what are you going when a crazed mad man breaks into your house and keeps marching upstairs towards you and your family?

Usually people who own the guns are responsible owners. It's the people who obtain guns illegally or steal them who are crazy or just unstable. Your statement that it's due to "crazy" people who own guns is just incorrect. I myself choose not to have guns in the house but I also don't think it's fair to ban all guns. I probably would support banning the gun style used at Sandy Hook but not a total ban on all guns.

There will never be a ban on guns. Crazy or not, people will always have them. Don't get your panties in a bundle michelle. If you're getting assaulted, raped, robbed, stabbed, beaten etc..... I promise not to help you with my guns.

I refuse to be a victim. I will protect myself and my family WITH A GUN if I have to. If I never have to pull it out all the better, but as I said, I refuse to be a victim.

I totally agree with you!

Keith Best -

You already are a victim... both of your own ignorance and the NRA...

Michelle -

No gun in the house? What's your address??

Hey Patriot.....Counting on the media to support your comment is like counting on a 3 month old to cook your dinner.

Absolutely Mike. Its really pointless having this debate with those who are honestly uninformed and only know the media talking points. I know like you I never leave home without it now. Its sad but that is what our world has come to.

The gov does not have to take your guns away , all they have to is ban all ammunitation sales.

I pity those who live in such fear that they need weapons to make themselves feel powerful. I have the ability to kill. I don't need a gun to do it. I have the responsibility not to kill. I believe in disabling and disarming. Don't come to my house wussy people. You could get hurt which is worse than being dead. Then you can go to jail, where they won't let you play vigilante.

Get real! Most people will NEVER be the victim of a violent crime.

Anjou-You seriously do not understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment do you? Well god forbid they try and disarm us and succeed. As China or some other foriegn power comes strolling in know the American people have been disarmed. Why do you think we have never been invaded? Anjou your an idiot!!!! Sorry for my choice of words but you seriously have NO CLUE. My guess is your not even born in this Country and quite possibly an Illegal

Anjou - let me guess... you're one of those "low information" voters, eh? Do you have a smoke detector in your house? Most people will NEVER have their house burn down.

You may be powerful able to disarm. What about those who may not be as "powerful" as you?

@Darrel- Bingo you hit the nail on the head. LOW INFORMATION VOTER who only knows biased media talking points

KHD -

You probably are not aware that more spouses are killed by their spouses, than any imaginary "crazy" man entering their home, usually with a gun purchased for PROTECTION!

I'd be interested to see most spouses are killed by their spouse with a gun. I'd agree many people are killed by their spouse and I'd also agree a gun is not uncommon but I'd like to see that statistic. Although it really doesn't mean anything since people have killed a spouse with cars, knives, strangulation, poisoning and the list goes on. If someone wants it done it will be accomplished.

@Tony-Brother I stand with you!!! TAke a peek at this and then you decide what they are really trying to do.
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

Thats why the 2nd offers us the right to carry guns against a corrupt obamament. (government)

"mein furer"???

All the nuts are not in the trees. Sad.

Hide in your basement, they're coming for you.

Hahahaha!! That was a good one Steve Ebbie! {:-D)

I think all the crazies and the nuts are all here.

What about an 11...or you have a target rifle with a hand grip or simply a thumb hole in the stock...Fact is, if this page is being monitored, and since obama just Friday signed law that says it can and should be, they may very well be on their way. But dont worry, I am prepared as always with my "assault style" pistol......at which point they will be putting me into a "tactical situation"

Tony, it always gives me a chuckle to hear people say "I am prepared". If the government wanted your guns, they'd come and get them. With their SWAT teams, flash bangs, tear gas, night vision, fully automatic rifles, sniper rifles, armored troop carriers, drones, helicopters, artillery, tanks, attack planes, aircraft carriers and nuclear weapons -- I don't think your "assault style" pistol is a big deterrent.

General, If the government started to confiscate weapons, Believe me when I say, you would have an all out war on your hands. They wouldnt stand a chance.

KHD, I see your point. If the government truly wanted to confiscate weapons, they would first announce that they were going to confiscate all weapons, then they would simultaneously send local sheriffs to the houses of gun owners and call over the megaphone, "Come out with all your weapons."

This would trigger well-trained, well-coordinated and disciplined army of gun owners to unleash their master plan (codenamed "Fantasy"). They'd communicate over the phone systems and the internet that the government forgot to shut down or monitor. They'd shoot their way through military roadblocks and barricades and link-up to seize the police stations, military bases, and communications networks; effectively rendering the government incapable of counter attack.

When it was all over, crowds of meek non-gun owners would pour into the streets and raise the victors on high.

(Full disclosure: I AM a gun owner.)

I didn't know the 2nd Amendment was about hunting ..blah blah i kill with one shot, you mean you have a sniper rifle, thats next to be banned

The "general" another idiot .. so is this working in Afganistan they banned guns there .. so Americans will kill their neighbor to take thier guns .. you should give them up just like the jews did in Germany .. Molon Labe Azzhat General

tony ... your wacked out dude

Tony & Patriot ... they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you, they're coming for you. Here they come !

Maybe what Tony means when he says he's prepared is that he put on a diaper so when they come and he shits in his pants it won't run down his leg.

AMEN Steve.

Absolutely brilliant: "no law abiding gun owner ever committed murder". Unquestionably 100% accurate.

Tell that to Jennifer Sebana's family. And that's just in the last week. If you're going to make a point, please make it truthful.

Julie I believe they mean he is no longer a law abiding gun owner because he committed murder. I believe I more than most am sensitive to that situation but in a respectful manner I believe that's what they mean.

We're all law-abiding until we commit our first crime. We're almost all of us sane until we fall prey to a mental illness. Sane, law-abiding citizens can purchase guns and then become neither sane nor law-abiding.

So how do we deal with this fact in an imperfect world?

Randy I've asked the same question and unfortunately there is no effective answer. It is perfectly legal to be crazy and live in the world. One can hear voices and see things that aren't there but until clear evidence is there somewhat is an immediate threat to themself or others the law allows them to be on their own. So do you change that law and who is the one to judge when someone is "crazy enough"? So do you take people that will probably not hurt anyone and take their freedom? Do you take away people's right to own a gun because "guns kill people"? I don't have a good answer but I think you have to lean towards not violating people's rights.

What a dillusion. Do you think the mass murderers were born as mass murderers? Until you kill someone you are law abiding. That being the case...everyone who murders someone WAS a law abiding citizen....at some point. Postal killers had not murdered other people before. Come on Bob.

Bob Meirkatze -

Every law abiding person who eventually killed someone, was once one of the great mass of law abiding citizens...

Randy1949 -

Go for it, I do believe you are on to something here; too bad it is all lost on the gun crazy crowd in the clown car...

Gee Julie tell us why your not @ the High School anymore .

YEA!! "only" 414 murders as of last week!!

Tony -

Yeah, but that is out of 4-5M people!

Karen, her HUSBAND ambushed her. She wasn't expecting that. Not a good comparison

Actually, from the published accounts, Officer Sebena WAS expecting trouble from her husband. In his own words, when she saw him, she went for her weapon.

Randy lets be reasonable. I don't believe she was expecting her husband to ambush her in the dark at 4am at the Tosa FD. That is unexpected. Lets not discuss this tragic event.

And if that's your argument, every police officer and member of the military "expects" danger so in your argument no officer or military member can ever be the victim of an ambush.

Karen -

I thnik you have more of a threat from your husband than you do from anyone else...

KHD ... like an intruder is going to wake you up and allow you the time to get your gun and shoot him.

Bucky someone forcing entry into your house and slowly walking down your unlit hallway stumbling into things or alerting you with a flashlight is not an ambush. An ambush would be them waiting for you as you step out your front door. Big difference.

Str8shooter -

You probably do not realize that a .223 bullet tumbles as it is shot and creates enough damage to cut a rabbit in half; of course, semi-automatic may be converted to full auto in a matter of minutes by just about anyone with a "kit" or a little basic knowledge of firearms.

Just trying to keep it real here...

Wilson: Where are you getting your information?
Wrong and wrong.
If you are going to keep it real, at least keep it truthful.

Craig –

I get most of my information – on firearms – from various internet sites, including Bushmaster.com and my brother who spent over 20-years in the Special Forces, he also has his own gun shop in Phoenix. He is one of the NOT CRAZY members of the NRA.

You tell me what model of semiautomatic rifle you have, let me work on for 15-minutes, and I will give you a full automatic back; incidentally, full automatic rifles are illegal for civilians in all states. Furthermore, I have used .223 ammunition and I have seen first-hand what it does.

Finally, I am not really into killing a human being over a 60” HDTV or any other personal property; this is America, where we honor and respect human life. If you enter my house and rip off my personal property, then I will call the police and let them handle that; if you come to my home and pose a legitimate threat – sort of like “legitimate rape" – to my life, I would just have to put you down.

Now that is keeping it both real and truthful…

Shooter ... A .223 bullet is almost a squirrel hunting bullet ? A .223 bullet if properly placed can kill any anything if it takes out a vital area.

Does no one read? A .223 is a "glorified" .22 which is used for squirrel hunting. A .223 travels faster but is still a very small bullet. Yes as I stated any bullet can kill. I've seen a .22 kill but a .223 is closest to a squirrel hunting bullet than all of the deer hunting rifles. As I also stated a .223 was illegal for decades to use for deer hunting while many handguns were legal because a .223 does not cause the damage that those handguns cause.

Darn auto-complete! That was supposed to read "make their own decisions as well." sorry!

Tom Bosworth -

The 2nd Amendment effectively eliminates the 1st Amendment...

John,

Your comment about "The 2nd Amendment effectively eliminates the 1st Amendment." is about the least informed comment I have ever read here. How in the world is constitutionally protected speech in the 1st Amendment at risk from the right of the people to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment? If anything the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st Amendment. Unbelievable.

Rees Roberts -

It saddens me to hear of someone with such a paucity of reading experience, either in life or on the Patch.

Those who have the guns control the behavior of all; guns are meant to either kill you or control you.

When a man confronts you with a gun, aimed at you, please tell him all about how the 2nd Amendment PROTECTS your precious rights to free speech under the 1st Amendment!

People in Egypt and Libya are being PROTECTED daily by the 2nd Amendment…

Beyond Unbelievable!

You are right Commie John .. When ONLY the government has guns there is NO 1st Amendment look at North Korea or China .. all dissidents in the Gulag .. Nice work Commie troll

Commie John ... How does your Brother stand you being an Anti-Freedom Commie ...If your tale is even true

Typical uninformed voter!! You really have no clue. Do you even know what an assualt rifle is? It is not anything we as civilians can purchase. Not unless you obtain a stamp to do so or are a class 3 dealer. An assualt rifle has the ability to be used as a single shot ie semi auto, 3 round burst or full auto. The bushmaster is a semi auto rifle single shot with each pull of the trigger. Same as a semi auto hand gun. Educate yourself before taking on the media talking points

The only "assault rifles" are carried by police or the military. Just because it looks like one, doesn't make it so..... for a true "assault rifle" is fully automatic, as in machine gun.

If you read my comment, we don't disagree about the Constitutional right to own guns. I just never had the desire to own one and never will. We just don't need ordinary citizens armed with assault rifles and with high capacity magazines in them.

@Charlie-Okay I will just purchase an auto loading 30-06. Would that be okay because it does not carry the label as an assualt rifle? Even though it functions the same. Only difference is it dont look scary.

Charlie I never said we did disagree about the 2nd amendment. What my point towards you is that guns are so often used in protection. It seems many of us in this forum have disagreed with just parts of what you said. That doesn't mean all of it.

@Str8shooter -- If someone breaks into my house armed with a knife, I have a sword (no kidding) and I know how to use it. It gives me a longer reach than any knife could. Against a gun, I'm probably toast anyway.

Although, the one thing that might make me consider buying gun for home protection would be a series of armed home invasions in my area. Even so, I doubt I'd be able to access and load a gun that was properly locked up in time during an incident like that.

Randy - the appropriate training would teach you that the person reacting will always lose to the aggressor in that situation. I have no problem if you choose not to own a gun. I don't believe it's for everyone. But I also know a sword is not an effective tool against an edged weapon even if it is longer. I also know that if I hear someone breaking into my house I will have a loaded gun in hand in seconds while a burglar is fumbling around with the door, locks, window, dark unlit hallways, etc. it comes down to having a warrior mindset when it comes to the life of oneself and family. It may not always work but I could not live with myself if I knew I could save my family and chose not to be prepared. It's a right that I have and everyone should have if they choose to exercise it.

@Str8shooter....What is the probability that you will confronted by someone breaking into your home while you are there? I suspect it isn't very high, but you have a loaded weapon ready for such an occurrence. What's more dangerous, a loaded gun ready for use or the low probability of an armed intruder?

Well armed home invasions in milw Co has been on a huge increase recently per area PDs and the news but that's not really the point. I'm confused on the question as to which one is worse? My loaded gun sitting in my house is equivalent to my car parked in my garage. It's sitting there not a harm to anyone so I dont understand the question. So I guess someone breaking in my home is worse however if I wasn't home I'd have my gun with me most likely. Now question for you..what are the chances you go to church or the spa and someone starts shooting at your family? Well it happens locally and what's worse to me is having the ability to save my family and your family but deciding not to be armed.

