Bill, you’re analsys is flawed.

The officers were ambushed.
Had the 35 occupants of the hall all had CCW permits, they all would have had firearm training. You would not have had 35 people spraying bullets around.

Ironic that your letter is published about the time news is breaking of another campus shooting. This is the second mass shooting in Illinois in the past few weeks. Perpetrators knew their law abiding victims were defenseless. Illinois is one of only two states that do not allow any form of CCW.

Mr Klopfenstein shows he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

“…how many innocent people would have been killed or wounded in the hail of bullets from the guns of 35 basically untrained and unskilled shooters?”

Mr Klopfenstein seems to have forgotten about the training requirements that go along with obtaining a concealed carry permit.

“Since the letter writer seems to think that taking away the concealed-carry permit is sufficient punishment for those who use their guns illegally, I certainly hope that Mr. Thornton’s permit has been rescinded!”

I’d like to ask Mr Klopfenstein how he knew Mr Thornton had a concealed carry permit. Since it wasn’t the leading headline in the Post Dispatch you can pretty well bet he did not.

You’ll notice Mr Thornton selected those he KNEW to be armed as his first targets. But just one person who was not known to be armed might have stopped this before three additional people were killed. Of course, the court house being a gun free zone assured Mr Thornton that would not happen.

Mr. Klopfenstein,

Your letter is a perfect example of emotionalism masquerading as a reasoned argument. It is highly unlikely that Mr. Thornton had a concealed carry permit. The lack of permit in no way would discourage a criminal from committing murder. Do you think Mr. Thornton, if he had survived, would be worried about being charged with illegally carrying a concealed weapon on top of the five murder charges?

I know of not a single person that is advocating that everybody must be armed. Most concealed carry advocates only want properly trained and willing individuals to have the option. The gunman logically first killed the two people he knew to be armed. If anyone was carrying concealed, the gunman would not have known it. This would have made it impossible for him to preemptively eliminate them.

Also, you letter is written as though concealed carry is some kind of untested theory. Concealed carry laws have been on the books of many states for a long time. They have been statistically shown to reduce crime. The biggest drops in crime have been in multiple victim shootings where there is a greater chance they will be stopped by an armed citizen.

You certainly have a right to your own opinion. However, if you wish to be taken seriously take the time to learn the facts of the issue and make your argument in a logical manner.

Hey, “Si” -
The first writer’s name is “William.” Doesn’t the NRA make etiquette lessons available along with the form letters for you folks to send?
And “Si,” you forgot the comma in your clever nom de fusil - and only the first word should be capitalized - unless that is the name on your birth certificate…

Yeah, yeah, yeah - obviously all of the concealed-carryin’ folks are trained to react in combat situations.
Sure…think about it.
And how would 35 carryin’ folks have decided who was the most qualified to return fire? Sure…think about it.
They’d all be right!

Two words FOR CCW….

Bernie Getz.

The respondents seem to have the idea that anyone with a concealed-carry license will be trained to the same level of expertise as any police officer and will be capable of facing down another person who is shooting at them. I don’t think this is at all a realistic expectation - even for police officers.

A few years ago, a man named Amidou Diallo was shot to death by four supposedly-experienced New York City police detectives. The remarkable thing about the incident is the way in which it happened. Apparently Mr. Diallo, who was unarmed, made a move that was interpreted as threatening by the police officers. They responded by wildly firing some forty rounds in the general direction of their intended target. They didn’t aim; they simply sprayed bullets at the front of the building where Mr. Diallo had been standing.

More recently, another team of New York City detectives killed a man on the eve of his wedding in much the same way. Based on the rumor of a gun in the car, the detectives fired wildly at the car the victim was driving, killing him. Rounds and ricochets landed blocks away from the scene of the shooting.

Now, if supposedly experienced and well-trained police officers can give way to panic, what expectation can we have that a civilian with a gun could calmly engage an adversary with a gun in the middle of a chaotic situation. The expectation seems to me excessively optimistic. Another gun in a bad situation seems like a recipe for getting more people killed, not less.

