Proof that lawfully armed citizens do prevent crimes and save lives.

-In 1982, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia, passed an ordinance which required all heads of household to have at least one gun in the house. The burglary rate immediately dropped an astounding 89 percent. Ten years after the law was passed, the burglary rate was still 72 percent less than it was in 1981.

-Armed citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as the police do every year in this country (1,527 to 606).

-A 1996 University of Chicago study concluded that states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rates by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent, and robbery by 3 percent.

-According to the National Safety Council, with guns being used 2.5 million times a year in self defense against criminals, firearms are actually used more than 80 times more often to protect lives, rather than to take lives.

-A 1979 Justice Department study entitled Rape Victimization in American Cities, concluded that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually committed.

-Another Justice Department study found that 57 percent of felons agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running the police."

The real question should be: will a ban of assault riffles accomplish anything? If it truly would have prevented this or any of the countless past mass killings, then any reasonable person would favor the ban. What people so fail to understand, is that when you outlaw something, it HARDLY stops that illegal item from being obtained. The 1994 ban of automatic riffles under Clinton was about as big of a farce as a Shakespeare play. It not only did nothing to curb gun crime, it was the walking joke of those in the fire arms community. The die hard gun people came out with the "AB" versions of the riffle (After Ban version) where you simply bought kits to modify a legal gun back to the old version.
.
Lets face it the USA is a gun culture. It's really not much different to the farce we tried in banning alcohol, as we are also a big alcohol culture. You simply will NEVER stop people obtaining something, or doing something, that is part of their culture, no matter how many laws you pass. If this tragedy does in fact end up in a assault riffle ban, I won't lose any sleep over it, personally. I don't think these guns have any use in society at all, but what will happen when the next mass shooting happens after the ban? Because everyone knows in their heart that we will see more down the road. Society has simply evolved to see far more moral decay today. There are countless reasons one can site for that, but make no doubt that is the primary problem.

DeGryse - a common thread with the right is that even when proven wrong, they do not admit it. You said: "Also, there is not a shred of evidence from the latest tradgedy to confirm that an AR-15 was used. Seems to be two pistols." You must be a Faux News listener that does not even pay close attention to them either. For your reference and CORRECTION:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16...

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/17/us/connect...

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticu...

http://now.msn.com/sandy-hook-shooting-w...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national...

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/u...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/16/at-...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...

I have no idea where you came up with that comment, but it shows a lot of ignorance on your part on the topic that you are talking about. Sorry to be so direct. And if I am wrong, please produce your evidence so I can correct my understanding.

Talking to poobah is like dealing with my 11 year old. The security guard is armed to stop the bad guy from killing innocent people. If that means he fires the gun and he kills the bad guy then so be it. No gun fires itself, it takes a person to squeeze the trigger! Again poobah, bad people have weapons of all kinds. In this case it was guns. The reason my security guard has a gun is to protect the innocent people who are unable to protect themselves. Again, GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE! Now please, I'm begging you to please tell us how you would have protected those poor innocent souls who lost their lives because of this sick, messed up madman?

rtabb said, "The reason the security guard in my scenario is armed is to protect innocent people from people who are trying to harm them, the same reason police are armed!"

That does not provide a rational answer to why the security guard is armed given your claim that guns don't kill people. Why is the security guard armed with a gun if guns don't kill?

Surprise:
Obama administration, Congress quietly let school security funds lapse
http://www.washingtonguardian.com/washin...

Poobah, like it or not there are bad, sick people out there. We need to be prepared by any means necessary to protect ourselves and our loved ones. If some crazy, sick, person was coming after me or my family with a gun or another weapon you can bet your bottom dollar I would do whatver it takes to defend us.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 5:23 p.m.
..
At this point you have turned into entertainment on display. You really are that daft.
..
For a moment there I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
..
I’m guessing you are a product of the UW System?

Yes poobah I have answered you. From my post at 2:15, The reason the security guard in my scenario is armed is to protect innocent people from people who are trying to harm them, the same reason police are armed!!!! What part of that answer are you having problems with? Now please enlighten us on how you would want this situation handled.

I_C_Y, let me show you exactly where you took the liberty of interchanging and associating my word "freedoms" with your word "rights."

My comment at 12:11pm: "Look at the legislation, government agencies, freedoms lost, wars fought, trillions spent in response to 9/11."

You then said, "poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 12:11

..

You talk about rights being lost, and yet you want to restrict an absolute right like the second amendment."

No, I specifically talked about "freedoms lost" and not rights being lost as you claim. The interchange and association between "freedoms" and "rights" was all yours. I neither associated, nor disassociated, freedoms and rights.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.
..
And that ladies and gentlemen is the perfect example of cognitive dissonance, as exhibited by large portions of the liberal left, bent on pushing their agenda, verses having an actual discussion.

rtabb, I have seen many comments from you but none that addressed my question about the security guard in your statement, "A armed, knowledgeable security guard would have stopped this before it happened." If, as you say, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," why would the security guard be armed?

