20 elementary school children plus 6 adults shot dead by a guy with a gun

If you are set on saving peoples lives there are numerous areas in our society that could use some work that kill many more people per year than guns. Alcohol kills 2x as many people as guns. Does anyone need alcohol? Libs love to ask why we need things. Why do you need 30 rounds? Why do you need a semi-automatic? Well, why does anyone need to buy more than 20 oz of alcohol per day? Why should people who have previous DUI's be able to buy alcohol and go kill more people? Why don't we have an alcohol background check system in place? Don't even get me started on texting and driving. Speeding. Sports accidents. Etc. Do we really need any of these things? Since you live in a fantasy land where laws will make all our pain go away, lets outlaw anything related to deaths or murders.

Oh, but wait, you don't give a crap about any of those subjects because they don't involve a gun. You probably drink alcohol like many of us. You wouldn't want to infringe on your own rights and freedoms. But guns, oh boy those things are just terrible. They look bad, they must be bad. You don't own one so why should anyone else need one?

Joe Biden said it best himself. He said recently that the assault weapons ban would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting. That proves that the only, and I mean THE ONLY reason for this recent anti-gun nonsense, is because liberals are jumping all over this tragic shooting to advance their agenda. It's political exploitation in it's nastiest form. Use the deaths of innocent children by an insane person to cause anger, fear, and emotional reactions to get your progressive gun bans passed.

If that isn't desperation I don't know what is. And it's extremely pathetic.

 

Thank you Earl for keeping the numbers coming. We all need to know these numbers, we need to know the why we need to allow law abiding citizens to own guns for protection. There are way too many people shot by idiots and criminals and someone needs to be able to shoot back or scare them away.

 

r3dt@rget, NAILED IT.

The Liberals and Obama do not give a f*ck about saving lives.. They are just interested in gaining more power. Once they ban 1 thing, they'll move on to the next.

Would they still think guns are terrible if one of their ARMED BODYGUARDS had to save their lives using one? Would their viewpoint still be the same?

 

Earl, look - if this thread has proven anything, it's that these numbers deserve an analysis. Like Piers Morgan, you have a disturbingly shallow understanding of these things. I think we discussed the validity of the 1475 number in a very fair way. For example, I told you that when I looked at the cites of that 1475 number I found inconsistencies. You responded by telling me to look at the cites????????

And you demand from others things you will not do yourself. Is it realistic for you to expect and demand that I examine every single reported death, when you yourself won't even looks at a few? Earl, it's clear that you have no interest in "fair".

Earl, your priorities are clear - you HATE anyone that disagrees with you and in your hatred will demonize and denigrate them as non-humans. I'm sorry, but as a core belief I do not get my politics from people that hate. For you, the tragedy at Newtown is all about YOURSELF - and that makes you cold and scary.

 

Corwin: When you questioned the accuracy of the Slate article : Here is what I wrote

that doesn't say go to the cities. It cites that each reported shooting death is backed by local news. Do you think a Long Island newspaper is going to be full of shooting deaths in Texas, Louisiana, or Pennsylvania.

You have a hard time understanding English.

Now if you go to the Slate article today: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

It showed 1501 shootings since 12/14 Newtown. The number grows every day. All types of shooting deaths; suicides, little kids dying, mistakes, violent crimes, rural and urban areas, young and old.

1501 shooting deaths in the US since the NewTown tragedy.

Since 2001 a little more than 2000 Americans have died in Afghanistan. That is over 10 years of war.

The military protects its soldiers more than America protects its citizens from shooting deaths.

(The US spent almost $48 billion to build MRAP's, the vehicles with bulging rounded bottoms to protect soldiers from IED's. $48 billion. That is the kind of money tea party extremists scream about, or alternatively GOP members of Congress would rather not send to NJ, NY, and CT to help Americans recover from Hurricane Sandy.

The $48 billion saved soldiers lives. It really didn't get a lot of controversial notice. In fact Bush and Rumsfeld were slow to get the research and development started when it became obvious Humvees weren't protecting US soldiers from IED's. It actually took earmarks from both GOP and Dem members of Congress to get research started on those vehicles. Then Gates really expedited the development of those vehicles. That is ironic....earmarks had a positive impact: They saved lives....but that is a different story.)

Current opposition to any kind of effort to limit the mass killings of Americans by guns is extreme.

You can't push better checks on people buying guns.

You can't sue gun manufacturers. Why is that? You can sue auto manufacturers, pen manufacturers, doctors, lawyers, hospitals, waiters, and TV personalities.

