world

Obama slams Republicans for gun reform 'stunts'

56 Comments

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

© 2013 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

56 Comments
Login to comment

" “They’re not just saying they’ll vote no on ideas that ALMOST ALL Americans support. They’re saying…"

Perhaps Obama neglected to include lawful gun owners in his narrow definition of Americans.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Perhaps Obama neglected to include lawful gun owners in his narrow definition of Americans.

Perhaps Surf O'Holic neglected to acknowledge that a significant percentage of lawful gun owners who also support universal background checks are included in Obama's definition.

Depending on the poll, at minimum, some 84% of guns owners support background checks. At most, that numbers rises to 88%, only a few percentage points behind the 91% of all Americans who support universal background checks.

If there's ever been anything in American politics close to a broad concensus, this issue is it. That Republican lawmakers are making plans to rob the People of an opportunity for their voices to be heard in Congress is criminal.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

(Some Republicans) say a package prepared by Democratic Senate Majority leader Harry Reid would infringe the constitutional right to bear arms.

Boo hoo. Take it to the Supreme Court if you're so confident the measure is unconstitutional; that is their job.

The Senate's job is to debate and legislate. If you don't like it, vote no, but don't prevent other senators from doing their job.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

" Depending on the poll, at minimum, some 84% of guns owners support background checks. At most, that numbers rises to 88%, only a few percentage points behind the 91% of all Americans who support universal background checks."

As has been often said: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics."

The assumption that current legal gun owners who marginally support background checks also support Obama's gun agenda is supported by the record sales and record numbers of background checks since 2008. Surely the polls are all-inclusive.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The Senate's job is to debate and legislate. If you don't like it, vote no, but don't prevent other senators from doing their job.

Well to be fair Congress's job is to debate and legislate law that is constitutional not to just legislate and then let the supreme court do the entire job of determining if something is unconstitutional. That would be like drug companies just creating drugs and just sending them to the FDA without any consideration for what the FDA finds acceptable.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" Take it to the Supreme Court if you're so confident the measure is unconstitutional; that is their job."

Wrong. It's the legislature's job to create legislation WITHIN the constraints of the Constitution. It's the job of the Supreme Court to weigh cases on the Constitutional basis and NOT to legislate. The filibuster is especially relevant for the most controversial issues.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Ah, the Republicans, the champions of freedom and the American way, will once again use their power to...prevent a vote. Obviously they only support democracy when it suits their agenda. Good riddance to this dinosaur party....may they never see the White House again.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Alas, Superlib, it is not only Republicans who buy into the idea of a militarized civil society. Look at Sherriff David Clarke in Milwaukee, a "Democrat", urging all his constituents to arm themselves a couple of months ago. He claimed it was because his deputies would not be able to respond to emergency calls quickly enough. Now the reported number of shootings and stabbings seems to be trending upward in Milwaukee. Is Clarke's (mirroring the NRA's) call for armed conflict resolution being interpreted as an encouragement to inflict violence against fellow citizens? If the NRA said it, people would shrug, but it was a strange approach for a law enforcement leader whose goal should have been reducing violence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The stars/ In your flag / America / Are bullet holes

-- Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko following assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ Torafusu Torasan:

You're 100% wrong. And, wherever did you find your non-existent stats? Read this:

"Milwaukee Police Report 2012 Crime Stats

February 15th, 2013 by milwaukeepolice

The crime rate in Milwaukee in 2012 was essentially unchanged from 2011. There were 289 fewer Part 1 crimes in Milwaukee in 2012, a decrease of about 1% compared to 2011. A significant drop was recorded in robberies, with a 13% decrease or 446 fewer than the previous year. Reductions were also seen in burglaries (4.3%) and theft (4.5%). Violent crime (homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults, and robberies) has declined 16% over the past six years, while property crime (burglary, theft, auto theft, and arson) has declined 22% since 2007. As previously reported, there were five more homicides in 2012 than in 2011.

Aggravated assaults increased 33% in 2012, and contributing to this increase is a 48% rise in domestic violence related assaults. In 2011, the Milwaukee Police Department’s citywide focus on domestic violence led to a collaborative expansion with the District Attorney’s Office and the Sojourner Family Peace Center. This initiative may have contributed to the increase in domestic violence reporting. In fact, in 2012 the Sojourner Family Peace Center reported 5,602 referrals compared to 4,299 in 2011. Despite the increase in aggravated assaults in 2012, Milwaukee has seen a 16% decrease since 2007.

