Legally purchased arms are still being found in the hands of criminal elements. Amount of arms sold in the USA exceeded the Ma and Pa requirements for their weapons protection. Difference of those arms that have exceeded what and Ma and Pa required, can only be speculated as to their destinations and owners‘.
Assault rifles and or greater weapons can be ascertain that they are NOT for Ma and Pa. Second amendment is being abused to illicit an arms race amongst the populace. I will be contacting my representatives and suggest they pass a bill that will hold organizations such as NRA and other similar organizations financially responsible for the destruction and mayhem they have impressed upon our society.
Thank You for keeping me updated. It will serve me as a reminder that more voices should be heard in agreement, that the gun laws need to be reformed and restrictive regulations increased.

@Bernard
All of that information is good and interesting, but it doesn't correlate to your point. It also ignores the core principle behind the 2nd amendment. All of the things you want, increasing gun laws and regulations, making things more restrictive, will not lower violent crime rates. So what is the goal you are trying to achieve, aside from steamrolling an amendment you appear to not support?

Matt; Here is the rub. Restricting guns does reduce violence. England and New York are two examples. I’m for guns when it is rationally acceptable within the frame works for what the second amendment was trying to do. Today we can observe the irrational sales of weapons.
Assault rifles and all of the military arsenals should be banned from the private sector. What we have now is a micro arms race using Ma and Pa as the poster child.
I’m not supporting a total ban. Lets use some intelligence in their sales and licensing. Example; Local gun shops would have a quota for sales of ammunition and guns that is proportional to the surrounding community they market. Each sale to be tabulated and subject to an audit as they are deemed fit for the area and or the credit of their gun shop. Guns to be of simple hunting and for Ma and Pa’s security. Exceed that and it must be immediately reported.
This idea , that it has to be all one way or the other way, is nuts.

@Bernard,
No, restricting guns doesn't reduce violence. There's no proof it does that. (in fact in most cases, one could argue proof it does the contrary)

"Assault rifles and all of the military arsenals should be banned from the private sector. "

I disagree. Also assault rifles are already actually illegal for private citizens to own. I actually think they should not be.

"Lets use some intelligence in their sales and licensing. Example; Local gun shops would have a quota for sales of ammunition and guns that is proportional to the surrounding community they market. Each sale to be tabulated and subject to an audit as they are deemed fit for the area and or the credit of their gun shop. Guns to be of simple hunting and for Ma and Pa’s security. Exceed that and it must be immediately reported.
This idea , that it has to be all one way or the other way, is nuts."

All of that is gun control that will do nothing to reduce violence. The idea that you want to restrict guns and ammo and introduce more control is nuts. (See, I can make empty arguments too)

I will be contacting my representatives and suggest they pass a bill that will hold organizations such as UAW and other similar organizations financially responsible for the destruction and mayhem they have impressed upon our society.

Bernard, Chicago has some of the most strict gun control in the country, but one of the highest gun murder rates. Mexico outlaws almost all private gun ownership, but has one of the highest gun homicide rates in the world. And the shooter in Oak Creek did not even use an "assault weapon", so why are you ranting about them?

If you don't appreciate the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you find a country that is more in line with your beliefs. But don't try to trample on our rights in the USA.

And BTW, you should learn the definition of "illicit".

Atrocities’ and tragedies are the manifestations of failed polices. The health of our society bears the scares of those travesties. When it is recognized and dismissed, ignored, violence will once again remind us of those failings. This will continue until a sane resolution repairs, replaces those failed policies.

NRA taken to the margins of abusive predatory selling. Observe Arizona’s liberal gun laws that allow an 18 yr old to purchase an unlimited amount of firearms. $5,000, $10,000 $100,000 ? Legal weapons purchases are found in the cartels hands! Regressive ideology of days gone by remerge. Cowboys selling guns to the Indians. Arizona’s statements on what they prefer to how illegal immigrants should be addressed, identifies the oxymoron mentality of their goals. Selling guns to the Indians and then plead for help when the Indians begin to attack them and infringe onto their liberties!?
Add that to our Mental institutions in the USA near extinction. Jail is its substitute! Educating the mentally handicap, to a life of hate and crime. Mix the two and viola, tragedy. Again at what cost?
NRA is profit motivated with an Arms Race strategy to the fears of Ma and Pa against the mobs, cartels and the orbital rouge criminal elements. Fodder fueling the confusion and derogatory remarks of an opinionated tabloid disguised as factual news hastens the demise of our society’s security and health.

Atrocities and tragedies are the manifestation of humanity. You can't regulate evil, wrongdoing, and the ability to choose out of existence. The NRA and gun laws are merely scapegoats for whatever agenda you appear to be pushing. Gun control would only further the demise of our society's security and health.

Matt; Here is the rub. Restricting guns does reduce violence. England and New York are two examples. I’m for guns when it is rationally acceptable within the frame works for what the second amendment was trying to do. Today we can observe the irrational sales of weapons.
Assault rifles and all of the military arsenals should be banned from the private sector. What we have now is a micro arms race using Ma and Pa as the poster child.
I’m not supporting a total ban. Lets use some intelligence in their sales and licensing. Example; Local gun shops would have a quota for sales of ammunition and guns that is proportional to the surrounding community they market. Each sale to be tabulated and subject to an audit as they are deemed fit for the area and or the credit of their gun shop. Guns to be of simple hunting and for Ma and Pa’s security. Exceed that and it must be immediately reported.
This idea , that it has to be all one way or the other way, is nuts.

Matt; ”behaviors has to walk the fine balance of achieving the goal, but without infringing upon the rights of others

Walking a fine line requires regulating one’s focus to achieve that goal. Arms race with deadly weapons infringes on me and endangers our society and communities. Yes we need to draw the line and say no more than this point.

Matt; “it appears to be breaking the laws regarding nonprofits and restrictions on political activity”

So this is an opinion of yours and not fact? If you are wrong then who’s rights would you be infringing on.?
When we negate to have the mentally handicap cared for, through professional institutions, we use our jails to educate them to a life of crime and hatred. Until we take responsibility in this arena of our society, regulations on arms and ammunition must be even more stringent in their sales. Resulting destruction and financial loses, that this infringes on our society, need to be addressed. Who is to get the BILL? Taxpayers or the weapons manufactures?

Kate; You should have a talk with Gabby and see how much she approves of your vile ranting.

"Matt; Here is the rub. Restricting guns does reduce violence. England and New York are two examples. "

You might want to check your sources again. Since banning guns, the violent crime rate in England has gone UP 77%. So you actually just made an argument against gun control. (however, the reality is that there are a lot of variables that determine violent crime rates, none of which really have anything to do with gun control)

" Arms race with deadly weapons infringes on me and endangers our society and communities. Yes we need to draw the line and say no more than this point."

No it doesn't. You can keep repeating this, it doesn't make it true.

"So this is an opinion of yours and not fact? If you are wrong then who’s rights would you be infringing on.? "

It's my opinion based upon the evidence presented. Right or wrong, I am not infringing upon anyone's rights...

"Until we take responsibility in this arena of our society, regulations on arms and ammunition must be even more stringent in their sales. Resulting destruction and financial loses, that this infringes on our society, need to be addressed. Who is to get the BILL? Taxpayers or the weapons manufactures?"

Once again, more talk about gun control with no substance. We can beat this dead horse, but it's just not going to ride. You're pointing at a scapegoat for what you perceive as an injustice and shortcoming of society.

@ Bren. Your question is one that has many aspects to finding a possible answer. The answer may ultimately be "nothing". There are simply some things that are beyond our control in terms of removing them completely from this world. And on the same hand too, any attempts to control such behaviors has to walk the fine balance of achieving the goal, but without infringing upon the rights of others.

Also Bren, I'm not questioning the validity of the documentation. What I am questioning however, is that the WAVE foundation is a nonprofit, but to me it appears to be breaking the laws regarding nonprofits and restrictions on political activity.

"What can we do to make sure that people who are psychologically unfit cause more tragedies with guns?"
I can think of a few things, but do we really want that?

Yikes Greg! That's NOT what I meant to write!!

Matt, there are definitely IRS repercussions for nonprofit lobbying, but also different categories.

Each time I have seen that image of Holmes I am deeply disturbed (who isn't). But we seem to have reached a place in society where medical/mental health care programs and social workers--even school nurses and guidance counselors--are cut back and early interventions are nearly impossible in those circumstances. I can't help but feel that our country is too magnificent to be struggling with healthcare issues while placing great focus on others. There has to be a happy medium/balance.

Mass murder and serial killing is not new.

I don't own a gun, but I'm happy to know that my neighbors have them.

That said, let's take steps to make sure that the mentally unfit can't get guns right after we make sure that te mentally unfit can't raise kids.

To whom it may concern, The Colorado incident was a fund raiser by some government black acronym... No way did this guy pull this off alone for one or because he was nuts for #2. He was drugged. He still claims to not remember any of it.... If you want to control the violence, control your government.

Just what we need, another conspiracy theory.

@Bren -

Are you honestly taking a stance against conspiracy theories now? Coming from the person who was so quick to point the finger at Rush Limbaugh's comments without any supporting evidence of any kind!

