Edgar, there are enough gun laws on the books so please stop with that old knee jerk phrase.

How many more insane people will go crazy before we decide to take mental health issues seriously? The truth is, gun control can’t stop these people. Once a person looses their mind, and decides to kill, it’s too late. Whether they use a gun, or just drive their car through a crowd – nothing short of deadly force will stop them once they have made up their mind to die, and take as many people as possible with them.

That’s why our country needs to de-stigmatize mental health care. People need to feel comfortable going to a doctor to talk about their frustrations and fears. Families need to feel comfortable gently persuading a loved one to seek help.

Mr. Farmer, you want a cause? Fight for better mental health care in our Community and Country. More gun regulation is not the answer to this problem.

Due to combined cuts in mental health funding at the federal and state levels over the years literally hundreds of mentally ill people are turned away from getting any help, hospitals are closed and these unfortunates are left to fend for themselves with little help are guidance. We are now paying the piper for these “savings.”

There will be a day when a deranged phsycopath opens fire at a major sports/entertainment venue killing hundreds. All the gun freaks will claim, “If only 30,000 more fans had been armed this wouldn’t have happened”.

Anoman & Slamfist - I guess in a sense this is a “mental health issue” because sane people don’t go out and massacre others, however, nowhere have I read that he suffered from a mental condition (ie schizophrenia, bipolar, etc) and wasn’t able to get help. He was angry and frustrated, thought he was right, and apparently his family fed into that. Doesn’t sound like he WANTED help or that it was really even suggested to him (and you can’t just make people get help). I know you are looking for an easy answer, but sometimes there just isn’t one…

What do you propose Mr. Garrison? Are you hoping for the day when a massacre of larger proportions happens so you can prove your point? Are you saying that the guns are the reason that 5 good people were executed?

#4 – Garrison,

I agree with you more often than disagree, but if “hundreds are killed at a sporting event”, the psycho won’t be using a gun. Most likely it will be improvised explosives. Will you be then calling for the banning of gasoline, diesel, fertilizer, dish washing liquid, etc? Will you be calling to ban pool chemicals when someone generates poison gas and kills hundreds?

Renee (#5) accuses me of “looking for an easy answer” - I disagree. What I’m saying is: There is no easy answer when the question is, “How do you stop a mad man who is willing die in order to kill other people?” The people who are saying “Ban guns” are the ones looking for “easy answers”. As the pro-gun people are fond of pointing out – all of these mass killings share a common trait – they happen in areas where guns aren’t supposed to be (when was the last time you heard of a mass shooting on a firing range?).

Do you really think a ban, even a totalitarian “collect ‘em all and shred ‘em ban”, will stop someone who is determined to kill? If you do, than maybe you need to read up on the Oklahoma City bombing, or 911. The problem isn’t guns – it’s psychos. The “answer” however, is not so easy.

Bravo Anonaman, I could not have put it better.

Renee,
Are schizophrenia and bipolar the only mental health issues that deserve treatment? That’s the same as saying heart attacks and liver disease are the only things worthy of medical treatment.

While mental health is covered by most insurance, it is usually severerly limited. Add to that the stigma that is attached with “seeking help”. I can’t guarantee that it would have prevented this tragedy, but if mental health care was put on the same level as physical health care, the world would be a better place.

Renee- I was addressing Anonaman’s statement that better mental health care is needed. I am not looking for an answer to anything easy or otherwise. I have no idea what “the shooter’s” mental condition was and as it is past history now it really doesn’t matter. Mental health care is practically non-existant and seems to , in my opinion, consist of multiple medications and send you on your way or incarceration where no help is available at all. Budget cuts have made mental hospitals nearly extinct. You don’t have to look far anymore to see the results of this wandering the streets aimlessly and hopelessly.

Suzyjax - Apparently you did not see the ETC, which means “and so on.”