I_C_Y said, "Do we need to review the word association between rights and freedoms?"

Clearly, you do. You're the one who has made the association between my comment about freedoms lost as a result of 9/11 and my comment in response to your comment about Second Amendment "absolute" rights. In no way did I associate, or disassociate, the two.

Poobah, i've answered your question (many times) so please answer mine. How do you think the situation should/could have been handled??????????

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 12:11
Look at the legislation, government agencies, ………..freedoms lost………., wars fought, trillions spent in response to 9/11. All with very little objection from the masses.
..
Did you not post this?
..
To which you quted me:
poobah
Dec 17, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
,,
I_C_Y said, "You talk about rights being lost, and yet you want to restrict an absolute right like the second amendment."
..
Do we need to review the word association between rights and freedoms?

Poobah, has anybody ever been murdered by any means other than a gun? Do we ban knives after a stabbing, or a baseball bat after a beating, or rope after stragulation? Do we ban fists after someone beats someone to death? No we do not!! Again "GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE"! What part don't you understand?

rtabb asked, "Poobah, what exactly is your point?"

My point was to demonstrate how suddenly people become dumbfounded when asked to explain comments such as, "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." Thanks for having been such an able, if not willing, assistant.

I_C_Y, you've lost track of your original errant comment that, "So, you don’t associate rights with freedoms?"

If you care to pursue this, please first cite where I made such a claim as you have attributed to me. You've done a good job of quoting online dictionaries. Perhaps you can use those same skills in quoting me, that is, if you would be able to find such a comment.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 2:40 p.m.
..
From Webster, since you seem to have word comprehension issues:
Freedom – a : a political right
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar...
..
constitutional rights - …freedom of religion, speech, press (which includes all media), assembly and petition.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...
..
Do you comprehend yet? Or do I need to expand further?

John, your blog really awakened the pro people-hunting crowd the last couple of days. After all, no one is saying anything here about prohibiting hunting rifles or shotguns or even hand guns to protect themselves. People-hunting is about the only thing the Bushmaster with 30 round clips can be used for and these pro-people hunting people are in a real tizzy fearing it will be restricted in some small way!

Poobah, what exactly is your point? Oh wait, you don't have one. You just respond to everyone elses posts. Please enlighten us as to how you believe this situation should/could have been handled?

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 2:40 p.m.
You can find the comment date and time, but can’t comprehend? Again how interesting.

rtabb asked, "Why are police armed Poobah?"

If you answer my question, I have a suspicion you will have also answered your question.

I_C_Y, you can quote the date and time that I made a comment, but not the comment itself? Could that be because the comment you point to doesn't remotely resemble your interpretation of it? Of course.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 1:27 p.m.
So, you don’t associate rights with freedoms? How interesting.
..
As documented previously, history has shown the pattern of your archetype, and the end result.

He killed 168 people including 19 children using legally purchased items...most of which you can purchase within a 50mile radius of jvl. You need to read a little further into it. If a person is halfway intelligent, has motivation, carrying out something like this isnt too difficult. Most people (even far right wing radicals) would agree that Mcveigh should have been committed before this occured.

Poobah... How about instead of commenting on everyone elses posts you enlighten us on how the mighty Poobah would handle this situation. This I gotta hear. The reason the security guard in my scenario is armed is to protect innocent people from people who are trying to harm them, the same reason police are armed!!!! It's really not that difficult to figure out, sometimes force is needed to stop massacres from happening! Why are police armed Poobah?

The problem is that back in the 1970's we as a society deemed that involuntary commitment of individuals was unconstitutional. Cases such as Addington v. Texas and O'Connor v. Donaldson made it much harder for individuals to be committed as a much firmer burden of proof has to be established. We can tip toe around the issue, blame the guns...video games...the mom...etc... But the simple fact is that there were lilkely warning signs there and they were not dealt with. Some parents and the individual can deal with it, some can't. This wasnt a gang shooting, where innocent children were caught in the crossfire. This was a mentally deranged individual that should have been committed or at least been under serious medical and psychiotric observation. Sadly there are lots of individuals like this out there, that can snap at any time...be it with a gun, an ax, a knife, a bomb, etc... Until we quit being so PC as a nation, these kinds of events will still occur...with or without gun control. Yes, an armed teacher or security guard, building entry code, etc... could have prevented this, however it should have never gone this far...he should have been evaluated, medicated, even hospitalised before allowing him to act on his motivation.

mteg, the link you provided states, "McVeigh was a registered Republican when he lived in Buffalo, New York in the 1980s, and had a membership in the National Rifle Association."

What's your point?

Poohbah: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McV...

rtabb said, "Like it or not there are times guns are necessary."

That doesn't answer the question, which was, and still is, if "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," then why, rtabb, was the security guard in your scenario armed?

Name me an example when a person was shot just because a gun was present and there was no motive rational or irrational for the person pulling the trigger?

I_C_Y said, "You talk about rights being lost, and yet you want to restrict an absolute right like the second amendment."