Why can't you sue gun manufacturers?

In Florida the governor is trying to get a court ruling overturned which declared that a law that made it illegal for pediatricians/docs to speak to parents about the dangers of guns in the household, was unconstitutional because it violated freedom of speech.

What defenders of guns have greased the palms of the GOP governor of Florida so that he is more favorable to gun manufacturers than little kids?

People who care about themselves, their families, their neighbors, little kids, should be looking at ways to cut down on gun violence rather than ranting about Piers Morgan.

 

Earl, I had questioned the methodology of the Slate article. I understand that there are supposed to be cites, links to each death. You had written "Go to EVERY SINGLE REPORTED DEATH", which I think we both agree is impractical. I write here for recreation, to express myself, and to improve my writing skills. Spending a few days tracking each cite is impractical. Especially since I'm extremely busy right now (thank God).

But your implication is that each gun death can be prevented. I disagree, and I pointed out that many of the cites I looked at in NY and LA were from gang violence. Guns laws don't affect them.

I'm in favor of a practical solution, but when you start getting emotional and blaming "tea party extremists" there's no talking to you. What separates us is that you have the extremist attitude of "one party bad, other party good". I see little difference between the parties, I only see differences in WHAT THEY SAY.

You want to make this political? This is the political reality: Any politician, Republican or Democrat, from the south or the midwest risks re-election by banning any guns. The Democrats attitude towards banning guns is like the Republicans attitude to cutting spending: neither want to do it but they publicly need to appear to be for it. For banning guns the mouthpiece s Diane Feinstein. She's a multi-millionaire Democrat from California so it's safe for her to oppose. But I don't think anything will be done.

Truth is, when it comes to understanding politicians I don't give a flying farthing what they say, I care about what they accomplish, because it's common for a politician to be publicly against something that in reality they don't want to do. I don't accept plausible excuses for failure. I don't accept "I couldn't get this done because the other party blah blah blah extremists blah blah". I have no patience for excuses - in the public sector, this is called Failure.

And the legal reality is this: trying to ban the sale of any guns is a violation of the 2nd Amendment. We can argue, but the Supreme Court is consistent on this. I agree that the wording of the 2nd Amendment is too broad - but unless you want to push a movement to modify the U.S. Constitution, we are just passing time on an internet forum.

 

That number seems slightly wrong, since actual data from the US government averages about 12-13k gun deaths per year. This number has moved down since the 1990's, along with a dramatic drop in violent crime overall. [/quote]

"The military protects its soldiers more than America protects its citizens from shooting deaths."

Earl, you FINALLY get it!!! What is the one thing every solider is carrying around? The military is not protecting these soldiers, it is their guns! Now apply this to US citizens. Those who have guns can protect themselves from the bad guys. If more good guys were armed, less good guys would be dead.

Reference my other post. I can name off many causes of senseless death that kill more people than guns every year in our society. Obesity, alcohol, texting and driving, etc. NOT ONE of these things is on your radar for more government control and regulation. Like I said before, guns are the topic of the day for liberals. They are all jumping on the Sandy Hook tragedy and exploiting those poor children for their own political agenda.

And yes, gun violence is a HUGE issue and needs addressing. The problem is not the guns. It is a required consequence that less guns will equal less gun violence. It's the same as saying allowing less people to drive will result in less car accidents. However, the underlying problem is not the gun. The gun is simply a tool that these cowards use to express their problems with. If you want to solve the problem, solve the source of violent gun crime. THE MAJORITY of gun crime is in the cities. In the ghetto's, projects, etc. Mainly poor people who find crime is the only way of life. Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet one of the highest murder rates. Why is that? Why is it that here in rural Missouri you have guns EVERYWHERE yet murders are extremely rare? It is because of the concentration of poverty in inner cities. Solve the problem of inner city poverty and you will solve a majority of gun crime. Instead of focusing on the real problem, all the liberals are looking for a scapegoat. The real problems take real solutions and no one in Washington or local governments is prepared to talk about them.

 

Look, R2D2: obviously you don't read, haven't gone back through this thread, and clearly have little depth:

Rob brought up alcohol related deaths earlier In post 118 I gave him stats: In a 20 year period drunk driving deaths have basically halved from about 21,000/year to about 10,000. Its a result of different forms of regulations and controls established over a 20 year period. There has been a long reasonable decline in drunk driving deaths. Its been steady, continuous, and it hasn't spiked up. The efforts to limit death by drunk driving have worked.

