world

Gunmen open fire at New Orleans Mother’s Day parade; 19 wounded

152 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

152 Comments
Login to comment

Glad nobody was seriously wounded.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

again! endless tragedy,,,,.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Pffff open fire on a parade and still only graze people, that is lucky, couldve been many deaths.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

God I love America - land of the free, free to shoot people on any festive occasion. If you've got guns you might as well use them - the NRA have been right all along...

4 ( +13 / -9 )

Probably a drug or gang related normal going on for the area....all black neighborhood, all black victims and two or more shooters...very sad but nothing to do with Mothers Day or parades in particular.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Yes, I imagine some nutter from the NRA will say that this would have worked out better with more guns present.

If everyone had been carrying, it would have been a fantastic shootout, just like in the mooooovies.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

Probably a drug or gang related normal going on for the area....all black neighborhood, all black victims and two or more shooters...very sad but nothing to do with Mothers Day or parades in particular.

Lizz: You are 100% correct on this. If indeed it was at a "Second Line" parade, it was in one of the Black wards of the city. For those who keep saying we need stricter gun laws in the USA, I will be able to say with 100% certainty, that if the people are caught who did this, by the current laws on the books, they would not be allowed to own guns legally due to privor convictions of crimes. How they got the guns, is probably the same way as they get illegal drugs, other lawbreakers see a market and sell them.

The liberal press will not really jump on this one, since just as the violence in Chicago, it goes against their agenda. Poor Blacks killing and shooting at each other while a bad thing, kind of brings to light some of the ineffectiveness of the programs that have been put in place by the Great Society anti-poverty programs. So the tragedy of the poverty and violence in these areas gets overlooked, and that is a sad thing. I as a Black American have seen the driect results of this type of thinking, watching the areas that I grew up in fall deeper and deeper into violence such as this place in New Orleans and other US cities.

8 ( +12 / -4 )

Yes, I imagine some nutter from the NRA will say that this would have worked out better with more guns present.

If everyone had been carrying, it would have been a fantastic shootout, just like in the mooooovies.

Imagine if the back alley the gunmen purchased their illegal firearms in had complied with background check legislation.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

We should thank the victims for taking one for the team that protects us from tyranny.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

AlphaApe: I will be able to say with 100% certainty, that if the people are caught who did this, by the current laws on the books, they would not be allowed to own guns legally due to privor convictions of crimes

Guns are available to criminals for purchase via loopholes. We tried to make it more difficult but the NRA blocked it. They feel criminals will decide on their own not to buy guns.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

What I have just read, sounds like a thug to thug despite or gang v gang difference. Just happened to be at the parade. Maybe to steal from the attendees.

At least one was described as a "dark skinned" assailant. It will be an illegally owned guns between two or more punks who have NO empathy for other people.

No terrorists, victims not targeted, just US trash citizens who need to be locked up away from normal people.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Or SuperLib, The criminals would just purchase them illegally. You really think making new laws is going to prevent these crazies from blowing away people? Nope, they only hinder the people that actually obey the law. Hell the laws that already are there aren't enforced, and you really think that third party transactions will have background checks ran on them? That is a pipe dream which realistically can't be enforced. So Obama can try and pass all the feel good legislation he wants just so it looks like he is doing "something" but in the end things are still going to happen. I am curious how good it would make him look the second there was a mass shooting after his laws proposed had passed. Yeah it would have made him look like an ass. Its easy to sit back and come up with magical solutions that fall apart the second they are shot to hell literally. The issue here is a cultural issue not a gun control issue. I am curious to find out what all the facts in this incident are.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Guns are available to criminals for purchase via loopholes. We tried to make it more difficult but the NRA blocked it. They feel criminals will decide on their own not to buy guns.

Well to be honest it wouldn't be more difficult because the universal background check is/was pretty much reliant on an honor system.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Thank god no one was killed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Someone in the crowd will definitely know who did it. The police only had to put out a description of "dark skinned" to make it look they they were doing their job because the story unfortunately got picked up as an Adam Lanza type event even half way around the world to Japanese language papers.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

America seems to be sliding more and more into third-world anarchy.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

It's strictly an act of street violence in New Orleans

That's OK then. It's a good job the shooter didn't have a beard, otherwise it would have been terrorism.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Scrote, if the shooters had been wearing badges, it would be just another day of post Katrina mayhem. Hey, that makes me wonder about this case. How many ex cops are doing time for unjustified shootings after Katrina, at least a dozen or two?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

America seems to be sliding more and more into third-world anarchy.

You should have been here 20 years ago.... because believe it or not gun violence in the country has dropped dramatically nationwide over the past two decades.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

' Guns are available to criminals for purchase via loopholes.'

There's that false-loophole nonsense again. Thugs, like these in particular, don't comply with any laws anyway. They get/sell their drugs & guns, bread and butter, on the black market. Shooting at people is illegal in most instances.

Note that this is mayhem, not anarchy.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Sounds like either drunken stupidity or gang related. Either is possible in N'arleans. I won't comment on the gun matter: the reality is, American gun culture is long and deep and wouldn't go away even if all guns and ammo were made illegal and wouldn't stop this from happening again.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

America again?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Guns are available to criminals for purchase via loopholes. We tried to make it more difficult but the NRA blocked it. They feel criminals will decide on their own not to buy guns.

@ SuperLib: Please explain to me how the proposed laws would have stopped someone who is going to not follow the law from getting a gun? The whole point of the laws was to make it harder for guns to be gotten legally. All this would have done would have driven up the price of illegal guns, and those who sell them would make more money and the business would take off. Case in point, look at the cost of buying a pack of cigarettes in NYC, and then look at the increase in black market activity of people buying cigarettes from VA and NC and driving them up to NYC to sell. The criminal element will always find a way because there will be buyers who can't legally purchase for some reason. Same thing with gun laws.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

American society has made a choice: they want guns and everybody will have them, even little kids who have started shooting each other. Is it that someone has a mother problem?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Americans. All the regular justifications of guns come out after these shootings. Well there is only one thing we know for sure - if the Gunman had no guns, they couldn't have shot anyone. Yet the Americans will come up with all sorts of reasons to not get rid of guns.

And to those of you who keep trying to turn this into a liberal conservative thing, just stop. It's not. I'm a conservative and I hate guns. And many American liberals love guns. Guns are not a liberal-conservative issue, they are an American issue. The rest of the world is not split along these bipartisan lines with guns.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

The Democrats are the ones doing the violence so take their guns and welfare away. The NRA does defend the 2nd Amendment not crime. Guns in the hands of legal owners save hundreds of lives and property each year. The anti gunners want more people killed who can't defend themselves from the Democratic criminals.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

So how do guns go from being purchased by law abiding citizens to the hands of thugs?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

knight_of_Honour says:

The anti gunners want more people killed who can't defend themselves from the Democratic criminals.

"anti-gunners"...

Sweet Jeebus, just listen to yourself. Do you think that your words are those of a stable person / society?

Yes, we nasty, crazy people who are anti-violence. What are you going to do, shoot us?

Guns in the hands of legal owners save hundreds of lives and property each year.

Your source for this "fact", if you please.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Criminals steal guns from legal owners, too. Also, they can but from smugglers from Mexico.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dark Skinned: If you are frem warm Southern area, if you are tanned you are considered dark skinned. Latino people are considered dark skinned, too. One media was accused to state dark skinned about Boston terrrlists.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns in the hands of legal owners save hundreds of lives and property each year.

Your source for this "fact", if you please.

Maria,

It's close to 500,000 prevented incidences at a 95% Confidence index according to the U.S Government National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA data. Nothing really updated since 1994 survey though unfortunately. I hazard a guess it's gone much higher now since gun ownership laws became less restrictive throughout the past decade, but I can find no hard data to support it.

Note: The below excerpt from the 1994 stats is from a totally unbiased source that has no dog in the fight at all about gun control laws.

497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The anti gunners want more people killed who can't defend themselves from the Democratic criminals

Are you daft? Who wants more people killed? This is an absolutely stupid comment. The 'anti-gunners' want a safer world - one that is gun free. That may be different than what you want, but to think that means they want more people dead is just ridiculous.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Guns in the hands of legal owners save hundreds of lives and property each year......close to 500,000 prevented incidences

So without guns, there would be close to 500,000 more incidences of violent crime in the US than there are already? Why do gun-owners keep insisting on the one hand that Americans are so uncontrollably violent, and on the other that more guns will somehow make things better?

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Alphaape: Please explain to me how the proposed laws would have stopped someone who is going to not follow the law from getting a gun? The whole point of the laws was to make it harder for guns to be gotten legally. All this would have done would have driven up the price of illegal guns

Your argument demonstrates why gun controls will work. If new laws drive up the price of illegal guns, demand will fall and fewer illegal guns will be sold. This is simple, supply and demand economics.

Of course, controls will not eliminate all illegal guns, but they will reduce their number. Perhaps doing something is better than doing nothing?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

The idea that more guns equals less crime is a pretty lame argument and is refuted all over the globe. There is less gun-related crime/violence in places guns are outlawed. I understand gun owners enjoy owning their weapons and have been to the shooting range myself a couple times, but the only argument that stands up and doesn't sound silly is the one that says the constitution allows for folks to own guns. And while it's not clear cut as the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, etc., it certainly sounds like a better argument than "We're all safer thanks to guns."

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Just another day in gunshot America, business as normal.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

" So without guns, there would be close to 500,000 more incidences of violent crime in the US than there are already? Why do gun-owners keep insisting on the one hand that Americans are so uncontrollably violent, and on the other that more guns will somehow make things better?"

Cleo, do you really just not get it? As in EVERY culture there are those violent persons who intend to rob, murder, or rape. The figure 500,000 represents those who successfully protected themselves, thwarting the violent attempts(attempted robbery, murder, and rape ARE violent crimes prosecution of which are common). So the half-million people prevented the successful perpetration of crimes against themselves, which police can not do.

The question to be asked, which AlphaApe alluded to, is how the self-propagating conditions of poverty can be addressed. This gang-type violence is rooted in poverty, not gun legislation.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So without guns, there would be close to 500,000 more incidences of violent crime in the US than there are already?

Not sure if they're any stats that would tell us how more incidences of violent crime have also been prevented by burglar alarms, dog ownership or all of the other preventive measures people feel best suit their needs for personal protection and are able to make that choice in a free society like the U.S to also to go along with gun prevention stats . I'd imagine it's also pretty hefty.

But for the record violent crime in the U.S has dropped like a stone the past twenty years. Based also on undisputed FBI and Dept of Justice stats just released: Damn near 2/3rd's down from the peaks. Absolutely astounding news, but considering if you just believe what the Media harps on and and what it chooses not to report on, the U.S is awash in violence and gosh darn it we're going to push a we need gun control now agenda and bury the real stats as they are not newsworthy enough to tell the public about.

The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

This gang-type violence is rooted in poverty, not gun legislation.

