caused an increase in murder comes from our anonymous e-mail author.

The claims about Australian gun control were circulating as far back as 2001, when Snopes.com went over them and concluded that they were a "small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics" signifying little.

Historical Humbug

The e-mail’s historical information is not much better. One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.

American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.

Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.

(Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japan’s WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his country’s leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.)

Update, May 11: We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called "the dean of Pearl Harbor historians." Among his many books are "The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans (1993)" and the best-selling "At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (1981)." He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is "bogus."

In an exchange of e-mails he said:

Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

As for the other claims, we talked to Dr. Robert Spitzer, a political science professor and the author of"The Politics of Gun Control" and two other books on gun control legislation. Spitzer called the e-mail "a cartoonish view of the complex events" regarding the rise of Nazi Germany, the Cambodian mass killings and the other events that the anonymous author attributes to gun laws. "The people who write these things don’t know comparative politics, they don’t know international relations, they haven’t studied war," Spitzer told us.

We have no doubt that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot tried to keep guns out of the hands of ordinary citizens. But that doesn’t mean that gun control necessarily leads to totalitarian dictatorships. This reasoning is a classic example of the fallacy known as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" – "after this, therefore because of this." The fact that one thing happens after another does not mean that there’s any causation involved. And that rule would apply to anyone making an argument completely counter to that of our e-mail author, as well. Simply saying "Australian law reform reduced gun fatalities," if all you know is that deaths dropped after 1996, would be post hoc ergo propter hoc, too.

In summary, this author’s claims are simplistic, fallacious and unsupported by historical or current evidence.

– Jess Henig

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

Not to smart there eh...Switzerland has the lowest murder rate than any civilized country!! How you ask well EVERY adult is given a gun by the government and are requied to learn how to use it...and guess what it is PROVEN it works!!! SO go with the winner make every adult in this country be armed and know how to use it...gee that sure goes against the looney left eh...

Nobody on the gun control side cares about that. They say "more guns equals more violence, duh." and ignore the facts as they relate to gun violence and violent crime as a whole falling over the past 20 years. They can't grasp the fact that gun ownership has skyrocketed to 310 million and the gun homicide rate has been cut in half over the past 12 years.

Ruger when did the loony left ever let "facts" get in their way???? IF they were serious they would go with a "proven" gun law that really works...SWITZERLAND" has the lowest murder rate of ANY civilizes country. They GIVE a gun to every adult citizen they are required to train with the gun. TOTALLY oppsite of the loony lefts ideas...LOL...but that usually the way it is with those loons...

If it makes you feel safe to have a gun, at least keep it away from the kids. After my dad accidentally discharged a hand gun just inches from my sisters foot, I found them useless in the home. If someone really wants your things, they can get it via nonviolent means these days rather than a home invasion robbery. Welcome to the 21st century. I am more concerned with cyber theft than can decimate my finances than someone wanting to steal something from my home.

If it makes you feel safe to have a gun, at least keep it away from the kids.

While I don't own guns for home defense I certainly share your sentiment concerning proper and safe handling/storage.

A gun is an inanimate object. For the most part, they just sit there doing nothing. What controls the gun? The shooter. What controls the shooter? Their brain. What controls their brain? In EVERY one of these rampages since Whitman in the Texas Tower in the sixties and probably before, until the present, the perpetrators had a present use of psychotropic drugs or had recently ceased using them. If you watch the 4 short videos on this link, you'll see that "Big Pharma" has created it's own version of the Zombie Apocalypse for the past 2 generations at least. The rise of Big Pharma and the decline of our mental health care system are more to blame for this than Colt, Ruger, or Smith&Wesson.

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2012/12/18/front-sight-special-blog-citizens-gun-stops-mall-shooting/

while mass homicides have increased. "

Gonna need some data on that one. But regardless....isn't it about everybody or is the shooting of those children at a school somehow more tragic or important than say a drive by in L.A. or perhaps a single killing in Ohio.

Mass killing incidents -

2006 - 37

2007 - 28

2008 - 34

2009 - 34

2010 - 24

Research by Brad Heath and Meghan Hoyer. Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation, Supplemental Homicide Report. Note: The report has missing or incomplete data from the District of Columbia, 2006-08; Florida, 2006-10; and Nebraska, 2006-08.
Kevin A. Kepple and Jeff Dionise, USA TODAY

Well, out of many million guns in the US, that is an extremely low percentage. Not that any of the incidents are then justified or forgivable.