In establishing those regulations and controls, state by state, bit by bit over a long period there has been significant progress. Now cars aren't born killers, and neither are bottles of rum or beer. Regardless concerted efforts over a long period of time that focus on the people who are drinking, the cars they drive have cut the drunk driving death totals by 50%.

Its called progress. I know tea partiers hate the word progress. It involves thinking. Of course it never works with extremists.

 

From http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf
Alcohol induced deaths 2010: 25,692
Drug induced deaths 2010: 40,393

Regardless of the "progress" that we have made, more people die every year due to alcohol related causes than due to shootings. Drug's are even more deadly. These problems alone kill 5x more people than guns per year. The liberals better start "thinking" of a solution to the drugs. Make them illegal! Wait a second, why didn't our law take care of the problem? Because the underlying problem still exists.

Progress to liberals means a bunch of elitists sitting around thinking of ways they can solve societies problems because they know whats best for the rest of the country. They "think" too much, get a bill passed, and then celebrate passing a bill as the achievement. Passing a bill through Congress or saying you have the solution is the easy part. The part that liberals never comprehend is the result. Of the 1994 assault weapons ban, the FBI concluded a study that it said did not reduce the amount of deaths per shooting, nor did it effect gun violence in any measurable way.

Ok. So why can't we let the states decide the laws? Why does the entire federal government need to make one law that fits all states? If New York wants an assault weapons ban (they have one already) then that is fine. If Connecticut wants one (which they had at the time of the shooting) then fine. I am a big fan of local government because the smaller levels you get, the better the policies reflect the needs of the population. Missouri, and its citizens, do not want an assault weapons ban. Many many other states and their citizens do not want a ban. Let the states do their own thing, as their own citizens want.

And remember, if you take the gun away from a homicidal person, they are still a homicidal person. The gun doesn't instill anger and violence in a person. If you lived in rural America you would see that guns are a way of life. I was shooting before 10 years old. Kids would bring their hunting rifles to school in their trucks and then go hunt after school. No big deal. The difference between rural America and Chicago is the people, parenting, quality of life, etc. The anger these killers have will still be there without the guns. They will just use different tools if you take their guns away. The only people you have changed are the innocent ones, who can no longer protect themselves from the crazy people.

 

Since you don't get the videos, do these pictures help?

 

I'd say he's done by the end of this year, but it is CNN.

 

At some point, ratings have to come into play. It may be a left wing propaganda outfit, but it is still an enterprise that needs to turn a profit for it's investors. The trouble for CNN is that, as they dabble more and more into overtly left wing partisan commentary channel posing as a legitimate news channel, they will find themselves competing directly with MSNBC. One of the two's ratings are going to suffer.


Did you catch CNN's front page defense of Sen. Menendez? On the one hand, you have a myriad of child prostitutes in the Dominican Republic that claim to have been at sex parties attended by Sen. Menendez, some of whom claimed to have had sex with Sen. Menendez as he "prefers them young". These claims are legitimate enough to have the Soros funded C.R.E.W. organization take them seriously and press for a Senatorial ethics investigation.

On the other hand, you have Menedez, saying he isn't guilty, and that his failure to pay for $58,000 worth of private jet flights to the very same Dominican Republic was simply a financial oversight.

ABC ran a 6 minute interview with Menedez in the wake of this scandal without asking him a single question about it. CNN went one small step further and gave Menendez air time to say he wasn't guilty, without even presenting the evidence behind the allegations. Failure to cite the evidence didn't stop CNN from attempting to discredit one of the named child prostitutes by noting that Univision had aired an interview with a person of the same name in the Dominican Republic who claimed never to have been a prostitute, an interview both C.R.E.W. and the Miami Herald found to be incredulous.

They are a joke of a news organization. When the Daily Mail and the Inquirer are delivering harder hitting news, you know your days are numbered as a news organization. It is a bigger fail than either Piers' campaign against the second amendment, or Candy Crowley's injection of partisan non-facts into a presidential debate.

 

Not necessarily. MSNBC had Dylan Ratigan who did some hard-hitting exposes on how campaign money is corrupting all of Washington. He got attention, and his ratings were good - his show was the highest-rated, non-prime time show on MSNBC and he started grabbing viewers from CNN and Fox.

But as he developed an audience and a following, the network's profit took a back seat to MSNBC's narrative and Ratigan was forced out.