Anonaman & slamfist - The letter writer brought up gun control to prevent such deaths and you both brought up the mental health issue in response. Saying you are “looking for an easy answer” was not meant as an insult and I apologize if you took it that way. My point is that everyone is trying to wrap their mind around something that doesn’t make sense and looking for answers when sometimes there isn’t one. It is just too complicated to say “if we had gun control, if someone had a CCW or if mental health care was better.” Yes, mental health care could definitely be better, but in this particular case I don’t believe that had any bearing and I also don’t believe more gun control would have prevented it.

Oh, one thing I would like to mention about mental health care. In my job I meet a lot of people who DEFINITELY need help and/or medication. The problem is that THEY don’t think they have a problem or need medication and they cannot be forced to get treatment. While access to care and cost can be a problem, the bigger problem is how do you get someone who is mentally ill to understand they are sick and need the help and voluntarily go and get it?

Garrison…just wondering, is it your personal mission about this gun control policy ?? Has you or your family been affected by guns, hence your fascination.

Suzy use your brain a little to read between the lines…stop trying to take everything literally.
Do you have any common sense??

I’m sure kinkyhead would have been able to get his dirty hands on a gun even with stricter gun control legislation. He was determined to avenge the caucasians who wronged him in his own little empty head.

Gun control isn’t the answer.

After watching a local St. Louis television station’s interview of City Attorney John Hessel, I couldn’t help but think how he and other victims of Thursday night’s shooting tragedy in Kirkwood, Mo., might have fared better with the help of concealed firearms.

Among the 30 or so gathered in the Kirkwood City Hall meeting room that night, only one trained and qualified person — Officer Tom Ballman — carried a firearm. Had only one other trained person carried a firearm into the meeting that night, the number of dead and wounded might have been greatly reduced. Surprisingly, Kirkwood city laws don’t entirely prevent it!

Read more about it here.

Mr. Farmer….With the exception of the shooter, the “senseless deaths” were people performing or documenting public service to our free society. You minimize the wanton evil of the attacks by focusing on the tool used rather than the deliberate action.

You also do a disservice to the millions of honest citizens who safely and legally own firearms of all types.

Think/…that’s intelligent. You think I’m praying for a massacre so I can prove my point? Massacre’s happen in this country everyday. I don’t want to be sitting at a Ram’s game and be a victim to prove my point.

I’m talking about the accessibility of guns. Why does the NRA want to saturate our society with semi-automatic weapons? Why is the NRA second to the healthcare industry in the number of lobbyists and campaign contributions? Why does the NRA want to legalize cop-killer bullets? To hunt squirrels? I DON”T WANT TO TAKE AWAY ANYONE’S GUNS. I WANT TO LIMIT THE PRODUCTION OF GUNS…500 MILLION HANDGUNS ON OUR STREETS EQUALS DEATH. PHASE THEM OUT. IN 100 YEARS OUR GREAT GRANDCHILDREN WILL THANK US.

It’s a little more difficult to carry 7 gallons of fuel and 75 pounds of fertilizer into a sporting event.
Fuel, fertilizer, and other chemicals serve a useful purpose in our society. Guns don’t, except to protect us from other guns….That argument is old, outdated, and it doesn’t wash.

I’m guessing if one million people had been killed by electric toaster since 1968, we would have outlawed electric toasters by now…..Just a guess.

Curious….I had a close friend killed by a gunshot wound to the head…Wrong place. Wrong time. 1983.

Mrs Garrison, would you please define “Cop Killer Bullets”?

Sub….I know you’re going to google 100 NRA websites that say cop-killer bullets are a myth.
Twelve years ago Congress prohibited the sale, manufacuring, import or possession of bullets capable of peircing bullet proof vests typically worn by police officers. But since then, some bullets have been able to skirt the ban [with NRA approval] because they’re made from plastic instead of metal….I know technology has changed, but the intent of the NRA has not.

We can ban guns all we want. However, someone with evil intentions will get the gun anyway. So why ban guns from the good guys?

Even if only 5% of people carry concealed arms, that makes the evil-killer’s job that much more difficult if they have to be wary of that 1 out of every 20 people.

“I know you’re going to google 100 NRA websites that say cop-killer bullets are a myth.”

They are. “Armor piercing” ammunition is only legally available to law enforcement agencies and to the armed forces.
When properly wearing the appropriate body armor, not one law enforcement officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their vest. The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) certifies three levels of body armor. The most commonly worn, Level IIA, offers realistic protection against all .22, .25, .32, .380, and .38, caliber handgun ammunition, against most 9mm, .357 Magnum, .40 S&W, .45 ACP and .44 Magnum handgun ammunition and against 000 buck shotgun pellets. Level II and Level IIIA armor protects from even greater threats including 12 gauge shotgun slugs and the “hottest” .44 Magnum rounds.

“Cop-killer” bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby. An objective, rational look at the facts quickly separates the myth from the reality.

Ya…I’ve read those sites too. I’ve read other sites that clearly point out that the NRA represents gun & ammo manufacturers…Not hunters, not innocent victims.

Eagle eye…according to your logic, it should be mandatory that we all carry guns so the “evil killer’s job” is impossible. Why stop at 5%? Let’s make this country really safe.

The demonization of the NRA is another tactic used by the anti-gun coalition to appeal to emotions rather than logic in the debate. For over a century the NRA has offered education and training in safe, ethical, legal use of firearms to law enforcement, sporting groups, and citizens of all walks of life. The NRA has been at the forefront of lobbying efforts for strict enforcement of laws against criminal and negligent misuse of firearms.

The Eddie Eagle child safety program, competetive shooting events, educational literature and other efforts of the NRA have greatly improved gun safety for generations of Americans.

Uninformed attacks on the NRA and gun owners in general reveal the true character and tyranny of those who would deny freedoms to many because of the horrible acts of a few.

Eddie the Eagle encourages kids to develope a fascination with guns…The safety message is secondary and merely a PR front.
Eddie the Eagle is to guns what Joe Camel is to cigarettes. A gimmick to sell a deadly product.

God forbid we have firearms safety education in schools, the anti-gun refrain goes, because it might encourage kids to shoot. Hmm, so sex education in schools, the great shibboleth of our liberal education system, doesn’t encourage kids to have sex, but firearms safety education encourages kids to have guns and shoot people?

Again, the Leftists, like Mrs. Garrison, use emotion and not logic to support their views.

The Eddie Eagle message to children is to stop, don’t touch, call an adult. It is aimed at children who are not taught firearms safety in the home or elsewhere. Children of conscientious gun owners already know the safety rules. Children whose parents fear or object to firearms are at risk because TV, movies, and video games present guns as toys and gun injuries as temporary or theatrical.

It is hard to understand anyone wanting to put children in jeopardy by keeping them ignorant of basic safety rules.

For 100 years the NRA has helped make sure that there are more firearms floating around than we can ever hope to deal with. Now they say “outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns”

It’s a hoot really. They’ve been holding the gate wide open for 100 years and now they say “it’s too late to do anything! The horse has already left the barn!”

Only Tango would make the comparrison of his desire to hold his gun with his desire to hold his penis.

Garrison - For a while there I thought maybe an imposter was posting under your name because todays responses have been fairly thoughtful and without the usual name calling. Then I read #29. Yep, it’s you.

I read somewhere that there were psychological studies that suggest the male’s desire to play with guns is an expression of his own deep seeded feelings of sexual inadequacy.

#31 Lunar…. Well that explains the entire complicated issue right there. My compliments on your well reasoned insight into the minds of gun owners. My wife and daughter will probably put their weapons up for sale immediately and abandon their life long love of shooting sports.

Garrison - Drugs are illegal and they are rampant in society. Do you know of one place where you can legally purchase cocaine, pot, meth, etc? It’s illegal! How are these people getting all of these drugs? It’s called a black market…and you don’t see law-abiding citizens selling drugs now, do you?

Same thing with guns. If you make it illegal to own automatic weapons, the only people who will have them are criminals who can get them from sources outside of the country. So who will benefit from GUN CONTROL? Criminals. Period.

Renee…You need to read Tango’s insane comparisons in comment #26…Then you’ll understand how hillarious my comment is when you read #29…..Where’s your sense of humor?

