Walter: We will never know because the luney-left (including Obama and Clinton) want to ban all guns from law abiding citizens. If others besides the police in the room were armed, maybe the only one dead would be “Cookie” ,aka Kooky! It sickens me how people try to make this animal out to be a victim.

If you want to keep your guns to protect yourself against people like “Cookie”…join the NRA and vote for John McCain this fall.

Seems to me there were several qualified, licensed, trained and capable men with guns at the scene. And this guy killed them with almost no problem, and then used at least one of their guns to kill more. But of course, if Gaucho was there, it would all be different. Puh-lease.
You can carry a rocket launcher, but if I want to do you harm, I will easily do so and now I have a rocket launcher. That makes you dead AND stupid.

Good luck talking to these guys honest dem.
I enjoyed Charles Schummer’s comment…”How many people are killed with Civil War muzzel loaders”? His point. Stop letting profit driven gun manufacturers kill our most precious resource. Gradually, we can reduce the manufacturing of hand guns until we don’t produce them anymore. Phase them out…In 50, 100 or 200 years they’ll disappear. Our great great grandchildren will appreciate our foresight….Of course, then there’s others who have their heads up their muzzels….The gun lobby has them scared too death. Literally.

I hear the bleat of sheep. When the wolves come I hope there is a sheepdog to save you.

Let’s take the argument to it’s logical conclusion, shall we? It appears that there are those who want every law-abiding citizen to be armed at all times. That way, we can eliminate the need for law enforcement officers and criminal courts, and let the citizens take the law into their own hands at any provocation.

Is that really what you want?

hs, I think your logic is a little flawed.

What many of us desire is for law abiding citizens who have received some degree of training and choose to carry a firearm, the right to do so. We understand that the police have no legal responsibility to protect us, and more than anything, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

As it stands, I am in favor of gun control… but I could be swayed. But Kirkwood didn’t help. The Founders evidently thought “the right to keep and bear arms…” so essential that it was the second issue addressed in their manifesto. I’ve always been bothered by this because I can’t explain it, except to suggest that they lived in a time when tyranny from oppressive governments occurred more frequently than it does now. (Please don’t cite Liberia, Iran, Sudan… our system of checks and balances allows more effective means of preventing internal tyranny than the use of arms.)

I lived in Canada for about a year. Weapons are significantly harder to acquire there than here. Yet no one seemed too terribly put out by it. Canadians don’t march in the street demanding the right to protect themselves, although occasionally random acts of violence do occur. While in this country, where gun control laws are relaxed, where in many areas, citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons on their person, prolific violence occurs at an unprecedented rate. Let’s remember that the incident in Kirkwood was (at least according to the perpetrator) all about parking tickets!

And so I invite NRA members and gun rights advocates to give me their best shot (”attempt” would be a better word). Educate me. Sway me. Without resorting to personal invective, explain to me why you feel the need to be armed. Are the streets THAT dangerous? Is governmental tyranny THAT imminent? Could some brave soul justify the allure that these arms hold for you? Is adrenaline to be found in blowing the crap out of a tin can, a stop sign, your neighbor? “It’s my right!,” is not justification. I agree, it is your right. Explain to me your need for that right, I honestly don’t know. Meanwhile, I’ll go watch “Dirty Harry.”

“As it stands, I am in favor of gun control… ”

Color me surprised.

“but I could be swayed.”

I doubt it.

“But Kirkwood didn’t help. The Founders evidently thought “the right to keep and bear arms…” so essential that it was the second issue addressed in their manifesto. I’ve always been bothered by this because I can’t explain it, except to suggest that they lived in a time when tyranny from oppressive governments occurred more frequently than it does now.”

Is your desire to place a time requirement on the Constitution limited to the second amendment, or should we get change other “outdated” amendments as well? Which ones?

“Canadians don’t march in the street demanding the right to protect themselves, although occasionally random acts of violence do occur. ”

What level of random acts of violence would you find acceptable?

“While in this country, where gun control laws are relaxed, where in many areas, citizens are allowed to carry concealed weapons on their person, prolific violence occurs at an unprecedented rate.”

Can you tie legally licensed CCW’s to an increase in violent crime?

“Let’s remember that the incident in Kirkwood was (at least according to the perpetrator) all about parking tickets!”

Ok, so to prevent this type of thing from happening again, lets not issue parking tickets! After all, we should get to the source of the problem, correct?

“Without resorting to personal invective, explain to me why you feel the need to be armed. Are the streets THAT dangerous?”

Because criminals are, and danger isnt always obvious. I would rather go through the trouble of carrying the extra 3 lbs around and never need it, than get caught in a situation where I needed it and not have it.

“Is governmental tyranny THAT imminent? ”

Democrats lead in all the polls.

” Is adrenaline to be found in blowing the crap out of a tin can, a stop sign, your neighbor?”

You ever fired a weapon? It can be an adrenaline rush. But you cant legally shoot stop signs or (in most cases) your neighbor, so they shouldnt be on the list. Maybe you and I can get together and go shoot holes in paper at a local range. If you can be swayed, actually participating in shooting may be the way to do it. I have extra ear and eye protection and will split the cost of ammo with you, what do you say?

““It’s my right!,” is not justification. I agree, it is your right. Explain to me your need for that right,”

Again, where else should we apply this new standard? How about your right to free speech, explain why you need it? The right to abortion that was mysteriously found in the Constitution, explain the need for that?

“IMeanwhile, I’ll go watch “Dirty Harry.””

I suggest Death Wish.

Comment by Commander Barkfeather

I have a question for those who advocate for CC permits as regards situations of this type:

What percentage of the population at large do you believe would need to be armed to prevent or deal with situations of this type?

Second question, since CC became law in Missouri, what percentage (Not raw numbers, please) of the total adult population has availed themselves of this privilege?

We have concealed carry now. This didn’t prevent this from happening.

Actually, I wonder how much more carnage we would have had if some Joe Blow in row 5 decided to get involved, too. For the most part this guy was after elected officials, but showed that he was willing to take out anyone who might stop him (as evidenced by his shooting the police officers first).

Mr. Walter Scholl, I believe the reason they don’t allow guns is to keep stuff like this from happening. Muni politics is very personal to most people and who wants an armed crowd to add fuel to the fire?

It is hard to prove a negative. Much like your supposition or my supposition that this could happen more often if it folks were allowed to carry guns into public meetings.