Overcast ~ 60°F  
Login | Register
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

A case of unspeakable horror

Posted Wednesday, December 19, 2012, at 8:24 AM

We make a living with words, but none can express the depth of sorrow and grief this nation -- let alone the families -- have experienced in Newtown, Conn., in the wake of the horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

Even if they find the motive, it won't make sense. Nothing about this makes sense. It was brutal and terrible beyond belief. Pure innocence struck down. One citizen of that small town, which could have been Anytown, USA, said that "20 families lost their joy." It was the perfect summation of unspeakable tragedy.

Because of the victims, this went beyond what we, unfortunately, have come to call "the typical mass shooting" incident. Some people have given up watching the news while the follow-up coverage is on, because, as far removed as we are from the families themselves, it is still too powerful, too heart-wrenching, to deal with.

What's worse, this is a case where very little was done wrong by anyone except the shooter. The school had good security measures and training in place. Better than many in this country. To go beyond those measures would be to send our children to facilities that would look more like prisons than schools. It wasn't the school's fault.

Connecticut has one of the tougher sets of gun control laws in the nation, and like those few states that do have them, gun violence is generally less that the rest of the country. Everything here was legally owned by the shooter's mother. He killed her, stole her weapons, and began his march to horror. It wasn't the law's fault.

Although his family said he had mental health issues, there are no indications, at present, that the shooter was a violent person who intended violence. It would have been almost impossible to catch him early and stop him. You really can't find fault with anyone here, either -- except the shooter, himself.

In the days and weeks and months ahead, we will look at what needs to be done and -- perhaps -- act on this tragedy.

When budgets get tight, one of the first things we cut are mental health services, school resource officers, etc., all the "soft" budget items that actually can make a big long-term difference. We only know when things break down, but when things go right we never hear about it because it never happened in the first place, usually due to these "silent services" of the government. But we need to re-emphasize them in order to short circuit at least half of the "nut with a gun" combinations.

And while the NRA will scream bloody murder and contend the high emotional content of the time is not the time to discuss gun control, we can't think of a better time to reopen that debate and discuss it seriously for once.

Begin with the assumption that you are not going to eliminate firearms in this country. They are too deeply ingrained in our history and culture and far too widespread. The recent Chicago decision of the U.S. Supreme Court clearly states each person, individually, has the right to keep and bear arms.

But you can put limits on those arms. Unless the deer start shooting back (or you're a really, really bad hunter), you don't need an assault rifle to go deer hunting.

The recently expired Brady Bill's limitations on assault weapons should be reviewed and largely renewed, perhaps even expanded. Murders by handguns are out of hand, with 10-12 people dying every day from handgun violence, at least half of them young adults. There's a lot of options to look at there, some of which might help.

And don't talk to us about "packing for protection." The instances of someone protecting themself or their family because they were "packing" are true, but very, very rare. Much more commonly, similar incidents result in the good guy's death, instead. Furthermore, the most dangerous parts of our nation, the gang-controlled inner cities, also have the highest density of people "packing" in the country. It clearly doesn't lead to safety there.

Then there's the "stand your ground" laws that encourage vigilante justice (and vigilantes quite often get things wrong). They fly in the face of a thousand years of English Common Law that essentially says if you can avoid a confrontation, you should do so. Sometimes, it takes more guts to walk away than it does to stand.

Improved social and mental services, more cops on the street so citizens won't feel the need to take matters in their own hands, restrictions on some types of weapons being allowed, closing the loopholes in gun show sales, seriously conducting background checks to limit the number of felons and known crazy people from getting guns, and registration of handguns when they're sold, could all potentially slow down the violence in one degree or another.

It can't stop it, however. To a limited extent, you can control the guns. But you can't control the crazy people, the psychopaths and sociopaths who don't care what's at the end of their gun barrel.

In fact, none of the suggestions made above that we think should at least be honestly discussed for inclusion or rejection in state and federal laws, would have made a single difference at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Because in the end, there's not much you can do when a nut and a gun come together.

-- Kelly Everitt


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

Add up all of the times that children have attended school, all of the people who have gone to the movies, all of the people who have gone to the mall and all of the people who have attended religious services without incident in the past four years.

Now open your umbrella and stand out on the fairway at the golf course in a lightning storm.

Then tell me you believe we need to outlaw lightning.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 9:24 AM

The assumption behind most gun control laws is that the person is sane, rational, and law-abiding. Well, in every shooting the sanity of the shooter is minimal if not nonexistent. Banning guns will not change the outcome of these shooters. If they want to enact their cowardly vengeance, they are going to do it.

I heard someone say a while ago that if they had been there, they would have been packing and would have prevented this. Yeah...what a load. These shooters will always have an element of surprise. These events are relatively random and so there is no way to predict them. The only way that playing hero works is if you know what is coming. The argument that if someone would have been carrying a weapon that the shooter would not have killed as many is weak. These events are too random for any vigilante justice to work.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 9:45 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...

What goes 'round comes 'round.

Freedom ain't free for nobody.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:34 AM

Several years ago, a young woman was walking with her dog and children on a trail in the foothills, near her home north of Boise. It was a beautiful summer day. Not a cloud in the sky. And yet, she was struck by lightning. By the grace of God, she was the only one physically injured.

In the days that followed, modern technology confirmed the lightning strike and modern medicine provided a limited recovery for the woman.

The critical thing, in my mind, is that folks on both sides of this dreadful debate open their minds and accept that we mortals do not (and perhaps should not?) have the power to rid our surroudings of the evil that exists in this country or on this planet.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:39 AM

I have a son who suffers from Schizophrenia and he is also Bi-Polar. He was around 22 years old when he had his first full blown onset of this illness.

No one in my family has ever had any type of Mental Illness, and he is the only one in my family who is Mentally Ill.

Idaho is in the bottom when it comes to programs for the mentally ill.

Boise used to have a house they could go to for treatment if their medication wasn't working. All they had to do was check in. The state cut their budget and that house is now gone... Now to be admitted to a hospital they have to jump through hoops. They have to be suicidal and if they aren't then they don't get admitted.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM

We prohibit children from carrying a weapon to school, yet it remains legal for a developmentally impaired adult to purchase a weapon. Neither the children nor the developmentally impaired adults have the capacity to understand the consequences of bad actions.