Bb….Your daughter’s life long love of sports shooting is a heavy price for society to pay.

Groucho…..why make anything illegal? There will always be a way to break the law.

It does no good to try and convice people like Garrison that guns aren’t evil. My suggestion is that if you feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment and you would like to keep your right to bear arms, join the NRA and get as many people as possible to do the same. The NRA is the only organization who will prevent the lunatic lefties from passing legislation to ban guns.
Law abiding citizens need to stand up and fight the socialist/communist liberals.

Also, if you want to keep your guns…don’t vote for Obama or Clinton. They are both FOR extreme gun control laws rendering the 2nd Amendment defunct.

It does no good to try and convice people like Edgar and Garrison that guns aren’t evil. My suggestion is that if you feel strongly about the 2nd Amendment and you would like to keep your right to bear arms, join the NRA and get as many people as possible to do the same. The NRA is the only organization who will prevent the lunatic lefties from passing legislation to ban guns.
Law abiding citizens need to stand up and fight the socialist/communist liberals.

Also, if you want to keep your guns…don’t vote for Obama or Clinton. They are both FOR extreme gun control laws rendering the 2nd Amendment defunct.

Garrison, answer a question for me…
If law abiding citizens don’t cause crime and don’t misuse guns, what good does it do to ban them from having guns? It’s not going to stop criminals from obtaining firearms from illegal sources, and it will aid the criminals in exploiting the people who follow laws.

Look at New Orleans. The state government collected all of the guns from people who follow the laws (registered guns) and people couldn’t defend their homes. Thugs with illegal, unregistered guns looted and killed people without any resistance at all.

How can you be so obtuse? Are you lacking common sense?

Groucho…..nobody wants to ban guns, not even the socialist/communist liberals. We want to slowly phase out all handguns…..I know that takes vision and foresight, but 100 years from now our great grandchildren will thank us. Do we really need to mass produce handguns at the rate of 12 million a year…to protect us from the 12 million handguns mass produced last year?

Law abiding citizens probably wouldn’t misuse hand-grenades either.

Mrs Garrison, how do you propose we phase out all handguns without banning the manufacturing, sale or possession of new handguns?

If we ban guns only criminals will have guns.
If we ban cocaine only criminals will have cocaine.
If we ban ????? only criminals will have ?????.

Logically consistent.

No body is trying to ban firearms. Some people just irrationally look upon any attempt to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety as an infringement. They are wrong. This knee jerk reaction by the nra and it’s sympathizers forces even those of us who are really quite moderate on the issue into the opposing camp. Charlton Moses and his dead, clammy hand are responsible for the lack of progress in this vital area of public safety.

“No body is trying to ban firearms. Some people just irrationally look upon any attempt to regulate firearms in the interest of public safety as an infringement. They are wrong. This knee jerk reaction by the nra and it’s sympathizers forces even those of us who are really quite moderate on the issue into the opposing camp.”

Ok Moon Bat, I’ll byte. How would you suggest we regulate firearms? You point out the NRA on one side of the firearm issue, but not the other side with the Brady Bunch, why not?

Lets have the discussion about “regulating” firearms.

How is Charles Heston responsible for criminals?

What good is gun control legislation if only law abiding citizens are affected by the law?
If you haven’t noticed, criminals and thugs don’t obey or respect laws…so how would this “legislation” affect the criminal element in our society? It wouldn’t.

How is a gun control law going to affect people who don’t care about laws? It would be similar to prohibition. You would have huge black markets peddling guns to any one willing to pay the price. Meanwhile, people who follow laws would lose all rights to protect themselves and miss out on any sporting events involving guns.

But don’t worry Edgar…you’re safe in your Webster Groves white bread existence. Thanks for playing.

Garrison… My family’s participation in shooting sports has cost society nothing. None of our firearms has ever been involved in a careless accident or crime. On the contrary, we pay heavy taxes and fees on equipment, ammunition, and permits. Society pays a price for excusing negligence and criminality, not for responsible firearms ownership.

