Video: Obama’s speech in Newtown

posted at 8:01 am on December 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

While the nation mourned the horrific murders at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut, Barack Obama arrived to deliver a message of political action.  What kind of action?  Despite some of the initial reactions to Obama’s speech at the prayer vigil last night, a read of the transcript shows that the speech was as vague on solutions as most of us have felt since the shootings on Friday.  Certainly, one could have some suspicions about the direction that Obama and his administration would like to travel for solutions, but other than promise to study the situation, Obama offered no easy proposals to solve the problems of brokenness, however one defines it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1gSsm5xlKQ

Here is the most relevant part of the speech:

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law — no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that — then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens — from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators — in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

But Obama never went any further toward providing his own answers to those questions.  Instead, he returned to the tenor of the vigil service:

All the world’s religions — so many of them represented here today — start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain; that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it’s wealth or power or fame, or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that no matter how good our intentions, we will all stumble sometimes, in some way. We will make mistakes, we will experience hardships. And even when we’re trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God’s heavenly plans.

There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have — for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace — that is true. The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves, and binds us to something larger — we know that’s what matters. We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that.

In the face of such evil and horror, a little humility isn’t a bad quality to demonstrate.  We’ll see whether that sticks, but the speech itself — on its own terms — expresses the anger, frustration, and grief that all Americans still feel after Newtown: how can we fix this? And perhaps the greater frustration: Is it really in our power to fix it?

Update: I wrote that the shootings took place on Thursday, but they took place on Friday.  I’ve fixed it above.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Morons, why don’t you disarm all the cops and Soldiers?

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Once again, the fault lies with the touchy-feely leftists who are completely out of touch with reality.

Now…FOAD.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 11:33 AM

i like you. a lot.

GhoulAid on December 17, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You are a totalitarian and a loon. And, no, I don’t own guns.

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Fine. Keep me and the rest of America out of your obnoxious and socially dangerous fanaticisms.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Um, if your gun control laws and bans worked, Chicago and DC would have no gun crime. Instead, your “solutions” have the perverse effect of leaving the law abiding defenceless against the lawbreakers, who aren’t going to give a whit about the laws that you pass.

You want to ban guns? Fine. I assume that you have also – wondrously – become a vocal supporter of SERIOUS BORDER CONTROL or do you engage in the magical thinking that leads you to believe that only drugs and illegal immigrants will continue to flood into My Progressive Little Ponyland and guns will be stopped with your WishfulThinkingForceShield™?

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Education is your friend. Embrace it.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM

education is hardly their friends, considering the liberal sardine factories we call schools these days.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

You are a totalitarian and a loon. And, no, I don’t own guns.

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM

want one or ten of mine? I’ve got plenty

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Sounds like a typical Obama speech…..vague on solutions.

To propose actual solutions is not his gig. That would take work and haggling with congress which he don’t do. People forget that Obama’s so called biggest “accomplishments” (or disasters) like Obamacare and the stimulus were things that the democrats in congress basically worked out on their own and Obama simply touched it with his royal pen of approval. To the horror of progressives and thankfully for the rest of us normal folks Obama is going to do nothing unless congress does something, and there is no bill I expect will make it out of congress on gun control.

The bigger concern is not Obama, but our own Republican congressmen who at times show less than amazing courage or even basic strategical foresight. I good strategy would be to propose funds to put cops in schools, which would move the argument from gun grabbing to an issue of protecting sensitive soft targets, which is no different from having armed guards at nuclear power plants, state houses, court houses, etc. I suspect the progressives won’t like it because they don’t like cops or armed guards in schools, but let them kill it if they want.

William Eaton on December 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Fine. Keep me and the rest of America out of your obnoxious and socially dangerous fanaticisms.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Yack, who’d want to be close to such a dummy?

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:39 AM

They can’t multi-thread. Heck, they can’t even single-thread.

Education is your friend. Embrace it.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Thanks for the grin. If they’d be educated they wouldn’t love tyranny. Educated people are free, unless they are Utopia sissies.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM

My father slept with a gun under his pillow which I discovered by accident. I looked at it, put the pillow back down over it and went to bed feeling safe. I knew it was there to protect us.

lea on December 17, 2012 at 11:16 AM

A friend of mine had an experince years ago when someone came to his front door and demanded in. He kept saying something like “Charlie lives here. I want to talk to Charlie.” The guy did not appear drunk or high.. he seemed sober but firm.
The guy returned to the door on his side porch. Kept pounding on the door. My friend yelled through the door.. Charlie doesn’t live here.. you need to leave. The man then stopped pounding on the door and began cursing standing outside. My friend had a Glock in his hand, children were removed from the kitchen and my friend, stood calmly in the kitchen telling the man loudly..”Do not come in my house. You need to leave. Charlie does not live here. Do not come in my house.”

After 5 minutes.. the man eventually left. He had gone from cursing to making physical threats… but he did leave and never returned.

