Iowa City schools won’t apply for federal grant
Authorities investigating possible connection between abduction cases
Iowa Legislature 2013 adjournment in sight, leaders say
Oklahoma tornado death toll currently 24, not 51, medical examiner says
Linn County casino campaign cost $3.43 million, final figures reveal
Is gun control debate appropriate in wake of Connecticut school shootings?
Related Stories
Parents leave a staging area after being reunited with their children following a shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., about 60 miles (96 kilometers) northeast of New York City, Friday, Dec. 14, 2012. An official with knowledge of Friday's shooting said 27 people were dead, including 18 children. It was the worst school shooting in the country's history. (AP Photo/Jessica Hill)
A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left at least 27 people dead, including 18 children.
According to reports, the gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was killed and apparently had two guns. A law enforcement official in Washington said the attacker was a 20-year-old man with ties to the school and that one of the guns was a .223-caliber rifle.
President Barack Obama spoke to Connecticut’s governor Friday and expressed condolences to those who lost loved ones in the elementary school shooting, the White House said.
Asked whether the shooting would make gun control a higher priority on the president’s agenda, Carney would say only that there would be a day for discussion on that policy issue.
“But I don’t think today is that day,” he said Friday.
What do you think? Is Friday’s school shooting an appropriate stimulus for renewed debate on gun control? Is it simply a matter of timing, or should the issue not be revisited?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Why would gun control come up? Or is the tenuous, correlation is causation, meme rearing its uninformed head?
Oh, think one debate concerning gun control is appropriate. Just not the debate that the drive-by media wants to discuss.
The appropriate gun control debate to have is to ask:
“How has the Gun-Free School Zone act passed during the Clinton era worked out?”
“Did we have more school shootings before or after the act became law?”
“Do these school shootings have a higher or lower number casulaties?”
Mr Williamson,
The names of those killed has been released and it’s on the net.
“Officials Release Names of Victims in Connecticut Elementary School Shooting” FOXNews.com 12/15/2012
Six adults
Four teachers, Principle, School Counselor
20 children, all ages 6 and 7
12 girls, 8 boys
You can look up their names and think about whether you would like to repeat what you just posted to the families of those people.
Galt,
You can’t keep crazy people with guns out of the schools—or anywhere else for that matter—if you can’t control the guns on the other side of the fence and you know it.
And FYI, the 1994 ban on assault weapons lapsed in 2004. Between 2004 and 2008, 163 Americans were killed by these previously banned weapons, 185 injured includiing 15 police officers dead and 23 injured. But I guess you knew that too
So Bell, once again, you reply to one of my posts without responding to any of the questions I asked. Instead, you launch right into one of your kneejerk leftist rants.
“You can’t keep crazy people with guns out of the schools—or anywhere else for that matter”
Exactly my point; since you can’t keep armed crazies out, at least not without metal detectors and armed guards, then it’s crazy to disarm all the victims inside. Crazy, or criminally irresponsible.
“—if you can’t control the guns on the other side of the fence”
Well, they are controlled. There are gun control laws in CT and nationwide. But, I’m pretty sure when you say “control the guns” you mean eliminate all civilian gun ownership.
“and you know it.”
I know it, you know it, did the folks who passed the law know it? And if they did know it (that it wouldn’t work in a country where they don’t “control the guns” to the extent that they and you would like), then why did they pass these laws, resulting in all this carnage? And why have they not admitted that their efforts failed? And why hasn’t the media quesitoned this?
“And FYI, the 1994 ban on assault weapons lapsed in 2004. Between 2004 and 2008, 163 Americans were killed by these previously banned weapons”
“Assault rifle” is a term with a specific meaning. The Sandy Hook shooter didn’t use or possess an assault rifle.
“Semi-automatic assualt rifle” is somewhat vague, and can mean a number of different things. According to one definition, the shooter had a semi-automatic assualt rifle with him, but did not use it.
“Assault weapon” is an essentially meaningless term invented by the gun grabbers. I don’t think the shooter had an assault weapon, but since an “assault weapon” is whatever the gun grabbers or the ban bill say it is, it is difficult to say whether he had one without looking at the bill.
The fact is, he used two semiautomatic handguns that he took from his mother’s house to kill the children and adults at the school. But even if they had been six-shot revolvers, the teachers, disarmed by the gun-free schools law, would have had no chance against them. Because rock beats scissors, scissors cut paper and guns defeat unarmed humans.
So the gun-free schools law passed in the Clinton administration was worse than useless; it allowed that crazy person to walk into the school knowing that he could kill as many people as he wanted, at least until a SWAT team showed up or he killed himself. And apparently you knew that too.
Galt
And the SWAT team did show up didn’t it.
Can you prove, do you have any evidence, that arming teachers and school staff would have stopped Adam Lanza?
What kind of weapons would you suggest elementary school staff have? M-16? How ’bout an M-60?
How much firepower would you suggest a kindergarten teacher carry in order to neutralize some nutjob bursting iinto her classroom spraying bullets like he was Rambo? How safe do you think it would be to have a loaded weapon around a bunch of little kids?
So Bell, rather than acknowledge, much less accept any responsibility for, the consequences of the policy of victim disarmament you and your vaunted Brady Campaign have pursued, you immediately start badgering anyone who points out your failure and demand that they come up with a one-size-fits-all solution (that you can attack like the demagogue you are). How cute.
But of course, the obvious difference between you and I is that I don’t assume any one person or organization is all-knowing and can prescribe a one-size-fits-all solution based on news reports. I’m not as arrogant as you, so I’m not going to do that. I just ask that the government respect the Constitutional rights of the people closest to the situation to allow them to come up with their own solutions.