We can argue “ifs” all day. The truth is that even if one of the attendees of the meeting had a firearm, including a council person, the out come would be different. Zbvhs does point out that often police officers don’t always hit there target. Now assuming this would be the same for my fellow CCW holders would be wrong. While many police officers only do the minimum amount of firearm training, while balancing the other courses they must complete, I know many of my fellow CCW holders wouldn’t give it a second thought to go to one of the many ranges in the area on a nice afternoon. I personally have been shooting every weekend for the last month or two.
Now come even more “ifs.” If a CCW holder would be confronted in a dangerous situation would they be able to keep on target? Would they be able to ensure the safety of others around them? These questions can never be answered. As a CCW holder I train when ever I can in hopes that I never have to use my firearm, but if my life or the others around me are in imminent danger, I know I have the means to protect.

I just looked at this morning’s headlines: SLAUGHTER ON NIU CAMPUS.
Happy Now?
How many will die today?

The headline of the original letter is right. More guns will not solve the problem of violence; just as fewer guns will not solve the problem of violence. As long as the discussion is focused on the guns rather than the violence, nothing will solve the problem of violence. We’ll just have to deal with it.

I don’t patronize businesses or go into places that have “No Concealed Firearms” signs prominently posted on their doors. They are simply advertisements to armed robbers and loonies.

I have a CC permit and practice at the range several times a month. Haven’t used a weapon in anger since Desert Storm but wouldn’t hesitate to use on if need be. Why I’d even use a gun to save the life of a smarmy little fascist like garrison, but he’d probably spit on me afterwards.

Fish……Thanks for the valaintry. I bet you’re a real Dirty Harry…. But if you’re on the streets of St. Louis carrying concealed weapons, I’ll rather be in Peoria.
I don’t spit on people. You have me confused with Looney. He calims he pisses on people if they’re on fire….except me.

Garrison, No I’m not happy. Innocent people died in a state and city that has some of the most restrictive gun laws. The campus is a gun free zone. Those signs and laws should have stopped him. But they didn’t even Chicago’s oppressive gun laws didn’t stop him. He was going to kill by hook or by crook. If he wasn’t able to secure a firearm to do it, knifes or explosives could have been used. Stop oppressing the friendly folks that are trying to protect you.

I wonder how many people Mr. Thornton would have killed with a knife Monday night?

He would have atempted a few.

At least two. He snuck up on the first cop and hid his weapon behind a sign to kill the second. They never had a chance. Thornton was a big guy and in a murderous rage. He could have stabbed any number of people before being taken down.

Any more smarmy questions?

At least two. He snuck up on the first cop and hid his weapon behind a sign to kill the second. They never had a chance. Thornton was a big man and in a murderous rage. He could have stabbed any number of people before being taken down.

Any more smarmy questions?

Knife wounds aren’t nearly as fatal as a gunshot wounds to the head. I doubt if two would have been killed Monday night…
I don’t ever remember reading a headline:
“Knife Weilding Man kills Many In Public Locale” ..

Even if two would have been stabbed and killed, that’s not much comfort to the other three families who buried their loved ones this week.

You’ve demonstrated how deranged your arguments can be.

Hint for eagle scout: NIU isn’t in Chicago, it’s in DeKalb, closer to Rockford than Chicago. But yet, to many (including Governor Baloneyvich, Illinois consists of the area roughly bounded by I-80 to the south and I-37 to the west. The rest is something alien.

When are we going to stop yammering about more guns, fewer guns, and start asking the really hard questions? The ones that require us to really think about what we’re saying to and about each other?

Here’s the question that I want to ask: What are some practical, acceptable ways to keep firearms out of the hands of those who have murder in their plans? Don’t spout off about ‘more enforcement’. How exactly can it be done? Here’s what I see: there are many who scream for ‘more enforcement of the laws’, and yet scream just as loudly whenever a creative attempt is made to actually DO something. I seem to recall a while back when someone put an offer on the table for a cash payment for every firearm that would be brought to a specific location, no questions asked, and then the weapons were destroyed. The screaming about ‘destruction of valuable artifacts’ was horrendous.