Was this meant to be a joke?

Mr. Hoffa, again, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Your challenges and attacks are more and more beginning to remind me of those t-shirt "guns" that launch freebee t-shirts at fans at sports events and concerts. Aimed in a sort of general direction, launched into the dark with a "whump," landing where they will.

"Are you honestly taking a stance against conspiracy theories now?" Whump! "Coming from the person who was so quick to point the finger at Rush Limbaugh's comments without any supporting evidence of any kind!" Whump! "Was this meant to be a joke?" Whump! Whump! Whump! So now I'm holding t-shirts that say "You've been Hoffa'd!" and they're not even my size.

@Bren -

Is your short term memory really that bad? Remember this gem of a conspiracy theory that you were perpetuating immediately following the tragedy in Aurora, CO?

2:42 pm on Friday, July 20, 2012

"Could this tragedy be yet another example of an antisocial extremist in the grip of political rhetoric taking action (domestic terrorism)? Rush Limbaugh and others on the fringe had been making accusations that the film's villain, "Bane," was purposely created to attack Mitt Romney. http://rollingout.com/politics/rush-limbaugh-says-dark-knight-rises-villain-named-after-mitt-romneys-firm/

Obviously we will learn more about the murderer's agenda as he took great effort to ensure his survival."

Mr. Hoffa, you have crafted a conspiracy theory from a posed question? That's extrapolation gone wrong. Whump!

@Bren -

Posed question my rear-end!

It was a rhetorical question meant to postulate an anti-conservative conspiracy theory and you know it!

All one needs to do is read your post, as it is quite apparent from the overall context.

By the way - "...yet another example of an antisocial extremist in the grip of political rhetoric taking action (domestic terrorism)."

Could you please provide some examples from the last 100 years of US history where major party "political rhetoric" caused an "antisocial extremist" to "tak[e] action (domestic terrorism)" and what exactly the rhetoric was that set the extremist(s) off?

The lowest rate - for the year 2000 period in the USA there were 11,605,751 incidents of reported crime based on a population of 300,000,000 (06) - 3.87% of the population was exposed to crime
Australia which does not allow ownership of handguns had a reported crime rate of 1,431,929 based on a population of 20,000,000 - 7.16% of the population was exposed to crime.
Germany with a population of 82 million (05) has a reported 6.264,723 crimes or 7.64% of the population was exposed to crime.
In Britain there were 5,170,843 incidents of reported crime to the police based on a population of 60, 587,000 (06) - 8.5% of the population was exposed to crime.
Highest rate - New Zealand with a population of 4,000,000 (06) had a reported crime with 427,230 incidents - 10.68% of the population was exposed to crime.

"If you could get rid of all guns in the U.S., according to these statistics, you could realize up to a 10% reduction in violent crime. But in reality many of the crimes would still occur and the Washington D.C statistics demonstrate that there probably would be a net increase in the volume of violent crime."

GREG; “Washington D.C statistics demonstrate that there probably would be a net increase in the volume of violent crime."
You have lost all creditability long ago. You need to show documentation for this Washington stuff. Note it was on hand guns. What about the rest of the gun weapons. Assault rifles, rifles, shotguns and even the remaining handguns, which produced this abnormal rise. Just your spouting it renders all you have commented on mute with no substance. Provide source and not some opinionated tabloid. Clear well defined facts from a reputable source. Until then you are just so much blah, blah, blah..

"You have lost all creditability long ago. You need to show documentation for this Washington stuff. Note it was on hand guns. What about the rest of the gun weapons. Assault rifles, rifles, shotguns and even the remaining handguns, which produced this abnormal rise. Just your spouting it renders all you have commented on mute with no substance. Provide source and not some opinionated tabloid. Clear well defined facts from a reputable source. Until then you are just so much blah, blah, blah.."

Ironic considering you tried to use the UK as an example where gun control lowered the violent crime rate. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

@Lyle,

""If we have such low violent crime statistics, then the argument for firearm ownership for self protection is moot.""

Why? Isn't that an argument against almost any type of protection from nearly everything?

@Lyle, this is a blog. I can do what I want in a blog post. And I'm all for auditing nonprofit groups who are politically active, regardless of what political affiliation they have. But this post is about WAVE and dissecting their organization and its actions and claims.

@Matt Stevens...I know it's a blog post, but if you are going to accuse someone or some organization for wrong doing, then you need more than just unrelated data to support such a claim.

I don't know your profession; for all I know you may be a hired gun for anyone of the numerous gun lobbies, and you're earning your paycheck making these unsubstantiated allegations. What is your connections to the gun lobbies, manufacturers, etc?

Lyle - why don't you come out and reveal your connections and dirt first.

You now want to call people out after being called out and exposed previously. Now you, who complained about, want to play the game.....

You are as low as they come.

@Richard Head...Calling him out, no. I want to know if he has any connection to gun lobbies or gun manufacturers. That's not calling him out.

I said that to me it seems the organization is due some scrutiny, and based upon the evidence I presented (unrelated data? did you even read my post?), I think it's clear that WAVE has a political agenda.

@Matt Stevens...Thank you for answering the question. Asking you that question is not an ad hominem attack, it is to clarify your intent and credibility. So far all I have seen from you is information and arguments for support of firearms, CCW and a narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

More to the point about the Joyce Foundation, they do have an agenda as well does the Bradley Foundation, the DeVoss Foundation, the Prince Foundation, and the Koch's foundations, just to name a few. WAVE is nothing more than a grant recipient and painting them as an evil conspirator intent on stripping away rights is a bit extreme.

Breaking my own rule for a moment, my next piece will not be about guns at all. It's not all I'm here for.

Your blog was insinuating that an organization was in violation of the law. You showed no evidence of that merely use of rhetoric to malign an organization. An organization that did not malign you. Character assassination to raise your argument for this or for that is actually exposing you for inaccurate information, for some personnel gain. Your red skirts are showing. Rendering your blog moot!

"Your blog was insinuating that an organization was in violation of the law. You showed no evidence of that merely use of rhetoric to malign an organization."

I posted plenty of citations and evidence to support my opinion. :)

If that's the reason we have such weak gun laws, then we should probably thank the NRA. You talk about our current gun laws as if they were a bad thing. I agree with you, but in the sense they are still too restrictive.

Keith, Which Constitutional Amendment covers ammonium nitrate?
As to your last statement "Of course chemicals have nothing to do with certain persons maleness." I remember the school teachers crying when they were going to have to pay for their own Viagra.

Keith Schmitz; Right on; worth the read.

Matt; “You talk about our current gun laws as if they were a bad thing. I agree with you, but in the sense they are still too restrictive.”

Until the nation resolves the issue of our lack of efficient care for our mentally handicap. Your assertion that we open the flood gates for increase weapons out unto our society and no regards from the damage that entails, speaks volumes of your inner being.

"Until the nation resolves the issue of our lack of efficient care for our mentally handicap. Your assertion that we open the flood gates for increase weapons out unto our society and no regards from the damage that entails, speaks volumes of your inner being."

Your assertions that we should restrict the rights and freedoms of others "for the (perceived) greater good" is a scary position to take. It speaks volumes of your inner being.

(See I can use ad hominems too)

If you want to debate a topic, then debate the topic. If you're going to do what others here do and just use personal attacks, ad hominem, and strawman to try and undermine those you disagree with, it will be a short conversation.

Greg, the Constitution was put into place by our founding fathers because they were tired of dealing with insurrections from belchy, gun-toting slobs like you who didn't pay taxes.

Being from the enlightenment, our founding fathers wanted to create a society out of chaos. They would most certainly see neanderthals dragging around their knuckles and high powered weapons as a threat to civilization and would have tightened up the second amendment.

They certainly would not have seen it as a license for cretins who need an object to enhance their maleness.

Greg, you last statement demonstrates what a jackass you are.

""Greg, the Constitution was put into place by our founding fathers because they were tired of dealing with insurrections from belchy, gun-toting slobs like you who didn't pay taxes. Being from the enlightenment, our founding fathers wanted to create a society out of chaos. They would most certainly see neanderthals dragging around their knuckles and high powered weapons as a threat to civilization and would have tightened up the second amendment. They certainly would not have seen it as a license for cretins who need an object to enhance their maleness. Greg, you last statement demonstrates what a jackass you are."

What an interesting and quit misinformed view of the constitution you have...

Keif, If you can't play with the big boys go back to the sand box.
You can take your Harry Reid inspired attack about me not paying taxes and shove it. You have no idea how much I pay in taxes. As to my last comment, it just proves how f'n stupid you are. You keep saying the same thing over and over and the only conclusion that can be had, is that you do not own a gun, so you are just a dick-less wonder.