And yet Greece and Spain have worse poverty but don't have gun problems on this scale. So maybe the laws are a little more important that you're giving them credit for....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

" but the only argument that stands up and doesn't sound silly is the one that says the constitution allows for folks to own guns. And while it's not clear cut as the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, etc.,"

The Second Amendment isn't clear cut?

" 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."

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is unclear?

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

So the America gun slingers just don't understand that in countries like Japan and Britain, where the numbers of guns are much less, also means less criminals with guns, and much much less deaths from gunshot. The number of gunshot deaths in Japan and Britain in a whole year are less than a single day in America.

The gun manufacturers and their NRA arm will fight tooth and nail to ensure there's no change to gun laws and the rights to own and carry weapons but it comes at an increasing enormous cost of ever increasing numbers of mass shootings including little children in their schools.

The rights of the minority who want to own and carry weapons is more important than the safety of the majority who don't want them.

The death of a law enforcement officer from gunshot in Japan and Britain is still very rare but a daily event in America.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The good news is that with each incident like this the gun supporters will roll out the the same, tired old arguments which will become even more silly over time. The bad news is that we're going to have to have more shooting to make that clear.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

And yet Greece and Spain have worse poverty but don't have gun problems on this scale

Spain doesn't as of yet, but Greece has got major problems that pail in comparison to the U.S.

Greece: Heavily-armed robbers to face life in jail

The inexpensive Kalashnikovs have become increasingly popular with Greek criminals, who use them to rob kiosks, supermarkets or homes — heavily out-gunning local police. Such attacks have grown since the country's acute financial crisis started three years ago.

Thousands of the weapons have flooded into Greece from neighboring Albania, where military bases were looted during riots in 1997.

http://news.yahoo.com/greece-heavily-armed-robbers-face-life-jail-171127250--finance.html

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

sailwind: The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.

Translation: Ignore the latest gun tragedy.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is unclear?

You've got to be kidding me, right? Are you aware of that phrase being interpreted differently by a number of Supreme Court cases for over 200 years? And that the Supreme Court has still not determined whether it grants folks the right to bear arms outside of their home? (Just last month in fact they declined to hear such a case and that issue is still open to debate.)

1 ( +4 / -3 )

If only everyone else at the festival were armed and starting shooting at people with guns! (sarcasm off).

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Cleo, do you really just not get it? As in EVERY culture there are those violent persons who intend to rob, murder, or rape. The figure 500,000 represents those who successfully protected themselves, thwarting the violent attempts(attempted robbery, murder, and rape ARE violent crimes prosecution of which are common). So the half-million people prevented the successful perpetration of crimes against themselves, which police can not do.

No, I don't get it. if there are violent people in EVERY culture, and it's guns in the hands of homeowners that stop the violent people being violent, why aren't the crime stats through the ceiling in countries where homeowners do not have guns? It still comes down to the pro-gun argument being America is awash with violence and the answer to that elevated level of violence is more guns. But then say that America must be a hellhole of a place to live (because of all the violence) and it's the pro-gun people again who get all stroppy and say you're spreading nasty untruths about their idyllic, peaceful country - when all people are doing is repeating their arguments back at them. No, I don't get it at all.

" 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."

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is unclear?

The bit about 'a well-regulated militia'. How many of these intrepid homestead-defending gun-owners (not to mention loonies shooting up 10-year-olds in a parade) are signed up to a militia, well-regulated or otherwise?

0 ( +6 / -6 )

There is less gun-related crime/violence in places guns are outlawed.

Obviously you have not been reading about Mexico and how the drug cartels are killing people left and right, by gunning them down. And that personal firearm ownership in Mexico is outlawed.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

So the America gun slingers just don't understand that in countries like Japan and Britain, where the numbers of guns are much less, also means less criminals with guns, and much much less deaths from gunshot.

@ zichi, but even with your argument, you are saying that people get killed with guns in a country where gun ownership is not readily available to the general public. Do you have the statistics on who was killed? Are you saying that only the "bad people" are getting killed who deal with people who own guns and they get what they deserve? One thing I have noticed about living here in Japan, is that the news is generally skewed in order to keep the populace somewhat in the dark at times. Are the gun deaths in Japan from gangster on gangster crime, which I have seen reported. But I would imagine that some are the result of some bad people doing harm to innocents. And I think that is the case world wide.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Obviously you have not been reading about Mexico and how the drug cartels are killing people left and right, by gunning them down. And that personal firearm ownership in Mexico is outlawed.

And all those guns are ones bought in America by straw men deals and sold on to Mexican drug cartels. American guns are killing Mexicans as well as Americans.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

It still comes down to the pro-gun argument being America is awash with violence and the answer to that elevated level of violence is more guns.

@ cleo: Back when they were shutting down the Boston area looking for the Tsarnev brothers and the manhunt was on for the survivor and the police were going around telling everyone to stay indoors, be honest with your answer. What would you rather have, your moral superiority of knowing that guns are bad and that you don't have one and if it came down to it, you can defend yourself against someone who has bombed, and shot and killed a police officer, or having some sort of protection in your home, that you have been adult enough to keep locked and out of harms way of any minors in the home but ready to defend yourself. Even with all of that major police presence going from door to door, it was the actions of one person who tipped the police that the suspect was hiding in her back yard. Don't know if she had a weapon or not, but the point is, with that heavy police presence, he still slipped through.

For me, I would not go out looking for trouble in that case, but I would certainly be ready to defend myself and home if I knew a suspect like the one they were looking for was on the loose.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

@Alphaape

@ zichi, but even with your argument, you are saying that people get killed with guns in a country where gun ownership is not readily available to the general public.

I said that the numbers of people murdered or killed from gunshot in countries like Britain and Japan is less in a whole year than a single day in America.

Do you have the statistics on who was killed?

Google will have all the stats you want.

Are you saying that only the "bad people" are getting killed who deal with people who own guns and they get what they deserve?

Said no such thing? You know quite well, I'm sure that a very high number of law enforcement officers are killed every year in America from gunshot. These people are highly trained, carried a weapon, don't usually act alone, but carrying a gun didn't save their lives. The death of a law enforcement officer in Japan or Britain from gunshot is still rare.

One thing I have noticed about living here in Japan, is that the news is generally skewed in order to keep the populace somewhat in the dark at times.

The NPA issue their own figures yearly for crimes. All gun crime is reported in the media.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

be honest with your answer. What would you rather have, your moral superiority of knowing that guns are bad and that you don't have one and if it came down to it, you can defend yourself against someone who has bombed, and shot and killed a police officer, or having some sort of protection in your home, that you have been adult enough to keep locked and out of harms way of any minors in the home but ready to defend yourself.

I would rather have it that the dangerous demented loony with the chip on his shoulder didn't have easy access to guns. It isn't a question of 'moral superiority', it's a question of common sense. Fewer guns means fewer guns in the hands of people who are likely to shoot me deliberately, in the execution of a crime or a fit of anger; inadvertently, in attempting to shoot an armed (or unarmed) criminal in the process of executing a crime; accidentally, through sheer incompetence. I neither want nor need a gun; what bothers me is all the other fools out there who think they do.

I would certainly be ready to defend myself and home if I knew a suspect like the one they were looking for was on the loose.

And your argument comes down once again to 'but, but America is so dangerous and I need to protect myself.'

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

" And yet Greece and Spain have worse poverty but don't have gun problems on this scale."

Nor do Greece or Spain have the gang-mentality so prevalent in US inner-city ghettos. Compare Incarceration rates. Higher incarceration rates lead to fewer job opportunities, and down it goes in a death-by-police-record unemployability spiral. Drug War laws specifically.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Stay on topic please. Other countries are not relevant to this discussion.

AlphaApe: Back when they were shutting down the Boston area looking for the Tsarnev brothers and the manhunt was on for the survivor and the police were going around telling everyone to stay indoors, be honest with your answer. What would you rather have, your moral superiority of knowing that guns are bad and that you don't have one and if it came down to it, you can defend yourself against someone who has bombed, and shot and killed a police officer, or having some sort of protection in your home, that you have been adult enough to keep locked and out of harms way of any minors in the home but ready to defend yourself.

For every incident like this I can name an exponentially larger number of incidents where guns harmed innocent people. Like the 5-year old who shot the 2-year old.

Obviously you have not been reading about Mexico

For every country like Mexico I can name an exponentially larger number of countries that do not suffer from the same number of guns deaths.

You are using the exceptions rather than the rules to make your case. Other countries are just as safe or safer without guns. How do you reconcile that?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The Second Amendment isn't clear cut?

If anything's clear cut, it's the conditionality of this statement.

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.

Two hundred-odd years ago, America's gun owners were to be part of a provisional reserve, needed in the country's infancy, in the absence of an army, to protect the State, like in Switzerland.

Now, however, that free State's military expenditure accounts for 39% of the world's total. Yet some arms industry-backed thugs hold the home of the brave and the land of the free to ransom?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Only gun-nutters and complete morons defend the 'right' own a gun and justify mass shootings and/or massacres by suggesting they NEED a gun because the other guy has a legal right to one. It's blind luck these guys didn't kill anyone (or at least that no one they host has died yet). We'll be hearing about the next shooting(s) tomorrow, and see the same crowd defend it.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Are confiscated weapons destroyed? Or do they go back into the system? I ask because if there is indeed a loophole through which the villains are able to obtain their guns, then surely having less guns to go around would be of help in reducing crimes using them? Introduce the background checks, and a form asking the purchaser to justify why they need the weapon... that way you can weed out the nutters. Having fewer outlets for the weapons would also help... being limited to a handful of outlets, and having those positioned near a police station for added security.

Owning guns needs to be changed from a right to a privilege... and then maybe, just maybe you can start to reduce the number of shootings. Of course if the villains want guns they'll get them, but reducing the numbers of available weapons could be a start.

This kind of incident is just shocking... opening fire on a parade? Sick... really sick.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So without guns, there would be close to 500,000 more incidences of violent crime in the US than there are already? Why do gun-owners keep insisting on the one hand that Americans are so uncontrollably violent, and on the other that more guns will somehow make things better?

I never said that and please don't over generalize that. Most Americans are not violent. Most Americans can't easily obtain guns just on a whim. In my home-state, California has very stringent rules when buying a gun. But yes, having a gun for my protection of my home helps me sleep better, even though, I live a good area. Better to have and not need it.....

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

" You've got to be kidding me, right? Are you aware of that phrase being interpreted differently by a number of Supreme Court cases for over 200 years? And that the Supreme Court has still not determined whether it grants folks the right to bear arms outside of their home?"

And that the SCOTUS has been wrong on umpteen reinterpretations. Get enough lawyers together and they'll finally come to an agreement, after lenghty partisan bickering, that indeed the chicken came before the egg.

