Fair ~ 21°F  
Login | Register
Thursday, March 5, 2015

Thoughts on gun control

Posted Friday, January 18, 2013, at 12:14 AM

Tragedies like Sandy Hook will never be preventable. We've heard it said a million times before: the people who commit atrocities have no regard for the law, and no amount of control can stop every person with ill intent.

These kinds of tragedies have many different factors, many of which would have been easier to address and would have received less backlash than suggesting we narrow down the 2nd amendment. Look those up if you'd like. I'm not here to talk about that.

Please allow me to make this clear. I do not advocate for the banning of any firearms.

Rather, what I advocate for is gun regulation. It has little to do with violent acts committed, and largely to do with accidental deaths where a gun's presence contributed.

The day after the Sandy Hook shooting, a young child in Oklahoma killed himself accidentally after finding his uncle's gun. A few years ago, a Mountain Home student was critically injured by a young child after finding his parents' gun.

The gun is not the problem. A lack of education in use and safety is.

I don't know why anyone would need anything more than hunting rifles and perhaps a handgun of some kind for personal protection (I am actually getting one myself after the boyfriend has determined I am proficient with his .22). Sure, some people think weaponry they could find would stand a chance against a tyrannical government (some people forget this isn't 1776...our military capacity, or what the government has access to, could strongly overpower average citizents), but that's their business. I don't care if you have a whole warehouse of firearms. Just don't use them on me or other innocents. It's your business, and your constitutionally-protected right.

This outline of what I would do if I were a lawmaker is simply to prevent accidental deaths. That's the only kind of gun control law I think we need. In fact, let's call it regulation, because that sounds less awful. Someone somewhere provided a great analogy: DUIs can result in tragic death. We don't outlaw drinking or driving separately, but the two are not allowed, and if you do them together, there is a consequence. This deters many citizens, but still protects the rights of those who enjoy driving or drinking. Likewise, killing someone is illegal. But we should not infringe on the rights of those who would like guns for legal purposes.

Melodie's Proposal for Gun Regulation

This does include some regulation that is already active in some states, as well as some suggestions that wouldn't necessarily be law.

1. A background check must be conducted before the sale of every firearm. No exceptions.

2. Firearms must be registered.

3. Pending approval of registration, owners must take a safety course. After the first safety course, a test must be passed for each firearm. If the registrant fails the test, he or she must retake the course until he or she passes.

4.Suggestion All firearms should be stored in a child-proof safe or locker when not in use.

There are plenty of safes that can be easily accessed in the event of an emergency, including those with biometric security. One can keep a key to a safe on their person/out of the reach of children.

5.Suggestion Children should be given a thorough gun-safety course.

6.Suggestion Children should only be granted access to gun safes when they are old enough to stay alone at home. Otherwise, guns should only be in a child's hands if there is RESPONSIBLE adult supervision.

Again, I recognize this won't prevent tragedies like shooting rampages. But perhaps this kind of regulation, followed by responsible parenting could save many souls a lot of heartache. THESE are common sense solutions to gun regulation.

Sandy Hook wasn't a failure of school security. It wasn't a failure in gun control. It was many other factors, including irresponsible parenting on the part of the shooter's mother.

I doubt it, but are you listening, lawmakers?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

All your suggestions have been bandied about on here over the last weeks and they are good sensible suggestions.

I've heard of binary systems that require one component, say something similar to a watch, to be within a certain distance of the weapon, only a matter of a few inches, in order for that weapon to function. That may not be suitable for all, but for households with children, such a system would be considerably easier to safe. Especially if the trigger on the weapon were locked, and the binary components kept in separate secure locations.

In hindsight, it appears the late Mrs. Lanza may have been irresponsible. But I have not seen anything that suggests that there was any symptom Adam Lanza's mental condition that would have prevented him from owning a weapon under current law.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 7:02 AM

Registration of firearms isn't the answer either, unlike cars that are not a right and not protected under the US Constitution. It would be like everyone having to get a permit to voice their option, or getting a waiver before being able to plead the fifth.

Registration also leads to the goverment being able to go around and confiscate. We have a slippery slop here. Every Dictator in the history of the world like Stalin and Hitler didn't start out with gun control or weapon control, they slowly worked it in. Hitler started with registration, then regulation, and finally confiscation and we all know how that worked out. The funny thing is Hitler did the same thing as obama he started with it is all for the safety of the children.

-- Posted by Trouble2011 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 7:59 AM

Gun safety classes used to be taught by the Fish & Game Dept.

We had guns in our home when I was growing up. It was clearly understood that they were off-limits.

Like any other thing that might be dangerous in your home, they should be put up in a safe place.

We understood that Draino was poisonous and therefore shouldn't be touched. It had a clear symbol on the back with skull and bones.

Accidental shootings are always a tragedy. I remember several teens and adults that accidentally shot themselves and died as a result. They knew gun safety and for some reason got careless or didn' think something through until it was too late.

We keep knives, scissors and poisons out of our children's reach with out any additional thought. However, if a child gets into something that they shouldn't, there isn't much that we could have done to prevent it. Some kids find keys, use chairs or are general snoops. Other kids have the misfortune to be there at the wrong time.

Gun Safety should always be a concern, but so should having access to mental health care and support for the care-givers.

I like your proposals, they make more sense than the other stuff being spouted.

If Mrs. Lanza didn't have guns in her home, Adam would have found something else to kill her and probably several others. I don't think that she was careless, I think that she was a very tired and stressed individual who kept her troubles to herself.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 7:59 AM

Trouble2011, but we register to vote. Our right to vote for our representatives isn't in The Constitution?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 8:25 AM

The Fish and Game classes are generally known as Hunter Safety classes and are a requirement in many states for a child (down to about 8 or 10 years of age) to obtain a hunting license.

The first gun safety that my Dad taught me and my sister was "Treat every gun as if it's LOADED."

The next was "Hands off" unless he was around.

The guns were kept in the back corner of the bedroom closet. The "door" on the closet was made of cloth. The ammo was on the top shelf of closet or in a drawer in a dresser. There were no locks.

When he taught me how to handle a gun and shoot, he added a few more rules that included: Never point a gun at something you don't intend to shoot; Always look to see what's behind your target; and Be sure the chamber is empty when you put the gun away. Carrying a gun with a loaded chamber was acceptable and had yet another set of rules. And I carried a gun for a long time before he let me load it before I took aim at anything.

That was a long time ago, but the concepts are rock solid and equally true today.