Johnny, Johnny; Try to keep up. In Jefferson’s time all they had was small calibers. Just a weapons have evolved it is important that our educated responsibilities’ evolve with them. Less we return to the cold war with their arms race that produced M.A.D. [Mutual Assured Destruction] Which we nearly did. Now the NRA has a micro arms race using Ma and Pa as their poster child. Assault rifles for Ma! Give me a break.
Then you regress back to the McCarthy era of a commie under every bed mentality?? Lack of emotional disciplined is evident. This is such a unstable individual I was and refer to. That we need to consider the mental stability of an individual, before we put a gun in his hands, is demonstrated by this blade thingy. Observe how his vocabulary descends into incoherence. Wait for it, wait for it… This is what you want walking down the street with a gun in his hands. Do you call the children in, call 911, or the patty wagon? Decisions, decisions.

"In Jefferson’s time all they had was small calibers. Just a weapons have evolved it is important that our educated responsibilities’ evolve with them. "

You don't know as much about guns as you think you do... Your average lead ball in colonial times was a significantly larger caliber than most of today's firearms. Also, you're right we do need to evolve, but unfortunately we went the wrong way. Instead of allowing civilians to have the same firearms as the government, we restricted civilian rights and infringed upon the 2nd amendment.

"Now the NRA has a micro arms race using Ma and Pa as their poster child. Assault rifles for Ma!"

You keep talking about the NRA and ma and pa. None of them have anything to do with the infringement upon the 2nd amendment that has occurred over time. If anything the NRA has tried to fight that, and any organization that fights for a constitutionally protected right is a good organization.

"Lack of emotional disciplined is evident. This is such a unstable individual I was and refer to. That we need to consider the mental stability of an individual, before we put a gun in his hands, is demonstrated by this blade thingy. Observe how his vocabulary descends into incoherence. Wait for it, wait for it… This is what you want walking down the street with a gun in his hands."

Hey look more personal attacks! Now apparently the tone and vocabulary of someone's online post is the litmus test for gun control!

Mitt; Your assertions that we should restrict the rights and freedoms of others "for the (perceived) greater good" is a scary position to take.

WHY? Fire, fire, fire run, run. Freedom of speech in a crowded movie theater. Are you to deny my freedoms for the greater good of the audience? Hmmmm

I’m not scared. Just what is it you are scared of? So scared that you would put firearms into the hands of people you have no knowledge of. That this individual exist within a society that has to near extinct professional mental care. Probability of an unstable individual obtaining a firearm increases. Flare ups of violence to follow.
Presently Arizona sells guns to anyone over the age of 18. Unlimited amount any type of weapons. Soon we have $5,000 $ 10,000 $ 100,000 in sales of legal guns that just so happens to end up in the Cartels and street gangs. Because they are legal, home security has obstacles to legally monitor the flow of guns.
Now as the Indians come to attack Ma and Pa out on the range with the weapons that were for the use of our MA and Pa. NRA Oh its not our fault? Manufacturing, no, no, no not our responsibility?
Now that is sort of scary..

"WHY? Fire, fire, fire run, run. Freedom of speech in a crowded movie theater. Are you to deny my freedoms for the greater good of the audience? Hmmmm "

It should be the policy of the theater not to allow such a thing, rather than a nanny-state law.

"I’m not scared. Just what is it you are scared of? So scared that you would put firearms into the hands of people you have no knowledge of. "

You are apparently scared of guns. But this is just another personal attack since once again you can't actually argue the merits of your opinion on the topic. You are so scared that you would restrict the rights of people you have no knowledge of.

"That this individual exist within a society that has to near extinct professional mental care. Probability of an unstable individual obtaining a firearm increases. Flare ups of violence to follow. "

Let's infringe upon everyone based on the false premise it will stop this individual.

"Presently Arizona sells guns to anyone over the age of 18. Unlimited amount any type of weapons. "

Good. This is how it should be.

"Soon we have $5,000 $ 10,000 $ 100,000 in sales of legal guns that just so happens to end up in the Cartels and street gangs."

Wait let me get this straight. Let's make something that's currently legal illegal, so that it stops these people from doing something else that's already illegal.

LOL

"Now as the Indians come to attack Ma and Pa out on the range with the weapons that were for the use of our MA and Pa. NRA Oh its not our fault? Manufacturing, no, no, no not our responsibility?
Now that is sort of scary.."

I have no idea what you're talking about. Indians? Ma and Pa? More just distracting from the main topic since you once again are unable to substantiate your claim that gun control does anything to reduce violent crime.

"Matt; Went to that site on the UK Daily News. They have over 3 million daily papers. I’m sure somewhere in there I will find an article that says “Some People Say” that gun ban is bad. You will need to be more specific. "

I don't need to be more specific about anything? You pointed to the UK as an example of how gun control works to reduce violence. I called you on it, and pointed out that the violent crime rate has gone up 77% since their gun ban. How much more specific do you need?

"MATT; The caliber you are eluding to was a musket ball that was about the same as 45 slug today but was far less accurate. Don’t fire till you see the white of there eyes. "

More distraction from the fact you were called out on something you were incorrect on. You said they had "small calibers" in colonial times, and I pointed out that your average musket ball was larger than most calibers we have today. (.45 by the way is on the small end of musket balls)

"You guys buy this? "

lol

"When an example of what I’m discussing comes up I use it. Does not matter if its alive or a rock. it’s a demonstration of a fact."

lol

So amend the constitution, and remove or change the very amendment that protects us from our own government, for no reason other than you disagree with it and don't like it?

"Whether you agree or not, most of us think and feel that gun ownership has reached a saturation point,"

Citation please. This is the first I've heard of anyone claiming "most" think what you think.

"prevention of tyranny and the takeover of the military are now moot."

And what do you base that on? It wouldn't be history, since history shows that what you suggest would actually increase the chances of exactly that.

You've once again listed your opinions, but you offer no data, information, or supporting citations. I do appreciate you didn't use personal attacks this time. But if your stance is that this is merely your opinion, then there's nothing more to discuss as each is entitled to their own opinion. But you make some claims and I'd like to see the information that supports those claims.

@Matt Stevens...Looking at polling data since 1993, including Pew and other major polling services, have tracked Gun Rights support verses Gun Regulation support; and Gun Regulation has always had more support than Gun Rights. The latest Pew Survey done mid July shows that Gun Regulation still holds the majority of 53%. Admittedly the issue of Gun Regulation has had a steady decline of support over the nearly two decade period with the 1993 high of 63%+. However, this can be accounted for with the Pro Gun's continuous attacks against gun regulation. In any case, pro gun regulation still holds the majority. Rationally, beginning to address the firearms debacle and begin educating the general public to the negative impact on society will eventually yield a more ordered society and greater restrictions on runaway and irresponsible gun ownership.

@Lyle,

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

According to gallup, people who want more regulation has been on the decline, and currently sits at only 43% of Americans.

"Rationally, beginning to address the firearms debacle and begin educating the general public to the negative impact on society will eventually yield a more ordered society and greater restrictions on runaway and irresponsible gun ownership."

Foregone conclusion without any proof.

@Matt Stevens....Your position requires proof of the certainty of future events, which is illogical.

With the increase in incidences like Aurora and now Oak Creek, I think we'll start seeing the trend reverse itself as people become more aware of the real danger of uncontrolled firearm ownership.

"Your position requires proof of the certainty of future events, which is illogical."

That's your opinion.

"With the increase in incidences like Aurora and now Oak Creek, I think we'll start seeing the trend reverse itself as people become more aware of the real danger of uncontrolled firearm ownership."

No, we won't, because more and more people are realizing that gun-control driven firearm ownership is nothing more than feel good legislation that doesn't actually make anyone safer.

MATT; Your statement [“""Your position requires proof of the certainty of future events, which is illogical.”]
Certainty is an ambiguous term in relation to predictability. One can only speculate; One could be an educated proposition of events that MAY unfold given the limitations and perimeters of the scenario in question. Thus your opinion, does not qualify for an educated predictability circumstance that could evolve, from increasing the liberal applications, for the proliferation of Arms. Observe how some of the more educated sovereignties are seeking to REDUCE arms. Woodrow Wilson incorporated such an ideology within his speculative three prongs for peace. [His science on war strategy]. One main component was the disbarment of forces through out the world. Even Einstein warned us about the arms race scenario could lead us into self inhalation. President Eisenhower warned us to be vigilant against our military industrial complexes’ in his farewell speech. That is just a few examples from the intellectual elitist.
Presently in the last couple of decades, citizen weapons, have been purchased to an amount that every human being in the USA could be armed. Increasing at this time on liberal gun laws is not prudent. Illogical yes.
Consider I do not have a gun. “IF” it should be required that I must dance with the devil. I can acquire guns and other devices from various means without having to purchase. Populace with vague experiences ample source.

"Presently in the last couple of decades, citizen weapons, have been purchased to an amount that every human being in the USA could be armed."

I'm so glad you pointed this out, because according to your logic, the US should be at an all time high for violent crime. Except the exact opposite has occurred. It's gone down and we are nearing record lows.

@Brian Carlson...What you have brought up is something that die hard gun enthusiasts are really unable to logically address. It requires a great deal of circular reasoning on their part. Since the citizenry has always been armed, it proves it is a deterrent to tyranny, requires that kind of tautology.

I provided mental health treatment to a lot of returning Vietnam combat vets and the vast majority didn't want to have anything to do with firearms and the ones I dealt with advocated less firearms availability not more. This was the last generation of warriors who had served in non video game type combat and they understand the horror of war.