 

You could be right. He also sits in Larry King's seat, a lefty to be sure, but not a foreign born provocateur lunatic. Something else to consider, CNN's ratings on the whole have been suffering, as it does a poor job of trying to be the "unbiased" network while actually leaning left. MSNBC's ratings jumped when they let Olbermann off his chain. Perhaps CNN has given up the ghost and has fully embraced the partisan news entertainment paradigm.

 

Tougher gun laws. Noone's talking about banning guns altogether and good people will always be able to get them (though probably not a machine gun any more).

When a criminal is found with an 'illegal' gun the gun is taken away, forever. It's out of circulation, forever. Often the crim is jailed. In a few years of doing this there are less illegal guns out there and criminals find it harder to get them. The more that criminals use them, the more chance they'll get caught.

Sure you may have half of America burying their guns to make sure the government doesn't get them but that's fine too. They're fine whilst buried, they're likely to stay there without causing any undue harm at all. If you take it out of the ground to use it there's a good chance you'll be caught and jailed.

Every time a criminal brings out a gun both the gun and criminal are off the street, the illegal gun forever.

 

Brilliant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Bush, there are so many problems with your post I don't know where to start.


First, automatic weapons are illegal right now, so no new laws required.

Second, of course they are talking about banning guns altogether. It is simply not politically correct to say that you are talking about banning guns altogether in the US at a national level yet, so all new gun laws are prefaced with the disclaimer you just mentioned. You simply apply successively restrictive gun laws until they are banned altogether because they are so difficult to obtain and then ban them altogether, like the UK. The right to own guns is written into our constitution, so idiots like Andrew Cuomo circumvent the constitution by making it illegal to own a gun that takes more than 7 bullets, which is pretty much every gun.

Third, people who buy guns legally don't bury them for fear of government oppression. They kept nearby, fired and cleaned regularly to ensure both the gun and owner are in good working condition. In some states, long guns are carried in the gun rack which stretches across the back window of the pickup truck. Of course states with a heavy Democrat population are usually crime ridden so such gun racks are made illegal because the Democrat criminals tend to steal the guns out of the vehicles.

Fourth, as I mentioned, most criminals are Democrats. They tend to live and dwell in states with very strict gun laws, where owning, obtaining, and transporting a firearm is much more difficult. These states with strong gun laws where people are made into criminals for exercising their 2nd amendment rights also tend to have the highest rates of gun violence. Its like a play ground for real criminals who really could give a crap about gun laws to take advantage of law abiding citizens who don't want to be declared criminals by the state for the fact they own a gun.

 

Bush, while your intentions with tougher gun laws are honest, I'm afraid lawmakers have much more severe plans. Yes, a ban on semi-automatic weapons is not a complete ban of guns. But if we start to let the government tell us what we can and can't have, where does it end? My example is New York state. They have already had bans on magazines over 10 rounds and assault weapons. In response to the recent mass shootings they passed even tougher gun control laws. Now the law bans ever more weapons that they say are "assault" weapons, and magazines are restricted to 7 rounds. Now, do you really think that 3 less rounds and banning a few more guns is really designed to do anything? It is just another step closer to banning all guns. You can't just ban guns all at once and get away with it. They will continue to eat at our current rights bit by bit until eventually any firearm will be under attack.

The problem with the recent attacks on guns is that the intentions are not good to begin with. All these politicians claim they will do anything to save even one life. That is not true at all. They are using the recent tragedies that are still fresh in our minds to create an emotional reaction to advance their agenda. They are launching an attack on guns, not the crimes committed with them. That is the fundamental problem with anti-gun folks. They look past the criminal, the crime, the planning, the mentally unstable individual that was sick enough to murder 20 children. They only see the inanimate object. They only care about getting rid of guns because they are guns. Like I have said before, if they cared so much about saving lives all of a sudden they would look at more than just gun violence. More children were killed by drunk drivers last year than in mass shootings.

 

And therein lies the problem. New York City used to have a ban on machine guns, which later turned into a ban on handguns, which turned into a total ban on all guns in NYC.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that DC's and New York's ban on guns, including machine guns, was unconstitutional. The laws were overturned and wiped off the books. It became legal to own guns on NYC again. Guess what? The crime rates in NYC and DC went down.

So what was New York's response? Use the Constitution for toilet paper and do it all over again.First ban machine guns. etc. etc. These new NY laws will stay on the books until someone brings it to the Supreme Court again.

It's funny how liberals like to manipulate people by changing words around "Machine guns" are now "assault weapons".

 

It's crazy that this is true..

Have you read the ex-LAPD lunatic's manifesto? Praising those on the left....




lol....

 

Wow ---

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/alice-boland-school_n_2632369.html