Tell me, do you have the statistics for how many of those shooters were either criminal or mentally disturbed? Surprisingly there are less mentally ill in the US than guns...so...lunatics are more likely (statistically) to kill than guns.

Hint Hint. Mark Twain said there are "lies, Damn lies and statistics".

Hint Hint. Mark Twain said there are "lies, Damn lies and statistics".

And he is correct. But in this case, I'm just giving a list in response to a blanket statement. What anybody wants to make of the list is up to them.

Tell me, do you have the statistics for how many of those shooters were either criminal or mentally disturbed?

I do not, but mentally disturbed is such a relative term. Do you mean diagnosed as such, feeling as such....?

No I mean (and I'm cheating, because I have known someone for 40 years who is dangerously mentally ill, and you only have to spend 10 minutes with them to see it.) someone who has "visions" of violence, strong and disturbing paranoid delusions, easy to steer into descriptions of violence towards specific or general persons. I'm not talking about somebody who washes their hands 100 times a day, or who thinks spending trillions will ease the deficit.

I get so tired of hearing how civilized the UK is. I don't live in the UK, I don't bow to a queen (even if my president does to a king) and I have great dental benefits.

America will have to wait until a generation is born that will outlaw the personal ownership of guns.

That may be awhile. What some of you don't seem to understand is that some of us are not quite ready to turn ourselves over to the government. Those of us that think this way...We work. We pay taxes. We pay our bills. We live our lives and don't try to tell you how to live yours. We don't care about your sex life, religion or natural hair color. We live peacefully and mind our own business. We believe the government should stay out of our day to day lives and not monitor how big our next soft drink purchase might be. We live by two things KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid and MYOB - Mind Your Own Business. One final thought. We also believe the Founding Fathers were light years ahead of you bloviating gun grabbers on the intelligence scale.

Ruger, nobody is saying you can't own a handgun or a revolver, but there is NO right for you to have the kinds of weapons that are only designed to murder the maximum number of people in a short amount of time. You can have a gun, you can't have an arsenal and weapons of mass destruction.

Whoa there Tracey, you don't determine how I exercise my Right to keep and bear arms. You don't decide what I need. And the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees me that right. (Note I didn't say gives me the right because it has been determined that the right existed before the Constitution was even written. It is what is known as a natural right. Can neither be given nor taken away.) When will you people learn? It ain't up to you.

No, Ruger...I won't. But the U.S. government can and will. Why would you even need that much weaponry? Are you waiting for aliens from Mars to invade?

federal laws prohibit the military from engaging citizens...you are posing an ignorant argument

the zombies are many ...and they are you

First of all the military will kick our @ss. They have planes, and tanks, and grenades and they out number you

This is odd. They out number who? 80 million gun owners. At tops 1 million troops.

I have held a gun a few times in my life and it gave me the creeps - why would I want to own a device designed to kill?. I think this makes me normal

I think it makes you one of 300 million people exercising their rights as a citizen to make their own choices.

Two good friends of his that made it through the war are now dead becasue of privately owned hand guns.

A tragedy to sure but irrelevant to this conversation.

Again Shiva, thanks for YOUR opinion.

I'll pose the question again. If you are "normal" because holding a gun gives you the creeps, does that make me not normal because I hunt a couple times a year and practice responsibility?

This Shiva person is a hit and run artist...

I think you are about to find out if what you think is true.

I do not beleive what you are saying is true. 49 of 50 states now nhave conceal and carry laws.

and all the politicians stand so proudly for gun control in this tragedy's wake wil run forcover when they think it will cost their pandering butts even one vote

So, Tracey, when what you preach will happen doesn't, what will be your next move?

Know this. Politicians speak way more than they act. The insurance people don't care about people dying because death is cheaper than treatment. You might also take note of dropping crime rates and gun violence. I know that doesn't help your cause, but it is still the truth.

Apparently, neither of you saw the President's press conference today on the topic. Hilarious.

Like hell it isn't.

chemical weapons, atomic bombs are weapons of mass destruction, not assault weapon, and they are fully automatic weapons which are all different than your over reactions.