As long as firearms are easy and relatively cheap to obtain either legally or illegally, then there will continue to be crazies who arm themselves and use them to make a name for themselves or take out their perceived enemies. Either we accept that as the price for freedom, or we actually work to find a creative and workable answer.

My point was that most gun retailers shy away from that entire area due to the strict laws.

#17 Who’s deranged? Unless you’ve figured out how to uninvent gunpowder, you’ve fallen over the utopian edge. Your idea is to destroy all firearms (that are surrendered or confiscated). That covers the millions of firearms that are now open and legal. Now what magic have you devised to disarm the deranged, criminal, and terrorist elements?

We await your illuminating wisdom, Garrison.

The “no questions policy” was some what comical. If I remember correctly they offered 50 dollars for long guns and 75 or 100 for hand guns, this price way off for the true market for these firearms. At local gun show a beat up gun can cost several hundred dollars. The real outcry came from people who had firearms stolen from them. This allowed stolen firearms returned for cash. This is something they prosecute pawn shops for. The destruction of the firearms was to be done before the serial number could be traced, and the group running the project had no intention of reimbursing the victim of theft. This is where the question of legality came into play.

The discussion on Cookie’s chances with a knife is ridiculous beceause I’m sure he was smart enough to know that he would only get a couple stabs before several people would pounce on him.

Guns are so much more effective. Especially when someone attempts to throw a chair at you.

If the police were not seconds away but instead minutes…I wonder how many more would have died? 10? 20? all 30 assuming there was enough ammo (I’m not sure how many shots he had)?

But with 10-20-30 people shot within a minute or two… Now we got a real massacre on our hands. That makes the 5 victims killed look so small.

If only there was the random person in the audience with a concealed firearm and those classes and those practice shots at a shooting range.

Or for the liberals…the lesson of the story is hold every meeting next to a police station so that only about 5 people get killed before the police can run and stop the rampage.

Here is a list of places where I will not see Go_Fish: Busch Stadium for a Cardinals game, Scottrade Center for a Blues game or any other event, the library, any government building (like Kirkwood City Hall), the local casino, my kid’s school, any place in the state of Illinois. Gee, I’m starting to feel safer already.

One day I was walking to work in the Central West End. I was running late and walking very fast. Ahead of me was a guy who was walking at a slower pace than I was. As I approached and was about to pass the guy he turns and points a gun at me. My first thought is this guy is going to rob me at gun point! As I stood there terrified the guy said, “Oh.” This guy proceeds to turn and walk away. He thought I was going to rob him. He could have shot me there and in his mind felt justified. At that moment in time that guy was as dangerous as someone with a gun trying to rob me. Stunned, I quickly ran the last half block to work. (A place where I was robbed at gunpoint previously).

As I told my story to one of the police officers who patrols the area, he tells me that the guy actually committed a crime by pulling his weapon on me even though he thought I was going to rob him. My boss, who is never without a gun chimes in, “Good thing I didn’t see that, I would have shot the guy!”

Then there was this nut that was on his way to a gun range who decided it was a good idea for him to point his gun at me after he cuts me off on Kingshighway and didn’t like the fact that I had the nerve to call him an idiot. I followed him to the gun range and then called the cops.

My point is that concealed weapons do not add to the overall safety of the general public. I think that some that carry concealed weapons are looking for an opportunity to make use of them.

Its seems like there is 2 or 3 killing spees a week, what the hell is going on?Only one thing is clear there is no shortage of deadly fire-arms for these nut -jobs to choose from.

You’re right Buddy. You won’t see me at the sports venues. That’s because I don’t like professional sports. However, you will see me most everywhere else. And yes, I will protect you and garrison, even if you don’t want me to.

“First they came for the second amendment.
But I said nothing because I wasn’t a gun owner.

Then they came for the fourth amendment.
But I didn’t object because I wasn’t a drug dealer.

Then they came for the sixth amendment.
But I kept quiet because I wasn’t guilty.

Then they came for the eighth amendment,
But I was silent because I never thought I’d be sent to jail.

Finally they came for the first amendment.
And by then it was too late to say anything at all.”