While searching for non-existent comments I made supporting the restriction of what you consider to be "absolute" second amendment rights, you should keep in mind Justice Scalia's words that second amendment rights are NOT absolute:

"But writing for the 5-4 majority in Heller, Antonin Scalia" Justice Antonin Scalia said the right to bear arms is not absolute. Scalia's words carry considerable weight because he is a conservative champion, and perhaps the high court's most ardent exponent of the right to bear arms.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." [ http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/1... ]

The Bath school disaster, 1927, indeed killed more students and the weapon was three bombs. We have heard of many bomb scares in schools in recent years, haven't we? But how many bombings? 44 people killed in school bombings since 1927, as opposed to 323 people killed in school shootings in the last 15 years. In fact, not one death from a bombing in the that same 15 year period.

"Three hundred twenty-three students have died in documented school shootings over the past 15 years, making it by far the largest cause of violent deaths in school. It outranks the documented 111 combined deaths by strangulation, stabbing and slashing, hanging, beating and kicking, heart attacks, a half dozen deaths from unknown causes and two persons who jumped to their death over the same time period, according to data from the National School Safety Center for grades K through 12." [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20... ]

DONNAW - For once we agree on-->The mother is to blame on this. A mother that has all of those guns, take her kid to the shooting range, and the young man has serious mental health issues. It is obvious that it was quite easy for him to get all of those guns.

EAGLE1 - Re: - Your commentS on "overblown rhetoric..." & "mental disorders" - Then why don't YOU speak up and give us an explanation of your views and a detailed focus of your views - You really are not saying much.

Hey poobah, it's called a even playing field. Why do police have guns? Like it or not there are times guns are necessary. Ask the brave men and women who are defending or who have defended our country if they would rather not have guns against the enemy they're fighting? If someone comes after my famly with a gun, you better believe I feel much better knowing I have one as well to defend my family if I choose so! Please don't give me the whole "just get rid of guns" b.s. Guns are so widespread that anyone and I mean anyone can get one in a rather short amount of time. The bottom line is a mentally unstable person snapped and innocent people lost their lives way to soon.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 12:11
..
There you go emoting again…You talk about rights being lost, and yet you want to restrict an absolute right like the second amendment.
..
Perhaps if you studied some history, you could detect the pattern that all fascists use, which is to restrict, then remove all access to firearms.

The mother of Adam Lanza is also to blame for this tragedy. What person with any common sense would have a gun cabinet full of guns, including assault rifles, with a mentally challenged son in the house? I don't care how much you are interested in guns, you don't have them accessible.

poobah Dec 17, 2012 at 11:50
..
That would be the "worst school massacres in history" ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
..It was a bomb.

Irish1858, for your information on the knife attack at the Chinese school you just cited:

"The injuries were gruesome, and reportedly include cut-off fingers and ears, but this story had a different outcome from the massacre 8,000 miles away in Newtown, Conn. Everyone survived." [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20... ]

To refresh your mind as to my question, it was, "When is the last time that you heard of a mentally unstable person having killed so many children and teachers with something other than a gun?"

Question, Is the over publishing of a mass murder’s exploiters by the media a cause of copycat kills?

rtabb asked, "Did I say the anything about the security guard shooting the gunman?"

No, and I didn't say you did. Now, how about answering my question?

9/11/2011? I think you were trying to say 9/11/2001. And the question I asked was when, "you heard of a mentally unstable person having killed so many children and teachers with something other than a gun?"

But I'm glad you brought up 9/11 again. Look at the legislation, government agencies, freedoms lost, wars fought, trillions spent in response to 9/11. All with very little objection from the masses. But just suggest placing restrictions on gun ownership...

A CHINESE knife maniac slashed 23 young children
Police arrested a man today after the attacks at the elementary school in Central China’s Henan province on Friday - the same day gunman Adam Lanza killed 20 kids in the US.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...

Ok poobah, I don't want to argue but here goes. Did I say the anything about the security guard shooting the gunman? No, I did not! Any other questions? Poobah answer me this.... Tell me when a gun on a shelf at a gun store has killed someone? That's right it has never ever happened!! It only happens when a individual uses the gun! Therefore, again: GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!!

Ah, 9/11 2011

mteg said, "it was a mentally unstable person that caused these deaths...had he not have used a firearm, he could have easily caused just as much devistation if not more."

Or, if not for guns, all of the school children and teachers could still be alive. I guarantee you that without guns, these children and teachers would not have died from gunshot wounds.

When is the last time, mteg, that you heard of a mentally unstable person having killed so many children and teachers with something other than a gun?

Thank you, rtabb. Now, how about answering my question?

One arguement that has to be made...A mentally unstable person was the cause...guns were just the outlet. For example, the movie theater shooting-say the individual didnt have access to any sort of firearm...due to his knowledge of chemestry and explosives...and his booby trapped apartment...could have easily fashioned a concealable bomb that would have leveled the movie theater taking less risk on himself and killing far more people. In the recent school shooting death...it was a mentally unstable person that caused these deaths...had he not have used a firearm, he could have easily caused just as much devistation if not more...being properly motivated. There are plenty of measures schools can take to prevent incidents like this from happening, however, until we have a society take an approach at identifying individuals like this and removing them from the general population for safe keeping until they are without a doubt not a danger to society, these things will still occur. I wonder if this would have gotten as much attention if it had been a drunk driver, or a semi driver on a cellphone hitting a school bus. Focusing on gun control will do nothing...this has already been proven in numerous studies. Its nothing more than a political agenda that is capitalizing a tragic event.