“A 21 percent decrease in crime in Milwaukee over the past five years shows that our community-based, problem-orientated, and data driven policing strategies are having an impact,” said Chief Edward Flynn. “The recent increases in some categories clearly illustrates that work still needs to be done, but I’m encouraged that greater outreach and collaboration in the area of domestic violence prevention may have increased citizen confidence. It appears that this confidence is leading to more reporting.”

The following data prepared by the Milwaukee Police Department’s Office of Management, Analysis and Planning offers greater detail and analysis of crime data from Milwaukee, and comparable cities."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

About that poll...

a great catch from the national Quinnipiac poll.

More than 9 in 10 Americans (91 percent) support the idea of universal background checks for purchasing firearms, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll. But nearly half of those polled also said they thought the establishment of such checks would result in the government confiscating guns that had been purchased through legal channels.

Just 38 percent of those polled said background checks wouldn’t lead to such confiscations, compared to 48 percent who said they would.

So, a national gun registry is illegal. It has been ever since the 1986 passage of the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

The number of people polled was just over 1,700. The demographic data unsurprisingly is not representative on the national scale yet extrapolated as such. Check for yourself.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ Vituouso:

Interesting that you quoted Yevgeny Yevtushenko. Your 'hero,' Yevtushenko was a commie dupe and a phony. Read this:

"Controversy

In 1965, Yevtushenko joined Anna Akhmatova, Kornei Chukovsky, Jean-Paul Sartre and others and co-signed the letter of protest against the unfair trial of Joseph Brodsky as a result of the court case against him initiated by the Soviet authorities.[16] He subsequently co-signed a letter against the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Nevertheless, "when, in 1987, Yevtushenko was made an honorary member of the American Academy of Arts and Letters, Brodsky himself led a flurry of protest, accusing Yevtushenko of duplicity and claiming that Yevtushenko's criticism of the Soviet Union was launched only in the directions approved by the Party and that he criticised what was acceptable to the Kremlin, when it was acceptable to the Kremlin, while soaking up adulation and honours as a fearless voice of dissent."[14] Further, of note is "Yevtushenko's protest of the trial of Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, an event now credited with inaugurating the modern dissident movement and readying the national pulse for perestroika. Both writers had toiled under pseudonyms and stood accused, in 1966, of "anti-Soviet activity" for the views espoused by their fictional characters. But Yevtushenko's actual position was that the writers were guilty, only punished too severely."[17] "Yevtushenko was not among the authors of the "Letter of the 63" who protested [their convictions]."[6]

Moreover, "when Yevtushenko was nominated for the poetry chair at Oxford in 1968, Kingsley Amis, Bernard Levin, and the Russian-Hungarian historian Tibor Szamuely led the campaign against him, arguing that he had made life difficult for his fellow Soviet writers."[17]"

So, a snitch and foe of freedom dares to criticize America. So what? You might just as well have quoted Stalin, Hitler, Mao, or any other mass-murdering criminal masquerading as a man of the people, as they all have made similar statements about the US.

The fact is, most freedom-loving people everywhere thank God that there's a United States.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

If the GOP does filibuster, rest assured it won't be a Rand Paul-style talking filibuster. They are intimidated by guns rights groups into using any ends to stop universal background checks, but they do not want their fingerprints on it too clearly - and they certainly do not want to be forced to justify their actions in front of the American people. Pathetic cowards.

You're right, Superlib - this probably won't harm them in '14, when they only have to defend their gerrymandered House seats, but they can write off retaking the Senate or the White House for the foreseeable future.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Laguna and others:

Were the polls are so accurate, then why, since Newtown and the renewed debate on gun control in the US, have Americans bought guns at a record pace? Whaddya gonna believe, the polls or your lying eyes?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This criticism of all things Republican by the President and by liberal opinion posters here is rather amusing actually if it weren't such a sad statement on the lack of real research done on the subject as to the real current political landscape in the Senate . The Democrats embraced pro-gun candidates to run against Republicans back in 2006 and it worked out quite nicely for them. All we are witnessing now is just Obama and Democrat kabuki theater Senate style playing played for the media to regurgitate. Overall Gun control never had a chance in the first place of passing. The Democrats made certain of it in their political calculus to run these now elected representatives and there is no way in heck they're going to not do what they have to do to keep their jobs by now going wobbly on gun control in their States. We might get expanded background checks but that is also going to be pared back quite a bit to address real legitimate concerns already mentioned such as inheritance and gifts for passage.

Two senators key to Obama's push for broader checks of gun buyers

And Manchin represents how Democrats' move in recent years to embrace candidates who strongly support gun rights is complicating the Democratic president's push for gun restrictions.