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:55 AM

Zook,

Answer one question. Please no extra rhetoric or off-topic discussion. the question is this: Could you or anyone else have predicted that this man would have done what he did on that day? No generalities. Just tell us whether or not anyone could have predicted this tragedy with perfect accuracy or not?

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:59 AM

I understand MsMarylin. Is there any specific program or shelter that people could donate to that would help the mentally ill in Idaho?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:06 AM

You might find some information here.

http://www.nami.org/MSTemplate.cfm?Micro...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:15 AM

Unless the shooter was acting strange not himself the Mother would not have had any idea what her son was about to do. Maybe he killed her because she was trying to stop him, or maybe if the guns were locked up, he could of been trying to get the key from her. We don't know the whys we can only assume.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:19 AM

If the school and everybody involved could have predicted it, why did they not? The point is not to point out blame. It is to show that neither side of this debate is correct. The event was random. He had the element of surprise and would have killed no matter how many were packing? He also was out of his mind and so did not follow the usual rules. The left thinks that limiting access to guns would have made a difference. He would have found some other way. It may not have happened on that exact time and day. However, he would still have found a way to enact his cowardly vengeance. It does not matter how it is done. Death is death.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:20 AM

Thanks for the link MsMarylin.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:32 AM

On the same day as this tragedy, a man in China stabbed several school children. We have religious fanatics that blow themselves up and anyone else who happens to be around.

The young man in question did not purchase a gun. The weapons belonged to his mother, fully licensed and legal.

We cannot predict madness, impulsiveness or a desire to break the law. We can improve mental health care, custodial relief for the caretakers and increased security at all public places.

Sadly, all the safety measures in the world cannot protect us from those who are determined to kill, maim or strike terror.

I was liking the blog at the first part unitl we got to the Politcal Solutions. Because someone abused the 2nd amendment does not mean that everyone has to be punished. How many of these vocal anti-gun people hire armed body guards for safety? They might not personally own a gun, but they do advocate strigent safety measures for their own protection.

There are millions of law-abiding citizens in this country who do not break the laws. And there are a few who abuse their power and feel as though they are above the law. And then, we have the actual law-breakers who do not feel empathy for anyone. They will never understand the implcations of what they do or the pain that they cause others.

No one should discount the agony and pain that these families are feeling right now. However, we cannot "make" someone be sane, nice or law-abiding, if they are determined not to be so.

There is a despair in this country that cannot be fixed by our constitution, or new laws. It is a despair born of moral decay.

Allow these families to feel their grief and leave the politics behind.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:43 AM

Again, we are assuming rationality and sanity on the part of those who use the gun. Neither of those two qualities have been present at any of these shootings. We can only predict the actions of rational, sane, and productive citizens. Telling me that you could have predicted the actions of a psychopath is down right laughable. Their unpredictability is what makes them dangerous.

The issue here is mental health not the instrument used.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:18 PM

There was a segment on CNN that a former babysitter had been advised to not turn his back to boy as well. The mother was who told him that. My desktop is being repaired as I try to type this, so please excuse any typos.

I will try to find a link if the big machine gets put back together.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:26 PM

Very little done wrong---other than by the shooter? Really? Interesting take on that Mr. Editor.

How about having a person in your home who has "issues" and allowing them to get their hands on YOUR gun? And it was not an assault type weapon that killed these children---it was stated to be handguns---a 9 mm and 2 other types. How about all of the people who came in contact with this guy and knew "something was not right." It has been stated in the media that things were not all wine and roses for this young man.

We have a habit of sweeping the ugly parts of life under the rug. We deal with things by not dealing with things (if we ignore it, it will go away). So to say that only the shooter was at fault is simply not true. There were many people at fault. Taking away guns will not fix this problem.

This is a horrid event. Innocent children and adults killed in a place that should be safe. There needs to be accountability. We have in our own school system (here in MH) children that have taken weapons to school and have been allowed back. We have children in our schools that are violent and abuse the staff. This is part of the problem.

Criminals will always be able to find guns. Taking guns away from good people is not the solution.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:29 PM

Zook,

But where do you draw the line. What about the many kids that act a bit strange but don't hurt anybody. I was an incredibly shy kid in middle and high school. I had very few friends and so would have fit this description. My dad had three guns (used only for hunting) and I knew where they were at. I never even contemplated touching one nor ever using them.

The point is that most gun control laws do not really address issues like these. It seems like they are trying to do something just for the sake of doing something.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:33 PM

Human behavior does not come with a Chilton guide that tells you exactly when to make a decision. Yes, the man was out of his mind but there is no way to know to what degree. Someone could have said that I was out of my mind as well growing up. Predicting when someone crosses the line from just being strange to being deadly is unpredictable.

In my opinion, the failing is of the mental health system. As MsM brought up, one has to be suicidal in order to get admitted. If that was not the case, then the mother or someone else could have had this young man admitted/tested or whatever.

Nevada has a very strong gun culture. Yes, the state's crime statistics are bleak. While it is impossible to strip out the influence of gambling and access to abundant, cheap alcohol, most crimes that involve guns here are done by handguns. Not rifles or assault weapons. Also, I read that a high percentage of those crimes are done with unregistered guns. Simply stating that gun owners are very unlikely to commit these crimes.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:47 PM

Since this shooting has happened, I have heard on the news many different storys especially the ones that concern the shooter. Do we really know what has been reported about him to be accurate? The news first got it wrong when they reported it was his Brother Ryan that was the shooter. I think I will wait until we get more accurate facts then relying on hear say from the babysitter.

Patrick I'm left handed, do you suppose I carry some Schizophrenic Gene?

There was a ban on assault rifles, why did that go away?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 12:57 PM

Pretty sure the Columbine tragedy happend smack dad in the middle of the last left-induced gun ban.

