***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (4 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Here are some facts regarding the "Gun show loophole" from the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence:

http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/gun-show-loophole/gun-show-loophole-faq

What is a gun show?

Gun shows are temporary markets for guns and ammunition, usually held at meeting halls or fairgrounds. Unlike gun stores, both federally licensed dealers and unlicensed sellers can sell guns.

In 1998, over 4,400 gun shows were conducted around the country. 478 were held in Texas alone.1 The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) estimates on average 2,500 – 5,000 gun shows are held annually. In general, between 25% to 50% of sellers are not licensed dealers.2 The access to anonymous sales and the availability of large numbers of secondhand guns makes gun shows attractive to criminals and other prohibited purchasers. A federal study found that 10% of guns used in crime by juveniles were sold either at a gun show or a flea market, and in 1999, gun shows were associated with approximately 26,000 firearms used in crime.3, 4

What is the difference between a licensed dealer and an unlicensed seller? Federal Firearm Licensees (FFL's) are individuals "engaged in the business" of selling guns and are required to register with and be licensed by the US government. They are also required to conduct instant criminal background checks on all gun buyers -and are prohibited from selling guns to convicted felons, domestic abusers, and juveniles.

Unlicensed sellers are people who may sell a small or large amount of guns but do not (or are not supposed to) earn their livelihood from firearm sales. These sellers do not have to conduct criminal background checks on gun sales. Unlicensed sellers may sell guns at gun shows, out of their homes, or even over the Internet.

What is the "gun show loophole"?

The Gun Control Act of 1968 requires anyone engaged in the business of selling guns to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) and keep a record of their sales. However, this law does not cover all gun sellers. If a supplier is selling from his or her private collection and the principal objective is not to make a profit, the seller is not "engaged in the business" and is not required to have a license. Because they are unlicensed, these sellers are not required to keep records of sales and are not required to perform background checks on potential buyers, even those prohibited from purchasing guns by the Gun Control Act. The gun show loophole refers to the fact that prohibited purchasers can avoid required background checks by seeking out these unlicensed sellers at gun shows.

Why is it important to get rid of the gun show loophole?

The gun show loophole makes it very easy for guns to fall into the hands of prohibited individuals, including criminals and juveniles. Closing the loophole would put a barrier between the legal and illegal markets for guns. It is more difficult for law enforcement to trace firearms sold on the secondary market. Second-hand firearms typically have left the possession of a licensed dealer, where records are kept, and reached the hands of an unlicensed seller, who is not required to keep records.

How can we close the gun show loophole?

It's simple. Closing the dangerous loophole merely requires unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows to conduct the same instant background checks that licensed dealers must conduct.

Do background checks work?

Yes. Since 1994, the Brady Act has prevented more than 1.3 million criminals and other prohibited purchasers from buying guns. The law also has a deterrent effect—felons, domestic abusers and other prohibited purchasers are less likely to try to buy guns when they know comprehensive background check requirements are in place.

Can't we just enforce existing laws instead of passing new ones?

In order to enforce existing laws, we must give police the tools they need to do so - and the criminal background check is one of the most effective tools we can give them to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current law barring sales to prohibited buyers such as convicted felons or fugitives from justice cannot be enforced effectively unless sellers are required to verify that their buyers are not in a prohibited category.

If we want to better enforce existing laws, we need to do everything possible to prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals - and that means conducting background checks on all sales at guns shows, the second largest source for crime guns.

Won't closing the gun show loophole violate the Second Amendment?

No. No matter what your interpretation of the Second Amendment is, it is illegal for criminals and youth to get guns, and federal law already requires background checks for sales by licensed dealers. We need background checks at guns shows to protect law-abiding citizens while keeping guns out of the hands of those prohibited from owning them.

Won't requiring background checks on all sales at gun shows be a bureaucratic nightmare?

Closing the gun show loophole would merely involve unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows implementing that same system. More than 95% of background checks are completed within two hours, and most are completed in just two minutes.

Will closing the gun show loophole put gun shows out of business?

No. Three of the five states that host the most gun shows - Illinois, Pennsylvania, and California - closed the gun show loophole years ago, and gun shows continue to thrive.

Which states have closed the gun show loophole?

Only six states (California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island) require universal background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows, including sales by unlicensed dealers. Three more states (Connecticut, Maryland and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun sales made at gun shows. Eight other states (Hawaii, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nebraska and North Carolina) require purchasers to obtain a permit and undergo a background check before buying a handgun. 33 states have taken no action whatsoever to close the gun show loophole.

In two states, voters themselves closed the loophole when their legislatures refused to do so. On November 7, 2000, the citizens of Colorado overwhelmingly voted 70% – 30% in favor of Amendment 22, closing the gun show loophole in their state. The referendum followed the tragic shooting at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999 (the guns used in the shooting were purchased from private sellers at Denver gun shows). In Oregon, voters also voted overwhelmingly, 62% – 38%, in favor of Measure 5, effectively closing the gun show loophole in their state.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

You have a reading problem.

[snip]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.USA 312 million pop, 270 million guns, 87k guns per 100k, 4.8 int. homicides per 100k

Russia 142 million pop, 12.8 million guns, 9k guns per 100k, 11.5 int. homicides per 100k

Brazil 197 million pop, 16.2 million guns, 0.8k guns per 100k, 25 int. homicides per 100k

Russia has 1/10th the guns of the US and 240% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

Brazil has 1/100th the number of guns of the US and 521% the number of int. homicides per 100k compared to the US

So when looking at the global data, you pick out the couple of anomalies, and suggest they are the rule, and ignore the mountain of evidence directly contradicting your position?

There is no mountain, not even a molehill. They structured their "evidence" by filtering out countries that do not conform to their ideologies, hence my demand to show their data, I'd be surprised if Russia was even included in their study of "high-income nations". Furthermore they cannot prove if the violence caused a proliferation of firearms or the other way around (chicken or egg).If there was any truth to the causation of more firearms leading to more homicides we would expect much different rates coming from a country like Switzerland which has roughly half as many guns as it does people:

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Switzerland is 3,400,000

Switzerland has a population of 7,907,000

The homicide rate in Switzerland is 0.7 per 100k

Sources:http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10881#toc

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/violent-crimes-and-handgun-ownership/

 

[5 digit know nothing]

It is difficult to know the exact number of new guns introduced into the US each year, but we do have a record of the number of gun applications that are made each year. While some may speculate criminals would not apply for a gun permit but rather obtain their weapons illegally or through legal means but without a paper trail, one could assume most of these applications are made by non-criminals.

If more guns causes more intentional homicides then this chart would seem to easily refute that claim in the U.S.:

Chart

Federal Applications are in the millions on the left vertical axis, intentional homicide rate is in the right vertical axis. I just created this from easily available data.

Here's a better chart showing both state and federal gun applications. It's pretty clear by this chart that as the intentional homicide rate rises that, during the following years as a response to the violence, there are more applications for guns, and as the number of applications for guns continues to rise this "causes" the intentional homicide rate to continue to fall, and not the other way around as is widely being speculated in this thread:

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/8629/chartv4.png

The number of applications doubles at the state level from 2005 to 2009 (and goes up 23% at the Federal level), over that same period the intentional homicide rate is reduced by 25%.

 

[parasaurolophus]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.

Ok, fella

Arent you the same guy that corrected Tommyboy for posting a link to data that was from 2003?Yet you post a secondary review of data from the early 90's as if it is the absolute truth. I have asked you twice now, but I will ask again. Have you even read what they reviewed?

 

[Glass Joe]

Keep up the good fight, gun owners.

Newtown, Conn. — Six days after the funeral of six-year-old Noah Pozner, his family is taking stock of the gifts sent to them by strangers all over the world. There’s a stiff teddy bear in a brown overcoat and hat accompanied by a note from a woman who says the bear gave her great comfort when her mother passed away. There is a box filled with tiny stuffed animals. And a miniature cypress tree, which reminds Veronique, Noah’s mother, to think of life.

Noah’s maternal grandmother, Marie-Claude Duytschaever, pulls a brown bear with lanky arms and legs from a cardboard box. It’s meant for Noah’s twin, Arielle, and his 7-year-old sister, Sophia. Veronique takes the stuffed animal — the family will later name it “Noah Bear” — in her arms and gives it a long squeeze before surrendering it to the living room where the toys are quickly piling up. The gifts seem to comfort the family, but they also highlight the absence of the boy who would have reveled in them.

Noah was the youngest child massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, when 20-year-old gunman Adam Lanza first killed his mother, Nancy Lanza, and then shot his way into the school and slayed 20 first grade students and six staff members, including the principal. Noah was hit 11 times. He was the first child to be buried, on December 17 in a funeral overseen by Rabbi Shaul Praver of Congregation Adath Israel of Newtown.

For the following six nights, the family sat shiva at a friend’s house, which could better accommodate the dozens of visitors than their smaller home. Today, Sunday, with the official Jewish mourning period over, the Pozners have invited friends and family to a large white two-story home they have rented on the outskirts of Newtown. (Lenny Pozner, Noah’s father, sat shiva with the family and then traveled to Florida to visit friends.) In preparation, they clear the stuffed animals off the kitchen island and replace them with bowls of dried fruit, chips, candied nuts, carrot sticks and a roast turkey.

This is how the nation’s most famous Jewish grieving family grieves.

At 1:00 pm, the guests arrive: the grief counselor who held Veronique’s hand at the funeral, the family friend who purchased a tiny tie for Noah to be buried in, high school friends of Danielle Vabner, Noah’s 18-year-old half sister. Children race in and out of every room; they play Monopoly on the living room floor, jump on piles of pillows and sit on the couch, drawing quietly. Noah and Arielle were born within months of two other cousins, Ethan and Laura. Now, Ethan sits alone at the kitchen counter, eating a bowl of macaroni and cheese with green peas. When his mother, Victoria Haller, told him that they would travel from Seattle to Connecticut to visit the cousins after Noah’s death, he sheepishly asked her, “But one less?”

At the center of everything is Veronique. On her right wrist is a tattoo she and Danielle both got the day after Noah died: a small pink rose flanked by two angel wings with Noah’s name spanning the space between them, and his birth and death dates beneath. A torn black ribbon is pinned to her shirt, a Jewish mourning custom. She is wearing purplish pink lipstick and her short black hair is combed into puffy curls around her face. “I hope it doesn’t look callous to some people, but I have to keep taking care of myself physically,” she says, “That is what Noah would want. He would want his mom to be the way she always is.”

She has the air of a person in deep, almost studious concentration; she speaks in a quick, deliberate clip. Some details — the order of events after the killing — seem out of grasp; she can’t remember which door leads to which room in the unfamiliar house.

The past week has been a “waking nightmare,” she says, sitting on a beige couch in the living room before the guests arrive. Daytime brings activity, and occasional numb relief. But at night, “I wake up at two or three in the morning and that is when I start to wrestle with the demons of the why, and the how. Did he suffer? Where is he now? Is he at peace? Is he happy? Or is he lost?” At these moments Veronique thinks of Noah as a child lost in a crowded mall, searching hopelessly for his family.

Veronique was born in Switzerland to French parents who raised her in Scarsdale, N.Y. She converted to Judaism in 1992 when she married her first husband, Reuben Vabner. Her second husband, Lenny, is also Jewish; he is originally from Brooklyn and works in information technology. In 2005, Lenny and Veronique relocated to Newtown from nearby Bethel. (They had previously lived in Westchester.) They had three children in tow: Sophia, an infant, and Danielle and Michael, from Veronique’s first marriage. Sometime in 2013, Veronique says, she plans to move her family again, this time to the Seattle area where much of her extended family lives. They will be taking Noah’s body with them.

Veronique conceived Noah and Arielle through the help of fertility treatments, and gave birth to the healthy pair in 2006 after a difficult, diabetic pregnancy. She was 39. From the beginning, the twins were inseparable.

“It was almost like they were a continuum rather than two different human beings,” she says. Together with Sophia, who is 22 months older, they formed a “fearsome threesome, like a tripod on a camera.”

Noah was the energetic leg of the tripod, an animated boy with big blue eyes. He loved unusual foods for a child: pickles, broccoli, salmon, cheese. And tacos — he often talked about wanting to manage a taco factory when he grew up, in addition to being an astronaut and a doctor. He already knew how to read; he had a vocabulary well beyond his years, using words like “DNA” and “dynamic.”

“He excelled academically,” says Danielle. “His teachers said he was really, really, smart.”

He was on a constant path of discovery. “It was always, ‘How does this work? Why does this happen?’ He wanted to understand cause and effect,” says Veronique.

Noah also wondered about God, asking his mother, “If God exists then who created God?” He wanted to know what happens after death. “I would always tell him, ‘You are not going to die until you are a very old man, Noah.’ He was afraid of death, I know he was. He feared the unknown,” Veronique says. “Sometimes I wonder whether he had some foretelling, some prescience about it. Of course I will never know for sure, maybe it was just the random fears of a child.”

On the morning of December 14, Veronique was at the medical center where she works as an oncology nurse when she received an automated text message alerting her that there was a reported shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. At first, she thought it might have been a false alarm, like a fake bomb threat. But then a patient following the events on her iPhone urged her to go.

Veronique drove at 80 miles per hour to the school, praying that her car’s faulty engine would hold up. The streets near Sandy Hook Elementary were so congested that she parked at a nearby Subway sandwich shop and ran to the firehouse, where other parents had gathered. She quickly located Arielle and Sophia and Lenny. But Noah was nowhere to be found.

For hours, she sat in the firehouse, waiting. Her stomach clenched; she vomited in the bathroom. When she came out there was pizza and donuts, but she couldn’t eat. Soon, nuns, priests, ministers and a rabbi arrived. “When I saw all those clergy people I knew in my gut of guts and my heart of hearts that they were dead,” she recalls. “I knew there was absolutely no way they would dispatch this multi-denominational fan of clergy people were it not the case that the news would be absolutely catastrophic.”

Finally, an official announcement was made: 20 child fatalities. “That is when, for me, my whole world shifted on its axis,” she says. “It was like you are sitting in a room, and everything, including you, is turned upside down and you are sitting on the ceiling instead of the floor. You have this surreal sense of void, like all the air has been sucked out of the room.” Veronique wanted to place a blanket on Noah. “They told us, ‘No, it is a crime scene.’ They would not let us go.”

That night, Lenny took the younger children to a friend’s house. Veronique barely slept, but when she did she dreamed she was inside an abandoned house on an island covered in brown grass, walking the hallways and knocking on doors looking for Noah. She would wake from the dream screaming, and Danielle, sleeping beside her would comfort her.

Two days later, Veronique met President Obama at a vigil at the local high school, and she told him about the dream. “He whispered to me, ‘If you listen closely he is answering you,’” says Veronique. “And it really, really helped me.”

Veronique asked the medical examiners not to autopsy her son; she felt that his body had suffered too many indignities. At his funeral, Noah was dressed in a suit and tie. A Jewish friend of Veronique’s at work enjoined Rabbi Praver to allow him to be wrapped in a blue tallis, even though he had not yet had a bar mitzvah.

The family placed stuffed animals, a blanket and letters to Noah into the casket. Lastly, Veronique put a clear plastic rock with a white angel inside — an “angel stone” — in his right hand. She asked the funeral director to place an identical one in his left, which was badly mangled. Noah’s famously long eyelashes, which she spoke about in her eulogy, rested lightly on his cheeks and a cloth covered the place where his lower jaw had been.

Veronique says that she doesn’t know the best path to stop school shootings. “If Adam [Lanza] had shown up at Sandy Hook with a knife or a less powerful weapon, he may have harmed some people but it would not have been the mass carnage we saw,” she says. She has never considered herself an activist, but the death of her son planted a seed within her: “This topic has wings for me. It has got to take flight.”

Like some Sandy Hook parents who have spoken to the media, Veronique has shied away from portraying Lanza as evil or diabolical. “If we describe him as a demonic force or as a beast with the sign of the beast on his forehead, that is a mistake,” she says. “Because then we are making him apart from humanity when in fact he is part of what is possible in humanity. How do we help these people so this doesn’t happen again, so they never sink so low, so they never have to go to a place so dark where they can take out small children in a fit of rage?

Veronique’s mother, Marie-Claude, says she feels nothing about Adam Lanza or his mother. “They don’t exist,” she says. “They don’t register as people. For me, I am numb. I don’t have forgiveness because I am not angry.”

Marie-Claude says that her energy is focused on her family at the moment. In the past week, she has been chronicling all the ways in which Noah’s presence is still felt in the world on her blog. A twitching of the curtains, a sudden chirping of a bird ornament on the Christmas tree, a succulent plant burst into flower — all evidence of mischievous Noah at play.

Just this morning, Veronique and Marie-Claude were sitting downstairs when Veronique noticed a blue jay outside the window. “To me it was a sign of Noah,” says Marie-Claude. She wrote about the occurrence soon after: “We looked at each other: Noah had loved blue, he had [been] buried with a blue and white Jewish prayer shawl, he always said he wanted wings so that he could fly.”

It is moments like these, the affection of family members, the love of friends, the cards and stuffed animals from strangers and the human tears shed by public officials that have constituted a life raft for the Pozners, and, no doubt, for the 19 other Newtown families.

“At the end of the day,” says Veronique, “the equation is in favor of what is good and what is human and what is giving instead of what takes away.”

 

[tom22406]

This group gets it

Oath Keepers, a national association of over 20,000 military, police, and first responders, is offering free instruction in self defense, including the use of firearms and other tools of self-defense, to all teachers and school staff in the United States. This initiative is in response to the recent tragic mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The volunteer instructors will be drawn from the member rolls of Oath Keepers in each state. Those instructors will be paired up with any teachers and school staff in the same state who contact Oath Keepers and request instruction. The organization pledges to keep their identity confidential, but will also offer group lessons or to come to the school to teach the staff on-site. Topics will include crime awareness and crisis minset training on how to effectively respond (and especially focused on mass-shootings), use of blunt objects and improvised objects for self-defense, use of knives, use of pepper spray, empty-hand defensive tactics (such as are taught in military combatives), and methods of disarming an attacker who is armed with guns or knives, as well as use of firearms. The first responders within the organization are being asked to volunteer to teach emergency first aid for serious trauma, including gunshot and knife wounds. Oath Keepers Founder, Stewart Rhodes, issued a statement: Children deserve to be defended. And the teachers and staff who are responsible for children during the school day deserve to know how to defend them – effectively, decisively, and at the very outset of an attack. And they deserve a fighting chance to defend themselves as well. It is not enough to tell them to sit tight and wait for the police to arrive. All too often, by the time the police get there, it is too late. Teachers and school administrative staff need the tools and training to put a stop to the killing themselves. We have a duty to provide that training. Many of our members within Oath Keepers have substantial training and experience from their time in the military, police services, and service as first responders. Many of our members also have substantial training in both armed and unarmed self-defense methods from their continued study after service, or in addition to the training received while in service. We are calling on them to step up and volunteer their time, at no charge to the teachers and school staff, to pass on that vital, valuable knowledge. Oath keepers is compiling a list of volunteer instructors in each state, that teachers and staff can select from. When a teacher or staff member contacts us, we will provide them with the contact information for the volunteer instructors in their area. They can then contact those instructors, and their identity will be kept strictly confidential. All instructors will sign a written confidentiality agreement to not disclose the identity of any teachers or staff who seek out instruction unless, and until they secure written permission from that particular student. The default will be complete confidentiality and non-disclosure of the identity of those seeking training, out of respect for their privacy. However, if a school district or school faculty desires to have group instruction, or on-site instruction, that too will be available. Stay tuned, and check back, for more details on the volunteer instructor program. Oath Keepers

 

[tommyGunZ]

You are a blind man preaching to the choir, the Harvard Lit Review was debunked on numerous angles, time for you to google up some other article to cling on to. You are not winning over any supporters here with your trumped up report ignoring glaring contradictions in countries like Russia and Brazil (2 of the top 10 countries by population) because they do not fit into your article's filter to showcase it's biased POV.

Ok, fella

Arent you the same guy that corrected Tommyboy for posting a link to data that was from 2003?Yet you post a secondary review of data from the early 90's as if it is the absolute truth. I have asked you twice now, but I will ask again. Have you even read what they reviewed?

I read it, and it wasn't persuasive in the least.

 

[timschochet]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

 

[Glass Joe]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What oath are the oath keepers keeping?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

 

[tom22406]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

 

[timschochet]

Teachers can do whatever they want in their spake time. But I don't want them bringing guns to school.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

 

[tom22406]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people.

2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

 

[timschochet]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people.

2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for posting this. Paranoid delusional crackpots. I don't want these guys anywhere near public schoolteachers.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people. 2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. 3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I just learned about this group ten minutes ago, but it seems to me that it is predicated on the paranoid fantasy that our government is going to turn against its people. But if you must know, #6 is my favorite.

 

[tom22406]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people.

2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for posting this. Paranoid delusional crackpots. I don't want these guys anywhere near public schoolteachers.

But you have no problem with them enforcing our laws and fighting wars for our country?I am certainly not saying that anything like that will ever happen in this country and to where those orders ever were given but I certainly do hope we would have more of our military and police thinking the same way IF it ever does.

And honestly.I didn't expect you to say anything else.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wikipedia Oath Keepers entry

Seem like crackpots.

Yeah nevermind they actually want to do any good here and teach people self defense both armed and un-armed.

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people.

2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.

3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.

4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.

5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.

6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."

9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.

10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

Oof - definitely crackpots. Based on these "oaths", sounds like these clowns would have refused Johnson's orders to go to Alabama in 1965.

 

[timschochet]

Tom, I wouldn't mind them thinking that way if it ever happened ( except perhaps for point #5, since I agree with President Lincoln on that one); I mind them thinking that way NOW. If there people who truly regard this list as distinct possibilities, enough to cause them to make such a vow, then yes I am not comfortable with them in any fort of safety position. They are crackpots.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Unwilling to give in to those who wish to control a minority group for "meaningful change" that doesn't change anything. Have the gun guys been asked to help with anything other than gun control which doesn't prevent crime?

 

[tom22406]

Tom, I wouldn't mind them thinking that way if it ever happened ( except perhaps for point #5, since I agree with President Lincoln on that one); I mind them thinking that way NOW. If there people who truly regard this list as distinct possibilities, enough to cause them to make such a vow, then yes I am not comfortable with them in any fort of safety position. They are crackpots.

Well I will say that I am all for training our teachers in self defense.Crackpots or not this is a very good idea and if you can't see that we will agree to disagree.

 

[Glass Joe]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Unwilling to give in to those who wish to control a minority group for "meaningful change" that doesn't change anything. Have the gun guys been asked to help with anything other than gun control which doesn't prevent crime?

You don't talk to a gun owner about how to deal with mental issues. That's why we have health care professionals. You talk to gun leadership about how to adjust gun policy. Or, as is the case with gun nuts - how to avoid adjustments to gun policy at all costs.

 

[Glass Joe]

Tom, I wouldn't mind them thinking that way if it ever happened ( except perhaps for point #5, since I agree with President Lincoln on that one); I mind them thinking that way NOW. If there people who truly regard this list as distinct possibilities, enough to cause them to make such a vow, then yes I am not comfortable with them in any fort of safety position. They are crackpots.

Well I will say that I am all for training our teachers in self defense.Crackpots or not this is a very good idea and if you can't see that we will agree to disagree.

And what happens when those kids are out of school, and visiting a museum with their parents? Or at a playground? In the end, your answer comes back to the same thing - arm everyone. In school, out of school, everywhere.

 

[tom22406]

Tom, I wouldn't mind them thinking that way if it ever happened ( except perhaps for point #5, since I agree with President Lincoln on that one); I mind them thinking that way NOW. If there people who truly regard this list as distinct possibilities, enough to cause them to make such a vow, then yes I am not comfortable with them in any fort of safety position. They are crackpots.

Well I will say that I am all for training our teachers in self defense.Crackpots or not this is a very good idea and if you can't see that we will agree to disagree.

And what happens when those kids are out of school, and visiting a museum with their parents? Or at a playground? In the end, your answer comes back to the same thing - arm everyone. In school, out of school, everywhere.

So your answer is to do what about protecting our kids in schools(which has been a huge target for these deranged killers)?I certainly never said arm everyone and never will.I don't want our teachers armed either but knowing self defense is a great idea and should be followed up on so please stop putting words in my mouth.I wanted trained professionals doing this work for safety,our teachers have enough to worry about already.

 

[tom22406]

Bill Clinton said this?

California senator Dianne Feinstein said in a press conference last week that President Clinton may be involved in helping Senate Democrats draft the gun-control legislation they plan to bring to the floor in the coming month. “Yesterday, President Clinton called and said if there’s anything he can do to help, he will do it,” she said.

Ironically, it was Clinton who, in 1998, spearheaded a program akin to the school safety initiative proposed by NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre on Friday, which was widely criticized by Democrats, that would put armed guards in schools across the country. The New York Times reported at the time:

"Two weeks ago, President Clinton announced a program called Cops in Schools, aimed at making it easier for school districts to get money to hire police officers in hopes of preventing the types of shootings that have resulted in the deaths of students and teachers in half a dozen schools in the last three years."

 

[Henry Ford]

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people. 2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. 3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I just learned about this group ten minutes ago, but it seems to me that it is predicated on the paranoid fantasy that our government is going to turn against its people. But if you must know, #6 is my favorite.

I'm not going to suggest that these people are sane, but to be fair, #s 2, 4, 7, and 10 have been known to happen in this country. And some people tried to get John Walker Lindh slipped in for #3.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Unwilling to give in to those who wish to control a minority group for "meaningful change" that doesn't change anything. Have the gun guys been asked to help with anything other than gun control which doesn't prevent crime?

You don't talk to a gun owner about how to deal with mental issues. That's why we have health care professionals. You talk to gun leadership about how to adjust gun policy. Or, as is the case with gun nuts - how to avoid adjustments to gun policy at all costs.

I already gave a suggestion to gun policy that doesn't encroach on any rights, but nobody said boo about it. Seems to me that the only discussion the anti-gun nuts want to have is how to restrict the people that follow the law. You antis like to rub our faces in our unwillingness to budge, but how many of our pro-gun links have you opened or read? I'll give you another shot. Try this. The only difference I've seen between the pro-gun stubbornness and the anti-gun stubbornness is that the pro-gunners have already been forced to give ground quite a few times.

 

[Glass Joe]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Unwilling to give in to those who wish to control a minority group for "meaningful change" that doesn't change anything. Have the gun guys been asked to help with anything other than gun control which doesn't prevent crime?

You don't talk to a gun owner about how to deal with mental issues. That's why we have health care professionals. You talk to gun leadership about how to adjust gun policy. Or, as is the case with gun nuts - how to avoid adjustments to gun policy at all costs.

I already gave a suggestion to gun policy that doesn't encroach on any rights, but nobody said boo about it. Seems to me that the only discussion the anti-gun nuts want to have is how to restrict the people that follow the law. You antis like to rub our faces in our unwillingness to budge, but how many of our pro-gun links have you opened or read? I'll give you another shot. Try this. The only difference I've seen between the pro-gun stubbornness and the anti-gun stubbornness is that the pro-gunners have already been forced to give ground quite a few times.

I read it the first time you posted. I wasnt compelled.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people. 2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. 3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I just learned about this group ten minutes ago, but it seems to me that it is predicated on the paranoid fantasy that our government is going to turn against its people. But if you must know, #6 is my favorite.

I'm not going to suggest that these people are sane, but to be fair, #s 2, 4, 7, and 10 have been known to happen in this country. And some people tried to get John Walker Lindh slipped in for #3.

How about orders to assassinate an American citizen living abroad without judicial review or even oversight?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

Good luck with that. This is exactly why we have a bill of rights.

 

[Henry Ford]

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people. 2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. 3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I just learned about this group ten minutes ago, but it seems to me that it is predicated on the paranoid fantasy that our government is going to turn against its people. But if you must know, #6 is my favorite.

I'm not going to suggest that these people are sane, but to be fair, #s 2, 4, 7, and 10 have been known to happen in this country. And some people tried to get John Walker Lindh slipped in for #3.

How about orders to assassinate an American citizen living abroad without judicial review or even oversight?

They appear to be okay with that.

 

[Stinger Ray]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

It is amazing that you want to try and blame responsible gun owners and call them crazy yet ignore the felons and thugs that are killing people with handguns everyday usually in areas with the strictest gun control laws.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

Good luck with that. This is exactly why we have a bill of rights.

I don't think the bill of rights is going to be threatened here, just as it's never been threatened by laws that prohibit you from owning a missile launcher or RPG.Just be prepared to hand over your arsenal soon. It's long past due.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

Good luck with that. This is exactly why we have a bill of rights.

I don't think the bill of rights is going to be threatened here, just as it's never been threatened by laws that prohibit you from owning a missile launcher or RPG.Just be prepared to hand over your arsenal soon. It's long past due.

Exactly what are you proposing that people "hand over?" RPGs? Sure. Automatic weapons? Okay. Semi-automatic handguns? Good luck.Edit: Aside from the obvious legal challenges, there is approximately a 0% chance of anything "drastic" garnering 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

It is amazing that you want to try and blame responsible gun owners and call them crazy yet ignore the felons and thugs that are killing people with handguns everyday usually in areas with the strictest gun control laws.

No one is ignoring them. We will continue to require law enforcement efforts to do a better job here. But, that's not the only problem.. The other problem is the "responsible" gun owners have been so irresponsible that non-felons and non-thugs are also killing people as well. And, there simply is way too much of this crap in circulation that it is now impossible for you police yourselves. We're going to start taking away your guns. Sorry if this doesn't pacify your hobby and/or paranoia. But, the time has come to find a new hobby and another way to manage your anxiety.

 

[toshiba]

So the US with the most guns per Capita

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

Leads all developed nations with gun related deaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpg

And some people think the answer is to arm everyone.

BRILLIANT

 

[cobalt_27]

I think the last post was an extremely unfair shot. Gun owners are as horrified about what happened at Newtown as anyone else.

...And completely unwilling to make meaningful change.If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Don't stereotype all guns owners as not wanting to make any meaningful changes.

Problem is enough of you guys won't. Which is why the decision ultimately will be made for you. We're long past the point of "responsible gun owners" self-regulating. There is simply too much product and irresponsibility out there now for modest change. It will have to be drastic. And the sad part is it will take decades of enforcement to bring about a safer environment the crazy gun people have created. But we have to start somewhere, and that somewhere is going to begin very soon with taking some of your guns away.

Good luck with that. This is exactly why we have a bill of rights.

I don't think the bill of rights is going to be threatened here, just as it's never been threatened by laws that prohibit you from owning a missile launcher or RPG.Just be prepared to hand over your arsenal soon. It's long past due.

Exactly what are you proposing that people "hand over?" RPGs? Sure. Automatic weapons? Okay. Semi-automatic handguns? Good luck.Edit: Aside from the obvious legal challenges, there is approximately a 0% chance of anything "drastic" garnering 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

What would make you think this? I haven't seen any polls that suggest public opinion is steadily moving in that direction.

 

[cobalt_27]

So the US with the most guns per Capitahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_countryLeads all developed nations with gun related deaths.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2012/12/firearm-OECD-UN-data3.jpgAnd some people think the answer is to arm everyone.BRILLIANT

Exactly. This is not a complicated situation, nor is the initial remedy. There are other factors related to mental illness, crime, etc. But, the way to reduce the threat is to do exactly the opposite of what that insane nut job, LaPierre, says we should do. He's living in a delusion, and his followers are part of a cult that simply can't be allowed to jeopardize our kids, our neighbors, or ourselves any longer.

 

[tommyGunZ]

That doesn't change the fact that they seem like crackpots.

Which one do you have a problem with and keep in mind these are active military and police saying they won't do these things if ordered?1.Orders to disarm the American people. 2.Orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people. 3.Orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal. 4.Orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state. 5.Orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty. 6.Any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps. 7.Any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext. 8.Orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control." 9.Any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies. 10.Any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

I just learned about this group ten minutes ago, but it seems to me that it is predicated on the paranoid fantasy that our government is going to turn against its people. But if you must know, #6 is my favorite.

I'm not going to suggest that these people are sane, but to be fair, #s 2, 4, 7, and 10 have been known to happen in this country. And some people tried to get John Walker Lindh slipped in for #3.

How about orders to assassinate an American citizen living abroad without judicial review or even oversight?

Tough issue. I've struggled with it the past couple years. Obviously it's dangerous precedent, and I'd love to see the internal controls that lead to such a decision.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

So what you're saying is that when the crazy NRA-types argue that sensible policy changes like requiring background checks on private sales are really just incremental moves toward confiscating guns, they're right?

 

[tommyGunZ]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

 

[cobalt_27]

I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

What would make you think this? I haven't seen any polls that suggest public opinion is steadily moving in that direction.

Neither have I, but I haven't seen any reliable polling data yet, either. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, there weren't any such data when the move came about to restrict tobacco use 10-15 years ago, either. Through strong leadership, though, the culture has changed with cigarettes, and use has dropped considerably. Drastically. And, quite frankly, that's as it should be. Politicians sometimes need to lead, as opposed to taking polls all the time to figure out which way the wind is blowing. i choose to believe, and sincerely hope, that the tragedy of Sandy Hook is a catalyst for change in a way that other tragedies before this unfortunately failed. I might be wrong. It may be more of the same. But, I don't think so.

 

[Jackstraw]

We have 5% of the worlds population and 40% of the worlds guns. One thing the gunneys will NEVER acknowledge is that proliferation of guns is at least an extremely strong correlation with gun violence. This is taboo to them. Thats the point I just can't get over.

We have 20 times more guns than any other society in the world and the problem is that we just don't have enough guns? Really? Come on man. It's ridiculous.

 

[cobalt_27]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

So what you're saying is that when the crazy NRA-types argue that sensible policy changes like requiring background checks on private sales are really just incremental moves toward confiscating guns, they're right?

Nope. Complete confiscation, no. This is the paranoia talking. But, there certainly has to be a lot more done than background checks. There's a lot more real estate to work with. And, if it's a concern on the NRA crazy people that there will be limited availability and much tighter restrictions on firearm possession, then yeah...that's where this ultimately is going. But complete confiscation? No way.

 

[cobalt_27]

Overnight, sure. That's a political reality of any drastic change. But, it starts modest and moves up from there. But, I suspect it will move swiftly and with a sense of urgency that in 5-10 years, gun ownership will be severely restrictive and that the product availability will be substantially diminished.

Long term, I think you're right, but no way is this going to happen in 5-10 years. We just had 20 6/7 yr olds mowed down, and the pro-gun crowd is fighting an assault weapons ban. Nothing has changed.Sad as it is, it's going to take a much larger incident for people to wake up and demand change. Something like 2-3 teenagers mowing down a couple hundred kids in a mall or a high school might do it.

Perhaps you're right. I might be optimistic on the timeline. But, I have little doubt the course of direction will change and start from a legislative perspective in 2013.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

We have 5% of the worlds population and 40% of the worlds guns. One thing the gunneys will NEVER acknowledge is that proliferation of guns is at least an extremely strong correlation with gun violence. This is taboo to them. Thats the point I just can't get over. We have 20 times more guns than any other society in the world and the problem is that we just don't have enough guns? Really? Come on man. It's ridiculous.

What you fail to realize is people own multiple guns. Just because there are 270 million guns for 312 million people, it doesn't mean 86% of our population own guns. Nor does it mean those guns are equally spread out across the U.S. Claiming we are saying, "we don't have enough guns" is not the same thing as "we object to taking away people's liberties to have the option to own a gun if we don't already own one or to take away guns we already own to make people feel better."