Charts of the day: Gun violence in America declining over last 20 years

posted at 12:01 pm on December 26, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

I’ll apologize in advance for not recalling who sent me the links to the National Institute of Justice and Bureau of Justice Statistics, both official government sites for crime-related data.  Both have information which should be considered in the rush to legislate after the horrific mass murder in Newtown.  The NIJ, using data from the BJS, charts the use of various weapons types in homicides over a 30-year period — and clearly, the use of guns had a peak, but it dissipated almost 20 years ago:

Homicides committed with firearms peaked in 1993 at 17,075, after which the figure steadily fell, leveling off in 1999 at 10,117. Gun-related homicides have increased slightly each year since 2002.

Firearms play a significant role in homicides by circumstance, but the circumstances involved show that it’s rare for otherwise law-abiding citizens to be involved in a gun-related homicide.  More than 90% of all gang-related homicides involve gun use, for instance, while the rate of felony homicides involving guns have risen to nearly 80%.  The rate of firearm use in homicides from personal arguments has declined slightly over the last thirty years, even as gun sales have increased, showing that there is no causation or even correlation to support the idea that guns escalate arguments.

This chart, though, shows a dramatic change innonfatal firearm-related violent crime over the last 20 years — but in a surprising direction, given all the fury in the current debate:

Over the last 20 years, the firearm crime rate has dropped, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, from 6 victims per 1,000 residents in 1994 to 1.4 victims per 1,000 residents in 2009.  The 1.4/1000 is the same rate as in 2004, the last year in which the “assault weapons” ban was in place.  Part of this is from an overall decline in violent crime over the same period, but that doesn’t account for all of the improvement.  Firearm crimes accounted for 11% of all violent crime in 1993 and 1994, but was 8% of all such crime in 2009.

This decline took place in an era where gun sales increased and carry permit laws were liberalized.  It may assume too much to claim that that increased gun ownership and carrying caused the decline, but it’s clear that the correlation runs in that direction and not the opposite.  So what, other than the grief over the senseless massacre of children in Newtown, drives the current push for gun confiscation and control? Glenn Reynolds has a thought about that:

2. Is Hate A Liberal Value? A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who’s to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it’s . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn’t even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.)

The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call — later deleted — for NRA head Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.” People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a “terrorist organization,” and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a “terror baby.”

Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic’sJeffrey Goldberg commented, “Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. ”

Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA — like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood — exists to advocate policies its members want. It’s free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.

This has unleashed a lot of ugliness, and most of it self-righteous and ignorant ugliness.  Before we set off to infringe on the rights of tens of millions of Americans in an effort to prevent the unpreventable and demonize those who oppose that push, perhaps we should take a look at the data to see if it supports the assumption that we’re in the middle of an ever-increasing bloodbath.  If not — and the data seems pretty clear about that — then perhaps the solution to preventing a few mentally/emotionally/spiritually twisted individuals from wreaking mass murder lies somewhere else than disarming everyone who abides by the law.


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

But there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Then let’s declare high-crime areas as gun-free zones, clearly marked.

Liam on December 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

segasagez=lying douchebag Marxist
nonpartisan=lying douchebag Marxist

SWalker on December 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Again, I don’t think gun free zones are effective at stopping mass shootings. But there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

You know – unless you’re actually trying to address the issue, in which case the statistics clearly show that gun-free zones are where these large-scale shootings take place, almost exclusively.

But hey, you may be right – so, if we simply mark every square foot of space in the country a ‘gun free zone’, we can expect that those shootings in homes and such will cease, right?

/

You do understand the fundamental difference between a declared and posted ‘gun free zone’, and… everywhere else, right? You do know why crime goes down when an area becomes legal for its citizens to conceal carry, right? Or do I presume to much regarding your capacity for rational thought?

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

guns should be banned outright…none of these weak piecemeal gun laws will work

every gun in the country should be confiscated and smelted

nonpartisanconstitutional on December 26, 2012 at 12:55 PM

FIFY.

cs89 on December 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

The 2nd Civil War has started & the right is slow to participate. The Left has been in “War Mode” against conservative America for some time now. The animals on the left have been using ‘War Language”, while the right is still trying to act like there is a conversation to be had with people who see you as, & refer to you as, their “Enemy”. These Socialists/leftists hate you(Americans) more than they hate Al-Qaeda! Like True Cowards, the Leftists/socialists, will never get into a real “War” with conservatives, unless they can convince the Army to attack it’s own people. This is a long conversation, that needs to be had by many in America. So long as it leads to action! Talking for the sake of talking is for the media. America has to reach a conclusion on the Freedoms & Liberties, the people will not allow the politicians to remove! Realize though, at some point, Americans are going to die. Either due to the inevitable failures of leftist governance or much fewer through the fight/revolution, to recapture our country & former way of life!

http://www.paratisiusa.blogspot.com

God Bless America!

paratisi on December 26, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Didn’t know Newtown was an urban city…

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:15 PM

But you did know that it’s a city located in ban-friendly Connecticut…

Maybe the ban wasn’t strong enough, they should have used large block letters on the official documents.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Newtown does have some urban areas, especially along the US highway Connecting the town with Danbury to the west, but legally it still calls itself a town. It’s only got about 25,000 or so residents.

And Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. The shooter simply ignored the laws.