-- Posted by sixguns on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:12 PM

Here's some information about that Columbine shooting http://history1900s.about.com/od/famousc...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:19 PM

twilcox1978 struck a good point earlier. At some point in the lives of these young killers the option of massacring strangers grew justifiable. Why is this characteristic seemingly more prevalent now than when we were young? What terrors have these young minds contrived that would instill so much fear in the trouble they saw themselves facing? And their own justification is fleeting, because that justification is lost in an instant and they turn the weapon on themselves. I grew up with guns. Many of my friends and I had gun in the truck when I went to high school but the act of turning the gun on anyone we had problems with was never considered. What has changed?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:20 PM

For instance, I do not carry a gun on me because I do not feel that I need to. I have yet to encounter a situation where it was needed. I may one day but that is the uncertain future. I have lived on the streets and come from a poor background so I have definitely seen the underbelly of society. I can see others sharing that sentiment. Everybody is different but I am not going to carry just because there is a one in a trillion chance of every needing it. Do I look down on those who do? Not for the most part. I get annoyed at those who announce it in social situations but those types are quite rare.

To connect this, did any of those school employees think that there was a high probability of needing one. They have never needed one in their life before that so what indication was there to say that Friday was going to be any different?

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:23 PM

I have one son who is a lefty and he's the one deployed.... He's home now for Christmas in NY

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:24 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12...

A full history of shootings since Colorado.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 1:48 PM

Out of the 8 kids in my husband's family, 6 of them were left-handed. All of them are very bright and functioning adults. They all have multiple talents too. Neither parent was left-handed. I find this fascinating.

As for mental illness, I don't believe that anyone can say that there is a clear deciding factor for this. I will say that it can run in the family in various forms, having experienced this up front and personal.

We have to recognize that the nature of man is corrupt, it is only by the Grace of God, that they do not act upon the leadings of this nature. Bad behavior and violent behavior can be encouraged by the mores of society. But as Zook said, a kid who came from a poor background might not necessarily grow up to be a murderer.

Also, we need to keep in mind with the corrupt nature means that men conspire to enslave others in society. This has been proven over the ages too. Does anyone feel as though these events have been manipulated for the past few decades?

It doesn't matter how and when at this point, but what we choose to do about it. Obviously given the past election and other events indicate that most people don't care as long as they are taken care of in some fashion.

I think that the mother of this person who killed those children worked very hard to keep things on an even keel. She didn't wear her burdens on her sleeve or use it as a platform to coerce others for sympathy to her plight. In that sense, she was trying to push a boulder up the hill. Eventually gravity over-ruled her strength.

People wake up every morning desperately afraid. They don't know the reason, but all feel as though time is running out. Sooner or later, it comes time for a reckoning. If you think that is a fairy tale, look at history when people's behavior run amok. Disease, destruction, despair and war. We are all happy drinking at the party, but dread the hangover and the final bill.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 3:16 PM

If anyone can look into the eyes of a "Special" person and tell what's going to happen next; please,let the rest of us know. You will be idolized. Next to finding a cure for cancer I can't think of a better boon for society.

Those of you who don't like the "politically incorrect" use of the word "special," might want to compare your feelings with the misery of losing your child to a nutcase.

It's not about guns...68 million gun owners didn't kill anybody today. It's about behavior.

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:23 PM

I agree junkyard dog. Thanks for commenting. Thought you might have given up on this.

Would you share your thoughts on elementary teachers armed in the classroom?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 4:39 PM

DT,

Not anymore than I would share my thoughts on Pastors being armed in church.

When we know that sheepdogs and shepherds are watching our flock, we can feel comfortable enough to graze without worry.

When we lose faith in our protectors, or notice they have left us, then we must decide to arm ourselves or trust to fate and luck.

Cardinal rule of warriors: Protect yourself at all times. If you can't or won't do it by proxy, then you'll have to do it yourself... Guns don't scare me, people do.

The wolves are always circling the flock...just out of sight...but there, nonetheless.

-- Posted by junkyard dog on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 5:05 PM

Scammers

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/12/19/n...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 5:56 PM

And those young people who fear their best interest is not our priority may have the same opinion.

We'll never know what fears those 5 & 6 year old wolves represented to their killer.

And now to contend with all those left behind...those who witnessed and now will struggle with doubt as to who to place their faith in.

Thanks.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:09 PM

MsM: In Idaho there are many reasons a person with mental health problems can be committed. Some of them are:

Three main criteria are 1. gravely disabled- for example not taking care of self, not taking meds which cause decompensation and either suicidal or homicidal behavior in the future.

2. suicidality and threat of harm is imminent-you can be suicidal and not committed. There are several other reasons but these are the most common for civil commitment.

3. Psychotic disorder present which would cause someone to be suicidal/homicidal/grave disability.

Essentially if one needs acute psychiatric care and won't go.... someone can make them go against there will and the reasons vary.

It's not as hard as most think but it is a court process.

It a job that is rotated among qualified people several times a year and you have to prove the person should not be in the community. That's how it works, or is supposed to in Idaho. Laws vary by state.

-- Posted by skeeter on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 6:33 PM

The government cannot be permitted to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.

Does that mean the government may not make any determination as to whether or not a citizens mental state should bar possession of a firearm?

Anybody want to take a battery of tests? If your test results are favorable, you're eligible to retain your Constitutional right.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 7:14 PM

Yes I know I have had to commit him to the State Hospital in Blackfoot when he was younger. I could write a book on my experiences with him. I have had to call the police on him so he would be safe only to find out the only place they were going to take him was off to Jail. He didn't do any crime, he was going to hurt himself. I wouldn't let them take him unless they could get him a bed at one of the hospitals in Boise. He has stayed at them all. When they took him to Blackfoot they flew him in a Helicopter.

The state has cut the budget for the mentally ill programs this past year and now when his meds aren't working he can't get the help he had gotten in the past. One thing good he has a social worker assigned to him.

The way they treat the mentally Ill changes all the time so it's always good to be informed.

Thank you for your information.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 7:28 PM

The questions asked are part of an assessment that is an aid in identifying those patients with suicidal ideations.

The national standard for patient care requires hospitals to ask those questions while performing a comprehensive assessment of every patient seeking treatment.

See National Patient Safety Goal 15.01.01 I looked it over. I didn't see anything about taking a depressed patient's CCW.

Through an Executive Order, President Obama directed immediate improvements to the mental health care provided through DoD and VA.

http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 9:13 PM

I agree Patrick.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 9:15 PM

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

This is a look at this horrific tragedy from a different and perhaps a very appropriate perpective. It is about 5 minutes long. It is also quite emotional.