For all those who are so against our Right to own a firearm as per the Constitution of the United States of America, you need to really re-read the above.

You can go to the range til hell freezes over, once that target starts shooting back your cool, calm self WILL disappear and you’ll be lucky to hit the ground in three shots…that’s why they invented the machine gun, so you might actually hit SOMETHING.

Slamfist, so what you are saying is that your defensive driving skills go out the window when you see danger on the road?

#23… Buddy. For each anecdote you present, I can present an opposite. I won’t repeat the story I related last week wherein my daughter used a firearm to repel an intruder without actually having to fire a shot. The person who brandished his firearm at you should be prosecuted and lose his CCW permit, if indeed, he actually had one.

However, the statistics in states that have passed CCW show the opposite of your claim. Violent crime and armed assaults have actually gone down where CCW went into effect. Due to the vetting and training you are much safer encountering a legally armed permit holder than an illegally armed criminal.

Guns are inanimate objects. Guns can not be uninvented. Millions of firearms in the U.S. were not used in a crime or careless accident today. Millions of honest gun owners threatened or harmed no one today. No firearm loaded itself and discharged itself today. Focusing on the method will not prevent the act.

…..and when the day comes that You the responsible gun owner snaps were are we to hide? and what will your excuse be then…….

Here are some points from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. We all remember James Brady, right? He and President Reagan were surrounded by guys with guns when they were shot.

“The number of crime victims who successfully use firearms to defend themselves is quite small. According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Centers for Disease Control, out of 29,569 Americans who died by gunfire in 2004, only 229 were shot in justifiable homicides by private citizens with firearms.

“The gun lobby claims that only law-abiding citizens end up with CCW permits. However, an August 2000 study revealed that, from January 1996 through April 2000, the arrest rate for weapons-related offenses among Texas CCW license-holders was 66% higher than that of the general adult population of Texas. Concealed-carry license-holders are committing crimes, including murder, rape, assault and burglary. However, because in most states the gun lobby has made it difficult if not impossible for the public to determine if a shooter has a CCW license, the full story has not yet been told.

“Law-abiding citizens with the best intentions underestimate how hard it is to successfully use a gun for self-defense. Even highly-trained police officers lose control of their handguns; in 2003, one-fifth of law enforcement officers who were killed by gunfire in the line of duty (10 officers) were killed by an adversary using the officer’s own service weapon (or that of their partner). Police officers know that the very sight of a gun can escalate a situation, so that instead of simply losing your wallet, you can lose your life. That’s why almost every major law enforcement organization – including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the International Association of Chiefs of Police – opposes the weakening of CCW laws.

“An armed society is an at-risk society. Many permit holders have been stripped of their permits for criminal behavior, and even law-abiding people get angry, drunk, careless or confused, make mistakes, and escalate minor arguments into deadly gun-play.”

#1 Even had Il. past CCW the result would have been the same because a person can not carry on campus.

Franny, if you worry about hiding from the one out of a million, you are doomed to a life cowering in fear. If you want government and laws of man to protect you from every danger in life, you will never reap the joys of living in a free country. Prior restraint is neither practical nor just.

He who would trade freedom for security will have neither…. Can’t recall offhand who I am paraphrasing there.

Post #23-
Actually, it is not a “crime” to carry a weapon with a ccw endorsement into those venues.
The law states that it shall not be a criminal act but may subject the person to denial of
the premises or removal from the premises.

Please read-What I’m saying is this; in a gun fight , due to tunnel vision, stress, movement, adrenalin rush, etc. at least 30% of multiple shots will miss. In a room full of armed people firing at once, even at a common target, where are those misses going to hit? I am not against gun ownership (I have 4) I just don’t think everyone going around packin’ in a crowded room is such a great idea. If for no other reason than you won’t suffer any remorse or incarceration from hitting an innocent person. To answer your question, I would imagine that some peoples defensive driving skills DO go out the window in dangerous situations….that’s why they hit each other BY ACCIDENT. Everyone has a limit to their skills.

#31 Mr. Walsh… Now that you have the position of the Brady Campaign, how about going to NRA.org and get the opposite view. You have every right to form your opinion about firearms ownership. So do I.