If cost to society is an issue, let’s ban sky diving, skiing, boating, mountain climbing, and all the other recreations that require periodic rescue and subsidies from the taxpayers.

You are a perfect example of the truism that it is not about guns, it is about control. If you hate or fear guns, by all means, don’t own them. Be a proponent for strict enforcement of existing laws and certain punishment for criminals. Support NRA and other groups’ efforts to inform and educate the public about safe storage and use of firearms. But, stop trying to impose your personal dislike of guns on other honest citizens.

Bb….If one million skydivers were killed by jumping out of airplanes since 1968, the sport would be banned.

Mrs Garrison, Do you want to ban driving? And where did you get your million number?

Garrison… More people die from medical error than gunshots every year in the U.S. Why are you not clamoring for a ban on hospitals?

A good analogy is Prohibition. Alcohol exacts a heavy toll on society, and trying to reduce spousal abuse, broken homes, drunken fights, and health problems drove the US to completely ban the possession and use of alcohol. Of course, we all know what happened next. The black market which sprang up overnight practically created modern organized crime and legitimate breweries and distilleries were forced to close – many never to reopen. The crime wave became so bad, and the unintended consequences were so severe that Prohibition was repealed, never to return. In the time since, automobiles have become as common as people, and drunken driving has become the number one problem with them. Drunk driving kills more people than gun crime and gun accidents combined, and cause massive property damage to boot. Yet there is no call to reintroduce Prohibition, because we know that bans don’t work.

Or do we? Misuse of firearms cause less death and destruction than misuse of alcohol, yet we constantly hear calls to ban firearms. Firearms are used in many legitimate sports, while alcohol is used in none (unless you think of drinking games, but I doubt you will see those on ESPN anytime soon) yet we hear calls to ban firearms. Firearms are used everyday by citizens to defend their homes, their family and their lives, while alcohol is the cause of much strife in citizens lives – yet we hear calls to ban firearms.

Honestly, I wonder what drives people to hate firearms so much, and the only conclusion I can find is fear. I think their fear drives them to hatred and irrational reactions. In truth, you have a much greater probability of being killed by a drunk driver than a firearm, and if you ever have to defend your home, a firearm works way better than a beer bottle.

Ultimately, this is about rights. Do we, the law abiding, rule following majority surrender our rights to those who would control our lives – all because of the actions of a sick few? I say no. Especially, when history has shown that a ban would only make things worse – much worse.

As a final thought, I respect your decision to not own a gun, can you respect my right to?

Were talking about necessities guys. Hospitals are necessary. Automobiles are necessary. Airplanes are necessary. Handguns are not… except to protect yourself from other handguns.
Those outdated arguments aren’t even used by the NRA anymore..

The one million number comes from a Post-Dispatch article several months ago.
Sylvester Brown Jr., if memory serves me correctly.

“The one million number comes from a Post-Dispatch article several months ago.
Sylvester Brown Jr., if memory serves me correctly.
Comment by Garrison ”

That makes the claim about as credible as if you got it of a Moveon.org or Lancet web site.

So what about it Garrison, is alcohol “necessary”? Since it causes more harm than guns, yet has NO benefit or legitimate use, shouldn’t it be the focus of your ire?

There are proven health benefits to the moderate use of alcohol.

True. And it’s also true that guns have saved lives.

So, will you respect our right to own a gun if we respect your decision not to?

Save lives by protecting yourself from other guns or escaped lions from the St. Louis Zoo?

Common, you are a smart guy – you know that guns have saved lives, whether those are the lives of a family under attack, or a police officer dealing with a psycho on a rampage. And not all of the bad guys in those situations were armed with other firearms – often they had knives swords, clubs, etc.

The point is simple, guns have many legitimate uses, from sports, feeding your family (possibly necessary in the coming depression caused by Bush’s excesses), defending yourself and your family, etc. Alcohol perhaps can help some people’s hearts. The downsides of both items are caused by misuse, and the misuse of alcohol has more severe consequences than the misuse of firearms. So the upside of firearms is greater than the upside of alcohol, and the downside is smaller. Yet people call for the ban of firearms, but not alcohol. I have to assume no one is calling for the ban of alcohol because they remember the miserable failure that was Prohibition. Would it really take another failed ban, and all of the massive negative consequences to prove to you that a ban on firearms would be a bad thing?

Once again, it really boils down to rights. You have the right to have a beer ( as long as you are of age) and I have no problem with you exercising that right – despite the possible death and destruction you may cause if you misuse your right. However, you wish to take away my right to defend myself and my family. You wish to take away my right to participate in legitimate sports. You wish to take away my rights because you fear that I may misuse that right.

Here lies the quandary. A free society does not just mean freedoms for you, it also means freedoms for others – even when those freedoms can possibly be misused.

Well, I guess I agree with you about the President Bush thing…I’m not sure I agree that the misuse of alcohol has more severe consequences than the misuse of firearms. Some innocent victims are killed by drunk drivers and some innocent victims are killed by drunks with guns, but most of the severe consequences of alcohol abuse are suffered by the self-afflicted.

Finding fault in one area doesn’t legitimize faults in other areas. The old phrase about two wrongs?…. Alcohol is easy produced. We found that out in the 1930’s. Once alcohol is consumed, it’s not practical to confiscate the empty bottles and destroy them…Guns find their way into several different hands and often for the wrong reasons.

I do accept your premise. I think alcohol is more of a social ill than a virture.

Anonaman, you are trying to use logic with an illogical person. It’s best you give it up.

They could prohibit the manufacture of handguns today and there would still be handguns around 200-300 years from now. The only way to truly rid our country of handguns would be to forcefully confiscate and destroy, and when an entity tries that, all hell will break loose. If one could snap their fingers and all handguns completely disappeared from Earth, then shotguns or rifles would become the chosen weapon for a deranged person to do their dirty deeds. Make rifles and shotguns disappear and swords and machete’s will be used.

This is from an article on the genocide in Rwanda. An estimated 800,000 to 1 million people were killed in about 100 days. The weapon of choice wasn’t a handgun or an assault rifle. It was a machete.

“The killing was well organized.[10] By the time the killing started, the militia in Rwanda was 30,000 strong — one militia member for every ten families — and organized nationwide, with representatives in every neighborhood. Some militia members were able to acquire AK-47 assault rifles by completing requisition forms. Other weapons, such as grenades, required no paperwork and were widely distributed. Many members of the Interahamwe and Impuzamugambi were armed only with machetes, but these were some of the most effective killers”

Amazed,

I don’t think Garrison is illogical, just passionate about his beliefs. Ultimately, I think he is trying to help, even if I disagree with his proposals.

Garrison,

If you really want to do a scary society cost/benefit analysis, try cigarettes. Wow. Those things kill so many people they make alcohol and firearms seem like health food and exercise equipment.

But don’t even think about banning them. You think firearm people are vehement? Just wait to you try to reason with the nicotine addicted masses!

Looney….
If we need handguns to protect ourselves from the [$2 billion a week] U.S. military, I don’t want you on my side.

Trust me Garrison, I wouldn’t pee on you if you were on fire. I sure as heck wouldn’t want to be on your side in anything.

Anonaman,

You are being fooled.

The number of victims in the Virginia Tech rampage was yet unknown and Garrison was on here taunting us “Redneck, backass hillbilly” gun owners. The names weren’t even released from the Kirwood shootings and he was here taunting again with his “Happy Now?” question for all the “Redneck Gun owners that like to shoot squirrels.”

No, he isn’t trying to help anything. He is a despicable being that will use situations like these to try to support his belief that guns are the problem.

Amazed,

Hmm. I missed those comments, and yes, I would have found them offensive. I don’t like opportunists or those who delight in, or profit from, the misery of others.

Still, I think it’s more useful to debate people like Garrison than insult them. I truly believe that protecting the rights of gun owners is the morally correct choice, and that society benefits from responsible gun ownership. While we may not be able to convince people like Garrison to become NRA members, we can at least show that reasonable, well intentioned people hold pro-gun rights positions.

The first steps to building bridges is to foster understanding, and that requires more than insults – from either side.

You can try to reason with Garrison and talk sense with him. I highly doubt you will get anywhere and you will soon realize the effort is futile.

Anonaman…
When Looney states how despicable it is to use tragic situations to support an opinion,
keep in mind he likes to mention Mary Jo Kapeckny at least 3 times a month.

Another typical lie from your mouth/keyboard Garrison. You ever figure out the name of that drug that costs $1600 a month that is being denied by your mother’s insurance? Or are you ready to admit that was a lowdown typical lie that you pulled out of your ass?

Garrison #48…. No, we aren’t talking about necessities. We are talking about rights and the irresistable urge some have to force free citizens to conform to their own notions. Prior restraint is not a workable notion in a free society. Punish the guilty and respect the rights of the innocent. Simple concept. Read about it in the Constitution.

Anonaman,

I use your posts vs some other’s to illustrate my point in (40), “This knee jerk reaction by the nra and it’s sympathizers forces even those of us who are really quite moderate on the issue into the opposing camp.” Guns in the hands of individuals such as yourself (seemingly balanced, rational, sane) are not nearly as worrisome as a gun in the hands of someone who wouldn’t piss on you if you were on fire. Yes, the loonies on both sides inhibit meaningful legislation in this area. I am a gun owner (7 including 1 handgun) and I have no problem with private ownership of firearms even though I do not believe it is a constituional right (another topic). But there are some who should not be allowed to own a gun and there are some guns which no individual should be allowed to own. Drawing these lines is of course the place of contention but with both sides refusing to agree there is a middle ground we get nowhere.

Bb…As a “free citizen” (whatever that is) I must obey the traffic laws including speed limits.
Why do I have to conform to the irresistable urge some have to force me to conform to their notions? I’ve never had an automobile accident in my life. Just because yahoos like you can’t drive, I have to pay the consequences…..If I drive 120 mph on Lindberg and kill a member of your family, you’ll want to pass speed limit laws so others aren’t victims.

Oh, wait…that’s what we do in a collective society. When yahoos with guns shoot one million Americans on our streets since 1968, I don’t want to be the next victim…..

Starting to make sense yet? Cut with the “free citizen” crap.

Garrison, I’m sure you can’t see the flaws in your analogy because of your conviction that you know best. Gun owners who misuse firearms (120mph) are rightly subject to the legitimate laws that apply. My position has always been that anyone using a firearm to threaten or harm others should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. As with any laws exeptions would be made for self defense or justifiable use in defense of other potential victims.

Not everyone driving a car is a reckless maniac. Not everyone owning a firearm is a reckless maniac. The percentages may even be similar. The flaw in your reasoning is that you aren’t proposing speed limits (which already exist for gun ownership). You are suggesting banning automobiles for all since some may be reckless drivers.

Before you come back with the assault weapon or handgun garbage, please consider this. Racecars shouldn’t be driven on city streets, but does that mean they should be banned from racetracks as well?

You consider the term “free citizen” crap when discussing the second amendment, but you don’t hesitate to exercise your first amendment rights as a free citizen. No, Garrison, you absolutely are not “starting to make sense yet.” Nor will you ever as long as you are trying to impose your personal beliefs and dictate persecution of innocent gun owners.

Garrison wants the government version of the “easy button” so that Garrison can sit “its” fat ass and do nothing but try and take Constitutional rights away from citizens while collecting a paycheck of government cheese.

Is that your idea of utopia Garrison? - Free stuff for everyone, paid for by rich business owners and large corporations? Sounds like you are a person of discipline and vision LOL

However, that plan doesn’t seem to be working very well for for your hero in Venezuela right now. Inflation has crippled the Venezuelan economy since Chavez became dictator and it’s only going to get worse. Yes, his population gets cheap gas, but that doesn’t do any good when bread costs $7 per loaf and milk is $10 a gallon and so on.

On another note, I can’t wait for debates between the empty suit Obama and McCain. All of the elequence and public speaking skills in the world won’t help Obama with his empty promises and the “nothingness” of his liberal idealism. I love the political process!!!! It eventually weeds out empty suits like Obama by exposing him for what he is…. a great public speaker with no ideas or solutions.

Uh Lunar, if you want to take underhanded swipes at me, go ahead. But could you at least do it correctly. I never said “piss.”

When someone immediately and automatically uses a tragic situation the way Garrison did with regards to Virginia Tech and Kirkwood to “rub it in the face” of law abiding gun owners everywhere, it evokes a personal response in me.

My sister in law attends Virginia Tech. She spends a great deal of time in the building adjacent to Norris Hall where the bulk of the killing took place. Fortunately, she wasn’t harmed. However, the incident was minutes old and no one had heard from her. And here our good friend Garrison was already making it known how “idiotic redneck gun owners” were to blame.

After reflecting on my post in #59……….I still wouldn’t pee on Garrison if he were on fire.

Bb, #68 is a classic example of a well reasoned post. I hope you weren’t expecting the same in return from Garrison.

Funny stuff guys. Bb, you jumped from cheese, to utopia, to Venezuela, to empty suits…Then Looney follows with something about “piss”.

Cars are a necessity….. If automobiles were used for the sole purpose of running over people [instead of transportation "necessary" for our economy], they would be outlawed……..Cars used solely for killing would be outlawed except for sports cars “regulated” on private raceways… Guns should be outlawed too [because they're made solely for killing] except for sport shooting on private “regulated” hunting reserves or target facilities…..So gun freaks like you can get their rocks satisfied.

Now you see what I mean Bb. It’s useless to try to reason with an idiot.

Garrison,

I does seem I was wrong about you. You have no interest in finding a middle ground – you believe yours is the only way. You really are an extremist on this subject.

LC,
Thanks. I always try to find a common ground, and despite the extreme volume of noise from the fringes, the middle is where most people live.

Speaking of the middle, I think the US gun laws are, on the whole, fairly balanced. Of course there will always be people who think we should be allowed to collect rocket launchers, and others who think anything more dangerous than a 10” Chef knife should carry a life sentence. But the rest of us either choose to own a few common sense guns, or choose to not own them. It’s our choice.

Speaking of choice, since almost all gun laws are made by the state, not the feds, you are free to move to an area that believes as you do. Want to live in a state with CCW? Live in Mo. Want to live in one without CCW? Live in IL. Want to live in a city that has completely Banned handguns? Live in Chicago. You are free to move about the country. I am sure living in a state like Mo can be frustrating to a gun banner like Garrison, but just imagine being a gun rights person living in Chicago! At least here we don’t force anti-gun people to have a gun, in Chicago they force pro-gun people not to. Which, of course, means that only criminals have guns – and goes a long way toward explaining the roughly 650 murders a year that happen in Chicago.

Moon Bat, what happened to having a discussion about “regulating firearms”?

Garrison, using the gun banners argument; Cars that go 120 mph are not a necessity. How about if we just regulate them. No car that can go faster than 35 mph or that has a spoiler or racing style wheels would be permitted. Everyone can still drive, but would be much safer at Model T speeds. The government could have a buyback program for any cars newer or faster than a ‘48 Studebaker. We could call it the Brady plan.

#73 Amazed… I never try to reason with Garrison personally. It just serves a purpose to nudge him along in trying to explain the government worshipers’ irrational positions. Always very revealing….

What could be more “middle ground” than trying to phase out handguns in the next 200 years?…… Reduce the number of handguns produced each year by manufacurers [purveyors of death] to legitimate numbers instead of 12 million a year. Does somebody like Paris Hilton really need a pink pearled 38 to match her poodles sweater?…..The NRA is representing sales, not safety.

How many of these bad guys you’re so afraid of have muskets?
Let’s phase out handguns like the model T.

Better idea would be a ban on idiots. Garrison, find a bridge and jump off.

There one down, 50 million more to go.