What you are calling an assault rifle is EXACTLY the same as a hunting rifle that holds more than one bullet.

The gun that was used to kill those babies in Newtown was a weapon of mass destruction.

Not hardly, Rhonda and no amount of wishing will make it so.

Jay - Very nice post. I don't agree with you on abortion, but now is not the time to get into that. But you spoke well and made good points. I only hope the folks with political blinders on (from both sides) have sense enough to read it...

I don't know what you are talking about Jay. No other country (western industrial) has the type of free access to guns that we do. Switzerland requires their male population to be a citizen militia,trained in the use of guns,and allows them to keep their weapons at home true,but with almost all ammo for them kept in government storage. No western state has a murder,let alone gun murder rate anywhere near ours. Our closest neighbor,a country more comparable to us than any in the world,Canada. Has a murder rate per population of 1.9,less than half our 4.8 murder rate. While because of their stricter gun laws they had 144 gun murders a few years ago,to our 9,369 at the same time. When the Australian Prime Minister at the time of the Australian massacre,John Howard.A staunch pro-American Conservative, introduced the gun legislation to their Parliament,he said "we don't want the American disease to come to Australia" (mass gun violence). The facts are totally clear.The only countries we compare to in our gun violence are third world violence prone nations. All the nations we are most like in almost everything else,have gun safety for their citizens and just shake their heads at the "American Disease",and are determined that it not affect them.

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

Jay, you're sick. Seek psychological help.

And when was the time period when this law passed? Weird, I recall laws from that period also being midly racist, sexist and permitting of violence against children in school and at home. Also, you were allowed to beat your wife. By law. Much like the 2nd ammendment, these laws came from a different time period. What is that, you may wonder. Well, when time passes, culture, people, values all change. How strange you might say. That things change. But it gets better! Now that we live in a culture where people do not need as much protection from British redcoats and those damn Indians we so kindly allowed to live here even after we ruined their way of life, white people can proudly declare how this old, old law is so very relevant to our current time, when more people own an iphone than a gun and kids grow up worried about justin beeeeber instead of being invaded by the UK.

But hold on now, what if our government, that awful liberal machine, tries to kill us all with their guns! Well, simple. They would win. Because they have far better military capabilities. Guns serve little use against a coordinated unit of soldiers who sole purpose is to carry out military missions. You would die. Trust me. Fast. So, the threat of the government attacking its own people won't happen here, not yet, because there simply exists to vast a space between all major cities for the government to ever succeed as outside nations would see how weak and internally broken we are to attack ourselves. Plus, all soldiers would not mindlessly kill civilians if ordered, unless you really are sold on the nonexistence of human compassion and free thought.

But hang on, if some guy comes to my school/mall/town/home I need to be locked and super duper loaded because everyone is out to get us. Crazy people. Liberals. Any non white race, the poor. We must be hyper, ever vigilant because our fear-culture tells us to never trust anyone.

Get real. When you remove all weapons, literally, and cease their production, what do you think happens? All the crazies suddenly switch to knives? Sticks? Rocks? The answer isn't violence to combat violence, because even violence with good intentions is still spilling human blood.

Now I am certain there are countless people online who feel the need to rage post about how the government will attack its people, and criminals will try to knife them, and liberals will try to steal their whatever liberals try to steal. Despite this rather short sighted contingent of violence lovers, ask a child nearest you if they want to shoot another human. Go ahead. "well that isn't realistic MNNahhhhh" you whine as you jerk off to the American Flag and watch videos of liberals dying. Really? The picture of innocence, a child, probably is not too keen on watching a man bleed out from a gunshot wound a few feet away because guess what! It is awful to witness anyone dying violently. If you adovcate for violence to combat violence, which it is do not construe it as being preventitive or protection. You are "waiting" for the moment when you "might" need to shoot another person, who, despite their mental illness or misguided intentions, is still a human being. Just come out and say you want to fight fire with fire because as we know, this totally works. Nailed it.

I'm going to give this a try. May not work, but here goes.

And when was the time period when this law passed?

The 2nd Amendment is not a law. If you want to change the gun laws, you need to change the 2nd Amendment. There is a process for that and I strongly suggest you turn your efforts to that if indeed you desire change. The rest of your post is gibberish that doesn't need addressing.