You’re More Likely To Be Killed With A Knife, Or Fists, Than An “Assault Weapon”

Exchange Gun Auction

“You are more likely to be killed with someone’s “hands/feet/fists” than a rifle,” writes Tim Carney citing this graph based in FBI crime statistics:

w620-afe014391829c8524fb15fd0f0647360

Yeah, but that doesn’t fit the “do something” narrative, right? I mean, “assault weapons” are scary looking, so obviously banning them or restricting their sale will mean we’re safer right?

That’s how people feel. That’s not how things actually are.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • $8194357

    Well….
    that just doesn’t line up with the “officle state media propaganda”, huh.

  • Davo

    Those wimps at Sandy Hook should have fought back. Pussies.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      That’s a terrible thing to say.

      But I think the point we’re making, and that you apparently disagree with, is that the adults at Sandy Hook should have been empowered to fight back. If someone on premises had been armed, maybe the body count would have been lower. Maybe there wouldn’t have been a body count at all.

      • Wayne

        I’m sure that if the nut knew that some at that school were armed he never would have gone to that school in the first place. He would have picked some other ‘gun free zone’.

        • Davo

          Yeah, he seemed to be a pretty thoughtful, reasonable young man.

          • Fatalerror94

            As was pointed out in the movie “Speed”; just because someone is crazy doesn’t mean they’re stupid.

          • SusanBeehler

            Yes a movie is where we should start the discussion of a policy to save lives. NOT!!!!

          • Wayne

            How many of these nuts shoot up a place where there are armed people willing to shoot back? Answer, none.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        Here’s a story of a pro-gun guy fighting back during a debate, by shooting his gun:

        http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/dec/19/mo-man-gets-mad-barber-shop-shoots-toward-patron/

        We need more people with guns like you need another hole in the head.

        • Fatalerror94

          It’s sad you feel that way, because if you want fewer people with extra holes in the body put there by an armed assailant, then the remedy is more people with guns.

          • Davo

            I for one am sick and tired of fist-fights ending with broken noses. Let’s make sure everyone is armed, so these fights can end with funerals and orphans!

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            Reductio ad absurdum.

          • Guest

            Says the person arguing if we should ban guns we should ban cars. Derp.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Rob, your entire argument is Reductio Ad Absurdum. The purpose for banning Assault Weapons is to reduce the amount of people that can be killed at once. Reloading is the only thing that stopped the shooter in the movie theater. He and the CT killer would not have killed this many people with their fists, or a knife. But you will ignore this logical response, because you are a propagandist and being a lying propagandist pays you enough to continue being a propagandist, a-hole.

          • Fatalerror94

            So, you are going to pick a fight with someone who will vary likely be armed?

          • SusanBeehler

            Families do it all the time.

          • SusanBeehler

            It is not the ONLY remedy.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, it’s not. That’s why when you went to a small town in the old west, the Sheriff banned gun possession. Because he knew more guns equaled more gun violence.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Hanni: If you want to know history, read a book. Guns were not banned in every small town. I have seen it in several old movies though. See if you can come up with an argument that isn’t based on fiction.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Poof, I know you have a hard time with the English language, as does everyone else, so would you mind pointing out where I used the word ‘Every’?

            Lastly, are you doing to be stupid enough to claim guns weren’t banned in small towns during the old west, because it’s fiction?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection is duly noted. If you haven’t a clue what you implied when you wrote:

            ” That’s why when you went to a small town in the old west, the Sheriff banned gun possession.”

            then you might want to be silent and be thought ignorant rather than flap your gums (and your keyboard) and remove all doubt.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Thank you for admitting I didn’t use the words you claimed I had, and the only mistake made was your interpretation.

            Is the word ‘Sheriff’ plural or singular? Thank you.

            You argue about the most idiotic things.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            I didn’t “claim” you had used the word “every”, Hannilliterate. Let me ask you, do you try hard to be an insufferably ignorant asshole, or does it just come naturally to you?

            Your problem is much smaller than the word “Sheriff” , like you yourself are smaller than (and less important than) pocket lint. Your problem is with the letter “a”. You said when you go to “a town, the Sheriff…”which implies a certain universality, i.e. every town, every Sheriff. Had you said “some” towns instead of “a” town, or qualified it in some other way, that would not have been the case. I guess “qualified” is not a word used very much in relation to your English skills, is it, Tiny Fruitcake?

            If you want me to continue to tutor you in English, please make some financial arrangement. Anyone who tutors someone as stupid as you are Hanninsufferable, should get at least time and a half their regular rate.

            “You argue about the most idiotic things.” …and you parrot me well, Tiny Mynah Bird Boy. Give yourself a cookie!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            So in your mind, when a person uses the word ‘a’, it means many, not one? Boy, you are incredibly stupid, aren’t you?

            What about the fact that I also used the word “he” and not “they”?

            Also, I didn’t use the word ‘go’, I used the word ‘went’. Not that you would know the difference between past tense and present. Let’s not even discuss plural vs singular.

            English isn’t your strong suit, Poofy.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Your projection and ignorance on parade are both duly noted, Hanni Boo Boo.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          More Guns, Less Crime is a book by Yale professor John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass “shall issue” concealed carry laws. Read it, you might learn something.

          Although I think that may be imposible for you too.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The book has been debunked as it ignores evidence to the contrary, specifically that data of the united states showing that gun violence has gone down as gun ownership has gone down.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            debunked by who? you? hahahaha.
            Gun sales are rocketing because of Obama.
            You live in an alternate universe. Try are rewrite that comment because it makes no sense.

      • borborygmi

        I agree with that. Couple of armed guards. Oh crap that costs taxpayers dollars……Forget it.

      • SusanBeehler

        It was a terrible Davo stated. Reading your blog this is the message which is coming across from you and others. Your knee jerk reaction is to fight. There are other options to explore and we should. It is a terrible thing to say the teachers should have guns to shoot rather than say disarm the perpetrator. How could we disarm the perpetrator? Look at what they are doing/using to commit the crime, get rid of the means to commit the crime. A person who is suicidal which most of these cases are; may be able to be stopped, a gun just makes it easy for them to make this choice, and a bushmaster makes it easy for them to take out many with them. So I believe the logical choice is to take the bushmaster and rifles of this type out of their options, it is easier to eliminate the gun than to arm our teachers. While we would be arming those teachers, the threat potential would still be available, because the weapon being chosen is still out there.

    • Wayne

      Idiot.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        He is worse than an idiot, he’s a liberal.

  • SigFan

    Don’t confuse the narrative with facts. It just makes the lefties spit more when they talk.

    • $8194357

      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335848/gun-control-ignorance-thomas-sowell

      Must every tragic mass shooting bring out the
      shrill ignorance of “gun control”
      advocates?

      The key fallacy of so-called gun-control laws is that such laws do not in
      fact control guns. They simply disarm law-abiding citizens,
      while people bent on violence find firearms readily available.

      If gun-control zealots had any respect for facts, they would have discovered
      this long ago, because there have been too many factual studies over the years to leave any serious doubt about gun-control laws being not merely futile but counterproductive.

      Places and times with the strongest gun-control laws have often been places
      and times with high murder rates. Washington, D.C., is a classic example, but
      just one among many.

      The rate of gun ownership is higher in rural areas than in urban areas, but
      the murder rate is higher in urban areas. The rate of gun ownership is higher
      among whites than among blacks, but the murder rate is higher among blacks. For the country as a whole, hand-gun ownership doubled in the late 20th century, while the murder rate went down.

      The few counter-examples offered by gun-control zealots do not stand up under scrutiny. Perhaps their strongest talking point is that Britain has stronger gun-control laws than the United States and lower murder rates.

      But, if you look back through history, you will find that Britain has had a
      lower murder rate than the United States for more than two centuries — and, for most of that time, the British had no more stringent gun-control laws than the United States. Indeed, neither country had stringent gun control for most of
      that time.

      In the middle of the 20th century, you could buy a shotgun in London with no
      questions asked. New York, which at that time had had the stringent Sullivan Law restricting gun ownership since 1911, still had several times the gun-murder rate of London, as well as several times the London murder rate with other weapons.

      Neither guns nor gun control were the reason for the difference in murder
      rates. People were the difference.

      Yet many of the most zealous advocates of gun-control laws on both sides of
      the Atlantic have also been advocates of leniency toward criminals.

      In Britain, such people have been so successful that legal gun ownership has
      been reduced almost to the vanishing point, while even most convicted felons are not put behind bars. The crime rate, including the rate of crimes committed with guns, is far higher in Britain now than it was back in the days when there were few restrictions on Britons buying firearms.

      In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London but, by the 1990s
      — after decades of ever tightening gun-ownership restrictions — there were more than a hundred times as many armed robberies.