If one looks at how insurgencies are fought, it is not with light arms, but with heavy weapons usually obtained from the established military or an outside source. Even during our War for Independence we depended on British and French produced arms. Pennsylvania and Kentucky long rifles were not well suited for War creating the need for true military arms. One of the problems of "Ruby Ridge" and the "Branch Dravidian Compound" standoffs was the accumulation of heavy arms and the dealing of such. Even with their heavy arms they couldn't resist for any length of time and both incidents ended in tragedy. To many of the gun advocates put principle ahead of pragmatism.

"What you have brought up is something that die hard gun enthusiasts are really unable to logically address. It requires a great deal of circular reasoning on their part. Since the citizenry has always been armed, it proves it is a deterrent to tyranny, requires that kind of tautology."

Your opinion. Likewise, gun control advocates like yourself are unable to logically address their desire for more gun control since there isn't any proof it actually works.

"I provided mental health treatment to a lot of returning Vietnam combat vets and the vast majority didn't want to have anything to do with firearms and the ones I dealt with advocated less firearms availability not more. This was the last generation of warriors who had served in non video game type combat and they understand the horror of war."

All of that is irrelevant to the discussion.

"One of the problems of "Ruby Ridge" and the "Branch Dravidian Compound" standoffs was the accumulation of heavy arms and the dealing of such. Even with their heavy arms they couldn't resist for any length of time and both incidents ended in tragedy. To many of the gun advocates put principle ahead of pragmatism."

More opinion. You have lots of opinion, which is fine, but you still are just avoiding the fact that gun control doesn't work.

MATT; Vets returning have less desire for guns. That is to be discarded as irrelevant? Basis research ? Ever think there is a link between the violence that their weapon’s produced and its relationship to civilian life? For fact to be true it must be tested and retested. ALSO researched. Approach it in a scientific manner.
Presently betwixt the two of us, it is no more than our deductive process that we each posses. Cultural interrelations were different for each of us. I was one of those vets that never touched a gun since my Nam days. Yes it does have a toll on one’s consciousness, that remains far longer than mere words could ever explain. Your statement “More opinion. You have lots of opinion, which is fine, but you still are just avoiding the fact that gun control doesn't work."
Your eluding that you have a fact is false. You have an opinion, just as I do. Mine is from simple deduction; Less ease to commit violence, less violence. Example;
Pa with a gun in his hand may have a temporary lapse in self control. Collateral damage could easily escalate, ESPECIALY if has a professional assault rifle.! Now how do you formulate your OPINION?

It's irrelevant in the sense that you're pointing out one group who is "anti-gun" and somehow trying to use that as an argument for gun control.

"Your eluding that you have a fact is false. You have an opinion, just as I do. Mine is from simple deduction; Less ease to commit violence, less violence."

Yours is an opinion that isn't based in reality. If you want gun control, then you have to prove it will have the intended effect (which you can't). So, we shouldn't implement gun control based on a false premise that it will reduce violent crime (since it won't).

"Pa with a gun in his hand may have a temporary lapse in self control. Collateral damage could easily escalate, ESPECIALY if has a professional assault rifle.! Now how do you formulate your OPINION?"

You act as if people who are law-abiding citizens suddenly have this momentary lapse that causes them to go on a rampage, and that if guns were banned it would somehow stop that rampage from ever occurring. Once again, a false premise. There simply isn't any proof that the crime occurs because someone had the gun. If someone goes crazy and decides to kill a bunch of people, they'll do it by whatever means they can, even getting their hands on guns illegally.

My Republican father (Korean vet) has not touched a gun since returning from military service. His experiences were such. For him a gun is not a video game toy, handling it didn't make him feel more powerful. It was a weapon used at need to dispatch enemies of the United States. He's gone on hunting trips--with a camera. Even at his age (82) he would stand up to defend his country in the case of an attack but he would do so with the authority and armament provided by the government he risked his life to protect. As an old-guard Republican who fought overseas he understands the importance of government, supporting the military, diplomatic efforts, etc. He doesn't need to hide a gun under his jacket to be a patriot, and he doesn't see his fellow Americans as enemies of the state. He also doesn't think a few dollars or a tv set are worth defending with deadly force and that the presence of weapons immediately escalates a bad situation.

There's a perspective from the old guard. It's why I've never owned a gun, and wouldn't purchase one unless a military situation develops where our country is in danger of imminent attack. That respects the full sentence of the 2nd amendment which refers to gun ownership in support of a legal militia.

"For him a gun is not a video game toy, handling it didn't make him feel more powerful."

I do not know any law abiding citizens who consider guns toys or tools to make themselves feel "powerful". I think you have a misconception to the contrary.

"He doesn't need to hide a gun under his jacket to be a patriot, and he doesn't see his fellow Americans as enemies of the state. He also doesn't think a few dollars or a tv set are worth defending with deadly force"

No one needs a gun to be a patriot, nor does one need to use a gun to protect a few dollars or a tv set. Once again, you seem to have some misconceptions.

"and that the presence of weapons immediately escalates a bad situation."

It actually de-escalates it more times than not. You see, most criminals don't want to get shot, and they turn and run and stop their criminal act when confronted with the prospect of being shot. Criminals love gun control. It makes their work environment much less hostile and dangerous for them.

"That respects the full sentence of the 2nd amendment which refers to gun ownership in support of a legal militia."

No, the 2nd amendment refers to gun ownership of the people. Not the militia.

"I do not know any law abiding citizens who consider guns toys or tools to make themselves feel "powerful". I think you have a misconception to the contrary." Well, I do know law abiding citizens who think that way. My favorite is the one who frequently boasts about how "he's ready for riff-raff" (i.e. nonwhite people) who might find themselves in his nice white neighborhood. Having a gun makes him feel powerful. Or the sawed-off shotgun guy. He just likes having it because it impresses the ladies. He has no idea how to use it, but it's ready to be stolen if a break-in occurs. Etc., etc.

"No one needs a gun to be a patriot, nor does one need to use a gun to protect a few dollars or a tv set. Once again, you seem to have some misconceptions." No, my dad's hit it on the head.

"It actually de-escalates it more times than not. You see, most criminals don't want to get shot..." People who are on drugs aren't thinking from logic (I've pulled someone back from jumping out of a 6-story window. Etc. How much common sense do you expect to find in a crack house? Criminals could care less about gun control. There are so many guns now available. They have inventory for years to come.

cont'd. Concerning the Second Amendment: "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."

The 2nd amendment addressed gun/powder control enacted by the Crown. Gun ownership was allowed for hunting, etc., as Walmart supercenters hadn't been invented yet, but guns and powder had to be purchased from the British. The number of guns and the amount of powder was controlled to avoid an armed uprising (fortunately unsuccessful. The Continental Army was formed in 1775). When this amendment was ratified (1791) the formal U.S. Army (1st branch established) was formally 2 years old, in its infancy. The 2nd Amendment ensured that enough citizens were armed in the event of renewed hostilities/invasion. Other than the War of 1812 and periodic invasions of British music, are we anticipating a foreign invasion anytime soon?

Similarly, the Third Amendment, "No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." The Quartering Act was one of the largest grievances of the colonies; it forced colonists to house its oppressors and kept an armed force in the neighborhood, ready to crush at need. The Third Amendment is a mollification for an outraged public. Congress has never needed to authorize billeting, but this amendment has been cited in at least one privacy rights case.

Let me ask you outright. 2nd amendment deterrent factor aside (I seriously question that, but let's accept your premise for the time being), under what circumstances do you see an armed conflict between the citizenry in this nation and its government and what probability do you assign to such an occurrence?

"Let me ask you outright. 2nd amendment deterrent factor aside (I seriously question that, but let's accept your premise for the time being), under what circumstances do you see an armed conflict between the citizenry in this nation and its government and what probability do you assign to such an occurrence?"

I do not have a crystal ball, nor am I a fortune teller.

MATT; Your statement rings true. [ “I do not have a crystal ball, nor am I a fortune teller.”] with that in mind your facts as you have proclaimed your opinions to be are not worthy enough to ascertain how a known [x] amount of weaponry, will effect a [Y] amount of collateral damage. Given the variances of type of weapon and the environment it is in use or ownership.
Speculating for an event of say, Citizens’ against their government require [x] amount weaponry . Multitude of variances would need to be ascertained in order to make an accurate judgment as to what type of weapon should be harbored by its citizens. Hand guns, rifles, assault rifles, grenades, chemical, biological, and so and so on.
Stability of individuals and organizations within that government in question is one variance, with factors of, mentally handicap, education, empathy, tolerance and so on and so on.
Exterior forces would be another variance to consider. Neighbors and or opposing forces of internal or external sovereignties. Each with varying factors. Relationship of forces as to their cultural beliefs. Example Brother against Brother, father, mother, allies [both foreign and domestic] and this could go on for some time as the complex nature evolves with the growing variances’ that will manifest themselves along the way. [x] is still not defined.
Presently I do not fathom the rational for Ma and Pa to have an assault rifle!

No, my claim about collateral damage is based upon known statistics. You can talk about variables all you want, but my statement is the reality based upon actual real life outcome of events that have happened hundreds if not thousands of times before.

Matt Stevens
10:12 am on Monday, August 6, 2012

I do not have a crystal ball, nor am I a fortune teller.

******************

So if you truly have no idea of what or when, how can you suggest that the 2nd amendment offers a form of deterrence against such a conflict?

"So if you truly have no idea of what or when, how can you suggest that the 2nd amendment offers a form of deterrence against such a conflict?"

This makes no sense. One does not need to be able to predict the future in order to understand what creates deterrence against a conflict.

Actually, Matt, it makes a lot of sense.

When I buy car insurance, I do so because it's reasonable to expect I could possibly need it, based on statistical analysis if nothing else. It's a deterrent against financial ruination as the result of an accident.

If you think that the 2nd amendment operates as a deterrence against a government v citizen conflict, unless it's just an unfounded belief you hold, you should be able to cite an example of the kind of incident you believe could lead to such a conflict.

Should you not?

No Bob it doesn't make sense. Car insurance isn't a deterrent to vehicular accidents.

"you should be able to cite an example of the kind of incident you believe could lead to such a conflict."

Really? The answer is so easy I don't even... Do you not understand how this country came into existence? lol

What does how this country came into being have to do with your belief that the 2nd amendment currently provides a deterrent to a citizen versus government conflict? Why are you reluctant to answer what is a fairly simple, straightforward question?

If it's that difficult for you, I'd be happy to list some of the reasons I've heard elsewhere, and you can pick and choose which one (or more), if any, apply to you. Seems kind of silly, but I'll do so if you want.

"What does how this country came into being have to do with your belief that the 2nd amendment currently provides a deterrent to a citizen versus government conflict?"

I'm not reluctant, I'm just perplexed that this is a serious question... If one wants to control people, the ability for those people to defend themselves is a deterrent to an attempt at such control... How do you seriously not understand that concept?

Matt, I'm seriously having a hard time picturing the kind of situation where the 2nd amendment comes into play in terms of citizens protecting themselves from some form of government "control". The government already controls a lot of things, including a portion of my (and your) income (via the IRS and various other taxing authorities), my (and your) ability to do precisely what we want, when we want (via laws and law enforcement), and probably a number of other things I could think of. I'm well over 50 and in all that time I've yet to even ponder the necessity of needing to protect myself from the government via armament.

So unless you're capable of presenting a realistic scenario whereby such protection (or deterrence) is necessary, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 2nd amendment may be many things, but a deterrent against citizen versus government conflict, it is not.

"So unless you're capable of presenting a realistic scenario whereby such protection (or deterrence) is necessary, I'm going to have to disagree with you. The 2nd amendment may be many things, but a deterrent against citizen versus government conflict, it is not."

Then you may want to read up more on the history of not only our country, but others as well. The very thing you disagree with me on as a reason for the 2nd amendment is actually the very reason it exists and was created.

When it was created that may have been a concern. It was a young country - essentially an experiment. That need, like the need to protect the ownership of slaves and create a subhuman class held in servitude for instance, has long since passed.

As a guns right advocate (I'm making an assumption here) you might do well to not include reasons when arguing against gun control that have as their basis conditions that no longer exist (apparently, as you've yet to outline any such current possibilities). Particularly at this point in time, as you well know, your arguments are going to fall under greater and greater scrutiny. History, particularly when no direct tie to our current state of affairs can be made, is most likely not going to be enough to prevent what I assume would be unthinkable to you.

@Matt Stevens...Please cite where in all of U.S. History that armed citizens have stood up to the sovereign government preventing either tyranny or more importantly prevent a military takeover of our duly elected government?

@Bob McBride

"""Let me ask you outright. 2nd amendment deterrent factor aside (I seriously question that, but let's accept your premise for the time being), under what circumstances do you see an armed conflict between the citizenry in this nation and its government and what probability do you assign to such an occurrence?""""

In modern history law enforcement gets out of control all the time, Bob. I doubt that there will ever be a threat from the top leaders of our nation, but having grown up in a small town, I can tell you that there were a number of police that were bored, corrupt and dangerous.

Lyle:

The best known example in 'U.S. History where armed citizens have stood up to the sovereign government' would be the events that occurred on and after July 4, 1776 when the colonists declared their independence from England, and went on to struggle through armed conflict against one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time...

Luke,

Of the two arguments, yours is something I could possibly see happening, although I do doubt the outcome would be of a positive nature for the person attempting to hold their own against a rogue cop.

I think you guys have to get away from the "government run amok" argument when defending your right to bear arms. Consider that that argument, despite all the effort, didn't result of Gov. Walker losing his seat or in the Occupy movement doing much in the way of securing its goals. There are logical reasons to support 2nd amendment rights that steer clear of those that might suggest a kook fringe element similar to that involved in the Recall/Occupy efforts.

@Bob McBride,

I think your advice is actually good when dealing with trying to control public policy. The average person won't be swayed by the argument. However, those with common sense see that things change over time, so there is reason for concern.

That said, I have to say that the fact that you consider my argument unlikely is evidence that you have lived a good life in the presence of a good law enforcement environment, or you have been sheltered from the truth of a bad environment.

My father was an officer in a town of 12,000 people in Missouri from 1976 to 1978, and I have an uncle and a friend that have served in Wisconsin. I know the stories about what can happen behind the scenes.

So let me ask you this, Bob. Too often we hear stories of police illegal strip searches, and on a regular basis we see video of police abusing suspects. What happens when there are only two witnesses, but one is dead and the one that lived is an officer? I think the officer tends to have the advantage in telling the story.

Finally, here in Wisconsin we have had a number of stories in recent history of people pretending to be officers for the sake of getting sex. Those people were simply pretending to be officers, but I can tell you that the towns I lived in (Kirksville, Missouri and Wilmore, Kentucky) the stories did not involve people who were fake officers. In all those cases, I have yet to hear of anyone who had a gun being successfully assaulted.

Luke, I don't think you have to go to small town to find examples of those kinds of abuses. We've had them here in Milwaukee. I just seriously doubt that one is going to come out ahead in a situation like that by pulling out a firearm. People in general tend to trust a cop up until the moment he or she proves untrustworthy. By the time that happens, I think most cops of that nature would have used the authority that society vests in them to make sure their intentions won't be challenged.

Formal challenges to the current protections of the 2nd amendment, if they occur, are going to come from within government. An argument against those challenges that supposes protection needed from that same body is likely to find limited support from those within that body and, I think, is more likely to encourage those who might support the rights vocally for other reasons to, perhaps, lay in the weeds and protect their own political fortune over the rights of gun owners.

@Bob McBride

Again, I can't really argue against your points involving political practicality.

But with regard to the reality of the individual, I disagree to some degree. Although some criminals won't be deterred by anything, a good number prey upon those they calculate to be at a disadvantage. In my wife's old neighborhood in Milwaukee, for example, a pregnant woman was killed about 15 years ago because she refused to give up her purse in the parking lot of a restaurant. When the perpetrators were apprehended, they said that they selected her because they thought that "...white people don't carry guns." It's my perspective that a lot of crime is inhibited when the potential criminal reassess the situation. And most of that happens without anyone else being aware of what was about to happen.

But with regard to the bigger picture, I'm in favor of gun rights because I don't believe any government will last forever, and we don't know what the next one will look like. When my grandfather was my age, he couldn't imagine the world we live in. If I had told him that abortion would be legal, he would have told me that it was impossible, given that no politician of any party supported it. It would have been impossible, therefore, for me to get him to believe that some day Russ Feingold would suggest that we should consider allowing a mother to kill her child AFTER it was born.

So, I don't need to prove the future; I only need to protect myself against its obtainment.

Luke, can't argue with you on the self-protection from the criminal element. I think that continues to be the best argument pro-gun forces can make.

CCtosa - The first responding police officer at the Oak Creek Temple was trained, professional, experienced, aware of a gunman, apparently had a drawn appropriate weapon and his finger on the trigger, yet was shot 9 times. How will Average Joe or Molly Citizen stop such a crazed gunman, even with their little Beretta carefully concealed? Lots of luck with that. It's not like all those movies and video games where the bad guy doen't shoot straight, and Princess Leia is a deadeye. Fantasy.

Its quite alright , Dirk, for you to cower behind the rather sizeable rear end of your wife when a bad guy enters the room. I am ex military and very comfortable and well trained with my .45 ACP that I carry with me at all times, legally. Please enjoy being a victim, that is certainly your right.

@CCtosa...Dirk's statement is correct. I think what saved more lives than anything is that enough people had cell phones and dialed 911. The timely arrival of law enforcement put this incident to the end. There is no proof that armed people could have made the difference and there may have been more causalities from unintended collateral damage. If you have been following the reports this morning, the perpetrator was brought down by a squad rifle, which is the recommended weapon of choice in an active shooting situation.

The difference, Dirk, is that the first responding officer was easily identifiable as a police officer and a threat to the gunman. Average Joe or Molly Citizen would have had the benefit of surprise.

Certainly there is no proof that having armed citizens in the temple would have improved the situation, but there is also no proof that it would have made the situation any worse...

"The first responding police officer at the Oak Creek Temple was trained, professional, experienced, aware of a gunman, apparently had a drawn appropriate weapon and his finger on the trigger, yet was shot 9 times. How will Average Joe or Molly Citizen stop such a crazed gunman, even with their little Beretta carefully concealed? "

The answer to your question is that Molly Citizen stops crimes every day. Would the outcome be different had someone in Oak Creek been carrying? We don't know. But the point is, it changes the odds. Regular citizens every day stop crimes and they aren't trained like those police officers are. It astounds me that you're ok with NO CITIZEN even having a CHANCE of defending themselves in a situation like what happened in oak creek.

"Dirk's statement is correct. I think what saved more lives than anything is that enough people had cell phones and dialed 911. "

Dirk's statement isn't correct. You don't have a crystal ball anymore than I do. It was several minutes before the first cops showed up, and in that time he killed 6 people. Had someone been carrying, instead of an assured 6 people dead, it might have been less than that. Do we know for sure it would be less? No. But at least there would have been a chance.

"There is no proof that armed people could have made the difference and there may have been more causalities from unintended collateral damage. "

There is proof that it could have made a difference. That is a 100% false statement. We don't know if it WOULD have made a difference, but it could have. Also the "collateral damage" is another common fallacy that gun-control advocates like to use. Less than 1% of citizen self defense shootings hit any innocent bystanders.

"If you have been following the reports this morning, the perpetrator was brought down by a squad rifle, which is the recommended weapon of choice in an active shooting situation."

An AR-15 to be specific. Though a handgun could have also taken down the perpetrator.

@CCtosa....You're an idiot. Being trained in the military and now ex-military, you know the only time you carried any kind of weapon was in theater. You're not in theater any longer. You are now a civilian! You should know better my friend. It's time for you to grow up and deal with real risks rather than your own delusions. Your statements misrepresent most of us ex-military. We'll fight if we have to, ut we don't go looking for trouble. As far as someone hiding behind their wife's ample backside, that's just plain stupid. What are your feelings about White Supremacy and neo Nazi's. There's a lot of ex-military in their ranks, are you one of them? Timothy McVeigh was and so was the shooter in Oak Creek.

LYLE; Have to agree. Cctosa may have resolved the issue or become a casualty by another with the same intentions but missed his target. Constantly living in fear of death is a loss of life.
Reducing the arsenal capabilities to the general public would help. Having professional clinics that can address the mentally handicap, part of this equation, would be a benefit for nullifying the source of some of these violent atrocities. Presently our USA is severely lacking in the care and treatment of our mentally handicap. Jails is the most common answer to the street mentally handicap. Alas educating them within an atmosphere of frustrations and criminal activities.
This discrepancy suggest, that the reduced arsenal to the citizens, should ban military professional weapons. Violence’s collateral damage would then be restrained to the effectiveness of the weapons in use.

"@CCtosa....You're an idiot"

Hey look personal attacks!

"Being trained in the military and now ex-military, you know the only time you carried any kind of weapon was in theater. You're not in theater any longer. You are now a civilian! You should know better my friend."

I was unaware you spoke for all military service personnel. Who gave you that authority?

"It's time for you to grow up and deal with real risks rather than your own delusions. Your statements misrepresent most of us ex-military. "

Citation that YOUR statements are representative of most ex military? Cite please.

"We'll fight if we have to, ut we don't go looking for trouble."

Neither do people who carry. No one who carries WANTS to ever have to use their gun. It's a last resort, and we would rather avoid any trouble altogether. It's no surprise then that your average CCW license holder is 10 times less likely to commit a crime than a citizen who does not have a license to carry. (gunfacts.info cite)

"As far as someone hiding behind their wife's ample backside, that's just plain stupid. What are your feelings about White Supremacy and neo Nazi's. There's a lot of ex-military in their ranks, are you one of them? Timothy McVeigh was and so was the shooter in Oak Creek."

Bad people do bad things. And no amount of gun control will stop them from doing it.

"LYLE; Have to agree. Cctosa may have resolved the issue or become a casualty by another with the same intentions but missed his target"

Possibly, but very unlikely.

"Constantly living in fear of death is a loss of life."

What is the sound of one hand clapping.

"Reducing the arsenal capabilities to the general public would help. "

Nope, it won't. This statement has zero factual data or evidence to support it.

"This discrepancy suggest, that the reduced arsenal to the citizens, should ban military professional weapons. Violence’s collateral damage would then be restrained to the effectiveness of the weapons in use."

No, it doesn't and no it wouldn't.

As I shared numerous times, a relative was shot dead in a restaurant during an armed hold-up; not by the robber but by the clerk behind the counter. The clerk claimed self-defense. The robber couldn't be tried for a murder he didn't commit. End result, the relative was dead, leaving a spouse and two young children.

At some point, we are going to have to set "GIMME" and "mine, mine, MINE!" aside and look at the entire issue from an adult, not special interest perspective.

only idiots on this forum are the socalled 'men' that want to wait for help via a 911 call as the bad guys shoot fish in a barrel. Glad to see that the cowards of this forum have no control over my right to bear arms and protect myself, my family and my property. Continue to be a fish in a barrel Mr. Ruble, your lies are certainly catching up with you.

@Bren -

"The robber couldn't be tried for a murder he didn't commit."

Proof once again that Bren has no idea what she is talking about! Hoffa has heard that driving a Toyota Camry tends to do this to a person ;-)

Not true at all Bren. Are you just making up crap as you post? Ever hear of the felony-murder rule? It makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony. The scenario you describe is a perfect example whereby the felony-murder rule would be used to prosecute the robber for the innocent murder of your relative by the clerk who was being held up.

Care to try again? Maybe next time with some actual facts instead of BS!

"As I shared numerous times, a relative was shot dead in a restaurant during an armed hold-up; not by the robber but by the clerk behind the counter. "

I'm sorry to hear that. Fortunately such a scenario is an incredibily rare occurrence.

"The clerk claimed self-defense. "

Which it was.

"The robber couldn't be tried for a murder he didn't commit. End result, the relative was dead, leaving a spouse and two young children."

What state was this in? Most states have a law in which if someone is killed during the perpetration of a crime, the perpetrator(s) are charged with murder even if not by their own hand.

@Bren,

46 states have the felony-murder law. So, what state did this shooting occur in? If it was one of the 46, the robber would have been charged with felony murder.

Matt, I appreciate your kind words but believe that the stand-by victim is a growing and unacceptable occurrence.

The clerk did claim self-defense and left court scot-free. My relative did not attack the clerk. My relative died because the clerk was defending about $100 or so in the cash register.

This occurred in Wisconsin. The robber spent time in prison for the robbery attempt.

CCtosa...Spoken like someone with truly limited mental capacity and cognitive abilities.

"Matt, I appreciate your kind words but believe that the stand-by victim is a growing and unacceptable occurrence."

It's not growing though, it's actually going down. Not that it had much room to go down, as it was already an incredibly rare occurrence.

"The clerk did claim self-defense and left court scot-free. "

It was self-defense. You're trying to blame the clerk when it's the robber to blame, not the clerk...

"My relative did not attack the clerk. My relative died because the clerk was defending about $100 or so in the cash register."

That's an assumption. No one there could predict if the robber was going to shoot and kill people in an effort to rid witnesses, botched robbery, etc.

"This occurred in Wisconsin. The robber spent time in prison for the robbery attempt."

Then I would question why that DA didn't charge the robber, as robbery with a dangerous weapon is included in the statute. In Wisconsin, the felony murder rule is found in Wis. Stat. Sec. 940.03. This statute has existed in wisconsin since before 1987.

@Bren -

The state of Wisconsin first enacted the felony-murder rule in 1849, a year after gaining statehood.

When did this supposed murder of your relative occur exactly?

Hoffa finds your story difficult to be believed as you've iterated it here. What's the county and docket number of the criminal case against the robber?

Brens story is probably from 1936, when the term "clerk" was still used and "moron" was a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis. Bren, Lyle called CC an idiot, I think you may want to "challenge" his intelligence.

Mr. Hoffa, I didn't see you at the trial. Don't let that stop you from weighing in. There's that unfocused attack machine blasting off again, "whump!"

The end result of the entire situation was that a person was dead but the cash drawer was saved. Hooray.

Greg, apologies, I should have used a more modern term such as "counter associate."

I note that Mr. Ruble's comment was directed specifically at another poster who has been launching more than a few stinkers of his own. Your namecalling ("morons") was directed at everyone who doesn't agree with you.

Also, in the interests of objectivity, Mr. Ruble displays a formidable intellect and knowledge/experience base. You display, in nearly every viewable instance, unsourced opinions and/or negative reactive comments. You have every right to present yourself as you choose, of course.

My name calling was specific to those that don't know the difference between a billionaire and a millionaire. Bren, your other evaluations of me are obviously tainted by your liberal bias, therefore they are irrelevant.

@Bren -

Nope, Hoffa didn't need to be at the trial to tell you that there is NO way in hell that a prosecutor wouldn't have prosecuted a felony-murder charge against the suspected robber in your story. Which makes the credibility of your story highly suspicious. It makes one wonder if this story wasn't just made up in an attempt to humanize a partisan political/ideological position. Do the ends justify the means Bren?

What exactly is an "unsourced opinion?"

Are you saying that one's opinion is not valid unless it derives from someone else, preferably someone who "displays a formidable intellect and knowledge/experience base?"

You really are against individuality, aren't you?

Dirk wrote: "CCtosa - The first responding police officer at the Oak Creek Temple was trained, professional, experienced, aware of a gunman, apparently had a drawn appropriate weapon and his finger on the trigger, yet was shot 9 times. How will Average Joe or Molly Citizen stop such a crazed gunman, even with their little Beretta carefully concealed? Lots of luck with that. It's not like all those movies and video games where the bad guy doen't shoot straight, and Princess Leia is a deadeye. Fantasy."

You are wrong, as usual. The first responding officer was giving medical attention to victims when the shooter snuck up on him and shot him. Being an experienced tactical guy, Murphy could easily have shot Page if it was a simple one-on-one. But Murphy was more concerned with helping the wounded than with his own safety, and that is how Page was able to sneak up on him and shoot him, not because Page was some superman crazed gunman.

Concealed carry saves lives every day in this country, and it could have saved lives at that Sikh temple if they had been carrying. Why are you so terrified of these inanimate objects that you have to demonize them, rather than the people who commit these acts? Liberalism truly is a mental disorder...

Really? It has worked so well for illicit drugs, that you think it will work just as well for ammunition. You have laid out an exact parallel, right down to the needle exchange.

And your regulation won't do anything to reduce violence. Your regulation is nothing more than feel-good legislation that simply won't have the intended effect. The only thing it will do is infringe upon law-abiding citizens.

@Matt Stevens....Your wrong about it being feel good legislation, It is the only thing that can be done that has some chance of succeeding. Do I know if it would succeed, No; but it's worth a try since nothing else seems to work and we haven't tried this yet.

As far as speaking for current and ex-military; of course I can't speak for all, but all I know is that the ex-military that I know are not "John Wayne" types. Your supposition about the military and/or law enforcement is pretty meaningless unless you're either current or ex-military or current law enforcement. The military and law enforcement are professionals within very strict restrictions and regulations.

".Your wrong about it being feel good legislation, It is the only thing that can be done that has some chance of succeeding. Do I know if it would succeed, No; but it's worth a try since nothing else seems to work and we haven't tried this yet."

We know it won't work because others have tried it and it doesn't work. This country has even tried it, and it didn't work. The reason we know it doesn't work is because violence isn't a one trick pony. There are so many variables, including some that are simply beyond our control that we can do nothing about.

"As far as speaking for current and ex-military; of course I can't speak for all, but all I know is that the ex-military that I know are not "John Wayne" types. "

Neither am I, nor are most others who feel how I do.

"Your supposition about the military and/or law enforcement is pretty meaningless unless you're either current or ex-military or current law enforcement."

And your supposition about you speaking for others is meaningless since you simply cannot speak for others and claim to know how they feel. All you have are anecdotes about those you have spoken with.

Lyle is a disgusting limp wrist idiot who likes to think he is above name calling, but then calls people "idiot" at the drop of a hat. He then goes on to take advantage of the recent shooting deaths, and tries to label CCTosa as a neo-nazi just like the shooter.

What a real class act you are Lyle. I assume your c*nt mouth doesn't flap as much in person as it does here.

Saying we should do nothing about this idiotic carnage is not good enough and saying that we can't is unacceptable. After Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City using certain chemicals, access to those chemicals were limited.

We need to change our mindset regarding guns, and conclude there are some who are way too much into these objects. Go over to the Boots and Sabers blog and every so often they throw up pictures of guns and describe them in loving, almost pornographic tones.

It is quite clear that those who love guns are into the objects and could care less about the potential harm to people. Whatever mythical use guns may have served in warding off crime has been far outweighed by their miss-use.

The problem we have is the minority who loves guns are politically more intense than those who think there should be better management. Unfortunately, this is the way our political system works.

"Saying we should do nothing about this idiotic carnage is not good enough and saying that we can't is unacceptable. After Timothy McVeigh blew up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City using certain chemicals, access to those chemicals were limited."

You seem to believe that criminals follow laws. You may think it's idiotic and unacceptable, but that is the reality.

" Whatever mythical use guns may have served in warding off crime has been far outweighed by their miss-use."

100% incorrect. The statistics are the exact opposite.

Wow, quite a stretch there to reference a 2000 yr old struggle between athens and sparta, no? Athens won because they had a larger population and a way better economy. Fail.

@Bernard Forand & oak creek resident...For the record, Sparta did finally defeat Athens in the Peloponnesian War in 404 BCE.

Thucydides would be pleased with Lyle's 'for the record report';historical accuracy et.al. ;-)

Sparta focused on military development. But the lasting contributions to modern society belong to Athens.

@Bernard,

You missed my point. My point had nothing to do with abortion, per se. Rather, the example of abortion was utilized to show that the future will most certainly entail situations which few today can imagine to be true.

Ironically, after accusing me of using extreme speculation (the irony of which is compounded by the fact that I was using a example of something which ACTUALLY CAME TO PASS!!!) you go on to point out that a number of societies have gone on to do even more extreme things, seemingly being your attempt to make one extreme less likely by pointing out that even MORE extreme things have happened than the extreme I pointed out!! (Holy crap!!)

As for your comment about the potential anomalies of gun handling, what's your point? Would you also outlaw cars, window glass, toilet paper or toenail clippings because they could be intentionally or unintentionally misused to the detriment of the individual? Is the biggest cause of purse snatching the presence of the purse?

@Luke...I have been following your exchange with Bob McBride and then Bernard Forand. I agree with your supposition concerning our inability to predict the future and how society will adapt over time. With all of the information that we now have, the probability of civilian verses government confrontation requiring the civilian to use deadly force in defense against an agent of the government is extremely remote. I am much more concerned about losing freedoms to a government run by politicians who have been bought and paid for by special interests. The perversion of rights and social order is much more likely to happen for people looking to personally profit.

Society is in the midst of turmoil because of the dramatic changes that have occurred over the last four decades and especially since 2007. Financial stress creates the antecedent for change and in this case dramatic change.

Lyle,

I share some of the same concerns as you concerning special interests. I doubt that's a giant that will ever be defeated, but it is an important issue.

Regarding your optimism of our future, I am neither more nor less optimistic. As a part of a large family of immigrants from a number of countries, I have seen that situations arise that no one had planned for. Countries that survived peacefully for long periods of time suddenly found that political or natural disasters changed the social dynamics, or a local politician or law enforcement official made a bad decision, and suddenly things took a change for the worse. However, I will always argue for the right of individuals to protect themselves.

That said, there are quite a few things that can be done to improve firearm safety, including safety mechanisms that are engaged unless two hands are being used, or that engage between rounds. I believe that we have benefited from safety regulations on automobiles, and there is no reason we can't do the same for firearms.

But as I said, we can't predict the future. We do know that the genetic manipulation of "designer babies" is already available, and will be the next big issue. There will be a segment of the population that can afford to pay for improved intelligence, beauty and physical abilities, and a segment that can't. The segment that can't will be - by default - undesirable, subclass.

Perhaps I will buy a gun? ;)

Lyle,

One more thing.....

Regarding special interests, it is a common mistake to understand the issue in terms of money given to support the politicians. Although that is part of the issue, it is hardly the biggest part of the issue. The other part is how politicians use government money and legislation to reward and punish the special interests. Take every decision that Obama has made in the last three months, for example. The relationship is so symbiotic that both the client and host live off of one another.

Nothing can stop it.

@Bernard Forand....Socrates was the teacher of Plato, Plato was the teacher of Aristotle and Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander. There is some controversy whether Socrates was a fictional character of Plato's making, but I think he was probably real.

All three philosophers are credited as providing the philosophical foundation of western civilization and all three were Athenians.

Probably the most contributions for machinery and engineering came from a Syracusian by the name of Archimedes. Syracuse was a Greek City State located in Sicily.

After the collapse of the Roman Empire, thank goodness that Islam retained the knowledge to be regained by later Europeans.

@Matt Stevens...Preparing for anarchy is sure to produce anarchy. Any number of natural catastrophes can occur that would devastate society. In my opinion that is neither necessary or sufficient to build personal arsenals.

Matt, frankly, if it comes to that you have my permission to put me out of my misery. I don't want to be around for that, particularly if it becomes the chaotic mess you suggest.

But, seriously, you need to put your salesman hat on for this. This is what I was getting at earlier. There are rational arguments for concealed carry and the continued protections offered by the 2nd amendment. But they run along the lines of personal protection from criminals - not a hostile government or coronal mass ejections - regardless of how real those things may be to you.

"Preparing for anarchy is sure to produce anarchy. Any number of natural catastrophes can occur that would devastate society. In my opinion that is neither necessary or sufficient to build personal arsenals."

Well anarchy will happen whether you like it or not. You can be philosophical when they show up at your door and you try to defend yourself with words.

"or coronal mass ejections - regardless of how real those things may be to you."

Real to me? I regret to inform you then you have been living blissfully unaware. This isn't an if. This is a when. However, if you feel that you know more about astrophysics than people like Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, please feel free to convince us they are wrong. This isn't science fiction or some remote possibility.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/deep/the-looming-threat-of-a-solar-superstorm-6643435

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/a-possible-solar-storm-in-2012

"Not long ago, a report quoting NASA scientists was issued by the National Academy of Science, the highest scientific advisory body to the United States Congress. The report said something that used to be unthinkable: our own sun could have a temper tantrum that would unleash a tsunami of radiation from outer space, potentially wiping out our space satellites, wiping out power lines, and leaving entire continents without power."

Oh but no that's ok Bob McBride. You keep pretending that coronal mass ejections are just a figment of my imagination. After all, you know more than the scientists and you know more than the National Academy of Science, the highest scientific advisory body to the United States Congress.

You know what, Matt? You don't get it.

You want to argue about stuff that really has nothing to do with gun rights. You're doomed to fail because, frankly, you feed the anti-gun folks just what they're looking for. You need to get the general public who has no particular strong opinion one way or the other on your side. You won't do it by predicting a citizen versus government battle royale or offering up coronal mass ejections. Regardless of whether or not that phenomenon is a possibility or and inevitability, it's not going to sell your side of the story.

Get a clue, tone down the scary what-ifs and make a rational argument, or continue to be cannon fodder for the left. Your choice.

It's ok to be mad Bob. Rather than just admit you're wrong, I understand it's just easier to lash out.

Okay Matt. You run with your coronal mass ejections as a rational reason for not implementing more gun control in the face of a couple of recent tragedies and see how far you get.

I'm not mad, I'm frustrated Matt, because you can't see how this makes you and, by default, the pro gun movement look. Anytime anyone refuses to make a rational argument and, instead, doubles down on the outrageous and smugly thinks they've "won" I get frustrated. People who screw the pooch when they don't have to frustrate me. You, currently, fit all those criteria.

I don't know what you do for a living but I hope to G-d it's not something where you have to convince Joe Lunchbox or Jane Deskpilot to buy something you're selling because if it is and you use this tactic you're probably not gonna make your nut for the quarter.

@Matt Stevens....You need to listen to Bob, he's right about this. You just keep giving fresh fodder to the anti-gun people. Personally, I am fully aware of EMP, Yellow Stone erupting, etc. But I can't let those potential events rule my life. Living your life worrying about what could or will happen is the sign of a full blown neurosis. What we used to say in the mental health trade: Neurotics build castles in the sky, psychotics live in them, and shrinks collect the rent.

"Okay Matt. You run with your coronal mass ejections as a rational reason for not implementing more gun control in the face of a couple of recent tragedies and see how far you get."

In the face of recent tragedies. You do understand that gun control wouldn't have prevented them, right? And in fact, "tragedies" like this has becoming fewer. As for the rest of your personal attacks, well they're exactly that.

"But I can't let those potential events rule my life. Living your life worrying about what could or will happen is the sign of a full blown neurosis."

I am not sure why you have this perception that I'm a mountain man living in the woods. It doesn't run my life, nor do I worry about it. My family and many others are prepared, so we have nothing to worry about. And we live our lives just as much as you.

@Matt Stevens...Preparation for what?

"In the face of recent tragedies. You do understand that gun control wouldn't have prevented them, right?"

*******************

Yeah I do but I'm not the person you need to be concerned about. You need to be concerned about those who look beyond hunters and people who legitimately carry because they travel into dangerous parts to those they can classify as "gun nuts" and use that to promote the kind of changes you wouldn't find acceptable.

Within that "gun nut" category is going to be that group of people who make claims about stockpiling weaponry in the event of some sort of disaster, man-made or natural, with the belief that they're going to be holding off the hordes bent on taking what they have.

What you've got to understand is that the vast majority of people don't live like that, don't believe it's necessary (or think doing so is pointless) and, frankly, believe survivalists to be significant distance of the center mark. Those are the people you need to convince that the current gun laws are reasonable. You're not going to do that by highlighting what makes you different. You have to appeal to what you have in common with them. The majority of folks are going to be more able to relate to hunting and self-protection in crime ridden areas than they are doomsday scenarios.

Don't be your own worst enemy.

@Matt Stevens..."Yea this is why I stopped participating for the most part. It's degraded into garbage like this." It's your garbage, so own it!

I'm not the one who started flailing about calling people idiots when I couldn't win an argument. ;)

Bob and Lyle: Matt is not alone with this line of thinking. Be it a CME or Middle America earthquake, a disaster will eventually happen. What happened in Louisianna has taught many doomsday preppers lessons. I know of more than one person who has stockpiled over 250,000 rounds of ammo for several different guns.
You can invest in Wall Street and may lose it all. Guns and ammo never lose value, and may be your only chance at survival. I am not so sure that it is worth all the effort to survive if things ever come to that. But I will not condemn a law abiding person for amassing such an arsenal- it is his or her right.

Craig, I'm not condemning them for doing it or believing it. What I'm condemning, if anything, is taking what is essentially an outrider stance and attempting to use that to argue the position that we don't need more restrictions on gun and ammo ownership.

I realize there are others besides Matt who believe that, but the fact of the matter is that, just as it's more likely that additional guns in the audience in Aurora would have caused greater harm than good (I think it could be argued to the opposite in this most recent local tragedy), stockpiling weapons and ammo so one might be the last person standing due to the effects of a catastrophic natural disaster isn't a winner when it comes to swaying the average joe to the pro-gun side of the argument. Instead, it really does provide "ammo" (if you will) to those who wish to paint gun owners as a bit nutty (see Keith above if you don't believe me).

Better arguments can be made in defense of gun ownership.

@Craig....Doomsday preppers are definitely outliers and have always been present in our society. This is a big year for them based on the Mayan Calender, 12/21/2012. We know that there are some uncertainties that we can never plan for. To obsess about such things is dysfunctional. The only certainty is that we will all die.

These people storing huge quantities of ammo are only fooling themselves. All ammunition has a self life. Beyond that point it becomes unstable and unreliable. Besides, it represents a danger in case of fire.

Outlier arguments do nothing to promote 2nd amendment rights, but actually detract from arguable points.

Bernard,

You're circling the wrong planet. I'm over here, on earth.

Why is this adressed to me?

Does the lack of gun control "work?" What does "work" mean Matt?

@Brian Carlson...Excellent point. What does "work" mean? If we want to define work, then we need to determine what the desired state is. I would like to think that for something like gun ownership to work it would result in the elimination of violent crime that results in harm to the innocent. If not complete elimination then to a simple aberrant like in Denmark when they have a homicide. It is no surprise that gun restrictions don't work better in as much that the availability of firearms in our nation is out of proportion to need. Most illegal arms can be traced back to legally purchased weapons that wound up in the wrong hands because of theft and home burglaries. When the nation has some 268 million firearms, there are 268 million opportunities that lethal weapons will fall into the hands of someone with evil intents. We have to start the process of eliminating that potential. My vote still is to begin eliminating ammunition for certain firearms. It will be a more practical endeavor that actually has a higher probability of limited success.

Does the war on drugs work? Lyle, what makes you think it would work any better for ammunition? Please expand on this idea "begin eliminating ammunition for certain firearms", what are certain firearms?

@Greg....As far as the War on Drugs goes; I'm all for legalization and stop the stupidity. Just like prohibition of alcohol, it actually gave organized crime the opportunity to grow wealthy. Controlling firearms is different since there isn't the same kind of demand that is associated with alcohol.

My plan for ammunition would be to regulate all handgun ammunition except for .22 shorts and longs. Ammunition for long guns such as .556 x 45mm and 7.62 x 39 mm would be regulated.

Ammunition for handguns and certain long guns would be rationed and their would be a cartridge case exchange program where you could only buy as many rounds as the number of cartridge cases that are turned in. I would also place a high tax on this ammunition.

Instead of allowing gun shops to sell the regulated ammunition, it would have to be purchased from government owned and operated distribution centers and point of sale facilities.

Penalties for the illegal purchase and sale of regulated ammunition would be a federal crime with severe penalties. In my world we would replace drug dealers with ammunition dealers in the prisons.

Lyle Ruble, what mental disorder are you diagnosed with? or are you just plain stupid?

So Lyle, you would be OK with eliminating all shooting sports?

@Greg...I wouldn't eliminate shooting sports. There wouldn't be any changes to long guns used for hunting. As far as competition shooting whether handgun or long gun, special permits could be issued for competition shooters. Their ration limits could be raised to support their hobby or profession. Competition and practice for handguns would have to occur in a registered and controlled range. I hope that clears up any questions you might have.

@Conceal Carrier....No mental disability. As far as stupidity goes, others can be the judge of that. So far my record would indicate reasonable good intelligence.

@Bernard

I don't believe in futuristic chaos any more than I believe my house and your house will burn down on the same day.

Btw, I have insurance, and I hope you do too.

Kind of like buying your drugs from the pharmacy?