As you know, we had one assault weapons ban (1994 – 2004). What good did this ban do? During this first assault weapons ban we experienced the most horrific school shooting in our nation’s history — the Columbine Massacre.
We all know about the graphic disconnect between gun violence and locations of highly restrictive gun laws, such as Chicago, New York City, Mexico, Jamaica, etc.
The American people fully understand that our nation’s most recent gun violence is not caused by Americans who have access to deadly weapons, but rather is a form of terrorism carried out by those hell bent down an agenda of terrorism.
This is a form of terrorism can only be eliminated by meeting force with force. For the love of our children, we need an armed first responder stationed in every school until we eliminate this form of terrorism. Also join me in boycotting Hollywood until movies stop this active promotion of a culture of violence. Finally let us come together and pray to God that our nation can be protected from every form of terrorism, that we shall not compromise our American ideals of constitutionally protected freedoms, that we shall continue to show the world that we American’s are still a fearless free people.
Timothy Sullivan
Gilbert
Slabside posted at 10:53 am on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Very good letter Tim. Unfortunately the liberal hoplophobe agenda is not aimed at protecting Americans. It is geared to disarm honest law abiding citizens so a corrupt government can impose any law it wants on a defenseless population. Hitler, Stalin and Mao all understood this.
truth posted at 3:17 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Slab, again you make a lot of claims, now tell us where you found your facts start with liberal hoplophobe agenda the rest is history we all know about. What did you say you were a GDI, yes you are by my definition of a GDI.
Rich posted at 3:35 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Not really reacting to you Tim, but rather a headline that doesn't represent what you said. Banning assault rifles will definitely impact gun violence, just as the 1934 submachine gun ban did. It will consolidate them in the very hands they need to be kept out of. There was a reason the preferred weapon of gangsters was the 'Chicago typewriter' it was illegal and the government had lost all control of it. You can't trace an illegal weapon, it has left the system entirely. You can't run background checks on people who buy them illegally, the government doesn't monitor the sale.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:00 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
If more guns make us safer, why aren't we the safest country in the world? Why instead do we have the highest rate of murder by gun than any other developed country in the world?
If they make us safer, shouldn't we have th lowest murder by gun in the world? After all, we have the most privately-owned guns in the world.
onerebel posted at 8:00 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
The Liberal belief that criminals will obey gun laws is delusional. All one has to do is look across the border to see how well gun control is working in Mexico. If simply making a law is all it takes let's just make murder, drugs and speeding against the law and that will solve those problems. An interesting fact that people do not want to face when in comes to world wide homicides is African countries have the highest rates and If you excluded minorities, the United States would have one of the lower homicide rates. So the argument that guns are the problem does not add up!
Rich posted at 8:12 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Here we go again, McClellan do you have to keep dragging high school into these forums. Last time you agreed with the editorial, and it took me ten posts to get you to admit it, and even then you couldn't be a gentleman about it. A) What is a developed country? in the Western Hemisphere only three countries are less violent, judged by population density, we are the least violent. It is easy to throw out so-called facts when you qualify them to your definition of 'developed country'. I qualify it by population density and you're wrong. B) Guns are irrelevant to the questions raised. They have nothing to do with safety against a mentally ill person, nothing to do with safety at all really. If you want to control them, educate as many people as you can about them. Which you oppose. C) You really can't ban weapons, Caesar died inside Pomerium where weapons were forbidden. No government, anywhere at any time has ever been that powerful, and you have a limited government. Where is your common sense? Mike, so much of liberalism is a nice idea. I think it would be wonderful if government could do what the Liberals want, but a whole lot of living in several countries, still being in contact there, and watching American politics, is that the fault isn't in your politics, but in yourself. You don't want to go to school, as a teacher, armed to protect your students, so you let the government create a killing field for your students. It isn't your job. When we begin to start to taking the responsibility ourselves, then maybe, after a century or so we can relax. I'm a child of the sixties, a hippy who took to the streets. I thought Kennedy could save us all. The government took major offense and tried to kill me off in an immoral war. The safety of the children in your local school is on you. And no law, no ban, no gun free zone is going to relieve that responsibility. Please stop acting like a high school student, because that's all you're doing.
Mike McClellan posted at 8:56 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Yes, here we go again. I know you like to pretend facts, but here's the link to the study of homicide by guns --
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
Here's the Forbes list for death by gun -- we're number 12 -- check who the 11 ahead of us are.
http://www.forbes.com/pictures/eglg45ehkhl/no-1-el-salvador/
Whether measuring all deaths by gun or only homicide by gun in both studies, all of the countries ahead of the US are either Third World, currently involved in some kind of civil war, or full of drug cartels.