Manchin is among eight Senate Democrats rated as friendly to gun rights by the NRA to have joined the chamber since 2006.

That was when the Democratic officials - fed up with losing congressional races to Republicans in rural and conservative states such as Montana, Virginia, North Carolina, Alaska and West Virginia - stepped up its recruiting of pro-gun candidates.

The strategy worked.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Apologies,

The link provides the background.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/09/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE93800G20130409

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Wow baka, you seem to be on top of your brief.

Too bad you didn't pay attention when I said Clarke ran his "arm yourselves" ads this year (2013), and since that point the numbers of homicides are anecdotally higher (e.g. 4 separate incidents in the last day or two). But to draw a conclusion, we will have to wait until a year after the Sherriff spoke to say who is 100% wrong. Same time and place next year, 'k'?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Baka Gaijin: Were the polls are so accurate, then why, since Newtown and the renewed debate on gun control in the US, have Americans bought guns at a record pace?

Obviously because of the paranoia of gun nutters telling each other that Obama is about to take their guns away. What did you think the reason is?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

sailwind: This criticism of all things Republican by the President and by liberal opinion posters here is rather amusing actually if it weren't such a sad statement on the lack of real research done on the subject as to the real current political landscape in the Senate .

It's true that there are some Democrats who are pro-gun. But they aren't the ones threatening to filibuster the bill. So what's your position? Let them vote and see where the chips fall or prevent a vote just in case?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It seems one side doesn't like when the other side uses a filibuster when in fact both use them for their own purpose. This time it's called cowardly? Oh, ok...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Were the polls are so accurate, then why, since Newtown and the renewed debate on gun control in the US, have Americans bought guns at a record pace?

Baka, no one is going to take away your guns. It will never, ever happen. It has not even been suggested. None of the three bills up for consideration even restrict any type of weapon - though amendments will be added (and voted down, likely) to ban assault weapons and large clips if the GOP allows this national conversation. Paranoia is not a good governing strategy.

Surf, yes, both sides use filibusters, mostly over appointments to extract advantages in the political process. This is different; this is a national conversation that a vast majority of Americans want and that Americans need. That the GOP would like to sweep it under the rug is, yes, in a word, cowardly. What else would you call it?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Surf O'Holic,

The number of people polled was just over 1,700.

Umm... That's the magic of the science of statistics. A random sampling of even 1,000 will produce results that accurately reflect the whole within 5%, plus or minus. A sampling of 1,700 pushes the margin of error down even further. Statistics are relied on because . . . oh, never mind. You don't actually care, do you?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

" This is different; this is a national conversation that a vast majority of Americans want and that Americans need." Laguna, if you bothered to check the lengthy history of the filibuster then you would know your statement was false on its face.

From a history of famous filibusters: " In 1841 Senator Henry Clay proposed a bank bill that was opposed by Senator John C. Calhoun who began a lengthy, seemingly unending, rebuttal. Calhoun basically created the modern filibuster. Clay threatened to change the Senate rules in order to close debate on the issue. Clay's colleague, Thomas Hart Benton, rebuked Clay and accused him of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate.

Through the next few turbulent decades and into the 1960's the filibuster was used often by Southern Democrats to block civil rights legislation. The filibuster had been seen by the minority party as a tool to combat the potential "tyranny of the majority," but the frequent usage of the filibuster by the Southern Democrats became characterized as the "tyranny of the minority."

" On June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia finished his address begun on the previous day, slightly more than 14 hours earlier. He filibustered against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an act which was debated by Byrd and others for 57 working days, including 6 Saturdays.

Senate President Hubert Humphrey from Minnesota needed 67 votes to be able to carry the motion for cloture. Minority Leader Senator Everett Dirksen, the always eloquent senator from Illinois procured the Republican votes necessary to pass the cloture motion. "Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come," he said. "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing in government, in education, and in employment. It will not be stayed or denied. It is here!"

The final roll call vote on cloture resulted in 71 votes in favor and 29 votes opposed. It was the first time in history that cloture had been invoked on civil rights legislation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act was the most sweeping of its kind in our history."

Those are just a couple very noteworthy examples where the filibuster was used in relation to SIGNIFICANT legislation. Byrd was a Dem, BTW.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

.But they aren't the ones threatening to filibuster the bill. So what's your position? Let them vote and see where the chips fall or prevent a vote just in case?

