Booman Wants To Know

horrorconn


Everybody’s favorite Kool-aid addict:

Serious Question

Do you feel any differently about the politics of guns than you did 48 hours ago?


He asked it on Saturday so it’s more like 96 hours now, but otherwise it’s a fair question.

Here’s my fair answer: No

There would be something wrong with us if we weren’t heartsick over the deaths of those innocent children. I have the deepest sympathies for their grieving families and I am outraged that such a horrific tragedy took place.

But I was also heartsick and outraged eleven years ago when some terrorists hijacked four planes and destroyed the World Trade Center and killed thousands of people. But I didn’t let those emotions cloud my judgment.

I didn’t suddenly agree to torture and indefinite detention. I didn’t want to trade my civil rights for a false feeling of security. I didn’t want to strike out at a nation that was not involved in that horrible crime.

We can act emotionally or we can act rationally.


About myiq2xu

Creepy-ass cracker
This entry was posted in Gun Control and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

140 Responses to Booman Wants To Know

  1. Nope, my feelings about guns and gun control did not change over this.
    Funny, that happened quite a few years ago. Back when I lived in Kool-Aid East (Taxachusetts) I believed all the garbage about gun control. Then we moved away to PA, where there is not a daily dose of shootings and maiming in our neighborhoods. (Sure we have murders- just that they are a rarity- and nobody screams “gun control” every time)
    My mind changed about gun control during the erosion of our civil liberties under the shrub.
    But the libs seem perfectly content to have their liberties shredded piece by piece.
    Not me.

    • elliesmom says:

      I’ve never owned a gun, and I don’t ever expect to want to own one, but I don’t ever want to lose my right to change my mind.

      • Propertius says:

        Precisely. Although I do feel a sudden urge to buy a couple of high-capacity AR-15 magazines just to make a statement.

      • smile says:

        Exactly.

        And we have done well as a nation this many years with this right, and I, for one, am not ready to change anything that the forefathers came up with in their deliberations. The forefathers, they knew the art of rational thought, they were true representatives of the Age of Reason. That movement has long left us, alas!

    • Constance says:

      That’s because liberals know the government will protect them from criminals and nut cases.

  2. swanspirit says:

    Here on the Eastern Shore, guns and hunting are a way of life . People here are very relaxed about their weapons and use them for hunting , and they eat what they kill , a lot of ducks and deer .

    The people who want to change gun laws seem to be looking for the obvious and easy solution . It doesn’t work , but it sounds good , and makes the people who sound off feel better about themselves , but it doesn’t solve the problem . Even worse , it takes attention from and moves the focus focus away from the more difficult issues that might really be effective .

  3. tommy says:

    Rational? I don’t know. What I do know is that we now have a national lynch mob with their pitchforks targetting gun lovers as school kid murderers. They think its righteous rage. Whats ironic is that its the same group that defend abortion (the repubs call that foetus murdering) as choice. And whats truly amusing is that the rhetoric from both sides sound eerily identical.

    • votermom says:

      I think I mentioned on Friday that strangely, the impact of this event on my personal politics is to feel a strong empathy for the hardline pro-lifers. I get it now, the horror they must feel about every abortion, no matter how early.
      That said, I still believe in support” legal, safe, and rare” since I think the best way to reduce the number of abortions is not to outlaw it but to have better choices for the mother.

      • DeniseVB says:

        The hardline pro-lifers do have a point, isn’t it hypocritical to only care about children after they’re born ? Or the hardline pro-gun lobby reminding us of Hitler’s reign of terror and first he took their guns …. blah, blah, blah ….

        It’s a good discussion, but the hardline left won’t let us have it. ;)

      • since I think the best way to reduce the number of abortions is not to outlaw it but to have better choices for the mother.

        Or have the mothers make better choices. I’d like to see a “Choose Birth Control” campaign.

  4. swanspirit says:

    And now Huckabee wants to bring God back , and I would bet he means to schools , so everyone with an agenda will be jumping on their own personal bandwagon to put forward a solution .

    • elliesmom says:

      While a formal school prayer in the morning is no longer part of our school day, for a true believer, God has never left schools. He’s everywhere, right? At least that’s what they taught me before they kicked me out of Sunday School. Or is God like a vampire, you have to invite him in? It amazes me that seemingly normal, sentient beings think having kids recite a prayer that only means something to a subset of the group every morning makes everyone a better person. There’s no prohibition in schools about teaching all kids to live by the Golden Rule, and in some form or another it graces every school’s student handbook, is postered on walls, and is offered to children by the school’s disciplinarians daily. How much more “Christian” can you get?

      • swanspirit says:

        I know , Elliesmom , and for kids who go to private schools , God is there , thick in the atmosphere , Besides , do we really need to be burdening teachers with teaching religion ? isn’t that the parents place? yes let’s open that can of worms , and make teachers jobs harder . People don’t think these things through .

        • votermom says:

          On a serious note, I think schools need to teach, not religion, but core values/principles.
          The non-sectarian charter school my kids go to does that explicitly. Their core values are: Hope, Respect, Responsibility, Courage, Justice, Compassion, Integrity, and Wisdom.
          I told a lib mom about this once and she was horrified – she said that’s brainwashing – it impinges on the parents rights or something.
          I said schools that don’t explicitly identify their values are teaching something by their absence.

        • elliesmom says:

          That was my point exactly. All schools have mission statements and core values they live by. The No Child Left Behind Act even requires they publish them where students and parents can read them. The same core values are at the very heart of religious values. Respect for yourself and others. Honesty. Compassion. Community. If your lib friend took the opportunity to look at her kids’ school’s mission statement, she’d see her kids are being “brainwashed”, too. Do some schools do a better job of living up to their values than others?Of course, they do. But contrary to what Huckabee must think, no school is teaching kids values aren’t important.