The whole while my friend said he never once felt fear. He had a strange calmness and determination about him and it was all because he knew that whatever force came through that door.. he could meet it He also said there was really no time to call 911. His wife’s attention was on their children. His attention was on the man.

He said he also felt too, that his response to the stranger pounding on his door made the difference. He felt the stranger could hear the calm determination in his own voice and thought these people in the house are not easy prey.

JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM

Sounds like a typical Obama speech…..vague on solutions.

William Eaton on December 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM

huh? I heard nothing about Slurpees or ditches/

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

For all the morons on this thread.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM

You never heard the left lecturing about the need to ban guns after Fort Hood, only the need to keep an open mind why a Muslim in correspondence with known terrorists might have killed 13 innocent human beings. And let’s remember that Nidal Hasan legally bought the weapon used in those slayings.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM

I never even realized there wasn’t a gun-ban push after Ft. Hood.

Good call.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Sounds like a typical Obama speech…..vague on solutions.

William Eaton on December 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM

oh! You mean Obama planted a fake fainter in the audience and then offered them a bottle of water. Gotcha ;)

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Allow me to translate: Lostmotherland would much prefer a society where others are paid to risk their own lives to keep he and his safe from harm while he abdicates all responsibility for such safety to the all-mighty state. Of course, once the political winds shift and the state swings from liberal to conservative (as they are wont to do,) he’ll no doubt be perfectly happy with the fact that he has in effect given away the last, best chance he had to resist any Republican tyranny or over-reach, and is now little more than a helpless subject.

We’ve always had crazy people; where the train ran off the tracks was when we began to listen to them, or God forbid, vote for them.

CaptFlood on December 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Time to start profiling white male gun owners.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 8:13 AM

Loughner, Cho, Holmes, Kleibold, Harris, Lanza and on and on.

What do all of them have in common?

The same thing was said after each went on his rampage and, no, I am not referring to the predictable chorus of Absolute Shalls bewailing the fact that Americans have a right to bear arms. No, I am referring to the fact that, after each one, the people that knew them said, “I feel bad for the victims, but I’m not surprised. The dude was a mental case. Always has been.”

The profile is USUALLY white, suburban males in their late teens or early 20s from upper middle-class families, WHO HAVE A HISTORY OF SEVERE MENTAL ILLNESS, USUALLY SCHIZOPHRENIA OR SCHIZOPHRENIC TENDENCIES.

When will you start arguing that the rights of law abiding Americans, including peaceful, white, male gun owners, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness trump the right of the severely mentally ill to live — according to the ACLU — live their “fearless, independent lifestyles that work for them” amongst us?

Why should law abiding Americans, who have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to bear arms, be deprived of those rights so that schizophrenics, who want to live on the streets, defecate in public, attack passers-by, are delusional (and not in the way that you are), and make the streets dangerous for everyone can remain free and unmedicated because THEY HAVE THE ”PARTIAL CAPACITY” TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS?

Common sense is like deodorant. Those that need it most are the ones least likely to use it.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Also, for all the morons on the thread.

Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Common sense is like deodorant. Those that need it most are the ones least likely to use it.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM

You say this to someone who stinks over the internet…from a putrefied brain.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Did you know there’s no law against bringing guns into k-12 Schools in Kansas? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

Thanks tea party!

libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Democrats think laws solve everything. When the laws fail they assume the law can be rewritten and solve everything. When did Classical Liberalism become Big Government Fascism?

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Make ignorance painful. We’d all need ear plugs, the kind used while shooting, from yours alone.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Of course, once the political winds shift and the state swings from liberal to conservative (as they are wont to do,) he’ll no doubt be perfectly happy with the fact that he has in effect given away the last, best chance he had to resist any Republican tyranny or over-reach, and is now little more than a helpless subject.

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Common sense is like deodorant. Those that need it most are the ones least likely to use it.

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 11:49 AM

lol. Shades of Dirty Harry – opinions are like @ssholes, Liberals all have the same one

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

You don’t have to do it that way… Just let people like yourself who don’t own any guns post their own names. You could do that now. I assume you don’t own a gun. Put a sign outside of your house that says “Gun Free Zone.”

Yeah.. I like this idea. All ant-gun people should do this. Stand up and shout it out loudly.. “I hate guns! I won’t carry one! I won’t own one! I wont use one!”

Wear a button that says “Unarmed and Proud!” or “I Refuse to Defend Myself Here I Am”" Do that. Do it today!

Post your own name and address and tell the millions who come here that you don’t have a single gun in your home and refuse to ever own one. Wear a hat that says ‘I have no guns! I won’t defend myself ever! Follow me to my house and you’ll see!” Go for it! I don’t think anybody would stop you if you chose to do that. You could at least wear the hat and button and place a sign outside your own home. Post it on FB. I respect and defend your right to free speech!

JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM

I have no problem with that one. Keep it local. yankees can build fortresses with holes, southerners can arm the staff, California can write songs. Lets see what works.