My position is that Senators and elected officials take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Gun control squarely tests that oath in how one views and interprets the 2nd amendment. To some whose interpretation of the 2nd amendment does make it the subject of being very malleable this would not be an issue. To others, who view the 2nd amendment as not being malleable and a crucial right not to messed with at all a vote for gun control would violate their sworn oath to defend and support the constitution. And if it violates the conscience of enough Senators that they feel they are going against the very Constitution they have sworn fidelity to, a filibuster is not only warranted but also what one could expect of individuals with a strong belief in the 2nd amendment and staying true to their constitutional oath.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Thanks for the history lesson, Surf. You notice that each example you cited were talking filibusters - That the opponents had what they considered a principled stand against the bill proposed and were willing to go to great lengths to present the logic of their opposition.

From the GOP on regulating the gun trade? Cue crickets. Yes, cowards they are. If they want to filibuster this, tell us why.

Sailwind, all rights are malleable to a certain degree. Just as the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house is not protected under the auspices of the First Amendment, neither is the right to carry a fully automatic weapon protected under the Second. You suggest that the concept of all gun buyers be required to prove eligibility to own a gun is such a direct assault on the Constitution that even consideration and a vote deserves to be banned. Your sanctimonious sentiments are all too precious.

Really, when did conservatives come to so hate democracy?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

" From the GOP on regulating the gun trade? Cue crickets."

Ha! Or even, "HA HA HA!" What gun trade are you talking about? Are you for real??? Next!

Talking filibusters... as opposed to ...IMAX3D? Fail. A principled stand against 2nd Amendment encroachment is precisely what we are seeing(assuming blinders are removed ).

History lessons must be learned.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

You suggest that the concept of all gun buyers be required to prove eligibility to own a gun is such a direct assault on the Constitution that even consideration and a vote deserves to be banned.

I suggest no such thing. I view the reality of balancing gun control and 2nd amendment rights is and has been one of the top contentious issues in American society going back decades. I suggest that for folks to not have strong feelings in the gun control debate on both sides of the political spectrum is ludicrous. The President is emotive on this just as those who defend the 2nd amendment are emotive on this. To not expect a tactic like the filibuster not to utilized on a subject that endears such strong political positions pro or con is just not realistic. If the situation was reversed and the Senate was taking on a bill to relax gun control regulations across the U.S to make it easier for citizens to buy them for self protection from criminals, I would expect nothing less than the same thing from prominent Democrats and a huge filibuster that was based on the overall increased endangerment to public safety.

Your sanctimonious sentiments are all too precious.

I just will never understand this horrible trait to go personal and demean those that have different political views by Liberals.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Let's be REALISTIC for a minute...... Adam Lanza's mother was a law abiding gun owner. But she is nuts her son is nuts... That's the problem.... People who are nuts should not carry any kind of handgun, knife,baseball bat or crossbow....

If one of your family members is a nut.... You should NOT have guns in your house. Also installing a gun safe/locker in the nuts' bed room.

The problems with gun owners are:: THEY ARE CARELESS, idiots, wreckless, sell guns to criminals, and etc.

That is the real problem..... facing american law abiding gun owners giving/selling guns to individuals who are not supposed to have them...

Background checks are frivolous....

Let's have a standardized " Mental Readiness Check " for all gun toting americans..... if your mentally defective you should have access to anything lethal... Only thing is okay is a spoon....

lol

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" Just as the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie house is not protected under the auspices of the First Amendment, neither is the right to carry a fully automatic weapon protected under the Second."

Non sequitor at its best! Besides FULLY AUTOMATIC firearms are not part of the discussion, or is the difference too hard to discern?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@whiskeysour, Nancy Lanza lapsed in judgement. Considering not only her son's medical issues, but also his alleged obsession with violent games, much more robust measures were needed. She paid not only with her life, but also in the lives in Newtown. Would I wish no firearms existed? Sure, but they do, just as nuke bombs. Since the invention of gunpowder , the underpowered have neutralized the over-powered

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

" Let's have a standardized " Mental Readiness Check " for all gun toting americans..."

And who do you propose would be the deciders of such a subjective determination?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Surf: if you bothered to check the lengthy history of the filibuster then you would know your statement was false on its face.

The recent history of the filibuster tells us that Republicans have used it in record breaking numbers, doubling it's use since 2007. As someone who can go back 100 years to get information on the filibuster, I imagine this information is nothing new to you. How would you like me to take that?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

“The proposals serve primarily to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens, while doing little, if anything, to reduce violent crimes,” Lee said.