        • votermom says:

          Yup. And like driguana says below, the answer isn’t more top-down rules – we have more than enough of those.
          Imo, communities need to have more freedom to do what works in their communities. Parents need the freedom to be able to send their kids to the schools that actually do good jobs, instead of being held hostage by their zip code.

      • votermom says:

        Or is God like a vampire, you have to invite him in?

        LOL!
        Actually yes, in a sense, according to what I understand of Catholic theology, at least. The essence of free will is that you are free to reject God’s grace by not inviting him into your heart.

        • angienc (D) says:

          God is always in there — you (in general “you” not specifically “you” votermom) choose to move toward Him or away from Him. He is constant.

        • smile says:

          Love your comment and Angienc’s reply.

          Hey, can we have a post on spirituality one day? I have noticed lately from the comments that we have quite a few very spiritual posters and commentators. I think there was a recent post here on atheists/atheism, would it be within this blog’s purview to do a post on spirituality or theism. It would be fun to read and know more about each other and learn from each other.

    • Constance says:

      I sent my kids to Catholic school even though I am not Catholic because I like the structure and the values and the community. I figure the kids can reject their religion whenever they feel like it. In fact I sort of think children should have a religion to reject, it’s a healthy coming of age behavior. If they don’t reject their religion that’s OK too.

  5. tommy says:

    This is funny. ‘China shocked after “V for Vendetta” aired on national TV – Saturday night could have come as a shock to millions of viewers of national broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) movie channel. The ruling Communist Party of China’s (CPC) mouthpiece aired the movie “V for Vendetta”, revolving around the plot of a masked mans violent crusade against state tyranny and oppression, themes that the totalitarian party is certainly not keen on. The movie, starring Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving, had been banned in China since its release in 2005 though pirated copies of the movie are available in China. It expectedly triggered a buzz among Chinese microbloggers in its Twitter-like versions of “Weibo”. The most important lines from the film are “people shouldn’t fear the govt., the govt. should fear the people”.’

  6. Falstaff says:

    OTOH, it’s irrational and uncivilized to think that the convenience of gun owners is more valuable than the lives of children. But that is where the US is right now: completely fucked up in its priorities.

    • teresa says:

      How about the convenience of car owners. 10,000 people/yr die at the hands of drunk drivers. Should we take away cars too? What freedom shouldn’t we take away in this country?

      • Falstaff says:

        I don’t propose banning guns any more than I propose banning cars. But it’s a whole lot harder to get a car than a gun in this country, and there’s no other country in the industrialized world that sees anything even remotely approaching the level of gun violence that we have. That’s prima facie evidence that having some effective restrictions on gun ownership might just save lives. I’m convinced that nothing will be done, however, so I’ll just wait for the next mass shooting. At the rate we’re going, I would not be surprised to see a couple dozen people get gunned down at a shopping mall this weekend. Merry Christmas!

      • In 1982 60% of car crash fatalities were due to drunk driving (26,000 people). After too many children had died because of lax enforcement and/or lack of regulating laws, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was formed. In 2009 the percent of drunk-driving caused deaths was down to 38%. Far from perfect, of course, but more than a 50% decrease is a big deal and 12,000 deaths is a lot better than 26,000. No one banned cars, no one banned drinking. But at least 14,000 American lives saved every year. (despite there being 80 million more cars on the road since then)

        I believe there are sensible limits and regulations that could be put in place to halve the number of gun deaths in this country without turning over the 2nd amendment and without banning all guns from all private citizens.

        http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

        W Virginia senator Manchin, who is an avid hunter and has an “A” rating from the NRA, agrees.

        http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/renewed-and-some-new-support-for-gun-control/?hp

  7. angienc (D) says:
  8. angienc (D) says:

    FTR — I’m more pro-gun then I was before.

    • elliesmom says:

      I figure anything the government wants to take away from me must be valuable.

      • angienc (D) says:

        I bought my first gun (a shotgun so in the South that practically doesn’t count) in December 2008 & it looks like I’ll be buying my 2nd in December 2012.

        Obama for sure wants to take them away. I knew the moment this happened he was going to go for it and so far everything from the usual suspects (MSM) tells me I was right.

        BTW — I’ve been avoiding the internet/TV etc since it happened, but did everyone see this Sandy Hooks killer didn’t even *use* that rifle that was in the car? He did this with TWO HANDGUNS. For the love of cheese — not ONE thing the MSM initially reported in its quest to help Obama politicize this was accurate. Not.One.Thing.

  9. DeniseVB says:

    What struck me funny about Pope Obama’s eulogy-on-the-soap-box performance last night ….. it’s still an ongoing investigation, we don’t have all the facts…..he’s shooting (pun intended) from the hip like he did with the Cambridge cop behaving stupidly and Trayvon could’ve been my son spew.

    He makes me sick to exploit any tragedy for his political benefit. And that’s exactly what it was.

    How do I feel about guns ? I don’t like them, but glad my husband does so I do feel a little safer. “nothing in our house in worth dying for” as the saying goes ;)

    • swanspirit says:

      can you believe the A-hole in chief actually said the children were in the wrong place a the wrong time? No they were not , they were exactly where they were supposed to be . The killer was the wrong person in the wrong place , and ” they ” insist this idiot gives good speeches

  10. driguana says:

    No, my opinion about guns has not changed. I used to own guns and hunt but got rid of my guns when I had kids. The bigger problem is how to deal with mentally different people. I’ve got lots of experience in that category.

    As the father of a 31 year old Down Syndrome son, I can attest to the difficulty of raising and protecting a mentally different individual. First of all, a Down Syndrome person is very unlikely to have either the inclination or ability to load a firearm and plan an attack on a school, so I have never really had to worry about that. In fact, my son has never liked weapons of any kind…guns, bows and arrows, slingshots….whatever. Fact of the matter is, he rarely shows any aggressive tendencies at all.