The first one however goes right to the heart of drywall’s stupid argument that both sides are to blame.

cozmo on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

You guys are missing the point…

… Oblahblah was talking about ‘a movie’ that the killer must have seen that set him off.

It’s the only explanation…

… We must find and arrest the director.

Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Damn all you leftists who never promoted the gun ban after Ft. Hood, when your muzzie terrorist brother used guns.

May hypocrisy make you all combust, spontaneously. It w/b a much more logical world. You should never consider yourselves the thinking kind. You all make brains indignant.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 11:57 AM

JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I agree whole-heartedly. Stand firm in your convictions, lost boy. Let the criminals know you don’t carry. If fact, walk through downtown Chicago, Detroit, or Memphis, with a sign that proclaims that you’re unarmed. Go right ahead.

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I’m sure if it comes to civil war, the right will have jets and tanks too jack wagon.

Now go praise your Savior Barack for killing innocents everyday with his drones, then leaking it to the NYTimes.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM

A little late to this post so I’m not sure if anyone has put up these statistics yet:

Top 10 “Killers” in the U.S. (according to CDC):

Tobacco Use – 529,000 Deaths
Medical Errors – 118,021 Deaths
Unintetional Injuries – 107,400 Deaths
Motor Vehicle Accidents – 34,485 Deaths
Unintentional Poisoning – 31,758 Deaths
Drug Abuse – 25,500 Deaths
Unintentional Falls – 24,792 Deaths
Non-Firearm Homicides* – 16,799 Deaths
Firearm Homicides – 11,493 Deaths

*#1 weapon used in violent crimes (according to FBI) is a baseball bat.

Should we restrict baseball bat ownership because they are used in so many violent crimes, even though the vast majority of law-abiding citizens use them for sport?

The anti-gun cultists need to think about this before using another tragedy to push their personal politcal agendas.

right of the dial on December 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM

cozmo on December 17, 2012 at 11:55 AM

I have no problem with it, just with the hypocrisy of Obama and his cohort.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Did you know there’s no law against bringing guns into k-12 Schools in Kansas? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

Thanks tea party!

libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You forgot to tell us how many school shootings there have been in Kansas K-12 schools since that law went into effect, liveasaslaveanddie.
Perhaps I can help you with that.

ZERO, you fascist poofter! NONE. NADA!

So, what’s your point, you anti-American scum?

It might just be that someone wanting to shoot someplace up might reject schools as targets BECAUSE of the presence of guns. So they go find a nice safe NO-GUN ZONE where they can do their shooting in safety…free from reprisal or interference.

You leftoid drones are a joke. Bad…but a joke.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

If fact, walk through downtown Chicago, Detroit, or Memphis, with a sign that proclaims that you’re unarmed. Go right ahead.

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 11:58 AM

yikes! I don’t think they’ll venture from their gated community with armed guards. I myself, when I lived in Philly, never went anywhere without a blade.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Considering the fact that the shooter was willing to murder his mother, break into a school, and murder schoolchildren and teachers, can anyone formulate a single workable law that might be proposed that he would have been willing to obey that would have prevented him from carrying out this unimaginable crime? Once one is predisposed to break the ultimate law against killing another human being, he disregards laws against all other offenses that might be committed along the way.

The only way to assure that no one can ever use a gun to commit such acts is to remove guns entirely from this world. Does anyone believe this is even remotely possible? And if it were possible, would it result in more or less freedom for members of society?

John Lott, who conducted a study on mass shootings in 1999 spoke with John Fund after the Newtown school shooting and pointed out the following, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

Historically, the only effective way to prevent the use of force by a criminal (or other oppressor – i.e. bully, tyrannical government, etc.) has been to be able to bring to bear an equally strong force in the defense of your life and liberty. If there is another method, please state it — I’ll listen.

“But the police and military will have guns, and we can always call them to protect us”, you say. Tell me, what good did that do the students and teachers at Newtown? Remember, when the criminal has broken into the school and is shooting, or he has broken into your house in the middle of the night, the police are only five or ten minutes away. (Certainly the bad guys will wait for them to arrive before they do anything to harm you, right?)

Rarely do the police ever prevent a crime from occurring. They will show up after the fact, take statements, write reports, maybe even chase the bad guys, catch them and imprison them. But the robbery, rape, murder, etc. has already happened. Unless you, or someone nearby was able to meet force with force in immediate defense of your life and/or property, in terms of effectiveness, the police are simply window dressing.

Don’t get me wrong – I respect and value the job that police do for us. They can and will face danger on our behalf, and that is an honorable thing. It’s simply that in most situations where one needs the type of force that police are able to provide, the crime is over before the police can arrive. They will do what they can, but the primary responsibility for keeping you, your loved ones and your property safe belongs to you, the individual. Taking away one of the most effective means to do that will only make our society more unsafe, and more vulnerable to violence.

LooseCannon on December 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

The mind reels at your apparent abject ignorance. I’d like to hope that you aren’t really stupid enough to believe what you say, but that wouldn’t seem very realistic. No, I do believe that you are, in fact, that stupid.

