Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Gun Permits: What The Latest Mass Killings Have In Common stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

DEBORAH HASTINGS | 04/ 7/09 07:43 PM | AP

I Like ItI Don’t Like It
FILE - This file image provided by News 10 Now in Syracuse, N.Y. on Monday April 6, 2009 shows Jiverly Wong's gun permit. A letter that included three photos, a gun permit and Wong's driver's license was mailed to News 10 Now and postmarked Friday April 3, the day Wong killed 13 people before taking his own life in the American Civic Association community center in Binghamton, N.Y. There have been seven rampages that have claimed 53 lives since March 10 in this country, and nearly every gunman in this month-long series of mass killings was legally entitled to wield the weapons he opened fire with. (AP Photo/News 10 Now)

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.

So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren't getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts "to pass any similar law."

Gun control issues would only produce "a long and divisive fight," they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.

A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol _ where legislators can carry guns _ bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn't have signs saying guns weren't allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon _ there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas _ to bring guns on campus.

Story continues below

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right. In Tennessee, lawmakers made progress this month toward allowing guns to be carried in state and local parks.

"I think you're seeing a continuing change of culture," Vogel said. "I think the gun lobby wants to take away any stigma to gun ownership. I think they feel emboldened, like who's going to stop them?"

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws. "Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It is time for families and communities to grieve and to heal," it said in a prepared statement.

Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak _ just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts _ whether they have a gun permit or not. And studies conflict on whether stricter gun laws lessen gun violence.

On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said. Earlier that day, the ethnic Chinese immigrant from Vietnam mailed an envelope to a Syracuse television station. In it were his gun permit, photos of him smiling while hoisting shiny, big handguns, and his driver's license.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong's Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

"In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun," said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. "No one likes to see things fall through the cracks and it looks like this guy fell through the cracks."

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong's gun permit.

In New York City, gun permits are reissued every three years.

Yet, regulations differ only slightly between states, Chamberlain said. "They're fairly typical _ don't be a felon, don't be a drunk, don't beat your kids or your wife. Don't be so mentally unbalanced that you need be in an institution."

To Chamberlain, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time.

"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."

To Vogel, the answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.

The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.

"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."

They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
They had more in common than unleashing carnage _ nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons. So what does that say about the state of gun ...
Loading...
 
Report Corrections
 
Comments
3796
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (41 pages total)
- Boboday555 I'm a Fan of Boboday555 130 fans permalink
photo

I know NRA members have small members but this is ridiculous!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:54 AM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 22 fans permalink

Please explain your statement. What do you mean by "small members"?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 04/08/2009
- Portnoy I'm a Fan of Portnoy 16 fans permalink

LOL! Maybe you can draw Dimensio a picture!

Here is how you talk in Demensio's world: Hussein Obama is coming to get you! Put you in camp. Commie behind you! Glen Beck. Hillary in a pant suit. New World Order. Your neighbor is a solicalist because she works for a non-profit. The lady over there is a lesbian becasue she has short hair!

Have fun at your little tea party! I'll be there are no more than 10 people that show up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:10 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

Let your mind wander a bit and you'll get it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:11 AM on 04/08/2009
- Glocksf21 I'm a Fan of Glocksf21 20 fans permalink
photo

at least we have em. Bob o day

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

Question................what do you think about the folks that are out in the woods preparing for the "inevitable race war". Namely white supremacist organizations. Should we be protecting the right to prepare to kill fellow Americans? What would we have if the race that they are preparing themselves against start to feel threatened and decide to do the same thing?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 04/08/2009
- DMEEPhD I'm a Fan of DMEEPhD 4 fans permalink

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, as passed by the Congress, reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Putting aside all arguments as to whether a 'well regulated Militia' constitutes a national guard or a private citizen, one thing is clear: the term "Arms" is not defined.

Now, if one allows for advances in technology beyond the Brown Bess and muskets, it can be seen that modern guns fall under the definition of 'arms.' However, there is no basis under which the Constitution does not allow for the Judicial branch or the Legislative branch to define 'arms.'

This does not preclude a ban on 'arms' that were designed and built for only one purpose: the taking of human life. Those sort of weapons belong in the hands of a 'well regulated Militia' which an individual is not usually defined as being.

Certain restrictions on our Rights as given by the Constitution are in place all around us. Prohibition was repealed, but there are limits on the percentage of alcohol in beers and wine. We have the Freedom of Speech, but not the right to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. We have the right to vote, but not until we've reached the age of majority.