    This, also, is not to say that he is not “smart” in his own way….he is very smart…..he has elementary reading capacity, is meticulously organized, is very artistic and has incredible capacity to figure out electronics. He has a good life, works at a lunch program at the Senior Center and is devoted to his family and friends.

    The real issue is his protection and basic “security” issues….from harming himself or being taken advantage of by some around him. This has been the interesting lesson. Two important factors come into play…the family and the community. Fortunately (or unfortunately as some may feel about Santa Fe), we live in a smaller town. I’ve lived here for almost 40 years and have been involved in teaching, government and broadcasting so I have some notoriety. Regardless, I also know the mentally different community quite well. Families here are very strong, if not interrelated so everyone tends to help out. My own family is very large and everyone over the years has helped in some capacity. Most importantly, though, the community keeps a certain eye out for those needing help, especially the disabled. If my son were ever lost, for example, I wouldn’t worry too much about his being found and returned, as all of his immediate neighbors know who he is and where he belongs.When families become shattered and separated, some of that protection seems to dissipate. It does take a family sometimes to help out. And a community of not only tolerant people but informed residents also needs to be in place, Unfortunately, in many communities, people don’t want to be involved in other people’s business and would be afraid to be involved….not here.

    I say this in the context of a community where gun ownership is very very high. Practically everyone I know owns at least one gun….many are hunters. We have numerous gun-related incidents. From what I can tell of the recent statistics, most violent, gun-related incidents have to do with drugs and alcohol…..which does not mean that there is not some kind of mentally related issue. One of the places with the highest incident of gun related deaths and violence is a very small community just north of here that happens to be one of the heroin crossroads of the southwest.

    My point here is that there are multiple issues related in solving this problem but I would suggest that that starting point for doing this and understanding the problems begins with families and neighborhoods and communities of families….not an easy task in itself. So many problems in this country need to be resolved from the bottom up….not with top-down pronouncements. Once again, that requires leadership….who are the leaders and when will they step up? Making everything “political” is becoming ridiculous!

  11. votermom says:

    I am tweeting a prayer for the family of each victim. This is going to take me all day since twitter will put me in timeout if I don’t space it it out.
    But I figure out of the millions of words being tweeted, I can at least do this little.
    Working off this list, going on number 5:

    Daniel Barden, 7
    Olivia Engel, 6
    Josephine Gay, 7
    Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6
    Dylan Hockley, 6
    Madeleine F. Hsu, 6
    Catherine V. Hubbard, 6
    Chase Kowalski, 7
    Jesse Lewis, 6
    James Mattioli, 6
    Grace McDonnell, 7
    Emilie Parker, 6
    Jack Pinto, 6
    Noah Pozner, 6
    Caroline Previdi, 6
    Jessica Rekos, 6
    Avielle Richman, 6
    Benjamin Wheeler, 6
    Allison N. Wyatt, 6

    Mary Sherlach, 56
    Victoria Soto, 27
    Anne Marie Murphy, 52
    Lauren Rousseau, 30
    Dawn Hochsprung, 47
    Rachel Davino, 29

  12. yttik says:

    My opinion on guns and gun laws has not changed. This shooter was in a state with pretty strong gun laws and he wasn’t old enough to legally own them. So there were gun laws in place and he still violated them all. The vast majority of tragedies involve illegal guns and people unauthorized to have them. So the only solution would be to try and ban guns entirely, which would just create a black market for homemade ones, and crazy people who use other devices like explosives. You cannot create a safe world with padded walls and all the sharp objects removed from society.

    • angienc (D) says:

      See, most of these Gen-Y idiots have been raised like baby veal so they are completely incapable of taking care of themselves, so the idea that the government *can* create a safe world with padded walls & removal of sharp objects is right up their alley.
      Those morons really should just wrap themselves up in cotton & stay home so the rest of us don’t have to suffer the insipidness of it all.

      • votermom says:

        What makes me mad is people saying that increasing security in a school is so horrible because the kids will be in a prison like atmosphere.

        So it’s better to have kids in an area that is not secure, but gives the illusion of safety? Pass laws that will justify the status quo on schools, until the next mass killing?

        This is like an inverse TSA thing – the TSA doesn’t keep you safe, but it looks like it is, so good.

        I’d rather have my kids growing up in an environment that reflects reality, knowing that there are bad people in the world but good grown-ups do things that actually protect them from the bad guys.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Jesus F. Christ — is that the reason they’re giving for not wanting to increase security at schools? It will be a “prison like atmosphere?”
          These morons have never– ever– seen the inside of a prison & really need to STFU before they hurt themselves.
          I’ve been to Angola (aka LA State Penitentiary) several times — describing it as being on par with a metal detector & a few guards is pretty fucking laughable actually.

        • elliesmom says:

          There are some simple things schools can and should do to better protect our kids that don’t make school feel like a prison. Every classroom should have a phone line that can be used to call 911 directly. You’d be surprised how many classrooms don’t. Many cell phones don’t work inside buildings constructed the way a lot of schools are built so it needs to be a land line. School administrators should have “walky-talkies” when they’re away from their offices. While the kids are inside, all doors should be locked from the outside except one, and the door that remains open should be visible to school personnel charged with monitoring it. It could send a signal when it opens, which could be as simple as a bell that jingles. When the fire alarm goes off, there should be a way for staff to know why. A really good way to kill a lot of kids is to pull the fire alarm and have someone outside waiting to pick them off as they come out the doors. Teachers should have a way of letting emergency response personnel know their classroom is secure so time isn’t wasted where it’s not needed. A simple act like putting a piece of green construction paper in the window if you don’t need immediate help would suffice. Classroom doors should have locks and shades that can be pulled down if the doors have windows. There really isn’t anywhere to hide in the average classroom. That won’t keep anyone from breaking windows, but it does make it harder and slows things down. While lock down drills are important so kids learn the most important lesson – listen and pay attention, gunmen on a killing spree are not predictable like the spread of a fire, and there is no one thing you can teach kids to do by rote., Metal detectors are mostly useful to protect kids from each other. I worked in one school where we had an armed policeman on duty. His presence was positive, but in a school large enough to house 2500 students. he couldn’t be everywhere.

        • votermom says:

          The school my kids go to do a lot of that and my kids have never felt imprisoned there. The principal just sent a email to parents this weekend (a lot were asking in wake of the shooting). From the email, here’s what a PA charter school does:

          -systematic security system and visitors may only enter each building at one entrance or with a key card. Upon entry visitors are required to sign in with Federal ID.
          - have a silent emergency call system, which immediately notifies 911 that the school is in need of assistance and law enforcement presence
          - school is routinely checked for Risk-Management and performs safety /security audits.
          - have a current MOU(Mutual Agreement of Understanding) with local police department and work with them to conduct practice Emergency Drills as recommended by the Homeland Security and PA Safe Schools.
          - are also fortunate to have had several parents over the years that who work professionally in law enforcement and school security; offering both feedback and advice on improving our practices.

          I always see the administrators walking around with walkie talkies, and since they currently lease their location from a private college, they also benefit from the college security patrolling the grounds.
          There are no metal detectors.

      • yttik says:

        Their attempts to wrap us all in cotton may actually be making the problem worse. Most of these shooters attack those who are vulnerable and innocent, like schools with gun free zones posted. It’s pretty rare that somebody decides to attack a group of armed men, like at a military base.

        A couple of things the media isn’t talking about, in the Colorado movie theater shooting, that guy had a choice between 7 other theaters showing Batman, all close to his house. He chose the one that had posted signs banning people from entering with concealed weapons permits. In the Oregon mall shooting, the media has avoided mentioning that somebody was armed and had his gun on the shooter right before he killed himself. In Seattle at the cafe shooting, the guy chose to walk in on some unarmed peace loving artists, rather then a biker bar full of people looking for a fight.

  13. angienc (D) says:

    So, in other news, SC Gov. Nikki Haley just announced Rep.Tim Scott as the replacement for DeMint. He’ll be the only AA Senator.
    So, that makes him the guy who beat Strom Thurmond’s son in 2010 for the US House seat & now he’ll be a Senator from the same state Thurmond was. And he was appointed by a Sikh female governor.

    Damn the GOP & South is so racist.

  14. fif says:

    “I didn’t suddenly agree to torture and indefinite detention. I didn’t want to trade my civil rights for a false feeling of security. I didn’t want to strike out at a nation that was not involved in that horrible crime.

    We can act emotionally or we can act rationally.”

    That’s why I keep coming here–acute intelligence and vision, instead of the knee-jerk reaction to propaganda and political agendas. Booman jumps right into the media led hysteria that proclaims that THIS is the incident that will change everything–just like Obama was THE ONE who would change everything. It’s an immature, reactive, emotional response instead of deep, thoughtful analysis that takes in all of the complexity and potential ramifications of a choice.

  15. Mary says:

    Changed? No.

    I have no objection to Feinstein’s suggestion: ban assault rifles and clips with more than 10 bullets—that’s reasonable.

    But all guns? We already know it doesn’t work, cuz Chicago & DC had those rules—and still had the highest gun violence in the nation.

    I’m beginning to feel deeply offended at how the left & the Bots are using these dead children to reach a political goal they’ve always wanted anyway.

    • yttik says:

      I hear you! I’m really sick of watching this tragedy being politicized.

      I also think the entire country needs to forgive themselves for “allowing” this to happen. Everybody is beating themselves up, like we should have been able to prevent this and we aren’t doing enough as a culture to prevent it. The truth is, we’re doing a lot, we have been doing a lot, and America is still one of the safest places in the world to live in. We don’t have perfect mental health services, perfect gun laws, perfect schools, but we do have them and we’ve made a concerted effort over the years to create a more peaceful and comfortable world for our children.

  16. votermom says:

    Palin has a good facebook post on Sandy Hook, for those who are religious. “Put not your faith in princes” as myiq would quote.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/the-only-hope/10151191714058435

  17. yttik says:

    Off topic, but geesh our weather is weird! My roads are bare and wet, light drizzle, still and calm, but just a few blocks away there are downed trees, power lines, snow, and flooding. I’m completely trapped because all the roads out of town are closed today. Apparently we had a big storm last night, but it completely missed my house. Even the leaves I raked up are still sitting nicely in a pile. The whole neighborhood is wondering how we managed to miss it all.

    I’m sitting in the middle of this four block area with no snow, no flooding, and electricity. Cue the twilight music.

  18. piper(?) says:

    Should we all live in fear never leaving our homes because of the actions of a few deranged people. So many places to avoid from grocery stores, playgrounds, bike trails, gas stations, churches, buses, work, libraries, neighborhoods …..

    From what I have read that in Africa, most prefer to kill using fire, axes. knives….rather than guns / bullets which represents some kind of honor killing.

    • angienc (D) says:

      No we should just give the government complete control of our lives & then we’ll all be safe!
      Hell, we’re too stupid to even decide on what to eat!
      It’s so much easier to let the government think for you (plus you’ll be healthier & safe!)

      • piper(?) says:

        Yes but I did release my college transcripts to state licensing agencies in 3 different states.

        • angienc (D) says:

          I’ve released mine to 2 states (where I’m licensed to practice law).

          You know — I hadn’t thought of that — little old me has to produce my college transcripts for the State Bar Association to practice law (it isn’t so much a GPA thing, but to prove I went to where I say I did — undergrad & law school — that I completed the course work & graduated) to practice law, but Obama doesn’t to be POTUS.

          That makes me 10x as pissed off about him getting away with this shit.

  19. tommy says:

    ‘Painting sells for £590,000 – A Pre-Raphaelite artwork unearthed by a UK schoolteacher among her household junk has sold for a staggering £589,250 pounds at an auction. The price has broken the world auction record for the Victorian artist William James Webbe, who painted the picture in 1856. His works rarely appear on the market and the highest price paid for one until last week was just £72,000. The battered painting emerged from mounds of clothes, books and toys as the family made space around some pipes for a plumber. It turned out to be a picture that had been exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1856 when renowned critic John Ruskin admired the softness of the bird’s feathers as “perhaps inimitable”.’ Santa visited that UK schoolteacher early this year. Y’all better go through all that junk you’ve stored up over the years. Santa might have left something in there.

  20. HELENK says:

    Never owned a gun, did not want one. Do want the freedom to choose and get one if I decide to do so. Do not want to take the rights of law abiding citizens to make that choice.

    While the msm is all agog over the dems talking about guns and using this horrific and painful time to take away that right here is something that the backtrack bunch slipped in under the radar with no msm outrage or reporting

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/12/gov-dossiers-on-us-citizens/

  21. piper(?) says:

    Interesting that the progs are now calling for killing NRA leaders. Hypocrisy is thy name.
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/liberals-call-for-murder-of-nra-leaders-after-sandy-hook-shootings/

  22. HELENK says:

    on the same day as this horror in CT , children in a school in China were attacked by a person with a knife. Not too much said about those children and the pain there. Should we ban knives??

    I pray that the children of both attacks can play together in heaven and get along better than they would have on earth

  23. Somebody says:

    This tragedy hasn’t changed my mind about guns. I completely and totally disagree with banning guns as some are calling for. I have NO desire to emulate Norway or Australia or any other country where many police officers don’t even carry guns. Guess what in those countries criminals still have guns, go figure. BTW citizens in those countries do have guns, but they can’t access them unless they go to whatever club they’re a member of. The guns must be locked up at said clubs…….people out there are seeing this as a way around the 2nd amendement. I say BS…..the right to keep and bear arms, but hey who knows how SCOTUS would interpret a laws like that, after Obamacare all bets are off.

    Gun laws only limit law abiding citizens, they will have absolutely no effect on criminals. The net effect will be to create a nation of vulnerable, helpless sitting ducks….no thank you.

    I don’t currently own a gun, nor have I ever, although I think that is about to change this week. My father owned several, as did many of my relatives most of which lived in rural areas and hunted. They were all responsible gun owners. I have plenty of friends that are responsible gun owners too. CT has plenty of gunlaws already on the books and it didn’t prevent this tragedy, more laws putting more limits on guns will not make us safer, because once again criminals and nut cases will find a way.

  24. HELENK says:

    http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/12/17/obama-vacation-appears-delayed/

    oh no backtrack will not be able to go on vacation until at least Thursday.

    BTW
    where was the first lady? why wasn’t she in CT for the speech to end all speeches?

    • Somebody says:

      Very good question about the first lady Helenk.

      What a shame Obama will arrive late to Hawaii, but hey all the more reason to fly the family out separately. It’s not like money is tight or anything, right?

    • piper(?) says:

      wondering that myself

      • HELENK says:

        whether or not you like the bushes, you can not tell me that Laura Bush would not have been there for those families. Even if it was not a speech but a show of support.

        I never voted for a bush in my lifetime, but I can see some kindness in them. I do not see any kindness in the backtrack family

        • DeniseVB says:

          The Bushes arrived at FT Hood after that massacre, long before the Obamas. The media ignored that. Maybe because it was a compassion visit, not a speechifying photo op.

          I still see local TX news items that the Bushes go to the airport to greet local units of soldiers arriving home.

          GWB may have had bad policies, but history will treat him as a good man now. As they will Jimmy Carter. They can thank the feckless Obama for that. ;)

  25. tommy says:

    ‘Attraction across the ages – A new research has found that women’s taste in men changes as they get older and there is indeed a “perfect man” for every stage in a woman’s life. Stats – 47% women aged 18-24 want a man they can show off to their friends. 66% women aged 25-34 want an ambitious man with whom they have sexual compatibility. 73% women aged 35-44 want to settle down and are most likely to date a man atleast 5 years older than them. 95% women aged 45-54 look for a partner with a relatively high income and who makes them feel secure. 54% of that same age group are most likely to consider dating a man atleast 5 years younger than them. 90% women aged over 55 look for a man who is intelligent and has a similar sense of humour’. As a dude, the over 55s are real. Lol

  26. HELENK says:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/12/16/anonymous_hit_westboro_baptist_church_over_sandy_hook_picket_plans/

    when anonymous goes after you , you have a problem.
    the westboro so called church took one step over the line

  27. tommy says:

    fif, honk! Thats why TCH is the best place for cant-fit-a-category like us. We’re the political rejects. We balance and counter-balance alternate views. And I’m very comfortable here. What I’m most afraid of – myiq meets me personally. Tells me: Choose between the red and blue pill. Lol. I ain’t no Neo.

  28. tommy says:

    Falstaff, you’re trying to mess with the 2nd amendment. Do you really wanna do that? So why don’t we mess with the 1st amendment too. No, don’t be hoplophobic. Guns didn’t do this. A crazy man did. Trying to demonize an inanimate object is plain crazy. If even one teacher or administrator in that school was carrying, the damage would have been limited. But no, have one of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and put up a signboard ‘Gun free zone’, and expect the loon to respect that. Lol

  29. gxm17 says:

    No. It didn’t change my view of guns. I’ve always been for gun control, not banning all guns but certainly more control especially when it comes to automatic weapons. But as I said at the neighbor’s place, IMO, the real change needs to come from within us and our culture and how we view guns. IMO, too many people see gun violence as an acceptable answer to an immediate problem or argument, and we’d be a lot better off if these people (like Michael Dunn) didn’t have a loaded gun in their glove box.

    Another thing that I point out to the people who insist they need a gun to protect themselves is this: Nancy Lanza’s guns didn’t protect her. They were used to kill her (and 26 other innocent women and children).

    • Propertius says:

      Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated in the US since 1934.

      • gxm17 says:

        There is no federal ban on the sale of military-style assault weapons in America — the flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machines favored by spree killers like the gunman in Newtown, Conn.

        The previous 10-year assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and it has never been renewed.

        Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sen-feinstein-vows-revive-assault-weapons-ban-article-1.1221793#ixzz2FLNqYHV3

        • Propertius says:

          You need to do some more research on which weapons were affected by the 1994 “ban on scary-looking rifles”, rather than taking a politician at her word. The 1994 ban defined an assault weapon as:

          a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

          `(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

          `(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

          `(iii) a bayonet mount;

          `(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

          `(v) a grenade launcher;

          I fail to see how the presence of a “telescoping” stock, a “pistol grip”, or a “flash suppressor” turns an otherwise legal fire arm into a ” flesh-piercing, fast-firing, killing machine”.

          As for “grenade launchers”, grenades themselves have been banned since 1934.

          Let us contrast two essentially identical rifles from the same manufacturer:

          http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=15A4-2

          http://www.armalite.com/ItemForm.aspx?item=15SPR1CB-762X39&ReturnUrl=Categories.aspx?Category=8e8e5de6-5022-483e-812b-822e58014822

          These two weapons fire the same ammunition and accept the same magazines (not “clips”). They fire at the same rate. They are mechanically identical. They are made in the same factory. Parts are freely interchangeable between them.

          The second is an “assault weapon” under the 1994 ban because it has a pistol grip *and* a telescoping stock. The first is *not* an assault weapon, because it only has a pistol grip – the stock is fixed length.

          The term “assault weapon” is an interesting bit of legal pettifoggery in itself. It’s a deceptive term, coined in this bill, which is intended to be confused with the term of art “assault rifle”. Assault rifles are fully automatic. Like all fully automatic weapons, they’ve been strictly regulated in the US since the National Firearms Act of 1934. The sale of new fully automatic weapons to civilians has been completely banned since 1986. As I noted below, only two homicides have been committed with a legally-owned automatic weapon since 1934. One of those two homicides was committed by a police officer (LEOs are specifically exempted from the 1986 ban) in Dayton, Ohio in 1988. Neither of these was a “spree killing”.

          The CDC commissioned a Community Preventive Services Task Force to study methods for reducing violence in 2003. Their final report, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2005 had the following to say:

          Bans on specified firearms or ammunition: insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness. Bans prohibit the acquisition and possession of certain categories of firearms (e.g., handguns or assault weapons) or ammunition (e.g., large-capacity magazines). Bans are intended to decrease the availability of specified firearms or ammunition to potential offenders, thus reducing the capacity of these people to commit crimes. Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of bans on specified firearms and ammunition for the prevention of violence, because of a small number of studies and inconsistent findings.

          And that’s with a decade of data to analyze.

      • Propertius says:

        To further elaborate, since 1934 there have been exactly two homicides committed with a legally-owned automatic weapon in the United States.

      • gxm17 says:

        How Walmart Helped Make Newtown Shooter’s AR-15 the Most Popular Assault Weapon in America

        http://www.thenation.com/article/171808/how-walmart-helped-make-newtown-shooters-ar-15-most-popular-assault-weapon-america#

        • Propertius says:

          1) It wasn’t his AR-15, it was his mothers (legally acquired, in Connecticut – a state with relatively strict firearms laws)

          2) It wasn’t used in the shooting. He left it in his car.

        • gxm17 says:

          Yes. There have been reports that he left the Bushmaster in the car. But newer reports say that most of the children and teachers were killed with a “high-powered rifle.” As I mentioned to Angie, there have also been reports that he created “jungle” clips so he could fire more rapidly, but I don’t know that this has been confirmed by police. The ME said that the children he examined had between 3 and 11 wounds each. IMO, he had to be using a rapid-fire weapon and I’m assuming that is the aforementioned “high-powered rifle.”

          And for the record, again: The argument that “responsible gun owners” need their guns in order to “defend” themselves is blown out of the water again and again by cases such as this one where the gun owner is killed by her own gun.

    • angienc (D) says:

      Do you even realize that this guy killed all those children with two HAND GUNS, which are not what you mistakenly label “assault” weapons and sure as hell weren’t an AR-15?

      Do you even care? Because you keep talking about the need to have gun control laws for guns that (1) have strict laws already on the books– specifically in in CT as a matter of fact and (2) weren’t the types of guns used here. Further, the shooter in Sandy Hook was too young to purchase the hand guns he used legally — and looky here — he got them anyway!

      And before you even come back with the insipid “they were his mothers guns” — the fact that the irresponsible gun owner from which he STOLE those guns was more convenient (being his mother & he lived with her), doesn’t change the fact that he was in possession of those guns illegally.

      So until you can explain why responsible gun owners who purchase guns legally should have even more restrictions while criminals will be able to get guns as easily as they are now for any reason whatsoever other than it is something you “believe” then perhaps you should try another tack.

      • gxm17 says:

        The reporting on this tragedy has been atrocious. I believe the script we’re currently reading from has the killer shooting his mother with a .22 caliber rifle, himself with one of hand guns, and most of the children and teachers with a “high-powered rifle,” which I’m presuming is the Bushmaster. I’ve also read reports that he created “jungle” clips so that he could fire even more rapidly, but not sure if that’s verified fact or not. The ME has reported that only two of the children were shot at close range. And, the children he examined had between 3 and 11 wounds each.

        The 20 children and six adults killed in the Newtown school massacre were all shot multiple times, many with a rifle, Connecticut’s chief medical examiner said Saturday.…

        Carver said he personally performed seven autopsies and those children had between three and 11 wounds each. Two were shot at close range, the others at a distance.

        http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/15/15932666-conn-school-massacre-victims-all-shot-multiple-times-chief-medical-officer-says?lite

        Lanza shot his mother, Nancy Lanza, at their home, then took her car and some of her guns to the school, where he broke in and opened fire on two classrooms with a high-powered rifle. He committed suicide as police closed in. He was wearing all black, with an olive-drab utility vest with lots of pockets.

        A Connecticut official said Lanza’s mother – a gun enthusiast who practiced at shooting ranges – was found dead in her pajamas in bed, shot four times in the head with a .22-caliber rifle.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/newtown-ct-plans-burials-_n_2314785.html

        So, yes, I am following this story and I am aware of the weapons the killer used. And, yes, I care.

        The reason I think “responsible gun owners” should not be allowed to buy assault weapons is because there is no good use for them. Anything designed to take out large groups of people quickly, or bullets designed to pierce police vests, should be illegal, IMO. I just don’t see any good reason to have this stuff. I will of course regret this once the zombie apocalypse comes to pass.

        • Propertius says:

          I’ve also read reports that he created “jungle” clips so that he could fire even more rapidly

          I expect calls for a totl ban on duct tape if this turns out to be true. Perhaps even if it’s doesn’t.

          AR-15s are a favorite stock protection rifle out here in the Wild West. Coyotes hunt in packs, you know.

        • Propertius says:

          uurgh. “it doesn’t”.

        • angienc (D) says:

          Watch this:

        • gxm17 says:

          High capacity magazines are used “in virtually all of these mass shootings that you see,” Lowy says. “High capacity magazines are what enable you to engage in this prolonged assault.”

          Connecticut bans assault weapons, but does not ban high capacity magazines. Congress may debate the merits of placing some kind of limitation on the number of rounds a shooter can fire before having to stop and reload.

          “I don’t know anyone in the sporting or hunting arena that goes out with an assault rifle,” West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, considered a supporter of gun owners’ rights, said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Monday. “I don’t know anyone that needs 30 rounds in a clip to go hunting. I mean, these are things that need to be talked about.”

          http://www.npr.org/2012/12/17/167463334/what-gun-control-could-look-like

        • yttik says:

          “Congress may debate the merits of placing some kind of limitation on the number of rounds a shooter can fire before having to stop and reload.”

          Because somebody who would kill his own mother, murder innocent children, and then shoot himself, really gives a crap about how many rounds congress thinks he should be able to fire at any given time?

        • gxm17 says:

          That’s touched upon in the article I linked.

          How to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill is bound to be part of any gun-control discussion. Numerous states have restrictions in this area that are tighter than federal law.

          Calling on states to do a better job of uploading their mental health records into national databases would address this issue without in any way impinging on gun rights, says Wilson, the Roanoke College public affairs professor.

          “The only real legislation that came out of Virginia Tech was a mandate for mental health records for the national criminal background mental health checks,” he says. “Many states have done almost nothing.”

          Last year, the House passed a bill that would block the Department of Veterans Affairs from determining that a veteran is mentally incompetent for purposes of gun control, unless that person was found to be a danger to himself or others by a judge.

          The government constantly impinges on the rights of law-abiding citizens in an effort to curb crime. Take Sudafed which is no longer sold over the counter. In my state, I have to show ID every time I buy a box. It’s a pain in the ass, but LE says it has helped lower the number of meth labs so I’m guessing that law is here to stay even though, clearly, some meth labs are finding alternatives. So be it.

          IMO, gun advocates need to buck up and do what’s best for everyone, for the community, and if that’s even stricter gun laws, so be it. But as I’ve said again and again, we will never solve the “gun problem” until we, as a culture, stop viewing guns as a readily acceptable answer to our problems. Sadly, this mindset is probably too deeply rooted in American culture to quickly eradicate, but we have to start somewhere.

        • yttik says:

          “Calling on states to do a better job of uploading their mental health records into national databases”

          That’s pretty frightening and authoritarian. Who is “mentally ill?” A woman who suffers from depression/anxiety because she was a crime victim? Hoarders, anorexia, eating disorders, ADD, insomniacs? Until just recently, homosexuality was even considered a mental disorder.

          Maybe we should ban young men under 21 from having guns? Oh wait, we did that already in Conn where this shooting happened. That’s the whole problem with this line of argument, gxm. We already have laws. They were violated. They usually are. You can’t legislate psychotic people and you can’t remove all the sharp objects from society.

          You can however, teach young boys that violence is wrong and that it doesn’t make you a hero, it makes you a sick coward. That approach has worked well on girls who rarely commit mass murders, in spite of our gun laws and mental health issues.

        • angienc (D) says:

          IMO, gun advocates need to buck up and do what’s best for everyone, for the community, and if that’s even stricter gun laws, so be it.

          You still have not presented one piece of actual evidence that stricter gun control laws would prevent another Sandy Hook, and thus be “what’s best for the country” outside of your clearly biased opinion and now you’re pointing to an article advocating uploading our health records into national databases so the government can keep better track of the mentally ill.

          You not only need new source material, you need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you can opine on what’s “best for everyone.” You might need that kind of government in your life. I don’t. (And I’m part of that “everyone” you so glibly presume to speak for).

        • gxm17 says:

          Yes. It is frightening but should people with violent tendencies really be allowed to own guns? Really? I don’t think so and I agree that there should be much more thorough paper trails and stringent requirements. IMO, we need to stop coddling gun advocates and demand that they put the community first. Frankly, they come across as a bunch of WATBs, with all the pissing and moaning about having to deal with rules and regulations that we all have to deal with every single day. It reminds me of the people whining about having to show ID to vote.