-- Posted by wh67 on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 9:16 PM

oh boy

-- Posted by KH Gal on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 10:44 PM

Oh boy indeed. The person in question may be many things...but crazy is not one of those things. He will not be making the 6:00 news unless someone comes for his guns, harms someone in his family...or if he wins the lotto. Please remember who your friends are:)

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Dec 19, 2012, at 11:11 PM

Captain Whitecloud, I see your point.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 6:56 AM

No one wants to advocate violence on these blogs, but in the same sense, they won't advocate being wimpy and letting a token few take over our country and crush our spirit.

have a nic Christmas Mike.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 9:57 AM

That is right KH---I certainly will not give up my guns without a fight. Wimpy is not the way to go with our current administration. Just because someone likes guns does not mean they are (1) crazy or (2) headed on a killing spree. Zook, I hear ya on your last post and oh how true! The Obama Zombies just do not get it and when they do, it will be too late. Dems like to errode. They are not about preservation...just destruction.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:08 AM

It wasn't just the Democrats for gun control. If you go back into history your Hero in 1994, President Ronald Reagan helped President Bill Clinton pass the Assault Weapons Ban.

Fast forward to today its not only the Democrats wanting to bring back the gun ban.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:18 AM

Do you suppose aquaintances of Adam Lanza had told his now dead mom that he was displaying some disturbing signs and that he may need help?

I've seen a few articles that indicate that she may have been seeking help for her now dead son for some time.

But I wonder if, a long time ago, after listening to those expressions of concern for her son's well being through a friend, colleague or caretaker, she simply said, "Oh boy, Adam may be many things...but crazy is not one of those things."

It's easy to blow off counsel regarding the behavior of someone you think you know.

I think that's the Captain's point.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:56 AM

no, they don't seem to accomplish anything except sound bites. And we need to continue holding their feet to the fire to do their job and do it well.

They have becme too comfortable.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:20 AM

I got my first gun at the tender age of 12 ... hours that is.

My grandfather gave me a Colt Model 1873 .45 revolver. Originally produced for the U. S. Army, it was one of the premier assualt weapons of its time.

And if I still had it, I could sell it anytime, anywhere, no questions asked.

Where ever it is, I can assure you that I wouldn't want to be looking down the business end of the barrel.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM

http://m.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comm...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:29 AM

Modern politicians are motivated by the prospect of being the hero and savior for their states. They can't possibly stand by and not react immediately. Even if the reaction is short sighted and ignorant, they have to appease the public's demand for immediate results. The most immediate result can be attained by tightening gun control laws. Now this result is not going to solve the problem and so is a waste of time. However, that has never stopped them before.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:32 AM

Thanks Dave I think that's an important piece of information... Tomorrow the NRA is suppose to have a press release about what action their going to take. Should be interesting!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 11:42 AM

"THE DAILY COMMENT

Opinions, arguements and reflections on the news"

That's the banner at the top of the New Yorker webpage.

Where does it reference fact or information?

Please, people, understand the content you use to make your life choices.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 12:02 PM

Opinionating, arguing and reflecting...isn't that what we're doing here?

Check the facts Toobin puts out there.

It's an interesting piece nonetheless.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 12:35 PM

Dear Hope:

you are so correct. And they pick and choose who will be victims also. The Benghazi affair hardly scored any outrage and a few other events that I could name.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 1:29 PM

Good point Hope! Reporting the news years ago was a lot different then is is today. They pick story's to sensationalize and when one pick ones they all jump in for the ride. How often to we hear the same story over and over again, until you say "I have had enough!"

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 1:37 PM

MHR,

Good stuff. I have just been too lazy to dig that kind of information up.

back to the topic,

If you look at the rates of gun ownership by state (link given below), you should notice a trend. That is that most of these shootings happen in states outside of the top 10. Again, most not all.

http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2...

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 2:35 PM

The following link is a timeline of gun control Legislation in the U. S.:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blguntime.htm

Some interesting stuff, to say the least.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 5:24 PM

From the previous link - "1871

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is organized around its primary goal of improving American civilians' marksmanship in preparation for war."

From http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.

After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president."

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 5:33 PM

These are long, but interesting reads on the Second Amendment.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent...

http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChi...

And on the issue of mental health and gun control;

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opin...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 8:58 PM

I guess the world didn't end :)

Zook you said

I don't play this "party crap" game, and voted against every incumbent on the ballot (R) or(D).............didn't matter.

When was the last time you voted for a Democratic President?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 20, 2012, at 10:32 PM

Since it appears we're all in agreement that we people of sound mind don't want to be infringed on, does anyone have any suggestions how we go about infringing on those who we determine may not be of sound mind?

In the history of mass shootings, how many were carried out by individuals who were identified as an individual who was prohibited from carrying a firearm?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 7:53 AM

Dave,

Here's a link from a friend's Facebook share that makes some interesting statements about current affairs. From the Opinion pages of the WSJ a couple of days ago.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...

I found a candor there that seemed to be a "step away" from the polarity that seems so rampant in this case.

But maybe that's just me.

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 10:18 AM

Thanks wh67. I read that article a couple of days ago.

I've seen a few of the comments made today by the NRA spokesperson. In one comment I read, the NRA pointed out the media brings a violent culture into people's homes. I agree that there is a disproportionate share of programming and entertainment devoted to the ugly side of life. On the other hand, people make their livings through television programming and video game development. Heads of households have a tough job but they're ultimately responsible for the programming and entertainment their kids are exposed to aren't they?

In another comment, the NRA wants the government to place armed guards in our schools. Well, somebody has to pay for this; freedom isn't free, and sadly we have to protect ourselves from those of our own household.

The vision of a crossing guard packing heat seems to conflict with their assertion that the media is culpable in that the media are bringing the violent culture into people's homes. If a head of household is successful at minimizing the violent culture in their homes, sending one's children off to a school with armed guards is not going to assure children that the society they're part of is discouraging the use of a guns to solve a minor "dis" now and again.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:09 AM

I got to meet JFK when he was campaigning in Wisconsin. I had an Uncle who was a Politician and the Mayor of city. He was friends with Hubert Humphrey. I was introduced to JFK at the Democrat headquarters by my Uncle and Hubert Humphrey. I had met Humphrey before at a family reunion on a lake in Minnesota.