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 8:27 AM

The earlier kids learn gun safety, the better. Even kids whose live in homes without firearms should learn the basics that Warren outlined, just in case they end up in a situation like Patrick described.

When I was in the fourth grade, my dad enrolled me in a shooting program to give me something to do on the nights he had to work late. It was a small indoor range with bad ventilation. The odor of burned powder was stifling. We shot. 22 shorts. I took alot of pride in my scoring, and always brought the targets to my dad so he could see his money wasn't going up in smoke.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 10:33 AM

Exactly Dave. Both my parents are expert marksmen, but we never had a gun in the house. But we all knew what Warren said.

You're right about Lanza's mom possibly getting killed regardless of murder weapon. But scissors or a knife would have been easier to stop.

Troublemaker, you missed the point of this post. These suggestions are more for protecting people from mostly preventable accidents.

And sometimes you have to register to voice your opinion. Some places require a permit for demonstration, voting requires registration, as previously pointed out. Will/do all gun owners register? No. But it would ensur that a lrge amount of people received comprehensive safety education. Again, it isn't about stopping criminals. It's about preventing accidental death when possible.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 12:32 PM

Very good suggestions for the most part. I believe that firearm safety training is a key to preventing the type of deaths that you are referring to in your blog. I was taught from as early as I can remember that firearms are dangerous and should always be treated care. As some of the other folks have commented it started at home with my dad doing the teaching. The problem is that not all children have parents that can or will teach them. All children should receive at least some firearm safety training.

I do have a problem with #2. There are too many people out there who would willingly disarm the entire population if they could.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 12:38 PM

When I was a kid, we had many guns in the house. There was a long gun behind the closet door in my parents mater closet. There was another long gun in the same closet. Bullets were on the top shelf of the closet. There were pistols in my dads dresser with the bullets to all in the same location.

I was told when I was young not to touch the guns and that was pretty much it. Way back then we did as we were told or got our butts spanked with a belt or branch. We respected our parents---and guns.

I did not learn to shoot a gun until I was an adult. Lanza's mother knew her son was not right and allowed him to get his hands on a gun. That in itself is a crime. No amount of gun control could have prevented this. Bad people will ALWAYS be able to get guns.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, Jan 18, 2013, at 3:24 PM


You are really a disturbed person.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 11:16 AM

You've published evidence of what appears to be your complete lack of empathy, and in your self esteemed opinion, Trevor is disturbed?

Now that's funny.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 12:59 PM

Back to the subject; are Supreme Court decisions like Miller and Heller (referenced above) to be taken as regulating the."...well regulated militia..."?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 1:04 PM

Links to cases I referenced failed to attach to an earlier comment.



-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 4:54 PM

This video gives an overview of the actual process involved in the background check:


-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Jan 19, 2013, at 9:07 PM

This video is probably among the better explanations of semi-automatic firearm capabilities that I have seen.


Note the damage done by ONE shot from the 12 guage shotgun loaded with common bird shot. Equally impressive is the grouping of the last three shots, from a weapon designed over a century ago.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 11:03 AM

#1 - you'r seriously wanting no exception.. umm so your going to make family do a background check on other family members of go through a dealer to do so. NO WAY.. this issue ties into the next as to why it's a BAD IDEA

#2 - registration.. this is a precursor to confiscation.. hitler did this and later used the info to start taking the guns..not to mention, why should the government know who has guns.. its not the law abiding citizens who are going to be a problem anyways.. and criminals will always find a way to subvert this measure.

#3 - part of this is a good idea, gun safety courses are not bad, however a test after each firearm purchase.. about safety or the gun for for starters that needs to be specified. you again are targeting people who generally do have quite a bit of experience.. most people who buy multiple guns wont have any trouble passing test so all you are doing is creating extra expense.

#4 - there is no such thing as childproof containers.. they learn fast.. instead, keep them out of reach, absolutely.. the problem withe electronic locks is that they need power and if thats gone, sorry.. you're out of luck. not to mention that in situations where you would need them in a hurry, seconds count.

#5/6 are the only to completely valid ideas that i saw out of your article..

now the 1776 bit.. yes, but keep in mind that syria and egypt have planes and tanks as well.. so how then are the rebels winning..or how did they win, country depending? because that technology you speak of is only useful to a point.. not to mention that the US military generally supports the constitution..at least for now.. point is the military cannot be everywhere at once and there are some 300 million of us and only few million of them not all of which even handle weapons on a yearly basis

-- Posted by jeseod on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 2:36 PM

oh, and all this talk about limiting magazines or even which rifle a person can and cant have.. the intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the people with the same armament that the militias and army has.. well.. thats already been infringed..

infringed - to limit or restrict..

go LOOK IT UP.. the meaning has not changed since 1776

we definitely don't seem to let people own machine guns.. thats infringement

we even limit suppressors which make firearms more pleasant to shoot as well as add a layer of hearing protection

people, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is not allow hunting.. hunting is a given.. in 1776 if you didn't either hunt or farm, you didn't eat or eat well at least.. NO, the purpose of 2A was to protect the peoples rights from what the founders saw as the existential threat of government becoming tyrannical as they had witnessed first hand.

and just because a weapon looks scary does not mean it is effective. an ar-15 is just a semi automatic rifle.. the same as any other semi automatic rifle. it just externally looks the same as a military rifle but it is not. sorry to ruing your day but now hopefully you are more educated.

-- Posted by jeseod on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 2:48 PM

Hello jeseod.

What is your take on the "...well regulated militia..." the Second Amendment addresses?

I've always wondered why the Founders, anxious to protect the Peeps from tyranny, had to craft an amendment to the Constitution. Why weren't those protections in the original?

Anyone know?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Jan 20, 2013, at 3:37 PM

This is typical patrick, when the liberals don't have facts or a real argument they start calling real patriots racists, bigots, and other names. Why is it people like you are the ones that bring race into things and not the people on the right?

-- Posted by Trouble2011 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:29 AM

I think it's something to keep in mind though Trouble2011.

The Founders didn't produce a perfect document. Necessary changes have been made.

Maybe it's time to consider changes by applying a bit more regulation to the "...well regulated militia...", maybe not.

There's nothing to fear in debating "Thoughts on gun control".

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 10:42 AM

Last time the militia was really addressed by Congress was way back in 1903. And they seemed to have left out any male under the age of 18 or over the age of 45 out of the "well regulated" part...

Since I'm way past 45, does that give me the right to keep and bear my arms period?