My solution is freedom; returning to the people the freedom to pursue their own solutions. Because I have faith that while some people might occasionally make mistakes, they will learn from those mistakes and make the right choices for them and their situation. As opposed to having a central authority that restricts their freedoms, including the freedom to solve problems themselves, but never acknowledges its mistakes, much less accepts responsibility for them, much less rethink and abandon their failed policies.
There are some reasonable things that should be done regarding gun control. For example, close the gun show loophole that permits 40% of the guns sold in this country to be sold without a background check. There are other reasonable steps to be considered.
However, this is not the time. We rushed to pass some laws after 9/11 that could have been better thought out if we had been more patient.
You are not reasonable Greer. I’ve never been to any gun show in America that did not require a “background check”…….the same as any gun shop. Where is your proof?
“close the gun show loophole that permits 40% of the guns sold in this country to be sold without a background check.”
The gun in this school shooting was purchased by the perpetrators mother legally – no gun show loop hole there.
So you also support prosecuting the ATF and DOJ who are covering up the Fast and Furious crimes committed against the American people, specifically border agents, by the government?
“There are other reasonable steps to be considered.”
This is imaginary – the US could heat your house for a long time by burning one copy of all the gun control legislation we already have on the books. Stop thinking that legislation can solve this problem it can’t – its a mental health issue. Want proof – buy a gun – put it on your coffee table and watch it until it shoots somebody.
it seems to me that reasonable adults would be empathizing and mourning for the lost and their families rather than calling for legislation to further restrict law abiding citizens rather than addressing the criminal element.
No law abiding citizen needs a .223 semi-automatic Bushmaster or multi-round capacity magazines for any legitimate purpose other than 1) to quickly blow things away for entertainment such as hunting or target practice or 2) self defense. Since self defense can be accomplished with a handgun with one or two rounds this cancels out that reason for owning a semi-automatic Bushmaster or multi-round capacity magazines. I can hunt with a bow and arrow or a single action shotgun so that cancels out that reason for owning a semi-automatic Bushmaster or multi-round capacity magazines. As for owning a semi-automatic Bushmaster or multi-round capacity magazines for entertainment, it would entertain me very much if I could own a Tank to shoot too or TNT to blow-up things for fun- We as a society have agreed the need for public safety outweighs my right to own this things to entertain myself- why can’t we as a society come to the same agreement for owning some types of large capacity firearms?
I have no problem with law abiding citizens owning handguns with small capacity rounds because those cannot inflict as much damage if/when someone flips out and decides to use a gun to go on a mass casualty rampage and kill people. People will flip out, we cannot stop that. True, if they don’t have access to a gun they will use something else, but guns are easy to use in a “moment or rage” and inflict far more serious injuries on the victims than any other methods of hurting others that are easily accessible and/or carried out in a “moment of rage.” What we can do is insist our legislators make access to these “weapons of mass destruction” harder for potential FUTURE killer’s, who are currently law abiding citizens, to get their hands on.
Funny thing, David Stubbs, is that these increasingly common mass murders by gun, virtually all, if not all, were committed by “law abiding citizens” with no prior criminal record
Adam Lanza was just a weird shy kid who lived with his mother. Last time I checked being weird and shy and living with one’s mother is not a crime
If now is not the time, when is the time.
2012 marks a, shall we say, a high point in mass murder by gun. There have been more of these incidents this past year than in any year since President Kennedy was shot.
But this one is different. The victims were children, babies.This cannot be tolerated. This was not what was intended by the Second Amendment. This cannot be what was intended.
This is not a gun control issue. This is quite literally a health and safety issue. It is an issue of freedom from fear. When we cannot safely go to a shopping center, to work, to school, walk down the street in our own neighborhood, when we and our children are not safe anywhere, we cannot talk about freedom and liberty because we have none.
“This is quite literally a health and safety issue”
Freedom and Liberty are under assault by the Obama administration. Hilliary Clinton for the last four years is attempting a complete “back door” gun ban through a United Nations Small Arms Treaty. Daily Barrack in some form or other invokes hatred in this country by invoking bogus race baiting, division of classes, and intentional “fiscal cliff” malarky to get his own way. It’s not going to get better in this country but worse. With the rise of socialist liberalism there will be a corresponding rise in violent behavior.
Are you serious? This subject is no place for an anti Obama rant. It’s very sad to read an off subject comment likie this. We need some very constructive suggestions that go towards finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of these mentally sick people.
You obviously are NOT serious Deasy. What we don’t need is Obama getting on T.V. with fake tears setting the groundwork for his upcoming “gun agenda”. I guarantee some liberal hack post Christmas will propose rediculous new gun legislation attempting to take advantage of 20 dead children. In the interim go tell you communda thief in chief to go to Chicago where 5000 of his own brothers have died since 2001. Do us a favor and save the Conneticut photo to address the “real problem” of gun violence in America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html
Gun fatalities are a “Liberal Problem”. If you want violence just follow the liberal trail. Not hard to find…….and it’s coming to Cedar Rapids at record rates. Thirteen thousand in 2012 (See Gazette), mostly from Chicago, migrated from Illinoise to our state to take advantage of how should we say…..generous or liberal welfare policy. Give it another five years buddy boy and at this rate C.R./Iowa City will become a bloddy war zone.