Your figures on self defense homicides conveniently ignore the cases that did not result in death. As in my daughter’s case, the firearm was not fired, but its presence alone enabled her to defend her self and her roommate.

These arguments have been hashed out for generations. The bottom line is my opinion does not arbitrarily restrict your freedom. Your opinion assumes I am too evil, ignorant, or careless to own and use an implement that my family has made productive use of for many generations.

Bb, that was Ben Franklin.

I would challenge Mr. Klopfenstein to read a few issues of the NRA monthly magazine. He might be surprised at the number of incidents involving CCW permitee’s where either the crime had be stopped or life protected. To my knowledge of the 40 some states permitting their citizens to carry a weapon not one single case of misuse of the privilege has been reported. I’d like to see the same people who criticize the right to carry get equally steamed about the slaughter on our highways from good people who think signaling is a sign of weakness and pull one bone head driving infraction after another resulting in more fatalities than legally owned guns by responsible citizens. Where is the hue and cry!!

Ed Jamison

Slam, If you found yourself in a situation such as the Kirkwood incident, would you rather there be no chance of someone confronting the shooter, or for there to be that option available.

I don’t know the time line, but had the police not arrived when they did, would Thornton been able to systematically eliminate the rest of the people present? If that is the case, I would take my chances with an undertrained citizen throwing some lead in the direction of the shooter.

Thanks, Fish. Everyone have a safe and pleasant weekend. Lets hope no more maniacs decide to destroy the lives of their own and many other families by playing out their XBox fantasy in real life.

But if they do, they’re sure to take a lot more lives using hand guns, guns they can legally buy even if they’re on antidepressants or various other mood-altering medications.

#35

You assume that nearly everyone would get a concealed weapon. Which is not going to happen for a number of reasons with one being cost. Not everyone would be thrilled on buying a gun, along with ammo, taking classes, taking time to practice shooting etc. Our world is safe enough that it has not even come close to where you HAVE to bring a gun to protect yourself. Shootings sound rampant but remember we hear about stuff all over the nation and world and the world is a big place. Many would not want the responsibility in carrying a dangerous weapon. I know some people who didn’t want to get their drivers license because of the responsiblity involved.

Only people who felt it was in their best interest and felt confident in carrying one around would get one.

Let’s pretend 5% of the population gets a concealed weapon, along with the classes that go with it, practice at shooting range etc.

Let’s see..there was about 30 people at the town hall meeting so if we assume that only 1 out of every 20 people take-up the option of concealed firearm, that would mean only 1.5 people would have a concealed weapon there. Hardly enough people to cause the mayhem you suggest. (Did you look at my earlier post on this letter?)

Even if we bump it up to %15, we still only end up with about 4-5 people.
Also remember that the gunman has eyes so if he sees someone taking a gun out, guess who is the next victim? So then you need a concealed armed person who is not the gunmans current vision. So even if you have 4 people with concealed guns, not all 4 may be able to whip out the gun right away.

Bb: Sorry, but I will not consider as reasonable the opinion of any entity that opposes even the banning of automatic rifles. Nor the opinion of any organization that is funded by gun manufacturers. Nor the opinion of any group that would elect Charlton Heston as their leader.

Three strikes, the NRA is out.

The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence is not funded by companies that seek greater profits, with the consequences be damned, as is the NRA.

The mere act of applying for a gun permit indicates a proclivity to violence, hence a higher incidence of weapons violations committed by holders of permits.

Remember the nickname for the Colt six-shooter? They called it the “Equalizer”. Unfortunately, many people with severe feelings of inferiority use the ownership of a gun to make up for their real or imagined deficiencies. Thus, the guy with a gun is more of a danger to society as a whole than is the man without.

To all the christian CC the commandment is thou shell not kill,.. not thou shell not kill unless acting out of self-defence, and that applies to larger events like say the war!

Killing is killling is killing the end result is all the same……death, much as you may try to justify your act you have still taken something only God has a right to.

Be sure to tell that to the scumbag who shoots your spouse while jacking your car. I’m sure he’ll humbly apologize and walk away contrite.