Midas on December 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

What would your side do?

Be herded like sheep into pens?

cozmo on December 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Since CT is so liberal how is this it blaming The victim by proxy.

libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Calm down, princess. You’re becoming more incoherent than usual.
For a “professor”, you sure have a tough time writing a sentence in plain English.

btw; Were you saying that ALL ‘liberals’ are pro-abortion atheists? Just wondering.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM

*#1 weapon used in violent crimes (according to FBI) is a baseball bat.

Should we restrict baseball bat ownership because they are used in so many violent crimes, even though the vast majority of law-abiding citizens use them for sport?

The anti-gun cultists need to think about this before using another tragedy to push their personal politcal agendas.

right of the dial on December 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM

They won’t ‘think about this’ because their goal is not really to end this kind of gun-violence – the goal is as we’ve been warned from the founders on down – to disarm the populace, as much as possible.

Over-reaching government and politicians that wish to expand their tyranny are not afraid of a populace armed with harsh language and baseball bats – therefore, baseball bats will not be banned or controlled.

Midas on December 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

We’ve always had crazy people; where the train ran off the tracks was when we began to listen to them, or God forbid, vote for them.

CaptFlood on December 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

Oh! I think it simpler than that. Crazy became politically incorrect. We closed mental hospitals and “mainstreamed” crazy and then we act surprised whenever meds or whatever prove ineffective and crazy becomes a threat to themselves or others. And just remember their crazy’s vote counts as much as your own.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM

libfree is no professor! In all the time I’ve seen her here she changes her profession as often as Michael Moore has to change his underwear.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Now go praise your Savior Barack for killing innocents everyday with his drones, then leaking it to the NYTimes.

He’s hardly my savior. In fact, he’s murdered more children (via drones) than Lanza did. Of course, no one cares about that because they’re all brown-skinned Afghan children.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Did you read what you wrote? It’s actually the best argument given by anyone here why “not” to bend at all when it comes to our firearms base on type. Read your sentense again and it might be an aha! moment for you.

I have firearms expressly for hunting. I have other firearms to defend myself and my family. My dangerous toys to you are tools to me on my farm. And the simple truth is you’ll never get them.

And tell me Captain Warrior, how do you think’d fare in the above described conflict of yours wielding nothing but your liberal anti-gun dogma?

Are liberals really this sterotypical?

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

We’ve always had crazy people; where the train ran off the tracks was when we began to listen to them, or God forbid, vote for them.

CaptFlood on December 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM

wtf! is wrong with Nevada and SanFrancisco?

maybe now that SanFran has banned nudity, Nancy “IPO” Pelosi is on her way out.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

want one or ten of mine? I’ve got plenty

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:40 AM

No thanks. When it’s my time to go, no gun is going to save me. That said, I don’t advocate taking them away from others.

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

We closed mental hospitals

Yep. Ronald Reagan.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

He’s hardly my savior. In fact, he’s murdered more children (via drones) than Lanza did. Of course, no one cares about that because they’re all brown-skinned Afghan children.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

my bad. Did you vote for him? If you did you also voted for 300 dead brown skinned Mexicanos

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

“based” on type …

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

We closed mental hospitals

Yep. Ronald Reagan.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

You keep sticking to that lie.

Look no farther than your beloved ACLU.

cozmo on December 17, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Lostmotherland is going on and on about dangerous indidivuals, but he/she/it is a bigger danger to a free society. That is obvious by her/his/its embrace of totalitarian solutions.

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Did you know there’s no law against bringing guns into k-12 Schools in Kansas? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

Thanks tea party!

libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM

You’re welcome, as are the safe and secure schoolchildren, teachers, parents and administraters in Kansas schools.

Now, if we *really* want to stop this kind of violence from happening again, we’ll immediately ban ‘gun free zones’, allow conceal-carry *everywhere*, and in fact, *require* there be at least 5 conceal-carry people in every school in the country, and post signs to that effect at every driveway and entrance to the school.

Do it, and you will never again see what happened Friday happen at a school.

While you’re at it, make sure you put a well-lit “this is a gun-free residence” sign on your front door, since you seem to think that’s so important, m’kay? Thanks in advance.

Midas on December 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

We closed mental hospitals

Yep. Ronald Reagan.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Nope, ACLU et al.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Youwere already told once about how the ACLu worked to open up the lonney bins, and yout, you continue to try to blame President Reagan for it.

R U stoopid?

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Fine. Keep me and the rest of America out of your obnoxious and socially dangerous fanaticisms.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Oh definitely. Let’s start with cops and body guards of the wealthy. Let them lead by example and show the rest of us how it’s done and get rid of these evil guns once and for all so that we’ll never see a tragedy like this again.

Esthier on December 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Obviously you haven’t been tracking the war in Afghanistan, where people with little better than small arms and improvised explosives have done a fairly decent job of taking on and destroying drones, jets, and tanks.