Or did they just figure old codgers couldn't be regulated? :-)

-- Posted by wh67 on Mon, Jan 21, 2013, at 12:24 PM

Look, were still missing the issue's. The topic should once again meant not to control the lawful, but to control the unlawful. Registration only give the Government the identity of those that have certain weapons of interest. It tells them where to go if they want to personally confiscate those weapons. We as a whole follow the things you have mentioned. I myself was trained by my Uncle when vary young on firearms safety. Then I was further trained by the Marine Corps and became a firearms instructor, Finally I was even further trained by law enforcement and stay in that field until retired. Now lets be real, we comply with our state background checks, why must we also identify our weapon for those that want to take them. Finally, the Government can't contol our bad guys, oh and girls, not to mention gangs, or terrorist! So whats going to stop them from one more upgraded weapon then us! Have you ever seen real life gang members, I baby sat them for 24 years and there mentallity isn't something you want in you living area. Ask Caldwell and Nampa Gang Investigator's, then ask me from a state where the Gang member out number the National Guard and Lawenforcement with more semi and auto weapons unregistered stolen from you and I, shaved off serial numbers. See I like two of my weapons, I bought them for sentimental reason's because they were my weapons when I was on active duty. Now your saying take them. Well I light hunting with them, they are the best two rifles I have for varmint and long range deer. Yes I hunt with them, and there not large caliber's light some hunt with. Oh and for home defense, you think about that pump shotgun, bolt action rifle or pistol and I will take an AR with a red dot any day. Thank you

-- Posted by Katman on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:45 AM

Katman, please reread the entire blog before you comment again.

I very blatantly address that this blog is NOT about controlling criminals, but helping those who DON'T do what I've outlined.

I'm not sure how 90 percent of your post was relevant to the blog.

So maybe the issue ELSEWHERE is controlling the unlawful.

This blog addresses the only gun control that should be discussed (in my OPINION). I note very clearly that there are deeper underlying issues when it comes to crime.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 9:27 AM

On one hand, there are those who advocate some new regulation, to use Ms. Lettkeman's idea as an example, registration of all firearms, as an action to help ensure accountability of an individual gun owner.

Those with an opposite point of view rightly point out that anyone can get their hands on a firearm.

And there are those who fear that registration leads to confiscation.

Registration in itself won't stop shootings absolutely. Registration in itself will not lead to confiscation absolutely.

If anyone can get their hands on a firearm, how could registration lead to confiscation?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 10:58 AM

So an effective regulation enacted to determine the lawful owner of a firearm used in a crime would be acceptable? One that would not interfere with your right to keep and bear of course.

I don't know about you, but there have been times in my life when I have not been "law abiding", and in the extremely unlikely event there were serious efforts at confiscation, I would not turn over my firearms just so I can keep my "Law Abiding Citizen" coin.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:31 AM

Recently there was a link to an archive copy of an Arizona newspaper posted on another MHN blog addressing gun control. That article told the story of two bank robbers who had used guns in the commission of their crime.

When do you suppose the men who robbed the bank were no longer "law abiding citizens"? One minute, law abiding citizen, next minute not.

My point is the argument that only "law abiding citizens" can be trusted with firearms isn't based on a firm foundation.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 11:42 AM

I'd have no problem with registration.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 12:46 PM

I suppose that's the way Arizona looked at it too.

Recent SCOTUS decision re: conspiracy:


Sorry if it seems a little off topic.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 3:03 PM

Disabling priors?

I'm speaking in broad terms.

If you want to make a point in the course of your vendetta, lay out the whole story from the get go.

Unless of course you'd be revealing a trait that is indicative of narcissism.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 5:43 PM

Good schedule on idahoptv tonight

The Abolitionists on American Experience

The Untouchables on Frontline

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 7:06 PM

Patrick, I think conspiracy could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on variables.

If I understand this correctly, if an individual is convicted of a crime, that individual may be prohibited from possessing firearms if that conviction falls as those outlined in the Gun Control Act.

But even then, I believe individuals can request to have their Second Amendment rights restored.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:01 PM

As far as Ms. Lettkeman's training (3rd) proposal goes, I believe weapon specific safety courses would be a great idea.

It may not be necessary to make it a requirement in law.

The firearms market itself may develop conditions that would incentivize dealers to offer training to their customers.

Motorcycle dealers offer new riders motorcycle safety courses. It might be a good idea for firearms dealers to do the same.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 22, 2013, at 8:25 PM

Today was busy so I hadn't had time to get back on. Once again, I acknowledge this won't have much effect on crime. Registration was simply put as a means to ensure many people would get the training, because mommy and daddy might have skipped a few importants steps.

As for the seconds lost by getting a firearm out of a safe: statistics show that people are significantly more likely to die in accidental shootngs than they are to shoot an intruder.

In every case I have heard of where a resident defended themselves properly, the gun was secured until needed. If your gun is accessible without locks, then (hopefully) the chambers are cleared and your ammo is not nearby. When securing guns from children, you can either spend those seconds loading the gun or retrieving a loaded weapom from a securelocation. Or you can leave the firearm loaded in an easy to reach place doesn't sound kid-friendly, does it?

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 12:19 AM

Answering a door can be fatal. My sister in law heard a knock on her front door early in the morning, she was home alone as her husband was at work at kids were at school. She opened the door and poof she was shot several times, crawled to the phone and died with the receiver in her hand. She was 35 years old.......

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:09 AM



-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 10:24 AM

Texas Shooting


-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 11:09 AM

Wow! My brother happens to live in Butte!


-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 6:15 PM

D'oh! 2007 even!

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 6:16 PM

I've got to ask, did you write the epilogue to that phony story?

Funny thing...just five minutes later, over on Mr. Everett's latest post, "Time to roll up the sleeves", you were chiding the President and Congress for lying!

Suffer any loss of bladder control there hotshot?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 6:29 PM

I agree Trevor. It's frustrating to me that other gun owners have to resort to that type of falsehood in an effort to bolster their argument.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:18 PM

The first thing I'm gonna do after gettin' out'a prison, is arm myself. Then, I'll go find myself some sheep to shear. Can you hear me now?

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 7:47 PM

But your post you made on this thread at 1754 was phony.

I guess you're right though, "...there are thousands of actual stories out there just like the one I posted."

Actual stories do not always make factual stories.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 9:12 PM

I think JYD was talking about The Magnificent Seven.

If God didn't want them sheared, he wouldn't have made them sheep.

It's been a long time since I saw the movie.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 23, 2013, at 9:48 PM

Let's try to get back on subject today.