This is about lawless thugs doing what lawless thugs do. In N'awlins. Three as yet unnamed(fear of retribution?) thugs committed a depraved act of violence.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

" Only gun-nutters and complete morons defend the 'right' own a gun"

Ah, that meme again....only the insane dare to disagree with the misnamed progressive manifesto.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I neither want nor need a gun; what bothers me is all the other fools out there who think they do.

So you want to generalize and call me a fool, that is very, very insulting to people like me that are law-abiding citizens. If you don't want or feel the need to posses a gun, that is your right to think like that, but I like guns, I'm responsible. You didn't grow up with guns, I like and enjoy hunting, nothing wrong with that. You are proud as to how you grew up and I as well in the US. Guns are not the problem, why is it that people don't concentrate on building more mental asylums for people that shouldn't be on the streets and that can sometimes easily obtain a gun, that's the REAL problem. But typical, no one wants to focus on that issue.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

" Two hundred-odd years ago, America's gun owners were to be part of a provisional reserve, needed in the country's infancy, in the absence of an army,"

A Standing Army which is Constitutionally prohibited. The big threat at the time was the recent tyranny of the king george, and was intended to prevent the development of new tyranny, which worked for a few decades.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

" asking the purchaser to justify why they need the weapon..."

And who exactly is to approve this need, and under what conditions?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

" Fewer guns means fewer guns in the hands of people who are likely to shoot me deliberately…"

Statistically false.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@jean

Correct...so what's your point? Now that we don't have to fear the British, we should just throw away our right just because the law doesn't appease you and other nutty liberals?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If anything's clear cut, it's the conditionality of this statement.

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.

What's clear is that is clearly separates the militia from the people. It does not say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for a very specific reason it says people.

They ensured the militia would be well regulated and that the state could infringe the hell out of it if the state so desires, but when it came to individual citizens "the people" they would have their hands tied and could not. The founding fathers had just fought and won a revolution against a well regulated militia with a rag tag citizen army composed entirely of the people that rose up against it. They knew that this might very well happen again but also understood that you still needed a well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free state, every nation on the planet has a military but made sure to enshrine that the people had the right to arms to defend themselves as they see fit with out any infringement. They ensured that the well regulated militia would never be given the order to disarm the people or if they did they were going to have another American revolution on their hands.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

It's always interesting watching people convince themselves that they absolutely NEED guns.

It's America's sickness.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

See, some guys wanted to bring liquid bomb to the airplane and now ALL of us had to throw so many things: water bottle, deodorant, toothpaste ... before boarding the plane. There were/are/have been so many killings but there's no basic change to the gun law, leave alone banning completely. Why???

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

" asking the purchaser to justify why they need the weapon..."

And who exactly is to approve this need, and under what conditions?

The senior police officer in the area? A magistrate? That's the way it works in the UK... you have to justify why you need a gun. Just saying "'cos it's on the Constitution!" is a cop-out. You need to explain what the gun is for, where it will be stored, etc... all sensible questions and designed to find out whether you are a fit person to own a gun, and to ascertain WHY you need said gun. Since hand-guns are banned it would normally be a shotgun or a rifle for deer stalking, farm use or other toffee-nosed shooting events. Sports guns are, I think, in another category - .22s and the like used in the Olympics and other sporting events.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

" They ensured the militia would be well regulated and that the state could infringe the hell out of it if the state so desires, but when it came to individual citizens "the people" they would have their hands tied and could not. The founding fathers had just fought and won a revolution against a well regulated militia with a rag tag citizen army composed entirely of the people that rose up against it. They knew that this might very well happen again but also understood that you still needed a well regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free state, every nation on the planet has a military but made sure to enshrine that the people had the right to arms to defend themselves as they see fit with out any infringement. They ensured that the well regulated militia would never be given the order to disarm the people or if they did they were going to have another American revolution on their hands."

Sailwind, very well-said!

Bass, that's what I was alluding to.

History.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Carry laws are very complex, and often contradictory.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/louisiana.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" The senior police officer in the area? A magistrate? That's the way it works in the UK... you have to justify why you need a gun."

And that's also partly why UK is NOT known as Land of the Free.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

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.

They ensured that the well regulated militia would never be given the order to disarm the people.

18th C English is obviously way too subtle if the gun lobby can con themselves thus.

The statement quite obviously says that, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the state, people will have the right to bear arms; the context being that the young country didn't have the resources for a regular army.

Will the gun lobby concede that this right of the people to keep and bear Arms is already well infringed? Nuclear weapons, antipersonnel devices, IEDs, Stinger missiles and heavy calibre machine guns are all arms. Can you have them? No. Do you want them? Probably!

How inviolate is your Second Amendment now?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Bass4Funk to JeanValJean:

we should just throw away our right just because the law doesn't appease you and other nutty liberals?

Gun lobby happy to indulge in friendly fire.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Stupid gangs!! I hope these punks get arrested ASAP!!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

How inviolate is your Second Amendment now?

The second amendment is not an absolute right, none of the rights in the constitution are considered absolute rights. It's the whole reason of this thing you might have heard about that thing called the third branch of the U.S government called the Supreme court. All constitutional rights can be restricted given a sufficient governmental interest that the Supreme court declares are constitutionally legal through court cases and law.

18th C English is obviously way too subtle if the gun lobby can con themselves thus.

Funny how while debating and writing the whole constitution the founding fathers just couldn't get the one part straight that involved the most dangerous implements to ones personal safety and health if used improperly and passed the silly thing anyway.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sailwind, very well-said!

Oops, Forget my manners, I do appreciate the compliment Jean.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I hope Bass is locked and loaded over in wild west Kyushu. Jean just got called the L word for the first time in his life, and my guess is that he is not taking it well. Petty name calling was probably a factor in the NOLA parade shootings, too. Good call with the friendly fire, Get Real.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Myself personally as an American and NRA member or gun nutter as described above have no problem turning in all of my guns when the following happen; No more wars, no more home invasions, no more robberies, no more rape, no more terrorism, no more crime in general, and no more corrupt government. I take a vested interest in securing the safety of myself and my family as well as anyone else around me. To think that we live in a world where gentle words and good intentions will make us safer is ignorant. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I really wish we did live in a place and time where guns aren't necessary, but I would rather have a carry pistol on me when someone tries to rob me or stab me, than some good intentions, because the police aren't going to stop that lunatic from messing your day up. They are a reaction and deterrence force which means 9/10 times they show up after something has happened rather than preventing it from happening. I can understand from the outside looking in how archaic and non applicable Americas gun stance looks to the rest of the world and even to some Americans, but our country was founded by a bunch of average joes that used their own firearms to end tyranny and oppression and form their own nation. Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. While it may not seem applicable today, the time may come again where the reason for the second amendment to the constitution exists becomes extremely valid again. And as for day to day gun ownership I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it. As I said above the problem in the US is cultural not gun related. In any of these mass shootings or recently terror attacks the criminal is the one who is glorified and over reported by the press in intimate detail. When people look to point a finger of blame organizations like the NRA are easy targets as they are large well funded and can be cast in an evil light easily because of what they stand for. So instead of blaming the person that commits a crime they blame those who favor responsible gun ownership and attempt to infringe on the rights of law abiding people rather than make changes to the culture that breeds these maniacs. Fear is a powerful weapon and both sides of the argument are masters and bending it to their cause. Arguments like I saw above talking about the right to bear nuclear weapons and explosives are ludicrous. Nobody is asking for that. But a reasonable degree of safety has different meanings to different people and ironically while personally I don't feel the need to have an A-bomb at home for defense I think it is funny that those who do control those weapons I wouldn't trust to take care of my dog if I was away for a day. Perspective is all the difference in some of these discussions. While events like this shooting, Newtown, Boston, Columbine etc etc etc are regrettable the fact is that taking away my guns would not have prevented them, and my guns on me or someone like had I been there would have had something to say about them. Everyday in the USA crimes are prevented because of those rights that people are looking to strip from the everyday law abiding gun owner. You never hear about them because they are good news and not worthy of a report and because they don't fit the biased media agenda. I hope for the day when nobody needs guns, but I am ready for the day when they are needed.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I hope for the day when nobody needs guns

If you really meant that you would move yourself and your family to a place where guns aren't 'needed'.

While events like this shooting, Newtown, Boston, Columbine etc etc etc are regrettable the fact is that taking away my guns would not have prevented them

Taking away the guns of the people who went crazy at Newtown, Boston, Columbine etc etc etc would have, though. Thing is, no one knows who is going to snap until they do; and until they do, that person is a 'law-abiding citizen' who can legally buy as many guns as he can afford. And if he can't afford to buy, it appears there are plenty of guns just lying around for the taking. The solution? Take 'em all away. Failing that, take yourself away, to a safer place.

UK is NOT known as Land of the Free

It's also not known as the Land of Newtown, Boston, Columbine etc etc etc.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@MatthewSimon Your government is in control of the biggest, best-armed military carrying the most technologically advanced weapons of any military. Wouldn't you say that it's about time US citizens armed themselves with something a little more than revolvers and shotguns? One of the arguments for assault weapons was that you need to fight like with like should a criminal be armed with one. Doesn't the same logic apply here?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it. While it may not seem applicable today, the time may come again where the reason for the second amendment to the constitution exists becomes extremely valid again.

That's called paranoia...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

cleo I love my country, and I refuse to live in fear of a couple of nutballs therefore I will choose to protect myself. cleo taking away my freedoms is not the answer to solving those crime issues, and when you take one freedom away whats next? its a slippery slope.

Jimizo, last time I checked people were armed with more than shotguns and revolvers.

Thunderbird saying that is paranoid is ignorance to the world we live in today.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Taking away the guns of the people who went crazy at Newtown, Boston, Columbine etc etc etc would have, though.

You cannot say that with any certainty at all Ms. Cleo. You've mentioned Newtown and Columbine but you also threw in Boston which as far as I know hasn't had any mass shooting incidents but was the recent location of a bombing instead using common kitchen pressure cookers and I don't think even you would go so far to advocate banning kitchenware.

The solution? Take 'em all away.

Pesky 2nd amendment is going to get in the way.

Failing that, take yourself away, to a safer place.

How about staying as the U.S continues being to continue the trend of being safer then she's ever been since 1963?

US crime rate at lowest point in decades. Why America is safer now:

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

0 ( +2 / -2 )

How about staying as the U.S continues being to continue the trend of being safer then she's ever been since 1963?

Apologies typo.

How about staying as the U.S continues being able to continue the trend of being safer then she's ever been since 1963?

Also, as for history the 60's saw those never give up British once again invading the U.S once and finally being able to post one up in the win column.

The British Invasion was a phenomenon that occurred in the mid-1960s when rock and pop music acts from the United Kingdom,[1] as well as other aspects of British culture, became popular in the US, and then throughout the world. Bands such as The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who

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

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

you also threw in Boston which as far as I know hasn't had any mass shooting incidents

Didn't the perpetrators get in a firefight with the police, killing an officer, before one was killed and the other was found bleeding in the boat?