That’s right exactly.
I will defend myself and my family
and THEN talk to the priest.

#43 your own ignorance nullifies anything you say. If you spout of stats from a political organization that is for banning fire arms, such as the Brady group, with out even reading what the NRA stands for, infers that you will always be right no mater what anyone says. You forget that the NRA supports the teaching of safe firearms handling. They teach not to fear all firearms but to respect them. I would also like to remind you of the story the PD published a week or two ago about the findings by the Brady organization. They make no effort in hiding the fact that they were for outlawing guns. Don’t use the argument that they are an unbiased source. Nothing this day and age is completely unbiased. That’s what grabs attentions to the headlines.

Its easy to have a God complex when your a CC ultimately you think(sic) your in control of your own destiny….and maybe you are,…… whats important is that you have to live with yourself.There is a reason why mass killers either kill themselves or wait to be killed after they comit a crime against humanity.

Spare us the phony psychoanalysis. I wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger in order to save myself, my loved ones, or a stranger, even if that stranger was a sanctimonious whiner afraid to defend themselves. I’d show the cleanup crew where to find the body, then go have myself a sandwich and a nap.

Fish, you have made that abundantly clear .I’ll bet your prolife too!

Last December, at 3:00 am on a Thursday night, a 22 year old punk kicked down my back door, walked through the house and out the front door. He then stumbled and passed out on my front lawn. My wife called 9-11…..The police arrested him. The kid got drunk at a hockey game and was looking for his buddy’s house……

I could have been a real NRA hero.
True story. I’ll keep you updated on the court proceedings.

Fish your the one with the gun……who’s afraid?

It is clear that the “NRA heroes” that we hear from on this board don’t exist in great numbers in Missouri, otherwise we wouldn’t have crime, heck we even wouldn’t need a police force !

http://www.disastercenter.com/missouri/crime/6629.htm

You know, Mr. Fish, I have no problem believing that that is exactly what you would do.

But your comment only serves to prove my point about a proclivity to violence. Anyone that can take someone’s life and not be troubled by it should not own a gun; they would seem to lack the social instincts needed for a peaceful society.

Mr. Scout: The NRA is too often on the other side of an issue opposite the police and sheriff’s departments of this country. The NRA was against the ban on automatic assault weapons; the police were strongly in favor of taking such weapons off the streets. In issues like this concerning the public safety, I prefer to listen to the police, rather than to lobbyists for the gun industry.

#54 [nitty66]: Rampant gun ownership and no police force ? I just think you described the nation of Afghanistan or perhaps the northwest territories of Pakistan.

By the way, Mr. Scout, thanks for the comment concerning my “ignorance”.

I could reply and say something like, “It’s good to know that the person with whom I disagree is the product of poor upbringing combined with exposure to too many John Wayne movies”, but I won’t.

Mr Walsh, one more than one occasion you have said the NRA supports automatic weapons. Automatic weapons have been banned since 1934. Update your propaganda.

Poor upbringing? I think my name might point to other wise. My point was that although I am pro-gun, Pro NRA, and a CCW permit holder I still am looking at both sides of an argument. Unlike your debating method of just ignoring sources, most of the people posting here give them a chance (Hell even Garrison from time to time). Your close mindedness shows your immaturity.

I note with interest that NONE of the pro-gun folks here have attempted to answer the question I’ve posed repeatedly on this and other similar threads:

How would you PREVENT some crazy from arming himself so that he could go out in a blaze of glory?

This is all about the John Wayne, he-man stuff: what I’d do if……

OR, does your love of the second amendment mean that you accept a certain level or carnage as the price of a free society?

hs, the only way would to ignore the second amendment, so you could punish the many, and make the few move to another source of violence. When a person is pushed so far they are silenced the only voice they have is drastic action. I am in no way defending the Kirkwood tragedy, but he was going to injure some one that night.

It seems as tho Mr Fish is just chumpin-at-the bit to make use of his arsenal, this is very alarming!

hs,

You’ve made some great comments on these forums, but I think your comment (#60) is a little off the mark. This is not about the 2nd amendment. The CCW folks in this forum are looking to market guns as a solution for all crime (except, of course, white collar crime). Its like the saying: When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. They haven’t yet distinguished between what types of violent crime CCW would prevent. They don’t seem to think that criminals will adapt to CCW and develop new strategies.