One more time, here’s that gun instructor in Boston:

When the gun instructor got through describing the restrictive gun laws in Boston and in Massachusetts — which are just about the toughest in the nation — one student asked: “If the gun laws are so tough, how come there are shootings every night in Boston?” “That’s a good question,” the instructor replied. “The answer is that the gun laws are aimed at the good guys, the law-abiding people, like you and me. The bad guys ignore the law and get all the guns they want.”

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

But there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

BINGO!

There is!

You have a lower chance of not getting shot in a mass shooting if you are in a gun free zone.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

But there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Unfounded assertion, IMO.

cs89 on December 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Stronger and more comprehensive than the ones that kept Lamza from buying a gun? Seems to me that the ones in place already were sufficient, were they not? Are there some statistics we can look to and see how many times background checks allowed someone to buy a gun that shouldn’t have? Or is this just a gut-level thing that you feel should be more stringent?

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

The question was:
“Please explain how the Government will disarm criminals, when they have failed to do so, thus far?”

In regards to Lamza, I think a little bit more personal responsibility for his law-abiding mother could have averted this tragedy. But that’s just conjecture.

Regarding your other questions, the new straw purchases laws in Philadelphia are already having an effect:
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/dncrime/Pair-arrested-in-straw-purchasing-scheme.html

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:33 PM

So, you think criminals obey signs?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Local radio here regularly plays a recording of some woman out in Montana (or somewhere like that) who called into a radio talk show to complain where the government had put up the signs for deer crossing. She thought they should only be allowed to cross on less busy roads.

Same holds true with the gun control debate. Not one of the shooters in the recent spate of incidents was intent on killing but turned around and went home because there was a sign declaring the area to be a gun-free zone. In fact, it has been proven that the Aurora shooter specifically went to the one theater within 20 miles of his apartment that was a gun-free zone.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. So was that movie theater in Colorado.

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:29 PM

You’re right, you did not com outright and say that word, as your Liberal brethren have. You simply want to make it harder for the average American to own one, and then, to not allow him to carry it, there fore making him a target for the criminals who will simply ignore your precious “Gun Free Zone” signs.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

So was the mall in Oregon. The good guy with a gun didn’t know that when he pulled his gun causing the bad guy to stop murdering people.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:39 PM

You know – unless you’re actually trying to address the issue, in which case the statistics clearly show that gun-free zones are where these large-scale shootings take place, almost exclusively.

But hey, you may be right – so, if we simply mark every square foot of space in the country a ‘gun free zone’, we can expect that those shootings in homes and such will cease, right?

/

You do understand the fundamental difference between a declared and posted ‘gun free zone’, and… everywhere else, right? You do know why crime goes down when an area becomes legal for its citizens to conceal carry, right? Or do I presume to much regarding your capacity for rational thought?

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM

I notice the subtle transition that you and others have made from “shootings” to “mass shootings”.

Yes, most recent “mass shootings” have been in gun free zones. The vast majority of “shootings” have been in non-gun free zones.

I’ve already said plenty of times that increasing that I don’t think that increasing the number of gun free zones would reduce mass shootings.

Your petty insults don’t advance the conversation. You’re mistaking causation with correlation. Gun crime is down across the country. Period. Gun crime is down where there have been stricter gun control laws. Gun crime is down where there are loser gun control laws. You’re cherry-picking statistics to support your forgone conclusion.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

In fact they are more likely to be shot in areas where guns are essentially illegal, like Chicago and New York. To be specific, shot by a black male between the ages of 14 and 44.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

I notice the subtle transition that you and others have made from “shootings” to “mass shootings”.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Bless your heart, trying to change the subject when you are shown for the fool that you are.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. So was that movie theater in Colorado.

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Not sure what your point here is. They also occurred in states that has 4 syllables. It’s as strong a correlation.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Those living in Detroit and Memphis would disagree with you.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Then let’s declare high-crime areas as gun-free zones, clearly marked.

Liam on December 26, 2012 at 1:30 PM

But what to do about places such as uber-blue Detroit where 85% of 8th graders can barely read?

We might need to use symbols rather than words, something standardized of course, for instance a stick figure holding a gun to another stick figure’s head with a slashed-circle around it.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Oh, and as mentioned earlier, Chricago and NYC.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:43 PM

In fact they are more likely to be shot in areas where guns are essentially illegal, like Chicago and New York. To be specific, shot by a black male between the ages of 14 and 44.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 1:41 PM

And most mass shootings tend to happen in suburban areas and are perpetrated by white males. What’s your point?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Those living in Detroit and Memphis would disagree with you.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Can you start quoting what I write? It’s a pain to check the time stamp.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

The 2nd Civil War has started & the right is slow to participate. The Left has been in “War Mode” against conservative America for some time now. The animals on the left have been using ‘War Language”, while the right is still trying to act like there is a conversation to be had with people who see you as, & refer to you as, their “Enemy”.

paratisi

Interesting point. I’ve been watching those commercials for ‘The Americans,’ which is presumably about some Russian agents that were infiltrated into our culture, and I’m like, “Meh…”

We have WAY more to fear from the modern Democrat party than from any Russian or Al Quaida ‘sleeper cells.’

CaptFlood on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I’ve already said plenty of times that increasing that I don’t think that increasing the number of gun free zones would reduce mass shootings.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

That statement is somewhat contradicted by what you said in this post:

there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Care to reconcile the two statements?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Can you start quoting what I write? It’s a pain to check the time stamp.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Reading’s hard for you, huh? I won’t repeat your drival. it’s pointless enough the first time.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

You’re right, you did not com outright and say that word, as your Liberal brethren have. You simply want to make it harder for the average American to own one, and then, to not allow him to carry it, there fore making him a target for the criminals who will simply ignore your precious “Gun Free Zone” signs.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I want to make it harder for someone to illegally own a gun. That may make it harder for a person to legally own a gun. I think its worth the trade off.