In the US, it would be even simpler, given that Obama has, like Hitler, systematically purged the Joint Chiefs and the leadership of the military of anyone who is more than a syncophantic toady who will do whatever Fuhrer Barack tells them to do.

northdallasthirty on December 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM

libfreeordie on December 17, 2012 at 8:46 AM

lol, The 1966 Lanterman Petris Short Act (LPS Act)?

No, progressives (ACLU) demanded people incarcerated in institutions only be there voluntarily.

It should be noted that LPS was signed by Governor Reagan in California but only after pressure from groups like the ACLU stepped in and sued on behalf of patients who were being involuntarily hospitalized. Other states followed suit with their own similar involuntary and voluntary commitment statutes.

You can “try” to rewrite history for your political objectives here. But you’re just … not … good enough.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 8:54 AM

And frankly you’re being dishonest here becasue I recall “you” commenting praise on them in this regard.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Morrissey’s analysis is pathetic. OBama’s entire speech was a staircase of emotional manipulation and triggers, all to invoke grief, outrage, determination to ‘do’ something, and an expansion of responsibilty that built all the way up to Federal then Presidential action. Sentence by sentence it built a justification for unilateral action by Obama. A work of gramscian art.
It is PATHETIC that people whose business (and paycheck) relies on their analytical skills do not see it.

I was breaking it down live at our own site, read it here -
http://www.grouchyconservativepundits.org/index.php?topic=53542.0

rayra on December 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Should we restrict baseball bat ownership because they are used in so many violent crimes, even though the vast majority of law-abiding citizens use them for sport?

The anti-gun cultists need to think about this before using another tragedy to push their personal politcal agendas.

right of the dial on December 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I don’t think we have to go as far as restricting baseball bat ownership. Simply put a few rules in place. Purchase of no more than one bat a month. Mandatory background check. And, of course, a 14-day waiting period to buy that Louisville Slugger.

But let’s keep something important in mind. The anti-gun people don’t give a damn about the victims. They don’t care about 20 dead children in CT any more than they cared about a government-run gun walking program that has killed hundreds of Mexicans and at least one US Border Agent. It’s all about smearing the blood of the victims on the same old dogma and calling for an agenda of limiting guns, clips, and ammo in the name of public safety. In reality though, an unarmed populace is far easier to subdue than an armed one which is why the left is so adamant to make private gun ownership illegal.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I think lostmotherland is just a victim of liberal academia and media. I was myself in college – Hardcore lib. So I know for a fact that libs don’t think and hardly ever read. They just spout what their betters tell them and feel superior.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM

R U stoopid?

kingsjester on December 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Nope, well yes the libiot is stupid, but in this instance the libiot is a junior Goebbels in training.

He ain’t very good though.

cozmo on December 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I’m just joshing, we don’t own any Smith & Wesson guns at the moment.

Cindy Munford on December 17, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Your local gun store can help remedy that deficiency. ;-)

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM

No thanks. When it’s my time to go, no gun is going to save me. That said, I don’t advocate taking them away from others.

zoyclem on December 17, 2012 at 12:11 PM

how about a nice compact bow? :) Going…Going…

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM

In the US, it would be even simpler, given that Obama has, like Hitler, systematically purged the Joint Chiefs and the leadership of the military of anyone who is more than a syncophantic toady who will do whatever Fuhrer Barack tells them to do.

northdallasthirty on December 17, 2012 at 12:17 PM

I don’t disagree with you about the leadership integrity of the senior military leadership but it isn’t unique to the rat-eared wonder’s administration. This has been the case since sometime in the Clinton years when Bubba started culling out the most capable and replacing them with political favorites like Wesley Clark. These days being a toady and mouthpiece for the administration is part of the job description.

It used to be that senior military leadership looked out after the well being of their personnel and branch of the armed services. Today those personnel are expected to sink or swim on their own. The caving over repealing DADT is a good example. No compelling need to repeal it but it was pushed through by senior leadership in the name of fairness or something.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Of course, no one cares about that because they’re all brown-skinned Afghan children.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Same with all the brown-skinned Mexicans his administration helped cartels kill by arming them.

But hey, his heart is in the right place. So all is forgiven or something.

Esthier on December 17, 2012 at 12:26 PM

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

You are ill informed as well as stupid. Look to current events in Syria where rebels are succeeding at throwing over a tyrant and as we did back in 1775. The English certainly had better ordinance and more of it.

Also look at the history of Afghanistan.

dogsoldier on December 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Make owning guns socially unacceptable. Stigmatize and isolate gun owners. Post their names in public so the rest of us can avoid them and their dangerous habit.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

Ah, the hilarity.

Watch, folks; this is how you shut up the Obama fascists.

Lostmotherland, you have screamed that we should shame, stigmatize, and even incarcerate those who have made violent threats in the name of “prevention”, correct?

Start here, and then go here and here.

Now state for the record that every single one of the people mentioned, all “progressives”, all Obama supporters, should be systematically stigmatized, shamed, banned from ever owning any type of weapons, and in fact incarcerated due to the clear and obvious threat of violence they represent.