You amaze me poobah.

Yes, eagle1, I seriously just posted that. Can you give me a serious, rational answer instead of a rhetorical grunt?

I don't know what the answers are to these problems, but I am dismayed that so many posters seem to find it necessary to dig in their heels and label those who don't agree with them just to defend their positions rather than to offer some suggestions to help, at least, minimize such issues in the future. Would better designs at school such as an extra set of doors which automatically alerts the police if the first set of doors is tripped? Should schools only be built with windows at elevated heights? Should all such buildings have surveillance cameras tied into a central command station? Should some limits be placed on the number of rounds a person could fire from one magazine? Should body armor be outlawed except for the military and the police? I don't know if any of these ideas have merit or would be helpful. But, I would rather see some discussion regarding possible solutions to these tragedies than what I have been reading.

poobah, did you seriously just post that? re-read it and I think you have your answer.

rtabb said, "GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!! A armed, knowledgeable security guard would have stopped this before it happened."

If "Guns don't kill people; people kill people," then why, rtabb, was the security guard in your scenario armed?

I hate how as a society whenever something horrible like this happens certain people jump on the "gun control" train. Everytime someone is pulled over for speeding or there is a accident where someone dies because of high speed should we ban cars that go over the speed limit? When someone kills a innocent family because they are drunk behind the wheel do we ban alcohol? When someone dies of cancer do we ban cigarettes? When someone dies of obesity do we ban fast food? When someone kills them self due to a self inflicted gun shot do we ban guns? I know it's been said a billion times but people need to hear it again. GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!! A armed, knowledgeable security guard would have stopped this before it happened. The headline would have read "Security guard stops gunman at Elementary School".

Kiowamohican. You nailed it on the head.societal BREAK DOWN. Kids having kids, bad parents, and upbringings. Couldn't have said it any better.

donnaw said, "had to go back quite a few years to find those didn't you? Anything current like Retired's post?"

The individuals I cited were convicted in court and some served time in prison as opposed to having made an honest mistake that was not even prosecuted. Are you suggesting the Republican party has purged itself of crooks? Careful...

Irish1958 said, "Remember airliner hijacking? Remember airliner air marshals? No more hijacking!"

Oh, that's an absolutely brilliant analogy, Irish1958. And 9/11?

ICY - so you are willing to quote an author whose statistics and logic you cannot defend? You are the poster child for what is wrong with political dialog - if an article (no matter how suspect) meets your purposes, just use it whether misleading or not. Some non-thinkers will believe the false rhetoric you spread, I am sure.

I will not take this up with the author because it would be a better use of my time arguing with a tree stump in my back yard.

Remember airliner hijacking?
Remember airliner air marshals?
No more hijacking!

We need a few volunteer teachers to be a gun carriers in every school in the U.S.! Protection from people like this!!

It's funny this seems to be the only place I have seen with overblown rhetoric on gun control in relation to this event rather than what it is really about and fortunately what the media seems to be focusing on for now... Mental disorders.

The President nailed it on Friday with his comments and I am encouraged that he is focused on the tragedy itself and not on a gun control agenda. I did not see his comments last night so I cannot speak to those, I will have to get a transcript later, but he was dead on Friday... that's all.

Who would have guessed? Another round of dems using a crisis to push their agenda:

"Several Democratic lawmakers called for a new push for U.S. gun restrictions on Sunday, including a ban on military-style assault weapons, in the wake of the Connecticut massacre in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down in a school"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/1...

"A few things you won’t hear about from the saturation coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school massacre:

Mass shootings are no more common than they have been in past decades, despite the impression given by the media.

In fact, the high point for mass killings in the U.S. was 1929, according to criminologist Grant Duwe of the Minnesota Department of Corrections.

Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.

The chances of being killed in a mass shooting are about what they are for being struck by lightning.

Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany."

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/rise...

Interesting how a rep treasure cheated on taxes gets convicted while a dem gets the job of treasure after cheating on taxes....

I am all for punishing all public officials to the fullest extent of the law, not give them a job after doing it.

Keep spinning in your silly world of deflection poo

poo...had to go back quite a few years to find those didn't you? Anything current like Retired's post?

RetiredAirForce said, "I see the dem leaders have a habit of making mistakes when it come to their finances.."

"Tom DeLay (R-TX) The House Majority Leader was reprimanded twice by the House Ethics Committee and DeLay resigned 9 June 2006. Delay was found to have illegally channeled funds from Americans for a Republican Majority to Republican state legislator campaigns. He was convicted of two counts of money laundering and conspiracy in 2010 and sentenced to three years."