Why does the average Joe need an Automatic Weapon? What type of shooting is he planning on doing with it?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 11:45 AM

All banning guns would do is change the methods used. A bit like pushing around an air bubble under a sticker.

Anyways, I will be be back in Idaho in about 10 hours. It will be short but sweet.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 12:08 PM

MsM:

When the criminals have better guns than the law enforcement officials, who is going to win the gunfight?

It doesn't matter why a law-abiding citizen wants a type of rifle. It is their money.

Now if you happen to have a dog whose breed is considered dangerous, do you destroy the dog? More pitbulls have maimed or killed people in the US. Yet if handled properly, they can be great pets.

It is all about having your own choices.

-- Posted by KH Gal on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 2:13 PM

Thank you zook for your answer. Pat has a couple SKS's. I asked him the same question why does he have guns like that. His answer was "Because he wanted to buy them"

Your right zook I'm not a gun person. My thoughts on guns changed back in 1969 when I held a little 3 year old boy in my arms covered in his 2 year old brothers blood. He had found a gun at his parents friend's house. They were put down for a nap in a bed that had a loaded gun under the mattress. It had been there a long time and the owner of the gun had forgotten that there was a gun under the mattress. The gun owner was an old man, probably as old as I am now.

The gun was found and the 2 boys decided to play cowboys and the trigger was pulled hitting the 2 year old boy in the chest.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 3:44 PM

Size matters. If I want an SKS, AK 47 or any other for that matter, it is because I can...but may soon not be able to and that makes me the kid in the candy shop. I do not have to explain to anybody what I plan to do with that gun as long as I do not plan to hurt someone with it. I plan to have as many of these larger guns as I can, while they are still legal. Why? Because I can. Pretty simple. Owe an explanation to nobody.

Kind of like asking someone why they like rum over beer.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Fri, Dec 21, 2012, at 9:01 PM

I think they should do more then ban guns. The age should be changed on buying a high power gun. They should up the price on them. And the waiting period should be longer. Not sure if my idea's will work but we need to start somewhere.

If someone is planning out a mass murder their not going to go purchase a handful of knives.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:24 AM

There's now a new theory out on Adams Dad. Some people think our Government is hiding facts from us. They think there was 2 shooters and Adam's Dad was the other one...

I'll see if I can find the article again and post it here...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:29 AM

Didn't take me long to find it. One of my facebook friends provided the story

http://shortlittlerebel.wordpress.com/20...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:33 AM

To me a high powered gun is any gun that has that ammo clip. I don't think a 21 year old who to me still isn't done growing up should be able to walk in a store and buy AK 14 or any gun similar, especially some of the characters who live in our town. You know like the ones you see up at wal-mart with a food stamp card with hundreds in his pocket... I've never seen them, but then I'm not looking at people as they are paying for their food. If they can't buy their food, then they shouldn't be buying a gun.......

Waiting period not years

We cannot change everything, nothing is going to be perfect but we do need to not bury our heads in the sand. Stop thinking about protecting your guns and start thinking about what will stop innocent people especially children getting killed by some form of violence.

Most onsets for schizophrenics don't show up until they are in their early twenty's. You wouldn't see anything until it happens. My son was popular in school had many friends and played sports. He was married with a baby on the way. Most of his friends came from good family's in Mountain Home. I would name some of them, but I don't want to draw them into this.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 12:15 PM

I guess my shot gun is a high powered gun it has a 2 shell clip, one in the chamber in 2 in the clip makes for alot of ammo before reloading and there is no second clip. Thats one of the big problems to many people don't like guns, don't understand them so they become assault weapons. How many times does it have to be said only the person behind the trigger makes a weapon a killer, NOT the weapon. Those people that write the laws will be the first ones to ban guns and then write it in also that they get to keep theirs.

-- Posted by Eagle_eye on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 3:01 PM

Until someone in your immediate family is shot or killed by some lunatic you will never understand why people are angry about what is happening in our country not just now but whats been happening way to long.

I for one do not have all the answers, however I do know some changes have to be made. Your always talking about what were leaving to our kids and grand kids, well don't you want a safer place for them to live? They will never have to worry about the national debt if they are murdered before their old enough to have to start paying their way.

I should of said a 30 round clip or more, not just a clip.

Don't worry know one is going to take your guns away.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 4:14 PM

The Chinese Government Newpaper - December 15, 2012

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/indept...

As the friend that sent the link to me said "This is rich, man, really rich."

They demand we surrender our arms, THEN they'll want the money we owe them.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 7:09 PM

Of coarse Hope I keep going back to the tragedy, it was a very emotional tragedy, 20 little children were killed by a 20 year old boy who was carrying guns....

How bad is banning a certain type gun going to effect you? We expect our congress to come together and get laws passed and someone is going to have to give a little. Both sides need a little giving. You guys don't want to give an inch or do nothing accept scream and hollar about your guns, protecting your guns....

I don't believe a crazy person will stop senseless killings but stopping sales of those type guns will slow it down somewhat.

They're not asking to give up your right to bear arms, they're asking to ban some sales of certain type guns....

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:05 PM

Warren I'm sure the whole world knows about the shooting of those 20 little kids.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 9:09 PM

Yeah you got to be prepared don't you? Whens the last time you had to use a AR or Ak or SKS or for that matter any gun accept for target or hunting.

Whens the last time you had to defend yourself with a gun? If you ever have to use a gun in self defense are you sure it won't be you that gets carted off to jail?

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:21 PM

MsM, I just found it quite ironic that a government, known to have murdered millions of men, women and children over the last four or five decades, would so quickly conclude that America should ban assault weapons.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:33 PM

Well Warren what do you think about the fact that your Republican President Ronald Reagan was all for banning guns? He helped push it to become law.

No one has answered me yet and this is the 3rd time I mentioned it. Will this be the 3rd time without a response!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:39 PM

Warren I will have to re-read your link, because I didn't see where it said China wants us to ban assault weapons.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:43 PM

First paragraph, last sentence:

"Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control."

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 22, 2012, at 10:49 PM

MsM: No answer about gun control will satisfy you. Just more questions will be asked. The Brady's were friends of the Reagan's and after Brady was shot, President Reagan supported his friends and their wishes. Dims are always after our guns but that is OK I guess?