The man should be ashamed of himself, but I doubt he comprehends that notion. What is conveniently and consistently ignored is the fact that the passage concerning the right for 'people to bear arms' dates to a time when the Unites States were not so much united, nor were the people, and distrust was something faced on a daily basis. Distrust of the authorities, distrust of one's fellow men. Has nothing changed since then? Do civilians need lethal weapons to defend themselves even now? Or is it they just want to retain their ancestral rights to have their thrilling ever more powerful toys? It is clear many realize things have run out of hand, but there is a selfish, callous, unsympathetic lobby which refuses to budge. It is time this clique is shown in its light of being disinterested in saving innocent lives sacrificed again and again in preventable gun related crimes. Time to show politics, self interest is what counts.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Until they fix the current background check system I'm fine watching the lot of it get filibustered into the ground. Especially given the likelihood that Feinstein will try her darnedest to get an assault weapons and/or magazine cap tacked on to whatever cobbled together bill manages to shamble into the light. All this nonsense is causing ammo shortages all over the country I've called all over the state and there isn't any 22 long rifle or 22 magnum rounds in the entirety of Michigan and it's starting to get annoying.

Since we all know that nothing substantial is going to happen anyway I suggest that congress go do something productive like immigration reform, or perhaps sit on their hands and hum softly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: And if it violates the conscience of enough Senators that they feel they are going against the very Constitution they have sworn fidelity to, a filibuster is not only warranted but also what one could expect of individuals with a strong belief in the 2nd amendment and staying true to their constitutional oath.

This is another example of Republicans talking to other Republicans within the bubble. No one outside of it would give this opinion an ounce of credibility.

Republicans have used the filibuster in record numbers. Republicans have changed voting laws to make it more difficult for minorities (Democrats) to vote, something they are not shy about advertising to the world. Republicans have made the debt ceiling a new political football, threatening to put the US into default. Republicans have openly stated that they feel it's their job to challenge Obama on every piece of legislation.

Do you really expect me to believe that Republicans are voting on this issue out of conscience?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What is conveniently and consistently ignored is the fact that the passage concerning the right for 'people to bear arms' dates to a time when the Unites States were not so much united, nor were the people, and distrust was something faced on a daily basis

You do understand that "passage" you're referring to is part of the constitution, right?

It is clear many realize things have run out of hand, but there is a selfish, callous, unsympathetic lobby which refuses to budge.

Yes, and that callous, unsympathetic lobby is currently trying to push through legislation which will do absolutely nothing to make anyone safer from anything.

All this nonsense is causing ammo shortages all over the country I've called all over the state and there isn't any 22 long rifle or 22 magnum rounds in the entirety of Michigan and it's starting to get annoying.

My brothers have been complaining about this, too. It's kind of funny how this supposed "gun control legislation" has been fantastic for gun dealerships.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I would support universal background checks if the background check data were actually complete enough to allow the mentally unstable to be denied easy access to firearms. But the director of the VA hospitals has said he won't give the information to NY in support of the new system. So, once again, the system is full of holes. Obama and the left know this, but their ultimate goal, as Diane Feinstein put it, is to say "turn them all in." If she had the votes, of course. She doesn't and that's very upsetting to Obama and his ilk. So, in the meantime, create a national registration scheme so you know who has what, try to make it difficult for honest citizens to exercise rights you don't agree with, anything to harass gun owners even if it won't do a thing to stop lunatics from killing people. That's the super "liberal" (aka rabid left) tactic. Funny how they pitch a temper tantrum every time they don't get their way. Perhaps they'd be happier with a different form of government? I hear NK is looking for citizens who haven't starved.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The degree of "stunts" surrounding the politics of guns in the USA applies to all parties involved; everyone is pulling stunts. What is a stunt? Most definitions include: a feat exhibiting unusual skill, strength, or daring, and something done to attract attention or publicity. It also means to arrest development. Stunts are legitimate tactics in politics, pretty much SOP; almost required. Without a bag of stunts readily at hand, you're not much of a politician.

Much is made in these discussions of Republicans merely opposing Obama, and their opposition is undeniable, but let's not forget that each and everyone of them is a complex human being, like you and me; they can hew to their party line and exercise their conscience. To condemn them, or other opponents, as purely villainous is simplistic.

A lot of noise is also made here over intimidation by the gun lobby, but if we think about it critically, the primary supporters of gun "rights" in Congress are conservative, or conservative leaning moderates; do they really need to be intimidated? Even in the opposing faction, is it really likely that strong leaders, like Feinstein or Biden, are actually intimidated? There can be no doubt that the gun lobby does everything it can to achieve its agenda, but investing them with overweening power isn't particularly rational.

Anyway, all this ballyhoo is fully in keeping with the dynamics of political and legislative processes in the USA; it will play out according to the way US Americans typically get these kinds of things done: noisily, dramatically, and incrementally.