That is a paranoid delusion the NRA is peddling to its members. Anyone that thinks they need firearms to protect themselves from their very own government- I would question their sanity and by extension their mental qualifications to own firearms because we all agree crazy folks shouldn’t own guns. Do you and the NRA think it is appropriate to intimidate and shoot duly elected government officials and police officers with guns if they enact/enforce polices that we personally disagree with? Basically your argument is if I don’t like the public policy decisions that the majority of citizens democratically elected to have put into place than I have a 2nd Amendment right to firearms to keep the government in check with firearms. You cannot win at the ballot box so you feel you have 2nd Amendment right to use weapons against duly elected leaders and other citizens who feel differently than you? That is what this crazy paranoid argument of yours boils down to.
These days other countries around the world have gun bans and their governments are kept in check by democratic elections. America also uses the electoral process to keep our own government in check, not guns. And the founders especially never intended the second Amendment for citizens to use arms against law abiding fellow citizens, that is what we use courts and the civil process for.
Considering I don’t belong to the NRA Pat Smith’s post is quite “delusional” lacking any logical reference regarding reasonable causes that promote violence in America.
“This cannot be tolerated. This was not what was intended by the Second Amendment. This cannot be what was intended.”
You’re right that this was not what was intended. The founders never intended that victims be disarmed in certain areas called “gun free zones” like sitting ducks with nothing to protect them. But the framers of the Constitution didn’t bring that about, your Brady Campaign buddies and the Clinton administration are responsible for that.
“when we and our children are not safe anywhere, we cannot talk about freedom and liberty because we have none.”
Which is one of the interpretations of the Second Amendment that is rarely discussed. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” can also be interpreted as meaning you can’t act like a free person, a person in a state of freedom, if you are prohibited from having the means of defending yourself.
To answer the rather narrow question, certainly it is appropriate to bring up the subject again, just as it was appropriate to bring up the subject of restoring capital punishment to Iowa in the wake of events that happened earlier this month. Neither of these subjects is truly settled in our present culture and discussion on either of them will inevitably flare up whenever a horrible precipitating event takes place.
I’m inclined to agree with Rich Greer, however- there is room for improvement in the current gun ownership laws. Most of the mass murderers over the past few years were known by someone (maybe just a single family member) to have mental problems in advance of their crimes. Maybe that knowledge, had it been made public, could have been translated into actions that would have prevented them access to a firearm- or maybe not… but it deserves a closer, objective look at it by our lawmakers.
Forget about gun control. Nothing is going to change. What happen in Newtown is just another day in America. It has happen in the past and will happen again in the future. I just pray and hope that I or my loved ones are not in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Certainly now is a good a time to have rational discussions regarding reasonable restrictions to one of our Constitutional Rights. Arguably, it’s been time for the discussion for a very long time. However, right now the fringies on both sides of the issue are shouting so loudly that reasonable/rational folks are having a difficult time hearing themselves, much less other perspectives.
Joe Stutler,
Who are the “fringies” on the gun control side of this debate. I’ve yet to hear anyone advocate sending out storm troopers to kick down doors, ransack people’s houses, and carry off anything that can shoot.
Now if you can come up with an example of a gun control “fringie” at least as “fringie” as some of the pro-gunners who post here, I’d appreciate it.
Roberta, I’m seeing comments in various forums advocating for all kinds of bans..from so-called “assault” weapons to hand guns, from eliminating virtually all carry permits to requiring all firearms to be registered. I’ve had to work on platform committee with folks from the People’s Republic of Johnson County who believe in banning all firearms.
Yep, there are fringies on both sides, often knowing or understanding little if any of the issues besides their own personal perspective. Ignorance coupled with arrogance will not further the conversation, nor allow for successful resolution.
I’m sorry, but you still haven’t identified the “fringies” and I’m not going to take your word for it. The very fact that you would dismiss Johnson County as the “People’s Republic” undercuts your argument because it puts you much further to the right than I think you intend.
On the other hand, I can only take what you say because I don’t know you
Tell the “People’s Republic of Johnson County” to get that total gun ban in Iowa City as soon as possible. Every rape, robber, and murdered will instantly migrate there from Cedar Rapids. That would be excellent for us.
This is not the time to talk about gun control or restoring the death penalty in Iowa. Laws made in reaction to specific events are usually flawed. Regarding gun control, you don’t have be able to purchase a gun to do something horrific like what happened in CT. You simply need access to guns. Someone who is planning something like this, isn’t going to worry about breaking a gun law. They could simply rob someone who has guns. The problem is bigger than gun control laws. It’s the underlying fabric of our society, whether it be mental health issues, coping skills, or simply personal accountability that needs fixed, and no amount of laws will fix that.
I essentially agree with your post especially the “The problem is bigger . . . ” Canada has a lot of gun ownership but little of the problem with the use of guns we have here.
That being said we need to avoid a knee-jerk reaction. School is probably one of the safest places for a child. When you consider the number of schools and number of children attending daily the likelihood of something like this happening to a particular child approaches zero — much less than riding in a motor vehicle, home incidents such as fires, schoolyard accidents, and on and on. One should be more concerned about an aircraft crashing into a school than something like this. ( A concern I do have is we might have a similar “copycat” incident. )
Mary Nelson,
You posted “Someone who is planning something like this, isn’t going to worry about breaking a gun law. They could simply rob someone who has guns”
As far as i know not a single one of these mass murders—starting with Charles Whitman in August of 1966—was committed using a stolen gun. In this case, the firearms used were owned by the shooter’s mother and were easily accessible in the house he shared with her. What appears to be the case is that Adam Lanza had mental health issues, had extreme difficulty dealing with people, and was probably suffering from depression. His mother has been described as a gun collector who enjoyed target shooting.