Banning assault weapons, whose only purpose is assault, does not infringe on the 2nd Amendment.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:51 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

Well said.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

I agree.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 22 fans permalink

Your assertion regarding "assault weapons" is demonstrably false. "Assault weapons" is a nebulous class of firearms that is frequently redefined as ill-informed legislators propose or enact firearms restrictions. Many popular hunting and recreational target shooting rifles are often classified as "assault weapons"; as an example, the "AR-15" rifle platform, initially marketed as a hunting rifle for ranchers and now one of the most popular -- if not the most popular -- target rifles in the United States, was classified as an "assault weapon" by the now expired 1994 federal "assault weapons ban", even though the functionally identical Ruger Mini-14, which fires the same type of ammunition with the same accuracy and muzzle velocity from the same type of magazine, was not classified as such. As the AR-15 is a firearm clearly neither designed nor marketed for the "taking of human life", yet is still commonly classified as an "assault weapon", your assertion regarding the nature of "assault weapons" is demonstrably false.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:04 AM on 04/08/2009
- Glocksf21 I'm a Fan of Glocksf21 20 fans permalink
photo

The United States Code (the laws of Congress) states in 10 USC 311(a) that, "The Militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." The US Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller that when called into action the militia was to show up "bearing arms supplied by themselves..." Black's Law Dictionary defines militia as, "The body of citizens in a state" and not the "regular troops of a standing army." The militia is distinctly different from the National Guard or the US military forces. Our Founding Fathers warned that the militia must never be replaced by a standing army. Today, our nation has the world's most powerful military; 57 government agencies carry guns and most have their own SWAT teams; and local police are trained in para-military operations. As our Founding Fathers warned - the demise of the militia and rise of a standing army would spell the end of freedom and liberty

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:08 AM on 04/08/2009
- derekw007 I'm a Fan of derekw007 12 fans permalink
photo

Pehaps we should ban the "fetishization" of guns in society - starting with childish Huff-Po nicknames. Why not call yourself Berreta9MM or 357Harry?

If I had the nickname: CheezeburgerLarry48: I would assume I'm a fan of cheeseburgers named Larry who is about 48 (or was born in 1948).

As a San Fran Glock owner who is 21, can you tell us why it's some important for you to use the name of a firearm manufacturer as your nickname? I mean, i know a guy who's name is TequilaJob34 and he's a drunk....are you obsessed with guns in a similar fashion?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:35 AM on 04/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

I hope you know that the Clinton "assault weapons" "ban" didn't lower the crime rate and actually caused the number of semi-auto rifles to increase. There are far more than there were before the 1994 law was passed.

I'm not sure why so many people are eager to reinstitute old, failed policies.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:16 AM on 04/08/2009

I cannot believe the the bickering between Republicans and Democrats on this thread. You guys are all arguing a mute point. You are all so caught up in your fight over guns that you are failing to acknowledge the real problem. The lack of mental health awareness and treatment. You will go around and around in circles discussing this issue, which neither side is going to make the other agree, while people will continue to loose it and take loved ones or strangers with them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

We are perfectly aware of that. Mental health treatment went by the wayside with Reagan and people from the left are aware of and fighting that battle too. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 AM on 04/08/2009

Yet you can't stop advocating anti-gun rhetoric.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 AM on 04/08/2009

I can tell by all of these comments on both sides that there is not the same fervor towards the mental health issue regardless of the fact that it is the cause of the problem. Everyone prefers to argue their political point about guns. It is counter productive and a waste of time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 AM on 04/08/2009
- Portnoy I'm a Fan of Portnoy 16 fans permalink

Simple solution.

We need psych exams for gun ownership.
You must be crazy to own a gun.
Problem solves itself! No rights were violated.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 04/08/2009

Thank you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:25 AM on 04/08/2009
- All in All I'm a Fan of All in All 63 fans permalink

I posted this a few times now, however since You keep saying the same thing over & over again; I'll post it right here for You to hopefully read, do as You want with it, just make sure that You credit Me by keeping My name "All_in_All" on it.
________________________________________________________________

All in All:

Okay here's a thought that may help the overall situation of the Law & Guns plus all others!

Gun Owners don't want any law that limit Gun Ownership per say, and other people want some solution that in theory & principle should & would prevent the use of Guns in a dangerous way that harms others!

