patrick.net

Waitingtobuy says

The guy is a total hack. Watched him on CNN the other night, lying through his teeth about gun violence in the UK. I can recite legitimate stats from the UK, Japan, and Australia that show gun violence falling off a cliff when strict gun control was implemented.

John Lott was correct, he wrote a book, so he needed data to support it.

I found this for you from a different source.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-15/newtown-shooter-had-asperger-syndrome-and-some-us-gun-facts

At the bottom it states that:

...the homicide rate in England and Wales has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.

The NRA dropped the ball on this one. Take the negotiating and hard line stance behind closed doors. Besides, why is the NRA the only organization expected to speak out on this topic.

Why wasn't the American Psychiatric Association expected to speak out about the failure of their profession in mis-prescribing anti-depressants and other drugs that play a role in the behavior of these psychopathic killers. A gun + a nearby school does not equate to a massacre. One missing piece of this puzzle is drug company lobbyists who guarantee a steady flow of unnecessary, dangerous, yet legal, drugs into our society.

rrrrrrrr says

Why wasn't the American Psychiatric Association expected to speak out

APA is not responsible for state's issues.

Connecticut makes it nearly impossible, like many states, to commit someone until they commit murder. And even when you get through the paperwork the "loony bins" have 99% been closed down. Oh right STATE'S RIGHTS it's their RIGHT to cut services and dump the results on the community.

rrrrrrrr says

The NRA dropped the ball on this one. Take the negotiating and hard line stance behind closed doors. Besides, why is the NRA the only organization expected to speak out on this topic.

Why wasn't the American Psychiatric Association expected to speak out about the failure of their profession in mis-prescribing anti-depressants and other drugs that play a role in the behavior of these psychopathic killers. A gun + a nearby school does not equate to a massacre. One missing piece of this puzzle is drug company lobbyists who guarantee a steady flow of unnecessary, dangerous, yet legal, drugs into our society.

The issues are so complex. Much to the chagrin of the public, there is no one action or simple explanation to what happened in Newtown. Banning guns, committing every mentally ill person against their will, or anything in between will not stop this from happening in the future. Sometimes things just happen and there isn't an answer/explanation/solution for everything.

The NRA addressed today's hot topic of guns with putting armed police in the schools, and having a National data base of the mentally ill.

Well, that's today's topic, that's what's in the news, and that is as far as the NRA has addressed.

The facts are that there are millions of guns, and millions of people have guns. You never know when some one will become mentally ill, and snap.

Having a national data base for the mentally ill is like closing the barn door after the horse has escaped.

Having a police officer in every school doesn't address the mall shootings, or the person who decides to kill everybody who slighted him at his favorite bar.

What the National Rifle Association should have said is we need more people who know how to use guns, who are trained to use guns, and who want to become involved with good gun ownership.

Banning guns isn't a solution in this country, we have the right to bear arms. The part every one ignores is the part about a well regulated militia.

A well regulated militia could patrol high crime areas, they could patrol schools, they could become a useful part of our society.

You have to face the fact the last gun ban was a disaster. As we are debating real nut jobs are hiding weapons from the government, and the prying eyes of you, the neighbor, the enemy.

A gun ban, and talk of a gun ban is creating a hysteria among the very people we would probably want to be able to see, and dialog with.

Open communication, open debate, and education about guns is a far more workable solution here.

Those of you suggesting guns, and especially multiple guards at schools, have probably not spent much time involved with schools. (it's also likely you don't have kids either, but that's another subject). Not only is it a ridiculous idea, but where would you get the money for all of this? We barely have money to run our schools as it is. You also ignored my question about putting guards in every place kids congregate.

The US averages 200 gun deaths per week. That is like a 767 going down EVERY week. Think we would shake our heads and say there is nothing we can do about it?

My wife is from overseas and can't even believe we are having these "conversations". She, and nearly every person I've talked to from outside the US,thinks this is idiotic. Do you all realize how foolish this makes Americans look? How can we go to a place like Yemen and teach them about democracy, laws, etc. They are shaking their heads. Even the conservative editorial board of my town's newspaper thinks this is lunacy.

The majority of Americans want tighter gun restrictions, outlawing assault weapons and 30 round clips. We are literally being held hostage by a loudmouthed group of insecure people (mostly men) who maybe number 15% of the population and just love their guns...and the child killing industry.