I refuse to live in fear of a couple of nutballs therefore I will choose to protect myself.

You feel the need to 'protect' yourself because you live in fear.

when you take one freedom away whats next? its a slippery slope.

That's right, and judging from the sentiments expressed here and on other threads about guns in the US, you have already lost your freedom to walk in safety down the streets, the freedom to send your kids to school secure in the knowledge that they will come home safe, and the freedom to sleep easy in your bed at night. And from today, the freedom to let your kids enjoy a harmless little street parade without getting shot up. Next slip down the slippery slope is everyone needing to carry an arsenal and wear kevlar. Little kids to be wheeled around in a kevlar capsule. I prefer to have the freedom not to fear for my life on a daily basis.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

So how do guns go from being purchased by law abiding citizens to the hands of thugs?

To answer your question SuperLib it is primarily done by friends and family members who knowingly act as straw buyers as well as the "the street"

A 1997 Justice Department survey of more than 18,000 state and federal convicts on where they get their guns:

• 39.6% of criminals obtained a gun from a friend or family member • 39.2% of criminals obtained a gun on the street or from an illegal source • 0.7% of criminals purchased a gun at a gun show • 1% of criminals purchased a gun at a flea market • 3.8% of criminals purchased a gun from a pawn shop • 8.3% of criminals actually bought their guns from retail outlets

0 ( +1 / -1 )

'Last time I checked, people were armed with more than shotguns and revolvers'. What weapons do you think are necessary to defend yourself against a tyrannical government? You seem to think revolvers and shotguns aren't up to the job. As I mentioned, I can remember one poster advocating the ownership of assault weapons by the example of a shop owner defending his property against rioters who were similarly armed. I'm interested in what you think citizens should be packing if the government turns tyrannical.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The idea that more guns equals less crime is a pretty lame argument and is refuted all over the globe. There is less gun-related crime/violence in places guns are outlawed.

Not necessarily, the number of guns in circulation in the US has increased by over 100+ million since 1993 and gun violence that does not result in a fatality has dropped by 70% while the number of incidents in which a gun is fatally used dropped by 39%.

Oh I'm sure gun related crime is lower in places where it doesn't exist but that doesn't mean that the actual violent crime rate is lower. The focus should be on lower crime rates not on what weapon is being used.

I think it is fair to say that what drives crimes rates and what reduces them is sociological not the availability of an object or service.

We banned drugs decades ago in the US but their crime rates surrounding them have not gone down. We banned prostitution pretty much everywhere in the US and prostitution crime rates have not gone down.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It's always interesting watching people convince themselves that they absolutely NEED guns. It's America's sickness.

Not about convincing and not even a sickness, the sickness comes from people trying to tell other people what they need and what they don't. If the US didn't have guns, people like you would find other ways to bash Americans. This is why, most Americans don't worry or care what other people think of us, I sure don't, especially when it comes to the gun issue.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Noliving: the number of guns in circulation in the US has increased by over 100+ million since 1993 and gun violence that does not result in a fatality has dropped by 70% while the number of incidents in which a gun is fatally used dropped by 39%.

That still doesn't address the fact that a high number of guns equals a high number of guns deaths. And talking about reduced numbers almost makes it sound like problem of kids getting shot isn't that bad.

Noliving: it is primarily done by friends and family members who knowingly act as straw buyers as well as the "the street"

Your stats only talk about getting guns from family members. It doesn't say anything about them being straw buyers. Question: since gun shops are required to shred background checks, would keeping them help to reduce the number of straw buyers?

bass4funk: why is it that people don't concentrate on building more mental asylums

From what the gun crowd says it's a problem is criminals being criminals. I'm not sure why you think investing a billion dollars in mental care facilities would do much considering your argument.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@Lizz & @Alphaape excellent posts and spot on topic; the real question here is what do we do about the poor dispossessed souls caught in a cycle of crime and violence from which there's no apparent avenue of escape? Most gun issues would be moot if the root cause of such tragedies, crime violence, was effectively addressed.

But this is a difficult and deeply complex problem without the kind of easy solutions governments like, and it's exacerbated by the facile idea, apparently held by many of the power elite, that those most affected aren't important. This has just got to be incorrect, because given half a chance this currently dispossessed population could be just as valuable to society as any other segment.

What a "war on crime" really needs isn't more laws, but more understanding, because with understanding can come more effective strategies. Reduce crime properly, and you don't need more laws. If government and politicos spent as much on an effort to understand crime and violence as they do on their campaigns and pet projects, who knows what we'd accomplish?

What we need is a "moon landing" like commitment to understand and address crime and violence; any money spent on such a program would be far better spent, and have far greater positive long term effect, than funding positioning campaigns on hot topic bluster. All this argumentation over the gun issue is a tragic distraction from the real issue.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

AlphaApe: Obviously you have not been reading about Mexico and how the drug cartels are killing people left and right, by gunning them down. And that personal firearm ownership in Mexico is outlawed.

Shocking. I can't believe a country that is awash in guns would have a problem with people getting gunned down. Obviously they need more guns. And seriously, stop bringing up Mexico when we both know I could list a hundred countries where the opposite is true. It's an argument that exists just so you can have something to say for a response.

JeanValJean: Cleo, do you really just not get it? As in EVERY culture there are those violent persons who intend to rob, murder, or rape.

Sure, we all have a problem with people getting robbed, murdered, and raped, so let's go ahead and add the problem of kids getting shot in the head by their 5-year old brother.

Matthew Simon: You really think making new laws is going to prevent these crazies from blowing away people? Hell the laws that already are there aren't enforced

You think groups like the NRA who try to water down or repeal existing laws really should be making the case that current laws aren't effective? And if you make policy that increases the number of guns on the street aren't you helping to destroy the possibility of enforcement?

[laws] only hinder the people that actually obey the law.

The parent's of the kid who was just shot were law abiding. The mother of the Newton massacre was law abiding. The companies that market guns to children are law abiding. The gun shop owner who doesn't keep inventory in order to report theft is law abiding. The seller who gets customers through online forums and sells to anyone he wants is law abiding. You think these people should not have any measure of responsibility placed on them?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Matthew Simon: I would rather have a carry pistol on me when someone tries to rob me or stab me, than some good intentions, because the police aren't going to stop that lunatic from messing your day up.

Something like 80% of Americans don't own guns. That should tell you how much the average American is worried about getting murdered on the street. If you feel you can't leave your house without the option of deadly force then you are in the extreme minority. I don't want to pay the price for your paranoia.

While it may not seem applicable today, the time may come again where the reason for the second amendment to the constitution exists becomes extremely valid again. And as for day to day gun ownership I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it.

If we changed the Constitution to ban guns tomorrow, would you hand yours over? Your answer should tell us how much you really support the Constitution.

As I said above the problem in the US is cultural not gun related.

The culture of guns.

When people look to point a finger of blame organizations like the NRA are easy targets as they are large well funded and can be cast in an evil light easily because of what they stand for.

The NRA just helped to block legislation that 80-90% of Americans supported. Yeah, I'm going to call them out for it. What's strange is that every gun owner I've talked to said they supported it, but didn't offer a peep of outrage over what the NRA did.

I don't feel the need to have an A-bomb at home for defense I think it is funny that those who do control those weapons I wouldn't trust to take care of my dog if I was away for a day.

You don't get the sheer level of paranoia that some on the gun side have. When Obama was elected, people bought so many guns that they couldn't manufacture enough bullets. This is not the action of men who have a firm grasp of the Constitution and separation of power. They just knew some liberal was coming into office and that was enough for them to hand over their paychecks to gun manufacturers. There's only one thing that drives that: paranoia.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Superlib, since guns are not registered in most places how do you know how many people have guns in America? As far as the NRA blocking legislation if so and people disagree with it I suggest they take it up with their elected officials at the ballot next election. That Universal background check bill was rubbish anyways and had no way to be enforced, anyone will agree with a poll of background checks if asked in a certain way. So those huge 90% agreement numbers are BS. I have had these types of discussions with many liberals over the past few months and I would ask you then, if you have so much support for your cause and the numbers are so conclusive why has nothing changed? It would seem to me that you really don't have the anti gun support you think you have, and watching polls as you like to pull numbers from above seem to say that opinion has swung the other way away from anti-gun legislation in the months after Newtown. Why because emotions settled down and common sense kicked back in. You can blame the NRA and like organizations all you want and cry that its their fault that your crusade was stomped. I think its comical.

By the way this comment:

Shocking. I can't believe a country that is awash in guns would have a problem with people getting gunned down. Obviously they need more guns. And seriously, stop bringing up Mexico when we both know I could list a hundred countries where the opposite is true. It's an argument that exists just so you can have something to say for a response

You wouldn't say that if you were in one of those drug war border towns. The US has some of the largest unguarded unfenced borders in the world so where are these hundreds of other countries where the same is true?

We can go back and forth forever, I really don't you have your opinion and I have mine. I respect yours I just don't agree with it. You can quote all of the stats and figures you want, but based on my personal experience I am going to keep on doing what I am doing.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

there are those violent persons who intend to rob, murder, or rape....

the time may come again where the reason for the second amendment to the constitution exists becomes extremely valid again....

I would rather have a carry pistol on me when someone tries to rob me or stab me....

as for day to day gun ownership I would rather have it and not need it then need it and not have it....

If the US didn't have guns, people like you would find other ways to bash Americans....

Paranoia.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Shocking. I can't believe a country that is awash in guns would have a problem with people getting gunned down.

@ SuperLib and others: The problem with this particular shooting is that the people who live in the area, know who did this but they are not talking. They have a fear of the gangs who run the streets. So when you people on here keep talking about taking guns away from those who can legallay own them, and rely on law enforcement to protect you, where is your response to that? People in the area are afraid and the police seem to look the other way because if they get no help, why spend time wasting resources. Sad but that is how the world operates.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@cleo

Paranoia

I think the people that want to take away my right to bear arms or can't understand my right to own a firearm are the people that are really paranoid.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

That still doesn't address the fact that a high number of guns equals a high number of guns deaths. And talking about reduced numbers almost makes it sound like problem of kids getting shot isn't that bad.

No it doesn't mean that either. My state Minnesota for example has at least hundreds of thousands of firearms if not millions but there are only a grand total of 70 homicides a year, 43 of which are with firearms; 6 of those 43 are done with both a shotgun or a rifle meaning it is almost done exclusively with handguns.

Considering a child is more likely to die by accidental drowning than by a firearm whether it be by accident or on purpose then ya it kind of isn't that bad as it is made out to be. That isn't to say their deaths are not tragic and that you can't look into measures but you also have to keep it within context.

Your stats only talk about getting guns from family members. It doesn't say anything about them being straw buyers. Question: since gun shops are required to shred background checks, would keeping them help to reduce the number of straw buyers?

Actually gun stores are required to keep background checks as well as the registration of the firearm to the buyer for 20 years. The federal government is required to destroy their copy of the background check within 24 hours.