If his mother had had any sense at all, this would not have happened because she would have, should have had more sense than to keep guns and ammunition in the house where her emotionally unstable son could get at them. The chances that Adam Lanza would have stolen the guns he used, given his general timidity and dislike of contact with other people, are slim to none.
We can’t make all the sick, dysfunctional people in this world into the kind of well adjusted, happy, outgoing human beings who would never ever ever under any circumstances ever shoot themselves or anybody else. What we can do, however, is limit access to the kinds of weapons that make killing 27 people, most of them children in a kindergarten class, within a matter of seconds easy.
And FYI, we had one of these shootings in Iowa City Nov 1, 1991. A graduate student in Physics, within the space of about 10 minutes, shot and killed five people with a revolver he legally owned.
Easy access to weapons that are not appropriate for hunting, target shooting, or even self defense is what has killed far more Americans over the last ten years than were kiilled in Vietnam and all the wars we’ve been involved in since. It’s not the culture or our flawed natures or our bad tempers. It’s the guns.
And by way of contrast, about a week or so a crazy person broke into an elementary school in China and slashed and stabbed a teacher and twenty or so young children. Not a single person died or was even seriously injured in that attack.
I have to ask. w;hat firearms *are* “appropriate” for hunting, target/sport shooting, or self-defense? Also, what is your background regarding firearms that would make your POV one that should be given any merit vis a vis firearms utility?
Mr Sutler,
There are 20 children, ages 6 and 7, who are dead. Four teachers, a principle, and a school counselor who are dead because Adam Lanza had easy access to, among other weapons, an AR-15 Bushmaster .223 semi automatic rifle and 30 round clips.
You tell me what kind of animal you would need a gun like that to hunt. You tell me under what circumstances a weapon like that would be appropriate for self defense.
The AR-15 is a millitary assault rifle modified so that it can be legally sold to civillians. It is designed to kill people, not rabbits, not pheasants, not deer. So what do you hunt with it.
It cannot be conceal carried. It cannot be tucked under your pillow. It cannot be kept at ready in case of your standard unexpected home invasion. So what are you defending yourself against with a firearm like that.
I think it’s time for people like you to justify the need for weapons like that instead of people like me justifying why they are dangerous and shouldn’t be available to the general public
First off, I have never purchased a gun at any gun show where I did not have to show proof of Identity and a permit to purchase. I didn’t even have to show proof of identity to vote.
All of these heinous crimes are committed in gun free zones. Schools, parks, churches, malls and workplaces that do not permit anyone the ability to defend themselves or prevent the death of another. Most are committed by a criminal with an illegally obtained weapon. Law abiding gun owners have given up their fingerprints voluntarily without ever breaking any law. We are trained and educated and practice safe weapon handling and secure storage.
Maybe it is time we arm the principals, custodians and or teachers. Israel is the most dangerous place on earth and killings are a daily ritual but they do not have school shootings. Why? All of their teachers are armed. Chicago is the deadliest city in our area but is the ONLY city to ban the ability to defend oneself. That has recently been over turned by the Federal Court system and they have less than 180 days to come up with a method to allow citizens the right to carry and defend themselves. Argue open carry or concealed carry all you want.
Our Sheriff, just this week, admitted that as the gun permits to purchase and licenses to carry have gone up, gun crime has gone down. THAT is why our legislature adopted the newest carry laws in Iowa. If we make less gun free zones for criminals to have fish in a barrel to shoot at we will have a safer community.
There is a trial going on in Linn County where an innocent child was killed. No guns were involved. We should all get inviolved in changing the culture where this is becoming more common and not just blame the easy scape goats.
Every gun owner that I know and have heard from is saddened and hurting for the families of the children and their school staff that were senslessly killed in CT. We own and carry to defend not to offend.
God be with all our children.
guess what I found Mr fb–1000,
Two second google search
Northeastshooters.com
11/26/2012
“Gun Control in Israel”
“Despite militarized society, Israel has strict gun laws”
from web site jta.org/news/article/2012. ..-violence-down
“Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year.
Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol”
Plus I don’t know where you got the information that these kinds of shootings are committed by criminals with illegally obtained weapons. If you can find a mass murder of the type that happened this past Friday committed by a criminal with a stolen weapon I’d like to know about it.
Roberta, what do the gun laws in Israel, have to do with the teachers being armed there? The very apparent truth is,allowing the teachers that desire to carry a gun, the ability, schools would be safer. If people want to be safe they are going to have to take a personal initiative. The govt is not designed to accomplish it.
BTW the guns used in CT yesterday were stolen. Defined as– taken from the owner without their consent. Same with Columbine
Mr Williamson, teachers are not armed in Israel. The Israeli government does not allow armed civilians to run loose unsupervised. They’ve got enough to worry about without turning their country into the kind of mess we have to deal with here
By the way, have you discussed this arm the teachers idea of yours with actual teachers or police officers or other first responders. Do you have any idea what they might think about it.
And no, the guns that Lanza used were not stolen. He had his mother’s permission to use them They apparently went target shooting together.
You go through the long long long long list of mass murders by gun over the last forty some years and what you are going to find is that virtually all, if not all, the guns used were either legally owned by the shooter or, in the case of children, legally owned by the shooter’s parents.
Point being is that people who think they just gotta have an arsenal in the garage and are sloppy about access and safety are, if they are not doing the shooting themselves, are enabling those who do.
A few points to clarify my opinion:
1) The guns were stolen. Permission to use them during supervised target practice, is NOT permission to use them to shoot the owner and others. In general laws are designed to deter behaviors. People break laws due to ignorance, mental illness, or the desire of the action is stronger than the fear of consequences. They don’t stop people from committing crimes, they just outline the expected punishments.