Here are some flaws in the CCW arguments that I see:

“There would be fewer of these incidents if there were more armed citizens” is the basic argument that I see. The above would be true IF the decision to arm oneself with multiple weapons and enter a public place and start shooting was a rational decision. No one is arguing that the shooters in these situations are thinking rationally, so the argument that the knowledge that they would be taken down by a citizen with a CCW permit would deter them is hollow.

“The second amendment is what preserves the others from government takeover” I find this one interesting, especially when it is avowed by those who have significant problems with the 4th and 5th amendments, and who have no problem with the constitutional issues raised by laws like the Patriot Act.

“I would have no problem doing my part to take out someone in one of these situations” This is a statement about an individual’s blood lust and belief in vigilante justice. These folks have no problem with the great Texan legal principle of “he needed killin”. It used to be that believers in vigilante justice wore white robes and burned crosses in the night. Now they are free to spout their message without condemnation in the blogosphere. To you, I say that there is no difference between you and “Cookie” Thornton: you’re going to go to any length to get yours. It must be lonely to be so consumed by hatred.

To the person who paraphrased the great statement by Martin Niemoller (when they came for the Jews, I said nothing….), I’d suggest you learn a little more about him before you borrow his thinking in defense of vigilante justice. He went to prison and died in the Holocaust because of his belief in non-violent protest against Nazism.

Robert Walsh,

Your post in #31 uses statistics out of context. The 29,569 firearm deaths includes 16,859 suicides (13,782 killed themselves without guns). It also includes lawful intervention by police, accidents and “undetermined” firearm deaths. In fact, only 11,599 were killed by firearms in assaults (5,498 were murdered without guns). The gun banners at the Brady institute also ignored police and citizens who used guns to stop or prevent crimes – without having to use deadly force.

I am sure you find even 11,600 deaths disturbing, and in truth, so do I. Then I ponder these statistics; 16,926 were killed in falls, 16,969 were killed by accidental poisonings, alcohol took out 20,398, drugs killed another 28,457, and a whopping 44,059 were killed in automobile accidents. Of course, all these pale in comparison to the real American killers, 554,643 felled by cancer, and 901,753 killed by diseases of the heart. The truth is, you are 125 times more likely to be die due to heart trouble or cancer than be killed by an armed attacker. Which means that the real American killers are bad diet, lack of exercise and smoking.

The truth is, more than 6500 people die in the US every day, but when a person with a gun kills more than one person at a time, it’s International news. The media seems to find the combination of tragedy and a crazed killer an irresistible combination. It’s like the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads.”

Enough statistics. hs – you asked how do you keep the guns out of crazy hands. The scary but true answer is, you can’t. However, here’s another scary question – how do you take all the guns away from everyone? Its scary because, just like your question, the answer is – you can’t. Perhaps the world would have been better if guns were never invented, but like Pandora’s box from ancient Greek mythology, once it’s been released on the world, it can never be put back. We have to learn to live with the world we’ve made.

Which brings me to the way we all deal. The statistics say you could be completely unarmed, and you will be fine. Almost everything in the world is more likely to get you than an attacker with a gun. Therefore, many choose to chance it, and trust fate and the statistics to protect them. Odds are, they will be fine.

Others can’t stand the thought of being defenseless, even knowing the odds say they will never have to defend themselves. It’s an issue of being prepared. Whether they subscribe to the “a wise man expects the unexpected” school of thought, or the “I will not be a sheep in a world of wolves” school of thought, they will not surrender their right to defend themselves and their family.

The conflict arises when the anti gunners want to take away the guns from the pro gunners. They want to force these people to go defenseless – using statistics to justify taking other peoples rights. Clearly, they never understand that the bad guys will never surrender their guns. Even if they get their ban, all they will have done is leave more people defenseless in a vicious world.