Also to address the problem if who would guard the schools , how about retirees? Old folks have the experience in life and the commitment to protecting their grandchildren necessary to turn a low paying guard post into a life mission. Those that have the training to properly handle firearms could be considered.

School board hiring practices? Seriously? I've seen firsthand how they hire....you don't want them or the administrators in many districts hiring security.

As for guards, why don't all of you suggesting guards and NRA members be the first volunteering your time if you think it is a good idea? No, you like to push your ideas on to others. Like retirees. I want my kids protected by 80 yr old gramps carrying a .45, at the same time he is wearing his Depends.

Are you guys serious? Are you being paid by the NRA and Heritage Foundation to post this crap?

Call it Crazy says

Waitingtobuy says

The US averages 200 gun deaths per week.

How many of those each week are kids in a school?

Waitingtobuy says

The majority of Americans want tighter gun restrictions, outlawing assault weapons and 30 round clips.

Your "assault weapons" make up 1% of all firearms in the country. What are you going to do about the other 99%?

How many killings do they add up to? How about 10+ round clips? Three state police were shot and 4 people were killed yesterday in PA. Two police in Topeka the other day. The criminals weren't likely using a .38.

During the previous assault weapons ban, killings involving them went down 60%. What about that stat?

We need lots of armed guards AND lots more PRAYING at schools ... that way if the guards fail at least the dead kids will end up in heaven.

CaptainShuddup says

If the NRA cared about the 2nd Amendment they would have put assault rifles into the hands of EVERY black man in America

I think a lot of you missed this point about the NRA.

The NRA did support gun control: Considerable credit for that, surprisingly, belongs to the Black Panther Party. In the late 1960s, civil rights radicals took up arms as part of the "by any means necessary" philosophy. In an often forgotten incident, 30 armed Panthers invaded the California state capital building to protest enactment of new gun laws.

As long as gun control meant keeping guns out of the hands of minorities it seemed like a good idea.

However the Founding father also saw a need to restrict gun ownership: The founders barred large portions of the population from possessing guns, including slaves and free blacks, who might revolt if armed.

Last, but not least the militia did have requirements: Men over the age of 18 were expected to serve in the citizen militia, armed and ready to defend the nation. They would be forced to appear, with guns in hand, at public musters where they and their guns would be inspected. The founders had an early form of gun registration: States conducted door-to-door surveys to identify where the guns were in case the government had need of them.

The founders even had their own version of an "individual mandate." In 1792, Congress required all free men of age to outfit themselves with a military-style firearm.

So I seriously think the NRA had a reaction that was made for publicity, rather than bring anything new to the gun control debate.

Here is a link to stats compiled...dramatic drop
http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/14/did-the-federal-ban-on-assault-weapons-matter/

On the contrary, where are your stats that show that armed guards prevented massacres? Didn't work at Columbine.

The right isn't explicitly written. Show me where. "a well regulated militia". 1) militia is not individual citizens. The people is militia. 2) doesn't say right to bear assault weapons. Arms at that time were muskets. Where do you stop? Right to bear RPGs?

boldej says

We need lots of armed guards AND lots more PRAYING at schools ... that way if the guards fail at least the dead kids will end up in heaven.

Yes, praying is what is missing because it works so well in shootings at churches.

Waitingtobuy says

On the contrary, where are your stats that show that armed guards prevented massacres? Didn't work at Columbine.

Not true, that was not an armed guard for the sole purpose of preventing a mass shooting. It is intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. That "guard" was more of a "monitor" than anything else. Monitoring the "smoker's pit." This type of monitoring is not what anyone is suggesting.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm

Call it Crazy says

The guard at Columbine was OUTSIDE the building, not inside...

We need guards inside and outside. But we can't stop at schools. Once schools are protected, the bad guys will go to public playgrounds or sports fields. Those will need armed guards too. For example, umpires at little league games could have semi-automatic handguns under their chest protectors. "You're out!"

Of course, kids and adults go to lots of places where we don't have armed guards. Restaurants, clothing stores, bicycle shops, supermarkets, pet stores, pharmacy's, cafes, buses, farmers markets, small concerts, ice cream parlors, bakeries, shoe stores, book stores, beaches, public pools, lakes, water parks, wireless phone stores....

I guess we are going to need a lot more guns! Well played, NRA. If only the tobacco lobby could have figured out a way to convince Americans that the best way to fight lung cancer was to buy more cigarettes.

Call it Crazy says

Can you point me to where that was said on Friday?

I call on Congress today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.

To put armed police officers in every single school would require the hiring of more police officers. To be armed, they would require guns.

Why not respond to what I wrote - how does the NRA propose that we protect ourselves from nuts with guns in the myriad of places where people congregate but where there are no armed guards?

What will the NRA response be if there is a mass shooting at a birthday party in someones backyard who doesn't own a gun? I know: "They should've bought a gun".

The NRA believes the only way to stop gun violence is more guns. $$$

rooemoore says

The NRA believes the only way to stop gun violence is more guns.

The reality is there are millions of guns in this country, and you won't get all of them. The second thing is that guns are a multi billion dollar industry. The United States exports guns around the world.

Lots of countries have guns, and people who walk around heavily armed every day, but we here, in the United States we have these nut case shootings.

You can blame the American mentality, many people do, but the fact is Americans are armed, well armed.

I'm going to go back to this argument about having armed militia in high crime neighborhoods. There is a time in most gang bangers lives when they get old, or dead. When gangsters get old some think about the kids, the neighborhood, and community.

I say we give them militia colors, and let them patrol.

As far as schools, there are thousands of parents, teachers, administrators who can handle a gun. Like in Texas, we should allow these people to be armed.

Call it Crazy says

Is it possible that we might need to look at the "nuts"??

I hate to interject this, but that is a health care issue, and mental health should be a real study for the United States.

It seems to me that mental health has gotten to be a pill factory industry.

We should have more dialog about mental health, and it should be much more available, and a practice that is more elevated than anger management, drug, or alcohol addiction.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

To put armed police officers in every single school would require the hiring of more police officers. To be armed, they would require guns.

Is it possible that police officers already own their own guns?

To put an armed police officer in every single school and still keep police strapped communities safe, you will need a lot more police officers. That will require more guns, yes.

But if the answer is that the only way to stop "a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun", you are going to need to either hire a lot more police officers to patrol EVERYWHERE people go, or you are going to need to relax gun restrictions to allow citizens to carry guns EVERYWHERE people go.

Call it Crazy says

Is it possible that we might need to look at the "nuts"??

Nuts is a broad term here. Many people, if they had a gun at the "wrong time" might use it in a moment of rage. Few people, if they had a gun at the "right time" would use it correctly.

I will admit that if every law abiding citizen carried a gun that these mass shooting wouldn't be so lethal. Of course the price would be that gun deaths would skyrocket.

rooemoore says

To put armed police officers in every single school would require the hiring of more police officers. To be armed, they would require guns.

An unlikely assumption. A great many would be rent-a-cops, not on-duty or off-duty trained officers. Either way, it's unlikely to be widely implemented in these budget-strapped times. Guns are cheap, adding 125,000+ employees to the public school systems is not. They'll be even less effective than TSA and pretty soon you'd hear complaints about 'em.

Vicente says

it's unlikely to be widely implemented in these budget-strapped times.

Did the NRA really suggest the answer to one of the biggest conservative issues of our time is bigger government?

Did the NRA ask our government to fix another problem?

Check out conservative pundit David Frum's twitter feed on all the places we need federal agents with guns: https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfrum/tweets

Waitingtobuy says

https://mobile.twitter.com/davidfrum/tweets

link doesn't work

It is very ironic that the California State Teachers' Retirement System invested a half billion dollars into a fund that Cerberus used to bankroll Freedom Group. That is an almost 7% stake in the company that manufactured the gun used in Newtown.

Call it Crazy says

Based on the above data, it looks like that idea works....

If the above data wasn't an NRA fantasy, you may be right. Of course even then you'd have to factor in all the accidental or "fits of rage" deaths these law-abiding gun owners committed vs the amount of murders they prevented by scaring away intruders with a gun.

You do realize that the great majority of intruders do not want any encounter with armed or disarmed victims.

David Losh says

Did the NRA ask our government to fix another problem?

Fox News and Teabaggers are blind to inconsistency. Astounding.

Call it Crazy says

rooemoore says

You do realize that the great majority of intruders do not want any encounter with armed or disarmed victims.

Exactly why the reason these mentally deranged killers go after soft targets and "gun-free" zones.

When was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a police station, a gun show, a gun range, gun store in this country?

Why do these "nut cases" pick schools, theaters, malls, etc.??

Cops are shot all the time. Are they soft targets?

And then there were two firefighters shot and killed today. Now they have to carry guns, too?

Using your logic, the only way to keep the country safe is to make the whole world a gun show, police station or shooting range. Swell.