Do you think there should be any checks when a person purchases a gun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I notice the subtle transition that you and others have made from “shootings” to “mass shootings”.

Yes, most recent “mass shootings” have been in gun free zones. The vast majority of “shootings” have been in non-gun free zones.

Of course the subtle transition from “murders” to “shootings”, no mention of “shootings” including suicides, cops shooting perps, house accidents, hunting accidents, etc.

Why…it’s almost as if a city with myriad cars would experience more traffic accidents than a city without cars; strange thought, there.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Sandy Hook Elementary was a gun free zone. So was that movie theater in Colorado.

F-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Not sure what your point here is. They also occurred in states that has 4 syllables. It’s as strong a correlation.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Translated: “Del went right over my head!”

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

There are now. That’s how Lanza got turned down.

The point you are willfully ignoring is that criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

I’ve already said plenty of times that increasing that I don’t think that increasing the number of gun free zones would reduce mass shootings.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM

That statement is somewhat contradicted by what you said in this post:

there’s no question that there’s a correlation of being in a gun free zone and not getting shot.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Care to reconcile the two statements?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I consider a mass shooting and a “regular shooting”(if there’s such a thing) to be different. That being said, those statements are really related.

A) I don’t think gun free zones have an effect on mass shootings.

B) A person is more likely to be shot in an area that is not a gun free zone.

C) I don’t think (A) has to do with (B).

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Reading’s hard for you, huh? I won’t repeat your drival. it’s pointless enough the first time.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

But you just….

Umm, ok.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:50 PM

There are now. That’s how Lanza got turned down.

The point you are willfully ignoring is that criminals will always find a way to obtain guns.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Aight, let’s do it this way. Start quoting me or I’m done with you.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Please cite your source for Statement B and link to it, please. Otherwise, it too, is nothing but conjecture.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Of course the subtle transition from “murders” to “shootings”, no mention of “shootings” including suicides, cops shooting perps, house accidents, hunting accidents, etc.

Why…it’s almost as if a city with myriad cars would experience more traffic accidents than a city without cars; strange thought, there.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I’m not following you. What are you talking about?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Aight, let’s do it this way. Start quoting me or I’m done with you.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Fine, Cartman. Go home.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I want to make it harder for someone to illegally own a gun. That may make it harder for a person to legally own a gun. I think its worth the trade off.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:47 PM

By punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of those who break the law?

Where I come from, that’s called either “fascism” or “communism” or “totalitarianism”. Or all 3.

Epic Fail. Not even worth a grade.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

By punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of those who break the law?

Where I come from, that’s called either “fascism” or “communism” or “totalitarianism”. Or all 3.

Epic Fail. Not even worth a grade.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Do you believe there should be any background checks when purchasing a gun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:46 PM

I consider a mass shooting and a “regular shooting”(if there’s such a thing) to be different.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

Why is a mass shooting “different”? And what, pray tell, is your “definition” of a “regular shooting”?

All shootings have the same results, as far as I can tell. But you’re totally ignoring the massive daily “regular” shootings in Dear Leader’s hometown of Chicago, simply because they don’t fit your Leftist agenda.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

This is AnninCA level of obtuseness and stupidity…

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Do you believe there should be any background checks when purchasing a gun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

The shooter in Newtown went thru one and was not allowed to purchase a gun.

Next?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 1:51 PM

He is at the grasping at straws stage of his argument now.

Hoping people will not notice the vastly larger area that is not gun free zones as opposed to the statistical probability that an area that is not a gun free zone is safer than one that is.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Murder Rate Per 100,000 Inhabitants From 1900-2011

1900: 1.2…………………..1960: 5.1
1901: 1.2…………………..1961: 4.8
1902: 1.2…………………..1962: 4.6
1903: 1.1…………………..1963: 4.6
1904: 1.3…………………..1964: 4.9
1905: 2.1…………………..1965: 5.1
1906: 3.9…………………..1966: 5.6
1907: 4.9…………………..1967: 6.2
1908: 4.8…………………..1968: 6.9
1909: 4.2…………………..1969: 7.3

1910: 4.6…………………..1970: 7.9
1911: 5.5…………………..1971: 8.6
1912: 5.4…………………..1972: 9.0
1913: 6.1…………………..1973: 9.4
1914: 6.2…………………..1974: 9.8
1915: 5.9…………………..1975: 9.6
1916: 6.3…………………..1976: 8.7
1917: 6.9…………………..1977: 8.8
1918: 6.5…………………..1978: 9.0
1919: 7.2…………………..1979: 9.8

1920: 6.8…………………..1980: 10.2
1921: 8.1…………………..1981: 9.8
1922: 8.0…………………..1982: 9.1
1923: 7.8…………………..1983: 8.3
1924: 8.1…………………..1984: 7.9
1925: 8.3…………………..1985: 8.0
1926: 8.4…………………..1986: 8.6
1927: 8.4…………………..1987: 8.3
1928: 8.6…………………..1988: 8.4
1929: 8.4…………………..1989: 8.7