Brenda Fincher, Bus. Mgr., MHNews

Thank you. If the personal responding to each other would quit, stay on topic and minding ones own business rather than name calling that would be awesome!!

Again, Thanks! We shall see.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 7:09 AM

I read the article, haven't read the bill.

Any word from Risch, Crapo and Simpson? Other than their initial statements made after the President's remarks last week?

I'm curious if there are any provisions that address issues that we have discussed here. Number one looks like mental health issues, (although that issue was addressed more at length in another blog). Number two looks like gun safety/education. Two dissimilar subjects that are equally important.

I don't support the ban that the article outlines. I'm on the fence about the magazine ban. Leaning toward approval of it.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:06 AM

Where does it say they're taking away our guns?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 9:54 AM

Does this business owner deserve any flak for running his business as he sees fit?

I don't think so.


-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 24, 2013, at 10:01 AM

Do you ever get bored with yourself zook?

I tell you what, start making some blog posts on an Egyptian website dedicated to the destruction of America.

Perhaps you could continue to serve your country and send some Egyptian bloggers to their graves by boring them to death.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 8:37 AM

As for the jets and tanks deal being made 3 years ago, remind me, WHO was in the White House then?

I'm thinking the fact that we had to baracade our embassy in Cairo just a few months ago (that are still there BTW) to protect OUR people there MIGHT WELL be sufficient reason to revisit the billions of dollars in "gifts".

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 10:12 AM

I love America and so does the Majority of our citizens. We proved it back in November 2012!!

BTW ZooK I don't know if you know this, Rex fell in front of his home yesterday and broke his hip. He was transported to St. Al's because of his age, they don't have the right care for him here...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 10:33 AM

Yesterday the big topic of the day

"why did Michelle roll her eyes while attending the Inaugural Luncheon?"

Trevor did you watch John Kerry's Confirmation Hearing?

John Kerry to Ron Johnson: If you were so concerned with getting the truth about Benghazi, you could have at least attended the briefing

After that John Kerry asked him if he had seen the briefing tape and the answer was "NO"

Ron Johnson is an embarrassment to Wisconsin Read the dialog on this blog.


-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:03 AM

"I'm thinking".....

Patrick -

CAPITALIZE it, BOLD it, UNDERLINE it, ITALICIZE it and DOUBLE the font size.

NOW, do you understand the comment?


I have made my views known several times to my represetatives and on whitehouse.gov comment page as to my objections to providing further military aid to Middle Eastern governments that were not stable.

Did you?

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:26 AM

Happening in Egypt now


-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:30 AM

Back on topic, please. Also a reminder, read the whole post before commenting.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:35 AM

Sorry Melodie :(

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 11:40 AM

The more I think about it, the more I'm in favor of registering firearms.

We register all kinds of things for various reasons. We even register ourselves for crying out loud.

If someone wanted to wipe their political opponents off the face of the earth, they could start with the list of registered opponents on voters registration rosters.

Bet alot of government issued voter id's would get lost then!

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 12:22 PM

Reagan gave our enemies weapons too.

What's the sense of arguing the point? What's done is done.

If we have to go fight against Egyptian F-16's and Abrams tanks, as we are now fighting the enemy of our (former) enemy in Afghanistan, then we'll have an excuse to spread the right kind of democracy to Egypt.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 4:26 PM

Sorry my last was off topic.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Jan 25, 2013, at 4:27 PM

We're not giving away F-16's.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 8:43 AM

Interesting read about gun control and gun crimes. Little "hard" data, but interesting comparisons.


-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 8:46 AM

As a member of the US Armed Forces, Major Hasan is being tried through the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Army is handling the case now.


-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 9:04 AM

Adios, amigos


-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 11:11 AM

Never said I was very good at Spanish.

However, here is a link to the text of Feinstein's Gun Control Bill:


-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 11:33 AM

Feinstein's bill lacks any SOLID research on which tactics work.

However, the idea of licensing owners instead of registering guns sounds a lot better, and would solve the problem of getting as many people as possible into gun safety courses.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 3:07 PM

I found this cool you tube movie about Amerikas history with guns.


-- Posted by Podkaine on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 8:33 PM

H4A, do I need to make a large, glittering banner to catch your attentiom on this blog's topic?

I will repeat myself for the last time.


-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Sat, Jan 26, 2013, at 8:41 PM

What's your take on a "well regulated militia"?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 11:17 AM

I don't believe the "show me where" argument is effective.

The Constitution says nothing about abortion.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly extend a right to vote does it?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 11:27 AM

A well regulated militia is when I have weapons and you don't.

-- Posted by arsenal on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 11:29 AM

Newt Gingrich said on TV today since 1934 AK 47's have been illegal.

The Constitution is open to interpretation.

A well regulated militia don't mean nothing up against the government

-- Posted by WinterStorm on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 11:53 AM

I don't see any recommendations in Ms. Lettkeman's post that go beyond an endorsement of a "well regulated militia" .

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Jan 27, 2013, at 12:28 PM

We checked out that gun list and looked for our guns and rifles on the list. None will be banned. We have enough to protect our self's if the need should arise. I don't understand what the big deal is. Those that have the ones on the list, should stop thinking of their own selfishness and do something smart for our country.

There is no reason for having those type weapons I don't care if you have to have them for hunting, or fun to shoot with.

You will never know what its like to have someone die from violence unless it happens to you.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 11:44 AM

So if there is no use for certain types of firearms and magazines in this country and they become banned, what do we do about the millions that are already in the hands of the citizens?

-- Posted by TundraRat on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 2:18 PM

That's the point I was getting to. We've tried banning firearms in the past and they had virtually no affect. I'm also not a fan of registering firearms but I do think that we need better background checks. I also think that I as a private citizen should have a way to verify that someone is not a felon or someone else that shouldn't have a gun if I choose to sell one. I've sold a couple of guns in the past and I've always had to concern that they might end up in a wrong hand.

But I'm not sure how that could be implemented without infringing on law abiding citizens.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 4:17 PM

Good points re:selling guns privately.

Does anyone know if someone could go to a gun shop and ask that a background check be run on an individual that they're selling a gun to? Both parties present at the shop, with the buyer providing the info req'd for the check.

Is there a remedy for this problem?

Shop may generate some revenue.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 4:24 PM

In a strict sense, it has been infringed on already.

We've infringed on those who have been adjudicated to be mentally defective or committed to any mental institution.

From a self protection standpoint, why are these people placed at greater personal risk because of their mental state? Aren't they at least at equal or greater risk to be a victim of a crime where defending themselves with a firearm may be warranted?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 7:13 PM

MSM, that selfishness comment can just as easily be applied to your idea that someone should not have something they enjoy because somebody else abused it. If you neighbor kills somebody driving drunk, does that mean you should give up having a cocktail at dinner? Same concept.

-- Posted by DANSHL on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 7:47 PM

No DANSHL, it just means that none of us should drive drunk.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 7:54 PM


Adjudicated is a key word in your comment about the rights of the mentally impaired.

That indicates they have come before a judge or jury that determined their mental competency under the law. Only after the outcome of that trial did they fall under the jurisdiction of the gun control prohibitions.

Among the problems I have with the universal background check is that it seeks to place the burden of proof on the law abiding citizen prior to that person being able to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

Is it not the government's responsibility to present evidence of guilt PRIOR to denying that right?

-- Posted by wh67 on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 8:53 PM

Some sporting good stores offer to run a back ground check for those customers who sell privately.

Maybe Diane will come up with a plan .......

Hope4America stop addressing me......... I don't care to know what you have to say. What you say is nothing more then what my husband cleans up in my back yard.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 8:56 PM

I understand your point Warren and I do not disagree.

But adjudication usually involves "lawyers" arguing with "words".

It seems to me that if we gun rights advocates are going to present an argument based on a literal interpretation of the Second Amendment, there doesn't appear to be any room for adjudication.

Can't have it both ways can we?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 9:21 PM

Warren, I look at the background check as the burden the government has placed on itself to prove that I am disqualified.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Jan 28, 2013, at 9:28 PM

Sorry, I think some of you misunderstood my comment to Marilyn. I was addressing only her very specific comment that those who already own some of the guns that might be banned should just give them up because she thinks it is selfish and those people should be thinking of doing what is "good for the country". Trying to illustrate that everyone should not have to give up their right to own/do whatever they want to (within the law) just because someone else is an abuser of that right. Used the comparison of having a little drink, because it was the 1st thing that came to mind. See in this example, having a drink is to owning and using a firearm for sport and killing others with drunken driving is to willfully shooting up a public venue.

Now if Marilyn did not mean that people who already own those guns should just give them up, then I misread her comment and I can be the jack***. If I know anything, it is that we all get a turn.

Either way, it would be nice if I could have this conversation with the actual person whose comment I was addressing. Maybe you guys know exactly what she meant and can tell me. Not sure why she would not speak for herself, in all the time I have been reading these blogs she seems fairly able to.

-- Posted by DANSHL on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 12:37 AM

DANSHL, I understand. On an open forum like this it's easy for each of us to chime in. I apologize if I took the discussion off the course you would like to pursue.

You posted a very relevant comment on another blog regarding a friend of yours with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. As a matter of curiosity, do you know whether or not your friend could legally obtain and possess a firearm?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 7:17 AM

How does the current bacground check system work. When someone purchases a firearm, is't their name run through a national database? Anyone know how it works?

-- Posted by TundraRat on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 7:44 AM

Warren (wh67) posted a link to a video of the process of the database check. Not sure if it appears on this blog or Opinion Missy's most recent.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 7:55 AM


I am convinced the background check IS NOT working in terms of identifying gun buyers with mental health issues. FBI statistics indicate that between Nov. 30, 1998 and Dec. 31 2012, the NICS system denied a mere 10,180 purchases out of nearly 160 MILLION background checks.


I'm not sure it's much of a burden. Those same FBI statistics indicate that as of Dec. 31, 2012, there were 8.3 Million active records in the system. That's a pretty small database. And as is so typical of federal systems, the states, counties and cities bear the burden of providing the feds with the data to populate it. Idaho State Police just filed its first required report last week.

-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 8:23 AM

Here's the video link again:


-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 8:35 AM


The FBI NICS denied 10,180 purchases due to "Adjudicated Mental Health" reasons.

-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 8:40 AM

Warren, that 8.3 million, is that the number of people who are prohibited?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 9:37 AM


I'm not sure. It's listed as "Active Records in the NICS Index". This is the only other reference to index records I could find:


-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 9:49 AM

P. S. - It does look to me as though the list is in fact a compilation of those people that are prohibited from purchasing firearms.

-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 9:55 AM

Thanks Warren.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 10:13 AM


I apologize for not making myself more clear.

No I wasn't talking about handing over your guns if you have one or more on the list. I think they will be Grandfather in. You bought and paid for them legally then you should be able to keep them.

I think however if you do own one on the list and you use it and a incident takes place and someone was accidentally shot your gun will be confiscated and you would possibly be in trouble for having one.

What I met. If it comes to those weapons actually do get banned, I find no problem with not being able to purchase any more. If there was a way I could stop only one death, I would do it in a heart beat, even if I tried and it didn't work at least I tried which I feel is better then doing nothing at all.

Why are some people in an uproar about these type weapons (list) getting banned? I think they shouldn't feel so selfish if it will help slow down violence in our Country

I hope you can understand what I am trying to say.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 10:39 AM

Strict interpretation would be a hard sell.

What to do with the 8.3 million people that are on the NICS index?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 6:53 PM

Thanks for your clarification Marylin. To answer your question, the uproar comes from deeply held belief that one step leads to another, then another. People do believe, and fear, that more gun restrictions and controls will lead to the eventual disarmament of citizens and that only criminals will have weapons.

I am sincerly sorry that you lost someone due to gun violence, I just don't think more gun laws are the answer. I don't even think the ones we already have work.

My personal belief is that a great place to start would be to examine our penal codes and actually keep people in jail when they belong there. That would not have prevented Sandy Hook, but it would have prevented that guy (New York?) from setting that ambush for firefighters last month, and countless others.

Dave, as to your question, I do not know if the girl I mentioned before would be able to purchase a gun. I certainly hope not, whether something came up on a background check or not. She simply does not play with a full deck, and would probably be inclined to hurt herself. She is my employee, and I have told her countless times to zip her purse in the breakroom because she has left money poking out; I can't imagine her storing a gun responsibly.

-- Posted by DANSHL on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 8:25 PM

The NICS background check database needs a lot of information pertaining to "convicted of a crime.."

The 727,000 or so records they say they have is about 10% of the 2009 penitentary population.

When it gets up to around 90% current, I'd consider it to be somewhere close to acceptable IT system design standards.

Some of the actions Obama directed last week may help improve the system, but not in a very timely manner.

And most likely I'll continue to oppose this current round of gun control measures until it is more functional.