No it doesn't but it is implied considering those in jail that were surveyed over 75% of them had already had a previous criminal conviction which means it is unlikely the family and friends did not know about that previous criminal conviction.

I don't believe it would be that effective. The only time it would be effective is if you setup some type of red line that says when this person buys this many firearms in this amount of time that it triggers the ATF to trail them. It is important to note that straw buyers are incredibly difficult to prosecute even with the guns already registered to the buyer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk

Do you even know what the word means?

You're the one who claims to live in a 'good area' yet to still need protection. And who thinks there are so many nutters currently crawling the streets that a concerted mental asylum-building project is in order.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

AlphaApe: So when you people on here keep talking about taking guns away from those who can legallay own them

By now you should know that I've never advocated "taking guns away." It always amazes me how gun supporters quickly go there. When the topic turns to common sense legislation you guys tend to run out of arguments.

where is your response to that?

You guys seem to think that we come out of the womb with guns and nothing can change that. Common sense legislation will have an impact over time. It won't change things overnight but it will at least create the opinion that it's OK to meet somewhere in the middle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noliving: Considering a child is more likely to die by accidental drowning than by a firearm whether it be by accident or on purpose then ya it kind of isn't that bad as it is made out to be. That isn't to say their deaths are not tragic and that you can't look into measures but you also have to keep it within context.

Your comparison isn't context. We could market flamethrowers to children and every year more kids would still die from pools. It's an argument that sounds good unless you talk about gun deaths being utterly senseless and should be at zero.

No it doesn't but it is implied considering those in jail that were surveyed over 75% of them had already had a previous criminal conviction which means it is unlikely the family and friends did not know about that previous criminal conviction.

Implied isn't worth anything. Would you support legislation that says people cannot have a gun in the house if ex-cons or the mentally ill are present? If you don't, then what does that say about being committed to keeping guns out of the wrong hands?

I don't believe it would be that effective.

Then why don't you tell me what you think effective laws would be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Matthew Simon: if you have so much support for your cause and the numbers are so conclusive why has nothing changed?

Paranoia from the NRA?

It would seem to me that you really don't have the anti gun support you think you hav

Gun supporters are lying? I'm guessing gun control advocates had a pretty honest answer about it.

We can go back and forth forever, I really don't you have your opinion and I have mine. I respect yours I just don't agree with it. You can quote all of the stats and figures you want, but based on my personal experience I am going to keep on doing what I am doing.

Fair enough.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Common sense legislation will have an impact over time. It won't change things overnight but it will at least create the opinion that it's OK to meet somewhere in the middle.

@ SuperLib: I agree with you on that. But just as some seem to think that people who are in favor of gun ownership don't want to change, the same thing you said about legislation needs to be applied to this case in NO. Specifically for the case of the lawless attitudes by some of the residents. Making prisons tougher and doing more to protect persons who decide to testify against the bad seeds in the area will not get passed because some group will feel that somehow we are trampling on their rights. Since when was it a right for someone to terrorize a neighborhood without fear.

A few weeks ago, a news article on the Orleans Parish County jail (where NO is located) appeared in the media that shows a video made in the jail and posted on Facebook that showed them in jail, with drugs, and a gun and basically "kicking it" like they were on the block and bragging on how they ran the jail and it was just like being on the streets. That is the real reason why this violence took place on the streets of NO, criminals not afraid to go to jail, and corruption in the force that has allowed this type of behavior to grow. Taking guns away from those who can legally own one will not stop the violence in this city nor would it have prevented it from happening. Only a tough stance on crime would make any real impact,

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Your comparison isn't context. We could market flamethrowers to children and every year more kids would still die from pools. It's an argument that sounds good unless you talk about gun deaths being utterly senseless and should be at zero.

No it is context. Accidental drownings are utterly senseless and should be at zero as well. Every single innocent death by any and all means, whether it is done on purpose or by accident, is utterly senseless and should be at zero but that is nothing more than idealistic not realistic. If we were to follow such emotional thinking then practically every single thing we do, whether it be for necessity or enjoyment, would be banned.

Also just so you know you can market flamethrowers to children in the USA. It is not against the law and you would be surprised at the fact that there is absolutely zero federal laws that regulate the manufacture and or sale of such devices. I believe it is only California and New York that have any type of legislation on flamethrower devices.

Implied isn't worth anything. Would you support legislation that says people cannot have a gun in the house if ex-cons or the mentally ill are present? If you don't, then what does that say about being committed to keeping guns out of the wrong hands?

I disagree I believe the implied is worth something.

Actually yes I would support such legislation. I have stated numerous times in my past posts that the background check needs to include everyone listed at the permanent residence and if it shows that you live with someone who has a criminal past or is mentally compromised that they would be prevented from buying a gun that you yourself would also be denied the purchase until you relocated to a different residence. I also stated in such posts that this would also apply to purchasing ammunition. Now if there was to be a compromise on such legislation it would be you would not be denied the purchase but that local and state law enforcement would have the right to inspect your house whenever and as much as they like to ensure the gun was secured properly.

I don't really get the point of you asking such a question considering I have made my opinion on the exact question you are asking numerous times public on this website.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do you even know what the word means?

The real question is, do YOU know what it means. I don't need to be and am NOT paranoid. Sorry, because I own a firearm and can physically take care of myself since I was a teenager, there is NO need for it, but I have a family to protect and as I have stated before, I will do ANYTHING to protect them. Get off of this, "but you live in a good area" Yea, so what? I lived all my life around the world in good areas and always carried some kind of weapon to defend myself, has nothing to do with paranoia. Being cautious, confident and paranoid are completely different.

You're the one who claims to live in a 'good area' yet to still need protection. And who thinks there are so many nutters currently crawling the streets that a concerted mental asylum-building project is in order.

NOT claim, I do. And yes, there are too many basket cases out there that should and need to be locked up that ARE the real problems to this mess instead of blaming the guns. The guns are and never were the real issue, but having crazy loons walk the street without proper medication and supervision, that is the underlying problem to this whole debacle.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

No bickering please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The real question is, do YOU know what it means.

Yes I do, and you're exhibiting classic symptoms. A desperate need to 'protect' your family, the need to carry a weapon to 'protect' yourself, seeing 'basket cases' and 'crazy loons' everywhere....

having crazy loons walk the street without proper medication and supervision, that is the underlying problem to this whole debacle.

How come other countries don't have all these crazy loons in need of medication and supervision, and don't suffer from this 'whole debacle'? (At least now you can see that the situation is a debacle.)

2 ( +4 / -2 )

They are not classic symptoms, whether I'm living in Japan or Antartica protecting my family from Polar Bears, regardless of geographical location. As a man, I do what I must. You got crazy people everywhere.

How come other countries don't have all these crazy loons in need of medication and supervision, and don't suffer from this 'whole debacle'? (At least now you can see that the situation is a debacle.)

They do, you just probably aren't aware of it, but they are out there.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

The Second Amendment isn't clear cut? " 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." What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is unclear?

the 2nd amendment needs some updating. it was written back when the american continental army was woefully inadequate to defend the nation against foreign invaders (britain). therefore, a militia/armed civilian population was necessary. but that was a few centuries ago.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Noliving: Accidental drownings are utterly senseless and should be at zero as well.

You're ignoring my point. Just because more kids die in pools instead of marketed lethal weapons doesn't mean we should market lethal weapons to kids. It's common sense, not statistics.

I have stated numerous times in my past posts that the background check needs to include everyone listed at the permanent residence and if it shows that you live with someone who has a criminal past or is mentally compromised that they would be prevented from buying a gun that you yourself would also be denied the purchase until you relocated to a different residence

I find that the people I talk with will agree to quite a few safety measures, yet here we are... It seems more likely that they know common sense items won't pass so they just come out on record saying they support it for window dressing. At the NRA convention, they proudly boasted about their work to defeat universal background checks despite high support from the public. Seems like they know what their members really think.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

bass4funk: having crazy loons walk the street without proper medication and supervision, that is the underlying problem to this whole debacle.

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth. We've had countless posts about how crime has fallen dramatically, then some gun owners follow that up by saying there are just too many threats on the street.

You say that things like mass shootings done by the mentally ill account for tiny percentages of overall shootings, then you turn around and say we need to spend most of our time addressing mental illness in the country.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The undeniable truth is that fewer guns should mean fewer gun deaths and no guns would mean zero gun deaths. Let's hope the US starts moving in the right direction. It would be tough and take a long time but give it a try. Surprise the rest of the world!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You say that things like mass shootings done by the mentally ill account for tiny percentages of overall shootings, then you turn around and say we need to spend most of our time addressing mental illness in the country.

I never said that there are too many threats on the streets, I said that, I have a firearm in my possession that I will use should, God forbid, the need arises that a serious threat could or would hurt my family. And yes, it is about the mentally insane, we used to have mental institutions, but most were shit down in the 80's, now we have to live with these people, they usually get short-term medication and the families of these mentally challenged people are left with the responsibility to care for them and they usually can't because they are not well- trained or well-equipped. Anyone remember Andrea Yates? So to blame the firearm itself is totally absurd.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This is really messed up and hey if WE ARM everyone in the USA to the TEETH, maybe we can all just shoot each other, and when everyone is dead or too injured to even move, then the NRA nut cases will be happy?? Keep on smoking crack, etc..the REST of the WORLD is laughing or crying for the USA and all of its ridiculous crime stats for a DEVELOPED COUNTRY!!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Anyone remember Andrea Yates?

You're saying you need a gun because of a sick lady who drowned her kids?? What kind of a threat was she to you?

You realise that until the mentally-ill are diagnosed as such they have as much right as you to go into a shop and buy a gun? If you're aware of the myriads of mentally-ill people considered fit to walk the streets, why would you want them to have access to guns? And how do you know that you won't one day flip, suffer a psychotic episode and use your legally-obtained guns for a purpose your sane self cannot imagine?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You're saying you need a gun because of a sick lady who drowned her kids?? What kind of a threat was she to you?

The Andrea Yates analogy was used as an example, but yea, say, a person like that would come near me or my family, deranged, having some weapon in her hands or even using her physical strength to hurt my family the way she did hers, I would not hesitate, NOT for a second.

Her husband knew she was a basket and by the last child, doctors already diagnosed her as being certifiabley, crazy! He knew it and he thought he would have been able to handle it and look what happened? He took the responsibility upon himself to care for her and he wasn't able to do so. The crazy woman should have been locked up before she got pregnant the last time around. Basically, she was a threat to her husband and especially her children and in the bigger picture, the community.

You realise that until the mentally-ill are diagnosed as such they have as much right as you to go into a shop and buy a gun?

Well, those laws need and should be modified.

If you're aware of the myriads of mentally-ill people considered fit to walk the streets, why would you want them to have access to guns?

Don't want them to walk the streets, I want them locked up!