"Bob Ney (R-OH) pled guilty to conspiracy and making false statements as a result of his receiving trips from Abramoff in exchange for legislative favors. Ney received 30 months in prison."

"Duke Cunningham (R-California) pleaded guilty on November 28, 2005 to charges of conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion in what came to be called the Cunningham scandal. Sentenced to over eight years in prison."

"Catalina Vasquez Villalpando, (R) Treasurer of the United States. Pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice and tax evasion."

The list goes on.... [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ame... ]

Unfortunately this is more of a societal break down problem then a gun problem. Fewer and fewer kids today are raised with any core values, ethics, and moral standards. Far more parents today try to be their kids best friend, let them do anything, and raise them without moral principals, all the while violence and bad behavior are completely tolerated, and or rationalized by many more parents and society as a whole today compared to past generations. The result is showing, as these shootings have just exploded over the past decade. To the point where you are having them almost monthly.
.
Society can do the 'feel good' solution and pass all the gun laws you want. Right now, cities like DC and Chicago should be the safest places in the US, as they all ready have gun control laws to the point where you basically can't even own one LEGALLY. The REALITY is quite the opposite. Those cities are breeding grounds for gun crime (all from perpetrates who own them illegally). Laws will NEVER stop bad people from getting the gun. The lessons of prohibition should apply here. Just because you ban something, HARDLY means you stop the thing you banned from being attained. For once I actually agree with Eyster, in that I don't think the founding fathers ever imagined the right to bear arms meant you can possess a military assault rifle used only for war, or mass slaughter to 'defend' yourself. However; if you banned them, could a nut job still get one? ABSOLUTELY. It does not take much effort whatsoever to obtain illegal commerce, and most of these crazies who engage in this horrific behavior have planned out their evil act well in advance. Often years in advance as Columbine showed us. If a assault riffle is part of their sick plan, I can guarantee you they will find one, banned or not. This problem is FAR MORE a problem of societal BREAK DOWN. Kids having kids, bad parents, and upbringings.

Yeah, just a mistake..."when Davila filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy paperwork the following month, she didn't disclose the new job, even though she was required by law to do so. Then, at an August meeting for creditors, Davila was asked under oath whether "all the information contained in those (bankruptcy) documents is true and correct." She answered yes"

I see the dem leaders have a habit of making mistakes when it come to their finances...Turbo Tax Tim the guy the current President picked to run the nations finances http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/...

Corruption? Haha, you should have read past the headline.

"Davila's attorney Matthew Miller says this was an honest mistake that Miller - not Davila - was to blame for.

"Ms. Davila did not intentionally attempt to mislead any party in the proceeding, and I take responsibility for the oversight and the subsequent corrective measures," Miller said via email." [ http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/203312... ]

Hey look at that, more corruption ignored by most media...

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/203312...

fordfan Dec 16, 2012 at 9:55 p.m.

And yet dogs shoot people, and they weren't included.
- http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/20...
- http://news.discovery.com/animals/dog-sh...
- http://usnews.nbcnews.com/dog-shoots-hun...

If you have issues with the statistic, take up with the author.

Perhaps John Eyster thinks dogs should be eradicated, since so many of them end up shooting people?

poobah - not a problem. I appreciate your posts.

not sure why my comment was deleted, wasnt offensive and 100% true.

I.C.Y - no, I am not denying that but are you stating that a 3-day old baby is likely to shoot someone? If so, I guess we are through with the discussion. So I am assuming that there is at least one 3-day old baby that is incapable of shooting someone so now the numbers are down to the 525 that you stated are unarmed plus one = 526 less than 310,000,000 people. I was just trying to get to a reasonable number so the ratios that you use are more accurate. My initial take on your source is that he has to use simple (not well thought through) statistics for simple minds to understand.

fordfan Dec 16, 2012 at 8:52 p.m.

Are you denying that there are approximately 310 million people in the US?

And you want to have a fact based rational discussion? ( fail )

The rest of your assumptions are irrelevant to the statistic.

fordfan, sorry for overlapping and duplicating much of your comment. You beat me to the "Post comment" button.

I_C_Y, do you care to provide the source of the data you cited when you quoted, "800,000 law enforcement officers have killed 525 unarmed citizens with guns so far this year?"

You should have noted that the WND opinion piece you took that data from did not list their source(s). Were these "unarmed citizens" first grade students and their teachers? Also, what does "unarmed citizens" mean in the context of the opinion piece you cited? No guns? No knives? No other deadly weapons? No threat to the officers or other citizens? No failure to obey police commands?

Sigma40 seems to be in need of the help that she wants to deny others.

I.C.Y. – just a few questions for clarification of your data….please be specific as you seem to be a pretty smart analyst in your mind…..