You won’t do it, and you can’t do it.

That is because your point has never been about eliminating violence. It has been about disarming and making those who oppose you politically more vulnerable to the violence you and your fellow Obama liberals endorse and push.

So that makes you a coward and a filthy fascist liar. Your sick lies don’t work here because we recognize you and your Barack Obama filth as nothing more than whining, screaming trash. You’re nothing but pathetic subhumans who want us to disarm so that you can rob and loot us and hurt our families.

And we won’t let you. That’s why you’re screaming, and that’s why your imbecile Obama is up there flapping his arms and hooting and shrieking like the idiot child he is.

northdallasthirty on December 17, 2012 at 12:28 PM

you cowboy pro-gun types

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Are the (non white) inner city gang members with massive firepower “cowboys” too?

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Fine. Keep me and the rest of America out of your obnoxious and socially dangerous fanaticisms.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM

You may not have noticed, but no one invited you in. You have, in fact, been asked to leave on numerous occassions.

You just barged in uninvited; and proceeded to wander around, insulting your hosts and your betters…all the while crapping all over the floor.

You are – at best – an unwelcome, obnoxious guest who displays deplorable manners and a shocking level of stupidity (and a fair amount of mental instability – to put it kindly). Stupidity and instability associated with generations of inbreeding and inattention by mental health professionals. (Bless your heart)

Why don’t you just FOAD; and end the whole vicious cycle.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:32 PM

Are the (non white) inner city gang members with massive firepower “cowboys” too?

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

I don’t remember seeing any chaps in the Philly badlands. Maybe at the South Street gay bars.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:32 PM

I’m telling you…

… It was a MOVIE!!!

It’s the only explaination…!!!

… By the way, where’s Hillary?

/

Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Hillary has concussion symptoms you heartless bastage

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Now go praise your Savior Barack for killing innocents everyday with his drones, then leaking it to the NYTimes.

He’s hardly my savior. In fact, he’s murdered more children (via drones) than Lanza did.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM

And yet you voted for him anyway. You must be so proud of that.

A+

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

lostmotherland often wonders why South Korea forsook its “natural old world charm” to be free of the Dearest of Dear Leaders

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:38 PM

heh.

have to post this again cause it’s hilarious

safe youtube link

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM

So, you’re sayin’ lostlumpocrap DOES have a job?

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Are the (non white) inner city gang members with massive firepower “cowboys” too?

Del Dolemonte on December 17, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Interesting question. Are gang bangers pro-gun advocates? They use guns but I would think that they are about as anti-gun as possible. Much easier to prey on the law-abiding if they are unarmed.

The bottom line here is that the only guns the left wants to ban belong to those who use them legally and responsibly. The street thugs killing each other on the streets of Chicago will have guns either way.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:42 PM

The school district in the southern part of my county did something. They sent out an email last night to let everyone know that the police currently patrolling the schools will now be armed.

Night Owl on December 17, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Excellent!!

+100

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Arrest the Director…!!!

Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Yesterday, libfreeordie posted a link from someone that had tweeted this:

“In 1996, there was a shooting at a primary school in Scotland. 16 children ages 5-6 were killed, along with one teacher. The following year, the UK banned the private ownership of all cartridge ammunition handguns, regardless of calibre. There have been no school shootings since.”

Have you taken a look at what happened to the overall crime rate in the UK after gun bans went into effect? Gun crime increased by 89% between 1998 and 2009. In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The Metropolitan Police now has replaced some of the famously unarmed “Bobbies” with armed patrols on some streets and officers armed with “sub-machine guns” are engaged in routine policing for the first time.

From the BBC in 2001:

A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.

The research, commissioned by the Countryside Alliance’s Campaign for Shooting, has concluded that existing laws are targeting legitimate users of firearms rather than criminals.

The ban on ownership of handguns was introduced in 1997 as a result of the Dunblane massacre, when Thomas Hamilton opened fire at a primary school leaving 16 children and their teacher dead.

But the report suggests that despite the restrictions on ownership the use of handguns in crime is rising.

The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000.

It also said there was no link between high levels of gun crime and areas where there were still high levels of lawful gun possession.

Of the 20 police areas with the lowest number of legally held firearms, 10 had an above average level of gun crime.

And of the 20 police areas with the highest levels of legally held guns only two had armed crime levels above the average.

The campaign’s director, David Bredin, said: “It is crystal clear from the research that the existing gun laws do not lead to crime reduction and a safer place.

From The Telegraph in 2003:

Since the Government’s “total ban” five years ago, there are more and more guns being used by more and more criminals in more and more crimes. Now, in the wake of Birmingham’s New Year bloodbath, there are calls for the total ban to be made even more total: if the gangs refuse to obey the existing laws, we’ll just pass more laws for them not to obey. According to a UN survey from last month, England and Wales now have the highest crime rate of the world’s 20 leading nations. One can query the methodology of the survey while still recognising the peculiar genius by which British crime policy has wound up with every indicator going haywire – draconian gun control plus vastly increased gun violence plus stratospheric property crime.”

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Didn’t the ACLU’s successful lawsuit for the mentally disabled happen during the Carter administration?

Cindy Munford on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

So, you’re sayin’ lostlumpocrap DOES have a job?

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:41 PM

sex roboting isn’t strictly a “job” per say. Unless they’re from Nevada.

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Hillary has concussion symptoms you heartless bastage

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Hillary has a severe case of Benghazi. She’s running out the clock until the time when she can flee office without ever having to testify under oath about the lies she told in the Rose Garden on 9/12/12. You remember- that the attack was a spontaneous protest over that video and Christopher Stevens was actually rescued by friendly Libyans and rushed to a hospital where he died. Of course it was all lies.

In much the same way, the left is skewing the Newtown slayings with disinformation and outright lies. Not one thing being reported in the media about the killer on Friday has proven to be true. Not even his name. What we have seen over the last three days is the setting up of a narrative where a mentally ill loner had far too easy access to weapons and we have to essentially ban all guns for the safety of children. The rat-eared wonder figuratively smeared the blood of children on his clothes and declared war on private gun ownership and the United States Constitition. He’s going to dow with Newtown what he couldn’t do when his own administration ended up killing hundreds of Mexicans on behalf of anti-American factions like the Brady Group.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Hillary has a severe case of Benghazi.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM

lol.

the Benghazi runs

Slade73 on December 17, 2012 at 12:55 PM

This is such a ludicrous canard. I’d love to see what would become of you cowboy pro-gun types as you take on drones, jets, tanks with your deer rifles. This argument is used as a justification for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Oh yeah? Please explain why a bunch of goat-herders in Afghanistan are still resisting those same drones, jets and tanks.

A country the size of ours, with an armed population as large as ours will be quite difficult to pacify, especially when you consider defection and infiltration more than likely to occur.

Washington Nearsider on December 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Didn’t the ACLU’s successful lawsuit for the mentally disabled happen during the Carter administration?

Cindy Munford on December 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM

It was the ACLU and they may have done much in the Cater years. But when the Donks throw out the Reagan opened the doors BS, they’re referring to the 1967 Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). Then Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the which went into effect in 1969 and it became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing.

It was actually co-authored by a Republican and Democrat. The ACLU thumped it’s chest for many years to take credit for the movement in that direction which led to the law.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The school district in the southern part of my county did something. They sent out an email last night to let everyone know that the police currently patrolling the schools will now be armed.

Night Owl on December 17, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Presumably they’ll have legs too.

Seriously, I know school districts are making these kinds of announcements all over the country (here the local school system announced that there will be heightened police presence even though there is no known threat). They are messages meant to reassure parents about the safety of their children. Fine.

But the fact of the matter is that armed school patrols might be able to mitigate an incident but it cannot prevent another mass murder. As I pointed out on Friday (and Rush mentioned today) the biggest mass murder at a school was in 1927 and involved dynamite not guns. Should there by nitrate-sniffing dogs deployed at all schools too? Get rid of all objects that might do harm like pencils and baseball bats? Or maybe just put each child in a bubble and have them roll from class to class.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Obama is a cool salesman.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Excellent!!

+100

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 12:44 PM

It is excellent, except we live in the northern part of the county and there are no police at all in our schools. I would have said that is because nothing ever happens where we are, but that’s what the people in CT thought on Thursday of last week. Still some work to do, I guess.

Night Owl on December 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

As with everything this administration does, his agenda will remain a secret among the Democrats who will try a whole bunch of smoke and mirrors, along with demagoguery, to get it passed. Obama isn’t known for allowing an honest debate on anything and I especially don’t expect him to look for one here.

If he tries to do, with guns, what he did with health care, there will be a civil war so I hope he’s smarter than I think he is. He gets these wacked out ideas that, if a majority agree with him at any one time, he can Rahm through what he likes and deal with the consequences later. This is one issue where I hope there are some people with common sense around him.

bflat879 on December 17, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Guys like drywall also tout their county’s (Canada) drop in crime rate. And make no mistake, I’m happy for a people with low crime. But the fact is the crime rate has dropped not their murder rate. Additionally, only half of Canadians ever arrested by police are eventually charged with a crime. If that’s part of their drop, I think I’ll just be holding on to my weapons thanks.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

There’s part of your problem, nancy-boy. (Aside from inbred stupidity and mental deficiency) You and the rest of your fascist cohorts think of guns as toys. That’s why your sort commits so many crimes with guns.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

It started with the Community Mental Health Act of 1963, which Kennedy signed into law.

The CMHA proved to be a mixed success. Many patients, formerly warehoused in institutions, were released into the community. However, not all communities had the facilities or expertise to deal with them. In many cases, patients wound up in adult homes or with their families, or homeless in large cities, but without the mental health care they needed.

History of Public Mental Health in California and the US

“Homelessness: Describing the Symptoms, Prescribing a Cure”

“Sand Castles and Snake Pits: Homelessness, Public Policy, and the Law of Unintended Consequences”, Dissent journal, Fall 2007.