Now, give us your pretend facts. As I remember, the last time something like this came up, you provided statistics that had nothing to do with the issue.
So, give us your pretend facts.
Rich posted at 9:31 pm on Sat, Jan 19, 2013.
Mike,
Define your terms. You're just extending what we should have past. You have a bad background in Math. What is your background in it? Death by gun! How dramatic, but most more populous countries have more. There are three classes of falsehood, lies, (things that make lakes in rivers) lies and statistics. Because you are so weak in math, I can present an anecdote to all you do, you obviously don't understand what you presenting. There is no presenting of any 'facts.' There is one fact. You were a teacher. Where you prepared to protect your students? Or not? Do you deny the fact? If a man came into your classroom with an assault weapon, could you have saved your kids? The point is, that until you are ready to say 'yes' to that, we aren't ready to start limiting weapons.
Mike McClellan posted at 5:11 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Still waiting for your pretend facts to appear, Rich . . .
Leon Ceniceros posted at 7:32 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
There are hundreds of thousands of assault rifles legally owned by American Citizens.
If assault rifles are the "cause" for these shootings then why haven't there been hundreds of thousands of these shootings instead of the small number that have taken place in the last 20 years ???
Assault rifles have a safety latch built into the action. Assault rifles do not discharge by themselves. Assault rifles are in-animate....they don't point themselves at people...........Crazy People Do.
Put The Crazies Away and You Will Not Have any of these Tragedies. If you have a "Cancer" that can't be cured by medication..........then there is only one other solution = Surgery.
Just ask your Doctor if you don't believe me.......
America It's Time To Cut Out The Cancer.
Rich posted at 8:42 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
"There is one fact. You were a teacher. Were you prepared to protect your students? Or not? Do you deny the fact? If a man came into your classroom with an assault weapon, could you have saved your kids? The point is, that until you are ready to say 'yes' to that, we aren't ready to start limiting weapons."
Pretend fact Mike? As to your stats, if you understood statistics a bit better they might mean something. As it is they are just a species of the cherry picking you always do to make points. Like the last time, you are just blowing smoke and acting out some juvenile fantasy. And like the last time you don't even know what you're espousing until it's pointed out to you. If what you say is true, even after a decade of banning assault rifles in the middle of it, it's an argument to arm, not disarm the average man.
downtownresident posted at 9:41 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
"Assault" weapons are not the problem. Nobody even uses the term correctly.
Anything with a pistol grip is an "assault" weapon to the ignorant. There is an over abundance of ignorance here and in the general public.
No sane person would ever consider killing another human being.
Slabside, I'm far more in fear of people like you than I am of any firearm ever made.
I'm somewhere in the middle on this. I've got all the guns I'll ever need, so bans don't bother me.
The last thing I want to see in school is teachers packing heat.
The second worst thing would be letting Joe Arpiao have ANYTHING to do with school security.
Finally, Rich Crandall is a self serving unethical person.
Slabside posted at 10:14 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
@downtownresident, "Slabside, I'm far more in fear of people like you than I am of any firearm ever made."
resident, that is the wisest retort you have ever posted.
Mike McClellan posted at 11:47 am on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
So in other words, Rich, you can't even conjure up pretend facts.
Meanwhile, you continue to engage in the John Wayne Fantasy.
Let's take your scenario -- a shooter bursts into my room, with an assault weapon.
You ask, "Could you have save your kids?"
As much as I'd try, doubtfully. And if your John Wayne Fantasy was reality, neither could you.
Let's say you were the teacher and armed -- are you carrying it with you as you teach? Concealed? In your desk?
And the madman with the gun. Is he waiting for me to get my gun? Waiting for me to shoot first? Or is he -- like they all have so far, coming in shooting, in which case you'd probably be dead or at least wounded before you could get to your gun. If you could.
Or are you so proficient that you can reach for your gun, fire off a few rounds and kill or wounded the shooter severely enough that he can't even fire off his assault weapon? That's the John Wayne Fantasy you indulge in.
Now, maybe some other teacher comes to the room, armed, and maybe he gets the shooter, but most schools would require teachers to stay in their classrooms to care for their kids. So now, the shooter has his weapons -- and yours.
No, your Fantasy is as fantastic as your imaginary facts.
sockratties posted at 12:29 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
I agree, an assault weapons ban by itself will not work. But gun registration along with a selective ban and enforcement would.
If guns were registered and a data base was administered, law enforcement would be able to confiscate guns without serial numbers, stolen weapons or prohibited weapons. Anyone who can legally have a gun would have no problem but gangbangers with stolen guns or guns with serial numbers that aren't in the data base would eventully make illegal possession extremely expensive.
Registered guns should be the responsibility of registered owners so if they are used in a crime the owner shares responsibility unless it has been reported stolen or sold. Just like a car. Someone should be responsible for every gun out there. This concept does not infringe on anyone's right to have guns.