1930: 8.8…………………..1990: 9.4
1931: 9.2…………………..1991: 9.8
1932: 9.0…………………..1992: 9.3
1933: 9.7…………………..1993: 9.5
1934: 9.5…………………..1994: 9.0 – AWB signed
1935: 8.3…………………..1995: 8.2
1936: 8.0…………………..1996: 7.4
1937: 7.6…………………..1997: 6.8
1938: 6.8…………………..1998: 6.3
1939: 6.4…………………..1999: 5.7

1940: 6.3…………………..2000: 5.5
1941: 6.0…………………..2001: 5.6
1942: 5.9…………………..2002: 5.6
1943: 5.1…………………..2003: 5.7
1944: 5.0…………………..2004: 5.5 – AWB expired
1945: 5.7…………………..2005: 5.6
1946: 6.4…………………..2006: 5.7
1947: 6.1…………………..2007: 5.6
1948: 5.9…………………..2008: 5.4
1949: 5.4…………………..2009: 5.0

1950: 5.3…………………..2010: 4.2
1951: 4.9…………………..2011: 4.7
1952: 5.2…………………..2012
1953: 4.8
1954: 4.8
1955: 4.5
1956: 4.6
1957: 4.5
1958: 4.5
1959: 4.6

The homicide rate peaked at 10.2% in 1980.

4.7 homicide per 100,000 puts 2011 somewhere between 1956/1959/1962/1963 (with 4.6%) and 1908/1953/1954/1961 (with 4.8%).

In 2011, the Department of Justice announced that the homicide rate in 2010 dropped to 4.2 homicides per 100,000 residents AND, THIS WAS SEVEN YEARS AFTER THE Assault Weapons Ban a/k/a The Prohibition On Certain Guns With Cosmetic Changes That Make Them Look Skeery And Are Painted Skeery (And Racist!) Black Act of 1994 EXPIRED.

Far from JUST being “The lowest US homicide rate in four decades,” THE NATIONAL HOMICIDE RATE IN 2010 WAS THE LOWEST RATE SINCE 1909, according to collected data from the FBI, Census, state records, etc.

Chart from 1900-2010:

The AWB or CCW Laws: Which Has Had More Of An Impact On The Murder Rate?

Resist We Much on December 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

This is AnninCA level of obtuseness and stupidity…

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

That is an insult to AnninnCA, who at least provided some Comedy Relief…

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

I don’t think (A) has to do with (B).

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:49 PM

FIFY

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

By punishing law abiding citizens for the crimes of those who break the law?

Where I come from, that’s called either “fascism” or “communism” or “totalitarianism”. Or all 3.

Epic Fail. Not even worth a grade.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:53 PM

Do you believe there should be any background checks when purchasing a gun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

OK, Class, notice how the Unit is afraid to answer the question in my first sentence?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

He is also ignoring the answers to his questions because he is not equipped to respond to them. Therefore, he is asking the same questions of multiple posters.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

That is an insult to AnninnCA, who at least provided some Comedy Relief…

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Give the new nutball some time. Its his first time being stupid in the spotlight.

Stage fright, ya’ know.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I’m not following you. What are you talking about?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Murders in gun free zones as opposed to shootings in non-zones, you failed to break up your statistics for what exactly those shootings were; murders, cop shootings, accidents, suicides, etc.

A corresponding example was given to you: A preponderance of a device will naturally raise incidents with said device, whether that be cars, guns, snowmobiles, or dogs. You don’t hear about too many snowblower accidents occurring in Saudi Arabia, I wonder why.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The shooter in Newtown went thru one and was not allowed to purchase a gun.

Next?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Do you believe there should be background checks when a person purchases a gun?

Just answer the question.

You said I was being a fascist because my recommendation would make it more difficult for a person to legally buy a gun. Do you believe there should be restrictions are gun purchases?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

The poor nood at least has that part of the idiot lefty playbook memorized.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

OK, Class, notice how the Unit is afraid to answer the question in my first sentence?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

You’re being intellectually dishonest. Any background check can be considered as a punishment for a law-abiding citizen. So no, I don’t think it’s a punishment.

Do you feel that background checks are a punishment to law-abiding citizens?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Them goalposts don’t move on their own!

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Murders in gun free zones as opposed to shootings in non-zones, you failed to break up your statistics for what exactly those shootings were; murders, cop shootings, accidents, suicides, etc.

A corresponding example was given to you: A preponderance of a device will naturally raise incidents with said device, whether that be cars, guns, snowmobiles, or dogs. You don’t hear about too many snowblower accidents occurring in Saudi Arabia, I wonder why.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

I completely agree with you. My original point is that correlation means little or nothing. Yes, there’s a correlation between gun free zones and shootings, but expanding gun free zones might not decrease shootings while decreasing them might not increase shootings.

I believe that holds true for shootings or murders.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

And most mass shootings tend to happen in suburban areas and are perpetrated by white males. What’s your point?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Actually my point is quite simple. ‘Mass shootings’ are a small fraction of death by firearms. The real problem is people being unable to defend themselves. You conflate a mass shooting, invariably committed by a lunatic or Muslim, with ordinary crime. Firearms are employed more than a million times a year to defend person and property, balance against 6,000 deaths. Not a bad ration of good to bad.
Jefferson and Madison (the author of the Second Amendment) were well aware of the risk to benefit argument and chose freedom.
You like most liberals have never seen a freedom that meets your approval. You feel that The Constitution was an aberration that needs to be rewritten by those of you that are enlightened enough to share your need for regimentation of others.

pat on December 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Do you believe there should be any background checks when purchasing a gun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

This is one of those talking points that you don’t even know what you mean by “background check.”