Of the 310 million people you mentioned, how many are:
- Infants and children under the age of lets say 6 years old –
- Elderly in nursing homes –
- Disabled to the point of not being able to use a gun -
- Never held a gun in their lives and would not know how to use them –
- Do not own or handle weapons even if they have in the past (I believe there are in the area of 200 million guns in the US from what I am hearing so there are fewer guns than people and we know there are many gun collectors owning many guns) –
- First responders heading into dangerous and emergency situations (to protect people like you and me) where mistakes are more likely to happen no matter how careful they are trying to be in the situation –

Once you give me the statistics on the above, please re-run the math and give me the new numbers so they are meaningful. In the mean time, maybe you should look at your child or grandchild and then give thanks that their name was on a list to be read at a memorial service because of paranoid people who will not even allow the rational, fact based discussion about a solution to all of the violence that is taking place in our society.

John Eyster,

Here a question for you:

Given that a law enforcement officer is 19.4 times more likely to shoot and kill an unarmed American than a private citizen, if you genuinely care about reducing gun deaths, why aren’t you calling for the disarmament of law enforcement?

- 800,000 law enforcement officers have killed 525 unarmed citizens with guns so far this year
- Approximately 310 million private citizens killed an estimated 10,500 of their fellow citizens with guns over the same period of time.
(http://www.wnd.com/2012/12/standing-firm...)

Well john, Do you wish to call for the disarming of law enforcement?

I think it is time we started recognizing the fact that these tragedies are primarily caused due to mental health issues which are not being addressed in today's liberal climate in our country. I saw an incident in the county where I live in Wisconsin in which a 13 year old was in juvenile detention because he put his parents in danger. The mental health professionals determined he was not a danger to himself or others. Two days later he stole a gun from his grandfather's home and shot and killed our game warden who was trying to stop him from killing his parents.

There needs to be a more open attitude to putting those in need of mental health correction into mental health facilities rather than letting them circulate in the public arena and putting everyone in danger. We need to turn a corner on this subject.

Unfortunately, the left has the nasty habit of using these tragedies to push their agenda. They use the same inaccurate, missing the point arguments to attempt to destroy the Second Amendment and trample the rights of millions of law abiding citizens. They happily do their tap dance on the graves of the most innocent of victims to push their agenda.

Sigma40, that right there is funny as heck. I enjoyed that one.

remove all the safety labels, get rid of OSHA and all the other organizations that protect dumb people and all the idiots will kill themselves off... then we wont have to wait till one of them has a mental break down because their favorite sports team lost and goes on a shooting spree. Case closed.

“MORE CONTROL OF GUNS”
Fact ~ More student athletes died from sports activates then guns.
Fact ~ More children die from automobile accidents then guns.
Fact ~ Guns don’t kill children, people do!
Rather than blame an inanimate object (a gun) blame people. Who people? The people paid to educate and protect the children. They do a fair to good job of the former and are miserable failures at the latter.
Schools are known as ‘soft targets’, because they are a gun-free zones. To me, a “GUNS NOT ALLOWED” sign implies that they, the people that posted the sign, will protect those that enter. How can they? There are no weapons of defense on the premises or the visitors.

Then again when the left wing politicians have the chance to PREVENT a crisis would rather make excuses and let the crisis happen...you know so they will then have a reason to push change...with a crisis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWJ892h5...

"Never waste a good crisis" - Hillary Clinton

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B62igfNu-...

Former Communications White House Director - We Control News Media

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=end...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb-YuhFWC...

That would be a "no." Scalia's comments on placing limitations on arms were not those of a pundit or of the fringe left wing.

LOL. Really poo? I am suggested what I stated not your slanted interpretation of what was written...just more deflection when not being able to address the issues.

RetiredAirForce said, "Scalia was answering questions from political pundits."

Are you suggesting that would equate the gravitas of his comments to those of a pundit?

Scalia was answering questions from political pundits. His remarks were not just placed out there as an opinion piece in a op-ed or in anyway tossed out to place his views in the public world about a tragedy; like the left wing pols do. I respect his candor in answering them when asked, that hardly meets the silly equivalence test you tried to portray it to be...no big surprise.

http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2012/07...

I_C_Y asked, "Am I right?"

No.

RetiredAirForce said, "Using weak pundentry comments as a basis for equivalence shows weakness of position."

And the comments of United States Supreme Court Justice Scalia?

poobah, can you provide anything meaningful to the discussion, besides emotional rhetoric?

The fact is that most westernized countries have had mass shootings. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/2...)

In your twisted world devoid of logic, you can emote the loss 28 in Connecticut, while rationalizing taking of 1.2 million lives each year by Planned Parenthood. Am I right?

There is is, Alinsky time. When all else fails jump on the rulzzz.

The facts speak for themselves, the party of the left has proven over and over again to use tragic events as TOOLS to push their agenda. Using weak pundentry comments as a basis for equivalence shows weakness of position. The answer for weakness by you has always been deflection and the fallback rulz.

No, the deflection is bringing up the political affiliation of a handful of people who have done nothing more than what you have done in offering suggestions on what, if anything, can be done to stop these horrible events and then attributing their words to an entire group of people -- the left. I'm frankly amazed you haven't gotten around to pointing out the political affiliation of the victims and their families. You should be ashamed of yourself.

More deflection from the fringe.

You heard it here first... Scalia the pundit.