I saw this on About.com.

A more lasting impact of Reagan's policy on guns was the nomination of several Supreme Court justices. Of the four justices nominated by Reagan -- Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy -- the latter two were still on the bench for a pair of important Supreme Court rulings on gun rights in the 2000s: District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago in 2010. Both sided with a narrow, 4-3 majority in striking down gun bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago while ruling that the Second Amendment applies to individuals and the states.

-- Posted by skeeter on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 6:30 AM

MsMarylin, the best source for 2nd Amendment thought is SCOTUS. Here's a link to a 2nd amendment search on the 2007 docket

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07p...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 9:18 AM

I don't know what made this kid snap and commit this horrific crime, won't even speculate. I do know that more restrictions on firearms is not the answer, and I know they key to responsible gun ownership is education. I grew in a home with guns. We were a hunting and sport shooting family, and guns are still a common gift.(according to one of my brothers, "the 2nd box is always the bullets!")I was very young when I first fired a handgun, with my dad standing behind me helping me hold it correctly and brace for the kick. I think it was my mom's 22, not much of a kick unless you are a little girl. Anyway, included in that lesson was the very serious rule that you never aim a gun at anything you don't intend to kill. My 4 siblings and I were taught very early that guns are to be respected, not feared, and can be a useful tool or a dangerous weapon, it is up to the handler.

I don't support any additional gun legislation, as I think most of the legislation we already have is useless. It won't protect me from harm if someone is intent on harming me, and I believe it will eventually lead to the disarming of our populace.

One quick note about the movie Red Dawn that was mentioned in an earlier post. I usually watch it if I am channel flipping and see it on TV. It was on one those movie night things a while back, when they do some discussion during commercial breaks. The guy leading the little discussion group said that when the writer was asked why he had made a movie about the soviets when the cold war was winding down, he answered that this movie was about the United States Government. Just a little trivia, who knows of it's true. Gave me goosebumps though

-- Posted by DANSHL on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:14 AM

I find it very interesting that people think a ban of certain guns/clips will save lives and keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them (felons, people with mental illness, etc.). It will NOT help. Criminals, etc. will ALWAYS find a way to have the guns. What we really need is for these irresponsible parents who have "sick" kids to keep the guns away from their kids. It is pretty simple. There is no accountability. That is the real problem. But we can ignore that and keep on with the blame game.

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 10:23 AM

New York State Crime

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Ne...

Gun laws New York State

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 11:31 AM

Patrick_A,

At the very bottom of the web page I posted earliier, there is a link "About Us". Check it out.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sp...

Then use your most trusted search engine and try xinhua news agency.

By all means, draw your own conclusions.

I will add that multiple sources I have found indicate the news agency was founded in 1931. That is is still in existence leads me to belive that it is indeed santioned (and sponsored) by the current Chinese regime.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 12:09 PM

Ya right he didn't want to be President

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/23...

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 12:38 PM

From social media, come reports of resistence to one man's campaign against gun ownership:

http://www.examiner.com/article/cnn-s-pi...

Patrick -

Those words were mine, thus not enclosed in those two little slashey things called quotation marks...

-- Posted by wh67 on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 1:27 PM

Trevor,

Did not mean the author gave me goosebumps, only the comment about the movie being about our government. Like I said, who knows if it is even true, only mentioned it because I saw a post about the movie, but now that I review the posts, I can't even find it. It must have been on another blog, which makes this whole conversation a "nevermind", like the old Saturday Night Live skit with the news anchor. Was that Gilda Radner?

The point of my post was that more gun restrictions will not help, as most of the laws already on the books do not prevent these tragedies, and gun education is the key to gun ownership.

-- Posted by DANSHL on Sun, Dec 23, 2012, at 2:06 PM

I see your buddy Hope4 America is gone lol!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 10:16 AM

Some of this conversation comes from the fundamental difference between living east of the Mississippi or not. The eastern part of the nation is highly populated and the urban culture (where guns are not as prevalent) is the norm. There are rural parts of each state. However, there are many more population centers than out West. Guns have a different meaning in their lives.

Out West, we have seemingly endless open space even today. Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Eastern Oregon, etc. each have stretches where there is no sign that anyone ever lived there. Hunting and shooting as a hobby are more common out West. The more rural setting changes the perception quite a bit. Most of these liberal gun control advocates are from the East or the cosmopolitan cities of California.

I would say that they should come out and live in the more rural settings and see that most do not buy guns with malicious intent. They are some wingnuts of course.

I spoke with a guy who lived in Rome, Oregon who was telling me that he owned forty guns because he feared being robbed and killed. Rome, Oregon is about 40 miles south of Jordan Valley and about as remote as one gets. The chance of someone making that long drive just to rob someone is incredibly unlikely.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 2:53 PM

TrevorKnows I think your right! I over looked his comments and figured he might of been booted for what ever reasons. Glad he is still with us

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 3:06 PM

Zook,

I have to agree. I love the open spaces. As much as I brag about it to others, I do love the fact that I can go these rural places and enjoy the slower pace to life.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Dec 24, 2012, at 11:05 PM

Married him!

-- Posted by OpinionMissy on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 8:59 AM

"Married him" ? I don't understand. The First Lady wasn't even among those Time was considering.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 10:07 AM

Hope4America

You seem so familiar to me ? Could you ????? Nah! I hope not !!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 10:24 AM

Regardless of facts, links, or comments, if someone doesn't want to see it, they never will.

I know a family who has the most irritating dog ever! This dog will jump on you, jump on your furniture, pee on your leg, growl and bark when you come to the door, it's aweful. His owners don't see it. They love and cuddle all over him regardless of what he does. They make excuses for whatever he does and give constant praises because he is their dog.

I remember the apology tour too and Obama should have been kept on a shorter leash.

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 11:57 AM

This is from my second blog "You're Black, He's Black, Vote For Him!".....

"Have you ever met a person that you just don't like? Have you ever been across the room from someone that you knew you just couldn't stand? Before you even met the person, or before a word came out of their mouth, you knew you hated them? That's the way it is with me and the President. Not because I'm racist, but because I just. don't. like. the guy.