I have been robbed 3 times now in N. Ozaukee co. police did absolutely nothing, even after I found out who did 2 of the 3 robberies, 2 of which were at night while I was home. I also "thwarted" 2 more attempts by being awoken and "brandishing" my sidearm and they ran. The police knew every one of them but had bigger fish to fry I guess as NONE of them were prosecuted. The next time I hope all I have to do is "brandish" it, time will tell.

Lyle .. Do you have a fire extinguisher or fire detectors .. You know the chances are so very small your place will catch fire .. I wouldn't have any if i were you

And thank your lucky stars that you are protected from lawsuit if you happen to shoot someone by accident while protecting yourself or others.

Good luck twarting off the robber at your house, Charlie

What, please is 'twarting'? I never twarted anyone in my life and I never intend to.

hahahahaha, ask a teenager what twarting means.

I suppose that's one way of repelling an intruder.

Lyle you are an admitted progressive socialist, sorry those are not the principles this Country was founded upon.

The best defense against tyranny is not bearing arms, but instead voting? Remember, Adolph Hitler was elected.

@3393....Adolf Hitler was elected using false premises and fear, just like what the political right radicals adhere to. Informed voting is still the best weapon against tyranny.

@Lyle- Obama destroyed his enemy with false premises, offered free stuff to voters, he's an extreme left radical and we are in a soft tyranny. My point still stands.

Ditto my man!!! A LIBERAL CESSPOOL incapable of thinking for themselves!!!!

So a cop with a gun took care of it, correct?

@ Charlie-An off duty cop. We all know 9 out of 10 times the police are there to clean up and figure out what happened. There are numerous cases of individuals using their weaponds to stop or prevent a threat. Happened in oregon with that mall shooter, but again thats not reported

They dont want to hear a gun saved lives

Conspiracy T -

Yes, and now she is getting a medal, just for doing her duty as a police officer.

By the way, I have received over 20-emails on this story since the incident, all from REAL MEN...

John- So you don't think what she did was heroic? Risked her life and moved towards the threat while everyone else ran? She could've also ran. She wasn't required to do anything. So if police officers shouldn't be rewarded for doing heroic acts because its just expected, then every police officer walking down the street should be praised for being a police officer because its just implied they will doing similar acts. I actually do think police officers are heros but when someone can save lives like that...it isn't just a normal duty. If it was anyone including you could and would be a police officer.

Str8shooter -

She did her job; a police officer, on-duty or off-duty really has the same obligation, at least all the ones I know and respect. Give her a medal and whatever you like, she did do her job, and she did do it well.

The word HERO has been so overused, it has become virtually meaningless.

I would have done the same thing she did, without much thought at all, only difference is, I would have drifted off into the sunset and not allowed myself to be identified or accepted medal...

You don't need to be a police office to be a good citizen...

The word HERO being overused has nothing to do with this scenario. She ran towards an armed murderer intent to kill more people and saved lives. SHE IS A HERO. And there is absolutely no obligation to do that off duty or even on duty. Police are trained NOT to run toward an active shooter alone. They are trained to get a small group in a "diamond" formation and then move toward the threat. She broke training and did what she felt she needed to do to save lives just as I believe almost all police officers would do. HERO

Str8shooter -

Firefighters are trained to run away from fires, whether on duty or off duty too. (?) Doing what you are trained to do and what you are as a human being is not in any sense HEROIC. IF I put your paw on a hot stove burner, and you pulled your paw away, yes, by your definition, you would be a HERO.

In America, these days, you are a HERO if you can breathe and have a heartbeat… even if you are brain dead and in a coma… which accurately describes the case of almost all conservatives…

John - If you were anyone else I would be offended how you belittle others, mis state facts, give half truths, don't give people credit when credit is due, and can not stay focused on the topic. However with you it's expected as are your nonsense answers. I am not a firefighter but am familiar with their practices and know they do not run away from fires. They do not always go into a burning building but they still treat the fire with water and control it by other means. You clearly don't know police tactics and training when it comes to active shooters. And let me put this in simple terms for you. A human instinct when being shot at is to run away so I would say not heroic. The human instinct when your hand is on a hot oven is to move your hand. Also not heroic. Neither are trained but both are instinctive. So the complete opposite of what you said. And to compare going against training by attacking an active shooter to ones hand on a hot stove??? All I can say is come on John. Don't use facts when you're not familiar with them and don't give complete inaccurate examples as comparisons. I hate to ask but I would like to know your example of a hero. And no it can't be you with a walker and cape.

Str8shooter –

Both firefighters and police officers are trained to "overcome their instincts" and go toward the fire and go after the criminal or shooter with a gun. Therefore, there is nothing unusual or heroic about what the female police officer did. As I stated earlier on this blog, she did her job and did it well. Thank her, thank her supervisors for providing her with great training and support, and let us all move on. There is no need to carve another face in Mt Rushmore! [The comment I made about firefighters was sarcasm, which seems to have just flew over you.]

Audi Murphy would be one person whom I would actually call a hero.

Its okay Charlie. You must enjoy having your head neck deep in the sand. If your comfortable there then stay there but Dont Tread On me or my rights just because u disagree

WHAT??? you are spreading falsehoods. It is absolute

hahahahahahaha, A dog, ohhh myyy. scary

You are way too reasonable

I can't think of one mass shooting involving an assault rifle because assault rifles are "fully automatic" while the civilian model of AR15's/M4's are only semi auto which is the same as most handguns and many other shotguns and rifles. It's a civilian model because it is appropriate for civilians. It shoots almost the same bullet a squirrel hunting rifle does just in a gun that looks differently. The only difference is the larger magazine and if there was any correlation to the magazine size and killings then I would be ok with banning them but there isn't. And again for those that are uninformed, REAL fully automatic assault rifles are legal for paying an extra fee. So why would anyone not want to ban real assault rifles before these rifles that people perceive as assault rifles???

Taking advantage of the layman's confusion over 'assault' and 'semi-automatic' weapons does not really advance the discussion. We just get bogged down in semantics.

Could you explain to me why a target shooter or a sportsman needs a semi-automatic weapon with a huge magazine in the first place?

It's not semantics at all. People want to ban AR15's. Well AR15's aren't anything more than basically a squirrel hunting gun that looks different. So if the attack is on semi auto firearms then that is going to encompass so much more than AR15's because they are the same. As I stated I will at least listen to the argument over magazine capacity size but in order for me to support that there would need to be some evidence capacity has any bearing on killings and being a gun can be reloaded within 1 sec I don't believe the mag size would be beneficial at all. Reasons to keep 30 capacity... Nothing negative comes from it, target shooters prefer not reloading as often, and more likely to save lives in self defense. Police don't take on troops of armed suspects yet they have 30 capacity mags because a shoot out with one person has proven to be dozens and dozens of rounds. With your thinking police should have even less than an average citizen because there are many police officers but only one home owner. There is just nothing positive I see from reducing mag size.

Randy since I answer your question about mag capacity can you answer mine since no one else has. Why is everyone making a big deal about the semi auto civilian AR15 when a civilian can pay for the stamp and get a fully auto military style rifle? If we ban civilian models then civilians might just go get a "more lethal" firearm. No one seems to have a problem with that.

Randy as I stated ANYONE can be ambushed or or randomly killed...even the most highly trained military members. I'm sure you just like Karen did not mean it in a disrespectful manner but it at least bothers me that people use half of the facts about a hero falling as basis for their argument. I have a feeling if you counted all the times police or military saved themself or other people with guns it would be astoundingly more than being killed by guns. I have no problem with people who are going to own guns having to be proficient with them but just because one person is killed does not mean thousands more aren't saved with guns.

How many home invaders or muggers send an engraved announcement ahead of time? Many of these incidents are ambushes or surprise attacks.

Many are, many more are not. I'd rather have, and not need..than need, and not have. The only ambush, or surprise attack, involved with a home invasion is when a SWAT team does an entry, en mass, with flash bangs. Someone breaking into your house is a: going to take a while, and make some noise getting in; and b: going to take a while (more than 10 seconds) getting to your location. At that point in time, I'd rather have a defensive position with a gun in my hand, than a phone. There are plenty of 911 calls online for you to find out how that ends, often it's not pretty.

@Keith Best -- I'm getting tired of that cliche. Yes, it takes a person to shoot a gun, just as it takes a person to raise a fork to their mouth. But a semi-automatic with a large magazine in the hands of someone whose mental health has deteriorated is a lot like a can of formerly wholesome peas that's full of corn syrup for taste and preservation and now has three times the caloric content.

We're making it easier for people to get fat. We're making it easier for a single deranged person to kill large numbers of other people.

Exactly Randy. We need to lock up and put down anyone with a mental illness. Mass school shootings are common place now, they happen weekly. We need to put down these nut jobs before they enter gun free zones and blast away my children.

Of course I said nothing of the kind. I think you should take a course in reading comprehension. How about if we made it just a little more difficult to kill so many people in so little time? Is that such a horrible imposition on the true sportsman?

I agree. We need to ban tobacco.

Exrepub...although I'm not an EXrepublican I mostly agree with what you said. I definitely agree about much stricter sentencing for violent crimes and crimes involving guns. I am OPEN to the idea of reducing mag capacity but I would need to see some correlation between mag size and number of killings. I see what you're saying about at least making it harder but in my opinion the second it would take to reload isn't enough benefit compared to the detriment of taking it away from responsible gun owners. But like I said I'm open to the idea. Thanks for the reasonable post!

I agree with Str8shooter... it bugs me that in the wake of the terrible Sandy Hook tragedy the talk is gun control instead of better school protection. Laws cannot guarrantee something that unthinkable cannot happen again... schools need more ways to be defensive and offensive should they find themselves in a situation where they are under an attack. A tornado or a fire is pretty unlikely to happen in a school to the extent of many deaths, but we plan for the unlikely event those things happen.... being under attack by sick individuals should also be something planned for in terms of planning and tools to help those in the situation. I do not love the idea of next taxes much, if ever... but rather than limiting guns as a non-solution to a real problem, why not add some costs to the guns and ammo and funnel that into the schools for protection mechanisms. For one, special doors on classrooms that can be locked and bullet proof to keep and intruder out would be good... and then I actually think giving the school some offensive weapons of some sort makes sense. Maybe tear gas, maybe tasers and maybe even a gun or two available to key staff. To most that sounds ridiculous, but it could be controlled in various ways... such as biometric locking gun cabinets, a cabinet that would require two people to open it, and alarms on any system that, if opened, would alert the school and authorities. More can be done than gun control to actually offer real protection.

Harsh minimum sentence: bye bye, adios, ciao, sayonara, see ya in the next life, etc; yep, that might actually put Fear in the right place. Currently the Fear is: Free Room & Board; better than many hard working citizens can afford.

Daniel S- you and I agree on needing much harsher penalties but for different reasons. I honestly don't feel many people today are concerned about doing jail time but at least with harsher penalties they will be locked up and unable to commit another crime.

Steve now you got me thinking outside the box...Maybe this is a master plan by Obama to finally spur the economy. You're playing right into his plan! ha

Hummm you may be on to something. But whatever works so far he has been an absolute failure on this subject. Guns work, solar panels do not.

Steve ® -

I plan on being a belligerent child, serving my Lord and Master, the almighty NRA; they tell me to be frightened and so I am; I am going to go out and buy every firearm I possibly can so I can make the NRA rich beyond all belief...

Str8shooter -

People like you should definitely stay “inside” the BOX or Bellevue.

John. You are confused on how the NRA receives financing.

Using fear to pass gun control is a liberal birthright.

Bren I can respect that. It's definitely not for everyone and I do agree deadly force should be used to protect people not property. Everyone has their own beliefs and for me I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I could save someone else and did nothing about it.

watch it Bren, peeping toms are not to well liked.

For some, the fact that you have a home would be enough, even if they cannot see inside; or that you have an apartment to go into, a new vehicle or . . . . . the only welcome mat a thief requires is the: you have, I don't and I want mat.

Str8shooter, no matter how much time I could spend at the shooting range, I would not logically expect to win in an armed shoot-out with an individual accustomed to living a violent lifestyle and/or spending a great deal of time planning a murder spree. I've had a few difficult situations to deal with in my life, some of which involved other individuals. In each case, calm and wit carried the day. Thank God there weren't fools, like the restaurant employee who accidentally shot my uncle, a counter customer, dead during an attempted hold-up, to turn volatile situations into fatal ones.

KHD, if folks wish to keep the drapes open so that the interiors are clearly viewed from the street it's their choice, albeit a foolish one. A "peeping tom" is one who slinks up to windows and tries to peer through curtains and shades. Poor vocabulary, in my circle, is particularly disliked. Watch it! ; )

Daniel S., I can't argue about that. But again, I can't justify killing someone over material goods. Over the years, in several countries, I've suffered hotel room, car, and apartment break-ins. Ordinarily burglars are cowards who only become violent when cornered. My advice is to keep your mobile phone with you at all times and if something suspicious is seen or heard, call the police. Don't be like a former colleague of mine who got knifed trying to corner a burglar.