Here's something of interest: a 15,000 respondent survey of active US police officers on gun control: http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/ The take-away is that these officers don't think the commonly and recently proposed gun "control" measures will have any significant effect on gun crime / violence.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The problems with gun owners are:: THEY ARE CARELESS, idiots, wreckless, sell guns to criminals, and etc.

That's a pretty broad brush you have there whiskeysour.

Are you aware that an estimated 80 to 100 million Americans are gun owners? Are you saying that they are all careless,idiots that sell guns to criminal? WOW!

But at least they're safe drivers and don't get into wrecks.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Everday in the US and, for that matter, the rest of the world, one can read stories such as from this link:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/31/17542064-philadelphia-father-of-two-shoots-kills-home-intruder?lite=&lite=obinsite

At an Oregon mall shortly after the Colorado theatre shooting by Holmes, another shooter attempted the same thing, but stopped after shooting a few people & killed himself. Why did he stop?

Another person with a gun pulled out his weapon and began to aim at the murdering shooter. This other perso and the shooter locked eyes and the murdering shooter then put his gun to his chin and killed himself. The hero's last name is Meli. I believe that his first name is Bob or Robert. He immediately didn't come forward, despite many witnesses describing him, because the mall was a gun-free zone and so, technically, Mr. Meli was a trespasser and criminally could've been prosecuted or sued in civil court.

So, what do most mass murders have in commmon? The take place in gun-free zones. The Colorado theatre shooter passed several other theatres that not only were larger (hence, more potential victims for the shooter) and showing the same Batman movie, but also were closer to his home. Instead, he drove to a theatre/mall that prominently advertised itself as a "gun-free zone."

In Georgia, shortly after the Newtown massacre, an armed intruder broke into a woman's home. She called her husband on his cell phone, he conferenced in 911. With the 911 operator listening, he told his wife to shoot the intruder. She shot the intruder six times (that all of the rounds that she had in her 9mm pistol). The intruder then drove himself to a hospital and was treated and arrested.

So, imagine if more than one intruder had entered the home. Hence, the need for more rounds in high-powered rifles and pistols.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ Torafusu Torasan & SuperLIb:

Due to an unreporting of past crime stats, violent crime is down in Milwaukee in 2013. Read this:

Crime Drop? - JSOnline - Milwaukee Journal Sentinelwww.jsonline.com › Watchdog OnlineCached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Sunday, April 7, 2013. 38° .... A Journal Sentinel investigation found the Milwaukee Police Department has underreported thousands of ... In each of the past five years, FBI auditors have reviewed crime statistics at less than 1% of the roughly ...

Also, if you'd be much more objective and better informed if you read the John Lott's book entitled, "More Guns, Less Crime." Even the Harvard Law Review agreed with the conclusion of Mr. Lott.

Here, for your edification:

Search ResultsMore Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and ... - Amazon.comwww.amazon.com › ... › Specific Topics › Civil Rights & LibertiesCached - Similar You +1'd this publicly. Undo Rating: 4.6 - 34 reviews - $11.20 - In stock

John R. Lott, Jr., is the author five books, including Freedomnomics and Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?, the latter also ...

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

baka Gaijin: Everday in the US and, for that matter, the rest of the world, one can read stories such as from this link:

Most people don't report stories like that anymore since it's been shown a gun in the home is mostly likely to injury a family member or someone you know. That was done by the CDC. After the report was released Republicans/NRA moved to block them from doing more studies.

"Prior to 1996, the Center for Disease Control funded research into the causes of firearm-related deaths. After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence, Republicans sought to remove all federal funding for research into gun deaths."

http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1#ixzz2Q0S3SnPl

0 ( +0 / -0 )

After a series of articles finding that increased prevalence of guns lead to increased incidents of gun violence

And increased prevalence of cars leads to increased incidents of car accidents. What's the point, here?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

" The recent history of the filibuster tells us that Republicans have used it in record breaking numbers, doubling it's use since 2007. As someone who can go back 100 years to get information on the filibuster, I imagine this information is nothing new to you. How would you like me to take that?"

No, nothing new. Both sides have used the filibuster actively, the Dems to oppose Bush, too.

I went back historically significant filibusters to refute Laguna's assertion that it isn't /shouldn't be used except to block appointments, not for important legislation.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ Superlib:

Son, I hope to educate you yet, so that you might be able to change to SupertIntelligent, your moniker.

First, you should strive for honesty and transparency in all discussions. The CDC report found that states with the least restrictive gun-control laws have the most gun violence, but states with the highest per-capita gun OWNERSHIP had the lowest crime rates. And suicides account for much of the so-called gun-violence spike in such states. Ain't no law that'll stop people from killing themselves.