Seriously, before you stamp your feet and have another hissy fit, you need to define what you mean. What information would be included? Who gets access and authority to find out about your medical/mental health (ever hear of HIPPA)? Who gets to reject an individual and deny them their Second Amendment rights?

And I’ll remind you that the weapons used in most of the recent shootings were purchased legally by individuals that would not have triggered cause for concern during a background check.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I believe that holds true for shootings or murders.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The unicorns told you so.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Which means you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and advocating ever more governmental restrictions based on “might”, “possibly”, “perhaps” and “maybe”.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

The shooter in Newtown went thru one and was not allowed to purchase a gun.

Next?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:57 PM

Do you believe there should be background checks when a person purchases a gun?

Just answer the question.

You said I was being a fascist because my recommendation would make it more difficult for a person to legally buy a gun. Do you believe there should be restrictions are gun purchases?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Translated: “Del is drop-kicking my getalife into low Earth orbit!”

First of all, I will answer your question as soon as you answer my question at the very top of the post you responded to.

Second of all, I have absolutely no problem with background gun checks when a person purchases a gun, because such checks have in fact been required by law since the very start of my adult life, which is obviously many years more than your so-called adult life.

Third, until you can answer my question about why you want to punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of non law abiding citizens, you can’t credibly claim you’re not a fascist.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Why is a mass shooting “different”? And what, pray tell, is your “definition” of a “regular shooting”?

All shootings have the same results, as far as I can tell. But you’re totally ignoring the massive daily “regular” shootings in Dear Leader’s hometown of Chicago, simply because they don’t fit your Leftist agenda.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Criminals in mass shootings tend to kill themselves. Criminals in more common shootings tend not to. That one difference could dictate how one deals with either situation.

Do you feel that just because people end up dead, they both should be dealt with the same way?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

This is one of those talking points that you don’t even know what you mean by “background check.”

Seriously, before you stamp your feet and have another hissy fit, you need to define what you mean. What information would be included? Who gets access and authority to find out about your medical/mental health (ever hear of HIPPA)? Who gets to reject an individual and deny them their Second Amendment rights?

And I’ll remind you that the weapons used in most of the recent shootings were purchased legally by individuals that would not have triggered cause for concern during a background check.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:07 PM

I think there should be limit on the number of guns a person can purchase within a given time period. Would it have avoided the newtown killings? No. But as you and others don’t seem to realize, ED’s original post is not about the Newtown killings. It’s about gun control.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Which means you’re arguing for the sake of arguing and advocating ever more governmental restrictions based on “might”, “possibly”, “perhaps” and “maybe”.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Yes. I’m living in the real world. I’m not sure if there are any other ways to make a law or to affect change.

Do you only do something when you have 100% certainty?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Yes. I’m living in the real world.
segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Thanks, that’s the best laugh I’ve had today.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Translated: “Del is drop-kicking my getalife into low Earth orbit!”

First of all, I will answer your question as soon as you answer my question at the very top of the post you responded to.

Second of all, I have absolutely no problem with background gun checks when a person purchases a gun, because such checks have in fact been required by law since the very start of my adult life, which is obviously many years more than your so-called adult life.

Third, until you can answer my question about why you want to punish law abiding citizens for the crimes of non law abiding citizens, you can’t credibly claim you’re not a fascist.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Don’t you see that by endorsing background checks, you can be considered a fascist by those who feel that those checks are an infringement on the their right to own a gun? That a background check is punishes law abiding citizens for the crimes of non law-abiding citizens? Why do you think background checks were originally implemented? For fun?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

to the non-too intelligent folks who say why don’t i advocate banning knives and cars since they kill people too:

it’s very simple:

cars and knives have alternate useful purposes other than killing that we need in our lives

guns exist solely to kill…there is no utilitarian purpose of a gun other than to kill (don’t give me that bullcrap about hunting).

I agree with ppl with most of these gun laws are abosolutely pointless…either ban all guns or don’t pretend to do anything about it.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Um, name them. Or admit you are grasping.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:20 PM

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Aw, you came back.

Bless your ignorant little heart.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:21 PM

guns exist solely to kill…there is no utilitarian purpose of a gun other than to kill (don’t give me that bullcrap about hunting).

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

The stupid in that statement is measured in mega-tons.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

OK, Class, notice how the Unit is afraid to answer the question in my first sentence?

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Any background check can be considered as a punishment for a law-abiding citizen. So no, I don’t think it’s a punishment.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:03 PM

As I state in my later post, I’ve lived thru my entire adult life with such background check laws already in place. And a disclaimer: I have never owned a gun, so I’m no “gun nut”. But please tell me what right you have to decide whether or not I can legally purchase one, or what right you have to legally restrict what type of weapon I can buy? Are you also in favor of legally restricting people from purchasing fast cars, simply because fast cars can result in gruesome fatal car wrecks?

BTW by “punishment” I refer to your side wanting to punish law abiding citizens by trying to take away weapons they purchased legally, by making them illegal to own. But you’re obviously too overprogrammed to respond in that area.

And I was not referring to background checks as being “punishment” in any sense of the world, although I am sure criminals trying to illegally get guns would consider such a bg check “punishment”. After all, we all know how concerned you Leftists are concerned with Personal Privacy. Remember how you always claimed Bush and Cheney were criminals for their invasions of privacy after 9/11?