Hey Bren, you watch it. NUTBAG

Crime has skyrocketed in the UK and Australia after their gun bans. No competition is good for business. The cops carry firearms in the UK again, they were sick of gettin killed by the bad guys.

Steve:

Please share with us your source for that irresponsible comment. Thank you.

Rees, what are the strict gun laws? Are they prohibiting gun ownership or are they stricter penalties. Because I'm all for stricter penalties. But one gun is just as deadly as another so I don't believe in just limiting types of guns.

Str8shooter:

Did you look at the links? The info was right there. But for all the others who didn't look at the links here is the info you requested.

In England & Wales, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register. Also, a unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law. In addition, state authorities carry out recognized arms tracing and tracking procedures.

In Northern Ireland, civilians are not allowed to possess machine guns. Private possession of fully automatic weapons is prohibited. Only licensed gun owners may lawfully acquire, possess or transfer a firearm or ammunition. Applicants for a gun owner’s license is required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm. An applicant for a firearm license must pass background checks which consider various records. Third party character references for each gun licence applicant are required.

In Scotland, the law requires that a record of the acquisition, possession and transfer of each privately held firearm be retained in an official register. A unique identifying mark on each firearm is required by law. State authorities carry out recognised arms tracing and tracking procedures. It is state policy to destroy surplus, collected and seized firearms rather than return them to the secondary arms market.

Lol. Irresponsible? Why because it doesn't fits hat your liberal media tells you what to think? Is your Google machine broken....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html

Get your google machine working. See how crime has increased. See how criminals are more afraid of a home owner having personal protection rather than the police. See how when help is needed in seconds the police are minutes away.

The USA has a major problem with urban inner city black murders . It is vastly un proportional to the rest of the world.

There is much more to the equation than just population.

Steve:

Would you agree that my comment was about "Gun Homicides"? And would you agree your comment was about "Gun Crime"? Apples and Oranges. Totally different. I thought we are trying to discuss a policy to reduce, in a meaningful way, homicides by use of guns. I, in no way, was discussing gun crime. Please stay on topic. Thank you. Can we at least agree with that the United Kingdom is doing a better job with gun homicides?

Daniel S.
Of course there is more to it than population. But the population of the United Kingdom is getting more diverse just like the United States is too. So, it does at least show the "degree" how far apart we are between the two countries. Having 500 times more gun homicides in the United States is just plain terrible. We should at least agree with that.

Can we not agree on basic stuff like that?

I don't think most of those are unreasonable because many of those things are already being done here. Backgrounds are done, only some states require guns be registered which I have no problem with, guns are already required to have serial numbers, machine guns are illegal without a stamp, and ATF does tracking of some transactions. The only one I have a problem with is having to show a reason to own a gun. It's our 2nd amendment right and because criminals frequently steal guns from responsible gun owners. So as long as someone can own a gun, criminals will get them also. And since criminals will get them that's reason enough for me to own one. So since most of those things are already being done how will it reduce these shootings?

Often times the comparison is brought up to the number of deaths in vehicles. To create a ocean of difference, they break the vehicle related deaths down to deaths per millions of miles driven. How about if we break the firearm murders down to millions of bullets sold or fired? I imagine it would be a very low number . . . .

Str8shooter:

Have you forgotten about the secondary market in the United States? There are no back ground checks at gun shows. Until this loophole is closed we will continue to have a problem. As for the UK requirement that you need a reason to own a gun, yes..... we have the 2nd amendment. I know this has been batted back and forth forever but I have some reasonable doubt that a couple hundred years ago they crafted the 2nd amendment only to assure we had a militia. I doubt they envisioned that every day joe blow would have his own gun to protect himself from others. But the law persists and with it we now have a society gone a muck with gun homicides. That's my opinion. Please respect that. The media has done such a wonderful job at picking the news that has the most emotional impact that now everyone feels we need to protect each other FROM each other. This is insane. We are supposed to be the "UNITED States of America". We are moving so far away from that. We are now the FEARFUL States of America". We have lost trust in everything. Our elected officials aren't helping either. It's nuts.

Please link to where the shooter went to a gun show to obtain the weapons. K thanks.

Ress what do you mean that's your opinion and respect it? We're having a very friends discussion. You give your opinion and then I give mine. That's how these go. And per my response I said I'm fine with all those things. Backgrounds are fine. I agree there shouldn't be a loophole however for those states that require guns be registered the gun sale would be recorded at time it gets registered. I would agree the background before hand would be more beneficial. I also gave another for owning guns and not just the 2nd amendment...the fact that criminals and mentally ill people already have guns is a pretty good reason! And do you honestly think the media is showing why people need guns to protect themselves?! Story after story about these shootings and that there should be more gun restrictions. Instead of all the stories about police and citizens stopping before these incidents occur or stopping the in progress shootings. Most of these shooting only stop once the police or an armed citizen show up. Bad guy gets shot or more commonly commits suicide because bad guy knows people are ready to fight back. My question or statement was how would any of those restrictions from Europe stop these shooting here? Who would not have gotten a gun here to commit the shooting?

There are background checks done at Gun Shows, just not at all vendors; FFL vendors do background checks. Background checks required by all gun sales and transfers will most likely be the GIVE to appease the anti-gun crowd. It is the most logical of all the thoughts of control being tossed around. Magazine capacity and weapon type truly make no difference to would be murderers; they will execute their plan one way or another.

Rees, your data is full of holes. What it doesn’t tell you is the total number of homicides committed only those committed with a gun. I’ve read that the number of stabbings increased considerably. To answer your question on how do we argue your point of view is by providing factual data that contradicts your claim which we can. Your conclusion is erroneous and incorrect. Sorry hit the books. Below is sample data note years of data and presentation.
In 2007–8, there were 114 homicide victims in Scotland,[6] a slight decrease on the previous year. In the third quarter of 2009, there were a little over 17,000 full time equivalent serving police officers. There were around 375,000 crimes in 2008–9, a fall of 2% on the previous year. These included around 12,500 non-sexual violent acts, 168,000 crimes of dishonesty (housebreaking, theft and shoplifting are included in this category) and 110,000 acts of fire-raising and vandalism.

2008–9 According to the Home Office, there were around 880,000 "Violence against the person" crimes in England and Wales in 2008–9, equivalent to 16 per thousand people in England and Wales. There were about 50,000 sexual offences during the same period, just under 1 per thousand. Other areas of crime included robbery (80,000; equivalent to around 1.5 crimes/per thousand), burglary (285,000; 5 per thousand) and vehicle theft (150,000; 3 per thousand).

2008–9 Between April 2008 and 2009, there were just over 110,000 crimes in Ireland

vocal local 1 recently said:

"Rees, your data is full of holes. What it doesn’t tell you is the total number of homicides committed only those committed with a gun."

BUT IT DOES. PLEASE READ THE LINK. It says exactly what you say it doesn't. I will quote the link:

"Number of Gun Homicides
In the United Kingdom, annual firearm homicides total

2009: 18"

What about that statement don't you understand? Seriously!

The rest of your comments again are talking points of apples vs oranges. We are talking about gun homicides not anything else. Not using knives or any other types of devices. I will stipulate that you can commit a homicide with any number of other devices but in this country guns are the device of choice. Stop trying to confuse the issue. Thank you.

There may have been only 18 GUN murders in the UK in 2009 (or 28 or 39 depending on the source), but still some 626 TOTAL homicides.

Which just proves the point, if someone wants to kill you they will find the most convenient means.

By the way, 2009 was a 20 year low in gun murders. Atta way to pick the data that best "proves" your point.

I guess the gun show comment was just a distraction. One of many.

(continued) People want to differentiate between assault weapons based on the difference between semi-automatic and full automatic. From a practical standpoint, an AR-15's rate of fire in semi-automatic is greater than that of a WW II BAR, which is fully automatic. This is precisely why high capacity magazines give the weapon the capability of rates of fire equal to or greater than fully automatic weapons. Due to the lighter weight of the AR-15 and ammunition, large capacity magazines do not put any limitation on the ability to fire the weapon in long bursts of fire. It will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and it has such a quick action that it might as well be considered automatic in operation compared to older fully automatic rifles. Since the AR-15 is not suitable for hunting and represents overkill for self protection, it is clearly designed as an offensive weapon, thus earning a practical title of Assault.

Long rifles for hunting may have a more powerful round, but are designed for distance and accuracy. They don't have nearly the rate of fire and only hold a limited number of rounds. My three favorite hunting rifles are the 1903 Springfield, the British Enfield .308 and the Mauser 98. These are the weapons of choice for the serious hunter; all bolt action and extremely accurate out to 900 meters. Used with a round designed for hunting, it is humane and doesn't destroy the meat, especially if one does like I do and only take head or neck shots. (continued)

(continued) There are some of us who are on the left that aren't totally ignorant of firearms and ammunition and will counter the misinformation spewed by the gun extremists.

Lyle parts of that is accurate and I want to stress PARTS. A .223 is closer to a squirrel rifle than all of the big game hunting guns such as .30 .30, 30-06, 12ga, 20ga, etc which all have MUCH more power. The .223 is a fast traveling bullet and is faster than a .22 but is basically a glorified .22. Of course a .223 is capable of killing as all bullets are. That's their purpose. A .223 used to be illegal for deer hunting in Wi yet certain handguns were legal because the .223 was deemed inhumane due to the lack of killing power to deer yet the handguns were legal. So .223 is a fast and penetrating bullet but of a very small caliber. Police and military use much larger caliber for sniper rounds because the .223 is not capable like the .308 and larger rounds are.

Lyle, slightly off topic but in response to you taking head and neck shots on deer...many hunter safety manuals would actually suggest and say the front shoulder area is more humane than the neck and maybe even the head. If you are certain of a direct hit to the head that's great but its such a small target. The heart and lung area is a much larger target of vitals to hit especially with sudden movements of deer which will still often kill within seconds. Less likely to miss your small target areas and just wound. Just stating instructions from the WI DNR hunter safety manual taught to new hunters.

And lets just disregard some of the truths about .223(AR15) and assume Lyle is correct on how deadly .223 is. If criminals and mentally ill people who shouldn't have the guns to begin with already have them, why in the world would other law abiding citizens and I want to give ours up? If that's the case only dangerous people have them.

@Str8shooter...I think there isn't any disagreement that a .223 round is unsuitable for hunting most game. My pointing this out was done to illustrate that people who claim to use it for hunting are promoting misinformation. It is a weapon designed to kill people only. In all truth, I am less concerned about AR-15s and more concerned about concealable weapons such as powerful handguns. To my knowledge, it is handguns, in most cases, that are used in the commission of crimes and crimes of passion, much more than assault style rifles. I don't own handguns and for home protection a shotgun loaded with buck shot is more than sufficient to get the job done. People really need to examine the reasons why they own weapons against the probability of using them.

FYI, I prefer head and neck shots because if I miss, it is less likely that I will wound the animal and make it suffer. My best shot was, using iron sights only, a Springfield 1903 at 600 yards, right below and behind the left ear. After I came back from Vietnam, I gave up on hunting altogether preferring to hunt with a camera instead. I don't deny a person's right to hunt or own firearms, but I do fear the armed ideologue who feels the only solution is through armed aggression. It is much to easy to misread a situation resulting in irreparable harm.

@Lyle BUt we do disagree why a .223 is unsuitable. A couple of us say it doesnt cause enough damage but you say it causes too much. I don't know the statistics as to what type of gun is used more in the mass shootings but I'd agree handguns are used more in the violent crimes such as armed robbery because bad guys can conceal them easier. So if bad guys are out on the streets with handguns how do the good guys protect themself unless they can also carry a handgun which they can conceal? I would hope most people who carry a concealed weapon know there are some scenarios which are not appropriate to draw and fire your weapon such as more bad guys than good guys, they have more fire power, no cover, your family is with you in some instances but we cant take them away just because someone may use it in an unideal scenario. If thats the case youo might as well take away cars, alcohol, and cellphones. In reality those things should go first because you don't have a constitutional right to any of those except a gun. Also I would agree a shotgun is a good option for home defense but if you are truely prepared you need a flashlight attached to your weapon. Many shotguns do not allow that. Long guns are not impossible but more difficult to do room clearing if you need to get to your family in another room in your house. So different guns are better for different applications

@Tony...I don't know exactly what you are implying. If you are looking for some reason that the government is going to be begin forceful enforcement of some kind, I don't know. The use of a hollow point is designed to provide maximum stopping power without creating too much collateral damage. I had also read the same articles and I didn't see anything that was particularly alarming. I tend not to give much credence to conspiracies.

@ Lyle, this is fact, hundreds of articles of this fact written by non-conspiracy types. The gov has even responded with total B.S. about using these man killing rounds at the range...why purchase bullets twice as expensive as FMJ's to use at range? Granted, they dont care as it is your and my money.....and you and I they plan to use them against, or - again, why arm desk jockies, irs agents and others having absolutely nothing to do with military, hunting, law enforcement or protective services with hollow point filled military a.k.a. assault style sidearms while telling me and you we cant have them?

@JW...The best firearm for home protection is a semi-automatic 12-gauge shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot. At close range you don't miss. It can be easily at hand and stored loaded on an empty chamber. A woman or large adolescent child can also easily handle it. The only downside is that they are usually heavier and have a strong recoil or kick.

Shotgun is a good option but not ideal in all situations, Most shotguns do not allow lights to be affixed to them and anyone with any type of training knows how ineffective you are in the dark without a light. Long guns are not impossible to utilize for this but are more difficult to do room clearing if you need to get to your family in another room. Shotguns also typically hold about 5 shells. Trained officers will fire over a dozen times at a supect during stress and still not hit the suspect. Dont exclude all other firearms for different scenarios especially if you dont have the correct equipment and training with that shotgun for self defense.

@Str8shooter....No one should be shooting into the dark and turning the lights on before firing only makes sense. If a perpetrator is going to fire on the defender, the attached light is going to be an easy target. However, over the last century and a half, the shotgun has been used as the primary home defense weapon.

That is true to a degree but there are tactics to avoid the light being a target, there are strobing lights, and lights can even be used to blind the intruder. Being able to see your target is the most important and the rest can be taken care of with tactics. That's why military and LE are equipped with lights in urban settings. Shotgun may have been primary past 150 years ago but equipment and tactics have come along way. No matter what type of firearm you decide to use definitely have a light.

JW -

Forget all that shopping nonsense, go directly for the RPG... it is really more in line with the "mine is bigger than yours" gun crazy crowd.

he would have used a knife, or a rock, or poison, or a choke hold, or a bear trap, or a tree chipper - the list is a mile long

No ONE can protect themself 100% against an ambush attack as the earlier comments state. Also previously stated check statistics as too how many people officers have saved with the use of a firearm compared to how many were killed by them

Comforting to infer that you don't carpediem. Keep taking your meds and please learn to read carefully so you don't miss the main point with your tunnel visionary approach. Reference to Hilter was in respect to Lyles comment about tranny and his claims about the power of the vote no matter how delusional and unstudied he is on that note. He's simply spouting opinion not fact as we all do put him in check make him support his opinion. We all know money and who one knows wins the election and support of the electorate college. I just don't understand as frequently we catch our elect repeatedly evidencing lack of integrity, not doing what they said they would and doing what they said they would not and we accept it. While we condemn those caught literally with their pants down a very normal activity historically. I just don't get it. if you do please enlighten me.

Daniel S. -

That is correct! The man killed her with his Marine uniform!

Don't be silly JW, he didn't use the uniform to kill her; but maybe service in the Marines played a role in his mind that went unnoticed. Of course, we all know how well the Government takes care of those who serve and protect the investments of the nation . . . . . : (

John - Daniel S did not say he didn't kill her with a gun. He said he didn't kill her because of the gun. There were other reasons the act was committed regardless of what was used.

As many of the pro-do nothing responders have indicated, you and I and anyone who disagrees with them on any level or to any extent is not enlightened.... We are "uniformed" as they put it. They have no respect for people who have differing views although they claim to be loyal to a form of government that protects such diverse thought.

As with any fundamentalist... You hear no nuanced thinking... It's black and white, in or out, with them or against them....a simplistic and fragile mental set that makes any hope for collaborative resolutions or even an exchange of thoughts all but impossible. I am certain now that having said this, as when one challenges any fundamentalist on their myopic, exclusionist, thinking, I will be called a fundamentalist now in return, to add to their preferred list of insults, Leftie, liberal, commie, coward, and what not.

It seems pointless perpetually speaking to people who are fused in fear, are aggressive by character, and who choose to see the world, its people and all opinion as either/or.

If these blogs reflect American sentiment... I think we can count on a lot more of the same... People choosing to perpetuate violence in thought and action.

Brian - These discussions have been very respectful and no one has said you not anyone else can't have an opinion. But by saying that it almost implies you have an issue with the other side having an opinion. There has been a lot of incorrect information given out about certain events and firearms. When that occurs people who are informed have an opinion and can reply with facts also. I'm kind of confused where any of this is coming from. So since you didn't really say, what is your suggestion which will actually stop the shootings and not violate anyone's constitutional rights? Just a friendly discussion...

@Brian Carlson...I am continually confounded by the approach and attitude of the pro-gun ideologues. They hide behind nom de plumes and selective articles of the constitution. The general attitude is either all or nothing at all. This is reflected in the grid-lock in Washington. What I find most disturbing is the willingness of these same individuals to take it to the level of violence and possible civil war based on selective perception of dubious and misleading information. It seems that for these individuals it isn't enough to fight unfunded wars overseas, but they want to bring the conflict here at home. I don't understand why people are so adverse to open discussion. The other amazing thing is that you and I keep popping up in their blogs and comments. Where this will eventually lead I have no idea.

Lyle-Are you in the same forum as me? You and I have had a few discussions here today and even some people on your side corrected some of your facts. I don't understand why you think because someone on the other side states an opinion that means anyone said you can't have an opinion. Ill agree a small number of people are abit extreme about challenging the govt. I however still am interested to know what could be done to prevent future shootings??? It has to be reasonable, not violate people's rights, and actually be effective.

@Str8shooter....I have stated what I think is a reasonable solution. The control of ammunition would retain the basic constitutional rights and begin to eliminate the problems associated with the glut of firearms we now have. I think, responsible gun owners would support this approach.

Lyle do you mean control ammo as to who it's sold to or the types of ammo that is manufactured? Not sure what you're referring to. I'm not opposed to doing something with ammo but it would depend on what it is just because I don't know how effective it would be. A lot of people reload their own ammo, it can easily be smuggled like the losing war on drugs, and its already illegal for felons to possess ammo. So I guess it would just depend on what it would be.

@Str8shooter....Along with my proposal on ammunition, which I will explain in more detail; I am proposing guns must be titled and then registered. A process very similar to the one that is used with vehicles. A firearm titled to one person holds that person responsible and if they sell the firearm, it will require a transfer of title and background check. The new owner would have to register the firearm under their name. To sell a firearm without retitling and registration would leave the old owner liable, which could carry considerable fines and possible criminal charges. A titled and registered owner that doesn't report a firearm lost or stolen, would also be subject to fines and possible criminal charges.

Ammunition could only be sold to individuals with current registration for each firearm and then a limit of ammunition sold. I also want a brass exchange program where you can only buy as many rounds as the number of pieces of brass turned in. The self loading crowd would be limited to so much powder and projectiles per month. For those that like to target shoot, they could go to a licensed range, buy range ammunition from the range and turn in any unused rounds for refund or credit. Legal firearms would be re-registered every two years and registration fees would be based on type of firearm. All revenues generated by firearm fees would be dedicated to enforcement and gun safety courses. (continued)

I believe the people who travelled here from Europe and points East of North America, came to find Freedom. If you are going to regulate ammo, make us get a license and title our weapons; then I want 50 state reciprocity, the right to carry anywhere outside of on airplanes, in jails, courtrooms and schools. By the way, how much ammo is reasonable, 10 rounds? Hello Black Market ammo, magazines and a larger population of possible criminals as you make Honest people criminals with your encroachment into the Freedom our country was built upon.

@Str8shooter (continued)....Before any titles are issued, an extensive background check must be done. I would recommend a 30 day waiting period before the firearms can actually be transferred.

All confiscated firearms would be destroyed and not placed for sale in the aftermarket.

All semi-automatic, double action and single action firearms over 100 years old could be exempt from registration but must be titled. The same would also pertain to all single shot black powder weapons no matter the age.

By doing this, no one is restricted from owning firearms or using them for lawful purposes

Well Lyle, you mentioned the "Word" and that is one of the many reasons gun sales are through the roof: "CONFISCATION".

So no action or solution Brian just ignore a mature discussion to criticize people with someone else? You said you're not allowed an opinion. I am asking as someone who thinks something should be done...what do you propose? I'm all ears. And if we thought it was all violence or no violence I'd propose everyone have a gun, there be no restrictions, and no police officers needed. So if you'd like to join the conversation ill discuss it with you.

AA...and your big suggestion is???? Because I hear most of the proponents insisting that we have to keep things as is... 1791 was the year God wrote the second amendment evidently.

My solution Brian is to make a fundamental change socially. To prevent incidences like Sandy Hook (which is where this discussion started) gun owners need to secure their firearms, whether in a gun safe or gun trigger lock. This isn't something that can be legislated, it needs to be ingrained into peoples mindsets. Liberals need to accept that guns are here to stay, and accept that gun owners need to be responsible for their weapons.

To decrease inner city violence (where this discussion has migrated) will be even harder. Accept that 50 years of just throwing money at the problem has not worked. Those in poverty need to realize that they can achieve a better life, but the motivation an work needs to come from within. The government just can't give it to them, it will not last.

@Exrepublican....Finally, someone speaking rationally.

Exrepub I would agree it takes training to do it in 1 second. I can do it in about 1 and I've seen people do it in less which was timed and I think is incredibly fast. I'd say the average person who shoot on a regular basis would be 1-3 seconds. Like I said I'm open to the idea of reducing mag capacity but just have doubt that couple seconds would be of any help. Most of these shooters are armed with multiple guns or multiple mags ready for a war. I don't think they are unprepared and going to take 20sec to reload. I've even considered maybe those 1-3 sec someone can intervene but I imagine people are running away and in so much distress that the 1-3 sec is not enough time to react. Seem like the only thing that ends the shootings is when armed police arrive. Just my opinion.

Who's living in Fear, the Pro-Gun or the Anti-Gun? Many Anti-Gun people claim the gun supporters are living in fear, yet you talk about having a few more seconds to escape; escape what? These events are rare, what's to be afraid of? The solution is, to put murderers that do not commit suicide, to sleep. Maybe they'll finally have some Fear within, if they see Justice being served.

When you are in a 100% gun free zone you have all the time in the world to reload. The 5-8 seconds to pop in a new magazine and keep blasting the kids is meaningless.

What sucks is when you are out of ammo and someone else is shooting back at you. Or when you don't even get to spend all your ammo because a bullet to the head is game over.

http://tinyurl.com/a4jmzm4

The issue(s) start with understanding why people murder people. Why people are willing to throw their lives away? Why have they given up hope? What has driven them toward taking the life of another without a valid cause? This is a societal issue of major proportions that we've turned the cheek to for decade upon decade. How many are really truly surprised by these instances? I for one am not and I know there are plenty of others who are not as well.

You don't even understand what you want banned. What you want banned is the magazines.

The 2nd amendment is not about having a hunting weapon.

Less guns = more crime. Pick your poison. And with our inner city black problems banning guns will be an all out blood bath.

@Steve,,,You haven't a clue. You want to play with guns, go join the military.

Another low informed voter not able to use his google machine. Ban all guns and you will see an increase in crime. Once again the libs want to replicate the failures of socialist Europe.

Lyle, I don't have to join the military to play with firearms, I have the constitution on my side. Maybe you need to read it, or at the least add a disclaimer you are low informed.

Steve

Why was it necessary to say "I have the constitution on my side. Maybe you need to read it, or at the least add a disclaimer you are low informed."?

You do understand that kind of comment adds little to the conversation, right?

Rees, you just don't get it. None of your sources address total numbers of persons killed per population. More people are killed in other countries that have a ban on guns than here where we do not. Thus, it is illogical for our government to try to take away or limit gun rights.

vocal local 1 –

It is totally irrelevant “total numbers of persons killed per population” as we are only addressing GUN DEATHS here in AMERICA. “Total number of persons killed per population” would include strangulations, accidents, home, automobile, knife killings, cop killings, rape killings, etc. [A BASIC course in logic would be very helpful for you.]

FYI, The focus here: GUN DEATHS…

“More people are killed in other countries that have a ban on guns than here where we do not.”

What is your source(s) for this incredibly inane and disingenuous statement?

Ress. I can not keep explaining the most basic of things to you. Read Lyle's response. If you still don't get it well just keep living in fear that the big bad guns are coming to get you.

No matter what laws you attempt to enforce upon the people, there will always be those the law does not affect. True criminals and those bent on committing mass atrocities, they will succeed in their endeavors. What is it that people want, that they murder others over? Wealth, power, revenge, these are just some of the many more common reasons. Then there are the crazies, those who seek make themselves feel complete in some warped psychological way. People who erase their entire family; you know, the person who was the great neighbor, who loved kids and went to church, was in the military etc.... Those who are standing up for the right to bear arms and the constitution, they are not this type person.

lol Brian thinks he is the judge of all things. How elitist.

Your ideas of gun control and regulations, they will do nothing but steal more freedom and money from the people and that includes you.

I agree, and put them to death. Deterrent???

I suggested this earlier. Brian and Lyle didn't feel it was necessary. The guns are the problem, not the laws we already have.

Bravo, Darrell. Criminals don't obey laws. A waiting period had nothing to do with any recent shootings. Gun free zones had absolutely no effect on preventing them. Insanity is doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Over 20,000 guns laws on the books now. And more from the likes of DiFi in CA will help? Liberal gobbly gook.

Liberalism is a cancer. I choose to fight it.

Steve ® -

Conservatism is an STD. It was brought to America from those fine folks living on Newt’s Moon Colony. It is highly resistance to any antibiotic and as of today the DMS-IV lists it as an incurable mental disorder.

Waiting period? What does that do? We have 2 day period in Wisconsin. Are a lot of people blown away during days 3 and 5 because 5 days is the federal standard?

I don't think felons obtain their guns from the gun store and fill out the paperwork...

i'm sorry did i give you the impression my ideas were going to fix everything?

"Gun free zones won't work unless you have someone checking for firearms whenever someone enters the premises"

Gee, the person has a firearm, you're checking the people at the door; do you have any weapons, nope. Now, what is the next step? Frisking, Do we have X-ray & metal detectors? What if the person says yes? You say, sorry you can't enter here . . . so they walk away, pull out their weapon and come back blazing; worked like a charm didn't it : ( Or if they say yes, does the doorperson pull out their weapon and say: hands on the table, or up against the wall and then calls for back up.

@Johnny Blade...What right wing militia do you owe your allegiance to?

I found both situations very alarming and disturbing and sad. With Sandy Hook you had some deviant jerk who took his personal issues to the extent of killing extremely innocent kids that had absolutely nothing to do with his issues. That is one heartless individual. On the other end of the spectrum you have Waco with a bunch of gun ho idiots who just couldnt wait to force a resolution to something regardless of whether kids would be hurt in it. Both situations were pathetic... but it does go to show that dangerous or offensive actions kill... whether done via the letter of the law or not. I am for trying to keep guns out of the hands of idiots who cannot or should not have them (felons, mentally ill, or temporarily overly emotional, etc)... but... some of what goes on in the name of gun control is just so fundamentally illogical. Focusing on the details of some specific weapons or the capabilities just seem to be missing the main points and needs. I am ok with whatever waiting period is involved to get a gun... I am also ok with registrations and restrictions regarding the availability of extreme weapons... however, it has to be more than "the gun looks menacing". I dont see where an AR-15 is really more destructive than the majority of guns out there. I honestly would prefer to get an AR-15 for its versatilty and as a former Marine who used to shoot M-16s, but I dont want to risk buying something that could end up banned via the emotional anti-gun mentality.

JW very well put. Just to add a handgun would only have an advantage if you wanted to carry concealed. Otherwise as police and military train, a handgun is only a backup weapon.

Hahaahahahaha, JOHN WILSON, 14 cases my butt. Have another cocktail.

KHD -

Actually, the 14-cases are about the size of your butt...

EXACTLY!!!

We need to make murder illegal. I STILL can't believe it is legal in this country!!!!!!!!!!!

Steve ® -

It is only illegal for Conservative, Right-Wing Troglodytes to murder anything, as they are always too intellectually impaired to ever make a rational decision. For this sorry group of human feces, everything is a purely emotional catastrophe…

I have 14 cases of .223 ammunition that I would just love to introduce my dear Conservative Troglodytes to today... what a great NEW YEAR!

WPN1488 -

The issues(s) are not limited to a "GUN BAN" it is very much also a matter of registration, enforcement and vigorous prosecution, loopholes and both magazine size and ammunition ambiguity. We could also throw in training; however, we all know that once anyone purchases a gun, they are automatically trained. [There is a vast difference between hunting down those voracious and extremely vicious deer, and being confronted by an unexpected intruder or two.]

I have not seen anyone address – if the rational for owning guns is PROTECTION – you poor fearful puppies… any number of home security systems. IF you really want to play inane games with PROTECTING your home, there are many different levels of home security systems, that actually keep potential intruders out of your home, thus giving you a great deal of time to call the police, hit the alarm button, flip the switch so the entire home and outside is lighted, go sit on the toilet or grab your gun and put yourself in a good position for defense. Some homes actually have a “safe room.” This scenario rather coincides with the multiple levels [Layers] of security one employs to protect your computer from unauthorized access, hacking, phishing, malware etc

With the money you spend purchasing an AR-15 [$800.00] or other good weapon, plus ammunition, firing range fees, training on use, CCW costs and all the driving to maintain your RAMBO life style, you could have a very robust security system.

Really, a home security system offers protection from harm? It is a deterrant for sure, but not really protection. If anyone is rich enough to afford a safe room that would offer greater protection... but anything in terms of lights and sirens or alarms doesn't really offer all that much of a guarrantee of safety. I would agree that lights and alarms would be helpful in alerting a homeowner of something going on and warding off robbers... however, if an intruding individual is bent on both suicide and destruction or just doesnt like leaving witnesses to the things they do, a siren, lights, or locked door offer virtually no protection. A safe room, is not exactly practical nor inexpensive... so a gun remains a more reasonable protective measure.

Plus, so far we are only talking home invasion. That is one thing... what about general mass hysteria or a riot or something of that nature. Imagine how our society would freak out without power for a month. That is another situation where having a means of protection could make a difference between being respected and left alone or being overrun for your supplies, etc. The way I see it, a gun is there as a hopefully never needed additional tool that COULD make a difference in extreme or unlikely situations.

In many cases a house fire would get out of hand before you could grab an extingisher and stop it, but most people keep one on hand in case of a situation where it could make the difference. Same with a gun.

As for the comparison to computer protection from intrusion... I tell you what... I have virus scanning software and such... viruses have still gotten through at times. Then what, I need is tools and the knowledge of how to use them that will help me deal with the virus and irradicate it.

Too much effort is being placed on trying to stop what we cannot stop simply via legislation or locked doors... or even security guards. If an individual is motivated to do harm, taking out some security guards is not going to be that hard for them. Just last week a husband took out his police officer wife because he chose to plan and ambush... anyone can be caught off guard and cannot be perfectly observant of everything going on around them at all times. And yes, I realize that means a gun owned is quite likely to not be in reach at the time it would be needed in many cases of attack or ambush, however, its not about the cases where it wouldnt have helped... its about the cases where it would. If an attack or intrusion is determined to be in the act, there is a bit of time in most buildings for an individual not at the point of the attack to get either to a gun or out of the building... but which choice makes sense is likely to vary in the details of each scenario. Having a gun is not about being a "Rambo"... it is about having a plan for some worst-case scenarios. I would say its a wise thing to have plans in the event of being attacked in the modern world.

JW –

No computer anti-virus program is going to be perfect and stop 100% of viruses, Trojans and other malware; that is why all proficient security experts insist upon a multi-layered approach to computer security. IF you are good enough and have enough time, any computer can be breached. The point here is to significantly REDUCE the opportunities for that breach. Just because we cannot achieve a 100% security does not mean we should abandon all efforts to make intrusion more difficult.

No banning of various classes of firearms, ammunition, magazines, background checks, mental health screenings, temporary suicidal people, is ever going to stop 100% of firearm deaths… the plethora of firearms, registered, non-registered, easily available to EVERYONE and awash in America – that we will ever be able to stop this carnage. That does not mean we should cease in our attempts at REDUCING these incidents; that certainy does not mean casually dismissing all potential helpful solutions, except arming everyone.

Guns in the hands of most people are more of a threat to them and those around them than they are a PROTECTION. It always seems like we are hearing about the 6-year old boy who was playing with his younger brother, and “accidently killed him” with the proverbial “unloaded gun.”

I am not telling you not to purchase a firearm, ban all firearms, or anything of the sort; I am saying that "I think" this should be the last line [Layer] of defense, not the first.

I just personally do not think a security alarm, lights or locked doors offer a significant defense. I also think schools focusing on locking exterior doors as a safety mechanism offers little to no protection from an attack. It certainly offers some protections but not from the type of situation that occured at Sandy Hook. I do believe too much of what is discussed as "protections" in new gun laws relative to Sandy Hook offer little to no real protection.

As for kids shooting themselves or others with guns either accidentally or on purpose, I think anyone getting a gun takes on the responsibility of the security of it. As others have pointed out, most of us grew up as kids in households that had hunters in the family and thus there was actually pretty simple and easy access to guns and ammunition... we just didnt mess with it. Still parents have to know their kids either by age or by mentality. Young kids are naturally curious... some teens are suicidal and overly emotional. With young kids you have to assume that if they can get to the gun, they will.... however, gun locks and cabinets should work well. With teens, I think it increases the locking security needed AND if there is any reason to believe a kid is becoming unstable, removing the guns from the household would be wise as I would few cabinets or cases is are highly fool proof. Even if locked, I am sure there would be ways to open the case by destroying the case (saw, drill, etc).

Chances are, you will sleep through the intruder in your home, AND your weapon will be stolen at some point. 10,000 to 1 that you will EVER "blow away" that intruder.

Thanks for the reply... I am actually looking for reasons to feel good not getting an AR-15, as that one just seems interesting to me, but yeah, I certainly do not want to add more risk of hitting unintended targets. With the AR-15 there would also be more chance of the bullet hitting the right target but still riccocheying into unintended targets too, so yeah... that right there should rule it out for me. I knew of this characteristic to some extent, but I didnt give it as much credence as I should in retrospect. In terms of shooting to not hit someone in a nearby room, I know my house well enough to aid me in aiming in a manner to not catch a loved one in the unfortunate situation that I might encounter an attacker... but having a bullet go into the next house and/or the next house... yeah, that I would not want.

While the ability to hit something at a farther distance would be useful in extreme situations, I should probably not be thinking in terms of one gun to do it all. One for home defense and another in the event of societal collapse... but that is far less of a need and if something like that happened, a gun is probably not going to do much but delay the inevitable.

My brother actually suggested a pistol that shoots a small shot shell or a bullet... I forget what the name of that was... "The Judge" or something like that. I assume that's a nickname. That might really be the better alternative due to the mixed ammo abilities.

This was linked the other day and pretty much says .223 is fine for home defense but don't use fmj and to use jhp self defense rounds (the self defense rounds are very expensive though) http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/02/10/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/

I honestly can't say I know anyone who buys an AR-15 for home defense. Shotguns, pistols & revolvers. I like the 410 with #4 Buck or 20gauge with #3 Buck.

I would have to say an AR of any caliber 223/556, 308 is most def not a good choice for home defense. If you have maybe a 22 conversion or even a 9mm upper then maybe. Just the fact its bigger and more bulky than a nice handgun. Plus the fact its such a high speed round that will def travel thru walls plural. Just remember there may be loved ones on the other side not to mention neighbors.

JW if you're concerned about bullet penetration then a .223 might not be for you unless you do some research into ammo. I just saw some ammo for handguns that are made for home defense and mushroom out and stop even sooner than hollow point so take a look at that. No matter what you choose I suggest having some light source on your weapon. A good pistol light can go for only $100.

Yeah Wilson, and when I move I'll just pack it up and take it all with me. What shall I use when I go somewhere? If you dont like guns, Fine. BUT I am keeping mine.

@WPN1488....The only people that I want to see disarmed are people like you.

Awe Lyle doesn't like when you bring up racist fact about Obama and the constitution. We should all pout in the corner about taking the first amendment away from Lyle.

In Wisconsin 84 % of violent crimes are done by blacks, 14% by Whites. Weather you want to address this issue and call it racist, fine, but it is an issue.

Fire Fly –

Did you never read anything about Hiroshima or Nagasaki? Yes, those were GUNS…

I think every American should be allowed to carry one of those GUNS…

A Bomb are Guns ? Of course your right Mr. Wilson one Hell of a big bang ..,
So we should have invated Japan and lose how many GI 's doing that. Thank's to
Harry my Dad and his brothes didn't have to die and I was able to live to write this
posting. Nice try Wilson !!

Fire Fly –

From your initial post: “You own your freedom to a gun !! From the Rev war to WW2 .”

[Canons, mortars, grenades, 1000-pound bombs, airplanes, Hellfire missiles, napalm, torpedoes, spying and military intelligence had nothing to do with winning any battle or our freedom… only GUNS…

Your asinine claim that GUNS ended WWII is patently false! [I am happy that you are alive so you could write such an incredibly stupid and dumb post; I am sure Harry and your dad would be so proud of you…

“On August 6, 1945, the US dropped an atomic bomb ("Little Boy") on Hiroshima in Japan. Three days later a second atomic bomb ("Fat Man") dropped on the city of Nagasaki.” [These were the only times nuclear weapons have been used in war.]

“Estimates of total deaths in Hiroshima have generally ranged between 100,000 and 180,000, out of a population of 350,000.” [Civilians, men, women and children]

“22.7% of Nagasaki's buildings were consumed by flames. Estimates of casualties from Nagasaki have generally ranged between 50,000 and 100,000.” [Civilians, men, women and children]

WWII was ENDED by the monolithic violence of the USA MIC [Military Industrial Complex] use of the most destructive weapon known to humankind at the time. GUNS played no part in this atrocious and totally unjustified attack, upon a largely civilian population. [Collateral damage to you GUN NUTS]

Yes, I see your point; unfortunately, it is on the top of your head…

Mr Wilson-You fully understand what he was saying. There is one reason and one reason alone this Country has never been invaded by a foriegn enemy. Thanks largely to this Country having armed citizens. That is truely what the 2nd amendment is all about!!! Has nothing to do with hunters, sportsman ect. But rather the people having the ability to defend and protect themselves period from a tyrannical Government which we are currently experiencing, enemies foriegn and domestic!!! Dont Tread On Us!! It is a GOD given, non negoitable right

Can you believe this guy People : Mr Wilson would have thrown up his hands at the first sight of someone with a gun . Would you trust this Guy to protect your family or love ones. We would have never been free people because Mr.Wilson would have talked them to death and call people like me and you Asinine, Stupid , dumb , Gun nuts . Sure Mr Wison whatever you say , thanks for the 411 Mr Wilson on American history. Tom Hanks yelling WILSONNNNNNNNNNNN as you float in your ocean of
belivies . Stay safe Wilson

Patriot –

The reason we have never been invaded by a foreign country is: a) we have always invaded other countries, first, then set up bases in their country and dominated them militarily and economically b) we have the most expensive – MIC costs Americans more than the next 12-industrialized countries combined – and that provides a significant deterrent for any country to even contemplate invading the USA c) we have limited nuclear weapons to the USA and to those countries that we control or have political, military and economic dominion or influence over.

Your insignificant firearm(s) has nothing to do with protecting this country, protecting your property or family; it is only a means of compensating for your own individual huge lack of self-esteem.

Furthermore, It's very clear the 2nd Amendment, which says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is not talking about individuals owning and having arms, but state militia's, which are now state police forces and/or national guards which are organized and state run.

Moreover, this Amendment is clearly about one of the major tensions set forth in the Constitution, "State's Rights," not individual citizen’s rights. It is clear that the syntax of the Amendment has the second part of the statement referring to the first, which was totally ignored by the Supreme Court in their very unwise "activist" decision.

Mr Wilson-Once again nothing but liberal biased BS!!! You could not be more wrong owith your interpretation of the second amendment. A well regulated militia could be assembled at anytime if needed. Its happened once in history and is possible again. So why dont we divide the country and all you liberals can live in one part and us constitutional conservatives the other

Patriot -

I really suspect that you and your ilk have way too much testosterone flooding through your bodies to engage in anything even approaching a rational conversation.

Furthermore, the country is already extremely divided - you probably missed that while searching for your loin-clothe - between the cave men [Neocons] and the people who actually read and comprehend things: that would be everyone else in the country.

Steve ... After reading all your comments you definitly are one person that should not be allowed to own a gun. Maybe that's why so many people are buying guys , to protect themselves from nut cases like you.

I haven't heard Steve say anything about wanting to harm, harass or take away rights and freedoms from innocent people, have you?

Lol. Now guns can protect Bucky? You guys got to stick with the correct talking points. Checkmate.

Steve ... Started shooting when I was 12. Going on 61. Never missed an opening day deer gun hunt in Wisconsin. Bought , sold and shot more guns then I can count. Was an NRA member. Still respect everyones opinions but refuse to get sucked into the paranoid nut pool.

Lynell Milner –

I think you would be far better served if you a) got yourself a good eye examination b) wore your glasses c) go see a good psychiatrist and d) take you medications regularly.

Paranoia will destroy yah…

And lets not forget another tragic shooting much closer to home. Witness statements in the Brookfield Spa shooting said in the middle of the shooting outside, two armed duck hunters on their way home saw what was going on and chased the suspect. The suspect ran back inside and shot himself. Good guys with guns stop or at least minimize bad guys with guns.

Thank you Lynell; somehow we need to keep the message alive: The Human Element is the variable of concern. We know where the True focus needs to be, for some reason(s) our government is letting the criminal element dictate the law of the land and we the fine, upstanding, patriotic citizens need to speak louder than those running in fear that do not trust themselves with a method of self defense that has been around for centuries.

Darrel.... Here is some education for you from the FBI. We are experiencing an historic LOW in crime rates right now since WW2! You blame the government for letting criminals set the policies and then call yourself patriotic. Read the article.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite
You folks who believe we are all in grave danger of anarchy, that thugs are lumbering down the streets toward your homes or that Zombies are rising out of your backyards...should also be aware that the police another agencies are actually doing a pretty great job historically.

Gun ownership is at an all time high in USA.
Crime rates are at a historic low.
Awesome- buy more guns.

Craig... I thought you would credit Obama as people continually pin the level of violence on him and on liberals in general. No matter. I should point out that the FBIs report did not credit all the heroic civilians who pack heat as even contributive to the decline in violent crimes. What do they know of course? Prevention and being better at anticipating violence before it happens WAS the primary cause proposed. Imagine that.

Brian, I can't blame it on Obama until he starts flying drones over American's heads and terrorizing our own people.
Our society has become predisposed to violence and we really do not understand why. Is it the downward trend of two parent families? Is it lazy parenting in general? Or have we simply forgotten to teach kids how to respect others?

Craig,
"Our society has become predisposed to violence and we really do not understand why. Is it the downward trend of two parent families? Is it lazy parenting in general? Or have we simply forgotten to teach kids how to respect others?"

All potentially contributing factors... I agree with you. The issue is LARGE and multi-faceted. It is a culture of violence...not that all of us are out clubbing our neighbors yet, but violence permeates our mindset from many directions. Bottom line...anger, even non-localized, a gut frustration with life, with one's lot in it and the despair of being able to significantly change one's situation combined with a sense that a lot of people are ridiculously "well off," the huge discrepancy in wealth, I believe contributes quite a bit to what we see in terms of violence. The national model, leadership in a Global War Against Terror ( one of the most bald faced oxymorons ever penned), isnt lost on kids who want to be part of the super gang in their hood or on young people who entertain themselves attacking Yemeni "terrorists," on the latest video game. There is a lot of martial mentality going on.....

Craig –

“Year-to-year changes are notoriously volatile, especially for lesser-volume crimes like murder,” James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University in Boston, wrote in his blog. “They must be viewed with caution, avoiding the temptation to make too much out of rather little.”

From:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/11/12170947-fbi-violent-crime-rates-in-the-us-drop-approach-historic-lows?lite

Individuals are doing an even better job (happened Friday in Atlanta GA): Mother shoots home intruder five times in face and neck after he cornered her in attic with her 9yr old twins. Her husband called 911 from his work, the intruder was out of the house even after being shot 5 times and began to drive away before police found him crashed down the block.

" No matter. I should point out that the FBIs report did not credit all the heroic civilians who pack heat as even contributive to the decline in violent crimes. What do they know of course? Prevention and being better at anticipating violence before it happens WAS the primary cause proposed." Of course that's what the FBI's report stated, how could any self respecting government agency proposition a different causality.
Seriously, though...stop and think about it. Police do an excellent job of investigating the crime (after the fact), and catching the perpetrator in many cases. DAs do a decent job of convicting the criminals (at least the ones that they deem they can convict, after reducing the charge for a "guaranteed conviction). Judges, especially in Milwaukee Cty, do a mediocre job by giving "slap on the hand" sentences, if they sentence at all. The penal system does a less than stellar job by "rehabilitating" the perps, rather than punishing them.

So, does this "system" reduce the violent crime rate, or does the threat of being shot dead if you unlawfully enter someones domicile, or threaten bodily harm? After a while, an armed society if a polite society (especially if you don't know who is armed).

LEX, people don't know who is armed NOW. They have never known who was armed. Do you think this is the first generation that has had weapons? Your logic sucks.

Thank Lex, you are correct; we need to keep the names of those who are licensed to carry private; it's no one's business. If we have a license to carry, we have been cleared by our state and an a background and print check.

Brian Carlson, you coward. Please contact this woman and inform her of how you want to take away her right to defend herself.

Georgia mother hides children, shoots intruder 5 times during home invasion, police say

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57562397-504083/georgia-mother-hides-children-shoots-intruder-5-times-during-home-invasion-police-say/

While I don't care so much if people know who is armed, I really don't want it to be known who isn't armed. I prefer that the would be criminals continue to err on the side of caution and assume that everyone is armed...

The other bad thing about advertising who is armed... is that it tends to do the opposite and advertise who ISNT. In NY where they published the names and locations of registered gun owners, the people who should be most upset are those without guns as they advertised which places are best to AVOID... where do you think the robbers are going to go, the known armed houses, or the likely unarmed houses?

Daniel S. -

This is all PUBLIC INFORMATION!

I want to know how many guns are in my neighborhood, and who has them, before I send any of my children into your hazardous environment!

Furhermore, because the state of Wisconsin approved you, - we know they never make mistakes - sometime in the past, does not mean that you are not an alcoholic, drug abuser, mental patient or may become bat crap crazy today!

What kind of 'hazardous environment' are you worried about sending your children into John?

Do you really think that neighborhoods without registered gun owners are safer than neighborhoods with gun owners? The number of gun crimes increased dramatically in Chicago and Washington DC when their gun bans were in effect...

CowDung -

Any resident that I know has any firearms in it...

John:

Are you saying that if you don't know that a residence has firearms in it, it isn't hazardous?

...and if you want to know if a home has firearms in it before sending your kids there, ask the people that live there, don't require that it be published and readily available to the general public.

JW -

Yes, the "robbers" are all avidly searching through the local newspapers and internet sites, just searching for those homes that are NOT on the "HAVE GUN(s)" list. I am sure they spend the bulk of their day doing just that. [You might just want to factor in the well-known fact that databases are notoriously wrong and incomplete.]

They certainly are not targeting homes that they have already pre-checked that they know are just loaded with goodies for them; they simply just rely on public databases to find a target.

Great point!

If the anti-gun nuts have their way, then criminals wouldn't have to spend much time at all poring through newspapers and internet sites--the information would be tabulated and easy to find. Few robbers are going to break into a home knowing that the owner is armed. Criminals tend to prey on the 'easy' targets--maximize their reward, and minimize their risk.

Ok... Wilson... you continue to display a extreme level of briliance that exists only in your own mind. On one level you are ok with perhaps bans or extreme gun control because of the FEW cases where people go crazy and do harm. BUT... you pass off making the information of where registered guns are easy to get ahold of as if that is not a threat to those who do not own guns? I am not going to claim it is a tool that would be used by all harmful individuals, but I am sure it would be a tool that at least a FEW would take advantage of. So, if our goal of safety and security is to cover the bases of the unlikely things that do or could happen, how could you argue against one of these unlikely to occur situations when it would almost surely occur in some cases? You just flop around to whatever comment you feel fits your need. Logic be damned. As more than just I have pointed out, if someone is looking to burglarize a house and gun registration information is easily obtainable at least some crooks with access to a computer would learn to check that information in their assessment of what to target. The more readily available the information is, the more it will be used.

Something being public information that people can go and research at a courthouse is WAY different from it being easy to access and search across.

I wish all criminals were as stupid as you think they are.... though luckily most, like you, think they are much smarter than they actually are.

CowDung -

It is PUBLIC INFORMATION and it belongs in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.

There are many people who will, if asked - amazing isn't it - lie about possessing a gun.

I would rather have it PUBLISHED and then I could check that through my law enforcement contacts.

That way, I could get the word out to all the parents in my neighborhood - I'm a neighborhood watch commander - parents and friends.

Finally, IF you GUN OWNERS are so PROUD about your GUNS and your support for the NRA, then PROUDLY PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OUT THERE!

No, you chicken hawks would rather hide behind your faux names on the Patch!

What is the Intelligent Purpose behind broadcasting the names and addresses of Legal Gun Owners? How do you Not see the moronic thought behind this? You give criminals a list of places to go to steal weapons when no one is home and also inform them of who is unarmed. You achieved nothing intelligent at all by making this public information. What happened to the right to privacy for those who are within the legal realm of life?

CowDung -

I know the homes that my children go to play or stay overnight, and I know the parents very well, both through my personal contacts with them, and with the extra checking that I do. Parents have a special responsibility to their children.

As children grow, they make new friends and want to go to new homes; the EXTRA LEVEL OF HAZARD of having a firearm in the home is not something I as a conscientious parent am willing to accept.

I HOPE THAT IS CLEAR!

You may send your children to an al Qaeda home; that is your choice...

JW -

There is nothing logical or informative about your comments on this blog... everything you have said has been stated before, debunked and totally dismissed in prior statements, both by other bloggers and myself in reference to this topic.

You may, of course, continue to blather on and repeat neocon talking points; I am just passing up on reading the same tired drivel…

That's being very vigilant of you John. Did you also check if these houses of your neighbors have liquor cabinets? Do they keep prescription drugs on hand? Do they lock up their car keys when they leave the house?
When I was a kid, 90% of my friends had guns in their houses. At that time, trigger locks and biometric gun safes were pretty much non existent. The previous items listed were the things that we got into "trouble" with (not so much the prescription drugs, but they seem to be so much more pervasive today that I thought I would mention it). We had all been exposed to firearms at a relatively young age, so they were not such a huge curiosity to us. The bigger problem today, is that certain sects of society makes firearms so taboo; everyone knows that with kids, the verboten items are SOOOO much more interesting to the curious. Maybe instead of instilling fear of the unknown, you should try a little education.

BTW, how do you feel about a list being published of all of your neighbors that are, or ever have been, prescribed psychotropic drugs? Because some of those are a heck of a lot scarier than a law abiding citizen that may be in possession of a licensed firearm.

Brian, sometimes you need to read between the lines...so I'll spell it out for you. More people than ever legally own firearms, more places than ever (in the US) allow concealed carry, violent crime rates are down. For someone considering doing evil against another individual, the probability of that individual being able to defend themselves is now higher than ever. May cause the perp to reconsider, or he/she may just seek out a gun free zone.

Daniel S. –

The “Intelligent Purpose” of broadcasting names and addresses of Legal Gun Owners is: a) because it is PUBLIC INFORMATION b) it allows the citizens in the community to know who has a gun and make an informed decision whether they want their children to go to these homes c) IF you have a gun or guns they should be locked in a secure safe, so criminals would not be likely to steal your manhood, and finally, you simply do NOT have any RIGHT to PRIVACY when you purchase, register and obtain a CCW permit. Privacy regarding firearm ownership is a fiction, just like the existence of a GOD.

Furthermore, the more firearms and ammunition in any given community or area, the more the chances for mistakes, mayhem, over-reaction and firearm deaths. GUNS do not protect life; they threaten it… Insurance companies know this too, that is why insurance rates – for everyone in the area – skyrocket because of you clowns…

You don’t want the freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution; you, and other GUN NUTS are simply anarchists who want to do anything they want! Then, when the Constitution tells you, you can’t do that out of deference to the public welfare, you cry about losing a freedom you never had!

John Wilson-Burglars actually do read newspapers and the Internet for victims. Two men earlier this year arrested for over 40 burglaries of vacant homes for sale/under foreclosure. That was the biggest one I heard of but many others that did dozens of homes and where did they say they found out about the homes...newspaper and Internet. And to correct your error about CCW permits in Wisconsin at least...It is not public record at all. The law was written to protect citizens simply exercising their constitutional right. The law specifically states police officers can be criminally charged for randomly searching the database. There are very few instances that law enforcement can even search the CCW database.

John Wilson:

I am not a gun owner. I count on the fact that it is not so easy for criminals to know if I am a gun owner or not. Publishing names of gun owners will put me more at risk for people breaking into my home as robbers don't have to worry about me shooting them.

It's great that you are confident enough that you want to broadcast the fact that you do not own guns, the rest of us would prefer to let criminals assume that we are armed and would be a threat to them should they decide to target our home and/or family.

Lex Parsimoniae -

Prescription drugs, psychotropic or not are currently covered under some very strict PRIVACY POLICIES and LAWS; Legal ownership of guns are not!

This is just another false equivalency argument...

What other inane arguments do you have in that box of rocks?

Also Wisconsin circuit court records now protect certain victims. Citizens obtaining restraining orders and injunctions against others no longer have addresses or birth dates posted to protect victim. But now its apparently ok to post their info just differently. There may be other possible ways to obtain someone's address but posting it for simply exercising your rights puts thousands at risk. It's just makes it that much easier to find someone. Why is it ok for antigun citizens to say a couple more gun restrictions will just make it a bit more difficult to kill someone but I can't say the same when it comes to protecting my family's info?

I just gotta say... I am glad Wilson is anti-gun.... with the mental issues he clearly displays all over his comments, that is absolutely for the best!

John I do agree that HIPPA and other state laws protect medical records. But don't you find it a bit odd that your constitutional right is not protected but a non constitutional right is? Doesn't seem right???

CowDung -

As I have stated repeatedly on this blog, I have (2) Glock 17 handguns, I have served 6-years in the Marines and I practice at a gun range twice a week, plus I have a CCW permit.

Publish my name and address; I do not have a problem with that; I also am an instructor for the safe use of firearms.

IF you do not own or want to own a firearm, that is entirely your choice; I know I have the maturity, training, experience and safe knowledge to adequately handle the RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUN OWNERSHIP… by far the majority of GUN NUTS simply DO NOT!

John, I'm well acquainted with HIPAA...If you could get beyond the kindergartner level on "Are you smarter than a fifth grader", you would understand that I was saying I am more wary of individuals on psychotropic (especially those that have been prescribed, but have discontinued use) than I am of a licensed firearms holder. Unless, of course, that person is on psychotropics, as well.

What the media is so infamous for, is advancing these recent tragedies through points that advance their agenda. Meanwhile, often leaving out facts of the cases that don't nicely follow their agenda. Bias isn't necessarily what someone says, it's often found in what they leave out.

The vast majority of mass shootings in the US have been documented cases of mental defect (DUHH), and most, if not all, were currently prescribed anti-depressants or other psychoactives. Guns are not the cause, they are simply the implement used to carry out the act.

Str8shooter -

That is very interesting; perhaps you would share some legal sources for this with me.

I have (2) law enforcement agencies and (1) federal law enforcement agency that share that information with me, upon request. I will confess that I have known these folks over 20-years and that may be my edge, however, at no time was I ever denied nor was I informed that they were putting their position in jeopardy by providing that information.

Furthermore, I would suspect a freedom of information request would certainly yield that information to almost anyone.

John Wilson:

I am a bit confused. After your statement:

"As children grow, they make new friends and want to go to new homes; the EXTRA LEVEL OF HAZARD of having a firearm in the home is not something I as a conscientious parent am willing to accept. "

It would seem that you wouldn't want you kids in a home with firearms. How does that square with your admission that you (a parent) own firearms and presumably keep them in your home?

It must make for some interesting community dynamics to not allow your children to play in homes where firearms are owned, yet your children live in such a home. Seems a bit hypocritical to say the least...

...and I would argue that most of the 'gun nuts' you warn us about believe that they also know that they have the maturity, training, experience and safe knowledge to adequately handle the RESPONSIBILITIES OF GUN OWNERSHIP.

John-This is from a Wisconsin legal brief from the state attorneys office..."Restrictions on Release of License Information. DOJ maintains a computerized listing of the names and application information of licensees but may not make any of the information available to the public except in the course of a relevant prosecution. A law enforcement officer may not request or be provided information concerning a specific licensee except for purposes such as confirming that a license is valid, and the law enforcement agency may not make any of the information public except as part of a court proceeding". Your "police friends" are violating state law if what you say is accurate. The law was written specifically to limit police and citizens' availability to citizens exercising their rights. Obviously not all states were written that way.

Str8shooter -

It may seem odd or not "Right" to you, however, laws are not created with "right" in mind. Slavery was not "Right, however, it was an over 100-year law and in reality far beyond that.

Additionally, I mentioned insurance companies before; these folks need to know the potential hazards in any group or community to adequately access the risks inherent in that population, without that, they are sort of flying blind. If you had a community of 10,000, people and everyone had a gun(s) you would have some rather terrifying liability, especially if you had no knowledge of that situation...

@JW-Plzzzzzzz stop your ignorance is showing. The progressive Liberal mind truely amazes me. Not quite sure how your even able to tie your own shoes. Zero common sense and most def no Logic

I never said every law ever created was a good law but is have to disagree and say the purpose of laws is to make things right and keep the way of life that society seems is "right". Laws protect and keep society safe or at least that is a laws purpose. When someone breaks a law that are looked upon as doing something wrong "not right" so although I by no means believe all laws make sense I do believe that's exactly what laws are intended for.

Lex Parsimoniae -

It just seems to me that you are are very frightened person.

No amount of GUNS is going to solve your problem.

No amount of psychiatric history on people - because anyone can become overwhelmed at any time - is going to solve your problem there either.

Psychology/psychiatry are simply not very accurate predictors of human behavior, even though people are fond of saying that you may judge future behavior by past behavior...

Frighten people do not exactly make the best decisions… that is why I am so against everyone in America having massively powerful firearms. That is as ludicrous as giving every 5-year old a fully loaded M16.

CowDung –

BELIEF is not FACT... and, ultimately, it is MY DECISION!

Let me address your alleged confusion.

Because of my life experiences, I am very good at accessing people in a face-to-face situation. It just happens to be something, probably passed on by my parents DNA.

When the GUN NUTS have over 20-years of specialized training, actual combat experience and a good level of gun safety and emotional maturity, somewhat comparable to mine, then I will seriously entertain allowing letting my children go into their home with guns in it.

My experience with GUN NUTS has shown me that that all of the folks that I have met have been rank amateurs in almost all areas relating to GUNS; that is why I refer to them as GUN NUTS. [Not all people who own guns are GUN NUTS] I will not subject my children or myself to these walking time bombs.

I hope I have cleared up some of your confusion, as where GUNS are concerned, I will always err on the side of safety.

You BELIEVE what you will...

You sound exactly like the gun nuts, touting your years of military experience, 'emotional maturity', and a superior ability to handle your weapons responsibly...

Str8shooter -

I understand the text of your answer, however, I believe I requested sources... that would be internet sites that I might access and read.

And yes, different states do legislate different laws and exceptions, etc., that is one of the beautiful things about living in the USA... 50-different individual state laws regulating gun information and the federal government having their own special law.

Then we have the FISA Courts where duplicity overrides everything and you are left with complete legal chaos...

THX!

John Wilson- Here is just one. They are Wisconsin law and very simple to look up each statute online. As you can see it is not public record and even law enforcement by law are able to check the database only when a citizen with a permit or claiming to have a permit is with police. You'll want to go to one of the last pages for that topic.
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/dles/cib/ConcealedCarry/ccw_frequently_asked_questions.pdf#page54

Str8shooter -

THX!

I do think there is a newer edition, and this one does state that the AG has not reviewed this, plus, all the oversight is by the DOJ, so that might make some of these provisions problematic... even if the enforcement is left to Wisconsin.

It does give me a good start though...

John -I provide an article documenting Wisconsin law. I believe my article even has statutes and as I said its very simple to find the Wisconsin statutes. I KNOW without a doubt the Wisconsin CCW permit holders are not public record. If you don't want to believe me or read the statutes that's fine but this is accurate. You specifically asked for an article but clearly had no intention of accepting you were misinformed about the law and that your "police friends" can be criminally charged if what you say is true.

Str8shooter –

Hold up there a nanosecond, little man… you are very quick on the draw here today…

I asked you for internet sites regarding CCW permits not being PUBLIC INFORMATION… you provided ONE, and I THANKED YOU!

What is your PROBLEM?

There really are (2) distinct issues here, that I brought forward – regarding guns – in the state of Wisconsin.

1) Registration – PUBLIC RECORDS
2) CCW permit – PUBLIC RECORDS

The law site you provided seems to be clear that Wisconsin [and references to statutes] does not want the holders of CCW permits to be in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. You are correct on that count. Give yourself a gold star...

I merely pointed out that the site you referenced was from August 2, 2011. I further pointed out the large DISCLAIMER at the heading of this DOJ/CCW document, and the fact that at that time, the AG had not reviewed it.

Further, I stated that this was a good starting point for me. Again, I thank you for that.

We know (correction, I know) that the flow of information and interpretation from top down within law enforcement and any bureaucracy can be very problematic and sometimes confusing.

I will contact my sources and relay my questions and concerns, as I certainly do not want to put anyone’s employment in jeopardy. Moreover, I will continue to do further research on the CCW permit PUBLIC INFORMATION issues, as I stated in my last post.

You have been helpful; please take a chill pill..

John, your "debating" style is really quite entertaining. Passive aggressive at best, sociopathic perhaps.

You have a habit of telling people that you don't know (but disagree with ideologically) to "take a chill pill", yet are the first one during the discourse to belittle or denigrate the individual, rather than refuting their statement with a counterargument along the same logical thread. Interesting; maybe I hit a little too close to home with my pharmacology report comment. If so, I apologize.

Lex Parsimoniae -

One cannot challenge, debate or counter an opinion, delusion or fantasy, especially when there are no facts presented to support that opinion, delusion or fantasy. In cases such as these, any opinion is as good as any other opinion presented.

If someone interprets numbers as a Trillion, when they are clearly Billion, and that individual consistently relies on name-calling and snarky comments to refute a factual argument, I am going to call it what it is: mathematical ignorance and HS sophomoric antics.

I do not suffer fools for an eternity, however, I do both appreciate nuance and often use it in my prose. If one cannot follow the thread, the consistent, historic puerile context of some of these posters, then get a reading comprehension course, do not read or answer my posts; there are options here.

When I do not know the very complex and comprehensive solution(s) to gun safety regulations here in America, I will tell you that, “I don’t know.” I will suggest some avenues that might be fruitful for exploration.

I will not call you a kindergarten level, passive-aggressive or sociopathic personality for your style of prose; I might suggest that terms specifically defined, and having extremely precise diagnostic criteria in the DSM-IV should probably not be thrown about as haphazardly, as lay people with no psychiatric training.

In closing, I guess, the only germane issue here is that you are entertained…

Good point sir. .223 FMJ is still available and cheap at Cabelas, just picked up a bunch more this morning.

Sir???? YC...You respect that paranoid racist statement? Ethnic cleaning of white European Americans??? Oh yeah..we are at great risk! WPN you need to get some help. People dont talk to you because they think you are crazy. Whatever happened to you want you to hear someone say, go get some help.

@WPN1488.While I grew up in (white) Europe.it was never a real thing of debate.Either you had white skin colour or you had not.Coming here to the USA I only have found out how disgracefull and sickning the color white is.
I think you and folks like you need to go back to Europe and walk the streets and find out for yourself that white hatred lives only on the USA side of town.

Fred, people that hide behind these labels, even more so those that have intentionally threatening ones like WPN, are verbal thugs, an exact parallel to the violent thugs they decry. They hope their talk will frighten you... They hope masks will intiidate you. Insecurity and fear is the context of their world and hate is their response. They latch onto simplistic "answers" to the problems they face, as racism provides, in order to avoid dealing with their own feelings of inadequacy and the disabling fear they contain. They persist unchecked because sensible people avoid them, as readily as they cross to the other side of the street if they see a man grumbling to himself in public. They are zealots of simple black and white thought, fundamentalist of reactionary thinking. I am glad you spoke up.

@Fred

Sickening and disgraceful the color white is? Spoken like true weak self hating eurotrash. Go sacrifice yourself to the noble animals why don't you.

Craig... Is that an SNL sketch??? He forgot to mention that Hitler and Obama both had two legs and breathed oxygen and were fed milk as children. And his expert research is from a random woman named Kitty.

Brian I am sorry I thought Kitty was obvious.
Kitty Werthmann survived Hitler, you should be able to learn about her on the google machine...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html

Please read the above link Brian and then tell me it sounds like an SNL sketch.
Remember this woman is not partisan.
This should scare the hell out of most liberals.

Craig-WOW!!! Her story is def some scary stuff. Way to many similarities

Craig, it's a fascinating article and appreciate anyone posting intelligent commentary that is more than off the shelf parroting of their clubs spiel. I am very versed in another, parallel story...that of the state terrorism in Argentina during the years 1976 - 1983.
The dynamics are similar in many respects and, of course, many Nazis moved to Argentina following the war. The Nazi effect, if I can coin a term, was part of the state repression there.
There are many things I don't like about the current administration. I have been vocal and straightforward about these issues. At the same time, it's very evident to me as a white male that a large part of the foundation for anti-Obama rhetoric comes simply from racist sentiments. You can sort through this blog and guess how many people here would be absolute fine with a conservative BLACK President. so I react to that bullshit spin... I hate racism. It sickens me. It's moronic, atavistic and completely destructive to all races.

I don't think the Hitler/ Obama comparison has a lot of serious weight. They were both leaders of empires....that is the best parallel.... But as politicians the fact they both say what people hope to hear and speak of a better world means nothing. Romney did the same. For gods sake they all hire very sophisticated folks to figure out what will sell to the masses.

Continued...
If you want to find a Fuhrer, figure out who profits from what goes on with our empire. Obama is not fantastically wealthy nor can he do whatever the he'll he pleases. Corporatocracy is a vector point if you want to find some bad guys. And it's hard to find the guys...as they are all just board members in these massive industries and corporations.

@CArlson-I will get u a flash lite in hopes you will be able to see. Im sure its pretty dark up there. Just like a stork with ur head buried in the sand!

Craig... To be clear,the bald dudes ANALYSIS of Kitty's story is the SNL sketch.... His attempt to draw a grave comparison on the grounds of both O and H being golden tongued orators telling people what they want to hear at a time when their economies sucked, the ridiculous bit about the symbol O as a parallel to a Swatstika... I thought O was for Oprah myself... and the other heavy similarities...Hitlercarw and Obamacare. That is the joke. I actually respect what Kitty had to say once I got past the joker who was using Hitlerian but also simply politician tactics, I could add...albeit with less panache.

Brian; I think her story speaks for itself. I am not going to spin my interpretation as I feel it is best left up to the reader.
Patriot: It scares the hell out of me too.

Thanks AWD!
Done!

pffftt.

The real issue is much more than the current President, don't be fooled. There is more going on here than meets the eye and it is not just one party involved.

Patriot? You evidently oppose people whom you feel are racists. Tell me and everyone else hee, how many non-white friends have you had in your life. Did you consider dating non-white people? You speak like a racist.... I don't know that you are a racist but I can tell you you come across as one. Would you marry a black woman if you were in love with her?

Mr Carlson-You are a very poor judgement of Character. I am most def not racist. I have many black friends and yes find some black women very attractive. So not sure where u get Im racist? Read the mans book there Carlson. Those are Obamas words not mine, his fathers words, his mothers words and yes Michele as well. Oh lets not forget Reverend Wright all people Obama surrounded himself with. Not to mention his step father hated this Country!! Nothing racist at all. Just speaking facts. Read his book and memoirs. Educate yourself

Brian: This may be a risky statement to make, but it is necessary to make a point.
One can be a racist and have black friends and/or lovers. Plantation owners often were attracted to black females and forced themselves on them.
I mention this because perception is not truth regarding racism.

get yourself a gun (is how it should read)

WPN-Absolutely!!!! You hit the nail right on the head!!!

WPN...can you educate us as to your political affiliation and as to what the WPN1488 stands for? Surely you chose this handle with conviction instead of posting a legal name... What's up with your handle?

I know what some people have claimed WPN1488 stands for.
This is why I normally do not take sides when WPN1488 makes a post.
I want to remind people of what Biden said.."They wanna put ya'll back in chains."
This is not only untrue, it is perpetuation of racism by a moron.

@Mr. Carlson...Repost from a while back, this came up once before. My screen name is in honor of my wife who I married on the 14th day in 1988 (that really hot summer). WPN is nothing more than my wife’s initials.

@Brian Carlson....Don't buy WPN's explanation concerning his screen name.
WPN - White Power Nation
14 - It stands for the 14 words from the imprisoned David Lane and is a rallying cry. The 14 words are:"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children."
11 - It stands for the letter H, which is Heil Hitler.
He also has a German Flag as a symbol.

Source: Southern Poverty Law Center

Brian, you have a problem with screen names, but I can state that many of us that use them instead of our real names do so because we own businesses or work for companies we don't want exposed to thuggery just because we expressed an opinion.

@Brian Carlson...One correction- I hit the wrong number it 88 instead of 11. 8 represents the letter H and means Heil Hitler.

Lyle I'm fairly certain a "pro white" radical who makes it known by creating a username symbolizing their beliefs isn't going to hide what their username means. Lets keep it somewhat reasonable at least.

There is a far higher rate of criminal activity within the ranks of the MAIG than among the ranks of more than eight million citizens who are licensed to carry concealed firearms in 49 states. The Mayor's among MAIG's own ranks have engaged in such activities as tax evasion , extortion, accepting bribes, trademark counterfeiting and perjury. One was even convicted of assaulting a police officer. Mayor Barrett should pay more attention to what his Mayor friends in MAIG are up to than worry about the gun owners he’s been trying to demonize. WPN1488 will be at the event to monitor the radical Progressive proceedings.

AWD -

You are WRONG; but why break your record now?

You are always WRONG!

Daniel S. -

My comments were for the state if Wisconsin.

“Whether it really is public knowledge may depend on the state you live in. Me personally, when I address topics, I address them as a National Issue; unless we know it to be a specifically local or state issue. For example in Connecticut: Gun owner information is currently private but there is a bill, if passed, it would reverse a 20-year decision by state lawmakers to keep the personal information confidential. The intelligence is being lost over emotional reaction it seems; never a good thing. “

If you have GUNS, your community ought to know, so they may make an informed decision regarding living in a community awash with firearms, insurances companies ought to know, so they may adjust the risk factors, including property values in that area appropriately, certainly law enforcement officials ought to know, at the very least so when they are called for a domestic disturbance, they know what they are facing, and the same holds for fighter fighters and EMTs; the rights of the community should always trump the selfish desires of the anarchists who think all laws are enacted for someone else.

We should all address the well-known fact that a law-abiding gun owner may become a criminal in an instant. Children are not born criminals; they become criminals, mostly before the age of 35.

Society makes laws for one reason and one reason only: to control human behavior.

John Wilson- So if you are mentally ill, you may be of danger to our society, so the public has a right to know. If are an alcoholic or convicted drug user, yu are a danger to our society, the public has a right to know. Anyone of these may committ a crime within seconds, so the public interest trumps their rights.

Gun owners are not anarchists you fool. The only ones that have thought like that are Stalin, Hitler and Mein Obama. Until you fully enforce the over 2,000 laws that address gun violence, and have mandatory sentencing which you liberals hate, then come to us with new ones. Until then, stop trying to blame everything and everyone else on crimes that in this case, one man committed.

Brian: I have made the mistake of posting using my real name, only to be targeted by opposing viewers. Driving by my home, using their hands and fingers as a gun- going bam...
While you and I may disagree on many things, I am certain neither of us is in fear of the other retaliating. But one has to be aware there are many kooks out there.

@Brian Carlson....I get so bored with conspiracy theories. The more people go on the more ridiculous they become. In the past, I have been involved with a number of the organizations that have been named as part of conspiracies. What is humorous is that if you know anything about these organizations, they are so disorganized, under funded and rarely are of a single mind let alone a single purpose. It's like the Democratic Party, they are not of a single purpose and represent any number of interests.

Daniel S. -

The was meant to be 100% pure sarcasm!

That is what you get when every state and individual thinks they can all do THEIR OWN THING...

Brian C.- And Obama is leaving us what kind of legacy? I consider the only label for this administration is arrogant fools. This is what you get when you get a one term state legislator, one term Senator. Someone who knows just enough to be dangerous. Didn't help that he was a crack smoking idealogue.

Brian Calson I agree. Both parties are to blame for the Debt issue.

What everyone seems to ignore is that Obama has single handedly outspent all previous administrations, adding more Debt than 12 years of Bush 1+2
.
Debt is a useful tool, but if used wrongly it can hurt you.
When Debt is over 100% of GDP, and there is no economic growth to look forward to; then we are looking at an end to America as we know it.

Craig -

We have strayed far afield from GUNS, the topic here; I do understand your penchant for dragging President Obama into every topic though, so I will attempt to enlighten you here.

"What everyone seems to ignore is that Obama has single handedly outspent all previous administrations, adding more Debt than 12 years of Bush 1+2 "

Everyone ignores that because it simply is not TRUE.

Please take the time to peruse the following link, paying special attention to “Table 3: Average change in annual deficit.”

It is not what you want to BELIEVE, however, it is FACTUAL…

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Wilson:
You can be the "topic police" when:
1) You write your own blog
2) You understand the difference between debt and deficit
3) You can read the charts in your own links which clearly show an increase in spending
4) You actually have something useful to add to the conversation

Craig -

Debt is part of the deficit... I know that is news to you... just deal with it!

803,424,990,821 GWB - 8 years
34,326,854,939 GHWB - 4 years

837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...

-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama

Please take an economics 101 class... please...

Wilson you still do not understand. What part of DEBT do you not get? Even using your simpleton chart in your link, it is obvious. It is clear from your inability to comprehend that you should never procreate.
I hear they are planning another Castaway movie...you should audition for the part of the ball full of air. Tom Hanks needs a clueless companion.

What part of the $1.2 trillion deficit is the $16.4 trillion debt?

Using Wilson's fuzzy numbers:
837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...
-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama (anyone who buys that is an IDIOT)
This means our actual Federal Debt is only $10 Trillion !
I wonder why the debt clock shows $16.3 Trillion????
That pssss sound you hear is the air coming out of Wilson's head.

Greg -

1.2T is currently what we owe to China.

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html

Rainman..........

Craig -

It is quite obvious that you desperately need the economics 101 course.

Instead of being snarky... try and understand the difference between intra-government debt and national deficit... there is room for 1Kb left on your hard drive.

Wilson: Bush left us with $10 Trillion of debt.
Obama is now at $16 Trillion.
My hard drive works fine, seems you are still using a floppy.
They make pills for that.

Craig -

We know you are economically challenged; now we know that you are mathematically challenged as well...

IF you look closely, you will find that the numbers I presented to you are in BILLIONS… NOT TRILLIONS, as you so incorrectly characterized them.

Further, these figures represent intra-government debt, not the national deficit.
I understand this is difficult for you, as it does go a bit further than the count of your fingers and toes…

Wilson: You chastise me for going off topic by changing guns to Federal debt.
Then you change debt to deficit, throw in some BS and stir the pot to make everything crystal clear. Changing the subject matter every time you are cornered with facts.
Get off your high horse Wilson, you have been challenged repeatedly and proven wrong by many people (myself, JRH, etc).
To put it mildly, you're a complete horses ass.
I have had bowel movements with more brains that you have.

Craig -

You must be a Christian... because you are so NICE. [Fourteen Century definition of NICE.]

I’m sorry YOU changed the topic on this blog.
I’m sorry YOU do not understand basic economics 101.
I’m sorry YOU cannot differential between debt and deficit.
I’m sorry YOU do not comprehend the difference between a BILLION and a TRILLION.
I’m sorry YOU are mathematically challenged.

Finally, I’m sorry YOU, like Bush, are SPECIAL…

Wilson don't be sorry. Flush yourself - twice,
it's a long ride to the treatment plant at MMSD.

John Wilson wrote: “Craig –Debt is part of the deficit... I know that is news to you... just deal with it!
803,424,990,821 GWB - 8 years
34,326,854,939 GHWB - 4 years
837,751,845,760 Added by Bush 1+2 - 12 years of Republican debauchery...
-343,491,183,091 Subtracted by Obama”
==========
John, that made no sense at all, at least not when you look at the facts. Using Table 1.1—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-): 1789–2017 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Year Spending Surplus or Deficit (–)
2008 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 3,456,213 -1,293,489
2011 3,603,061 -1,299,595
2012 3,795,547 -1,326,948 (estimate)

So the last year under Bush 43 is less that a third of the first year of Obama.

Time to go back to sixth grade math class Johnny.