As a final thought, I hate debating gun rights in the wake of tragedies. It feels like the anti gun people dance a “jig of joy” every time some crazy kills some people – because it “proves me right”. The pro gun people often seem insensitive, defending their rights to protect themselves from similar crazies who just committed these atrocious crimes. So, I end with wish that, in time, the families of the victims of this latest madman will eventually be able to move on. I sincerely hope both sides will give them space, and let them heal.

Amen Anonaman

No, I’m not a pro-lifer and I’m perfectly happy and content. It’s called living in reality. Sanctimonious bedwetters like you and Walsh should try it sometime.

Any more phony psychoanalytical assumptions you want to make?

Anonoman: Your retort adresses only one of my points, and that one not very well.

So people die of falls, cancer, poison, etc, etc. In those cases, did the person making the bad choice take another person (or two or three) with them when they were killed? About the only comparable way of killing is the drunk driver, who drinks, drives and takes the life of another. I’m making a point for the same scenariio: a person who drinks, picks up a gun and tries to make life good again by taking others’ lives. Limit the flow and ownership of guns, and we’ll limit the number of deaths due to guns; it’s that simple.

Also, I think that the gun lovers “dance a “jig of joy” every time some crazy kills some people – because it ‘proves me right’”. It goes two ways.

Hey, Fish! What would the average person (much less a phony psychoanalyst) say about an adult that accuses other adults of being “bedwetters”?

What would be said about the adult who does so behind the anonymity of on-line blogs?

I rest my case.

Hey fish, reality check people that own guns use guns and sometimes they SNAP and kill,….how else can you explain a seemingly normal Joe going postal as they say. Alot of these guys are lawfull gun owners……just like you!

RW,

I wasn’t “addressing your points” - I was pointing out you misused statistics.

I will address a point you brought up in this last post: “Limit the flow and ownership of guns, and we’ll limit the number of deaths due to guns; it’s that simple.” Perhaps. But, will the total number of deaths go down, stay the same, or increase? In other words, will the prospect of a completely unarmed citizenry actually drive crime (and attendant death) higher? My money is on a higher death toll. People will still be killing each other, whether it’s with a gun or a clever. Of course, the criminals will still be using guns – because what is a law to a law breaker anyway?

PS:

You’re wrong about the pro-gun people being happy about mass shootings. We collectively cringe every time some nut job kills some people – because we know the anti gun people will be rolling in the blood of innocents and chanting about their pet cause. It’s disgusting. If it were up to me, the only time you would read about guns would be when a citizen uses one to defend their family, or a hunter takes a record trophy, or a marksman takes a national (or world) title. But none of those legitimate uses get air time, do they? Oh no. Instead the media glorifies the killer, airs his grievances, and by extension, encourages the next massacre – thus ensuring the news cycle continues.

You do your ecstatic little dance of joy about the latest murdering psycho to “prove your point”. By the way, what point is that anyway? “It’s easy to attack unarmed people?” Point taken.

Me? I will be praying for the families of the victims.

Comment away – I’m done.

We who are anti guns pray for the familys also…we pray that by banning gun somehow it might limit the amount of violance we live with everyday. I can tell you that I sleep better at night knowing there are no guns fin my home.

I love guns - pistols, shotguns, rifles, black powder guns, semi-automatic, automatic…basically anything that’s a firearm. And, amazingly…I’ve never killed anyone in my 20 years of target shooting, training, and hunting!!!! And my guns haven’t killed anyone either…

However, anyone tries to hurt my family, or invade my home will resemble Swiss Cheese when I’m finished.

Garrison - Go live in Cuba, you’d be happier there.

They don’t allow any of the following: guns, free speech, dissent, Republicans, capitalism, businesses that profit, wealthy people, land ownership.

But they do offer: socialized health care, intimidation tactics, massive taxes, high unemployment, negative GDP, cigars, thought police, random house searches, torture chambers…kind of sounds like how America will be under Obama - minus the Cigars and torture chambers

Sounds like Cuba is the utopia that Garrison has been longing for…

Sounds like we got a real tuff guy here!

log holders…

Typically, the logs end up not touching each other so they play no part in the transmission of load forces. Logs destined to become…