Regardless of his policies (which are aweful), regardless of his principles (which are aweful), I just don't like him and I won't be voting for him. It's as simple as that. The man could have never opened his mouth and I still wouldn't have liked him. Not because of his skin color, as a lot of you are thinking but, because of his arrogant little swagger! His whole "I'm going to do it my way and I DARE you to say something about it" attitude."

http://www.mountainhomenews.com/blogs/17...

I've already said I don't like the dude and never have. The fact that he is not qualified for the job, is one of the worst presidents in history, and has this nation more divided than ever (if you don't see those facts, you're blind) just helps ease my hatred for him over the top.

I have never beat around the "bush" (or used it for an excuse like Obama) about my hatred.

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 12:46 PM

Trevor,

I agree, if we do allow this to go on in our house, then we share the blame.

So when that debt hits 20 Trillion, most of the country can only blame themselves.

BTW, as far as showing you the pee or the apologies... Would that really matter? Would it really change anyones way of thinking? According to the outcome in November, obviously not. That was the whole point of my analogy.

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 12:54 PM

This took about 5 seconds to find... Let the excuses roll...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLZer0P9l...

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 1:01 PM

When I hear President Obama's remarks, I'm reminded of these remarks by President Bush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-23kmhc3P...

I didn't hear any apology from President Obama.

I did hear President Bush utter a carefully crafted statement that was intended for the domestic audience, and not necessarily intended for foreign governments to accept as the official foreign policy of the United States; after all we continued to work with Pakistan during President Bush's time in office, and Pakistan hasn't really been with us or against us.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 1:37 PM

We are remote from the subject of Mr. Everitt's post here.

Anybody's little blessing(s) inexplicably shot by another's little blessing(s) over the weekend?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 1:40 PM

Right on TrevorKnows.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Wed, Dec 26, 2012, at 1:50 PM

Back to the topic.....

Here's a little bit of irony.

David Gregory had the NRA head on his show, Meet The Press.

He was there to debate gun control laws. Gregory was asking him, if we made it illegal to have 30 round magazines, "isn't it just possible that we could reduce the carnage in a situation like Newtown?", as he's holding up a 30 round magazine.

The funny thing is, they are in Washington D.C., where it is illegal to have 30 round magazines.

How in the world did Gregory have a 30 round magazine in a place where it is illegal to have said magazine? This baffels me.

If it's illegal to have it, surely to God he shouldn't be able get ahold of one, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRjS2l0B7...

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 12:16 AM

By the way, Gregory is now being investigated for having that magazine. Maybe now he'll understand what it's like to be demonized for having something that isn't actually the problem.

http://news.yahoo.com/dc-cops-investigat...

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 12:26 AM

A 30 round magazine is an element that contributes to the lethality of a weapon(s) or the force(s) employing them.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 8:45 AM

Dave, next you'll be accusing driving gloves of causing MVA's

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:14 AM

Mr. America,

Spare me the platitudes.

I made a statement not an advocation.

You're looking for an argument and you won't get one from me.

There is a logic behind the purpose of a 30 round magazine, and it's not "Because we can make a magazine that holds 30 rounds.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:35 AM

It seems we're wringing our hands and pacing back and forth over the same ground here.

Anybody can get their hands on anything they want. People will get guns and ammo, legal or not and meth lab chemists will get their pseudoephedrine whether it's on the shelf or not.

Parents and guardians of the mentally ill should ensure their charges don't have access to weapons. That sounds good, but we all know anybody can get their hands on anything. Expecting parents to keep firearms out of their kids hands is like expecting a private citizen to not sell a firearm to a former felon.

I've seen comments from other gun owners advocating that parents or guardians of the mentally ill voluntarily forfeit their 2nd amendment right. That's not fair to the parents and may turn into another problem for other firearms owners. If the state determines that a child has a mental illness related to a genetic factor would the state then find itself obligated to prohibit the owning of firearms by the parent who contributed the trait?

We've decided we want firearms. We recognize the dangers that firearms pose. We recognize there are people out there whose right to be part of the militia should be infringed on. That raises some questions we should be discussing here. There are a few people who have written here regarding the state of the mental health system they've had to deal with.

How do we make access to mental health care as easy as buying a gun? How can we simplify getting help to the people who need it?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:35 AM

We couldn't have publicly executed those who had already publicly executed themselves.

No deterrent there.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:49 AM

Thanks.

As a side note in example of my post re: 30 round magazines, I understand a 7.62mm gatling gun uses a 4400 round magazine. Our armed forces don't "load up several 10 round clips" when they use this weapon because they have come to appreciate the lethality a steady rate of fire provides.

I'm not advocating. I'm just pointing out that those who do advocate banning a 30 round magazine have a valid point, and there has to be a better opposing argument that counters that point. Something other than "Oh yeah?! Well you're....stupid!"

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 9:57 AM

Yeah, yeah I know.

When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.

That's a dead horse.

I understand the realities of what's out there when it comes to firearms.

Thanks for your input.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 11:04 AM

Thanks TrevorKnows.

Could you point out where I wrote something that left you with the impression I advocate control or confiscation and control of anything related to firearms?

It's easy for us to get on here and advocate doing nothing to control firearms. There's little that could be done on the firearms side of the equation.

It's harder to come up with a way to help us identify and treat people with mental illness and those with a propensity to act on a bad thought.

The recommendations that will be coming out in a few days will add fuel to the fire and give us some food for thought.

But if there's one thing to remember it is Guns don't kill people, people do. Hey that's catchy, but it seems I've heard it before.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 12:05 PM

This will not work........

"If you're taking certain medications for schizophrenia, etc., disclosure of records by psychiatrists to authorities for who they consider "dangerous" might be a start."

Those taking meds could still snap at any time, even if they don't have any record of ever being violent.

My son gets a shot in the butt every 2 weeks.

That shot after being given for a while can become painful. This has happened to my son. So they cut back on the dosage, causing him to start acting strange. It's a good thing he knows the signs so he can seek help. When he starts to loose it he becomes "creative" which I can't get into on here.

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 1:41 PM

He doesn't own any guns, and he knows he should never have a gun.... He has never had a violent past. But I will always know he is a schizophrenic!

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 2:27 PM

Fresh off the press in DC:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...

Grandfather all existing weapons if registered and the owner passes the background check?

Right after this Senator submits to a mental health check AND gives up her security detail!