-- Posted by wh67 on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 8:35 PM

The sad thing in all of this is that the "weapons" these yahoos want to ban are not the "weapons" of choice in a majority of murders. The leading weapon in most mass shootings are 9 mm's or smaller handguns. They are easy to conceal and ammo is readily available (at least prior to the Gov't purchasing huge amounts of ammo to stockpile). Anyway, the criminals will always have the guns and if they do not have them, they will ALWAYS know where to get their hands on them. A weapon(s) ban will only keep such weapons from honest, non-criminal citizens.

People who are unable/unwilling to see why these bothers common folks (gun mongers, etc.) are just not really all that bright, IMHO. This is how it all starts. This is how they get their foot in the door.

It does not matter if it passes or not---what matters is that they are ATTEMPTING to do this. They are not going to protect the people with these laws. That has been proven time and time again.

As long as the MsM's of this world, who have mentally ill children/young adults in their homes with weapons that are unsecured---this will continue to happen. As long as this country is soft on crime and cares more about the "rights" of criminals than victims---we will continue to see these crimes happen. As long as we continue to make excuses---this will continue to happen.

Take the weapons from the law abiding citizens and see what happens. Oh wait...is that not what has already been done in Chicago and NY...and you see where that got them! So, yes, tell me what kind of guns I can buy (with NO criminal history, etc.) and see why it pisses the average AMERICAN off. Hmmmmmmm...I wonder!

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Tue, Jan 29, 2013, at 11:35 PM

Warren, could you clarify the last sentence of the post you made at 2035 yesterday?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:15 AM

Shall we lock up all mentally ill people or just those mentally ill people who may kill someone?

Should we support the uninfringed Second Amendment rights of those mentally ill people?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:55 AM

DANSHL, "...does not play with a full deck." Reads a little harsh.

If she is suffering from fetal alcohol syndrome, she didn't get a fair deal while she was in the womb.

As far as storing guns go, your does have Second Amendment rights that shall not be infringed on. And you're right, if she does own a weapon, she may not fully appreciate the importance of storing a weapon properly and just store a weapon in the master closet and leave ammo in the sock drawer of her dresser.

Maybe then when her child is older, that child can call upon his or her intuitive skills to take action on the household's weapon safety issues.

If the childs mother is teachable, maybe she could even reinforce those rules by administering a good butt whoopin' anytime those household gun safety rules are broken.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:22 AM

So you're advocating the mentally sacrifice their liberty and their Second Amendment rights? Or will they get to pack heat in the institute?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:27 AM

The "it" in my last post was the NICS as a viable methodology in the effort to reduce incidents like Sandy Hook and Aurora.

Since the NICS came on line in 1998, the system has denied purchases of weapons to 987,000 individuals out of over 159 Million checks run, or just over six tenths of one percent. Out of those denials, only 10,180 were due to mental health issues, or just over 1 percent of the 0.6 percent. That is 6 TEN THOUSANDTHS of ONE PERCENT, folks.

While the Aurora shooter appears to have been denied a purchase, he still obtained access to weapons.

From a purely mathematical standpoint, there could be HUNDREDS MORE "incidents" where 26 or more people die before that "one life" is saved.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:43 AM

I was mislead by your statement that, "Mentally ill people do not belong in our society at every level."

I had to read that twice and then make sure it wasn't lifted from Mein Kampf. I understand that over a particular two year period, Hitler's Germany had killed between 80,000 and 100,000 institutionalized mentally ill people.

We've read that you, personally, don't want to sacrifice your Second Amendment rights. Same here.

If I understand your stance, the mentally ill should get "help" and retain their Second Amendment rights.

Who'll be footing the bill for the "help"? BTW, I think they should pay for their own guns.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:11 AM

Warren, If I understand you correctly, you're saying "no" to any gun control until the NICS is more functional?

Could the low number of denials based on mental health issues be related to the abysmal state of our national mental health system? Fewer people who may rightly be in need of care may not be receiving the care they need, resulting in lower reporting.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 9:16 AM


I fully support efforts to improve this nation's mental health system. Rather than spend millions (more likely billions) to make the NICS functional, we would suggest all might be better served if that money went to mental health services.

As for the reporting, I don't think that's as big an issue in the mental health field as it is in other areas. The NICS lists 1.8 Million mental health records (second to illegal aliens) from which 10,000 denials were made. That's not to say that further reporting by mental health professionals on potentially dangerous individuals might not improve the situation. But the ice gets pretty thin on that pond!

This nation has created and expanded gun control laws and rules for over 45 years (since 1968)yet there have been only minor reductions in gun deaths and injuries. I suspect those are more a function of safety efforts made by responsible, law abiding gun owners than from the laws and regulations.

I will oppose additional gun control legislation now and in the future, with or without the NICS.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:23 AM

Minor edit:

"we would suggest" should read "I would submit"

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:26 AM

Dave, you are a complete tool!

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 10:35 AM

Thanks Warren.

I agree that gun control won't work, but I do feel the structure that supports NICS can be improved. Inquiries to NICS may have prevented many law abiding gun shop owners from selling firearms to an illegal alien who appeared on the NICS register.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 11:05 AM


Thanks for the reposting the NICS link, it works pretty much the way I thought and I agree that there are a number of holes that need to be fixed in that process.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 1:44 PM

Societal decline is a broad issue. How does it relate to the points of Ms. Lettkeman's post?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 4:44 PM

But you said, "The REAL issue is the societal decline..."

Just today in an earlier post you said, "Why not address the real issue and that is mental health in this country."

What's the real issue? Sounds like you're not sure.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 5:18 PM

You have no idea where I stand on criminal justice issues. I'm not going to explain my stance on it for a couple of reasons. One, it'd be off topic. Two, you wouldn't take time to read it.

If you took the time to read my stance on gun control, you'd know where I stand on that too.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 6:44 PM

H4A, Yet, as large as mental health issues loom in your vision of societal decay, you did not mention mental health until just today, 12 days into the thread. You haven't made mention of it on OM's most recent blog post either.

And I believe that your phony concern is only brought about to cover for a truly telling remark you made, "Mentally ill people do not belong in our society at every level."

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 7:19 PM

Dave, I know it sounds harsh to say, and I really do feel bad saying it, but a spade is a spade. She did get an unfair deal, absolutely no question there. Also unfair is that her own child will reach a point when he becomes aware that something is just not right, and will eventually become caretaker. As you mentioned, it will just be intuitive.