As for the CDC study, what you also failed (whether intentionally or by reason of lack of research) to point out from the report is that it found that gun-control laws are ineffective.

Also, the higher the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in a population, the higher the gun violence. In fact, the higher the violence and other crimes with these the higher the percentage of these people in any population anywhere in the world. Hence, another fact that you failed to address from the 2003 CDC study (Son, it's old and has been debated to ad nauseum in the US for the last decade). In fact, should you look at the CDC's breakdown of gun violence by Metropolitan Statistical Areas, presto, most gun violence occurs in MSA with higher percentages of minority populations.

Accordingly, places such as Washington, D.C. and Detroit, both with low per capita rates of gun OWNERSHIP, but high percentages of minority populations, have much gun violence (despite D.C. having the strictest gun-control laws in the US). On the other hand, places such as Wyoming, West Virginia, SD, ND, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, to name a few, have the highest rates of gun OWNERSHIP and very high percentages of Caucasian population and very low rates of violent crime, including gun violence.

For starters, try these links (Once you've criticized or dismissed them, I've plenty more for you.): http://www.ctsportsmen.com/issues/cdc_questions_impact_of_gun_cont.htm

Or, hey, how about your favorite lib new site, CBS. It offers this 2009 report that gun-control laws don't decrease gun violence. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-576422.html

Or, try this 2011 CDC report that found the gun violence is the highest in "big cities." Guess who lives in Big Cities? http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/research/articles/2011/05/12/us-murder-toll-from-guns-highest-in-big-cities-cdc

Hey, no need to thank me; my goal is to educate the uneducated and huddled masses. I'm happy to do this for you pro bono.

In closing, please consider the words of the first Democrat POTUS, Thomas Jefferson:

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it". Thomas Jefferson

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@ SuperLib:

In fact, SuperLib, the CDC report was so disjointed in many ways (e.g., not understanding in 2003 that it's own findings show that there are other factors that portend whether or not a geographic location will have more gun violence), that in 2004, Congress withdrew funding for such studies by CDC and when the DemonRats (aka Democrats) controlled both houses of Congress from 2008 to 2010, the Dems didn't vote to restore such funding.

Nevertheless, the CDC shifted funds from other areas to gun violence studies and, around 2009, found that gun control laws are ineffective.

As I've posted elsewhere on this story, since certain ethnic groups/races have much higher incidences of all types of violent crime and pretty much vote only for Dems, the most effective gun-control law would be to deny Democrats the right to own any weapon, even a butter knife, let alone a gun. Of course, absent an amendment to the US Constitution, there's no way that any such law would pass Constitutional muster.

Cheers, my good friend,

Signed:

Your best pal and mentor,

Baka Gaijin

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@BRG4987:

Then follow the laws of the US Constitution and amend the Constitution via the prescribed process, but don't violate the Constitution by trying to amend it with a mere statute.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

And BTW libs and other gun-control freaks, even gov't studies conclude that gun ownership prevents @ least one million crimes a year. The number of gun deaths in the CDC studies measures preventable deaths in the thousands, or, at best, in the 20K range. Tens of thousands of the crimes are prevented, because someone had a gun and this most very likely prevented hundreds of thousands of bodily injuries, deaths, assaults, rapes, etc.

Do the math.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

baka gaijin: states with the highest per-capita gun OWNERSHIP had the lowest crime rates

Skewed result since it takes into account rural areas with high gun ownership and low crime. You could just as easily list states with low populations relative to area and say the same thing about crime overall.

Also, the higher the percentage of African-Americans and Hispanics in a population, the higher the gun violence.

So what does that mean to you? I'm having a hard time trying to see your point unless you're saying gun violence is a minority problem that doesn't affect white people. With unrestricted gun sales flooding the streets with millions of guns a year I'm sure you can see the link between that and easy access to guns, something that fuels inner-city violence, and something gun supporters won't be ending anytime soon.

It offers this 2009 report that gun-control laws don't decrease gun violence

Patchwork laws have very little chance of doing much unless they influence other cities and states to do the same. And tough gun laws only come after the violence is already there, it doesn't create it as some here would like to believe.

Then follow the laws of the US Constitution and amend the Constitution via the prescribed process, but don't violate the Constitution by trying to amend it with a mere statute.

And just who is trying to violate the Constitution? Even Justice Scalia wrote that there are restrictions that can be placed on gun ownership like selling to criminals and the mentally ill. Believe it or not there are some of us who understand that the Constitution is not going to change but there are some common sense items that can be brought to the table. But then again common sense isn't the strong point of gun nutters since their world is defined by paranoia.

And BTW libs and other gun-control freaks, even gov't studies conclude that gun ownership prevents @ least one million crimes a year.

That's odd. I've seen the number as 2 million and 2.5 million. Yours is only a million. Can you think of why the numbers would fluctuate so much? It couldn't be because it's a bogus measuring system, could it? And does it take into account the number of people "saved" from crime by a gun when they are defending themselves from someone....with a gun?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

With unrestricted gun sales flooding the streets with millions of guns a year I'm sure you can see the link between that and easy access to guns, something that fuels inner-city violence, and something gun supporters won't be ending anytime soon.

Those guns are coming through illegal channels. Tell me, if we make a law mandating background checks, will black market gun dealers suddenly start complying?

But then again common sense isn't the strong point of gun nutters since their world is defined by paranoia.

You're so good at ad hominems, bro. They really increase your credibility.

And does it take into account the number of people "saved" from crime by a gun when they are defending themselves from someone....with a gun?

Why would it not? If someone attacks me with a rock and I fight him back with another rock, I would think "well, thank God I had that rock."

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@ Superlib:

FIrst go to my sources. From your responses, it's obvious that you didn't review these sources.

Second, google "do armed citizens stop crime. Third, if you'd bother to read the CDC's 2003 report and subsequent updates, you wouldn't make uninformed statements or ask questions that disprove the old adage that there's no such thing as a stupid question.

The numbers on armed citizens stopping crimes is estimated to be a low of several thousand, based upon police reports , a middle range of about 1M based upon news stories and verification of indiividually told stories, and several million based upon extrapolation of the preceding two items. Google it yourself. Start (but don't end) with "do armed citizens stop crime." Also, it's very well known that armed citizens have either prevented or mitigated the attempted or initial mass killings. Again, in order in improve your lacksidasical research skills, please googel this yourself.

As for you other comments, they don't warrant a response, b/c they're just too sophomoric or obviously specious.

Do your own homework.

Your best pal and mentor,

Baka Gaijin

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

No gov't entities keeps separate stats on armed citizens stopping crime. Hence, the variation in the numbers, but, this doesn't remotely suggest that such numbers are uncalculable. If you knew anything about statistics, you'd know this.

You, quite obviously, are a non-STEM major (i.e., you didn't major in any hard sciences, if you went to college at all, this being not evident from your posts, especially the grammar) and likely didn't even major in any business discipline (e.g., business, accounting, finance, etc.).

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BTW folks, all officers and politicians at all levels of gov't, including state and local law enforcement officers, along with elected and appointed gov't officials of all gov't entities take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the US and, when applicable, the respective State's Constitution.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib Apr. 10, 2013 - 09:44PM JST So what does that mean to you? I'm having a hard time trying to see your point unless you're saying gun violence is a minority problem that doesn't affect white people.

The gun control issue is traced with race and often viewed as lacking a solution, policy makers and the media often don’t want to make eye contact with the problem. This gets to why you cannot have a meaningful conversation in U.S. To do so will get you branded a racist. The victim rate for blacks was 6 times higher than the rate for whites and the offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites.

The profile of the typical murderer with a gun is a black male in a city under the age of 25. This is not to suggest we should profile young black men. We should not. Most of these gun violence happens much more in urban areas than anywhere else and young black men, often in broken families, are joining gangs and committing acts of violence against each other. Until we figure out how to fix the family instability and educational problems within the urban areas, because the problem is ultimately about poverty more than anything else.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sfjp, I can agree with that. Conversely, I've also heard some people give the information with a hint of "it's not our problem" in their words. That's what I wanted to avoid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

gov't studies conclude that gun ownership prevents @ least one million crimes a year.

From the NRA: "According to the NRA, firearms are used for personal protection more than two million times a year."

The numbers on armed citizens stopping crimes is estimated to be a low of several thousand

From other website, thanks to your search recommendation: “tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns."

I'll go ahead and stop there because I could post different numbers for days. The fact is that there is no way to reasonably create such a statistic that would be meaningful enough to use as evidence in the gun control debate. Your stat about preventing at least a million crimes is utterly useless.

Here's one of my favorite quotes from the articles I read:

"Moreover, it is important to note that when a gun owner kills an attacker or is able to hold a rapist or a burglar until the police arrive, it is very likely that more than one crime has been prevented because if the culprit had not been stopped, he could have targeted other citizens as well."

Should we include that kind of thinking when we determine that a gun has prevented crime? ;) I can assume what you're going to post so I'll hold off on posting more for now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

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