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 3:20 PM

What do you mean by "that's when it's going to get entertaining " and "thinning the liberal socialist herd"?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 3:27 PM

My last post is a Summary of the 2013 Gun Bill from Sen. Fienstiens official Senate web page.

Should have made that clear.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 3:54 PM

www.bulletbutton.com

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 4:05 PM

The bullet button is an after-market accessory fitted into the receiver of a semi-automatic weapon so that it takes a special tool to remove the magazine. The premise being that a weapon with a fixed magazine is not considered an assault weapon UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 7:07 PM

P. S. - It is my understanding that California's Constitution DOES NOT grant citizens the right to bear.

-- Posted by wh67 on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 7:10 PM

I believe that's true wh67, but a couple of recent Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that citizens in all states have 2nd amendment rights. I've posted links to those decisions somewhere in these blogs or the Banter Box. Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). They should be easy to find on the Court's website. They're good reading. Make a person think.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Thu, Dec 27, 2012, at 7:33 PM

You'd better hope they don't they won't be using Hellfires and Aquisition Denial.

If they pop a guy like an egg in a microwave, he won't have any cold dead fingers to pry a gun from. The gun may just be lying on the ground in a puddle of goo.

Just contributing something to take it to the next level. :)

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 6:57 AM

I shouldn't have posted that. Off subject. Apologies to all.

Anyway, the bullet button looks like a reasonable expectation to me.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 7:01 AM

I really didn't expect MHresident to speak up. That'd ruin the fun he's having playing "Shadow Force."

Maybe he got caught up in some excitement over a realization that perhaps there are now 20 fewer in the liberal herd.

It was just an incredibly stupid thing to post on a blog addressing an incident where 20 five and six year old kids were shot and killed.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 7:08 AM

And his favorite flavored coolaid?

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 10:58 AM

Absolutely disgraceful and disgusting, but sooo predictable.

-- Posted by wh67 on Fri, Dec 28, 2012, at 7:35 PM

Hard to belive this was a year and a half ago. This could have been filmed yesterday and you wouldn't know the difference. Ol' Ted knows what he's talking about. Try as you might, Piers, Ted puts you in your place and tells it like it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50vUx0DfG...

-- Posted by KentuckyTransplant on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 12:21 AM

Good one Keith. As Ted says "If guns kill people mine must be defective".

-- Posted by skeeter on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 6:43 AM

Why wouldn't he have Ventura back? Is that a good thing?

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:39 AM

Morgan's "handlers" at CNN seem to have gone to some length this past week to soften his British bulldog image. Program re-runs with interviews with little or no socially controversial content have replaced the anti-gun diatribes that ended up getting his name on several WhiteHouse.gov petitions, including one from the UK that would indicate they don't want him back either.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 11:50 AM

Rather than discredit our four legged friends, suffice it to say that Morgan's shows this week could indicate an effort to soften his image. Some speculate that is in response to sponsor requests. Some claim it is merely coincidence that Morgan is taking some time off. Others say he is preparing for an expanded crusade in 2013.

We shall see.

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 1:50 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX9X5zJ91...

-- Posted by wh67 on Sat, Dec 29, 2012, at 7:18 PM

Hope

Maybe you need to re-read your comment and take your own advice

~~I'm not exactly sure what you're attempting to accuse me of or who you're attempting to associate me with, but I feel it only fair to nip this bud, before you get too out of hand with your accusations. ~~

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Sun, Dec 30, 2012, at 7:17 PM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/...

This story mentions an interesting theory from one parent of a student who survived the Sandy Hook shootings.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 6:47 AM

It was good being back home in Idaho for the week. We took the Scenic route back home going through Mountain Home, Owyhee, and Elko. It is just too bad that it is such a drive from Reno.

Back to the topic.

I have been around plenty of gun aficionados and have yet to hear that anyone of them has committed a malicious act. Not to be a know-it-all but I have also been around the fringes of society. Young, misguided men that think that they have to push the limits. Their interest in guns only has roots in their ability to control a situation. In short, the gun makes them the man that they want to be. It is weak but not everybody has confidence and character. Anyways, society's overreaction is just that.... overreaction.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 9:09 AM

Touched lightly in a post I made on this issue last Friday. This is a good article.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the...

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 2:58 PM

Trevor, I agree. Just wanted to get that out there.

-- Posted by Dave Thompson on Mon, Dec 31, 2012, at 5:33 PM

This issue is one that gets clouded with emotion and rhetoric. It all boils down to America's love of short term (and short sighted) decision making. Our love of instant rewards distorts our vision.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 9:31 AM

Hey Zook MrMister left you a question on the Banter Box

Hope your not fooling anyone either..........

-- Posted by MsMarylin on Wed, Jan 2, 2013, at 10:09 AM

This is from the Winnemucca newspaper and so are not my words. However, it is good stuff and so it matters not who says it. Enjoy

There's a very simple way to solve our problems.

If the president and all the congressional people cannot get the job done, we simply kick the entire bunch of them out of office ... without retirement funds; send each a bill for the money we gave them to do the job which they failed to do; investigate the way they got us into this situation; hold all of them and their cohorts responsible to give "the people" back all the money they, connivingly, stole from us and put them all in prison for life!

It will cost a lot less to feed them in prison than to pay for their flying trips with all their friends at our expense ... like Obama's holiday trip to Hawaii, which I might add, he certainly has not earned!

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Jan 3, 2013, at 12:55 PM

This is why a Balanced Budget Amendment needs to be put into place. If they violate it then the politicians pay it back.

-- Posted by twilcox1978 on Thu, Jan 3, 2013, at 3:48 PM

Beg to differ, sir--just want a simple answer to a simple question, if you would.

-- Posted by MrMister on Sat, Jan 5, 2013, at 8:06 PM


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.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

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


Meanderings of the Managing Editor
Kelly Everitt
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Candidate thoughts
(0 ~ 9:18 AM, Oct 22)

Ferguson raises key issues
(190 ~ 5:52 PM, Oct 18)

The momentum of history...
(0 ~ 9:15 AM, Oct 15)

A lot of colors for cancer
(0 ~ 9:20 AM, Oct 8)

Are your lives better?
(4 ~ 12:45 AM, Oct 6)