2) I never said all people should be happy, go lucky people , but the stigma society has placed on mental illnesses may have stopped his mother from getting him treatment to help him (and her) cope with his illness. It’s just a guess from the coverage of the family dynamics.
3) It doesn’t take a genius to modify a hunting rifle to do what you want it to do. I am sure there are a few hundred YouTube videos out there along with google searches, etc.
There have always been good and bad people. Today we hear about every bad occurrence, but rarely do we hear the good side of society and their accomplishments. Drama sells!. Each horrific incident is repeatedly rehashed in every possible angle by media. Yearly vigils are publicized to commemorate tragedy, and laws are named for victims, but how many people actually devote time and their personal resources to help eliminate the root causes?
Bottom line is that society has evolved and not necessarily for the better.
I think, Mary Nelson, that the reason you insist that the guns Adam Lanza used were stolen is that you don’t wish to deal with the fact that Adam Lanza, by standard definition, was not a criminal.
People who commit these kinds of murders profile out as white, male, middle-class, often relatively privileged, no prior criminal record, no history of mental illness. There are exceptions, but for the most part, it’s the kid next door.
They are not monsters. They’re ordinary people with access to the kind of weapons that make these kinds of murders easy.
Yesterday, today, tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year would all be good times to discuss gun control.
No one needs ro possess an assault rifle unless he is bent on killing several prople at one time. Now is the time to screen those in possession of these types of weapons for mental stability and remove these weapons if any problems are noticed.
Anyone who believes stricter gun control laws will prevent this has apparently forgotton the massacre of sixty nine youth at Utøya, Norway. Norway has no second amendment and guns are very very, closely regulated. I’m afraid that for a very determined and very evil person there will always be a way.
Amdahl
Breivik legally purchased a .223 caliber Ruger Mini 14 in Norway. He purchased 10 30 round clips for it from the US via the internet
Agreed that very evil people with find a way to do their very evil deeds. On the other hand, Norway’s strict regulations do not interfere with hunting, which is a popular sport, but have managed to successfully prevent the kind of mayhem we are expected to accept as “normal”. As horrific as last year’s killing spree was, it’s the only mass murder by gun that’s happened in Norway since the end of WW II
Statistics,
Got these from the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence web site:
94,473 people suffered gun shot thus far in 2012
Yearly average:
12,200 homicides; 44,500 injured in assaults; 68% of homicides are committed with guns
17,352 suicides (2007); another 3,013 survived suicide attempt
accidental
613 (138 children) dead (2007)
18,610 (3,997 children) injured (2009)
legal self defense
230 dead
It’s gotten to the point where more people are killed or injured each year by guns than are killed or injured in automobile accidents
It’s also easier to legally own an assault weapon than it is to legally drive a car
We need automobiles. We don’t need guns
“It’s also easier to legally own an assault weapon than it is to legally drive a car”
The above is a completely false and misleading statement.
I apologize for hitting the wrong key and submitting the last comment before tying it up.
I was saying that there are enuff semi-automatic weapons for sale now and in citizen’s possesion to arm every single adult in the USA. Banning the ability to purchase new ones is futile in stopping the misuse of any.
Your passion and objectives would be best directed at causes and profiling in order to prevent these senseless tragedies. We all wish to never see a tragedy of this kind again. Let’s all agree on that.
So what is your solution? Give up? There is nothing we can do so we might add well accept this is how we want kids to be oun America? Do you think everyone in our society should arm with the same firepower to protect themselves since there are already too many out there? MORE GUNS? That sounds like the Cold War Race mentality (a recipe for mutual destruction.) I don’t think simply giving up and accepting it is the answer. Nor do I think more guns in our society is the answer.
It will take time, but America can get them out of circulation . Other counties that have put bans on assault weapons have been very successful in getting them out of circulation. These countries offered an amnesty period for citizens to turn them in. During that time law abiding citizens turned them in. Then once that amnesty period has expired anyone that still had possession of one is considered in violation of the law- therefore no longer a law abiding citizen. If person is caught in possession of one of them after the amnesty period he is criminally charged and no longer allowed to own ANY types of firearms because he would have a firearms violation on his record. That is how you solve that problem.
Pat Smith’s solution is to turn this nation into a total socialist dictatorship. More people have died both domestically and abroad due to hard core liberal policy makers (dictators) than will ever die by guns. It may take time but we can preserve our constitution and ship those who oppose it off to Siberia as well.
News Flash for you, David, it’s also Rupert Murdoch
Businress Insider 12/15/2012
Rupert Murdoch: ‘When will Politicians Find Courage to ban automatic weapons’”
“We have to do something about gun controls. police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or psycho record. No more”
Or are you going to dismiss him as a liberal socialist dictator who should be shipped off to Siberia.
‘“We have to do something about gun controls. police license okay for hunting rifle or pistol for anyone without crim or psycho record. No more”
The above is another completely false and misleading statements. Police do not license guns to pathological liars.
Mr Ahart, you do know who Rupert Murcoch is, don’t you. Or maybe you really don’t
Roberta,
Thank You for proving my points.
This CT killer was a multiple felon before he ever shot one innocent child in the school. He was a minor in possession of handguns. He had murdered his mother and stolen her guns. He comitted a brake in and then began the school shooting. He was a criminal.
Israel’s citizen’s do an awful lot of killing each day in spite of their laws then,
The Teachers are trained government employees and are legally carrying as required. I bet their students show some respect in class, too.