__________________________Partial Solution____________________________

A part of this solution would be for Congress to enact a law which states that all Gun Owners must take a psychology test before one is allowed to purchase any type of gun, and that every Gun Owner must take a reoccurring scheduled psychology test thereafter as long as one is a Gun Owner; in order to insure the safety of all the Citizens living within the United States Of America.

And yes, the Gun Owner should & would be allowed to have the psychology test preformed by the psychologist of ones choice, and one can ask to have the test redone at any given time.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:06 AM on 04/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

There's way too much room for abuse. Who chooses which test to use? How reliable are these tests?

Not too long ago, it was pretty easy for people to have eccentric relatives or irritating neighbors locked away for life on"mental health" issues.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:19 AM on 04/08/2009

I responded but it must have gotten lost. Good post. I would never repost something unless I included the name:)
This idea is good however, it still might allow some to slip through the cracks. Someone can be fine or appear to be fine but loose touch with certain stress triggers. That is why I maintain that it is imperative to address the issue of the lack of mental health care because it is the real culprit in these killings. I am frustrated by everyone insisting on arguing over their political beliefs instead of addressing the real problem with constructive solutions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:44 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

There are people that have tried to offer different perspectives.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:14 AM on 04/08/2009
- All in All I'm a Fan of All in All 63 fans permalink

I would think so.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:18 AM on 04/08/2009
- JulieSA I'm a Fan of JulieSA 165 fans permalink
photo

You're right that the real issue is mental health, and culture is important too.

I argue with Democrats who want to infringe on my rights as a law-abiding, sane citizen. As long as they leave me alone, I'll leave them alone. Not until then. It's a constant struggle for those of us who want to protect our rights. There is always some bunch pushing the envelope on this, seeing what they can get away with.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:24 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

I'd say the real problem is all those people who are now dead because someone shot them.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 04/08/2009

Oh come on:)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 PM on 04/08/2009
- All in All I'm a Fan of All in All 63 fans permalink

So there have been 21 people killed in mass shooting just last week; and those are the only the mass-shootings talked about on tv only, not all of the other shootings that happened in that week, which weren't shown in the MSM.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 04/08/2009
- qdog112 I'm a Fan of qdog112 74 fans permalink
photo

What were the other mass shootings?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:56 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

qdog....I think he was referring to all the other deaths that occurred by guns...I guess death is becoming so meaningless in the Unites states that only mass shootings get any coverage. Hoe sad!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 04/08/2009

Most pro-gun people have very elaborate fantasies about how they think they will "protect" themselves from criminals. In real life criminals will attack you from behind and have a gun barrell pointed at your head looong before you have any idea you've been targeted. In the pro-gun owners fantasy (fueled by watching re-runs of Death Wish) the cirminals always stand directly in front of them, announce their evil intentions....and give the gun-owners at least 5mins to pull out their gun and then "scare" the bad guy away. Riiiight. In real life most criminals will just shoot you in the back of the head. You can have 3 guns on you and pop! pop! Didn't do you a damn bit of good, did it? Gun owners have elaborate "crime" fanatsies that have no basis in reality. Look at drug dealers! all of them heavily, heavily armed and all of them....shot dead by other gun-totting bangers. Being armed didn't do a damn thing to keep them safe, yet we're supposed to believe it will keep some 45 year old white guy safe?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 04/08/2009
- Glocksf21 I'm a Fan of Glocksf21 20 fans permalink
photo

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (1764 Letter and speech from T. Jefferson quoting with approval an essay by Cesare Beccari

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

Gee, I wonder if Thomas Jefferson could actually imagine a country 230 years in the future.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

I think they would be scratching their heads wondering if, and when, the US will ever reach maturity.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 04/08/2009
- erinker I'm a Fan of erinker 23 fans permalink

I have a bit of a problem with people that quote the founding fathers are evidence that the constitution should not bechanged, primarily because the founding fathers created these things called AMENDMENTS. They actually put a cluase in the constitution that says, "We may be wrong, and if so, here's a way to change it." So is it possible - just possible - that Jefferson was wrong on this one? After all, the world is a very different place now?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:29 AM on 04/08/2009
- Glocksf21 I'm a Fan of Glocksf21 20 fans permalink
photo

"...By calling attention to a well-regulated militia for the security of the Nation, and the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fear of governmental tyranny, which gave rise to the Second Amendment, will ever be an important danger to our Nation, the Amendment remains an important declaration of our basic military-civilian relationship, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." President John F. Kennedy

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

It didn't work out all that well for JFK did it?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:48 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

He was the last US President that was NOT a PUPPET.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:02 AM on 04/08/2009
- TFlint I'm a Fan of TFlint 44 fans permalink
photo

All these killers are members of a "well regulated militia" as required by the Constitution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 6 fans permalink
photo

As are you, if you're an able-bodied male American between 17 and 45 years old. Look it up; this is no BS.

What's your point?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:43 AM on 04/08/2009

Sure, maybe if some of the victims had also been carrying they could have shot the assailant. Or perhaps missed and shot an innocent person. but some people would have been killed anyway in the intial firing,. the point is to prevent so there is no initial violence

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 04/08/2009
- Boboday555 I'm a Fan of Boboday555 130 fans permalink
photo

So many gun lovers here...so few willing to enlist to fight the Oil war in Iraq!
You know they actually give Y'ALL guns for free when you do.
Or is it less fun when someone shoots back?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:36 AM on 04/08/2009

Countries around the world are becoming envious of America with their liberal gun laws as most people in these countries relish the thought of sending their children to college knowing how safe they will be because they will all be carrying guns to defend themselves.

Well not all countries are envious as those like Afghanistan, Iraq and several African nations already have societies similar to the U.S. so they already know how well off they are with this right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:31 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

I know what you mean. The thought of armed kids on a college campus where one of the main activivties outside studying is drinking, makes me wonder what the Congressman from TX is thinking.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 AM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 22 fans permalink

Can you show that states that currently allow the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on publicly-funded college campuses, such as Utah and Georgia, have experienced detrimental consequences as a result of this allowance?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 04/08/2009

Yes, I would think beefing up security would have been a better solution.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:52 AM on 04/08/2009
- Boboday555 I'm a Fan of Boboday555 130 fans permalink
photo

"Congressman"
"Texas"
"Thinking"

Now that's funny!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:01 AM on 04/08/2009

The right to own a gun in the US has become a problem that must be addressed without ambiguities. Lets try to answer this simple question: who needs a gun? This simple question can raise hell. According to some, everybody needs a gun, but the RIGHT to own a gun does not mean that you NEED one, it only means that IF you need one you CAN own one. So who needs guns?
Government agents aside (we're talking civilians), there are people who require a gun for protection as part of their profession or because they live in remote locations (where law enforcement agents are scarce) and people who use guns for hunting. The types of guns used for personal defense and hunting are also pretty easy to determine: in both counts NO automatic weapons are needed. It's unbelievable that hunters, who are supposed to be sportsmen, consider using an automatic rifle such as an AR-10 (that's like having an AK-47 at home to guard from trespassers). Regulating these aspects (who can own a gun and which type of gun) in a reasonable way is essential. Only law enforcement agents, in particular within urban areas, should be allowed to carry guns. We should really grow beyond the "far west" complex and move towards a more civilized era in which people with automatic weapons are either police, military or, of course, criminals that got them illegally. That would make things a lot simpler - and safer - for common citizens.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:30 AM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 6 fans permalink
photo

Yeah, because police and armies never kill nobody 'less the dirtbag deserves it! And they ALWAYS show up in time to save the good folks from the bad folks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 04/08/2009
- Dimensio I'm a Fan of Dimensio 22 fans permalink

Your assertion regarding the implication of the right to "keep and bear arms" is fundamentally false. The protected right means that all people may possess firearms regardless of a demonstrated "need"; it is inherently irrational and dishonest to suggest that an action explicitly protected as a "right" must first be justified as a "need".

The AR-10 is a semi-automatic firearm, not a fully automatic firearm. It is also a popular deer hunting rifle platform. Your assertion suggests that you have conducted no research upon the subject and, as such, your claims cannot be considered credible.

Your assertion that "only law enforcement agents" should be permitted to carry firearms has no rational basis. Unless you can show that allowing citizens to carry deadly weapons, such as through a "shall issue" permit system, has resulted in statistically significant detrimental consequences, there exists no reason to disallow such a practice.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 6 fans permalink
photo

I wonder if the original poster really "needs" to freely express his opinions here, as protected by the 1st Amendment... Lucky for him/ner, his/her freedom to do so is not dependent on my opinion of his/her "need."

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

You are pontificating a lot on the board, but nothing you have said addresses that fact that Americans are being exposed to terrorist-type actions perpetrated by their "so-called" fellow citizens and they don't have any recourse at this time other than to arm themselves or be brow beaten by folks like you who can only criticize others suggestions to make folks safer without offering any tangible solutions of you own. Granted that some folks are extreme in what they are recommending at least they are intelligent enough and honest enough to admit that there is a problem with gun laws that allow potential spree killers to legally own guns. Maybe some psychological testing is warranted for all gun owners beforehand. While there is no immediate remedy available, the curent system is not working well and needs to be adjusted.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:59 AM on 04/08/2009
photo

Dimensio: I live in Canada...We have strict gun control laws in Canada. We have 1/10 the number of gun related deaths on a PER CAPITA basis in Canada than in the United States. We are either more law abiding in Canada or perhaps strict gun laws do help to decrease the number of gun related deaths.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:07 AM on 04/08/2009

Dimensio, the AR-10 is indeed a semi-automatic: single shot action every time you press the trigger - but it also means there is no manual action to feed the next bullet to the chamber, so you have the "auto" in your fingertip. The fact that a weapon that was developed for the military is an excellent dear hunting rifle platform does not make it less of a war rifle - you assume that no hunter ever would use it for other than deer hunting. That would be a perfect world... The AR-10 is not an extreme example, but it is a military weapon. You do realize that there are fully automatic rifles available out there and that the main problem with both semi and auto weapons is the high caliber and ease of fire.
I agree that hunters need high caliber for some game, but add that to the type of weapons available and you got a problem. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is also applied to criminals? There is no way you can anticipate what people will do with a gun - hunters or not - so effectively regulating the use and ownership of fire arms will not overturn the right but it will reduce considerably the inherent dangers of gun ownership.
The positive effect such restrictions would have is self evident: less people armed "just because". That you can't see a relation between less guns in people's hands and less incidents involving firearms is beyond me.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 04/08/2009
- Jaczar I'm a Fan of Jaczar 3 fans permalink

qdog112
Ever hear of Kent State, Ruby Ridge, or Waco? Look it up.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 04/08/2009
- arvay I'm a Fan of arvay 140 fans permalink
photo

Meaningless.

I'm sure many doctors who commit malpractice graduated from medical school, most drivers who kill others by driving drunk had valid drivers' licenses, lots of people with knives in their house stabbed someone -- usually a spouse or close acquaintance.

Banning a legitimate right to prevent some from misusing that right is fundamentally flawed.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 04/08/2009
- LeftRight I'm a Fan of LeftRight 142 fans permalink
photo

EXACTLY!!! Let's ban fire next, so that nobody's house will burn down!! Course that will eliminate most people's heat, and hot water, and cooking, and bbq's etc....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 04/08/2009
- derekw007 I'm a Fan of derekw007 12 fans permalink
photo

Um - have you ever heard of "burn bans"? "Fire" is banned in places where environmental conditions make the existance of a "fire" hazerdous.

It's people like you and the other guy (the one with the problem with banning a right to prevent misuse) who have their head so far up their ass it's just ridiculous. Certain forms of speech are banned (yelling fire in a theater) because they 1) serve no purpose and 2) endanger life and property. Also, I can ban flyers (speech) from being posted on public and private property as well and be backed up by SCOTUS.

We can ban people from going certain places, like convicted child molesters hanging around schoolyards - or even ex-wives from our persons through restraining orders - because they pose a threat.

I cannot own a fully automatic machine gun, M203 Grenade launcher or a claymore mine without being in violation of a number of laws - do any of those items meet the definition of "arms" as used in the Second Amendment?

And honestly - in 2009 - is the "right to bear arms" a legitimate right? We don't have to hunt for our food or defend ourselves from the British anymore.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:53 AM on 04/08/2009
- erinker I'm a Fan of erinker 23 fans permalink

Strawman alert!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:33 AM on 04/08/2009
- loria I'm a Fan of loria 169 fans permalink
photo

No one is talking about banning. Reasonably restricting guns isn't the same as banning.
Drs. study a long time to get that license. We do restrict driver's licenses and at least test people before they can get one.

Your argument is meaningless since it assumes any attempt to restrict a gun means banning guns. No one is talking about that except the fearmongers on the right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:45 AM on 04/08/2009
- Borborigny I'm a Fan of Borborigny 6 fans permalink
photo

The grotesque nature of collective punishment seems lost on some people. Why do we punish Sally, Dick and Jane every time Lee Harvey commits a crime?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:46 AM on 04/08/2009
- Boboday555 I'm a Fan of Boboday555 130 fans permalink
photo

Of course we're a Christina Nation!
Why just look at all the dead people killed by guns!

Who Would Jesus Shoot?!?!?!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:29 AM on 04/08/2009
Page: « First ‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next › Last » (41 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect