Yet another tone deaf GOPer

[RebLem]

GOP gun raffle raises controversy

KVOA.com, Channel 4, Tuscon | Posted: Sep 1, 2011 8:10 PM | Updated: Sep 1, 2011 8:10 PM

TUCSON - Pima County's Republican Party is drawing criticism from all over the country for raffling off a handgun which is the same brand as the one used in Tucson's January 8th shooting. During that shooting Jared Loughner is charged with using a Glock handgun to kill 6 people and injure 13 others including U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Thursday at Pima County's GOP headquarters volunteer Marilyn Venne can't answer the phone fast enough. People are calling about the party's Glock gun raffle. Venne says some callers are swearing at her. Others are threatening Republicans.

Venne says, "Basically they're saying that we're crazy."

Others are calling wanting to buy a chance to win the gun.

Don Long came in. He says, "I bought a ticket because I believe in the Constitution of the United States of America. And I'd like the public to know that I'm a Democrat."

Long dismisses the controversy as politics. He says, "I'm sorry about Congressman [sic!] Giffords. I hope she has a full recovery. But one nut cake in the public who owns a gun is not going to be the standard for Americans."

Mike Shaw is the interim chairman of Pima County's Republican party. He says it never to occurred to him that the raffling the gun would upset people. He says the raffle is a party fundraiser and "the reason why we do have this particular gun is because it was left over from a raffle from last year."

Shaw says, "As the Pima GOP we believe in Second Amendment rights." He says, "Gabrielle Giffords is on record as being a handgun owner."

Shaw says, "Also we'd like to point out the Glock is not responsible for what happened at the Tucson shooting. Jared Loughner is responsible for what happened at the Tucson shooting."

Shaw adds his party has raffled guns in the past and will again in the future.

Jeff Rogers heads Pima County's Democratic Party. He says, "I think it's a stunning lack of judgment and sensitivity."

Rogers says, "We live in a community that's been through an extremely tragic incident in which we are still grieving and still recovering."

He says, "Maybe in this case if they'd chosen a shotgun or a hunting rifle or something it would have been a little less insensitive."

http://www.kvoa.com/news/gop-gun-raffle ... ntroversy/

[keaggy220]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

[lennygoran]

(There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. )

I don't buy your reply-so we shouldn't attempt to make it harder for people to buy all sorts of hideous weapons here in America? Len

[Cosima___J]

Len, don't you think that anybody in this country who wants to get a gun can get one?

[karlhenning]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault.

Is it nice, living in a cartoon?

Cheers,
~Karl

[karlhenning]

Len, don't you think that anybody in this country who wants to get a gun can get one?

And that addresses Len's question . . . how, exactly?

Cheers,
~Karl

. . . so we shouldn't attempt to make it harder for people to buy all sorts of hideous weapons here in America? Len

[Cosima___J]

Karl, why worry about the auctioning of ONE gun, when there are so many guns out there for anyone who wants one?

People, if you want to worry about something much, much bigger than the auctioning of ONE gun for heavens sake, please read this and tell me what you think. This is a major screw up:

Screw Up, Move Up, Cover Up: The Fast and Furious Edition
8/31/2011
by Michelle Malkin

There are now enough Operation Fast and Furious officials playing hide-and-seek in the Obama administration to fill a "rubber room."

That's the nickname for taxpayer-subsidized holding pens, such as the ones in the New York City public schools, where crooked employees are separated from the system and paid to do nothing. Perhaps the White House can stimulate a few construction jobs by adding an entire rubber room annex for "reassigned" scandal bureaucrats at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It's getting mighty crowded.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced it was shuffling Kenneth Melson, acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, out of his job. The disclosure comes amid continued GOP investigations into the administration's fatally botched straw gun purchase racket at the border and spreading outrage over legal obstructionism and whistleblower retaliation by DOJ brass. The DOJ inspector general is also conducting a probe.

Internal documents earlier showed that Melson was intimately involved in overseeing the program and screened undercover videos of thousands of straw purchases of AK-47s and other high-powered rifles -- many of which ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartel thugs, including those who murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry last December. Fast and Furious weapons have been tied to at least a dozen violent crimes in America and untold bloody havoc in Mexico.

In secret July 4 testimony, Melson revealed he was "sick to his stomach" when he discovered the extent of the operation's deadly lapses. Join the club, pal.

Melson told congressional investigators that he and ATF's senior leadership "moved to reassign every manager involved in Fast and Furious, from the deputy assistant director for field operations down to the group supervisor" after ATF whistleblowers went to the press and Capitol. But according to Melson, he and company were ordered by Justice Department higher-ups to remain silent about the reasons for the reassignments.

In other words: the ATF managers in the know were "effectively muzzled while the DOJ sent over false denials and buried its head in the sand," as GOP Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Sen. Charles Grassley, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, concluded in July.

http://townhall.com/columnists/michelle ... us_edition

[Cosima___J]

In case you missed the story (truly worthy of a "Three Stooges" script), here's more about the "Fast and Furious Operation":

House Panel Slams 'Fast and Furious' Gun Operation Tied to Border Agent's Death

Published June 15, 2011

Agent Brian A. Terry, 40, was killed on Dec. 14 near Rio Rico, Ariz., according to a statement released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials. (FNC)
A U.S. law enforcement operation intended to crack down on major weapons traffickers on the Southwest border spiraled out of control as federal agents were told by superiors to "stand down" and ignore weapons bought in Arizona headed for Mexico, a House panel heard Wednesday.

Three federal firearms investigators told the House Oversight and Government Reform committee that they wanted to "intervene and interdict" loads of guns, but were repeatedly ordered to step aside.

"Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals -- this was the plan," John Dodson, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent, testified to the panel. "It was so mandated."

He added: "My supervisors directed me and my colleagues not to make any stop or arrest, but rather, to keep the straw purchaser under surveillance while allowing the guns to walk."

ATF agent Olindo James Casa said that "on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms."

Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the panel, has spearheaded the congressional investigation into the ATF's "Operation Fast and Furious." He said the hopes of scoring a knockout blow against the Mexican cartels badly misfired, and then continued over the objections of federal agents.

The program came to a crashing halt in January with the death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. Two guns purchased under ATF surveillance were found near Terry's corpse, but it is unknown whether they were used in his death.

Peter Forcelli, an ATF supervisory special agent who testified at the hearing, told Fox News that tracking the bullet and gun that killed him depended on the evidence. A projectile recovered from the corpse can be matched with a murder weapon, he said.

"But with a rifle, the possibility exists that the round would penetrate the body and body armor and possibly never be recovered," he said. "And if that happens, you can't show that weapon was utilized in the homicide because you are missing that piece of ballistic evidence. That's where you would rely on witnesses or other types physical evidence found at the scene."

Members of Terry's family appeared before the committee Wednesday, asking how it happened and what will be done to ensure it doesn't happen again.

"We hope that all individuals involved in Brian's murder, and those that played a role in putting the assault weapons in their hands are found and prosecuted to the full extent of the law," said Robert Heyer, a cousin of Terry.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said accountability is needed and the only question is how high does it go.

"The president said he didn't authorize it, and that the attorney general didn't authorize it. They have both admitted that quote unquote a serious mistake may have been made," he said. "There are a lot of questions and a lot of investigating to do, but one thing has become clear already -- this was no mistake."

Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich said that an investigation and prosecution continues into Terry's shooting death, which has led to the indictment of at least one suspect who is in federal custody.

"Operation Fast and Furious is a criminal investigation—led by U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecutors and ATF agents—aimed at dismantling a significant transnational gun-trafficking enterprise and the network of those who support the enterprise’s criminal efforts, an investigation which has led already to the indictment of 20 defendants," he said.

Issa's hearing came one day after his panel released a draft report concluding the busted operation was a deadly strategy that left a trail of blood and bodies throughout the Southwest. The report concluded that a reckless and irresponsible chain of command ignored repeated warnings the plan would fail.

"You've got people who are dead, you have weapons that are missing and you have an administration that doesn't seem to want to take any accountability for it," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and a member of the panel. "There is absolutely no justification, no justification for this. There are people that are going to have to be held accountable."

Findings from the preliminary report include:

-- Agents expected to interdict weapons, yet were told to stand down and “just surveil.” Agents therefore did not act. They watched straw purchasers buy hundreds of weapons illegally and transfer those weapons to unknown third parties and stash houses.

-- ATF agents complained about the strategy of allowing guns to walk in Operation Fast and Furious. Leadership ignored their concerns. Instead, supervisors told the agents to “get with the program” because senior ATF officials had sanctioned the operation.

-- Agents knew that given the large numbers of weapons being trafficked to Mexico, tragic results were a near certainty.

-- Operation Fast and Furious contributed to the increasing violence and deaths in Mexico. This result was regarded with "giddy" optimism by ATF supervisors hoping that guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico would provide the nexus to straw purchasers in Phoenix.

That last finding is sure to anger Mexico, which has so far been muted in its criticism. In a March 2010 memo, ATF says it allowed gun smugglers to buy 359 guns while 958 people died in Mexico the same month. Internally, the agency was "trumpeting up the violence that was occurring as a result of an ATF sanctioned program."

CMGers, can anyone explain how the U.S. authorities could possible keep track of where all of those guns were going??? What an idiot idea!

[RebLem]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

[jbuck919]

Kind of reminds of my high school Catholic Youth Organization, which ran a raffle in which the prize was a basket of joy (booze, in case you didn't know). Those were the days.

[lennygoran]

(Len, don't you think that anybody in this country who wants to get a gun can get one?)

Anybody? Wonder if I could get one? The laws must stop some people? Len

[Cosima___J]

Yes, you could get one legally (unless I'm mistaken about you ) or black market.

[Cosima___J]

jbuck, maybe even condoms or birth control pills were tucked in those baskets. After consuming the "joy", they might come in handy.

[jbuck919]

jbuck, maybe even condoms or birth control pills were tucked in those baskets. After consuming the "joy", they might come in handy.

But it seems that you don't understand Catholics very well. Birth control was a mortal sin; drunkenness almost a virtue.

[Cosima___J]

Since I'm a life long Methodist, you are probably right that I don't know everything about Catholics. But I did date one in high school, much to my parents disapproval. Sounds pretty stupid that my parents objected, eventhough they liked him. But they were staunchly Methodist --- my uncle and paternal grandfather were Methodist ministers. Go John Wesley

BTW, I did not mention to them that I dated several Jews (gasp) in college.

[RebLem]

jbuck, maybe even condoms or birth control pills were tucked in those baskets. After consuming the "joy", they might come in handy.

But it seems that you don't understand Catholics very well. Birth control was a mortal sin; drunkenness almost a virtue.

Speak for your diocese, John! Never happened in the Diocese of Joliet, in which I grew up, I can tell you that. There, even Irish wakes were sober.

[jbuck919]

jbuck, maybe even condoms or birth control pills were tucked in those baskets. After consuming the "joy", they might come in handy.

But it seems that you don't understand Catholics very well. Birth control was a mortal sin; drunkenness almost a virtue.

Speak for your diocese, John! Never happened in the Diocese of Joliet, in which I grew up, I can tell you that. There, even Irish wakes were sober.

It was the Lutheran influence encroaching from the west. Just ask Garrison Keillor. I'll bet your parish rectory didn't have an Irish (as in, from Ireland) housekeeper, either.

[jbuck919]

BTW, I did not mention to them that I dated several Jews (gasp) in college.

Not all on one date, I hope. (I imagine that they also did not tell their parents.)

As you know, I played for a Methodist church in Maryland for ten years--wonderful faith community. But to me they seemed about the most open, latitudinarian, and accepting denomination there is. When they accepted new members with a previous churched history, they would say "he/she is transferring membership from" even if it was a Catholic church. (I can imagine the eye-rolling of the priest on the other end of that bargain.) In spite of much effort by a few parishioners, though, that parish never became a Reconciling Congregation.

[Cosima___J]

"not all on one date"

Interesting thought. A sort of menage a four.

Cool, fantastic, awesome

[keaggy220]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

[keaggy220]

(There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. )

I don't buy your reply-so we shouldn't attempt to make it harder for people to buy all sorts of hideous weapons here in America? Len

Your reply proves my reply... Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.

[keaggy220]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault.

Is it nice, living in a cartoon?

Cheers,
~Karl

oh please expound - please.... I need the entertainment...

[jbuck919]

Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.

What a great argument for requiring that gun owners be licensed, required to buy insurance, pay annual registration fees, submit their guns to annual safety inspections, and expect regular police checks on their gun-ownership-related behavior!

[keaggy220]

Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.

What a great argument for requiring that gun owners be licensed, required to buy insurance, pay annual registration fees, submit their guns to annual safety inspections, and expect regular police checks on their gun-ownership-related behavior!

Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

[jbuck919]

Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.

What a great argument for requiring that gun owners be licensed, required to buy insurance, pay annual registration fees, submit their guns to annual safety inspections, and expect regular police checks on their gun-ownership-related behavior!

Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

Or a Constitutional wrong.

[RebLem]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

[keaggy220]

Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.

What a great argument for requiring that gun owners be licensed, required to buy insurance, pay annual registration fees, submit their guns to annual safety inspections, and expect regular police checks on their gun-ownership-related behavior!

Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

Or a Constitutional wrong.

That pesky Constitution is such a downer.

[keaggy220]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

[jbuck919]

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Look, love your guns if you want to, but own up to the huge social consequences with a disproportionately tiny countervening benefit. It is more like the "right" to smoke than the "privilege" to drive.

[RebLem]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Wrong again. The difference, as anyone smart enough to be allowed unsupervised use of a metal dinner fork could tell you, is that when you plow your car into a crowd of people, you are using it for a purpose for which it was not intended. That is why we have tests amd licensing procedures and fees for people who want to drive cars. When you shoot someone with a pistol, you are using it for the purpose for which it was intended, and most places have no tests, no licensing procedures, and no fees involved before you can own one. Your argument is specious.

[keaggy220]

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Look, love your guns if you want to, but own up to the huge social consequences with a disproportionately tiny countervening benefit. It is more like the "right" to smoke than the "privilege" to drive.

Actually I love the Constitution... Please back up your claim about the huge social consequence with a disproportionately tiny benefit.

[keaggy220]

There are two kinds of people when it comes to gun related crime. Those who believe guns are at fault and those who believe criminals are at fault. This is certainly on display in this article.

Since this post displays a bumper sticker mentality, I'll just reply with another bumper sticker:
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. GUN NUTS DO.

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Wrong again. The difference, as anyone smart enough to be allowed unsupervised use of a metal dinner fork could tell you, is that when you plow your car into a crowd of people, you are using it for a purpose for which it was not intended. That is why we have tests amd licensing procedures and fees for people who want to drive cars. When you shoot someone with a pistol, you are using it for the purpose for which it was intended, and most places have no tests, no licensing procedures, and no fees involved before you can own one. Your argument is specious.

Your argument is deranged. A gun, like a car is an inanimate object. The purpose of both the gun and car is at the pleasure of their owner. A hammer can help construct a house or it can bash someone's brains in - it's quite useful for either purpose and has been used many times for such...

[jbuck919]

Actually I love the Constitution... Please back up your claim about the huge social consequence with a disproportionately tiny benefit.

It is your burden to explain why tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and nobody really safe from that possibility is in any way balanced by what you perceive as a benefit.

[Teresa B]

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Wrong again. The difference, as anyone smart enough to be allowed unsupervised use of a metal dinner fork could tell you, is that when you plow your car into a crowd of people, you are using it for a purpose for which it was not intended. That is why we have tests amd licensing procedures and fees for people who want to drive cars. When you shoot someone with a pistol, you are using it for the purpose for which it was intended, and most places have no tests, no licensing procedures, and no fees involved before you can own one. Your argument is specious.

Your argument is deranged. A gun, like a car is an inanimate object. The purpose of both the gun and car is at the pleasure of their owner. A hammer can help construct a house or it can bash someone's brains in - it's quite useful for either purpose and has been used many times for such...

I think Reblem's argument is quite sound. Yes, a gun is an inanimate object just like a car, and both can be used for killing a crowd of people, blah blah blah. But how in the world can you ignore the fact that a hand gun is a weapon, the express purpose of which is to kill human beings? Personally I don't know of any "hammer nuts" or "automobile nuts" who are out there contemplating the murder of anyone with their hammer or their Volkswagen. Yes, there have been murders committed with hammers, and you obviously can't prevent all violent crime by outlawing everything that could be used to harm someone. But the gun is a weapon that nuts and criminals seek out in order to possess the power to kill others in an instant. The emotional and psychological associations with guns are far, far different than they are with hammers and cars.

Teresa

[lennygoran]

(Your reply proves my reply... Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.)

Don't buy this analogy- a car is for transportation-these weapons are for killing-are you saying they have great value as works of art-what's their purpose? Len

[lennygoran]

(Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.)

You're being too forgetful-the constitution can and should be amended-gun laws and property tax exemptions for churches-do you agree? Len(Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.)

You're being too forgetful-the constitution can and should be amended-gun laws and property tax exemptions for churches-do you agree? Len

[Cosima___J]

"tens of thousands of gun deaths a year" ???

Turning to an article in Wikipedia, here's one paragraph from their article about gun deaths in the U.S.:

"Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in 1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any particular gun being used in a homicide is very low."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... #Homicides

I'm not suggesting that the loss of 6,500 lives is insignificant, and guns in the hands of the wrong people is certainly a problem. But what is the answer????? We can and should decry gun violence, but at this point in time, what can be done??? Supposedly there are legal restrictions about who can buy a gun, but how are they enforced and how do we keep criminals or deranged persons from acqiring one of those 70 million (in 1999) handguns?

Now here's some logic for you ---
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm

[keaggy220]

Actually I love the Constitution... Please back up your claim about the huge social consequence with a disproportionately tiny benefit.

It is your burden to explain why tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and nobody really safe from that possibility is in any way balanced by what you perceive as a benefit.

Cop-out.

[keaggy220]

Acutally just nuts kill people. If they don't have a gun handly they'll find something else.

If you have a crossbow or a knife, you generally can't kill six people amd wound several others in an open air situation. If you don't understand that, you're not smart enough to be entrusted with a metal dinner fork, much less a firearm.

Yes, you can take a car and run over a crowd of people. Do you want to take that away too? Your argument is pointless.

Wrong again. The difference, as anyone smart enough to be allowed unsupervised use of a metal dinner fork could tell you, is that when you plow your car into a crowd of people, you are using it for a purpose for which it was not intended. That is why we have tests amd licensing procedures and fees for people who want to drive cars. When you shoot someone with a pistol, you are using it for the purpose for which it was intended, and most places have no tests, no licensing procedures, and no fees involved before you can own one. Your argument is specious.

Your argument is deranged. A gun, like a car is an inanimate object. The purpose of both the gun and car is at the pleasure of their owner. A hammer can help construct a house or it can bash someone's brains in - it's quite useful for either purpose and has been used many times for such...

I think Reblem's argument is quite sound. Yes, a gun is an inanimate object just like a car, and both can be used for killing a crowd of people, blah blah blah. But how in the world can you ignore the fact that a hand gun is a weapon, the express purpose of which is to kill human beings? Personally I don't know of any "hammer nuts" or "automobile nuts" who are out there contemplating the murder of anyone with their hammer or their Volkswagen. Yes, there have been murders committed with hammers, and you obviously can't prevent all violent crime by outlawing everything that could be used to harm someone. But the gun is a weapon that nuts and criminals seek out in order to possess the power to kill others in an instant. The emotional and psychological associations with guns are far, far different than they are with hammers and cars.

Teresa

Guns are not made expressly to kill human beings. That's total rubbish... Please look at the statistics and come back to your senses.

"Approximately 6,500 homicides were committed using handguns in 1999; since there were roughly 70 million handguns, the chance of any particular gun being used in a homicide is very low."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... #Homicides - hat tip Cosima

Of course there are also many crimes deterred because a law-abiding citizen has a weapon.

In 1999 there were 41,000 vehicular deaths.

[keaggy220]

(Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.)

You're being too forgetful-the constitution can and should be amended-gun laws and property tax exemptions for churches-do you agree? Len(Oh, you're being too easy today. Driving a car is a privilege; gun ownership is a Constitutional right.)

You're being too forgetful-the constitution can and should be amended-gun laws and property tax exemptions for churches-do you agree? Len

Take it up with the Supreme Court - good luck with that...

[keaggy220]

(Your reply proves my reply... Weapons are inanimate objects, no different than a car which can be driven by the sober or the drunk.)

Don't buy this analogy- a car is for transportation-these weapons are for killing-are you saying they have great value as works of art-what's their purpose? Len

Car accidents kill 7 times more people a year than guns in a homicide. Doh...

[jbuck919]

Actually I love the Constitution... Please back up your claim about the huge social consequence with a disproportionately tiny benefit.

It is your burden to explain why tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and nobody really safe from that possibility is in any way balanced by what you perceive as a benefit.

Cop-out.

No, it is not. To continue my analogy, smoking is a source of pleasure and relaxation and has provided emotional sustenance to many creative persons as well as ordinary folk throughout their productive lives. That is true but does not constitute an argument sufficient to weigh against the horror of death and disease that is the history of tobacco use in the world. You come back with a reason for de facto unrestricted access to guns, for I am not talking about prohibition of that any more than of tobacco but rather restrictive regulation, and we'll see whether it is worth [from Wikipedia, note, Cosi] 31,224 firearm-related deaths [in 2007], and the attendant reality that, unlike with tobacco, no one is safe from being the next victim.

[keaggy220]

Actually I love the Constitution... Please back up your claim about the huge social consequence with a disproportionately tiny benefit.

It is your burden to explain why tens of thousands of gun deaths a year and nobody really safe from that possibility is in any way balanced by what you perceive as a benefit.

Cop-out.

No, it is not. To continue my analogy, smoking is a source of pleasure and relaxation and has provided emotional sustenance to many creative persons as well as ordinary folk throughout their productive lives. That is true but does not constitute an argument sufficient to weigh against the horror of death and disease that is the history of tobacco use in the world. You come back with a reason for de facto unrestricted access to guns, for I am not talking about prohibition of that any more than of tobacco but rather restrictive regulation, and we'll see whether it is worth [from Wikipedia, note, Cosi] 31,224 firearm-related deaths [in 2007], and the attendant reality that, unlike with tobacco, no one is safe from being the next victim.

But you're basing your argument on a point that you haven't proven - that there is a tiny benefit in gun ownership. Obviously the founding fathers disagree, the general public disagrees, the Supreme Court disagrees - so it is up to you to prove your point. The smoking analogy doesn't hold up because it's not a Constitutional right and smoking doesn't have a consistent record of saving innocent lives.

[jbuck919]

The smoking analogy doesn't hold up because it's not a Constitutional right and smoking doesn't have a consistent record of saving innocent lives.

Smoking would have been a constitutional right if the British had ever tried to deprive the colonies of the use of tobacco. The entire Bill of Rights is a reaction to a perceived previous deprivation of rights, and while it often gets the job done rather well, it is also an artifact of its time.

I already made my point that smoking has a "record" of providing benefits. Sigmund Freud, who died of mouth cancer after decades of smoking as many as 30 cigars a day, once spoke of how he could not work without "the sweet kiss of tobacco." Bach, as I recently mentioned in another post, wrote a (very bad) poem to its virtues. There is a "consistent record" of the alleged benefits of smoking, which in my opinion is pure baloney, as are claims that the very occasional justified private shooting of a deadly dangerous person or successful thwarting of a serious crime by threat thereof constitutes justification for everybody being able to own as many guns of any kind as he or she wants.

[keaggy220]

The smoking analogy doesn't hold up because it's not a Constitutional right and smoking doesn't have a consistent record of saving innocent lives.

Smoking would have been a constitutional right if the British had ever tried to deprive the colonies of the use of tobacco. The entire Bill of Rights is a reaction to a perceived previous deprivation of rights, and while it often gets the job done rather well, it is also an artifact of its time.

I already made my point that smoking has a "record" of providing benefits. Sigmund Freud, who died of mouth cancer after decades of smoking as many as 30 cigars a day, once spoke of how he could not work without "the sweet kiss of tobacco." Bach, as I recently mentioned in another post, wrote a (very bad) poem to its virtues. There is a "consistent record" of the alleged benefits of smoking, which in my opinion is pure baloney, as are claims that the very occasional justified private shooting of a deadly dangerous person constitutes justification for everybody being able to own as much of any kind of gun as he wants.

There you go again with the generic "very occasional justified private shooting" without any stats to back this up. You can't make this argument because you have a gut feeling that it's true. This is a Constitutional right that you want to amend. Gut feeling is not cutting it... Where are the stats? I want to see number of guns, number of gun related homicides and number of lives saved due to gun ownership.

And I'm sorry the pleasure of tobacco is not equal to saving an innocent human life with a well aimed shot to the chest of a would be assailant.

[RebLem]

The smoking analogy doesn't hold up because it's not a Constitutional right and smoking doesn't have a consistent record of saving innocent lives.

Smoking would have been a constitutional right if the British had ever tried to deprive the colonies of the use of tobacco. The entire Bill of Rights is a reaction to a perceived previous deprivation of rights, and while it often gets the job done rather well, it is also an artifact of its time.

I already made my point that smoking has a "record" of providing benefits. Sigmund Freud, who died of mouth cancer after decades of smoking as many as 30 cigars a day, once spoke of how he could not work without "the sweet kiss of tobacco." Bach, as I recently mentioned in another post, wrote a (very bad) poem to its virtues. There is a "consistent record" of the alleged benefits of smoking, which in my opinion is pure baloney, as are claims that the very occasional justified private shooting of a deadly dangerous person constitutes justification for everybody being able to own as much of any kind of gun as he wants.

There you go again with the generic "very occasional justified private shooting" without any stats to back this up. You can't make this argument because you have a gut feeling that it's true. This is a Constitutional right that you want to amend. Gut feeling is not cutting it... Where are the stats? I want to see number of guns, number of gun related homicides and number of lives saved due to gun ownership.

And I'm sorry the pleasure of tobacco is not equal to saving an innocent human life with a well aimed shot to the chest of a would be assailant.

As you doubtless know full well, that stats were being gathered in the last years of the Clinton Administration as a result of a CDC decision to begin collecting them under the well-founded justification that they were a public health problem. But the firearms industry and their toadies in Congress didn't want people to know the facts, or anyone to be gathering them, so the first thing the Cheney Administration did when it took power in 2001 was to prohibit the CDC from doing so. Put the horse blinders on the American people and we won't notice that 12,000 people are being killed by firearms per year, while Italy, for example, despite the Mafia and widespread lawlessness of various kinds, only had 51 murders in 2010 (out of 60 million people in a county the size of Florida), 31 of them with firearms.

[RebLem]

Here's another story about the kind of behavior your position encourages in unstable people. Hope the patriotic sacrifice of an 11 year old girl who is now orphaned because of a father who killed himself after killing her mother makes every loyal American giddy with joyous pride about our glorious national heritage. I guess I'm not loyal, though. It makes me ashamed of my country. RebLem

Girl, 11, Shares Tragic Story After Dad Shoots Mom, Himself

KOAT-TV, Albuquerque's ABC affiliate | POSTED: 8:48 am MDT August 25, 2011 | UPDATED: 9:04 am MDT August 25, 2011

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- An 11-year-old shares her story only days after police said her father killed her mother, took her brother from the crime scene, sparked a manhunt and then killed himself.

Tuesday morning’s crime scene along Airport Road in Santa Fe is something Joceline Melendez, 11, was right in the middle of.

“I just heard the shots and I got up. It was like a balloon popped,” Melendez said.

Those gunshots woke her up. Joceline’s father, Jose Soto, is the one who opened fire on her mother, according to police.

“When I got into the kitchen, I saw my mom dead,” Melendez said. Her father fled the home with a rifle and her 5-year-old brother.

“My little brother Cesar was running towards him and was saying, ‘Papi’ so he could go with him. So they just left,” Melendez said.

Those actions sparked a 24-hour manhunt until authorities caught up with Soto in the Bermuda Area. After hours of negotiation, Soto released his son and then turned the gun on himself, police said.

“Why did he kill my mom?” Melendez said.

Cesar is back at home with his sister, who wondered if she would ever see him again.

“Yes, I was worried,” Melendez said.

Now she’s focused on staying strong for her 5-year-old brother. “My mom said when she died she didn’t want me to cry, so I don’t want to cry,” Melendez said.

While mourning the loss of both their parents, Soto’s children are now living with other family members.

Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/28974161/detai ... z1WrpuZHlk

[keaggy220]

The smoking analogy doesn't hold up because it's not a Constitutional right and smoking doesn't have a consistent record of saving innocent lives.

Smoking would have been a constitutional right if the British had ever tried to deprive the colonies of the use of tobacco. The entire Bill of Rights is a reaction to a perceived previous deprivation of rights, and while it often gets the job done rather well, it is also an artifact of its time.

I already made my point that smoking has a "record" of providing benefits. Sigmund Freud, who died of mouth cancer after decades of smoking as many as 30 cigars a day, once spoke of how he could not work without "the sweet kiss of tobacco." Bach, as I recently mentioned in another post, wrote a (very bad) poem to its virtues. There is a "consistent record" of the alleged benefits of smoking, which in my opinion is pure baloney, as are claims that the very occasional justified private shooting of a deadly dangerous person constitutes justification for everybody being able to own as much of any kind of gun as he wants.

There you go again with the generic "very occasional justified private shooting" without any stats to back this up. You can't make this argument because you have a gut feeling that it's true. This is a Constitutional right that you want to amend. Gut feeling is not cutting it... Where are the stats? I want to see number of guns, number of gun related homicides and number of lives saved due to gun ownership.

And I'm sorry the pleasure of tobacco is not equal to saving an innocent human life with a well aimed shot to the chest of a would be assailant.

As you doubtless know full well, that stats were being gathered in the last years of the Clinton Administration as a result of a CDC decision to begin collecting them under the well-founded justification that they were a public health problem. But the firearms industry and their toadies in Congress didn't want people to know the facts, or anyone to be gathering them, so the first thing the Cheney Administration did when it took power in 2001 was to prohibit the CDC from doing so. Put the horse blinders on the American people and we won't notice that 12,000 people are being killed by firearms per year, while Italy, for example, despite the Mafia and widespread lawlessness of various kinds, only had 51 murders in 2010 (out of 60 million people in a county the size of Florida), 31 of them with firearms.

Certainly the simpleton view is to ignore the vast differences between Italy and the United States and focus on a gun.

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. The U.S. Justice Department puts this number at 500,000 per year so it's probably somewhere in between.

Crime in Italy is out of control - much worse than the United States - so many law-abiding citizens helplessly assaulted because of gun control - along with many other enlightened European nations.

Crime Statistics > Total crime victims (most recent) by country

• Rank Countries Amount
  # 1 Australia: 30.1%
  # 2 New Zealand: 29.4%
  # 3 United Kingdom: 26.4%
  # 4 Netherlands: 25.2%
  # 5 Sweden: 24.7%
  # 6 Italy: 24.6%
  # 7 Canada: 23.8%
  # 8 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 23.2%
  # 9 Malta: 23.1%
  # 10 Denmark: 23%
  # 11 Poland: 22.7%
  = 12 France: 21.4%
  = 12 Belgium: 21.4%
  # 14 Slovenia: 21.2%
  # 15 United States: 21.1%
  # 16 Finland: 19.1%
  # 17 Austria: 18.8%
  # 18 Switzerland: 18.2%
  # 19 Portugal: 15.5%
  # 20 Japan: 15.2%
  Weighted average: 22.4%

SOURCE: UNICRI (United Nations Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute). 2002. Correspondence on data on crime victims. March. Turin via NationMaster
http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph/c ... rintable=1

Here's an article on Kennesaw, GA where law-abiding households are required by law to own firearms. Their crime rate is half of the US crime rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_ ... statistics

[keaggy220]

Here's another story about the kind of behavior your position encourages in unstable people. Hope the patriotic sacrifice of an 11 year old girl who is now orphaned because of a father who killed himself after killing her mother makes every loyal American giddy with joyous pride about our glorious national heritage. I guess I'm not loyal, though. It makes me ashamed of my country. RebLem

Girl, 11, Shares Tragic Story After Dad Shoots Mom, Himself

KOAT-TV, Albuquerque's ABC affiliate | POSTED: 8:48 am MDT August 25, 2011 | UPDATED: 9:04 am MDT August 25, 2011

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- An 11-year-old shares her story only days after police said her father killed her mother, took her brother from the crime scene, sparked a manhunt and then killed himself.

Tuesday morning’s crime scene along Airport Road in Santa Fe is something Joceline Melendez, 11, was right in the middle of.

“I just heard the shots and I got up. It was like a balloon popped,” Melendez said.

Those gunshots woke her up. Joceline’s father, Jose Soto, is the one who opened fire on her mother, according to police.

“When I got into the kitchen, I saw my mom dead,” Melendez said. Her father fled the home with a rifle and her 5-year-old brother.

“My little brother Cesar was running towards him and was saying, ‘Papi’ so he could go with him. So they just left,” Melendez said.

Those actions sparked a 24-hour manhunt until authorities caught up with Soto in the Bermuda Area. After hours of negotiation, Soto released his son and then turned the gun on himself, police said.

“Why did he kill my mom?” Melendez said.

Cesar is back at home with his sister, who wondered if she would ever see him again.

“Yes, I was worried,” Melendez said.

Now she’s focused on staying strong for her 5-year-old brother. “My mom said when she died she didn’t want me to cry, so I don’t want to cry,” Melendez said.

While mourning the loss of both their parents, Soto’s children are now living with other family members.

Read more: http://www.koat.com/news/28974161/detai ... z1WrpuZHlk

Here's many stories (and I've got a BUNCH more) in your home state about the kind of behavior my position encourages in stable people.

KRQE, Roswell, N.M. 05/16/11
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 5/18/2011
For the second time in less than a month, a burglar waited until Maryanne Stark left for work, and then attempted to break into her Roswell, N.M. home. This time a neighbor witnessed the break-in, called police and retrieved a gun. The neighbor fired at the criminal, who fled the scene in a vehicle and in his haste lost a bumper after hitting a curb. Stark was appreciative of her neighbor’s actions and vowed to arm herself, stating, “I’m going to get me a gun… I’m going to shoot if I have to, and I will shoot.” Police have made it clear that the neighbor will not face charges.

The Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, N.M. 01/25/11
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 1/28/2011
Former Marine Joe McNeil was at home in Espanola, N.M. when a burglar broke into the home through a window. Hearing the intrusion, McNeil retrieved a shotgun and confronted the criminal, ordering him to “get on the ground.” The intruder refused and instead tried to wrest the shotgun away from McNeil. McNeil retained possession of the shotgun and the intruder attempted to flee, but was unable to get through a locked door. The intruder was again ordered onto the ground and refused, at which point McNeil fired, striking the criminal twice in the legs, ending the incident. Espanola Police Lt. Christian Lopez does not expect McNeil will faces charges.

KRQE, Albuquerque, N.M. 08/12/10
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 8/16/2010
Eleven-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez was at home alone in Albuquerque, N.M., when three robbers, one armed with a rifle, broke in through a back door. Gutierrez tried to hide, but when the robbers spotted her she ran to her mother’s room and retrieved a rifle; she later told the local media, “I was planning, if they came right next to me, I would shoot them.” The robbers fled and after a quick check of the house armed with the rifle Gutierrez called 911. Police caught up with the criminals after they jumped a nearby fence.

KOAT, Albuquerque, N.M. 02/12/10, KRQE, Albuquerque, N.M. 02/15/10
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 2/17/2010
A woman homeowner in Albuquerque, N.M. called 9-1-1 to report two men attempting to break into her home. As she was still on the phone, the two men, 19-year-old Frank Castillo and 20-year-old Manuel Leo, made it inside the house. Before the pair could attack her or take anything, the homeowner fired a gun at the criminals, striking Castillo in the head and causing Leo to flee. Police discovered Castillo on the homeowner’s front lawn; he was then taken to a local hospital. Through the course of the investigation, police learned that Castillo had previously been convicted of robbery and aggravated battery; police also noted that Leo is a person of interest in two other burglaries.

The Las Cruces Sun-News, Las Cruces, N.M. 12/27/09, The Associated Press, Las Cruces, N.M. 12/28/09
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 12/31/2009
Around 8 a.m., a resident of Las Cruces, N.M. awoke to the sound of two criminals breaking into his apartment. The resident armed himself with a handgun and as the criminals entered his bedroom, he fired at the intruders, killing one and causing the other to flee. The police have not filed any charges against the resident, but they did capture and charge the surviving burglar and an accomplice.

Clovis News Journal, Clovis, NM, 02/06/09
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 6/1/2009
Sarah Nahmens and her mother often discuss personal safety and keep a .32-caliber revolver in their home. "We've always talked about defending yourself and how important that is," Nahmens said. Police say her planning paid off when two men began forcing her door open. Nahmens quickly retrieved her gun and pointed it at the door as it flew open. "It kind of kicked in and I thought, 'OK, I've got to make sure that I'm safe' ... It was either going to be me or them and it couldn't be me," she explained. Nahmens fired two shots and the uninjured suspects fled. "I commend her for protecting herself," said police Capt. Patrick Whitney. Nahmens said the incident has raised awareness in her normally quiet neighborhood. Several women have expressed interest in a "girls day" at the shooting range to practice and learn more about firearms.

The Associated Press (NM), 8/10/07
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2007
Having had his home burglarized three times in a week, 85-year-old Alton Tillman was tired of being victimized. So, the next morning he left home at his normal time, but quietly returned. Once inside, he found signs of a burglary in progress. Even more disturbing, according to police, two feet were sticking out from below his bed. Tillman ordered the intruder to come out and called 9-1-1. He kept a handgun trained on the burglar until police arrived. Several of Tillman's missing items were found at the suspect's home a block away.

Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, NM, 08/27/05
State: nm
American Rifleman Issue: 11/1/2005
A Wal-Mart customer with a concealed-carry permit came to a female employee's rescue when violence erupted in a crowded store early one evening. Police say an employee was working in the deli when her ex-husband leapt across the counter and began stabbing her multiple times. That's when 72-year-old Due Moore intervened, shooting and killing the ex-husband. The woman was taken to the hospital where she was expected to recover from her wounds.

The Daily Times, Rio Rancho, NM 10/13/04
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 1/1/2005
When you are a judge, angry defendants come with the territory, but Judge Calvin Shields never expected he could lose his life over it. Shields was letting his dogs out late one evening when he saw a man looking into his house. He grabbed his gun and went outside to trigger the motion detector light. At that moment, Michael Tinervia opened fire on Shields who returned fire, fatally wounding Tinervia. Shields was only grazed in the knee. It was later discovered that Tinervia had been found guilty of reckless driving and interfering with a police officer in Shields' court and was awaiting sentencing by Shields. According to Shields' wife, Tinervia had called the house at 6:30 p.m. that night and asked for Calvin. When the judge answered, there was no one on the line. "It was to check if Calvin was home," she said, adding, "I had a bad feeling about it."

Santa Fe New Mexican, Santa Fe, N.M., 10/11/04
State: NM
American Rifleman Issue: 10/1/2004
When a Rio Rancho, N.M., homeowner spotted a prowler outside his home, he got a gun and went to investigate. He followed the intruder to the back yard, where the man fired a gun at him. The homeowner returned fire, killing the assailant.

[lennygoran]

(Take it up with the Supreme Court - good luck with that.)

Hey my nj man alioto! Still does the supreme court create amendments-I thought states voted or thru Congress? Len