Dale Whiting posted at 4:22 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
If possession of that AR 15 in Newtown CN had been prohibited such that it could not be used to murder it's owner and 26 others, then used as an instrument of suicide, perhaps Newtown CN would have gone unnoticed.
The problem is not that we own too many firearms and too many extended capacity magazines, that too many guns are sold without background checks, that too many guns are owned and used illegally, and that better laws and law enforcment would solve our problem. Our problem is us, ourselves. We have met the enemy and they are us.
It's it high time that we learned from Isaiah 2:5 to turn away from instruments of violence and towards instruments of peace, both here and abroad? Aren't His Ways supposed to be better than our ways? Or are we just faking a devotion to a Higher Authority?
Rich posted at 9:25 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
So because it's hard and the odds are against you, you don't try? It's about responsibility Mike, not about your fractured concepts that a government can do something about it, when all they can do is counter productive. All your little cherry picked facts, if nothing else, prove the government is incapable of handling the problem. And since you decline the responsibility, because it's too hard, because it's a John Wayne fantasy, we're supposed to deter those who do take responsibility to make you feel better about yourself?
Abstract01 posted at 11:28 pm on Sun, Jan 20, 2013.
Guns do not make us safe, the possession and proper use of them enables us to protect ourselves and property from criminal trespass.
Owning firearms enables us to defend our communities against government aggression (should that ever happen) and anarchy (a state of no societal law enforcement authority).
Mike McClellan posted at 6:00 am on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
Two final points about your screed here, Rich:
A. You never proved your claim, in fact never even tried to prove it, even with "little cherry picked [sic] facts."
B. Ironically, your first line in your last post is the one used by many advocating new regulations
Rich posted at 7:11 pm on Mon, Jan 21, 2013.
A) What claim Mike? If anybody could prove anything at all about gun control, guns would cease to be a problem. There was a time when people believed "John Wayne fantasies" and we were all better off, we tried, we took responsibility. Now, we have you, living high off the hog after a 'career' of a part time job, telling us you want to walk away from your responsibilities. You proved everything I needed to.
B) Never said we don't have to solve the problem Mike. Assault weapons were banned, didn't help, why do it again as if it will? Banning has been tried, and it failed, doing it again is just aiding and abetting homicide. My answer, education, knowledge, competence, responsibility hasn't got a shot yet. Primarily, I assume, because people like you refuse to learn, practice and accept responsibility. If you're going to pass regulations, how about one forcing you to?
bobunf posted at 4:30 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
No country in the world has a gun ownership rate approaching that of the US. There are 40 countries with per capita GDP in excess of $20,000 per year and population in excess of 300,000. Of those, 35 countries have homicide rates less than half that of the US. The averages for countries other than the US is:
Gun ownership - one fifth the rate of the US.
Murder - one fourth the rate of the US.
Below are gun ownership and homicide rates for all 40 countries with per capita GDP in excess of $20,000 per year and population in excess of 300,000:
Guns Murders
89 50 United States
30 3 Iceland
30 5 Austria
1 5 Singapore
1 5 Japan
31 6 Norway
bobunf posted at 4:31 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
25 6 Bahrain
14 6 Slovenia
46 7 Switzerland
25 7 Oman
30 8 Germany
23 8 United Arab Emirates
19 9 Qatar
16 9 Czech Republic
12 9 Denmark
10 9 Spain
35 10 Saudi Arabia
32 10 Sweden
23 10 Greece
12 10 Italy
12 10 Malta
4 11 Netherlands
15 12 Australia
9 12 Ireland
8 12 Portugal
8 12 United Kingdom
1 13 Poland
31 14 France
23 15 New Zealand
8 15 Slovakia
36 17 Cyprus
17 17 Belgium
31 18 Canada
7 21 Israel
25 22 Kuwait
45 23 Finland
15 25 Luxembourg
1 29 South Korea
5 36 Taiwan
9 52 Estonia
Cerulean posted at 7:25 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
5 people were shot and wounded at gun shows in different states. [unsure]
bobunf posted at 9:18 am on Tue, Jan 22, 2013.
The experience of every other wealthy country in the world is that fewer guns make for fewer murders. What a surprise.
In the US, we've tried arming everyone who has any interest. The result has been five times as many murders as anywhere else. If access to guns made a society safer, we would not be more likely to get murdered in the US than in any other wealthy country.
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:57 am on Thu, Jan 24, 2013.
OK, bobunf. What about murders that don't involve weapons for all the countries you listed? Since I don't know WHERE you got your information, I naturally wonder as to its accuracy. I'm curious on how murder rates that don't involve guns would compare country to country.