The only people who bg checks would be “punishing” to are those being checked who have something to hide.

As I said I own no guns. However, I do know some gun owners. Not one of them have ever considered the background check to be “punishment”. Likewise, because the business I own does work for government agencies, I am being background checked all the time. It’s a part of the business routine and hardly “punishment” in my case, as I have absolutely nothing to hide, criminally or otherwise.

Keep shovelin’. You really should have two, one for each hand.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

to the non-too intelligent folks who say why don’t i advocate banning knives and cars since they kill people too:

it’s very simple:

cars and knives have alternate useful purposes other than killing that we need in our lives

guns exist solely to kill…there is no utilitarian purpose of a gun other than to kill (don’t give me that bullcrap about hunting).

I agree with ppl with most of these gun laws are abosolutely pointless…either ban all guns or don’t pretend to do anything about it.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

What would a patriot like yourself say about the millions of times/year that a citizen with a gun stops an attack?

You heartily root for the attacker in every instance don’t you?

That seems pretty ghoulish patriot.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Aight, let’s do it this way. Start quoting me or I’m done with you.

segasagez

Somebody can’t keep up with his cut and paste talking points, lol.

xblade on December 26, 2012 at 2:23 PM

guns exist solely to kill…there is no utilitarian purpose of a gun other than to kill (don’t give me that bullcrap about hunting).

ROFL

There are people who depend on hunting to make a living, to literally put food on the table, to protect themselves from animals who would kill them (animals on both 2 and 4 legs), to keep their businesses thriving. In fact you enjoy products every day of your life that exist at relatively low cost precisely because certain people have guns.

Bullcrap, indeed.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

I think there should be limit on the number of guns a person can purchase within a given time period. Would it have avoided the newtown killings? No. But as you and others don’t seem to realize, ED’s original post is not about the Newtown killings. It’s about gun control.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Two points.

First, WHY should there be a limit on the number of guns a person can purchase within a given time period. I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about somebody being limited to one handgun a month. This is one of those laws that is arbitrary, punitive, and meaningless as you yourself admit.

Secondly, if this is about banning guns and not Newtown then many of the points you are making is pretty silly since it is not based on some broad general discussion of public policy but on how to confiscate guns by rallying public outrage behind those 20 tiny caskets. You’re not interested in the former just how to punish the vast majority of responsible gun owners for an agenda that is evil and irresponsible. In short, please spare us any more of your lies that you’re attempting to have a debate over good public policy.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Nonpartisan’s Comprehensive argument against all dumb gun fanatic arguments (im providing this so I dont hear the same dumb arguments bought up time and time again):

1. Owning guns is a consitutional right!

- Constitution is not perfect. The men who wrote it were not perfect. The Constitution CAN and HAS BEEN amended.

2. Citizens need guns to form a militia in case government goes overboard.

- This is one of the dumber arguments from progun fanatics. If you think your assault rifles are gonna protect you from a trained army with tanks, fighter jets, drones, then you have bigger problems.

3. Knives, cars (substitute some other item) kill people too, so why not ban those as well?

- Knives, cars, etc serve important utilitarian purposes without which would have a profoundly devastating effect on civilization. Guns are killing weapons with no other purpose that is important to civilized society.

4. Guns don’t kill people, people do.

- This one gets me cuz its so idiotic. Guns are inanimate so yes they dont kill by themselves. But they facilitate the easy killing of many in a short span of time. Also by that logic, why dont we allow people to own bazookas, grenades, tanks, anthrax, etc as well….i mean, none of those things on their own go to kill ppl.

Thank you for reading and I apologize if I severely shook up your world view. Happy new years!

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

As I state in my later post, I’ve lived thru my entire adult life with such background check laws already in place. And a disclaimer: I have never owned a gun, so I’m no “gun nut”. But please tell me what right you have to decide whether or not I can legally purchase one, or what right you have to legally restrict what type of weapon I can buy? Are you also in favor of legally restricting people from purchasing fast cars, simply because fast cars can result in gruesome fatal car wrecks?

BTW by “punishment” I refer to your side wanting to punish law abiding citizens by trying to take away weapons they purchased legally, by making them illegal to own. But you’re obviously too overprogrammed to respond in that area.

And I was not referring to background checks as being “punishment” in any sense of the world, although I am sure criminals trying to illegally get guns would consider such a bg check “punishment”. After all, we all know how concerned you Leftists are concerned with Personal Privacy. Remember how you always claimed Bush and Cheney were criminals for their invasions of privacy after 9/11?

The only people who bg checks would be “punishing” to are those being checked who have something to hide.

As I said I own no guns. However, I do know some gun owners. Not one of them have ever considered the background check to be “punishment”. Likewise, because the business I own does work for government agencies, I am being background checked all the time. It’s a part of the business routine and hardly “punishment” in my case, as I have absolutely nothing to hide, criminally or otherwise.

Keep shovelin’. You really should have two, one for each hand.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:22 PM

You’re responding to arguments I haven’t made.

I never called you a gun nut.

I never said that guns should be confiscated.

I never said guns should be illegal to own.

I made a recommendation on things that should happen at the time a gun is purchased, and you said that it would make it more difficult for a person to legally purchase a gun. I agreed with that.

You brought up the whole punishment part.

At this point, I think you’re arguing against your own rhetoric and actual beliefs.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Thank you for reading and I apologize if I severely shook up your world view. Happy new years!