          And again, yes, the reason the underage killer got a hold of the guns was because his mother had them and, clearly, they were not well guarded. Nancy Lanza’s guns did not protect her from her killer, as a matter of fact her guns were useless in her defense instead they were used to kill her and 26 more innocent women and children. This is not speculation (what if the teachers were armed, what if robocops were installed in every elementary school in the entire country, what if, what if, what if????) This is a very sad and tragic fact. Now, what can we do to confront and reduce this ever increasing problem? I’m sorry if that ruffles the gun advocates feathers but, frankly, I’m tired of their pity party.

        • gxm17 says:

          Yes, Angie, it’s my “biased” opinion that settling grievances with a gun is not good for the community.

          Registration of Guns

          70 percent of American voters mistakenly believe that a system of licensing and registration already exists in the U.S. (Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, 2001).

          69 percent of police chiefs support mandatory registration of handguns (Thompson, p. 309).

          79 percent of Americans support requiring gun owners to register their guns with the local government (CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, 2008).

          61 percent of gun owners support registration of handguns (Smith, 2003, p. 53).

          59 percent of NRA members favor mandatory registration of handguns (Weil, p. 53).

          70 percent of “new blue” voters in the states of Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia support registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners (Green, 2008).

          96 percent of high school students support mandatory registration of guns (Vittes, p. 471).

          http://bradycampaign.org/facts/factspublicopinion

          ****

          States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
          http://www.vpc.org/press/1006gundeath.htm

          Twelve facts about guns and mass shootings in the United States
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

  30. tommy says:

    Yep. True. So you blame an inanimate object? Lol. Don’t blame the madman, blame the object. Thats the problem. Maybe there should be car-control and knives-control too.

  31. tommy says:

    Because of this tragedy, the progs are overreaching. Huge mistake, IMO. You mess with citizens 2nd amendment rights, and 2010 will seem like a walk in the park. Have you noticed the corelation between gun rights and abortion? The more the progs make it difficult to own a gun and caliber of your own choice, the more the pubs put restrictions on abortion. Also, remember that if you mess with 2nd amendment rights, the sooner they’ll mess with 1st amendment ones. Want a fascist state?

  32. Constance says:

    Mental Health care and laws need to be changed. I have called before to make an appointment for a mentally ill relative. They ask me why I am making the appointment not him. Well because he is off his rocker and doesn’t realize he needs help, he also has absolutely no patience and can not wade through the phone maze and explain his situation to 5 different phone answerers as he is shifted around the system trying to get an appointment for 2 months from now. I was eventually told by TPTB in the mental health world that they could not help anyone who was not motivated enough to call and make his own appointment.

    I didn’t find any of my interactions with mental health officials helpful.

  33. Meanwhile, as some want stricker gun control because of murderers, others want to laud murderers by naming schools after them:

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/school-named-in-honor-of-murderer.html

  34. Constance says:

    Also I would like to point out…male children are larger and stronger than their mothers at age 13.

    In fact the last physical fracas I had with my son was when he was 8 and my husband left on a two week business trip. My son informed me that he was now the “man of the house” and there were going to be some changes. I informed him that there was no man in the house as he was a boy and since I was in charge we would proceed with the usual family rules. He pointedly acted out right in my face and I sent him to his room but he ran from me, I chased him tackled him and put him in his room and held the door shut. It nearly killed me, I almost couldn’t catch the little devil and dragging him by one foot to his room while he laughed at me was exhausting. I stayed away from all physical challenges with him after that day.

    • elliesmom says:

      My 6 ft 2 in older brother dared my 4 ft 10 in 86 lb mother to hit him. He didn’t think she would, but she did. She caught him off guard and put him through a wall. None of us ever messed with her again. lol

  35. yttik says:

    While we’re debating mental illness and gun control, let’s not forget sexism, specifically how we raise boys. 99% of these tragedies are done by young men. Girls have mental health issues, girls have hard childhoods, girls have access to guns, too. So why are girls less likely to commit mass murders? I suspect it has a lot to do with our culture and the messages we send where girls are taught to to turn their violence inward and boys are taught to express it outward. There is a huge double standard in our expectations and it’s deeply ingrained.

    Recently an article was posted about a mother and her mentally ill son and how he had pulled a knife on her. When a boy does that, well, boys will be boys and besides he’s mentally ill so it’s not really his fault. If a daughter had done the same thing it would be, “that f-in bitch is crazy, lock her up.” Casey Anthony, f-in crazy. Guy who killed his wife and kids? Bad economy, job loss, stress. We excuse violence in men and don’t allow it in women.

    • Constance says:

      All male animals are more violent and aggressive. Farmers in all cultures pick one male for breeding and castrate all the other male animals because they don’t want to deal with their belligerence and they don’t want their animals attacking each other. It is commonly assumed that breeding males are dangerous and have a nasty temperament. Remember the captive Orca Tilly who has killed 3 people, Tilly is the breeding male. Sure we may socialize girls and boys differently but there are major innate differences between males and females. That is easily observed and as long as society prefers to pretend women and men are the same we will continue to have these problems.

      I am very sympathetic towards women who are trying to raise sons with out a male authority figure in the house. Most of the time it turns out OK but when you have an immature person acting out who is larger and more aggressive and all you have is the current mental health situation I don’t know where a mother would turn for help to prevent her son harming himself or others. They would just grill her about why he doesn’t make his own appointment and if she got lucky offer her an appointment 2 months from the crisis.

  36. lyn5 says:

    The ruling class wants to make this about guns, but it is about the human condition.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57559462-10391709/from-the-archives-school-shooters/

    • Constance says:

      You’re right the ruling class has decided this is about guns. But in reading the comments on a lot of the articles most people believe it is about the mental health system.

  37. yttik says:

    The worst school tragedy in our nation’s history was in…1927. No guns were used, the school board treasurer used bombs and killed 38 kids, 6 adults, and injured 58 others. It was in Bath township in Michigan.

Comments are closed.