If we take the Brady campaign as an expert we should listen to M.A.D.D. statistics and ban the vehicles that kill most. Maybe it’s just the green ones?
That sounds so ludicrous but is a good example of misguided well meant objectives. If more drunks drive Chevy’s then let’s get them cars off the road and to the scrap pile. Dismantle them, crush them. Drunk driving problem solved. No drunk will get in another brand and kill again.
My AR-15′s do not make me a killer. I don’t even hunt. I only shoot paper targets and occasionally a pumpkin or two that might tick me off. Heck, I own one that has never even been loaded less alone shot. It is in a safe and only my 75 year old parent’s have the backup code. It won’t run out and hurt anyone. It does not change my character or beliefs in right and wrong.
Mr fb 1000,
What points?
I have no idea what you are trying to say in your post.
I have Israeli friends. Teachers in Israel, in fact civilians in general, are not armed. I don’t know where you got that information but it is completely false. .
My question to you is why do you need multiple AR-15′s. I honestly don’t understand why anyone would want a collection of military style assault rifles in their house. What for?
In case anyone is interested, the weapon used in Connecticut was a .223 Bushmaster semi automatic rifle which is an AR-15. The AR-15 was originally developed as a military weapon and was the prototype for the M-16. The AR-15 was modified to get around the ban on civillians owning military weapons, specifically military assault weapons. It is an extremely dangerous weapon that makes killing a lot of people quickly very easy.
Just last night, shortly before midnight there was a home invasion in Cedar Rapids. A woman with her three kids inside huddled in a bedroom, fearing for the worst. Luckily, CRPD arrived on scene as the criminal began braking thru the bedroom door and prevented further harm. Medics were called to the scene to treat one child’s panic attack.
These things happen HERE.
Years ago, LEO carried revolvers and shotguns. As criminals got a hold of bigger and better weapons LEO adapted theirs. Then Oakland happened.
The bank robbery where a monster was seen walking down the sidewalk being only slowed down by multiple shots bouncing off his ballistic armor.
LEO had to run to a pawn shop and borrow AR-15′s to penetrate the armor.
Many of these mass killers are wearing body armor and the old hunting guns are ineffective in bringing them down. LEO has since made the AR-15 standard issue along with the Glock 45 semi automatics.
If a civilian wishes to protect their family from the same criminals it requires the same weapons. If you want to face off with a killer carrying your Daisy BB Gun that is your choice. I want the ultimate force needed to stop any attacker from accomplishing his intent. If they make it thru my security they will get met with the same firepower and stopping ability as they possess.
These long guns are more difficult to hide on oneself and I honestly would rather the chance be there that someone eyes a long gun being carried into a school, church, mall etc than the criminals slip in undetected carrying multiple pistols or magazines and speed loaders for such.
The reason more people have not been killed in the past shootings is that the long guns jammed. The Aurora shooter threw his against the building in disgust and gave up his plan for the final shootout with LEO at his car. We cannot count on defective guns saving more lives. We must be better, or at least as well, armed as the criminals.
There are currently 10, 20 and 30 round 12 gauge shotguns on the market so killers will easily change their weapons but still carry out their massacres.
They also can change methods and chain doors shut and burn down buildings with victoms inside never needing a gun in hand. Banning any weapon just makes them get creative and the video games are already teaching any of them how best to inflict the most damage. We had young men in Linn County make pipe bombs a few years ago. Gun bans may feel good but will do little.
I hope all the energy expelled on gun hatred will be redirected to find new ways of securing buildings, preventing crime and protecting individuals, especially our children.
A small caliber weapon will not penetrate body armor that these latest shooters are wearing. Only the .223 or .556 rounds and such will stop them.
If you do not allow ownership of the guns to stop the kiling you are enabling more killing.
With regards to amnesty…are you prepared for the billion dollar tax increases to pay for the buy back program? Or are you suggesting that all of us who legally have spent thousands of dollars on our collections just give them up and lose our original investment and any occured profits? Guns can out pace gold in growth, especially if there is a ban enacted.
Surely you would not condone our government taking your stock portfolio from you or removing your Elvis record collection without compensation.
A .22 rifle that every farm kind in Iowa grew up with can kill just as many if in the “wrong” hands. A magazine that only holds ten rounds just means the shooter must buy a few more magazines. It only takes the time of ONE shot to swap out magazines. 200 victims drops to 180? That’s great if you are one of that 20 but I think you can realize the point.
Which guns to ban and any restriction is at best a feel good measure.
Civilians can legally get all the bomb making ingredients now to replace small bullets with building crumbling explosions. Lawn fertilizer can be turned into an explosive very easily. Google it. Scary how uninformed we are as to the actual dangers out there.
IF gun owners knew that a gun ban would stop all the crime and killings I am sure we would give them up. We know it won’t so oppose any feel good ban.
Alcohol consumption is not protected by the Constitution. Perhaps banning it would go much further towards slowing criminal activity and sensless harm being inflicted on others. Oh yeah, It was tried before and that didn’t work either.
Spend your anti gun efforts on stopping what can be prevented.
Find better solutions to security, mental health issues, societal acceptance and the culture that is increasingly violent.
With regards to you comment about small caliber not piecing body armor so you need .223 or .556, most gun owners today don’t have those because the need to defend yourself against body armor is not the norm in most self defense situations. In the Sandy Hook case would you suggest the answer would have been for the teachers to be armed with .223 or 226 in the classroom to properly defend against it. Do you suggest all citizens need to upgrade and increase their armament to be effective against body armor? Again, you answer is: ‘MORE!! WE NEED MORE GUNS POWERFUL IN AMERICANOT LESS.’ I’m sorry but your solution to the problem completely backwards. We need to de-escalate, not escalate (ie not fall into the Cold War mentality) The amount of guns in America has increased and so has the gun violence.