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Why would your stupidity shake up a world view?

You’re a solitude libtard with delusions of grandeur.

sentinelrules on December 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

- This one gets me is funny cuz its so idiotic.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:28 PM

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:27 PM

At this point, I think you’re arguing against your own rhetoric and actual beliefs.

Its easier when they even write the material to use against them.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Thank you for reading and I apologize if I severely shook up your world view. Happy new years!

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

You didn’t shake anything up. You did however, perfectly illustrate Dunning-Kruger.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yeah right. Even your handle is a blatant lie.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 12:59 PM

cept Im not a lib.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yes. I’m living in the real world. I’m not sure if there are any other ways to make a law or to affect change.

Do you only do something when you have 100% certainty?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:15 PM

I would like more certainty than “Maybe” if you plan on restricting Constitutionally-enshrined rights for 300 million free people.

You could make an equal argument for banning all sorts of things based on “it might deter this or that” which is precisely the argument made by tyrants through history.

I suppose all we need to do is find something that hits you directly to witness your outrage.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Two points.

First, WHY should there be a limit on the number of guns a person can purchase within a given time period. I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about somebody being limited to one handgun a month. This is one of those laws that is arbitrary, punitive, and meaningless as you yourself admit.

Secondly, if this is about banning guns and not Newtown then many of the points you are making is pretty silly since it is not based on some broad general discussion of public policy but on how to confiscate guns by rallying public outrage behind those 20 tiny caskets. You’re not interested in the former just how to punish the vast majority of responsible gun owners for an agenda that is evil and irresponsible. In short, please spare us any more of your lies that you’re attempting to have a debate over good public policy.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Restriction the number of guns a person can buy limits straw purchases. Monitoring the number of guns a person a buys can lead to finding straw purchases, as it did in Philly?

Do you disagree with those two statements?

And wow, who’s having the hissy fit now? You should probably bring up your concerns with Ed. He wrote the post.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:30 PM

guns exist solely to kill…there is no utilitarian purpose of a gun other than to kill (don’t give me that bullcrap about hunting).

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:19 PM

What nonsense but, rather than responding to 100% pure stupid, if we start with the idea that guns exist “solely to kill.” So what? What’s wrong with “non-utiliarian” uses for weapons like recreational and competitive shooting? What’s wrong with responsibly using weapons for hunting?

Yes, guns can kill. So what?

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Oh. A Paulnut…or a Free Range Simpleton.

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

What nonsense but, rather than responding to 100% pure stupid, if we start with the idea that guns exist “solely to kill.” So what? What’s wrong with “non-utiliarian” uses for weapons like recreational and competitive shooting? What’s wrong with responsibly using weapons for hunting?

Yes, guns can kill. So what?

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:31 PM

whats wrong with it is that these weapons for ‘recreational killing’ has been also used for ‘nonrecreational’ killing far too often and far too easily.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

cept Im not a lib.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

The stupidity you show makes anything else impossible.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Criminals in mass shootings tend to kill themselves.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Oh, please.

That is a grossly (even for you) oversimplification, and leaves out relevant facts. Such as, the fact that many of those mass shooters kill themselves only when seeing that

A. The Good Guys With Guns (the police) have them totally surrounded, with no means for escape, or

B. The Good Guys With Guns (the police) have in fact started the process of arresting them.

Another fact is that many criminals in mass shootings do not kill themselves. Please Google the following names:

Richard Farley

Edward Charles Allaway

Byran Koji Uyesugi

Michael “Mucko” McDermott

John Felton Parish

Nidal Malik Hasan

James Holmes

Jared Loughner

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:35 PM

I would like more certainty than “Maybe” if you plan on restricting Constitutionally-enshrined rights for 300 million free people.

You could make an equal argument for banning all sorts of things based on “it might deter this or that” which is precisely the argument made by tyrants through history.

I suppose all we need to do is find something that hits you directly to witness your outrage.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Firstly, I did not advocate banning guns.

Secondly, we do ban things that we think might deter this or that. We’ve done that since the country was founded. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. It’s a not a novel concept. It almost seems like you’re arguing for the elimination of laws as a concept?

Do you think there should be a speed limit?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I’m living in the real world.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Thread over.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:32 PM

So, when a criminal breaks into your home and threans you and your family, what will you do?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

So, when a criminal breaks into your home and threans you and your family, what will you do?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Don’t you see that by endorsing background checks, you can be considered a fascist

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Only on your world, dear. What time do the triple moons rise there tonight?

Owning a gun is a right, but it is also a privilege. Only someone with something to hide, like a criminal, would consider any background check to be “fascist”.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM

2. Citizens need guns to form a militia in case government goes overboard.

- This is one of the dumber arguments from progun fanatics. If you think your assault rifles are gonna protect you from a trained army with tanks, fighter jets, drones, then you have bigger problems.

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Okay, just to make sure I’ve got this straight. One is a pro-gun fanatic if they support the Second Amendment and against are excessive government control over our rights spelled out in that document.

Wow! What tolerance! What acknowledgement of those Second Amendment rights! If you aren’t for confiscating all guns then you are by default a pro-gun fanatic? That about sum it up?

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Nonpartisan’s Comprehensive argument against all dumb gun fanatic arguments (im providing this so I dont hear the same dumb arguments bought up time and time again):

1. Owning guns is a consitutional right!

- Constitution is not perfect. The men who wrote it were not perfect. The Constitution CAN and HAS BEEN amended.