“Keeping The Promise of Community Mental Health”, The Journal News

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

A local politician was just on radio explaining that the problem is that pro-gun advocates are just too strident in their position and that is what politicizes the whole thing.

I’m stunned, dumbfounded, but not surprised in the least. The rat-eared wonder all but said that he was going to go out after private gun ownership last night and less than 24-hours later the anti-Constitution people are already out there trying to pin blame for the Newtown shootings on Second Amendment supporters. I honestly think we should ask each and every one of these bastards why they hate the Constitution. If they want to accuse others of politicizing the issue- let them start with their defending their support of gutting the Constitution.

Happy Nomad on December 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Is Oblahblah waiting for Hillary to sober up before making the commercial about the movie that caused the shooting…?

Seven Percent Solution on December 17, 2012 at 1:08 PM

for keeping your dangerous toys.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 11:54 AM

There’s part of your problem, nancy-boy. (Aside from inbred stupidity and mental deficiency) You and the rest of your fascist cohorts think of guns as toys. That’s why your sort commits so many crimes with guns.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 1:04 PM

Fool, yes, you who made the motherland be lost, how many guns dis anything on their own?

That Mary K. woman drowned in a car…which all by itself moved her into the lake. God, your stupidity hurts.

Schadenfreude on December 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 12:58 PM

I had an aunt (now deceased) who was an actual success story of the change but like any of these blanket decisions, that isn’t always the case. I know that the courts have mandated that people take their medication but exactly how do you verify that when the person is not only not institutionalized but actually homeless. More symbolism over substance, one size fits all “fixes”.

Cindy Munford on December 17, 2012 at 1:09 PM

a read of the transcript shows that the speech was as vague on solutions as most of us have felt since the shootings on Friday.

Um, yeah, you should know how the game is played by now. He uses this platform, that was carried on all 3 networks and cable nets, to say we must do something, all the people watching are caught up in the moment and say yes, we must do something. Then a week or so later, when he thinks people are over the initial shock and ready to do something, he’ll start grabbing guns and people will say yes, well, we had to do something. And there you go, your rights are gone.

clearbluesky on December 17, 2012 at 1:10 PM

I worked at an alternative school in Virginia Beach and we had a city police officer there as a “resource” officer. Here in Florida there is an armed county officer at our credit union any time they are open.

Cindy Munford on December 17, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Yep. Ronald Reagan.

lostmotherland on December 17, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Gad! You’re stupid.

The facts have been posted – numerous times – yet you continue to lie. And you do it knowing that everybody knows you’re lying.

Now, THAT is stupid.

Generations of inbreeding have done you no favors, lefty.

Solaratov on December 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Resist We Much on December 17, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Thanks for the additional links. Good info. I was really just addressing the charge that all of this was somehoe Reagan’s fault.

Cindy, these links of RWM are very informative too.

hawkdriver on December 17, 2012 at 1:14 PM

I’ve read this paper more than once. It is worth reading repeatedly. Whenever the left talks about becoming like the “wild west.” If only we could be more like them.
There’s the myth and then there’s truth.
A study on 3 towns with the highest crime rates in the old west.

Violence and Lawlessness on the Western Frontier.

Individual private citizens in Bodie and Aurora very rarely suffered from robbery. There were only ten robberies and three attempted robberies of individuals—other than those robbed as part of a stage holdup—in Bodie during its boom years, and there seem to have been even fewer in Aurora during its heyday. In nearly every one of these robberies the circumstances were so similar as to be interchangeable: The robbery victim had spent the evening in a gambling den, saloon, or brothel; he had revealed in some way that he had on his person a tidy sum of money; and he was drunk, staggering toward home late at night when the attack occurred.

More robberies might have occurred if Aurorans and Bodieites had not gone about armed and ready to fight. They were, unless staggering drunk, simply too dangerous to rob…

Yet Bodie actually suffered little from robbery. Altogether Bodie experienced only 21 robberies—11 of stages and 10 of individuals—during its boom years. Conversion of this data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime index gives Bodie a rate of 84 robberies per 100,000 inhabitants per year.[7] By contrast Detroit led major U.S. cities in 1986 with a robbery rate of 1,497, closely followed by Miami’s 1,456.[8] Highland Park, Michigan, easily surpassed all of the major cities with a startling 2,212.[9] On the other hand, Appleton, Wisconsin, a town with crime rates consistently at or near the bottom of the scale, had a robbery rate of 6.4.[10] The rate for the United States as a whole, including small towns and rural areas, was 225.[1] Thus (p.126)

Figure 5.1: (Annual Robbery Rates per 100,000 in Selected Cities, c. 1880 and 1986)

Bodie, even with its stagecoach robberies included, had a robbery rate just slightly more than one-third of the national rate in 1986 and only a tiny fraction of the rates of the major cities.

http://www.guncite.com/wild_west_myth.html

JellyToast on December 17, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5