With rearguards to amnesty, we could temporality redirect a potion of the military’s multi Billion dollar budget to buy the military style assault rifles from citizens instead of the govt buying from the arms manufactures during the amnesty period. We don’t have to purchase them for the full price and could just give a percentage of the original price or the guns current market value. We would still let law abiding citizens own small caliber firearms, ie hunting riffles, shotguns, handguns, 10 round magazines or less, etc
.22 rifles are not military style assault rifles and victims shot with them have a higher probability to live. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of good enough. I don’t contend my suggestions are going to solve all gun violence, but MY GOD man we have to do SOMETHING to at least limit it!! This CANNOT continue!!
In regards to bomb making, I tried to touch on that in my post above about “moments of rage” But, I will go into further detail. The perpetrators of these acts are not making bombs to carry out these most of these mass killings, they are using guns. Why? Because guns are easy to get their hands on and quick to use when a person is mad at the world. Making a bomb takes time, and has more likelihood of being seen and stopped before the carnage can take place. By the time a person gets the material together he may be discovered or have a change or heart. Also the perpetrator has to collect materials, place the materials in the place he/she wants to blow up, and hope their targets are at the place when the bomb goes off. Guns are much more efficient and effective than the type of bombs that civilians can easily make.
Gun control is a factor, and if you are honest with yourself you will see that too. I don’t kid myself that there are indeed other issues at work too besides just gun control. I agree this problem equally has to do with mental health issues, the accepting of violence in today’s culture, and the ease of high powered assault guns. The problem is a convergence of all of these factors, and a suitable solution will need to address all of these factors, not just trying to blame it on one or two.
This has worked well for over four years. Is it possible to have a discussion?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,404721,00.html
That is completely absurd policy to deal with this problem. A teachers job is to teach not be armed security guards. If you want more guns in school put more security officers in the schools whose job I to focus on security- Let the teacher focus on teaching. Teachers were not armed when I went to school, and I will not accept that they need to be armed today. Teachers should not be expected to be trained to use guns as a requirement to teach math English, spelling to their first graders. The thought of you suggesting a nice feeble 60 year old grade-school teacher can physically handle, let lone be skilled with a gun as part of her job to teach kids math or English is not the kind of America I want to live in. More guns in schools will lead to more gun accidents, unless you put more trained law enforcement security officers in schools.
Pat, why absurd? Or is the idea just rejected because it would make 5 year olds safer? Without advancing a purely symbolic, yet wholly ineffectual policy of restricting individual freedom.
Do your know, or even care that after 9-11-2010 we lifted the ban on guns in plane cockpits? Do you know or even care, that wide spread carnage has not resulted? Because the bad guys dont know IF the pilots are armed? Unlike you I believe that even if a person has a teaching degree, they can also do the very human thing of caring for and protecting their charges without hampering their ability to educate them?
But for you,seeking a solution is of no interest, Only advancing an agenda is a consideration.
Your wild assumptions are laughable.
A sixty year old female is incapable of using a gun?Feeble teacher? Really? What a wild and clueless statement.
More guns in schools will lead to more gun accidents? Care to share your evidence? Or more wild conjecture?
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2012/12/17/county-police-chief-recommends-arming-school-personnel/#.UM-_tXIJuM8.twitter
Mr. Lanza was already a criminal before he went to the school.
“But investigators told NBC News that Lanza first killed his mother, an avid gun enthusiast, with her own gun and then took multiple weapons with him as he drove to the school in her car.”
I’ve had the news on virtually non-stop ever since this happened and I’m done with discussion, done with finding a middle ground. There is no middle ground.
The gun Adam Lanza used was an AR-15 Bushmaster .223 semi automatic which is a version of the M-16 and just about as deadly. It was the same rifle used by the DC Sniper (2002, 10 people dead over a three week period). Do a google and you’ll find that it is commonly referred to as an assault rifle. Not a hunting rifle. An assault rifle
“The Weapon of choice-Bushmaster AR-15 Assault Rifle”
quote:
“Bustin’ a few caps 4 ya semi-auto style. There is a reason that the AR-15 assault rifle is the weapon of choice for many gun owners worldwide. It’s one badass gun!
The AR-15 and the M-16 have the same caliber and everything else is the same except for the receiver and the internal parts of the receiver; connector, disconnector, bolt, etc. The AR-15 is the civilian version and the M-16 is the military version.”
Adam Lanza busted into that school through a locked door with that gun and shot and killed 26 people in the space of a couple three minutes. Victims were shot multiple times with bullets designed to break apart and turn the victim’s insides into hamburger. There is no way a six year old child is going to survive being hit with one of those.
Lanza had 30 round clips and enough ammunition to kill every single person in that building. If he had chosen to fight it out with the police instead of killing himself, first responders would have been among the dead.
That AR-15 and the ammunition were legally purchased, kept in his home, easily accessible.
This is insane. Civilians have no business owning a weapon like that. No business with ammunition like that.
None
.223? AR15? At this point it doesn’t matter. Killing is killing and it’s only just begun. The America we all once knew doesn’t exist anymore. You will get your socialist/marxist state. Rename the country Obamika for all i care. I won’t be around. Good luck to all you Bill Ayer wanna bees.
I would like to hear some ideas that would address this. So far none have been offered. So lets start with real ideas.
The debate is really not about guns. but a society that has so devalued human life that people like this are numb to their own actions.