Yep pundits, that's an equivalence measure attempted by those trying to deflect from the fact the left wing party leaders have a history of exploiting tragedies for political and policy gains.

"The recent deluge of attacks against the second amendment were completely predictable in the aftermath of the Colorado massacre, but what perhaps wasn't so expected was the fact that a lot of them have come from so-called Republicans.

Although normally aligned with the right to keep and bear arms, over the last week numerous self-proclaimed conservatives have proven themselves to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

The most recent rhetorical assault on gun rights came yesterday courtesy of Reagan appointee and so-called intellectual anchor of the Supreme Court's conservative wing, Justice Antonin Scalia.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday, Scalia said that the second amendment leaves rooms for certain types of weapons to be regulated.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia told host Chris Wallace, adding that "They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," when the Constitution was signed.

Scalia's remarks prompted outrage from conservatives, who accused him of selling out to the political left.

Other luminaries on the political right did not wait long before joining their contemporaries on the left to call for gun rights to be restricted." [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y09C5Lz4j... ]

"The recent deluge of attacks against the second amendment were completely predictable in the aftermath of the Colorado massacre, but what perhaps wasn’t so expected was the fact that a lot of them have come from so-called Republicans."

"Similarly, in several shows broadcast in the days following the Colorado massacre, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has repeatedly advocated the creation of a national database of gun owners, currently prohibited by federal law, joining the likes of Piers Morgan, Michael Moore and Michael Bloomberg in savaging the second amendment.

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol also reacted to the Aurora shooting by calling for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban. He was joined by talk radio host Michael Savage, who despite modeling himself as one of the Obama administration’s most ardent critics also advocated reintroducing the ban." [ http://www.infowars.com/why-are-republic... ]

"Washington, Dec. 16 (ANI): A former adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has called for a concerted national conversation on gun control.

Mark DeMoss, the Christian conservative public relations executive, said that the country cannot continue “doing nothing” after the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, that left dozens dead, including 20 children.

DeMoss told Politico that placing some limits on guns wouldn’t have to conflict with constitutional liberties, as many on the right contend.

“I’m a conservative and a Republican, and I believe in the Constitution and all of the amendments. But the reality is, there are restrictions on lots of our freedoms,” DeMoss said.

“We cherish the freedom of speech, but it doesn’t give you the right to yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater,” he added.

“I have trouble defending a position that says there should be no restrictions on any guns or ammunition, and this slippery slope argument that if you allow the slightest bit of [gun] control, then that’s the start of taking away all our freedoms,” DeMoss continued.

“Somebody’s got to break ranks on one side or the other, it seems to me, and talk in a rational and thoughtful way, which will probably come with great risk to whoever does that,” he said.

“I imagine a Republican who speaks on this will probably be opposed in their next election,” he added [ http://truthdive.com/2012/12/16/Former-R... ]

DNC Chairman Howard Dean was brutally honest saying his party was going to push the Terri Schiavo issue during the 2006 and 2008 elections,

What about the exploits of a grieving mother, Cindy Sheehan. The left played her the whole way, prying on her grief to play politics against the right. As soon as she tried to hold the left accountable the quickly tossed her aside because the tragedy had passed and she was no longer useful for their propaganda reasons.

Even the loss of their own is fare game for exploitation. When Mr Chappaquiddick passed away, his faults were all ignored while the left pushed his death as a flag another wagging attempt while pushing healthcare against the majority opinions of the American citizens.

There are MANY, MANY, MANY examples of this type of exploitation all in the name of not letting a crisis go to waste...

"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" Rahm Emanuel, democratic leader, Mayor of Chicago, was a member of congress, and was President Obama's chief of staff.

"But I’m telling you, this polar thinking thing has gotten worse on our side the past few years. It’s becoming the Democratic disease. This embittered sense of constant war with a wicked foe, and anything you can do to defeat the wicked is justified, and a corpse will do as a podium." Peggy Noonan’s words following the ugliness displayed at the Paul Wellstone Memorial Service

"We hear so many loud and angry voices in America today whose sole goal seems to be to try to keep some people as paranoid as possible and the rest of us all torn up and upset with each other," President Clinton following the Oklahoma bombing as a first approach to blame talk radio and push a fairness doctrine as a result of the crisis.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." John Kerry pushing the agenda of stem cell exploiting the tragedy of Christopher Reeve.

The insane and unstable among us ARE [we need italics!] part of the problem. Len7252 is correct, to the extent that our schools are awash in leading children to watered down realities of how life works.
~ ~ ~
Columbine murderers; the kid at the Arkansas school - - to name just two - - rank among those killers whose egos or mental state were the tipping point. Bullied, diminished (their reality, perhaps), and poorly trained in coping skills by parents, family, or schools.
~ ~ ~
Nut cases walk free among us because well-intended do gooders don't want to infringe on their freedoms. I have to live in a state of risk because the insane should get to live in an unrestricted setting!? Tell that to the family of the recently strangled Janesville woman. Or the stabbing victim in downtown Janesville this year. Or the family of the triple knife murders. Or the woman stomped to death on Janesville's south side. Or the folks burned by the looney fellow on the Madison bus some years back.
~ ~ ~
There WILL BE more heart-wrenching incidence to come, perpetrated by broken minds who were bullied, or minimized, or whom are mentally impaired. They will kill with knives and fists and hammers and automobiles - - guns, too-- or drown their babies, and on and on. And some combination of people will have seen it coming, but they will have said nothing. They are accessories to murder, in my opinion.

RetiredAirForce cites an opinion piece that speaks about one Democrat representative, Nadler, one mayor who ran as a Republican and Independent, Bloomberg, and one president of the American Federation of Teachers and makes a statement that, "Reacting on an emotional level is how the left has always operated, and their current history of wanting to exploit tragedies to push agendas is no different." Quite a stretch when just three individuals, one of which is a Democrat turned Republican turned Independent, becomes "the left." Is everyone less conservative than Jim DeMint now considered "the left?"

Reacting on an emotional level is how the left has always operated, and their current history of wanting to exploit tragedies to push agendas is no different. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...

Reality and facts are what makes their arguments fall apart, hence the reason they ignore them.

This terrible incident reflects the reality of current laws. The shooter could not have legally purchased a firearm in Connecticut, age being just one reason. He STOLE (crime) a legally purchased gun then planned (crime) and committed (crime) terrible actions. Chicago is a perfect example of this failed approach, strict gun restrictions yet over 435 homicides this year. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/10/29/4...

For those that "claim" the police will protect everyone, open your eyes. The supreme court has ruled on this under Castle Rock v Gondolas; "the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that Gonzales had no substantive due process claim, but reversed with regard to the procedural due process claim. The court found that mandatory language in the Colorado statute regarding restraining orders created an entitlement for Gonzales to receive protective services from the police, and that she stated a claim for deprivation of procedural due process because of the failure of the police officers to arrest, or even to attempt to arrest, her husband pursuant to the order"

What is the answer? I am not sure there is a fix to stop stupidity in a free society. Clearly restrictions against law abiding citizens to protect themselves has not worked, peddling the same approach will also fail.

Looking at the facts shines a clear light against the fear peddling reactionary approach by the left. The locations for these egregious actions have already been gun free zones...making more gun free areas is the opposite of logic. http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/20...

So you want teachers to have guns in their rooms. These same teachers many of you think are lazy, incompetent and overpaid?

John Eyster,

As usual, your article is full of emotion, and COMPLETELY lacking any FACTS.

1. The Israelis have demonstrated that armed staff can thwart the kind of massacre that happened in Connecticut (http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/310078.aspx)

2. Statistically, the body count is substantially reduced if armed citizens are around.
- The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.3
- The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a citizen* is 2.3.
o http://dailyanarchist.com/2012/07/31/aud...

JMO, Sigma40, that is the dumbest post you have ever made.

Candle light vigil being held tomorrow night
http://www.facebook.com/events/392928410...

Sigma40 said, "I know people are afraid of guns, but they need to realize that a gun is a life saving tool (cops use them), and if someone in that school would have been armed and took out the bad guy less people would have died. You cant argue this."

Oh, indeed one can argue with your statement. One of the more popular mantra of the pro-gun lobby is that "Guns don't kill, people do." Applying that same logic, one can state that, "Guns don't save lives, people do."

If anyone in any schools feels remotely threatened (teachers, principals...etc.) they should arm themselves. I know people are afraid of guns, but they need to realize that a gun is a life saving tool (cops use them), and if someone in that school would have been armed and took out the bad guy less people would have died. You cant argue this.

ANOTHER shooting the day after:
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/15/gunman_k...

Appropriate article worth reading. Those who are paranoid simply as evidenced by their irrational "need" to own a gun(s) should especially appreciate the last paragraph:
http://m.theatlantic.com/international/a...

The guns used in this incident
were legally purchased and registered
by the first victim.

The obsession with "self worth" at all costs often translates that there are only winners and no losers. How absurd. Kids need to be taught to strive for success but given coping skills to deal with being average or otherwise falling short and being accepting & comfortable with doing their best. Such failure to cope has tragic consequences particularly in this country.

Connecticut has the 5th. strictest gun laws in the nation including an outright ban on at least one of the weapons thought to being used in this tragedy. It did not stop an insane person from doing what he set out to do. The criminals do not obey laws, that is why they are criminals and the insane live by their own sets of rules not ours. Enforce the laws on the books already, institutionalize those who require it, do not restrict me or mine because of what some other individual or institution did or did not do.

I'll give you credit for not blaming the lack of God in public schools for the tragedy like Mike Huckabee did:
http://youtu.be/LXQ-uo8UVws
And Bryan Fischer did:
http://youtu.be/is2x7QTZ8AI
And Eric Hovind tweeted:
https://twitter.com/erichovind/status/27...
I disagree with you about guns however. It didn't stop the knife attack in China:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/world/asia...
Or school girls who get acid thrown at them:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/02/world/meas...