And how do you know that you won't one day flip, suffer a psychotic episode and use your legally-obtained guns for a purpose your sane self cannot imagine?

I have a very large family and not one of us has a history of mental illness, anything is possible. I could make the same analogy, if I get in a car or a plan, I could have accident, but I tend to believe the odds are in my favor. In other words, the chance of that scenario happening is 1out of million.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

yea, say, a person like that would come near me or my family, deranged, having some weapon in her hands

Her weapon of choice was a bathtub of water. Your example is ridiculous.

I would not hesitate, NOT for a second

So if some person unknown to you approached you in what you perceived to be a threatening manner, you would shoot first - without hesitation - and ask questions later? Another Rodney Peairs in the making.

And you still say you're not paranoid?

those laws need and should be modified

What a lot of us have been saying all along. No one with the possibility of developing mental illness (according to the Mayo Clinic, about half of all US adults will develop a mental illness at some time in their life) should have access to firearms. Those that do have access (police and military) should be carefully monitored at all times.

Don't want them to walk the streets, I want them locked up!

Again according to the Mayo Clinic, about 1 in 4 adults has a mental illness in any given year. You'd have the mental asylums more crowded than the prisons (at nearly 750 per 100,000 of population, the US already has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world). Why do you imagine so many Americans need to be locked up?

not one of us has a history of mental illness

=Your paranoia has not been officially documented. Because it isn't written down doesn't mean it isn't there.

anything is possible

You said it.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

if I get in a car or a plan, I could have accident, but I tend to believe the odds are in my favor. In other words, the chance of that scenario happening is 1out of million.

Actually US roads claim nearly as many lives as firearms.

Given that gun supporters emphasize the stats on suicide by firearm to rationalize the safety of those weapons, is it not paranoid to believe, then, that the odds are not in your favor when it comes to gun violence?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Her weapon of choice was a bathtub of water. Your example is ridiculous.

Nope, on point, she was a loon and she grabbed and drowned her kids, whatever she used, gun, knife, methane , the result was the same, she was mentally sick and she killed her kids, end of story.

So if some person unknown to you approached you in what you perceived to be a threatening manner, you would shoot first - without hesitation - and ask questions later?

On my property heading towards me and I can at that point and time ascertain that the threat is serious enough to cause me and my family bodily injury, you betcha!

And you still say you're not paranoid?

Yup, because I am NOT the one that is going to attack someone, therefore, I don't need to be paranoid.

What a lot of us have been saying all along. No one with the possibility of developing mental illness (according to the Mayo Clinic, about half of all US adults will develop a mental illness at some time in their life) should have access to firearms. Those that do have access (police and military) should be carefully monitored at all times.

That is just one side of the argument. Personally, I don't believe it and millions of other law-abiding US citizens don't either.

Again according to the Mayo Clinic, about 1 in 4 adults has a mental illness in any given year. You'd have the mental asylums more crowded than the prisons (at nearly 750 per 100,000 of population, the US already has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world). Why do you imagine so many Americans need to be locked up?

I'm totally down with that. I think we should build more prisons and relocate the crazy loons and put them in the more appropriate settings of the mental asylum and freeing up the prisons for the convicts. I don't think so many Americans need to be locked up, just the looney ones. And you have loons everywhere this BS notion that it is only in the US is over the top laughable, seriously.

Your paranoia has not been officially documented.

That's because I am not.

Because it isn't written down doesn't mean it isn't there.

But because it isn't written down doesn't mean that it is there as well.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I can at that point and time ascertain that the threat is serious enough to cause me and my family bodily injury, you betcha!

Just like Rodney Peairs. How do you think you can ascertain that the threat is serious enough if you're intent on, as you said earlier, shooting without hesitation?

I am NOT the one that is going to attack someone, therefore, I don't need to be paranoid.

Mm, no one needs to be paranoid. It's a mental illness. And if you are going to shoot someone without hesitation because you're convinced without reason (no time to assess a reason if you're shooting without hesitation) that they're a threat to you, then I'm sorry, but you are the one who is going to be attacking people.

you have loons everywhere this BS notion that it is only in the US is over the top laughable, seriously.

Then seriously, why do people in other countries get by without carrying guns and without getting shot/knifed/drowned by all the loonies? And why can't America do whatever it is all those other countries are doing right?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Just like Rodney Peairs. How do you think you can ascertain that the threat is serious enough if you're intent on, as you said earlier, shooting without hesitation?

Coming after me and my family in a violent way is enough for me to take proper action.

Mm, no one needs to be paranoid. It's a mental illness. And if you are going to shoot someone without hesitation because you're convinced without reason (no time to assess a reason if you're shooting without hesitation) that they're a threat to you, then I'm sorry, but you are the one who is going to be attacking people.

Not in the least, only if I'm engaged and have no other recourse.

Then seriously, why do people in other countries get by without carrying guns and without getting shot/knifed/drowned by all the loonies? And why can't America do whatever it is all those other countries are doing right?

That is simply and absolutely NOT true, I have given stats to you from every major international press backing up my point. I lived in grew up in Europe to say that, that is not true at at, in fact, quite the opposite, but you choose to believe, otherwise. Anyway, like the Mod said, I went to get back on the main topic, if I may?....My father is from New Orleans, a bit surprising because it never had a real reputation for violence. Our family used to travel there for vacation and I always, always enjoyed the southern hospitality and the openness of the people, excellent food and the slow pace of life made it the ideal getaway treat. Sorry to hear that this happened. But knowing the police, I'm very sure, they will apprehend these thugs very soon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Coming after me and my family in a violent way is enough for me to take proper action.

So thought Rodney Peairs.

only if I'm engaged and have no other recourse

But how do you know if there is any other recourse or not, if you are going to shoot without hesitation?

That is simply and absolutely NOT true, I have given stats to you from every major international press backing up my point.

No you haven't. A while back you produced some links to stories of yobboes with knives in Europe. Not a one of those links provided any suggestion that people need to arm themselves with a Glock whatever-it-was and shoot without hesitation at anything that scares them.

If it's stats that you want:

http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour.

Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period

In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks

In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.

From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.

Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six

And to back them up, a few anecdotes to add flavouring:

http://raniakhalek.com/2013/05/01/at-least-9-toddlers-were-involved-in-accidental-shootings-in-april/

April 1: A 3-year-old in Sandy Springs, Georgia, shot himself in the thumb with .380 pistol

April 6: A 4-year-old boy in Wilson County, Tennessee, accidentally fired a pistol during a family cookout, striking and immediately killing a sheriff deputy’s wife

April 7: Rekia Kid,22, was sleeping with her 3-week-old and 2-year-old at their home in Carroll County, Tennessee, when the toddler accidentally fired a Glock 9 mm he found hidden underneath Kid’s pillow, striking his mother in the stomach.

April 8: A 4-year-old Ocean County, New Jersey boy shot his 6-year-old neighbor, Brandon Holt, in the head during a play date

April 9: In Sumter, South Carolina, 3-year-old Qui’ontrez Moss accidentally killed himself with a gun that belonged to his uncle

April 12: Gavin Brummett, 7, accidentally shot himself in the head with a semiautomatic 9mm handgun

April 14: 9-year-old Shayla May Shonneker was playing in her back yard when she was struck in the face by a bullet that came from inside her house

April 16: A 6-year-old girl in Mission, Kansas, was accidentally shot in the leg by her 14-year-old cousin

April 20: A 2-year-boy reached into his father’s pocket, pulled out a gun and accidentally shot himself in the chest

April 22: A 3-year-old shot a 10-month-old in the face with a loaded handgun while left temporarily unattended in their parents car

April 27: A 4-year-old Henrico County, Virginia boy was shot in the leg by his 10-year-old sibling who accidentally fired a gun he had located in their home.

April 30: A 5-year-old boy in Kentucky accidentally shot and killed his 2-year-old sister with a .22-caliber rifle he received as a gift.

All in the same month. All kiddies. Probably every one of those guns was bought with the intention of 'protectin' mah fahmleh'. And the owners of the guns likely thought they were responsible, legal gun-owners exercisin' their constitutional rights.

And that's only unintentional shootings. If you want a comparison of stats on overall crime in a country where not everyone feels the need to carry a gun for protection:

http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/United-Kingdom/United-States/Crime

Murders committed by youths:

UK 139 (ranked #29th)

US 8,226 (ranked #3)

Murders with firearms:

UK 14 (ranked #29)

US 9,369 (ranked #1)

Total crimes:

UK 6,523,706 (ranked #2)

US 11,877,218 (ranked #1)

As is evident from the Total Crimes stat, the Brits are certainly no goodie-two-shoes; but the gun crime stats speak for themselves.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

All in the same month. All kiddies. Probably every one of those guns was bought with the intention of 'protectin' mah fahmleh'. And the owners of the guns likely thought they were responsible, legal gun-owners exercisin' their constitutional rights.

Ms. Cleo,

There is also another group of people who uses something different then guns but for all intensive purposes the exact same reason for 'protectin' mah fahmleh' and it can turn just as lethal on children as any gun has if the owner is irresponsible. This type of tragedy happens all to often also Ms. Cleo.

A family dog who had never shown aggression before attacked and killed a 2-year-old boy Wednesday in a subdivision near here about 15 miles southwest of Atlanta, police said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/25/pit-bull-kills-toddler/2113713/

Do you think all dog owners should also just be painted with the same brush as you like to do to all gun owners as somehow complicit for allowing these horrible events to happen ?

It's not that simple after all Ms. Cleo.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sailwind, let's look at the stats, shall we?

http://www.dogsbite.org/pdf/8-year-dog-bite-fatality-chart-dogsbiteorg.pdf

In the 8 years 2005 to 2012, 251 Americans died as a result of dog attack (The number of Americans killed unintentionally by guns was over 600 in a one-year period, remember). Of these, 75% of the dogs involved were pit bulls (60%) and Rottweilers (13%). While there are some people who keep these breeds because they respect the breed or for other legitimate reasons, far too many owners of these 'big tough' breeds choose the dog precisely because of the breed's reputation for aggression towards strangers and actually train the dog to develop its aggression, or at the least do nothing to ameliorate its aggressive tendencies. And of course when the untrained or inappropriately-trained dog does attack, it's always 'But, but he's never shown aggression before'. Admit to owning a vicious dog, and the legal penalties are greater when it does hurt someone. (To paraphrase the gun argument, it isn't the dogs that are the problem, it's the kind of people who want to own that kind of dog who are the problem.)

So yes, people who choose a big tough dog for the purpose of 'protectin' mah fahmleh' are pretty much of a type with those who feel the need to keep loaded firearms in the house for protection. Both are paranoid, and palpably not fit to handle the method of 'protection' they have chosen. If you're stable, you don't need either big tough dogs or big tough guns to make you feel safe.