…faith is not a threat to civil society but rather vital to its survival. It encourages the individual to personally adhere to a dogma that promotes restraint, duty, and moral behavior, which not only benefit the individual but the multitudes and society generally. As George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable results… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion”
“If rights are granted or rationed by the state, they are no longer God-given and our society is built upon the shifting sand of the state’s interests. And if religion can be cast aside because it does not fit the values of the statist, then the government’s dogma becomes the state religion– a religion that demands adherence and primacy over all others. Again– we have two choices– liberty or tyranny.”
http://www.barnabasministry.com/review-levin-liberty.html
Well Bill……….one of the best ideas came right from this board. Let’s compromise. Take one city and one county in each state and impose a complete gun ban like they did in Chicago and Washington D.C.. Make sure that city is the most Liberal. In Iowa that would be Iowa City. After five years of skyrocketing rape, murders, and robberies then, and only then, will the anti gunners be ready for effective debate. Put up the sign “NO GUNS HERE” and see what happens.
Nice try but that will not work, and has not worked in the places you mentioned because people simply purchase their guns in a neighboring community that doesn’t ban them and then transport the guns to communities that have bans. To counteract the transportability of guns, a ban would have to be instituted in all communities not just select communities. Glad I could clear that up for you.
But to be clear I am not suggesting there should be a total gun ban in any community- I am being REASONABLE and you should try that too!! I am only suggesting we should only ban civilians owning military style assault riffles and large capacity magazines. I have no problem with law abiding citizens in any community owning or publicly carrying handguns with 6 or less rounds for self defense purposes- that is reasonable. A military style assault rifle with 30 rounds is not reasonable for self defense.
Pat Smith, I agree with you. The idea that the way to protect our schools from people like Adam Lanza is to arm elementary school teachers with military assault weapons and make them wear bullet proof vests is simply preposterous.
The way to protect our schools from the likes of Adam Lanza is to make it as difficult as possible for people like Adam Lanza to get their hands on the weapon he used.
Teachers are supposed to be teachers. They are not supposed to be military personnel in a war zone.
If we could ban Thompson machine guns back in the 1930s as a dangerous escalation of the arms race between law enforcement and the bad guys, we can ban assault weapons, Starting with the ammunition. Make the ammunition difficult to impossible to get and prohibitively expensive. Turn those guns into door stops.
End of discussion.
Except to point out that Nancy Lanza had guns in her house, knew how to use them, and it didn’t save her.
to Pat,
if it was that simple we would all give up our home defense ballistic weapons BUT when your 6 rounds bounce off the bad guy who is wearing an armored vest then what? Throw the constitution at him or the ten commandments?
It is illegal to brandish or openly carry any long gun in public and should be.
One Marion gun store sold out of 300 magazines and the guns were flying off their shelves today. The more the talk is of a ban the more who will rush to purchase or get orders in before a ban goes into effect. All this over reaction is making some business owner’s rich. It’s all good considering our failed economic practices of late. What is out there in gun safes now, what is in the gun stores to purchase now, what is manufactured now and up until a ban is re-enacted will all still be available to sell and purchase. Even parts can be assembled into a working weapon. Another ban will be futile as in the past, just like unarmed teachers or administrators.
One gun store owner was overheard to say “Hate me or the guns…cash or charge?…next.”
Now let’s figure out how to make the school buildings safer, the mentally disturbed more detectible, the cuture less violent and it not benefit the perpetrator’s purpose to cimmit these violent acts with ANY mode of weapon.
Here is some information of the Australian experience.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/17/australia-gun-reform-buyback-us-national-firearm-agreement/1774549/
And regarding some falsehoods spread regarding the results:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/
This thread has devolved into a big pile of …useless drivel.
Mr Ahart wants to use the forum for a platform for his predictable, lame, typical rants against Obama. Whether he’s racist or an uber-conservative or just an uninformed and self-righteous birther is debatable. Thus far, on this thread, as on many others, he contributes nothing but bile. There’s enough of that going around already.
Ms. Bell wants to use the forum to push her anti-conservative agenda. In certain subject areas she comes across as an SME (subject matter expert), and her knowledge of civil rights issues do lend some great insight…but on this issue, she’s even eating her own simply because of differences in perspective. I’ve yet to hear her discuss anything on this issue with first-hand understanding of firearms, much less the Constitutional Rights that some of us actually put our very lives on the line to preserve.
There are a few others that think arming teachers is a great idea. They don’t know teachers. There are some who advocate some Israel model. They don’t even understand what that entails. Mostly it’s just “your wrong”, and “no, you’re wrong” rants with little real ideas that might serve to further the much-needed conversation.
Worst of all is The Gazette itself. The moderation on this, and most topics, is worse than useless. Not only is it not being done in a timely manner, but it doesn’t seem there’s even any moderation at all…just long delays before whatever borderline-insane rant passes on through. Someone is getting paid to do the job. Waste of money.
Ahart. you clearly don’t know diddly, and your only agenda is to hate on the POTUS and anything that doesn’t mesh with Fox News talking points. Bell, you clearly don’t know diddly about firearms, and your only agenda seems to be to push whatever even MSNBC considered to be too radical lefty to support. Gazette, well, it’s your forum. You own it. You’re responsible for it. It sucks. But then, your “Insight” page shows stale interviews with has-been candidates and other long-past-prime links, while none of the other pages even allow for discussion anymore. Way to create your own irrelevance.
These three pieces are what is wrong with the discussion of the issue. They’re great examples of just why the issue will not be addressed in our nation, more people will needlessly die, families will cry, and we will continue to devolve.
Merry Whatever.