Call it Crazy says

When was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a police station,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/police-station-shooting-southfield-michigan-shootout_n_2116162.html

Oh right, not a MASS murder.

Vicente says

Call it Crazy says

When was the last time you heard of a mass murder at a police station,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/police-station-shooting-southfield-michigan-shootout_n_2116162.html

Oh right, not a MASS murder.

And then there is this kind of "Mass shooting":

June 10, 2002 - Conception, Missouri - Benedictine
monastery - 2 killed + shooter - Lloyd Robert Jeffress shot
four monks in the monastery killing two and wounding two,
before killing himself.

March 12, 2002 - Lynbrook, New York - Our Lady of Peace
Catholic Church - 2 killed - Peter Troy, a former mental
patient, opens fire during Mass, killing the priest and a
parishioner. He later receives a life sentence.

Liberals are stupid, the once who concentrate on a weapon and not the criminal or mentally ill maniac. And their solution to the problem (ban firearms) will be just as stupid and ineffective as they are.

In my view this horrendous crime (Newtown) was a fluke.

Killing young children ?

It's not all that unlikely that we could do nothing about changing gun laws or beefing up security in schools, and not see something like this again for 50 years or longer.

But, in the long long term, having sensible gun laws regarding assault weapons will change what guns are out there in the distant future.

I heard the NRA guy, Pierre or whatever his name is, on the Sunday morning talk shows saying "we are for what works" as if to suggest that if you don't see an instant impact from a policy that it's worthless.

FortWayne says

Liberals are stupid, the once who concentrate on a weapon and not the criminal or mentally ill maniac.

Yeah, liberals are always boiling things down to a simple sound bite, because they know the other liberals are so stupid that it's all they can understand.

Where as the republicans always frame issues in all of their complexity and nuance, understanding all sides of the argument, and never thinking in terms of one simple rule. (eg Economics: no increases in taxes, gun violence: we can consider anything except gun laws - that's off the table).

Call it Crazy says

[POLICE STATION SHOOTOUT] Not a MASS murder, just a one on one. More information from that story you linked:

.....""Based on the behavior of this individual, my opinion and the opinion of the investigating officers, is that this person was struggling with some very serious internal issues," Hawkins said."

Yes, crazy person with a gun, your point?

Solution: Turn every place we inhabit, into a police station.

I have an idea how to accomplish that. We'll hire all the returning vets from the sandbox to guard schools, malls, libraries, really everywhere. Paying for this will be left as an exercise for the reader. I favor cutting military by 90%. Simple way to pension off existing soldiers.

By the way, for the record, even a majority of NRA members are for reasonable guns laws on such issues as background checks, and limiting the number of bullets in a clip, or drum etc.

The NRA leaders don't even represent their own membership on these issues. It's sort of like COngress. In the fiscal cliff negotiations they don't even represent the typical conservative point of view, which is that taxes on the part of income that's over 250K should be raised.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/24/gun-owners-frank-luntz_n_1699140.html

But then you have geniuses like FW trying to create an argument where there isn't one, saying that the views of the typical republican are actually the ideas of stupid liberals.

FortWayne says

Liberals are stupid, the once who concentrate on a weapon and not the criminal or mentally ill maniac. And their solution to the problem (ban firearms) will be just as stupid and ineffective as they are.

Yes, stupid like all the other developed countries that have effective gun laws that result in the dramatically lower number of gun deaths. Real morons, those folks.

Call it Crazy says

Gee, that sounds like the perfect, upstanding, mentally sane, responsible firearm owner to me...

Who knows about their mental state. We do know they had a gun.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/CLjNJI54GMM

Apparently FW, LaPierre and other on the dimbulb right hope that some people will believe that its one or the other.

Either tighten gun laws, or take a good look at what can be done on the mental health aspect of this. You can only do one or the other.

Obviously the gun laws are easy compared to dealing with privacy issues, and the fact that many low income people with emotional problems are not even receiving treatment.

But yeah, let's take the easy thing off the table, and focus on the expensive, complicated nearly impossible task of strengthening big brother's ability to watch everyone who ever seeks professional help from psychologists and psychiatrists.

Call it Crazy says

Some of the details about this shooter already have come out. I'll let you do your own research to see what type of upstanding law abiding citizen he was!! It's all about following the laws you know.

Imagine the mayhem he would have caused with a knife...

Call it Crazy says

You think there is only one single solution... Why can't both be done?

No, I was being facetious.