AMEND it then, and until then STFU and leave us alone, m’kay?

2. Citizens need guns to form a militia in case government goes overboard.

- This is one of the dumber arguments from progun fanatics. If you think your assault rifles are gonna protect you from a trained army with tanks, fighter jets, drones, then you have bigger problems.

Check recent and semi-recent world history (Syria, Afghanistan, etc) and tell me that motivated citizenry with rifles, pistols and things at their disposal can’t overcome a state authority with tanks, jets, etc. Oh, and did I mention STFU, moron?

3. Knives, cars (substitute some other item) kill people too, so why not ban those as well?

- Knives, cars, etc serve important utilitarian purposes without which would have a profoundly devastating effect on civilization. Guns are killing weapons with no other purpose that is important to civilized society.

*BZZZT* Oh, I’m sorry, but that’s WRO?NG – thanks for playing anyway. People use guns for self-defense, hunting, providing for their families, controlling predators and pests, but in the end, none of that matters, because they are primarily there, and on that basis Constitutionally protected – for self-defense – and THAT, dipstick, is very, very important to civilized society.

4. Guns don’t kill people, people do.

- This one gets me cuz its so idiotic. Guns are inanimate so yes they dont kill by themselves. But they facilitate the easy killing of many in a short span of time. Also by that logic, why dont we allow people to own bazookas, grenades, tanks, anthrax, etc as well….i mean, none of those things on their own go to kill ppl.

God save us from this kind of abject stupidity. Wow. You really ought to be embarrassed by your moronic commentary, but that would require an ounce or two of self-awareness and the capacity for critical thinking, so alas, not to be.

Thank you for reading and I apologize if I severely shook up your world view. Happy new years!

No, not shook up in the least. :)

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Midas on December 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

You have to be a parody.

Bwahahahahahahahaha…I can’t breathe…bwahahahahahahahahahaha!

That’s why is called, “Breaking and Entering”, Sparky!

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:40 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

He?

Sexist pig.

tom daschle concerned on December 26, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Only on your world, dear. What time do the triple moons rise there tonight?

Owning a gun is a right, but it is also a privilege. Only someone with something to hide, like a criminal, would consider any background check to be “fascist”.

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You just blew my mind.

I have to reflect on that for a bit. Maybe you should too.

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

So, when a criminal breaks into your home and threans you and your family, what will you do?

kingsjester on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

how is he gonna break into my home if my doors are locked? is this a movie where a pack of serbian gang is coming after my family?

nonpartisan on December 26, 2012 at 2:38 PM

All the doors at Sandy Hook Elementary were locked too. So were the doors at that movie theater in Colorado.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on December 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

The stupidity you show makes anything else impossible.

cozmo on December 26, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Not entirely true. There is a certain strain of Ron Paul “Libertarian” that also pegs out the stupidity meter.

Happy Nomad on December 26, 2012 at 2:42 PM

This is the kind of race crap, which prevents honest discussion:

RWM: “Guess when the first school massacre took place?”

Allidunce: “1999. More than 4 deaths”

RWM: “No. 1764 – Greencastle, Pennsylvania: 4 Lenape American Indians entered a log schoolhouse. Inside were the schoolmaster, Enoch Brown, and twelve young students. Brown pleaded with them to spare the children before being shot and scalped. The warriors then began to tomahawk and scalp the children; killing nine or ten of them (reports vary). Two children who had been scalped survived. 11 dead.”

Allidunce: This kind of post promotes racism toward Native Americans.

RWM: Moron, it is the first school shooting/massacre in the American colonies. Should we not talk about gun crime when minorities are the killers?

[Evidently, the answer is "yes." 453 school-aged children have been shot in Chicago this year. 63 have died: That's 2.42 TIMES the number killed at Newtown Since 2008, more than 530 people under the age of 21 have been shot and killed in Chicago.

Murder in Chicago is, strangely, a racist subject. The mainly MSM won't touch the subject because most victims are black and they don't want to be accused of racism (Outrage to the MSM: "Are you saying that blacks are more violent?!?!?! Huh? Huh?"). To be fair, white also sells. Jon Benet Ramsey, probably, would not have drawn the ratings had she been black. Just making an honest observation, not an approval of such coverage.

The Race-Pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will hue-and-cry about Trayvon Martin, but a Trayvon is shot every day in Chicago...by another Trayvon. We know what the problems are, but heaven help a Bill Cosby if he dares to speak the causes that shall not be named.

I love the children of Newtown and I feel the pain that everyone does, but when is the MSM going to start covering the deaths in Chicago and elsewhere. It is not an issue of gun control. Chicago has had some of the most draconian gun control laws in the nation.]

Resist We Much on December 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Firstly, I did not advocate banning guns.

Secondly, we do ban things that we think might deter this or that. We’ve done that since the country was founded. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. It’s a not a novel concept. It almost seems like you’re arguing for the elimination of laws as a concept?

Do you think there should be a speed limit?

segasagez on December 26, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Never said you did, I used the word “restricting”…you actually read the post, yes?

You also seemed to miss the “Constitution” part of the comment; please don’t veer off on a tangent about speeding or we will be inundated with non-relevant comparisons until midnight.

And finally, what is your point? You say you don’t want a ban on guns and then you say that the U.S. has banned all sorts of things, soooo…..you seem to be fluttering between bans and non-bans and sort of bans and not really bans but maybe something else.

Bishop on December 26, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3