That doesn't mean all dog owners or all owners of large dogs or even all owners of pit bulls are bad; there are many, many reasons for wanting to own a dog, and for most dog owners protection is probably way, way down the list. The main reason most people want a dog, in my experience, is to have something to love and care for and to be a companion. The only use for a gun, however, is to shoot someone. So yes, actually it is quite simple.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@cleo

Sail and I proved our points, if you want or think that you can convince or think that you ar in the right, so be it, that is your opinion, if you think so, I love my country, I think it's the best country in the world, all the stats you put out, doesn't mean, Jack, we have the 3rd largest population in the world, people are dying everyday trying to get into the US, if it were that bad, no one would come, as matter of fact, I'd wish many of them wouldn't, we have too many people as it is. I will never apologize for owning a gun for hunting, for keeping my family safe, yes, I am a fan of Ted Nugent! That will never change, I already know how Europe is, love it, but wouldn't wanna live there again, don't even it. NOT at all. I feel lucky and blessed to be born where I was. But seriously, now do you think think we can get back on track on the original topic? Can we talk about New Orleans instead of hearing you trying to make empty dubious points? I'm really quite interested in knowing (without you sidestepping the issue) what you think about this situation. We don't need to belabor the other points, I have made mine perfectly clear and will always side with the NRA and building of more mental institutions. Have you ever been to New Orleans before? Highly recommend it, just going there for the food alone is worth it. As I said before, they will get through this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That doesn't mean all dog owners or all owners of large dogs or even all owners of pit bulls are bad;

A very well grounded and rational sentiment that you will never ever apply to gun owners unfortunately.

there are many, many reasons for wanting to own a dog, and for most dog owners protection is probably way, way down the list

According to gallup surprisingly 10 percent of dog owners actually cited it as the number reason for getting a dog. But you are correct the majority was for the companionship first and foremost, doesn't change the fact that dogs provide a huge fringe benefit in protecting the home as part of their doggie duties. My little min-pin thinks it's his number one job actually and demands to be petted after notifying us a stranger has crossed the yard boundary and was then greeted by his 'woofing'.

The only use for a gun, however, is to shoot someone.

That is not an accurate statement at all as guns are also used for sport and hunting besides for self protection. Ironically there are dogs not only in the role of protection but also many breeds are specifically and solely to support the gun owning hunter.

So yes, actually it is quite simple.

I obviously do not concur and stand by my position that responsible dog owners are on the whole good people and who should not be tarred as a group with any atrocious and usually criminal actions by totally irresponsible dog owners. Actions that have allowed small children to lose their lives in let's face it a most gruesome manner.

I've personally known many gun owners in my life and they have all been good people in my experience and I obviously feel the exact same standard in judgments should be applied to responsible gun owners and they also should not be demonized as a group for the actions of totally irresponsible gun owners.

I stand by my original that it is not so simple after all.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bass4funk -

Sorry, but you haven't proven anything except that you wanna gun. That was established at the beginning. You're never going to convince me that it's a good idea to have guns readily available in a country that you yourself claim is awash with loonies. (Not sure what I love my country has got to do with anything...)

yes, I am a fan of Ted Nugent!

I'd never heard of Ted Nugent, did a quick google ... Ugh. What a creep. Illegitimate kids all over the place, failure to pay child support, messing around with a teenager while still married, running canned hunts, illegal hunting (which earned him a hunting ban, 2 years' probation and a $10,000 fine), a potty mouth and so-called patriot who was also a draft-dodger, ie a spineless, self-centred hypocrite. Sorry, but if that kind of gold-plated dyed-in-the-wool jerk is your hero, I don't think you and I are ever going to find common ground on anything.

I'm really quite interested in knowing (without you sidestepping the issue) what you think about this situation

What I think is pretty obvious: that without such easy access to firearms the loonies in New Orleans would not have been able to shoot up a parade and hurt so many people.

As for visiting New Orleans for the food - I did another quick Google, everything seems to have meat in it apart from beignets, which are fried and covered in refined sugar....don't think the food scene in New Orleans is really my kind of scene.

sailwind-

A very well grounded and rational sentiment that you will never ever apply to gun owners unfortunately.

But I do apply the same rational sentiment. Anyone who wants either a dog or a gun in order to hurt someone else, isn't fit to have one.

surprisingly 10 percent of dog owners actually cited it as the number reason for getting a dog

So for 90% it wasn't the main reason. I think 90% fits the definition of 'most', don't you?

In many cases just having a 'Beware of the dog' sticker on the front door acts as protection. A little yappy dog who can alert the owner or the general neighbourhood to the presence of a stranger/intruder, is great protection. A dog doesn't need to be big, tough and mean to provide protection, and someone who wants a dog for protection isn't necessarily going to choose a mean breed. You and your mini-pin know that, of course.

guns are also used for sport and hunting

Guns used for sport can be kept safely locked up at the shooting range; they don't need to be kept loaded at home.

Don't get me started on hunting.

responsible dog owners are on the whole good people and who should not be tarred as a group with any atrocious and usually criminal actions by totally irresponsible dog owners.

I couldn't agree more. I'm a responsible dog owner and I'm a good person. Honest.

the exact same standard in judgments should be applied to responsible gun owners

Sorry, but it comes back again to why people want guns. For sport, target practice - fine, keep them at the shooting range out of harm's way. To shoot intruders - those people are of the same mindset as the pumpkins who think having a big tough vicious dog makes them big and tough as well. It doesn't. Quite the opposite, they're rather pathetic, getting their grit from a dog or a gun. So yes, it is the exact same standard; if you want your dog/gun for the purpose of hurting or intimidating other people, then that's a no-no.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

So for 90% it wasn't the main reason. I think 90% fits the definition of 'most', don't you?

If the question was asked slightly different from as to why you wanted to own a dog to "does owning a dog provide you a sense of protection?" the responses would be almost 100 percent positive Ms. Cleo.

In many cases just having a 'Beware of the dog' sticker on the front door acts as protection.

So does having a "Proud Member of the NRA" sticker on the front door, seriously think about that one just for a moment.

Sorry, but it comes back again to why people want guns.

Most people for their own personal protection as they're many places such as condo's, houses, apartments that you might want to rent that will stipulate right up front "No Pets" and the dog option is already ironically enough already legally banned and off the table.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry, but you haven't proven anything except that you wanna gun. That was established at the beginning. You're never going to convince me that it's a good idea to have guns readily available in a country that you yourself claim is awash with loonies. (Not sure what I love my country has got to do with anything...)

Well, I did, but you are entitled to your opinion as do I and just leave it at that. I already laid everything out for you.

I'd never heard of Ted Nugent, did a quick google ... Ugh. What a creep. Illegitimate kids all over the place, failure to pay child support, messing around with a teenager while still married, running canned hunts, illegal hunting (which earned him a hunting ban, 2 years' probation and a $10,000 fine), a potty mouth and so-called patriot who was also a draft-dodger, ie a spineless, self-centred hypocrite. Sorry, but if that kind of gold-plated dyed-in-the-wool jerk is your hero, I don't think you and I are ever going to find common ground on anything.

We are already not on common ground on most things. For one, I could care less about Nugents background, no one has a perfect past, not going to judge him on that, none of my business. His life, not mine. But I respect the guy.

Guns used for sport can be kept safely locked up at the shooting range; they don't need to be kept loaded at home.

That is your opinion, I want my guns right where they belong, in MY house. In Japan they do that, that is fine, that's the way they do it, but I don't want my country to be like Japan, especially when it comes to firearms. Cleo, you are sounding more and more like Piers Morgan. Give it up, you will NOT change most Americans disarm in any way, love guns, love hunting and love going to the shooting range.

What I think is pretty obvious: that without such easy access to firearms the loonies in New Orleans would not have been able to shoot up a parade and hurt so many people.

Now you are back on track, but I disagree, if the police were to do a random "frisk and search" policy like they do in NY, it would most definitely help in curbing the gun violence. Also as I stated before, we need to build more mental asylums and try to get as many loons off the streets.

As for visiting New Orleans for the food - I did another quick Google, everything seems to have meat in it apart from beignets, which are fried and covered in refined sugar....don't think the food scene in New Orleans is really my kind of scene.

That's the good stuff! Everything good is fried! Personally, I miss lard! Beignets....uhmmmmm....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind -

If the question was asked slightly different from as to why you wanted to own a dog to "does owning a dog provide you a sense of protection?" the responses would be almost 100 percent positive

Yes indeed. But Do you want a dog for protection? is not the same question as Does owning a dog provide you a sense of protection? I would honestly answer No to the first, Yes to the second. And I have no interest in owning a big tough vicious dog.

So does having a "Proud Member of the NRA" sticker on the front door, seriously think about that one just for a moment.

Yes, I thunk about it. A 'Beware of the Dog' sticker shows you're an animal-lover (you don't want people opening your door willy-nilly like they are wont to do out here in the inaka and letting your dog out); a 'Proud Member of the NRA' sticker shows you're a spineless jerk who gets his grit from a gun.

bass4funk -

But I respect the guy.

For what? What about him is to be respected?

I don't want my country to be like Japan, especially when it comes to firearms.

You mean you like having people shot at the rate of three an hour?

Not sure what the reference to Piers Morgan is - I sound like a Sun/News of the World journalist? Heaven forbid. I assume he must have said something about guns, but I've no idea what.

if the police were to do a random "frisk and search" policy

Wouldn't that infringe grossly on some Amendment or other? Something to do with the right of the people to be secure in their persons, against unreasonable searches, probable cause and other freedom-related stuff like that?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

A 'Beware of the Dog' sticker shows you're an animal-lover (you don't want people opening your door willy-nilly like they are wont to do out here in the inaka and letting your dog out); a 'Proud Member of the NRA' sticker shows you're a spineless jerk who gets his grit from a gun.

I hardly think both messages aren't really meant to portray to your local intruder / burglar to think "Gee, what a swell animal lover lives here or Boy, must be a gun totin' toothless cretin who's watching fox news right now" while out an about for a little casing of the local neighborhood for employment opportunities Ms. Cleo.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well the reason for the Beware of the Dog sticker on my door is to warn neighbours, deliverymen, etc., not to open the door without first ringing the bell or wander into the garden unannounced - they don't do it so much now, but it used to be a problem. It has the secondary effect of warning any potential intruder/burglar that within these walls lies a critter likely to raise the alarm should unauthorised entry be attempted.

This being Japan of course I don't suppose anyone would believe or understand an NRA sticker, but in a place where such things are commonplace I would imagine it would encourage said burglar, if he was determined to get his sticky paws on my riches, to make sure he was well armed and got his shot in first before the toothless cretin who resides within had time to load and aim. The good thing about Japan is that you can be reasonably sure no burglar is going to be armed, unless you've got yourself in serious trouble with the yaks.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

cleo: I did another quick Google, everything seems to have meat in it apart from beignets, which are fried and covered in refined sugar....don't think the food scene in New Orleans is really my kind of scene.