-- Posted by DANSHL on Wed, Jan 30, 2013, at 8:54 PM

I saw that post on that Jihadist website. It was posted by some guy who went by "Bazuchachmed".

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 7:08 AM

Back to the subject.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 7:09 AM

Be careful Patrick. If you choose to descend into the maelstrom of a Bazookaman post, we'll never get back on subject.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 9:10 AM

OM You are way off the remark about me. Our Guns are secured and most likely better then yours are.

I have NO children or Young Adults who are Mentally Ill living in my home. My mentally Ill son is living on his own and has been for the past 25 years. And just so we know he has never owned a gun or held one in his hand and he has NO desire to have one. He is more a danger to himself!!

Grow UP! You are spreading lies on this blog!!

"""As long as the MsM's of this world, who have mentally ill children/young adults in their homes with weapons that are unsecured---this will continue to happen."""

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 10:20 AM


NICS was launched Nov. 30, 1998, which is far more than the "six years ago" your source indicates.

Many of the people in yesterday's hearing did indeed point out that the current NICS needs work, which is something I've pointed to several times on this blog.

Care to discuss which of the current "gun control" bills provides a funding source for local courts to enter the data needed?

Or how the presence of a barrel shroud, a pistol grip, a thumb hole stock or a 30 round magazine on a semi-automatic rifle is going to improve the system's ability to deny access to a firearm?

And on a side note, did you see where Chicago's mayor is now re-deploying 200 policemen from "clerical" duties to go out on the streets and face the gun violence problem they have? (WGNNews)

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 11:07 AM

I heard part of Ms. Giffords testimony yesterday.

Then later in the day, I heard someone talking about a single mom with a "scary" looking gun holding off four or five home invaders while her children were crying in the background.

Did such a single mom testify to the committee yesterday or was her story relayed to the committee by a spokesperson?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 11:29 AM

You know, I'm so tired of all the rhetoric coming from the fringe on both sides of every political issue. And this one is no exception, and the politicians from both parties love it. As long as they can keep their constituents distracted they can keep doing business as usual. Which is raping the coffers and stealing from the public.

I personally lean very hard toward gun rights. However, I also know that I don't have all the answers to every question. So I'm open to hearing and discussing any viable solution that may help reduce the violence. But the only thing I've seen so far on this blog or anywhere else that might even have some slight impact is making some changes to the NICS system.

Firearm bans won't work, we've tried them before and there are already millions of the so called "assault" weapons on the street. So even if you prevent manufacturers from building any more, what are you going about the millions already on the street? Waiting for these firearms to be removed through attrition will take a hundred years. Confiscation? You'll start a civil war.

I would sincerely like to see a reduction in violence. Please tell me something that will work without infringing on the rights or security of the law abiding citizen.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 11:49 AM

I don't have any suggestions regarding anything beyond making changes to the NICS process. Those who administer the program should be empowered to make the necessary changes to make their process work. Of course Congress should set the minimum requirements the program must meet, and provide a framework of limits that the administrators would be bound by. Then agree to revisit and reevaluate the program after a decent interval; evaluating recommended changes, making changes to law where necessary, then put the changes into effect. The old plan, do, check and act.

Congress needs to be involved as well. The Supreme Court has recommended that Congress make clarification to the Clean Water Act, (in one case regarding a couple's home in North Idaho) and Congress has not acted on it yet.

But that's what makes good political fodder. Bad CWA leaves EPA to try to figure out what Congress meant in the law they passed. If EPA gets it "wrong " well, then a Congressman can bash a government agency . Bashing is alot easier than legislating.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 12:58 PM

And of course we need to focus on firearms safety as we have on seatbelt safety, etc. Maybe video games could be written to expect the players to adhere to gun safety rules.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 1:01 PM

I hear what you're saying Dave and I don't disagree with you. There are definitely some things that could be done to improve the NICS system and there can never be enough emphasis put on firearm safety education. But, none of that will prevent the kind of event that happened at Sandy Hook.

What are your thoughts on improving security at schools: secruity guards and or improving physical security?

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 2:09 PM

By current gun control bills, I was referring to just that, bills CURRENTLY PENDING before Congress.

I do not believe any of them include funding proposals.

As for the 2007 NICS Improvement Act, it included over three quarters of a billion dollars in funding, half of which was to be allocated to Federal agencies and half to the states and tribes, if I read it correctly. We are currently well into FY2013 (the last year of that funding) and the fundamental system shortcomings identified in that bill still exist.

How do you see items such as barrel shrouds, also included in bills CURRENTLY before Congress, providing progress toward a more effective NICS?

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 2:44 PM

_A No firearm is any more dangerous than another. What makes a firearm dangerous is the fool behind the trigger. It seems to me that too many people are worked up over the cosmetics of a firearm and not focusing on the real issue. The one common thread in all of the recent shooting incidents seems to be some form of mental health.

So with that in mind how will the banning of certain firearm cosmetic features reduce or prevent the violence?

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 3:15 PM

NO, the common thread is mental illness. But as I said I'm willing to listen. Which firearms and magazines are unacceptable to you?

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 3:59 PM

As far as security at schools (K-12) I thinks it is very sad that we have to consider providing armed security for students.

One question is, are armed security guards less likely to start firing on those who they are providing the security for? I don't think it's any more likely than some random guy off the street attacking the students.

I've heard people advocating armed security in schools, but in another discussion those same people are telling me the odds of a student being involved in a school shooting are remote, and should not be considered a reason for gun control.If the odds are so remote, why would we need to arm security?

We have to pull kids of all ages together for a dialogue that would help reveal the reasons kids go to school to shoot their classmates. My own view is their are alot of frightened kids out there, and seeing an armed guard may send a mixed message.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 4:28 PM

_A I can go along with all 3 of your suggestions above with the exception of "and so on" in the third one. I'm not trying to pick on you here but most firearm owners know that that means it's only the beginning and we'll be back for a lot more after you agree to this. As far as the magazine size goes, I personally don't care whether I have a 10, 12, or 30 round magazine someone who has practiced can change magazines in just over a second. The problem was and always be the who is behind the trigger.


I agree that it's become a sad that we have to discuss the possibility of putting security guards in our schools. Like you I think the risk at any individual school is quite low. But, it has happened more that once and after the fact is too late to consider it. I also don't think that would totally prevent another Sandy Hook, but I do think it could minimize the affects.

I do know of one local school that has installed a double entry to get into their building. The second set of doors is equipped with electronic locks and bullet resistant glass. Although this is not an inexpensive retro fit it is a one time cost and is virtually unnoticible by students and visitors.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 6:03 PM

Most people don't understand that a firearm is just a tool. The tool by itself is no more dangerous than shovel or the car they drive. It only becomes dangerous when the person operating is dangerous.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 6:36 PM

Sorry for all the typos, I'm trying to use an ipad and not very well I might add.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 6:37 PM

There's a lot of variables to consider there but I'm sure someone has some ideas that could minimize at some risk.

Ideally if new schools could be built with a courtyard in the center, that would provide a considerable amount of protection. Although that would severly limit this size and quantity of play equipment.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 6:59 PM

Agreed, it is a shame. It would be great if we could roll the clock back to a time when life was much simpler.

-- Posted by TundraRat on Thu, Jan 31, 2013, at 7:10 PM

SO.......like I said before the feeling is that only conservative values should be addressed therefore only conservative people should be here.HA!!......the country wasnt built that way and it will not stand that way.What the conservatives are advocating is going AGAINST the feelings of the populace.to include,no freedom of choice,segragation,a weapon in every pocket,theological law, back to the freedom to discriminate,and on and on.....these are things out of your mouths.WHAT SAY YOU ........IS THAT THE WAY YOU WANT TO SEE IT.??? SORRY NOT WHAT I WORE A UNIFORM FOR AND I WILL DIE TO ENSURE THERE IS NO RETURN TO THAT.I have said that before AND I am not alone.

-- Posted by lamont on Tue, Feb 5, 2013, at 5:55 PM

FYI... I understand that the PBS show Frontline will air "Raising Adam Lanza" on 02/19.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Feb 6, 2013, at 5:50 PM

The way he has went after the borders and the stats bear it out the PRESIDENT DOES, BUT YOU WONT GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR IT BECAUSE WE CANT seal them, becuase you think we can.HE has not relented even with reform on the horizon.POINT being you will not give him credit for anything positive no matter what.I know, goes with the terroritory, come to expect it.

-- Posted by lamont on Fri, Feb 8, 2013, at 6:03 PM

He does incite response with his angry novels.

I've given up. Too many angry people hell-bent on discussing other things and none of us can help but respond.

Plus it feels kind of neat to see over 300 comments on a post I've written. The closest response I've gotten on anything I've had published on other forums was a 16-comment debate on whether I knew anything about PTSD.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 3:41 PM

Darn, the new comment count since h4a got blocked is only 287 :(

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 3:51 PM

NO LIP SERICE .......THE FIGURES ARE A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD.......EVEN ARIZONA HAS TALKED ABOUT THE CHANGE.YOU just wont give credit were credit is due will you??????even your talking heads have talked about the decreas in numders crossing .You just want to believe what you want and everyone else is a lier.........your smarter than that.

-- Posted by lamont on Sat, Feb 9, 2013, at 9:49 PM

THANKYOU....PATRICK........I HAVE SAID THE SAME SEVERAL TIMES IT GOES IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER.THE key here is the right will give this president no credit for anything (but there not bias ) HELLO !!!!! tHE BORDER WITH CANADA IS MORE POROUS AND MORE DANGEROUS BECAUSE THAT IS ALREADY KNOWN TO BE WERE TERRORIST ENTER THE COUNTRY.FOR info purposes the 9/11 people half came through canada none came from mexico.But if your hate blinds you to the reality then that.s all that can be said.

IF you pay attention to the congressional channels you would find that there have been a lot of measures taken to cut the defeciet they just have NOT been huge headline catching things.........you better hope they arn't cause if they are we will have a problem.The world markets have our economy moving at a snails pace and we dont have a lot of control over that.I THINK EVEN twill WILL AGREE WITH THAT.

-- Posted by lamont on Sun, Feb 10, 2013, at 12:18 PM

MH ......question how long did it take for you to compile the data you present here??

You skip from guns to entitlements and back a very bad attempt to draw analogy.s and then you post.No body has ever said a city is the place to live but your open hostility to them and the people is off the charts.No there arnt any republicans in power there, so what, you have places were there are no dems and you have your share of social problems .I would say you need to focus on them seeing how your in power there and can make a change.You pretty much dont understand the dynamics of urban living were you cant make a living......THIS IS NO ALBI FOR CHICAGO BUT THE GOTCHA'S GET OLD.LOOK AT YOUR SELF.

Weapons are a means of survival there and god knows when it has droped to the school level the problem is out of hand,The cause and affect there is not hard to see however you probally wouldnt see it if it ran you over.More weapons on the streets of chicago will not solve the problem,it will only escalate.JOBS is what is needed in all urban areas a living wage,THAT'S WHAT IS NEEDED IN CHICAGO.

-- Posted by lamont on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 5:03 PM

Drones in schools.... really? I mean REALLY?

Signs in hallways - Low flying aircraft????

-- Posted by wh67 on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 7:01 PM

"This info along with the fact that the five most recent tragedys: Columbine, Ft. Hood, Sandy Hook, Aurora, CO, and Va. Tech were all committed by registered Democrats (in the case of Columbine, their parents were all registered Dems) leads me to believe the way to stop gun violence is to ban Democrats.

Hmmmm.... why do you suppose we never hear about this on the evening news???"

Maybe, because it isn't true?


-- Posted by Mercutio on Mon, Feb 11, 2013, at 10:11 PM

Did you people know that you have a full time police officer at your high school?

-- Posted by pjluckyman on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 6:54 AM


http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/secon... The discussion for the second amendment in the words of those who wrote it.

-- Posted by pjluckyman on Sat, Feb 23, 2013, at 6:59 AM

For the record, I did know. Our SRO was/is(?) Natalie Rogers. A fantastic woman with a keen eye for trouble. Sure, her job was primarily pulling angry teens apart, but I have no doubt she'd do everything she could to incapacitate someone with ill intentions.

-- Posted by lilmissmelmo on Sun, Feb 24, 2013, at 3:38 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

A Different Perspective
Melodie Lettkeman
Recent posts
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
I'm a staff writer for the Tiger Tribune, and I have a lot to say! Music, books, movie reviews, my opinions and updates around the high school.
Hot topics
Downright Humbled
(0 ~ 11:30 AM, Jan 12)

It wasn't my hair
(4 ~ 8:11 AM, Nov 18)

How ballet changed my body image
(5 ~ 6:45 AM, Oct 1)

Is being PC really such a bad thing?
(6 ~ 11:41 AM, Sep 2)

Lost my health insurance
(15 ~ 10:26 PM, Apr 5)