      Gun-control zealots’ choice of Britain for comparison with the United States
      has been wholly tendentious, not only because it ignored the history of the two
      countries, but also because it ignored other countries with stronger gun-control
      laws than the United States, such as Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. All of these
      countries have higher murder rates than the United States.

      You could compare other sets of countries and get similar results. Gun
      ownership has been three times as high in Switzerland as in Germany, but the
      Swiss have had lower murder rates. Other countries with high rates of gun
      ownership and low murder rates include Israel, New Zealand, and Finland.

      Guns are not the problem. People are the problem —
      including people who are determined to push gun-control laws,
      either in ignorance of the facts or in defiance of the facts.

      There is innocent ignorance and there is invincible, dogmatic, and
      self-righteous ignorance. Every tragic mass shooting seems to bring out examples of both among gun-control advocates.

      Some years back, there was a professor whose advocacy of gun control led him to produce a “study” that became so discredited that he resigned from his
      university. This column predicted at the time that this discredited study would
      continue to be cited by gun-control advocates. But I had no idea that this would
      happen the very next week in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

  • nimrod

    If you have an assault rifle, you are less likely to be killed by any of the above.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Exactly.

      Well said.

      • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

        If you are in a barber shop and you get in a gun control debate, there’s a likely chance the gun owner will shoot at you, after he misinterprets what you say: http://www.newstribune.com/news/2012/dec/19/mo-man-gets-mad-barber-shop-shoots-toward-patron/

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Yes, Hannitized, people commit crimes with guns. What’s your point?

          • $16179444

            i believe the only point he has sits on his head

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            The purpose for banning assault weapons is to REDUCE the number of people killed, not stop them. The only thing that stopped the AZ shooter was the fact that he had to re-load. Had he a larger magazine he could have killed more people. The CT shooter also would not have killed this many babies with a knife or his fists.

            This argument by Rob is specious, and you’re an effing idiot and a kook!

          • $16179444

            Disemboweling the bill of rights won’t save anyone. Mass shooters look for weak high-profile targets, not high moral ground.

          • Wayne

            If there would have been an armed citizen or two in the AZ crowd, the shooter might not have been able to empty one magazine. And the CT shooter would have killed many more with a homemade bomb but again, if there would have been an armed teacher, he might not have killed anyone.

          • toomuchguvmint

            Here I thought the purpose of assault weapons was to arm Mexican drug lords.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Crime? He just didn’t commit a crime, he pulled out a gun and shot it for an argument….and after he misinterpreted a comment. That’s not the world we want to live in. You idiots might want to, but the more this type of thing goes on the more the regulations will come.

          • $16179444

            hint, that is the world we live in….no amount of gun buybacks or banning of guns will stop it…there will always be stupid people in this world – look at you!

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That’s funny coming from the guy who had to change his comment after failing to read my post properly. Of course I never said it wasn’t a crime, as you firs stated, kook.

            And no, this is not the world we live in where people pull guns out in the middle of a debate and shoot at them over disagreement of politics. If that’s the world you believe we should live in then clearly you are part of the problem and one of the people who should not be in possession of a weapon.

          • $16179444

            yes, i made a correction. unlike you i can admit when i made a mistake — you STILL think Obama is a good president. and yes this is the world we live in – any denying that just bolsters your ignorance level up a notch….sad as it may seem, its true. I shouldn’t be in possession of gun because I am a realist? Ok…..better hurry, your unicorn is getting lonely tool. and btw the way I NEVER said it was the world we SHOULD live in you fucktard.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            You voted for Bush twice and that almost destroyed America’s economic system, not to mention the worlds. Obama prevented that, LOL.

          • $16179444

            Yeah, more unemployment, more debt is fixing things. no wonder you are laughed at fool…but keep playing the role of straw man and avoid the subject at hand.

        • Thresherman

          “Likely chance”? That means more than fifty-fifty as in more likely than not. So this must mean that there must be hundreds, thousands, nay even millions of simular events, yet where are they? Surely if this is “likely”, one would think that someone would be aware of massive outbreak barbershop murders sparked by conversations on gun control and report on it. Yet you cite one lonely, single, solitary event and deem that repetition is “likely”? Do you even realize how staggeringly stupid that statement is? Do you even care? Or are you so blinded by your biases that rational thought is just a dim glimmer in the deepest recesses of your mind?

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            No, it’s not indicative of a 50/50 chance, but should there really be ANY chance? I think not.

          • Wayne

            Typical lefty BS, ‘We can legislate utopia!’ Idiots.

          • $16179444

            you don’t think….at all.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            Do you have a problem understanding the word ‘should’ too?

            Haha. You idiot kook.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            chance – a measure of how likely it is that some event will occur; a number expressing the ratio of favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible; “the probability that an unbiased coin will fall with the head up is 0.5″

            Likely -Within the realm of credibility; plausible: not a very likely excuse.

    • yy4u2

      Ran into this the other day. Watch till the end when Joe Liberal know it all tries to answer the question, “well, what if an intruder comes into your house with…” Priceless.
      http://www.black-and-right.com/2012/12/18/anti-gun-protesters-blame-nra-for-sandy-hook-massacre/

    • SusanBeehler

      If you take it out of the safe, know how to use it without shooting up a room full of children and have many rounds to make sure you hit your target over and over again. I wonder how you would fair in court if you used your assault rifle on the spouse who beat you, and put 2 to 7 shots in their face? It is time to limit the availability of the “assault” rifle, we know what it is being used for; to murder children!

      • Wayne

        Please tell me, you seem to know, what is an assault rifle?

        • SusanBeehler

          A rifle used to assault a person, but I think most commonly when the term is used it is a rifle similar to what our military would carry, a rifle for efficiency and ease of use to stop the enemy. The media seems to label rifles which may be semiautomatic and are capable of firing multiple rounds without a reload in a matter of a few seconds. What is your “assault rifle”?

          • toomuchguvmint

            It sure is wonderful when a good guy with an assault rifle is able to stop the bad guy similarly armed and save innocent life.

          • Wayne

            Assault rifle is a made up term by liberals and it means any gun that looks scary.

    • SusanBeehler

      Says nimrod?

  • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

    Yeah. Remember that time that guy forced his way into that school with a Swiss army knife and killed 20 kids and 6 teachers in less than 10 minutes. That was horrible. But it’s just the price we pay for freedumb.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Remember that time, back in the 1920’s, before violent movies and video games when a guy killed dozens of elementary kids without using a gun at all? The worst school massacre in US history?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

      • Guest

        Exactly, we should make it even easier for those guys to kill our children. Derp.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          I think we should make it harder by making it easier for potential victims to defend themselves.

          • Guest

            Yes, everyone having a gun will almost certainly result in fewer gun fatalities. Derp.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Actually that is true. More Guns, Less Crime is a book by Yale professor John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass “shall issue” concealed carry laws. Read it, you might learn something.

            Although I think that may be imposible for you.

          • Guest

            Actually, his books has been widely discredited. Educate yourself, you might be able to think beyond conservatard talking points, tard.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            by whom? Other block head liberals? seriously. post it dufus

          • SusanBeehler

            Children being killed, murdered is not a liberal or conservative issue, it is a people issue and as a society we should value our children more than the recreational activity of shooting a bushmaster, it serves no other purpose than recreation or mass murder, what else is it being used for in our country?

          • Guest
          • mickey_moussaoui

            Well, I just read the first two in your list and it is pretty much all conjecture. No hard numbers and some fictional stats pulled out of thin air. To be quite honest here, you look real foolish with this nonsense. Believe what you like. Don’t let facts get in the way. It read alot like AGW nonsense, garbage in, garbage out

          • Wayne

            this is all BS.

          • Guest

            Thanks for providing a well reasoned and articulated response. Derp.

          • Wayne

            I looked at all your links. Studies, my ass. Fact are facts. When the private citizens are armed, violent crime goes down. When private citizens have no means of protecting themselves crime goes up. Look at the crime statistics for any large city with strict gun control laws. You really are an idiot.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            10X. It takes them a while to catch up.

          • Wayne

            Discredited how? By whom? Liberals ‘discredit’ anything that disagrees with their narrative. Facts are facts. More guns mean less crime, less guns mean more crime. Just look at Chicago, Detroit, Etc., Etc.

          • Wayne

            Tard, your the one that needs educating. Typical idiot liberal.

          • Wayne

            You’re not your.

          • SusanBeehler

            Just because their is a book or because gun owners say it is so, does not make it so.

          • Lianne

            Just because their or there?
            But more importantly, just because liberal say somthing is so, does not make it so; especially when they present no facts, just ideas swimming around in their (not there) heads.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            for a good laugh read the list guest provided

          • mickey_moussaoui

            suzi, hard numbers don’t lie. Liberals do.

          • SusanBeehler

            How are those “hard numbers” of property tax relief our conservative leadership in our state share with us; working for you? Liars are people.

          • Wayne

            BigSue – Facts be damned.

          • Wayne

            Hard numbers are ignored by liberals when they don’t fit the narrative.

          • Hannitized, Proofs obsession

            That book ignores data to the contrary, that including the overall numbers in America. LOLOLOL.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            what data? all those artcles have no data, no hard numbers. Nothing but conjecture. Handiwipe, we have all seen your lack of comprehension skills on display for several years now but this confirms it.

          • Wayne

            Yes it will. Idiot.

          • Wayne

            Yes it will. Jerk idiot.

          • Guest

            Liberal gun laws certainly helped all the people that died in all past mass shootings. Derp.

          • LastBestHope

            That “Derp” sign-off makes everything you post so much more…uh…cosmopolitan.

            yes…that’s it…you’re so cosmo. Derp

          • Guest

            Ya’ll have such well thought out, reasoned views it’s hard to find an opportunity to use it. Derp.

          • Wayne

            You are a jerk idiot.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            The Facts about Mass Shootings
            It’s time to address mental health and gun-free zones.

            By John Fund

            Incidents of mass murder in the U.S. declined from 42 in the 1990s to 26 in the first decade of this century.
            ———————————————–
            There is no evidence that private holders of concealed-carry permits (which are either easy to obtain or not even required in more than 40 states) are any more irresponsible with firearms than the police. According to a 2005 to 2007 study by researchers at the University of Wisconsin and Bowling Green State University, police nationwide were convicted of firearms violations at least at a 0.002 percent annual rate. That’s about the same rate as holders of carry permits in the states with “shall issue” laws.

            ———————————————-
            In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

          • Wayne

            ‘Liberal’ gun laws are not the reason all the people died in all past mass shooting. Idiot jerk.

          • SusanBeehler

            You are assuming all people have the fight response, that all people are willing to defend themselves. Sorry Rob there are people who will do NOTHING in a life and death situation it is the way they are. It is called the fight or flight reaction for a reason. If this was not human nature we would not have victims of domestic violence, because the minute a fist was raised the “victim” would take their bushmaster and unload a magazine in the perpetrator’s face. Anyone can become a victim and you are saying that somehow if they would have been armed this would have been prevented. It may have helped but it also may help if we remove the threat of weapons of this type being available easier than getting a designer purse online.

          • Lianne

            Are you implying all teachers are victims of domestic violence? ;-)

          • SusanBeehler

            no

          • Wayne

            Than what are you implying?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “easier than getting a designer purse online” I don’t think so. You used to be able to order rifles, sight unseen through the mail. That ended after the Kennedy assassination in 1963. Every legal gun purchase I know of has to be transferred through a legitimate gun dealer, who has a license to protect. I have heard a number of people shooting off their mouths about buying guns over the Internet, which you can do, but they are delivered to gun dealers, who are required to do the background checks and fill out all the paperwork (for a small fee).

          • Wayne

            WTF? You really are an idiot.

      • ellinas1

        Remember that time back in history before violent movies and video games when God killed all the firstborn in Egypt?

        http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Exodus%2011.1%20-%2012.30

        Or how about the time when the King of Judea Herod the Great (born 73 or 74 BCE, died 4 BCE in Jericho) gave orders to kill all boys of the age of two and under in Bethlehem and its vicinity?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Right. Humans have always been violent, even well before gun powder and firearms.

          Thanks for proving my point.

          • SusanBeehler

            So lets just keep things the same and allow children to be killed in similar ways with similar guns and say the guns will not be part of the problem. So lets just stand by and only allow the option of more guns , rather than say enough, these types of guns/ammo serves no necessary purpose in our society. Come on admit it you guys are scared if some limit is enacted it will be the slippery slope of more gun control.

          • Lianne

            Or we could take a look at the common denominatorthat ties these cases together. And that is mental illness. But, putting place better treatment modules, etc gives no liberal a crack at the Constitution.

          • yy4u2

            Our society? Are you the king central planner now? Mr. Hayek wrote of people like you in his “Road to Serfdom,” read it. If some limit were enacted, it is a slippery slope as it would probably be unconstitutional…but apparently you aren’t in favor of standing by the Constitution.

      • jl

        Remember the deadliest assault weapon ever, the box cutter?

        • LastBestHope

          Of the millions of words written and spoken about this Newtown tragedy, yours reveal the whole Truth about why all this anti-gun talk is just nonsense.

      • SusanBeehler

        The justification of children dying in the past, other places and hiding behind a “right” is disturbing. Remember when people did not make “light” of children dying. Remember when Americans valued our children enough they would make sacrifices rather than claim excessive self-indulgence was their right. Remember when no one would have an attitude “By God I don’t care how many children die by a bushmaster no one is going to take them away from me because you never know when our country will be invaded by an outsider who cares if the invader is within; I could never give up my rapid fire rifle because than how will I have fun?” Would your dad/mom give up their bushmaster if it meant saving your life, their own life? Do you think the forefathers would think our guns of today and how they are used is what they meant, or do you think they would have allowed it because the invader was not the government nor an outside country, they would think it was okay to continue to allow guns and ammo, policies which contribute to the growing of the enemy within our borders? Do you think this is what they envisioned when they wrote the constitution?

        • Lianne

          I remember when it was honorable to defend one’s property and family. Standing, fighting, risking one’s life to do so was the honorable thing to do. Just because you are of the ‘flight’ bricade does not qualify you to take away the ‘fight’ bricade.

          • SusanBeehler

            Really, you must be very old. Did not know there were qualifications to be human with a choice in the response to danger? Oh I forgot you are a computerized “being” generated for blogging entertainment. Poor thing, you are if you only think a bushmaster and the ammo is the only way to belong to your “fight” bricade, guess you are a wanabe in the mass shooter club.

          • lianne

            getting snarky, again are you? you brought up the fight or flight scenario and I played off of that. and to that you have no defense…

          • Bat One

            Susan, You should lay off the sarcasm. You’re really not very good at it.

          • SusanBeehler

            Gun owners should lay off owning their guns if they refused to keep them from being stolen by crazy mass murderers. Because they are not very good at gun ownership.

          • Bat One

            Its an interesting point. You should have brought it up to Mr. Lanza’s mother… before she was murdered with the legally purchased and registered gun her son stole from her.

            Look, Your tirades are getting predictable and tiresome. On our side we have the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights and a pair of Supreme Court rulings that restrict both state and federal regulation of the “fundamental and individual right” to keep and bear arms. While on your side you have little more than your indignation. Not a fair fight, is it?

          • SusanBeehler

            I thought this was a blog you could state your opinion, I didn’t know it was a fight. Well let’s look at her gun ownership, maybe we should make her heirs pay for her inability to keep her gun from her son. Maybe we should make her heirs liable for the deaths and call it “child support”. How many spouses do you think would like the ideas of gun ownership if you had to pay for those killed with your gun? We could call it no-fault and make you carry a insurance premium to own it? Let’s start those insurance premiums at $20,000 a year.

          • Wayne

            You can state your opinion. That doesn’t mean you can’t be ridiculed for your stupidity.

          • Wayne

            My guess is you must be about 12 years old BigSue. According to your logic anyway.

          • SusanBeehler

            and you are ninety?

          • Wayne

            What a come back. Idiot.

        • Bat One

          The only other person I know of who is vile enough, depraved enough, and stupid enough to refer to 2nd Amendment references as “hiding behind a ‘right'” is the leftwing thug, sot, and woman beater, Ed Schultz. Hardly the sort of ideological companionship that an honest, rational individual would cherish.

          But then you have been neither honest nor rational, “Susan.” You deny in one comment that you favor banning guns, then in the next trumpet banning this gun or that (although you obviously wouldn’t know a Ruger from a Remington), based solely on the emotional disdain you have for anything that fires bullets and kills. At the same time you ignore all evidence that gun control regimes, even the most stringent, have done nothing but make innocent targets of those they were dishonestly meant to protect. You also conveniently ignore the fact, proven repeatedly, that laws banning guns effect only those who are willing to obey the law to begin with, leaving us all even more vulnerable to those who violate the law with impunity. Has stringent gun control worked in Chicago? Hardly! Same for DC, Baltimore, Newark, Trenton, Providence, St. Louis, etc. Has putting anonymous armed security on airlines worked? Apparently so. But in your zeal to intrude on the fundamental and individual rights of the rest of us, you ignore the rational and the real insisting that what you favor would save the children, though obviously that hasn’t been the case at all… not in Chicago and not in Connecticut either. You are both a liar and a hypocrite, and that is not simple name-calling. I’m merely describing you based on your own tedious commentary.

          • SusanBeehler

            Obviously I miss typed if you read no gun bans, I do believe we could and should ban certain types guns,NOT all guns, I just don’t know the gun lingo terms for them. I think high powered rifles which have been called by the names of bushmaster and assault rifles would be the ones I think should be banned and get read of those magazines that have all those bullets. Making it more time consuming to reload could help save lives. You tell me which ones you would never ever want to give up, I am not up on all the fashion names for guns. Let’s start a list. Their, there

          • Neiman

            You do not get it – you are incredibly obtuse.

            It does not matter what you personally are willing to give up or how you classify weapons – it is the Bill of Rights: “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.”

            While the government can do a lot by force and trickery, the Constitution does not say the “right of the people to keep and bear “SOME” arms.” To insert that clause you must amend the 2nd Amendment through the Constitutional Amendment process. Any other approach is unconstitutional and a crime against the liberties guaranteed to us.

            Your list of approved or disapproved guns is pig poop – there can be no such list, no restrictions, not even registration or gun safety classes or trigger locks or other measures, yes people have submitted to them, but the are all unconstitutional.

            Why do you liberals hate the Constitution.

            Note: I believe the phrase “the security of a free state” applies as much to the evils of our own government as much, if not more, than a foreign enemy.

          • SusanBeehler

            I get it, I just don’t agree with you. So McViegh is your hero, because he thought the government was tyrannical and took up arms against it? Please who is the frightened one in this post? Your fear of government is willing to sacrifice children, for an inanimate object that is a recreational “toy” and mass people destroyer. Your anti christ is the your devotion to words written by men who had no idea bearing arms would be used against the children of our country. So you think if we get rid of one type of gun, a gun that could have never been dreamed of by men who thought black people were not human and women were property, this is
            “infringing”. I get it the word “infringing” means more to you than the names of 20 children. Putting a word, a paper, a gun above the lives of children is this what you believe is God’s will? YOU sound pretty anti-Christ to me. Pig poop list could happen if our country wants it to happen. The Constitution is a fluid document it is not the Holy Bible.

          • Neiman

            You liberal liars drive me nuts. Because I defend the right to keep and bear arms that is promised in tehe Bill of Rights and that in defense of liberty and the rule of Law and against tyranny; and you make the idiotic jump that McVeigh was my hero? You are insane! I never implied agreement with any particular act of violence or rebellion, only a principle.

            1. Again, your illogical leaps border on the insane. When did I ever imply a willingness to sacrifice children, by defending the Bill of Rights?

            2. If we do not defend the Constitution, as written and amended, we are no longer a nation of laws but serfs living under State tyranny. I have often been attacked here because I hold the Bible above the Constitution, but that bible also tells me to obey the laws of the land if they do not cause me to violate God’s Word.

            3. You simply hate the Constitution, it prohibits such infringements, but you ignore those words and defend infringements, absent the only Constitutional corrective, which is the amendment process.

            4. Once again your leaps of logic are just plain nuts. I hold to a nation of law, while still deeply regretting the great loss of life at Sandy Hook; unlike most liberals though, I also more greatly bemoan the 50 million helpless, innocent babies you liberals have killed in and outside the womb. Where is your outrage against those willful murders by the State?

            5. We cannot long endure if in the face of every tragedy we cast aside the law and make sport of the Bill of Rights and may, just may be that, you should consider that it was you liberals that kicked God out of the Public Square and by endorsing homosexuality and the sexual revolution have created the very atmosphere wherein human life and family is held in contempt and there is no longer any fear of God and that my dear madam, played a much greater role in Sandy Hook, than his guns.

            6. The Constitution is not, it cannot be a fluid document as you mean the word. Or, its laws cannot be relied upon, being subject to arbitrary change with every passing crisis, by frail, finite, emotional men. It is living only because it can, when it fails to meet our needs, be amended by the consent of the governed.

          • SusanBeehler

            The reason you are driven to insanity or “nuts” is because of what you choose to believe and refuse to open your mind to maybe, just maybe another way might be okay. Yes! your mothers back will NOT break if you step on the crack. Your mind confines you; it has nothing to do with being “liberal” or “conservative”.

          • SusanBeehler

            Just saying McVeigh probably thought he was defending the Constitution, his right. After all doesn’t any act of defense or even violence start with believing it is your right to do it.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            I suspect that YOU, suziB, would not pass a psych test for a conceal carry permit based on your hostile rants towards those who don’t follow your demagoguery.

          • SusanBeehler

            Hmm! I thought you only had to check box to get your gun, there is a psych test? No more hostile than the rants at me because I do not follow their “demagoguery”.

          • Wayne

            The only reason for ‘hostility’ is your idiocy.

          • Lianne

            I didn’t realize that McVeigh used a gun, nor was he accused of defending the Constitution. Remember janet Reno and Waco, Texas. of course, none of us know for sure why he did what he did, but again all you have are these non-reality based random thoughts floating around in your head.

          • Wayne

            Idiot.

          • Neiman

            No it because of the constant, damnable lies of liberals like yourself; and your being a liberal, your hatred for the rule of Law and our Constitution. In a nation ruled by law, there is no other way than to obey that law and if need be to amend it and them obey it as amended. No nation can survive when one party changes the law unconstitutionally to make it bend to their liberal ideology.

            How can I trust the Law to guide my daily actions when it can be changed on a whim by partisans in the courts, the Congress and the White House. It becomes not fluid but arbitrary? The answer, I cannot and that is the recipe for a party (Democrats) to rule by force, not by Law and that is tyranny and an enemy of liberty.

            I should get to own, keep and bear arms without any restrictions, until and unless the people say, we amend it to allow X and Y to be regulated by Congress and even that amendment, must not violate the rest of the Bill of Rights or Constitution. For example: Your side has made our thoughts into a crime punishable by law, it is called hate crimes. This does not legislate against what we actually do, but what we think. Further, your side says we Christians can no longer evangelize in the public square if it offends anyone, overthrowing the First Amendment. I could go on, but it is always your side that simply ignores the Constitution and regulates against its clear meanings.

          • Wayne

            You are the one with a closed mind.

          • SusanBeehler

            By the way I do not believe in abortion, just as you were offended by the McVeigh comment, I am offended being labeled a ” you liberals” We have more in common than you are willing to see. Infringe, you have defined in a way which you believe it is the only interpretation. So how can we as nation prevent another Sandy Hook?

          • Neiman

            We cannot do it by making schools an armed camp, but by national and local leadership changing the hearts of the people to return to the Judeo-Christian values that once made us great and to a knowledge that we must all face Nature’s God. We must end gay marriage, we must condemning sexual perversions, alternative families and abortion, return to discipline in schools and in many ways, turn society back towards decency.

            An example: I deal with special needs children every day. We have many children of all ages that are extremely violent, having no limits, no discipline and using excuses like Autism, ADHAD we excuse their conduct and punish any attempts at discipline. One such student was very violent and yet last year for six weeks was very polite, obeyed the rules and was on what we call green for all that time. We found out his single mother had taken away his video games and television. The day he was to get off restriction he was very excited and a bit hyperactive. The next day the violence returned and got so bad he was sent to a special school. Discipline worked, and an absence of discipline allowed him to act like a terrorist. Another autistic boy would strip naked all the time, masturbate, play with his poop and was more like an animal. An aunt took over at home and played drill sergeant, even applying consistent physical discipline on his buttocks, saying he may be autistic but dammit he will learn to behave decently around other people. This year, while still noticeably autistic, he is graduating with high grades from high school and no disciplinary problems.

            Our only hope is to return to those values, get Nature’s God back in the Public Square and our schools and reject godless socialism.

          • SusanBeehler

            Similiar to what Rep Cramer stated in a recent article? I agree with some of what you are saying. What is causing all the new cases of autism and ADHD, this is certainly something we need to get answers for? Is it the absence of two parents, even the absence of one parent in the home. I have seen similar instances of disturbing behavior in daycare settings. Daycare homes which give the structure and require those with special needs to still meet expectations of certain behaviors, fare better in the daycare, then they get back home and the behavior returns. The other thing I find alarming is how many boys are being drugged. Boys need physical activity and sometimes I wonder if in schools we are not shoving them into a mold of only “book” learning, not letting them grow their physical strengths, & build, make things than labeling it as ADHD.

          • Neiman

            We are not doing much in book learning either. It is rapidly, at all grade levels, becoming mostly day care. They are getting so much drugs, some spend weeks in the hospital each year getting the levels adjusted so they are less violent. Most of my students (boys) are drugged up, sleep a lot and when the drugs wear off they are hyperactive and yes need to get vigorous activity.

          • SusanBeehler

            Why? I wonder. You are confirming what I thought may be happening, but , Why is it happening?

          • Neiman

            No answer is complete, but IMO it is partially (mostly) a result of the breakdown in two parent families, most, not all by any stretch of the imagination, but most of these troubled children come from single parent, usually just the mother, families. It is critical IMO that a child benefit from a two parent, male-female, family. Otherwise, they will grow up emotionally unbalanced, usually one parent provides the discipline the other the affection and that balance is missing in most families today. They lack the proper role models and consistent discipline and limits. In the cases I cited and many more cases, that is the situation and I think autism is diagnosed far too often when it is mainly emotional problems cause by this aberrant, unbalanced family unit.

            Doctors diagnose a medical problem like Autism and ADHD too easily, when more often than not it is just a damned spoiled child; and the doctors make it worse, by over medicating to produce, pardon the expression, a stoned child; and, so usually it is the single mother that just goes along, feels a mothers misplaced sympathy for their child and just cannot provide the discipline and healthy male role model required, so it all just spins out of control.

            Plus, and this is a big thing to me, there are usually no extended family in neighborhoods/towns where the woman gets help and her father, grandfather, uncles and etc, provide that missing male influence for the child and then there is less involvement by the Church, which is supposed to be there to offer spiritual support and prayer.

            It all started IMO in 1962 with the first official SCOTUS decisions came down removing God from our schools; and, thereafter a drastic increase in divorces, thanks to no fault, and the missing family/church connections I mentioned earlier, a lower marriage rate to heal the family unit and an overactive government playing nanny, instead of a real family, made matters worse.

            I could go on, but you get the idea of what I see as the problem, IMO at least to a great degree, this is the roots of the problem.

          • borborygmi

            I just knew gays and gay marriage cause mass shootings. Thanks for pointing that out Neiman. At least God hasn’t killed anyone for a while. … What again was the reasoning he killed so many oh yah to save your ass. Killing , its all relative sin.

          • Neiman

            You really are a horses buttocks!

            I used gay marriage as an example of our moral decline, not a cause and what is more important, you knew that is what I meant – you are just being and ass – as usual.

          • Lianne

            Simple answer? We can’t.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            The constitution is neither a fluid document nor a bible

          • two_amber_lamps

            You don’t agree with Neiman’s interpretation? Then renounce your citizenship and self-deport, or pursue an amendment to the Constitution (lots o’ luck with that).

            The Bill of Rights is what it is, but it certainly can’t make you stay in a nation you find fundamentally flawed. Hell, I’ll throw in $20 for your plane ticket.

          • Wayne

            No you don’t get it. You are too much of an idiot.

          • SusanBeehler

            Your vocabulary seems to be severely limited; “idiot” appears in about 75% of your comments. What are you?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “I think high powered rifles which have been called by the names of bushmaster and assault rifles would be the ones I think should be banned”

            The Bushmaster and the AR-15 “assault” rifles are not “high powered” rifles. You need to be more careful where you get your information from. Your comments reflect much misinformation.

            The points that you wish to make would carry more weight if you were able to back them up with actual facts and not regurgitated talking points from the anti-gun crowd.

          • SusanBeehler

            Like you were listening to any of my points anyway, please “carry more weight”. So I call it pink you call it salmon; it doesn’t refer to something you can comprehend?

          • yy4u2

            Thought McVeigh used a truck, fertilizer and diesel fuel? That’s right, he did. Should we ban places like UHaul from renting these vehicles, Ag companies from making fertilizer and the making or use of petroleum? You’ve stated your point. Many on here have showed you it is invalid.

          • borborygmi

            pull a trigger much much faster then building a bomb.

          • Wayne

            But detonating a bomb is just as fast as pulling a trigger and it kills many more people.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Susan, I apologize! I thought for a moment you might be a rational person with a point of view you wanted to get across and not simply vent your emotional frustrations. I point out factual errors in your argument and you blather on about shades of pink? Do you have a problem with actually getting your facts straight before you pontificate on them?

          • mickey_moussaoui

            She has “listen to me” lib feaver

          • Wayne

            It’s not a matter of pink vs. salmon. You are an idiot.

          • borborygmi

            OUch hitting below the belt when you bring up ED. Leave it to a conservative to fight dirty ; > ) YOu just brought the gun to the knife fight.

        • Wayne

          You do know that CT has the fifth strictest gun control laws in the country right? And you do know that all of the things you’re proposing are already in place in CT including an assault rifle ban right? Banning guns is not going to stop mass murders. But a few armed staff members at Sandy Hook could have stopped this nut case. If there would have been signs on the doors that the staff was armed and trained, he probably would have went to look for some other ‘gun free zone’.

          • Wayne

            Homemade bombs are much cheaper than a gun and will probably kill many more people but armed staff could have stopped this nut in any case.

          • SusanBeehler

            So I have heard. I also heard the mom’s weapons were grandfathered in under their gun control program, a BAN on this type may have been better, a buy back program. Not even all banks have a few armed staff. Yes armed staff may have made a difference but from what they are reporting it all went down in under 5 minutes. What if the door would have not been so easy to shoot out and another gate would come down making another layer for the shooter to get through? That to may have made a difference. I doubt he was shopping for a ‘gun free’ place, he was suicidal he just killed his mom, just like a person thinking about a suicide they go through it in their mind, the details of how they are going to do it, they choose the method, they envision how they want their death to look like. Sandy Hook was not a random spot, he had a reason for choosing it and it was not just because it was ‘gun free’.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            you crack me up. The daycare CSI queen. They should make a tv show around you. By day she wipe off snot, at night she grabs guns

          • SusanBeehler

            Some of the posters are suggesting exactly what you describe except by day they wipe off snot and they drop the kleenex and grab their guns to shoot the ones defending themselves from those who come in guns blazing who are fighting the tyranny of the government public school system. YOU crack me up!

          • Wayne

            When these mass murders are confronted by someone with a gun they usually surrender or kill themselves. How do you know he wasn’t ‘shopping’ for a gun free zone place? He didn’t shoot up a police station or an NRA convention did he?

          • SusanBeehler

            I would say neither of us would know. I do know people considering suicide can be persuaded to reconsider. They are not thinking logically so what you state as looking for a gun free zone seems like someone who is sane would say, so I just don’t think someone going to kill themselves gives much thought as to whether they will avoid death, they are seeking to die, not avoid it. Your statement of avoiding something which you could die from be shot for isn’t the solution they are looking for, they want to die.

          • Wayne

            So stick your head up your ass and deny the facts. Idiot.

    • Wayne

      You have to be an idiot to be a liberal I guess.

      • $8194357

        Not all idiots are liberal..
        But all liberals are idiots…
        Make your own conclusion from that data.

        • ellinas1

          My conclusion: You are wrong.

          • $8194357

            Hey, E..
            I’m not a pyschic…
            But I knew ya would…

          • $8194357

            Whats your conclusions about Barry telling Biden:
            Get er done by January!
            while they make the plans to
            confiscate/ban semi auto anythings?

            Now add the DHS gun and ammo purchases
            to your analysis since Barry took over with the
            proclimation of anyone who is ex army or focused
            on the Constituion or communism is the # 1
            threat to Americas future?
            Here is a link that shows how “prepared” they
            have gotten themselves, E..

            http://www.prepperpodcast.com/history-dhs-ammunition-purchases/#axzz2FeAA6RId

          • Wayne

            Not from my experience. And you are a perfect example.

      • the revealer.

        What a profound statement, from a genius.

        • Wayne

          Thank you!

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        Nah. But it helps!

    • $16179444

      so the answer is to out law guns? do you REALLY believe that this will stop these acts from happening?

      • SusanBeehler

        It will stop the perpetrator from using a bushmaster and other rifles of this type if it is banned. Your fear is “all guns outlawed” this is not where the discussion starts, that would be where discussion would end. So if you want to truly discuss this, the all or nothing with guns will not keep a dialogue and options flowing. Suicidal people will be suicidal but if we intervene, if we make it harder to commit these crimes, it could reduce the possibility of this happening with the frequency it has.

        • Lianne

          How many suicides are committed with ‘bushmasters”?

          • SusanBeehler

            why don’t you tell us?

          • Wayne

            Idiot response.

      • SusanBeehler

        Not out law guns, just the highpowered bushmaster type with the multiple ammo magazines. It may not stop all of them but it may prevent some and the number of casualties.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          The Bushmaster is no more “high power” than most other hunting guns. The 223 round used in a Bushmaster is on the small end of rifle calibers. To be honest, you are intimidated by the “look” of modern firearms. In reality, gun control in a country that already has 200 million privately owned firearms is likely to do little to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals. Mass killings are statistically very low.

          • SusanBeehler

            So your point? So why did the shooter choose it to use rather than the other handguns he had? All firearms are not the same otherwise why even own more than one? So do nothing because mass killings are not very often, not very many killed and by God I need my bushmaster to hunt, because it is the only gun which can kill a deer!!?

          • Wayne

            The point is that you have not idea of what you are talking about.

    • Wayne

      Hey Boob, the nut would not bring a Swiss army knife (that was OJ) to the school, he’d bring a homemade bomb and kill many. An armed teacher or two could stop him though in any case. You won’t stop mass murder by taking law abiding citizens’ guns away. It could have the opposite effect.

  • WOOF

    There are people who want to carry swords in public,
    and talk like a pirate, arrgh.

    Arms is arms .

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m fine with swords.

      There are some people who think the answer to every problem is to make society less free.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      I suspect that your breath would be fatal

  • $8194357

    As the heart felt emotional outpouring after this latist tragety is in full bloom
    and before the propaganda rush to reinforce its pain and “commen sense”
    gun control wares off, Barry tells Biden:
    Get er done before January..

    In the mean time back at the DHS ranch…

    (Remeber those gunrunners to La Rasa drug cartels
    for anti American 2nd Ammendment purposes)

    The sheople will have a hard time defending themselves from
    the New Alinsky Left Democrat version of the KKK..

    The pre planned agenda roles on un hindered on schedual….

    It don’t take much of a country up bringing to smell a
    skunk is in town and spreadin his perfume…HUH..
    “Varmit control” is in the hands of the skunk lovers..

    Quote:

    For a grand total now of 1,140,618,530 or 1.1 BILLION rounds.

    What, pray tell does an agency with less than 50,000 people need 700,000,000 rounds of ammunition for other than storing up in preparation for a major event?

    In addition it should be mentioned that earlier this year, in August, DHS had purchased 750 million rounds of high powered ammunition. In March the Agency purchased 450 million hollow point bullets and in September they purchased another 200 million sniper rounds of ammunition.

    DHS has not been the only federal agency purchasing ammunition. While the Social Security Administration attempted to respond to the press about their purchases, they ended up actually making a very good case for individuals to carry their weapons.

    What is ironic is that these purchases are all being made as the siren call of the left goes out demanding more gun control laws be implemented, with only the government and obviously criminals having access to certain types of firearms.

    Read more:
    http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/is-dhs-giving-americans-50-million-reasons-to-think-obama-is-gearing-up-for-a-civil-war/#ixzz2FdrO8xHs

  • borborygmi

    I am guessing that the families of the kids and teachers murdered wished Lanzer would have attacked with his knife and fists.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I’m being they would have liked someone on scene armed and on their side even more.

      • borborygmi

        and if lanzer didn’t have the weapons you wouldn’t need someone armed. We can go on and on like this all day.

        • Wayne

          And kids getting hacked to death would be alright with you because at least they didn’t use a gun? Or maybe we should ban any sharp object along with guns. And then there is homemade bombs. Boy you people are idiots.

        • slackwarerobert

          lanzer didn’t have a weapon. He had to steal one. Yesterday a girl was kidnapped out of the schools hallway. No gun on thug, but gun in school could have saved her from him. They stop all crooks, not just armed ones.

  • borborygmi

    It doesn’t look like rifles are a big deal. NOw pistols… thats a body count. I mean isn’t that what the headline is about body count?

    • slackwarerobert

      What is the breakdown for pistols and revolvers? Do you could pistol whipping in gun crime stats?

  • Guest

    And gun deaths will soon surpass fatalities from traffic accidents, but of course Rob would never post anything that contradicts his narrative that gun laws are fine, despite so many tragedies this year alone. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-19/american-gun-deaths-to-exceed-traffic-fatalities-by-2015.html

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Gun laws are fine. And Americans are becoming less violent. Those are the facts.

      • Guest

        LOL! Gun laws are fine? Guess you didn’t hear about all those dead people in Auroa, Co or Sandyook Elementary then? Crime is down for reasons having nothing to do with guns, educate yourself, hack. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

        • donwalk

          Murders in the city of Chicago, Illinois, are up over last year and could hit 500 by the end of this year. That’s 41 per month, but where’s the media to wring their hands over this gun violence? Where’s the 24/7 news coverage, presidential addresses, and push for answers?

          The media can’t blame the murders on a lack of gun control, because Chicago has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country.

          The media can’t blame the murders on a lack of high taxes or big government, because Chicago is wholly owned by Democrats and this is also why the media can’t blame the GOP.

          Gun laws prevented the shooter from purchasing his own rifle the week previous to the shootings, so what did he do? He killed his own Mother and stole her guns which had not been used in any criminal activity previously.

          You can pass all of the laws you want but until you figure out how to get the mentally deranged, those suffering from other mental diseases and/or the criminal elements in our society to obey and understand the laws, nothing will change.

          Lets us know about the last time you saw a gun, on its own, climb out of a storage case and walk out the door (just like those that walked into the Mexican cartels possession) and shoot someone without any assistance from a human?

          • slackwarerobert

            But mayor never waste a crises rom deadfish already said the problem is the crooks are not supposed to stand near children. when shooting at each other. You can’t stop mentally deranged because they don’t have to obey laws, the courts will not let you try them if they break them. But a bullet will stop them every time it is tried. But I do love bidens idea of fingerprint guns, now the cops can’t do ballistic matches because they won’t be able to fire a round to compare the evidence to.

        • mickey_moussaoui

          Until the Newtown horror, the three worst K–12 school shootings ever had taken place in either Britain or Germany. Both countries have strick gun laws

          • Wayne

            No response from our lefty idiot commentators.

      • borborygmi

        Why? Aren’t gun laws a form of gun control?

    • mickey_moussaoui

      All the results indicate that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws
      are passed…. There is a large, statistically significant drop in murder rates
      across all specifications. The before-and-after average comparison implies that
      right-to-carry laws reduce murder by roughly 20 percent. In all cases,
      right-to-carry laws cause the trends in murder, rape, and robbery rates to
      fall.

      • Guest

        Actually, the drop in crime rate has almost nothing to do with conceal and carry laws. Correlation does not equal causation, ‘tard. Educate yourself beyond right wing talking points so you don’t appear so foolish in the future. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

        • jl

          “Correlation does not equal causation..” But yet you do the very same thing with- “more guns equals more crime.” Now, who should get educated?

          • Guest

            I never argued more guns equal more crimes either way. Somebody should ask Santa or reading comprehension lessons!

          • mickey_moussaoui

            hide behind the “guest” moniker. “guest” is Used by others who do make that very argument. In this case, “correlation” makes you part of that crowd. Grow a pair, select a nic, otherwise stfu

          • mickey_moussaoui

            lol, touche…the dumb ass never saw that coming
            hahaha

    • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

      What percentage of those homicides are gang related, as opposed to those that theoretically might be prevented by keeping any particular gun out of the hands of law abiding citizens? Any evidence that any additional laws or gun bans will deter those actively pursuing illegal activities?

    • Wayne

      Violet crime is down to spite the fact that gun sales are way up. Imagine that.

    • slackwarerobert

      I don’t care if every crook is killed with a gun. That is a good thing, not something to cry about. Better obamas entire family is slaughtered with assault rifles, than one innocent school kid is left defenseless because of him.

  • borborygmi

    MOre likely to killed by a firearm then hands fists, feets or knives.

    745 Body count , 745 seperate murders, one person with an assault rifle 26 dead.

    Just think of the tally we could have if all 745 had an assault rifle. NOw thats something to be proud of. Stupid headline, stupid comparison, 1 atomic weapon 70,000+
    Oops I forgot those aren’t murders those were insignificant historical anecdotes.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Not a stupid headline at all, but then it’s assumed at people who are actually paying attention. Rifles just aren’t used in that many crimes. Spin it hire you’d like, but that’s reality.

      An assault weapons ban wouldn’t accomplish anything.

      • borborygmi

        Not enough murders by rifle so a ban wouldn’t be effective so does that mean there are so many more murders by pistol a ban would be? Just using your logic.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    We have 312,000,000 (give or take a few million) people in America. We also have millions of legally registered guns that belong to these millions of Americans. In 2012 we had between 12,000 to 13,000 gun related homicides. Keep that in perspective and we Americans are very well behaved considering that we have millions of guns. 13,000 might sound like a large number, but when you compare it to 312,000,000 it is minute
    For example, the UK has around 65,000,000 people. They ban guns. They had 722 homicides in 2012. That is a pretty high number for a nation that bans guns. By liberal logic (a loose terminology at best) they should have no homicides at all.

    • SusanBeehler

      How many of their homicides were with guns or was that the gun related homicides? Not even 1% in England and 4% in the United States, so you think this statistic you post is something to brag about, 4 times as many people die in the US compared to England, you think that is good? What about the suicides committed by guns? Alot of people die by guns in the US. So how many of your children are you willing to sacrifice for a gun related incident?

      • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

        Suicides in Japan are very high. Gun ownership there is extremely low. Gun control does not deter suicide.

        In Switzerland, gun ownership is very high. Every able bodied man in the country keeps a genuine assault rifle, capable of fully automatic fire, in their home. The crime rates in Switzerland are extremely low. Gun ownership does not increase crime. How many of your children are to willing to sacrifice to deny them the relative safety of a Switzerland? /sarc

        In the words of Twain, there are lies, damned lies and statistics. Your emotional arguments might carry more weight if they were not based on your specious and libelous assumptions that anyone who disagrees with you wants to see children die.

      • Wayne

        You are comparing apples and oranges. There are many factors involved, not just whether or not guns are banned. It is much more valid to look at one country before and after gun control like Australia. There some gun related crimes have gone down but others have gone why up.

        • Bat One

          Actually, there’s no reason to look any farther than Chicago… or DC, Baltimore, Oakland, Trenton, Providence, etc.

        • SusanBeehler

          I agree, I do not believe all guns should be ban. United States is not Australia or any other country, I believe the US can try something like them or something totally different, we can try something till it works, and then try something else if it doesn’t make a difference.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            naive

          • SusanBeehler

            Narrow minded

          • Wayne

            WTF do you mean by that idiot? Man you are an idiot.

          • mickey_moussaoui

            Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact.

            The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak.

            http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/23/School-Obama-s-Daughters-Attend-Has-11-Armed-Guards-Not-Counting-Secret-Service
            narrow minded just like YOUR president

          • SusanBeehler

            And he should, because there is alot of wackos who target the President and his family. Columbine had a armed guard, our high schools Bismarck has an armed resource office so that is being narrow minded?

          • slackwarerobert

            So he should adhere to the maryland approach. You don’t need a gun just tell us who threatened you and we will arrest them. No one is threatening him and his family, HE is threatening us and our families. What evidence do you have he has been threatened? obama is the biggest lier since benedict arnold. He lies about everything. Armed guards are paid government workers. They will never risk being hurt just to stop you from being killed.

          • SusanBeehler

            History tells us, the President of the United States is threatened simply because of the position, the office it is. Whether you like him or not, he is our President and whether you voted for him or not, he holds the highest office in our land, it is this position of authority which makes him a target. YOU think YOU are entitled to the same benefits as the President just because? I am sorry but all throughout the land of our great nation some things have to be earned. Did you travel throughout the nation talking to many different people? Did you even try to campaign for anything? YOU did not put any effort into anything which would entitle you to secret service to guard you, sorry slackwarerobert just because you think you are worthy of the same benefits does not make it so. If you think all should have the same benefit as the President than you better start taxing your guns and ammo to pay for it, these guys don’t follow him around for FREE.

          • Wayne

            And stupid.

          • Neiman

            My only problem about this issue with you Susan, is not your desire to do something, that is your right and admirable for your not wanting to sit back and do nothing. My problem is that you want to try unconstitutional means, rather than try and amend the 2nd Amendment, which path is open and what the Founding Father’s prescribed for changing times.

            Did you know that Cuomo in NY is talking about forced confiscation of all guns, maybe forced buy backs and in other ways violating the 2nd Amendment? That at least is open, he is saying screw the Constitution, he will dictate gun policy. While, you would allow unconstitutional regulation of gun ownership, which means infringing on gun owners rights.

          • SusanBeehler

            I don’t agree with Cuomo, I agree with you amend the Constitution if that is what it takes to get some types of guns out of the marketplace or makes them more difficult to obtain. I think the rigid definition you stated for “infringed” is where our disagreement is.

          • SusanBeehler

            By the way Neiman since you said you work with special needs children; How do you feel about having a concealed weapon in your classroom? How would that work for you?

          • Neiman

            I told you since my Marine and Police days, I have never owned a gun and have no desire. I do not fear death at all and would go after any such person with whatever was available and take the coward out. So, it is simply not an issue for me.

            What about other teachers and their classrooms? I have reservations, but will defend their right as long as it is a right, irrespective of whether or not the school approves. Cowardly answer? Yes, as I do not want to discuss my reservations as it would dilute my desire to be faithful to the Constitution.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            So you have a problem with our Constitution, Old Pal?

          • Neiman

            That is just like an egg sucking, bottom dwelling liberal fool, I defend the Constitution from all encroachments outside the constitutionally mandated amendment process and yo accuse me of having a problem with the Constitution that I defend. While you think you defend it by allowing scum like Cuomo perverting the 2nd Amendment by confiscating all guns as he is proposing for NY, by allowing that antichrist Obama by-passing Congress and the Judiciary making laws by dictate, spitting on the Constitution.

            You are not just a demon possessed pathological liar, you are self deceived and besides being antichrist yourself, you are unAmerican. a traitor.

            You also prove you are a liar by even here calling me your Old Pal, pretending we are dear friends, even though you know we are enemies.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Old Pal, you’re not my pal, sorry.

            You expressed reticence to discuss your reservations because, “it would dilute my desire to be faithful to the Constitution”.

            What problem do you have with our Constitution?

          • Neiman

            Every time you use the salutation “old pal” you are calling me your intimate friend and that is a lie. You are an habitual and pathological liar. You are obeying the demons that possess your evil soul.

            You pile lie upon lie, you know the reticence I mentioned was about discussing the idea of teachers having guns in the class room with Susan, as just entertaining those reservations would falsely appear to dilute my absolute faithfulness to the Constitution as written and amended. you know the Constitution that you hate and want to be a Marxist/Socialist document. You are therefore many times a condemned liar.

          • slackwarerobert

            I also have no desire to ever be without a gun on me. Since the federal government can now just grab you off the street never to be heard from again it is not safe to be disarmed anymore. I don’t want teachers and school administrators carrying a gun just so they can get another $50 in there paychecks, I only want those who already carry and understand why not being disarmed.

          • Wayne

            What do you think would have happened if a couple of staff members at Sandy Hook were armed at the time? What would have happened if the nut saw signs on the doors that said the staff was armed and trained to respond? It would have worked much better than ‘banning some types of guns.’ Assault rifles are already banned in CT.

          • Guest

            Armed security certainly did much to stop Columbine and the Ft. Hood shootings. Derp.

          • Wayne

            Control law did a lot to stop the Sandy Hook killings didn’t they idiot jerk.

          • SusanBeehler

            Well of course he would had driven down the street to the next school and if they had a sign he would drive to North Dakota because he knows they surely have gun free schools. PLEASE, really you think a sign is going to stop him. If his mother did not own this gun he would have probably gone to one of her friends house and steal theirs, but that would be alot harder than stealing it from your mom. In my understanding they are banned but they left what was out their for this kook to get his hands on probably because some gun lobby pushed it and they thought we don’t dare ask to buy back rather than grandfather in the “assault” rifles out there. Time yes time is a prevention in suicide, if the impulse to kill yourself or kill others is not easily accomplished it may be deterred. You are buying into the notion a sane person will not do something because they fear being caught or punished. Insane people do not act sane.

          • Wayne

            Yes idiot a sign would have probably stopped this coward. Mass murders are cowards. They always attack ‘gun free zones’ and they either surrender or shoot themselves when confronted by someone with a gun.

          • SusanBeehler

            Getting exactly what they want, death.

          • slackwarerobert

            I like the nuts who say bullet proof glass would have stoped him. Like he couldn’t use armor piercing rounds, or just drive his car through the doors to get in. And the nuts who think ballistic blankets would help, They never conceived of sticking the muzzle under the blanket and shooting them that way? The problem is nut has a gun and is breathing, you stop the latter and the former is not a problem anymore. Once the schools are impenetrable fortress they will just poor gas on the front door and burn everyone alive inside, once you make it impossible to get in, it will be just as impossible to get out.

          • slackwarerobert

            I think a picture of the teachers union thugs in wisconsin and michigan with the caption, “They have guns now” would be even better. I don’t want those violent hot heads having guns anywhere, just don’t disarm those who do carry should work very well.

          • Neiman

            Infringe: To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

            The Bill of Rights says to Congress “you shall make no laws” infringing on these rights, that is the limitation on the State. If any regulation, which has the force of law inhibits in any way my right to possess and bear my guns in public, then surely that is to inhibit and make invalid the 2nd Amendment. Safety classes, registration, type of arms, whatever, if it causes the person to not be able to keep and bear arms, surely that is unconstitutional.

            In my opinion that is the test all such regulations must pass, will that regulation inhibit or violate my right to keep and bear arms in any manner, shape or form, even temporarily (background checks), then it must be rejected. The problem is, the cities and states just pass these regulations, after years they get to the Supreme Court and are rejected on the basis I suggest and the cities/states just pass another law that makes a slight change or a different rule and back it goes to the courts for years. In the meantime, by force of law and threats of punishment citizens are being denied their rights.

          • Wayne

            You do know that CT has an assault rifle ban right? That did not stop this nut case did it?

          • slackwarerobert

            What a shock it takes this comment, and not the stop and frisk violations he has been doing for years for you to figure that out. If NY doesn’t mind being dead subway fodder, they are welcome to it, but I will shoot them when they cross the border into america with their stupid ideas.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Here’s how it works, Susan. The anti-gun crowd says, we don’t want to ban all guns just these scary looking ones. They ban them, crime is not reduced and they conclude we just didn’t go far enough, we need to ban more.

            The anti-gun crowd says we need waiting periods and more regulations on how guns are transported and kept. They pass the laws, crime is not reduced and they conclude we just didn’t go far enough, we need to regulate more.

            The anti-gun crowd lobbies for higher taxes on guns and ammunition, higher fees for licenses and identifying marks to be microengraved on guns and ammunition and tags to be placed in gunpowder to identify it. Many of these techniques are hardly practical, short termed (less useful the more the gun is used) and prove a record keeping nightmare for law enforcement, taking away resources that could actually be used in fighting crime, and when crime is not reduced…wait for it…they conclude they just didn’t go far enough and create more restrictions.

            The dirty little secret is that none of the bans or taxes or regulations are designed to reduce crime, since the only ones who abide by these laws and bans are otherwise lawful citizens. The courts have gone so far as to exempt criminals from gun laws and registration because it would violate their Fifth Amendment rights.

            Maybe your problem is not with the Second Amendment so much as with the Fifth?

            The people who oppose the Second Amendment are perfectly willing to do it incrementally, until it is too expensive, intrusive and time consuming for the average citizen to own a gun.

            And they are more than willing to prey upon the ignorance of the general population to achieve their goals. That is why some people believe that the Bushmaster is a “high powered, automatic assault rifle, suitable only as a weapon of war”. The public have been lied to and their emotions played upon, and as such, those who do so are despicable.

          • Bat One

            As I would expect, that was very well stated!

          • Guest

            Goof’s uncited diatribes have no basis in reality. Baseless conspiracy theories are all he has, so it’s understandable the likes of him would advocate for more guns, since the presence of guns did a lot to stop likes of Fort Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, etc. Derp. Rather than take any measures to stop potential mass murderers from getting guns, Goof would rather dance on the graves of dead kindergartners pretending that doing nothing is preferable to doing that won’t be perfect.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            “uncited diatribes” Too funny! You’ve been parroting other people for so long you can no longer recognize original thought when you see it!

            “dance on the graves of dead kindergartners”

            You really take pleasure in conjuring up that image, don’t you? Are you a registered sex offender or don’t the police know about you yet?

            Seek professional psychiatric help. Soon.

          • Guest

            What a surprise Goof once again cannot provide anything to support his horrid advocacy of more carnage and more dead kindergartners and continues his hypocritical ad hominem attacks. Thus, Goof should take his own advice and seek professional psychiatric help soon.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Thank you for the view from your colon.

          • slackwarerobert

            Only guns in any of those places were held by the cops not wanting to get hurt, so did nothing to stop killer. kindergartners are more than smart enough to hit what they aim at and could easily shoot an attacker dead. But don’t force them to have single shot rifle, they are not mentally prepared to reload in that stressful environment.

          • SusanBeehler

            That is how you think it works. I am not a puppet on a string. The public is always being lied to about something, does not mean it is a total lie, there is a grain of truth in many things of a “side”, it is whether you choose to discern what is the best. I am not “anti-gun” I am for getting rid of the method which lately has been chosen by mass murders of children, it just happens to be the guns, you know the kind I can’t tell the details of, you know the one that was just used to kill the children in CT.

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            You may not be a puppet, but you are buying into the lies. I have made enough trips around the sun to know that every word I wrote is true. Anti-gun politicians do what they know won’t work because they don’t want to be seen as “doing nothing”. When it is proven not to work, they propose more of the same. Kind of like Obama and his “stimulus” spending.

          • SusanBeehler

            Kind of like our Gov and his property tax relief?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Maybe. Sacramento is so FUBAR it’s depressing for me to pay too much attention to them.

          • SusanBeehler

            You live in Sacramento?

          • http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ Proof

            Stockton, California… about 45 miles south of Sacratomato. I had mentioned it before. I thought you were implying you lived in CA.

          • Wayne

            WTF? You are an idiot.

          • Wayne

            ‘I’m not anti-gun but take people’s guns away!’ – BigSue

          • slackwarerobert

            The only thing they chose was gun free zones. So why are you not calling for them to be abolished? A deranged nut in a tank is not a danger to anyone when you put a bullet in their head.

          • Wayne

            This is about the stupidest thing I’ve heard yet, ‘Let’s just do something and keep doing more things until something works.’ Well lets just lock everyone up 23.5 hours a day. That should help a lot. What an idiot.

          • SusanBeehler

            “IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED, TRY, TRY AGAIN.

          • Lianne

            Susan, that does not mean that you perseverate.

          • slackwarerobert

            No doing the same thing over and over and expecting different result is INSANITY! Time to get rid of gun free killing fields and that will end the danger. Guns, Freedom, Responsibility. When we have all three, there is no problem, when the government takes away two of them we have the mess we are in. You don’t take away the third, you give back the other two.

      • mickey_moussaoui

        get a clue. we are 4 times larger in population than the UK. we have 200 million legally reistered guns. they(uk) ban guns but have roughly one quarter the gun related homicides we have per capita. yet the three worst K–12 school shootings that ever had taken place were in either Britain or Germany. Get off the “blame America first” parade and get off your anti gun soap box. Disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

      • slackwarerobert

        Obama is the one left those children defenseless to be easily slaughtered. When someone is shooting out the front door to get in It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out you need to kill them not wait and see if maybe they forgot their keys in the other body armor. An “assault weapon is not something you hide in your shoe, it is very easy to see, and so very easy to stop in close quarters, in the football stands where he is 100 yards away he has the advantage, but in the hallways, double tap to the chest, and two more to the head to be safe and he bothers no one. British police don’t kick in doors and kill innocent people and their pets also, government is the reason for the violence, not the people. When they promote killers instead of locking them up they are saying it is a good thing to slaughter people.

      • slackwarerobert

        Yes, and you did a great job banning helicopters when prince harry stole one and strafed the people with it last year. When your queen obeys the law and turns in her guns then come talk to us.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    If you are a civilian in Iran or Afghanistan you are very likely to get killed by one of Obama’s drone strikes. A report by the law schools at Stanford and New York universities suggests that during the first three years of Obama’s first term in office, the 259 strikes for which he is ultimately responsible for, killed between 297 and 569 civilians, of whom at least 64 were children. These are figures extracted from credible reports.

    ban Obama

  • Lips

    In that regard, it’s just like homosexuality. People say they are born that way because that’s how they feel. That’s not how things actually are. No scientific evidence. Zero. Zilch. Zip. Nada.

    • mickey_moussaoui

      it’s a genetic defect

      • Bat One

        Liberalism?

        • mickey_moussaoui

          that too

    • slackwarerobert

      Don’t know if born that way, but at 11 when I read my first playboy I new what I liked, didn’t have any idea what to do with it, but I wanted one very badly from the tent in my shorts.

  • schreib

    Tell that to President “Vladamir Lenin” Obomba.

  • schreib

    It doesn’t matter to the commie in chief. He wants to impose communism in the US and he first needs to destroy the economy and impose his will. But the Chinese commies have told him that first he needs to disarm the American public and tear up the US constitution—after all its old and it was written by a bunch of “racist” old white guys.

  • Bat One

    Its a bit late in the discussion, but it certainly wouldn’t hurt to reacquaint ourselves with Pearl, Mississippi Assistant Principal Joel Myrick here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting) and here (http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1345). When police arrived, Mr. Myrick had his .45 trained on the shooter, Luke Woodham, who was lying on the ground with Mr. Myrick’s foot on his neck.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    We better grab guns before this happens here:

    Chinese man drives car into students, injuring 13

    Updated 1:12 am, Tuesday, December 25, 2012

    The man ran down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China’s Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/world/article/Chinese-man-drives-car-into-students-injuring-13-4144574.php#ixzz2G5CTVX9I

    • slackwarerobert

      Already happened here, think the driver was muslim though, and ran them down at the bus stop, but other than that, commifornia already has nuts using suv’s. Don’t forget the one that derailed a train as well with his car.

  • slackwarerobert

    Only because a rifle has a longer range than my pistol, get him inside of 100 feet, and I can drop him just as easy as the knife guy goes down. Better headline is “Unarmed victims are more likely to die than armed free men”.

Top