The food scene in New Orleans is everyone's kind of scene.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@super

You ain't lying!!! One of the best cities around. In fact, I'm thinking about going there this fall. Not worried about some idiot loon. Normally, the city is quite safe, cops are pretty good, but those Oysters...uhmmmm.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So BassFunk, I'm a liberal you think? Depends on the definition. I believe in complete liberty, which neither the neocon republicans nor neomarxist democrats nor euro-royalists do.

A second gangsta has been arrested, and hopefully boaf a dem be wearin orange long time.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A second gangsta has been arrested, and hopefully boaf a dem be wearin orange long time.

Fair enough. My apologies, but as far them wearing Orange for a long time, you got my vote!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Guns are available to criminals for purchase via loopholes.

Oh, that must also be how they get the pot, coke, and pills they traffic in...

You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth. We've had countless posts about how crime has fallen dramatically, then some gun owners follow that up by saying there are just too many threats on the street.

Because there still are too many threats on the street. Mainly because Leftists here in the U.S. take the same approach as you Leftist expats in Japan after incidinets such as these: Go after guns, instead of going after drug dealers and gangs. Those perps have guns because they're engaged in illegal activity. Funny how this sort of pattern keeps popping up in Democrat-voter precincts.

And that's "funny-hmmm", not "funny-haha".

Want to deny that your ideological fellow travelers were the ones who made this thread about guns and not street/gang crime? The fourth post on this thread is from a Leftist attacking guns and the NRA. The sixth post is a Leftist about "some nutter from the NRA". The ninth post is from you, with another of preposterous posts, fantasizing about back-alley guns dealers performing background checks. Yeah, like that would have been a reality had the NRA not defeated - all by its lonesome - the latest poorly-written gun control legislation.

By now you should know that I've never advocated "taking guns away."

But you're not in public office, are you? But people who do advocate confiscating guns are, and there are powerful lobbying groups behind them.

Shocking. I can't believe a country that is awash in guns would have a problem with people getting gunned down.

Next post:

Something like 80% of Americans don't own guns. ...you are in the extreme minority.

So which is it? And you say others talk out of both sides of their mouths?

I don't want to pay the price for your paranoia.

And how would you do that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't want to pay the price for your paranoia.

And how would you do that?

By getting shot by some armed paranoid who sees threats on the streets all around him and is intent on 'protecting' himself without hesitation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

cleo:

By getting shot by some armed paranoid who sees threats on the streets all around him and is intent on 'protecting' himself without hesitation.

And you have documented examples of this happening?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And you have documented examples of this happening?

Yoshihiro Hattori

"There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought,"

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/05/24/us/acquittal-in-doorstep-killing-of-japanese-student.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Yoshihiro Hattori

Ah yes, the one name that always pops up on this forum. One name. The type of event so rare, that it made international headlines. Hoplophobes in both hemispheres can rally around that one name to justify their paranoia. Meanwhile, violent crime still occurs thousands of times a day in the U.S. (and happened to me, as I keep reminding you), but you think that anybody who prepares themselves for such an event is "paranoid".

No double standard here. ;)

And still, you're obsessing over guns, when the source of the problem in this scenario was gang activity. What, you have no solutions to offer there, cleo dear?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you think that anybody who prepares themselves for such an event is "paranoid".

Mmm, Americans come and tell us they need their guns because America is so violent and scary, then more Americans come and tell us that ain't so, it's just as peaceful as any other developed country and maybe even more so. If the first set of Americans are correct, surely anyone who chooses to live there is crazy; why not get out and live somewhere nicer and safer, where people are more normal? If the second set of Americans are correct, those who see threats around every corner are paranoid. Either way, 'more guns, please' is not the answer.

you're obsessing over guns, when the source of the problem in this scenario was gang activity. What, you have no solutions to offer there

Yes, if it's such a hellhole, move out.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Mmm, Americans come and tell us they need their guns because America is so violent and scary, then more Americans come and tell us that ain't so, it's just as peaceful as any other developed country and maybe even more so.

Perhaps it's never occurred to you that America is a very large and diverse country, with a large and diverse variety of people and cultures within it. Some cultures are imported, and some are developed domestically.

Yes, if it's such a hellhole, move out.

Which does nothing to solve the gang problem. And it's chronically selfish. Just what I expected, in other words.

It's also the same short-sighted solution you offered in our last debate. Again, you have not considered much. For example, family. Some people are not selfish, and think of their family obligations before they think of themselves. Living in Japan, perhaps you have met some people like that. Nor have you considered economics. Some people cannot afford to move away. Providing for their own self-defense is a much more affordable option. Nor have you considered rights. This is my home. I have a right to live here. Much more of a right than gangs have to invade and claim it as "their turf".

And what happens if you keep running, only to run out of places to hide? At some point, you have to take responsibility and stand up for yourself. Better to do that early, than when you have no place left to run.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Which does nothing to solve the gang problem. And it's chronically selfish. .....you have not considered much. For example, family. Some people are not selfish, and think of their family obligations before they think of themselves....This is my home. I have a right to live here.

Sounds like your 'rights' take precedence over your family's safety. You don't think it's selfish to make them live in a place you describe as invaded by gangs? You have no obligation to keep them safe, or to raise your kids in a healthy environment? They must live in fear because of your 'right' to choose where to live? How is that not chronically selfish?

Some people cannot afford to move away.

If it's a gang-infested hellhole, I don't see how you can afford not to take your family to a safer location, somewhere they can take part in an innocent parade without some looney firing shots at them. Seems like a no-brainer to me. The safety of my family is paramount.

what happens if you keep running, only to run out of places to hide?

America is a very large and diverse country, with a large and diverse variety of people and cultures within it. Why would you need to 'keep running' if you moved to a nice part of the country? Are you saying that there is nowhere in America where people are safe from gangs, drug-pushers and other people who live by the gun? Looks like the conversation has come full circle again.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Sounds like your 'rights' take precedence over your family's safety.

No, my rights secure my family's safety. You've made it plenty clear that you are incapable of understanding that concept, no matter how many times I remind you that I've already used a gun in self-defense with very successful results. And that wasn't in a gang-infested area. It was just a random street crime that happened without warning.

You don't think it's selfish to make them live in a place you describe as invaded by gangs? You have no obligation to keep them safe, or to raise your kids in a healthy environment? They must live in fear because of your 'right' to choose where to live? How is that not chronically selfish?

Make? In most cases, the innocent people lived there first, and the gangs moved in and/or recruited from poor kids in the neighborhood.

What you don't get is that some people cannot afford to live wherever they please. If people could afford to move out of gang-infested areas, don't you think they would? Self-defense isn't just for wealthy people who can hire armed security guards. A safe environment isn't just for those who can afford to live in gated communities. Poor people have a right to defend themselves, something that posh elitists never comprehend. Probably because in reality, they just don't care about the poor.

If it's a gang-infested hellhole, I don't see how you can afford not to take your family to a safer location, somewhere they can take part in an innocent parade without some looney firing shots at them.

Because they're living on government assistance? Just a guess.

And the looneys weren't firing at them, they were firing at each other. But because they emulate the gangers glorified in rap videos and movies, they were probably holding their guns sideways, and not taking care to properly aim the weapons. That's how innocent bystanders are often hurt in shootings, from ignorant criminals, not trained, licensed, and experienced citizens.

Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Void of deductive reasoning, clearly.

The safety of my family is paramount.

Good. THEN WORK TO GET RID OF THE GANGS. Then people won't have to move if they don't want to.

Why would you need to 'keep running' if you moved to a nice part of the country? Are you saying that there is nowhere in America where people are safe from gangs, drug-pushers and other people who live by the gun? Looks like the conversation has come full circle again.

Because crime spreads. Especially if nobody stands up to it. That's how gangs have spread from inner-cities to once-quiet suburbs. Because people with your mindset just moved off and let them have it. Gangs are trying to move into my part of town, but some of us are working with the police to note "taggings" and other evidence of gang activity. Why? Because the safety of my family is paramount. And this is our home, not theirs.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Self-defense isn't just for wealthy people who can hire armed security guards. A safe environment isn't just for those who can afford to live in gated communities.

Seems like you're saying the only 'safe' places in America are the gated communities where rich people with armed security guards live. How sad. (And if those rich people still need armed security guards in their gated communities, it doesn't say much for the safety of the rich communities, does it?)

Maybe if the only guns available to the criminals were rusty old antiques and dodgy pieces, anyone firing a gun would be as likely to hurt themselves as their victim (viz. the bloke in Woolich in London yesterday, who shot at police and blew his own thumb off) and therefore less likely to shoot at all?

Why do Americans need to live in gated communities to feel safe, when the rest of the world doesn't?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Seems like you're saying the only 'safe' places in America are the gated communities where rich people with armed security guards live. How sad.

That's pretty much the only guarantee, yeah.

(And if those rich people still need armed security guards in their gated communities, it doesn't say much for the safety of the rich communities, does it?)

You're twisting what I said, but then you already know that.

Maybe if the only guns available to the criminals...

Maybe if lawmakers and law enforcement worked towards shutting off the underground illegal arms trade, instead of making legal guns and magazine capacity illegal...

Why do Americans need to live in gated communities to feel safe, when the rest of the world doesn't?

In America, the only people who feel shame for going to prison are those who ever felt responsible for their actions in the first place. The "thug life" is glorified on television, in rap videos, in movies, on t-shirts, and tattoos. And prison life in America includes the same luxuries that many Americans outside of prison (including "the poor") enjoy: Cable TV, gyms, work opportunities, meals, access to lawyers and medical care, etc. Sure, there are still gangs and violence, but most of the people who end up in prison are already accustomed to that.

On the outside, there is no shame for being on welfare. There is no shame for wanting or taking what rightfully belongs to someone else. There is no shame in sleeping with people you know you won't stay with. There is no shame in having four children by four different "donors", none of whom can be bothered to stay around and become fathers or real men. There is no shame in blaming everybody but yourself for your bad decisions. If someone else worked and bought something nice, then you should be given that too, just so everything is "fair". And you prove how tough you are by taking it from someone else yourself. It's a cultural epidemic.

How did this happen? People in power, who don't know the difference between sympathy and pity, or between support and enabling. And the opportunists who exploit both sides for personal and political gain. We've based everything from our tax structure to our entitlement system on envy. We tell poor people that rich people became rich by taking from the poor (which is arguably true of tobacco companies, liquor distributors, soda companies, etc.). Our culture glorifies criminals and vilify responsible people. Dressing and acting like a "gangsta" is fashionable, even if you're just a 12-year-old kid who is still afraid of thunderstorms. But sooner or later, a peer (or group of peers, as in a gang) will come along and pressure that kid into proving how "gangsta" they are. And that's where all the good intentions of the unwitting enablers goes down the proverbial road to Hades.

Unfortunately, I don't see anyone making an effort to turn this society around. So I may be moving after all. But first, I have to care for older family members who cannot move.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Sounds like you don't like America that much, OldHawk.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites