Shared publicly  - 
"Nothing can fill the space of a lost child or loved one."

Wiping tears from his eyes, President Barack Obama urged the nation to "come together" in the wake of the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Kent Goertzen's profile photoJoe Hullett's profile photoDavid Greene (Nøkkenbuer)'s profile photoBrian DeVille's profile photo
Wow, what can be done to stop this kind of violence? How much worse does it have to get? Why are Americans so quick to pick up a gun?
y a quien no se le llenarían los ojos de lágrimas. DIOS no permitas una cosa así otra vez.
I don't own a gun, don't want a gun, and don't think the right to own a gun necessarily makes sense, but guns are not the problem here.  This is a generational problem.  Hell, it used to be just genuinely crazy people that would do crap like this.  Nowadays it's just some guy having a bad day or otherwise unhappy with his life.
Hopelessness and despair run deep.
Can those who use self-serving views of liberty as justification for draining the hope from those around them truly claim innocence when their prey hit rock bottom?
I don't think so, personally.
This is a mental health issue, but people don't want to address that because it's more difficult, messy, and complex.  Much easier to just blame an object.  
what a strange world, there are more guns than people...R.I.P.
100% agree with +Cara Schulz. Mental health is a very serious issue and the stats are all there.  Every year more and more people suffer from mental instabilities, either not aware of the issues they have, a refusal to face the issue they have, or not having the support to guide them to get help.  Sometimes it can be just as simple as listening to someone air out their grievances so they don't feel bottled up inside. 

1. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – March 8, 2012: 30-year-old John Shick, former patient of University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and former student at nearby Duquesne University, shot and killed one and injured six inside UPMC’s Western Psychiatrist Institute. Nine antidepressants were identified among the drugs police found in Shick’s apartment...
Mental instability + weapons = killers.
That might be a better way to put it. But it is a truth that it is easier, psychologically, to kill a person with a gun than with, say, a sword.
+Cara Schulz  ... very droll. Not.
Imagine the guy didn't have guns but just a knife. Instead of 26 dead there maybe would be 2 dead at the most. kapish? 
+Allan S It is important to differentiate between atrocities committed by a group of people and the ones done by a single person.

A group of people usually have a very specific and explicit cause, and as a result of being more than one person, have access to more resources than any one of them would alone. And further, they generally commit greater atrocities than a single person could manage.
His tears are fake.  He only cares about himself.
Guns are not the problem. Stupid people are!
+Robert Mccomas Stupid people are, and will always be, a problem. A responsible society is one that takes that fact into account.
Everybody speaks about gun control which seems to be only one part of this problem.but what amaze me more is the silence about the culture of violence on every media especially the movies.think about it
What a phony Sniveler-in-Chief. He didsn't even bite his bottom lip. Bubba Clinton would have faked it better.
very sad. Wake up people and turn to the Lord.
+Allan S The point I was making, originally, was not that improved gun laws would suddenly make it all better, but that it is easier to kill the more distance you can put between yourself and your victim. In the spirit of "to see the white in your opponent's eyes". There's a reason why massacres done with a knife are both very far apart and small, relative to massacres in general. In addition to that, there is also a reason that shootings occurs more often than other kinds of massacres.
Take all the forks and spoons from people because they make people fat.... Geeez.... Listen to yourselves about taking guns away from the public.... Stupid stupid stupid... You think taking guns away from everyone will solve this? Idiotic. 
I saw this comment, which completely reflects my views, under one of the +BBC News posts about this:
"The "people kill people" argument is bogus. Yes, they do. But if they're allowed unfettered access to high-capacity, rapid-firing weapons then they can kill more people more quickly. No one expects criminals to obey gun laws. But if you limit the supply of the kinds of weapons they use to commit these atrocities, eventually they'll be fewer of them in circulation and we'll have fewer scenes like the one in Connecticut. We'll never completely eliminate mass killings, but why should we stop trying?"
see, this is the problem.  once anyone says anything that members of the "cult of gun" disagree with, they turn from "rugged individualists" to screaming children.  we can't even have a conversation because a minority of our population acts like a bunch of spoiled brats.
So I suppose the right is going to blame Obama for this too. I digress. What a tragedy! I'm a 54 y/o man and I'm crying while I write this. Bless the families of those young lives lost. Congress could have done something about this along time ago, but the NRA is just too powerful for anyone's good. At least we've started to break the UAW.
As I've said in other posts, it's not about gun control laws, it's about having tighter security in places where people congregate.

If you tighten gun laws, people will bring different weapons to those places with less-than-adequate security & these tragedies will continue.

See the vicious cycle here?
since columbine in colorado , it has gone on again and again and again cuz many angry sickos get guns and shoot at people and children in malls , restaurants , salons , hospitals, and schools .
we have to go back to square one and re-think about what to do
about this serious societal problem.
Look at how much violences in games , TV , movies now comparing to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.  Look at how much parenting and guidance that we provided to our kids, children now comparing to the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s.  
I agree, but the libtards are going to take this as far left as possible !
This could be Obama's next executive order.
Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun.

Hopelessness and despair may cause you to hurt yourself, kill yourself, or do the same to some family member or employer.  But it doesn't cause you to walk into a mall or school and kill people and little kids you don't even know.  Being a selfish, self-absorbed dickhead causes you to do that, before finishing off with the cowardly act of taking your own life.  Everybody look at me.

And shrouding everything under "mental health" just pushes the blame onto society or anybody else but the dickhead actually responsible for the act.  

Charles Manson was a nut job.  He killed a bunch of folks as he's still living and breathing.
Perhaps one of the best speeches I've heard the president give. I too pray that God will bless those little children and their families. 
Disarm and only the law abiding will be disarmed. Criminals and crazies will still have weapons and access to them. Is that what you people are advocating? Only criminals and crazies sould be armed? LOL
+Todd Kennedy the constitution guarantees all Americans, except slaves, the right to bear arms, why not kids as well?
+Todd Kennedy Its all about self defence. You know it's a good idea. Kids with guns: the most vulnerable taking back the streets from the godless hoards.
+Todd Kennedy If the shooter knows the teacher is carrying, he/she will take them out first. You need a well armed school which means everyone carries. Its a good idea and its time has come.
lol, what?  if you think guns belong at an elementary school, you're part of that "cult of gun".  no reasoning, no rationality, just ideological beliefs that guns are good because you like guns because they're good.

completely wack
its the standard argument after every shooting. more guns. and its time that the government obeyed the constitution.
yep, you're ideological, not rational.  i don't claim to have the solution, but if we are going to have a conversation, as a society, about gun violence, folks like you are going to have to give up your ideological position a little bit.  not likely though, guns have become a religion in our country.

i don't want guns banned, but if "rugged individualists" act like spoiled children and lose their mind every time anyone says something that they don't agree with, the conversation is dead.

our constitution was written before the advent of assault rifles.  it says "keep and bear arms", which could mean a nuke or a bomber.  i don't think that you believe we should be allowed to have those, so you already disagree with the 2nd amendment.  just sayin.
+David Litton its most likely the republicans will use this incident to rally the faithful and stop any sort of meaningful reform. Obama said they cling to guns and religion.
Immagine if people with ccw permits were allowed to carry a gun while at a school. Then schools would stop being targets. All of the past mass shootings took place in places where guns are banned. Why? Because there is nobody there to shoot back. Because they can take a large number of defenseless lives before help arrives. It takes police an average of 15 to 20 minutes to respond to a call. It takes me an average of 2 seconds to draw my gun and put a couple of shots on target. 
Oh yeah! What a great idea! Arm all the teachers! And then how many more kids would have been killed in a shoot out?!
lol, have you considered that in a crisis, people are not always 100% aware of what's going on?  what if you shot the shooter, then some other gun toting lunatic shot you thinking you were the shooter?  it's called "the fog of war", please check out what it does to highly trained soldiers then consider what would happen in a crisis situation with people who are not highly trained.  oh nevermind, this crap is a religion.  there's no way to reason with people who are in the "cult of gun".
Banning guns solves nothing. It is not legal to shoot innocent defenseless people. It is not legal to steal from others. It is not legal to rape. That doesn't stop criminals. They don't follow the law. That's why they are criminals. Banning guns will not get rid of criminals with guns. They will ALWAYS have guns. 
that's not my position.  but if you gun nuts are going to act like a bunch of crybabies any time anyone says something you disagree with, then we can't even start a conversation.  but i think that's the point isn't it?  over half of NRA members want to have better gun regulation, so it's not gun owners at large pushing this religion type gun ideology, it's a few lunatics who think anyone who thinks differently than them is trying to take something from them.  sigh.
+David Litton if I was armed I would gladly take that chance and lay down my life to maybe save your child's life. Since I am not armed in a school the only person. I am worried about is me. 
but why can't we have a conversation about it?  why do the gun nuts (and the over funded gun mfg lobby) lose their ever loving minds any time anyone with a different opinion on the issue opens their mouths?  for "rugged individualists" you sure act like a bunch of crybabies... all freaking out any time anyone publicly says anything other than what you believe.  pathetic.
+David Litton because without guns this country and its many freedoms would not be here. 
31 school shootings since Columbine. And you people are still stuck with 2nd Amendment? 
lol, again, the conversation is impossible because of people's religious love of guns.  not allowing us to have nukes is technically a violation of the 2nd amendment if you read it literally with no historical context.  are you also pissed off that i don't think people should have nukes?  this crap is a cult, just like scientology, no opposing viewpoints get in.
so should people be allowed to have nukes?
how ab out my own personal bomber if i can afford it?
My heart goes out to the parents and families.
it says arms, not guns.  read the 2nd amendment sometime.  since you love it so much, you should know what it says.  not surprising that you don't know what it says though.
+David Litton arms or armaments are guns. I'm sorry you are talking out of your ass. I do understand the 2nd amendment. Perhaps you should take another look at it. 
And no. Nukes or other explosives are not guns or "arms". 
Really very sad that a thing could happen!
lol, the right to keep and bear arms... doesn't say guns, says arms.  again, if you are going to run your mouth about the 2nd amendment, i suggest you learn what it says first. 
we were in an "arms race" with the soviet union.  was that guns?  no, it was nukes.  it was called "the nuclear arms race", was it not?  so by thinking american citizens should not be allowed to own nukes, you are against the 2nd amendment, if we look at it without any historical context.  this is why we cannot have a conversation about this, because people don't care about historical context and have just decided that "guns are good because i like guns because  they're good because i like them".  not everyone, but enough people have...
Deepest sympathies to the families of the slain children
+David Litton so maybe our military should get rid of guns and nukes. They can just defend our country by going up to threats and saying "Please don't hurt the people on our country!". Yeah I bet that will work out great. 
Jay A
God bless America. 
The f'ing gun cowards are shielding their guns behind the bodies of dead children. Don't even pretend it doesn't work that way. 
Ban guns? Then only criminals will have them. But you can use a pencil or a pen as a weapon, legal and readily available in all schools. Ban those too? Remeber, the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land gaurantees the right of all law abiding citizens to bear guns. Violating the Constitution only solves the problem of having rights.
+Justin Hawkeye Not that I support banning all guns.  But your premise "Then only criminals will have them."  really fails.

The public having them doesn't solve anything.

And in other videos actually concealed would be worse with the conceal carry person shooting others in the scenario and not the shooter.  

In most cases the people with it don't react, or don't react properly or in time, so would do nothing to stop these atrocities. 
All of these are Felony weapons in California upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. 

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

If you can be charged with a felony for having a sock with some lead shot in the toe there shouldn't be a problem banning semi-automatic handguns with 15-round clips. 
+Todd Kennedy What does the border have to do with this.  And your closed border argument fails also.   Illegals aren't the main cause of this.  The vast majority are peaceful tax paying families.  And aren't the cause of the jobs or economic problems we have.  In fact California, and Texas (not exactly a liberal bastion) have said they get more in taxes over all from illegals than they pay in benefits.  

So when all those so called legit reasons fail, then yeah it does certainly look like the only reason is because you hate them.

BTW last year was net zero immigration.  The numbers have declined naturally. 

The tough immigration laws are lobbied predominantly by who?   Private prison contractors making billions on holding them.  And they push the language to the legislators to use to fire up people like you to scapegoat immigrants.
+Allan S "The reality is that it's not guns that lead to atrocity but insanity"

Guns certainly make atrocity much easier on a larger scale.
The Supremes did say, there could be restrictions on guns.
+Gerald Hines "And shrouding everything under "mental health" just pushes the blame onto society"

But society is in part to responsible.  We have a horrible mental health system here in the US.  No one wants to pay for the level of a system we need. 

Is that the only cause.  No.  And no one is saying that.  But it certainly would help. 
And btw the whole Timothy McVeigh or Japan sarin comparison is ridiculous.   No one is saying it would stop all violence.  That is a complete and utter strawman.
We pay plenty for mental health. We just pay it through our police, jails and prisons as we chase untreated mentally ill in circles. What we don't do is provide supportive housing, treatment and coaching so people in crisis can expect to re-integrate into society. 

Look at the last few shooters; they were extremely challenged individuals who cracked. If they had actually sought help would they have received it? The answer to that question is hanging around your local homeless shelter. 
I agree +Kent Goertzen  there is nothing proactive in our mental heath care, it is still a taboo in this day to seek help and we wring our hands and cry why every time a tragedy like this happens , shame on all of us !!!!!
Or the lost children and loved ones killed by Obama's drones over in Pakistan....
Agreed with +John Poteet . I acknowledge gun control is should not be ignored, but if an unstable person wishes to hurt people they will do it with other objects like the examples provided in the earlier comments.
All we need to do is ban gun sales to crazy people and much of this would be prevented. You can't keep guns out of the hands of criminals. You should not keep guns away from hunters. And rapid fire machine gun type weapons are ridiculous and should obviously be banned. 
Since no other country has this extreme level of gun violence, I suspect the problem is Americans...
How many homeless do we have in the U.S.. That's our basic level of (dis)regard for human life. 
+Marvyn Haynes " but if an unstable person wishes to hurt people they will do it with other objects"

But won't be nearly as effective and easy to commit a mass killing in most cases. 
+Owen Plotkin why new gun laws? Why wasn't this type of tragedy happening with such frequency 50 years ago? Were gun laws more strict then? Maybe we've allowed our society to decay to this level? Maybe we need new people laws because morality and reason have certainly changed.
just watch the government try to take away all the guns so that were defenseless and then do what they want that is our new american dream.
Meaningful action? How about pushing an agenda that helps to restore family values, discipline, and accountability for ones actions. How about better security and armed guards at schools. No... I bet this will be turned into a chance to wage a war against gun ownership rights. 
+tim eckardt indeed. A mental health issue caused by and increasing by.....what?
Yes, gun massacres have occurred for centuries and massacres occurred centuries before guns were invented.
If they were to get away with banning guns, these madmen would just use knives or cleavers like in China.
+Frank Hazelton  lack of services.  Many public mental health care facilities closed.   Because while it is horrible, no one wants to pay for it.  That would another entitlement to the GOP.

50 years ago the guns were different, the population was different and much less, the factors of stress and trying to get along were different. 
+Terry Scott Wouldn't be necessary. Cocaine and meth are illegal yet its still easily accessible. You and I wouldn't have firearms but the nuts looking to cause this type of tragedy would have no problem getting guns.
+Kenneth Smith As opposed to the war to over protect gun rights.  

There are things that could be done better.  Stricter rules on owner ship such as training.  This shooter stole the gun from someone else.  People safely storing their guns. 

But do people need to own .50 cal sniper rifles?  They can currently. 

Should gun shows be able to sell guns cash in hand no check at all?  They do currently in quite a few states. 

Do we need extra large clips in public use of handguns?  We can get them right now.  

Obviously something isn't working.  

BTW to pay for those armed guards taxes have to go up.  What is the GOP position on that? 

That was the problem with mental healthcare.  Budgets kept getting cut, and funding dropped until public facilities closed around the country. 
+Kent Goertzen really? You telling me there were no semi auto handguns 50 years ago?
Is there a mental health issue now that didn't exist then? Is it beyond reason to consider parenting and education? Is societies role merely to fund social problems or to correct the cause?
+Kent Goertzen I'm not opposed to strict controls on purchasing and selling guns. I am opposed to those who advocate for banning private gun ownership. I think we need to have better security at schools for one thing. We have armed guards at most banks. We should have them at our schools too. That would deter most from trying this crazy stuff. But it really comes down to lack of discipline and family values at home.
Isn't it ironic that when terrorists killed Americans in the embassy attack in Benghazi, the right-winged conservatives made an uproar about poor security the very next day, but after the school shooting in CT, they're making an outcry about how now is not the time to discuss gun control?!
+Roscket Tasartir  Isn't it ironic that when terrorists killed Americans in the embassy attack in Benghazi, the left-winged liberals made an uproar about how we shouldn't discuss security the next day, but hours after the school shooting in CT, they're making an outcry about how now is the time to discuss gun control?!
Funny how he has no problem killing children in other countries with drone strikes. #Hippocrate
+Frank Hazelton In public sales?  No not really.  They were limited to military issue for the most part. Simple Google search would have told you that.
Randy H
Obi has always from day one wanted to take away our guns from law abiding citizens. These shootings are setups to further this agenda. Why else is the shooter always dead before police arrive?
I wish at a time like this, people could just stop with the politics long enough...
+Elisha Chirchir I commend you Elisha for expressing clearly where the concentration needs to be directed - on the tragedy itself - rather than complexities that seek to divide and cause dissension among us. There is nothing that can alter or diminish the grave impact this tragedy has unleashed on grieving families, friends, and the community at large. These 20 children died in terror and bloodshed. They will never live to see the light of another day. Families have been torn apart and broken. The long-term effects are devastating and touch the lives of many.   
+Kent Goertzen +Thomas Andresen Timothy McVeigh was a single person carrying out a massive attack. I also wouldn't call it a strawman argument. When I was only a kid , my friend showed me you could find instructions on the Internet for making explosives. It's really not that difficult, and can do tons of damage in both property and loss of life.
There have also been several cases recently of people killing others by starting their apartment on fire. Would it have been better had he started fires at the doorways of the school? No, it wouldn't.

Look, this was a tragedy. But I think the people here who have recognized it's a mental health / American attitude problem hit the nail on the head. Even when people can get help, there is a huge stigma attached to even the idea of needing it. (Edited for spelling). 
Wow, obama wants to actually take some kind of action? Amazing. I didn't think he had it in him.
Ashok N
All you sick-psychos who advocate gun ownership, why don't you do the same for chemical weapons or biological weapons or nukes? If I want to "defend" myself, why shouldn't I have nukes ?? Give nukes to every psychotic as****e and no, they won't use it against each other. Nukes don't kill... People do, right?
In Europe the every day very small risk is to be a victim of a crime.The  wide spread possession of weapons in the private sector in  Amerika multiplies that chance several times. A weapon doesn't guarantee safety but endangers it.
+Dan Wetzel 
Bringing up those acts is a ridiculous argument to make to defend gun rights. 

And yes it is a strawman.  Bringing up other acts of violence when no one is saying that gun bans would end all violence, is exactly that.
Guns are not the problem as without an unhinged madman wielding them, they are nothing more than an inanimate object. 
+Jack Keating many inanimate objects don't kill the way  guns do, but madmen always find way to kill.
Matt L
I would say there's something wrong with the American people it's not the guns fault
Matt L
I'm amazed at how ignorant the anti gun people are. In my state it is illegal to have a handgun until you're 21. would that have stop this tragedy, I think not
Jay A
enough of this. I'm too overwhelmed by this tragedy coz I'm a father too. i have a heavy heart and i just could not understand why this have to happen to little children. I stopped watching the news altogether coz its too heart-breaking! lets just stop sparring on whose got the best argument, the pro or anti gun! your rhetorics will not stop the violence. not until you lose a child will you understand the pain of all of this.
May God have mercy on us all! God bless America.
I'm also a father and I want to protect my kids from harm. I sympathize with the parents who lost their kids from this senseless shooting. America is in a cross roads. Will it continue to ignore the most obvious problems? Which is more important , the innocent kids or the right to carry guns? Will this situation prod the NRA to publicize that people more than ever need to protect themselves to convince more people to carry gun like in the wild west. America is becoming more insecure. My prayer goes to all the affected families in Connecticut and  in China where there was stabbing also but no deaths because there was no gun involved.  
"Wiping tears from his eyes"? I saw it and call B.S.! He wiped his eyes, but I never saw tears. When he said "meaningful action", he means gun control. Obama is a sad sack of shit.
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin
I don't have a child but that is so true 
You can't legislate sanity. You people have the same lame argument post after post.

At what point is a weapon worthy of control? A bazuka? What about a tank? If they are regulated, why not a semi automatic weapon?

+Bill Thick, Jr. From the looks of it, your a sack of shit. You'll never get a double wide you sum itch.
+Jorge Roberts +1 for the moronic paranoid schizophrenia. I'll be waiting on the news story of how you off'd your family.
Jorge is a perfect example of a person who should never own a gun.
Guns kill people. Grammar does not. Aint you had no schooling?
We must implore our states to not only invest but incorporate the solutions of psychology for our mentally challenged. ways for the mentally ill to manage their frustrations so that they have options outside of murder to solve their personal crises. Most of us know that hurt people hurt people. Horrifically sad that the unspeakable has happened to our most vulnerable, our children. The Dorsey and Rhue family sends our prayers and condolences for all the victims involved.

+Rosita Dorsey we can't even agree on whether or not to teach evolution in school why would we as a nation promote Mental Health Awarenes?

Religious institutions would argue that they are more equipped at dealing with this, and we would get nowhere. I am just being realistic here; you can't legislate sanity.
Crocodile tears or not I hope he uses this anger, sadness or whatever to go after well thought out firearms legistration, like a croc goes after meat.
+Brian D ....aww....look at the little man trying to hurt peoples internet feelings because they don't agree with his liberal view. People like you are what create problems like this in society with your liberal acceptance of single parent households and sodomy. No wonder kids are so messed up. You people have failed as parents.
+Bill Thick, Jr. Who said anything about single parent households?

Obama is not liberal, I wish he was.

What exactly is sodomy Bill? And what does that have to do when a wealthy white kid shooting a bunch of people?
Go be a bigot or a troll somewhere else, +Bill Thick, Jr.. Your hatred is unacceptable and no one appreciates a fool (except fools themselves).  It's not liberal to treat people right. Your baseless criticisms are worth naught, especially when they are being used as political reviling.
You liberal ass clowns can block me if you don't like what I have to say. This tragedy was unfortunate and exactly the reason I exercise my 2nd amendment rights. 
Learn what Amendment II of the U.S. Constitution was made for, +Bill Thick, Jr.. I'm not going to block you because I won't give you the privilege. I will ignore your stupidity, though, at least until you can discuss in a more appropriate manner.
Perhaps the thought of all the innocent children he has bombed did go through his mind to bring the tears...
The 2nd amendment was not written so that people could hunt. It was written so that citizens could defend themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes a tyrannical government. 
Bill sure is thick
That was also during a time when the firearms consisted of muskets and handguns that could explode in your face, +Bill Thick, Jr., not glocks and AK-47's. The Second Amendment was written in order to protect US Citizens and give them the right to protect themselves from any more British invasions during a time when the United States was just forming the Great Britain wasn't too happy that it lost a major colonial outpost. To pervert the amendment into something that gives you the right to be a wanton vigilante and "protect" yourself by filling perpetrators with lead is more unconstitutional and unethical than if you were to prohibit all guns altogether.
+David Greene ....if you want to steer this debate to colonial or civil war times, fine. Back then, many more homeowners owned cannons than the armies did. The homeowners were just as armed as the government. In today's time, a homeowner with a semiautomatic firearm is no threat to tanks or planes. There are too many gun owners to ban all firearms. People like me will not allow it.
And? What do you suggest, +Bill Thick, Jr., that civilians should be allowed to own tanks and RPG's and fighter jets too? The government requires a military to fight threats from both the outside and within. To give citizens the same weapons as the government is to diminish the value and purpose of the military as a whole. If you read any of my posts regarding firearms, you'd know that I do not promote the prohibition of firearms because prohibition in general tends to fail. Stricter laws pertaining to firearms is necessary, however, and to deny that is to deny the reality of the situation in which we live.
+David Greene I love how we are being lumped into the same category when we probably don't agree on much. I'm am atheist (you have done some lumping of us) but your posts here are on point. The reason for that is because despite our differences, we obviously both don't like to see innocent people killed.
I hope every one does not forget that we here  as americans kill innocent people everyday - just saying
Generalizations are fallacious traps in which people can fall if they're not careful, +Brian D. Both you and I have likely committed such gross inaccuracies in our lives and I know I have done so numerous times (and disapprovingly so upon retrospect). My generalizations tend to be based on what I believe to be accurate assessments, though I'm aware that most if not all of them are probably not. If I have made any wrongful "lumping[s]," then feel free to point them out because I'm always looking to improve my perception.

I do agree, though, that the killing of innocent people is wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if our reasons as to why are similar as well. You may not believe in a Creator and I may believe otherwise, but that doesn't mean we can't agree that shooting children is bad.
+David Greene I have not explored your posts further, but the few I did demonstrated sound reasoning; anyone that thinks is cool in my book.
What I suggest is constitutional concealed carry in all 50 states. Every state that has passed concealed carry laws has had a subsequent drop in violent crime rates. Criminals who use firearms to commit a crime need to worry about who else around them may be armed. I don't necessarily believe that stricter gun control laws would work because the only people who would obey the laws are the Law abiding citizens. The criminals will still get them. I also suggest armed, retired cops to be stationed in schools and giving educators the opportunity to arm themselves. 
Care to provide citations and evidence for your claims, +Bill Thick, Jr.? Additionally, what evidence do you have that those laws are the cause of that drop in violent crime rates? There are numerous potential factors that may have caused such a drop.

Of course criminals will still get them; however, stricter gun laws will dissuade more potential criminals from obtaining weapons used for violent crimes. In addition, a better educational and healthcare system, one that helps students and civilians solve problems in a non-violent way, is also necessary. I've explained this in my most recent post, one that discusses gun violence in the United States.

The problem isn't with the existence of firearms, but with the accessibility and lack of control pertaining to their distribution and possession. Firearm sales and the prerequisites for owning a gun need to be stricter and more discriminatory. The fact that a gun can be cheaper than an office chair and easier to get than Vicodin is a major problem and anyone, yourself included, should be able to realize that.
Why aren't all you whining about freedom of speech? You can't say fuck on tv but can buy a weapon that shoots 100 rounds.

What about equality? Any laws pertaining to that are irrelevant too right?

You use laws when they benefit your beliefs, just like you use the bible. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. You don't want to pay teachers but you want to fund to have armed guards at schools?

Yeah that sounds like a good society. You guys complain about communism that is exactly the vision we were giving of communism in the eighties.

You guys are brilliant.
+Jack Keating _"Guns are not the problem as without an unhinged madman wielding them, they are nothing more than an inanimate object."_  

Yeah because all gun crime and deaths are done by those mentally unstable... oh wait that isn't true.   The mass killings like this are only a small percentage of the huge amount of gun deaths and crime in the US.   You point fails under scrutiny of the facts.

Oh and guns certainly make mass killings like this a lot easier. 
+Filippo Giudiceandrea Hundreds aren't dying in Gaza every day.  They did during the Israeli attack, as did some Israelis from rockets launched at them.  But no, hundreds aren't being killed every day there.

Syria on the other hand yeah. 
+richard melcher _""He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither" - Ben Franklin"_

Sorry that is a tired and failed quote in this debate.   So your paranoia of something that may or may not happen, trumps the reality of what is actually happening is what you are arguing.  

That is completely ridiculous. 
+Brian D _"Religious institutions would argue that they are more equipped at dealing with this, and we would get nowhere. I am just being realistic here; you can't legislate sanity."_

If that were the case we wouldn't be the only developed country that has this as a major problem.  But you look at the others, they don't, and in part because of legislation to protect and help those who need mental help. 

We might not be able to do it here.  Yes.  But that doesn't mean it can't be done anywhere else, because it has.  Clearly there is something wrong with us.

Switerland, tight gun laws, but very prevalent as its citizens are required to train with them and those actually active in their on call military have to have them. 

But then they also have many more social safety nets, and what people here like to call entitlements to healthcare, school, job training if they lose their job, etc.  They take care of their own.

Here if you get down and out, tough shit, pull yourself up. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. _"The 2nd amendment was not written so that people could hunt. It was written so that citizens could defend themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic. That includes a tyrannical government"_

Prove it.  because this has been debated forever, and there is no document detailing the intent of that amendment.  

So if you are going make a claim that frontiersmen back then knew how that amendment would affect us today, and meant it as you say, then provide the letters and documents backing that up.  
As I asked before, who is Oboma?????????????
We need to need to find the source of the problem. Taking away guns its just another bandage to a much larger problem. Take away guns, the problem is still there. 
+Scott Crotty No it isn't just a bandage.  It would cut down a huge number of these crimes.  And it would make it harder to carry out mass killings.

Is it the only solution?  No.  But without it, any other solutions will not do a thing as long as they are easily available. 
+David Greene ....I'm on a phone, so I can't really go copy/pasting a long list of citations, but they should be easy enough to find at crime statistics or at Vermont is a true constitutional carry state and I believe they are #49 on the list for violent crimes. That speaks for itself. Here in Michigan, we are a CCW state and our violent crime rates have dropped the last several years. You can also verify that at .

+Brian D ....who said I didn't want to pay teachers? They are paid very well here in my state.

+Kent Goertzen....Prove it? I could say the same thing to you. I will simply say if you don't think I should be armed, come kick down my door and take them. Molon Labe
+Bill Thick, Jr. Bs. If we added armed guards to every school in America, in a couple of years it would bankrupt the schools. Crazy moronic conservative would be the first that would want to stop paying for it.
Right. Armed guards in our schools is ludicrous.
The only thing that is moronic is talks of gun bans, +Brian D . Guns don't kill people. These so called "assault weapons" are no different than any other semiautomatic rifle over the last 100 years. They fire only one round each time the trigger is pulled just as a hunting rifle does. When you look at ballistic data, my AR-15 doesn't have nearly the range or power to transfer energy to soft tissue that a 30.06 hunting rifle does. Are all those cosmetic plastic parts on it what scares you? It may look like the M-16 I carried in the Army, but it isn't even close. The most important difference between civilian AR-15 variants and their military counterparts is that the military barrels have a higher, 1 in 7 inch twist which allows them to fire higher power, higher grain cartridges. The trigger mechanism in the lower reciever is also different so that a civilian AR is only semiautomatic.... just like grandpa's deer rifle. Plastic parts don't change the functionality of a rifle.

REAL Assault Rifles vs Gun Grabber Myths
Brian, you'll never get thru to these neanderthals :(
+Tina Vigilante ...perhaps you would like to explain why plastic parts change a firearm from a hunting rifle to an "assault weapon"? By the way, there are already plenty of schools with armed guards. 
Only an idiot would think that the solution to gun violence is more guns. Wake up America, READ the Constitution. How many gun nuts are part of a well regulated militia? About ZERO.
+Ross Satchell ...idiot? Look at every place that has banned guns. Chicago, Washington D.C., U.K., Jamaica and Ireland have all banned guns. Why have violent crime rates increased in all these places? You can call me all the names you want, but the truth is gun ownership reduces crime. I suggest you take a look at Professor John R. Lott's research that debunks any argument you could possibly make for gun control. Now that I have facts behind my stance, who is the idiot?
With guns, one becomes the judge , jury and executioner at the same time. It provides a "high" to an insecure person  that he has a capability to take another person's life. Gun possession gives a psychological satisfaction
or security and makes a subtle change to a person's character. This subtle change is one level away to making this person a criminal or a killer. The purpose of the gun is to kill, owning a gun and actually using it on another makes one a killer. Guns are for the police , military and security personnel. Use TASER or pepper spray and call 911 if you want to stop a criminal. What is more important, the 10 Commandments or your 2nd Amendments?
The 10 commandments are part of a fairy tale book.  You know that right?  Rationality is what our society, and our constitution, are based on, not some bullcrap religious dogma. 
+Todd Kennedy You can wank about it all you want but the targets at the range are 1) staying put 2) not shooting back. The experience of military and police in actual combat says range accuracy with static targets doesn't mean shit. 

Put your guns down and grow a spine. It's more useful in the long run. 

+Travis Augustine Sample size of one? You've just failed every statistics course ever. The conservative math you use to make yourself feel better doesn't apply in the real world. Admit it; your a helpless pussy without your guns. 
+Todd Kennedy Yeah, another keyboard commando that thinks his time at the range and playing Call of Duty matters for shit in the real world. The most like maniac shooting your family is the face you see in the mirror. With any luck your wife or kid will shoot you and spare law enforcement the hassle. 

"A team led by Dr. Arthur Kellermann of Emory University conducted a survey of 388 homes that had experienced homicides. (1) They found that 76.7 percent of the victims were killed by a spouse, family member or someone they knew, and there was no forced entry into the home 84.3 percent of the time. Strangers comprised only 3.6 percent of the killers. However, the killer was never identified in 17.4 percent of the cases."

Remember. the first person this shooter tagged was his gun-freak mother who purchased the firearms.
+Todd Kennedy Post some stats that support what you say. You can't. The gun fondlers have zero support in actual law enforcement or military practice. They have zero support in crime statistics. 

They've got some story about their third cousin's buddy's uncle that saved his whole family from a crazed crack head that mysteriously found his way to the middle of Iowa. 
Was this kid worth less than your guns asshole: 

Name: Allison Wyatt
Age: Six years old
How about this kid? 

Name: Benjamin Wheeler
Age: Six years old
Name: Avielle Richman
Age: Six years old
I can't imagine the emotion of this child's parents are feeling knowing that the guns purchased by some gun freak were used to kill her.

Name: Jessice Rekos
Age: Six years old
Lets tell this child's parents that it's ok she's dead. +Todd Kennedy has a bullshit story about how he protected his family which probably involved terrorizing some people who were just in the wrong driveway. 

Name: Caroline Previdi
Age: Six years old
Name: Noah Ponzer
Age: Six years old

Tell his parents how safe he would be. Noah's already dead killed by the legally purchased gun of a gun rights advocate like yourself. Open carry states are no safer than states with strict gun control laws. It's actually the reverse. 
+Todd Kennedy "Would you rather explain to the police why you shot a man or have the police explain to your family why a man shot you?"

They wouldn't have to, as the likelihood of being shot in a real gun ban  location the odds would be staggeringly lower than it is now in the US. Your argument fails.
+Travis Augustine "Do you need more examples of CCW holders stopping crime."

Insignificant to the overall numbers.  Again, dishonest attempt at portrayal of the effectiveness of those laws.  
Every mass public shooting with 3 or more dead has always happened in gun free zones (with the exception of 1 incident). This shows that the perpetrators are cowards and are not looking for a fight. They are looking to slaughter innocents. This is a mental health issue. This guy was sick in the head. He committed these acts with stolen weapons. If people like +John Poteet want to disarm us, he is more than welcome to come try it.

+Bill Thick, Jr. Another lie on your part. And convenient you don't have a link to an non-biased site to either of your lies.
+Todd Kennedy No they aren't.  Where are you getting your misinformation. D.C. WAS BEFORE they had a gun ban.  After, their numbers dropped and even after repeal has stayed down.
+Kent Goertzen ...once again, I will point to the research of Professor John R. Lott. You can Google him. Everything I have said is a fact. 
+Travis Augustine You do realize the blog linked cites studies in all their claims? 

Of course not, otherwise you wouldn't have made that request. facepalm
U.S. firearm regulations are pathetically weak. Background checks mean nothing when somebody can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun from a private party with no background check or paperwork. There are no relicensing requirements. No inspections or criminal penalty for unsafe storage of guns. My car is more carefully regulated and it's parked most of the time. 

Go ahead, tell the parents of Jack Pinto that their six year old wouldn't have been helped by strict regulation and inspection of gun storage. It's just another dead kid to you +Travis Augustine

How many children are does it take. How many dead kids before you put your guns down? 
+Travis Augustine That part of the constitution and its meaning has been disputed for many decades.   

And the Constitution isn't perfect, that is why it can be changed.  But people using that defends often forget that part. 

Sorry but frontiersmen 200 years ago have no clue on the ramifications today.
+Bill Thick, Jr. Once again I'll point to the links that counter him already posted.  And reading up on that professor, he is hardly an un-biased view. But then that is par for the course with defenders. 
We'll tell the friends of Emilie Parker who was only six years old when she was shot multiple times that California can outlaw sword canes, black-jacks and brass knuckles but the right to military rifles with 30 round clips shall not be infringed.


12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
+Todd Kennedy except your solution doesn't work.  Bans do.  That is a fact that is not refutable. 

There is not one single country you can cite where increased guns have stopped gun violence.

Not one.  Even those so called paragons the NRA loved Switzerland has changed on this. 

But there are numerous examples of bans working.  100%  no, but then no one is saying it would.   Much better than without a ban, absolutely. 

And I note you are the one resorting to name calling demonizing, and hostility. 
+Kent Goertzen haven't provided a link that shows lower crime rates where gun control has been implemented. Once again, look at Chicago or D.C. Why are you afraid of firearms? You will never take them all. Come to my house and try to take mine.
Grace Mcdonnell   Seven years old

Her life was worth less than +Todd Kennedy s right to be a gun freak.  
Would you like to outlaw bookshelves and televisions, +John Poteet ? Just as many children die from these things falling on them. You can name all the victims, but you better believe some of those children have responsible, law abiding, gun owning parents. I wonder what they would think of you using the death of their kids for your own political reasons?
Name: Ana Marquez-Greene 
Age: Six years old

Shot multiple times with a Bushmaster rifle with a high-capacity clip and military grade ammunition. 
+Todd Kennedy That is a completely ridiculous counter  argument.  Are you actually hearing yourself?  From the childish name calling and hostility to that?   That the example you want to set? Really? 
Name: Jesse Lewis
Age: Six years old

While she was shot with a .223 caliber rifle +Bill Thick, Jr. thinks she was in just as much danger from a bookshelf. Really Bill? 
And of course Bill and Todd will be the ones to react with anger seeing those names.

They can't bear to see the result of their views so they lash out. 
I am not angry to see those names. I just think it's tasteless. Neither of you have given a link to a single study disproving anything I have said. 
That's simply pathetic Bill. We've linked to multiple reasons as to why local gun control laws are ineffective. Where other nations have national gun control policies regulated both at point of sale and borders gun control is extremely effective. 

Grow a spine. Your dick won't fall off if you don't have a gun. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. Tasteless to memorialize them for what they were killed for?

Only a proponent would think that. 
+Todd Kennedy complete and utter logical fail. 

So your point is because we have a different sort of death completely unrelated and accidental like book shelves, we shouldn't do a think about this.  

Again complete and utter logical failure on your part. 
I don't want to see national homicide rates that include poisonings, stabbings, etc. I want you to show me violent crime statistics on any place that has instituted a gun ban. You won't post it because it disproves your arguments. Gun bans have led to higher violent crime rates in every place that has instituted them.

Washington D.C.
United Kingdom

All of these places enacted gun bans.

All of these places saw higher violent crime rates.
+Bill Thick, Jr. You're a spineless worm who can't hold onto anything but your precious guns. 

We've shown you that gun deaths are lower in nations with gun control. 

We've shown you total murders are lower in nations with gun control. 

These are FACTS. Well established and without controversy. 

Now you want to claim that violent crime rates are better in the U.S.? Seriously? Better than Japan? They don't even lock up their bicycles there. Do you have any statistics to prove anything or are you just pulling more pathetic excuses out of your ass?
OK. Looking at that, Kent, it doesn't even state what year. It just says "historical rates". I do notice Jamaica is way up on the list. They completely banned guns and their death rate by firearms is 47.44 people per 100,000 all murdered by guns. In comparison, the United States murder rate by firearms is only 2.98 people per 100,000. Seems like the link you provided proves my point.
Name: Chase Kowalski
Age: Seven years old

Shot with a civilian copy of a military assault rifle. +Bill Thick, Jr. thinks this is acceptable because Jamaica has ineffective enforcement of it's firearms ban. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. You invaded a nation that never attacked the U.S. because Republican President George W. Bush falsified intelligence claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was supplying them to terrorists.


You appear to have learned nothing from the experience. 
You learned nothing, +John Poteet . My unit found and destroyed chemical weapons. I have a letter from the D.O.D. stating that I was exposed to Sarin and Psychlosarin. Learn what you are talking about before you type. That comment is as brainless as your "military grade" ammo comment. A civilian AR-15 variant doesn't have the barrel twist to fire more than a 62 grain cartridge. Another blatant lie by a liberal gun grabber.
+David Cubit Ah, a Marine. Tell us when you can carry loaded weapons on a U.S. Marine base that's not in a combat zone and who, precisely, is allowed to carry them. 
If these pathetic liberals have the right to run their mouths, I have a right to bear arms.  Deal with it sissies. 
+Todd Kennedy

1. He didn't.

2. Insulting the president of the United States is the highest disrespect you can show, you piece of shit. Well, more like a wet glob of shit that all you morons make up together.

My dog has more class than you morons. 
+Brian D and +Tina Vigilante ...neither of you two served your country either. You use your 1st amendment rights on the backs of my brothers who have served. You accuse us of having psychological problems. This is not true. I came to this thread and was attacked with a comment that I couldn't afford a double wide. The insults grew from there. You want to talk about morons? How about your wikipedia stats that you provided, which debunked your own argument? Only a moron would post a link that hurts his own agenda. 
Someone left the door open to the insane asylum..
All I have to say to your name calling and liberal talking points insinuating I "hide" behind my guns is hop into a cage with me. You can call me all the names you want with gloves on, face to face. 5 rounds, 5 minutes each. No submission. TKO only. We could make it huge on g+. Who's the pussy?
+Todd Kennedy +Bill Thick, Jr. Spare me your whining. You called our president a sack of shit and I respond in defence of this country.

My grandfather and mother served so you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Only a sick bastard would post pictures of his post coital pig with his legs cut off.

Liberal, Vegan, Atheist, Jew, Educated, Californian that proudly voted to raise taxes.

All the things you trash despise.
That pig had its legs, +Brian D . I roast them whole. You can't ride on the coattails of your grandfather. You can only speak for yourself. Unfortunately for you, you were either too dumb or too scared to serve your country...and yet you feel you have a say. Your voice is just one voice. My voice as a veteran is a voice of tens of millions. 
Sowwy, lat may spek yalls langage: git er done y'all and njoy cornhollin dat der pig.
Of course you morons want to talk big about taking us out. Violence is all you know. I have heard so many stories of you cornholling assholes getting dropped in the Delaware river like the sacks of shit you are.

Y'all idiots wouldn't last a day in Philly or Jersey.
Check the stats on who's collecting welfare dummies. Its y'all.
Climb in a cage with me liberal, Godless vegan. Let's broadcast it in a g+ hangout for everybody to see. 
P.s. I guarantee on an average year when I am working, I pay more taxes than wages you make in a year.
I don't fight, no need to. I'm not so poor my only entertainment is violence and guns. Goons are for that stuff anyway.
+Todd Kennedy Todd you brought up taxes and liberals and handouts. I just find it funny that the peoples living in the highest welfare areas are saying liberals are waiting for handouts.

By the way, its liberals fighting to lower YOUR taxes.
+Brian D ...That sounds like code for "I am a liberal pussy who runs my mouth, but is too gutless to back it up with action". What I am proposing isn't violent. It's a sporting event. By the way, Google T.O.S. says you must use your full, legal name on g+. I suggest you stand behind your comments with your real last name. I post publicly with my full name and location because I am not a pussy.

All you guy's know is violence, did you shoot up any puppies or kittens today? So hateful, listen to yourselves.
I use my name. All you can do is threaten. I wouldn't challenge you to a fight. Not because I don't believe I would win, but because I don't waste my time fighting, and you people are opportunistic bigots who do nothing but cheat, steal my tax dollars, and whine and accuse everyone else so you can feel better about yourself.

I won't even get into a psychological evaluation. The last thing I would want to contribute to tonight is domestic violence which is what you violent types do when you don't have someone half your size to mess with.
+Allan S  .. but the shooter does not have easy access to chemical weapons right? More would have escaped it if was arson right?
Your argument is a total fail. Easy access to an efficient killing tool(Guns) is what caused this mass murder. Plain and simple.
Like I said before, +Bill Thick, Jr., how do you know the increase in gun ownership is the cause of lower crime statistics? There are a wide variety of potential reasons, such as stricter law enforcement, more effective methods of capturing and preventing criminals, improved correctional facility programs, and different legislation in the state or community. Guns are not the only possible reason and cause for lowered crime statistics.

As I previously stated, though: Guns themselves and their existence is not the problem. The issue is with the easy accessibility of guns to people in general, including those who can commit crimes and acts of heroism. When people talk about gun laws, they're not necessarily referring to the prohibition of guns—something I don't even support. They are talking about the laws and regulations pertaining to firearms and their usage, ownership, possession, distribution, and manufacture.

The people who cry out for the banning of all guns tend to do so because they believe such an extreme measure would be effective (it would not). Those individuals do not represent the majority of liberals, nor should they be considered as such. As for the rest of your posts, I'll be ignoring them since they do not address me directly. They appear to be a part of a separate discussion, so I won't intervene.

Edit: Regarding your argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people," that cliché and overused phrase has been refuted and repudiated numerous times. Although people are the deciders of whether or not to shoot the gun, a firearm is a weapon meant for harming or injuring and also ultimately can cause death. The phrase above relies heavily on the fact that guns are not sentient, yet it fails to recognize the reality of guns being made for the sole purpose of killing (or at least harming).

Guns may not decide to kill people per se, but they are a medium through which the death of others, such as in homicide and suicide, can occur. More importantly, guns are a medium through which the death of others can occur more easily than through the use of a different weapon, such as a knife or one's limbs. The prohibition of firearms would help dissuade people from their usage and (assuming no one breaks the law pertaining to the prohibition) hinder the otherwise easy ability one would have at killing his or herself or someone else. People may kill people, but guns make it easier to do the deed.

+Tina Vigilante, neanderthals were arguably more intelligent than humans. Humans only succeeded in becoming the dominant species was because we propagated swiftly and built communities with ease. Although neanderthals were smarter, they were quite asocial and tended to reproduce slowly, thus leading to their eventual extinction as an independent species.
+Bill Thick, Jr. You also serial lied in the thread Bill.  Including trying to pass off Gulf War I exposure as Gulf War II.  The first war was to liberate Kuwait.   The second one was for weapons of mass destruction. You can't seem to remember which one you served in and what was the reason for it.   That is either really ignorant on your part, or your are one of those you don't care about what you are there for.  Or you lied completely.   None of those paint a good picture.

The 1991 date on the letter you posted for exposure date was the First war not the second.

By the time of the second war most of the weapons were dismantled and destroyed by inspections set from winning the 1st. There was no mandate to find those weapons during the first one.  They destroyed them as matter of principle.

There weren't any the second.  

That and with your repeated claim on the murder rates in D.C. which are completely false, and at one point calling it the murder capital of the US which is also false. 

Now you are shaming the rest of us vets trying to hang on immunity from people pointing out your stupidity, and apparently saying  that people can't use their 1st Amendment to criticize you because you claim to have fought.  Sorry doesn't work that way.  Serving doesn't make you immune from criticism.  Nor is it an thing you can wave in the face of others when they disagree with you.  And it is pretty disgusting you are doing that here. 

Again, you have zero credibility here anymore. And that is your own fault not anyone else's. 
+Todd Kennedy President borderline communist?  Are you really that stupid to try to pass that idiotic claim off?   Are you really that intellectually and morally bankrupt? 
"I have a right to bear arms."

And the Supreme Court says that comes with limits. 

And the Founders made Amending the Constitution possible because they knew it wasn't a perfect document.  Which is why they Amended it themselves later. 

That right can change, and that ability to  change it, is something the founders enabled on purpose. 

Then there is the fact that the intent of that wording has been in dispute for decades.  That what we have actually happening now goes above and beyond the intent. 
Smoking doesn't kill people... I remember that agument. But second hand smoking does, as do bullets. That doesn't mean we shouldn't regulate the things that harm others.

If you want to smoke or shoot, please do it to yourself.

+Kent Goertzen ...first of all, I served in Desert Storm. I never claimed to have served in Iraqi Freedom. That was your assumption. I have also never called Washington D.C. the murder capital of the U.S. I believe that title still belongs to Flint, Mi. if I am not mistaken.

Keep twisting what I say. I don't give a shit. If you want my guns, come kick down my door and try to take them.
+Todd Kennedy No it is unintelligent because is a lie.   You are an idiot if you believe that, and have no clue what socialism actually is. 

That you purposely spread that lie says a lot about you. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. But bill you responded with "You learned nothing, +John Poteet . My unit found and destroyed chemical weapons"

When John was clearly referring to Iraqi Freedom when he said no chemical weapons were found under Bush Jr.s war.

Storm was Bush Sr.  Chemical weapons search was Freedom.  And there were none them, so John was absolutely correct. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. "Gun bans have led to higher violent crime rates in every place that has instituted them. 

Washington D.C.
United Kingdom

While it was someone else that claimed it was the murder capital, you still are misinformed with this claim.

D.C. was the murder capital before they had a gun ban.  Gun crime numbers went down during their ban in a big way, taking them off being the murder capital and putting them below national average of similar sized cities.   When the ban was over turned it started going back up.

What you claimed is completely false. 
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.  I'll be waiting for you...
+Bill Thick, Jr. "gun ownership goes up and crime goes down."

Not significantly.  By a couple percentage points.

Gun crime goes down a lot more in places with tighter restrictions in the US.  And goes down tons more in places in the 1st world that have banned them.    Those are facts you cannot refute without lying. 
And the UK example is completely dishonest.  As gun restrictions have been lessened in those 10 years, not tightened.  

There is not one example ever of gun crime decreasing significantly with more guns and fewer gun laws.  No a few percentage points is not significant.   While again there is example after example of 1st world nations that it has gone down with bans or stricter laws. 
+Todd Kennedy You complaining about insults?  Seriously?  You have no leg to stand on there..

"Are you really going to argue that obamacare ISNT a huge step towards socialism?"

Social safety net does not equal socialism.  I know that is difficult for extremist that only watch FOX to understand, but that is a fact.  

German has education, healthcare, an far stronger social safety nets.   They are hardly socialist, and are very much a Capitalist country.  And with 1/3 of our population they export more than we do. 

That you equivocate social safety nets with socialism, likely because your small mind sees social and alarm bells go off, is pure ignorance on your part 

In 90% of the world the US Democrats would be center Conservatives, not liberals.  Our politics are that skewed to the right. That is another reason why the claims of socialist and liberal from the right are ridiculous.  

The Democratic party of today is almost identical to Eisenhower and his parties positions as president.  And he was a Republican and hardly a commie or socialist. 

So again, the socialist and commie, and lefty labels are used only by those that are ignorant of reality.
Please try to keep your babbling on topic. 
+Todd Kennedy Again ridiculous.  As tighter restrictions and bans would including working harder get rid of the illegal weapons also. 

And as in countries that actually commit to that have shown, it works to reduce it.  

And again, this mash shooting and most of the ones the past several years were all LEGAL guns. 
And btw your argument is because some gun crimes will still happen we should do nothing.   

So why have any laws if they are going to be broken by that logic?
+Travis Augustine = liar. 

Says a lot about you that you have to resort to that Travis.  You aren't worth it. Actually neither are Bill and Todd.   Good luck with that blood on your hands. 
+Joe Hullett .  So because people die from other methods we shouldn't try to stop this one is what you are saying.  Logic failure. 

By your logic then why have hospitals either.  People still die to disease, and injuries.    Just using your exact type of logic leap there
I missed the fun? He blocked you because he can't argue with facts. 
Don't change the subject you old fool.  Should we ban cars because they killed 10839 people last year or not?  
+Bill Thick, Jr. All he was doing is name calling and trolling.  Those aren't facts, and not worth my time or attention. 

Something you are nearing also.  You have yet to provide a real counter point. 
+Joe Hullett It isn't changing the subject.  

Again you are having a complete failure in logic as I pointed out above.   You argument in essence is as I described.  So by your logic we might as well not have any laws, because someone might break them, and might as well close all the hospitals, because vastly more die in those every day, so by your  logic there is no reason for them either. 

And am neither a fool or old, but you certainly are acting like a child by saying those things. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. BTW those facts I can't handle you mean like the one where you claim D.C.s gun crime went up when guns were restricted when it was going down the last,_D.C.

Fact is it was trending down anyway. So the claim repealing it lower crime is dishonest, there is no direct correlation, as it is more than likely part of the tend that was already happening. 
Still didn't answer the question Mr. Logic.  That's just how you pansy liberals are. 
+Kent Goertzen want to talk about name calling and trolling? I came here and have been told I can't afford a double wide. I have been called an idiot, a Neanderthal, moron, bigot, pile of shit, liar and many other things and you liberal, cowardly fucktards have lied, twisted and distorted everything we have said. Fuck you! You can block me too. I am going to start playing the same way you pansies do....attacking your personal character.

I checked your link to the Wikipedia page you provided. It was deleted because you created it yourself and it was factually inaccurate. You fucking disgust me.

I use facts. 
+Bill Thick, Jr. No I don't bill, not that you were free of it either from the very start.  So you have no room to complain either like he did.  That is the only reason I talked about it.  He objects after some of the stuff he said when someone does it back.  That is sheer hypocrisy.

And you complaining about lies... again you have no credibility after the blatant lies earlier. 

But clearly you aren't worth it either. 
"The Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009, at Fort Hood, the most populous U.S. military installation in the world, located just outside Killeen, Texas. In the course of the shooting, a single gunman killed 13 people and wounded 29 others. It is the worst shooting ever to take place on an American military base."

Guns in hands of professionally trained soldiers didn't help there, so how is more guns in civilian hand going to help? 

Arizona, some of the least restrictive gun laws in the US, and a gunman shoots a representative and several others.  It didn't help there. 
That's all fine and dandy, +Bill Thick, Jr., but like I've said now three times: I do not support, nor do I think it necessary, to prohibit the possession and ownership of firearms. You have yet to address my other arguments regarding the accessibility of guns (which I've mentioned twice now, this being the third) and the lack of sufficient control by the federal and state governments pertaining to the possession and ownership of firearms. What of my rebuttal with the whole "guns don't kill people" argument? Do you agree? Disagree? Forfeit that aspect of this discussion? Concede? Or perhaps you have a rebuttal yourself? Despite our differing views, I'm nonetheless interested in your opinion and would prefer if this exchange were to be fruitful.

Admittedly, there appears to be a causal relationship and perhaps even a interdependent one between gun ownership in an area and crime rates affecting said location. However, that does not mean that gun ownership is the main—or even a major—issue in regards to criminal activity and gun violence, especially in the United States. As evident by the fact that Switzerland is a culture where gun ownership and the practicing of firearm utilization is arguably encouraged, yet there is an extremely low rate of gun violence in the country; while Japan prohibits even handguns, yet the nation has as few as 2 gun-related homicides a year and 22 would be considered a national scandal; I believe it's safe to say that the problem primarily lies in the culture in which these weapons are sold and the attitude society has towards them.
+Bill Thick, Jr. You have yet to provide a citation that will stand up to scrutiny, when you actually provide one at all. I suspect the number of weapons you own is exactly equal to your IQ.
Really ...... Nothing can fill space of a lost child. this is really sad. I think everyone should do some soul-searching .
I have provided several links that support my position. Here are a few more.

I would like to add that the United States Supreme court has ruled that police in America have "No Affirmative Duty" to protect citizens.
They do not have to respond to your home if an armed intruder is attacking you. Police are not security guards, whose duty is to protect you. I have witnessed this happen personally, when I was a manager at an apartment building. I caught a criminal breaking into a tenants apartment. He stole a shotgun from the apartment and was leaving with it. When I called 911 to report the robbery and the guy with the stolen shotgun, he was still on the property. It took 45 minutes for officers to show up. The only person who can be trusted to be there to protect yourself is you.

+Ross Satchell ...suck on my ball satchel! At least I don't have to hold my dick like it's a pencil. Don't worry, there are still men like me that can satisfy your mom.
Anybody know who kills more people, people w/guns or governments with unarmed citizens?
+Allan S 
You provide multiple instances of various methods of killing and murders. Doing away with easy access to guns will not eliminate killings totally but it would effectively restrict effortless easy killings.
As you said "Crazies will find a way".
My point is you don't have to make it easy for them by providing easy access to guns.
+Bill Thick, Jr. Like most conservatives, you insult, and then whine about it when you are insulted back. You cry foul when others use your very same demeanor (that is sort of like attitude). It's not that you have a differing opinion that bothers me, it is the way you people are; filled with hate and double standards.
+William Howard "Anybody know who kills more people, people w/guns or governments with unarmed citizens?"

As I said above, you would rather look out for an unlikely what if, than what is actually happening right now.   

And btw plenty of governments have been over thrown in countries with tight gun controls.   

The whole premise fails. 

"No guns in the following...just insanity."

Strawman.  No one is saying that tighter restrictions or bans will stop all violence.  So your argument with that is, because that could still happen we might as well not do something about this?  That is a logical failure. 

States with less restrictions have a small decrease in gun violence.  Insignificant statistically.

States with the tightest restrictions have a bigger decrease.

And 1st world nations with bans have a Huge decrease.   You cannot dispute that fact. Do they still have some gun violence?  Yes.  Again no one is saying they don't.  But they have far, far less than we do.   That is an irrefutable fact. 
+Ross Satchell Sorry you can't just put that out there without a reason for that.   What is different other than the access to guns to justify that claim? 
BTW even on a military base with many trained professionals, the time to react to stop the killer at Ft. Hood still allowed him to kill quite a large number of people.

So again, the claim more guns are solutions fails, especially when the more guns solution isn't going to even be in professional hands. 
If I wanted any lip from you, +Brian D , I'd rattle my zipper you Godless, vegan fag.
Do you blow Jesus with that hateful mouth?
+Kent Goertzen Was Germany a 3rd world nation when Obama's role model took their guns?
My premise does NOT fail because people like you said the same thing around 1933.
That is called hate speech by the way.
Yep. Democrats love hate speech. The party of the KKK, segregation, the Confederacy, Jim Crow laws and the birth of the abortion movement. +Brian D should be so proud of his liberal heritage.
+Bill Thick, Jr. check out  +Brian D 's post where he calls Judge Bork a piece of crap and that he was glad he was dead. BUT....he talks about hate speech. Typical librocryte.
+William Howard ...he is a real piece of work, isn't he?

I love this thread. I never want to leave. After all, Time magazine is politically neutral, isn't it? Lol
I would inform you just how grossly misinformed you are about the Democratic Party and its views, but that is a discussion that can be had for another time. I urge you to either reply to me or at least tell me whether you wish to continue this discussion, +Bill Thick, Jr.. I'm normally not this "pushy," but I haven't had a discussion regarding gun violence in a long while and I'm itching for another. Moreover, I see our exchange to have the potential to yield positive results—that is, if it even continues.

This will be my last reply until I receive a response, seeing how pestering you is an asshole move and shows desperation anyway. I just wanted to remind you because considering how many responses you've given since my last post, I'm gathering that you're simply not interested in a debate and have decided to ignore me. If that is the case, then so be it; I'll let you get back to your proverbial shit-flinging and dick swinging contests. If not, however, then I anticipate a response.

+Brian D, the problem lies not in the fact that he's a Conservative or Republican per se, but rather his perception of reality and attitude toward said perception and alternative or contrary ones. I've met plenty Democrats who have been more stubborn than the staunchest Republican and more bigoted than the most pious Fundamentalist, not to mention similarly as hypocritical. I've also met atheists with the zeal and hateful fervor of a militant jihadist and antitheists (or "New Atheists") with a stronger "holier than thou" attitude than a Catholic priest. Need I even mention the theists, socialists, racists, activists, protesters, soldiers, and even car salesmen who are similarly as sour?

The problem is with one's attitude and perceptual limitations, not their specific ideological beliefs. That being said, Republicans and Neoconservatives alike unfortunately do seem to be more inclined to such flaws than most. Or is it the ideology or party that attracts them, rather than they develop such views while in them? Whatever the case, these people exist, existed, and will continue to exist by the million and they are comprised of adherents to arguably every belief and concept in history. It's unfortunate, but it occurs nonetheless.
+David Greene ....first of all, I have to give you recognition for asking honest questions without attacking me personally.

I agree that there appears to be a lack of control regarding the purchase and possession of firearms. What concerns me is having our Constitution trampled. The founding fathers never mentioned prohibiting felons from their right to bear arms, yet most felonies are violent...or at least devastating to the victims. I don't know if that warrants a lifetime ban from firearms or not. If a dumb 18 year old kid steals a car, he may not ever be legally allowed to hunt for a deer in his 40's or 50's, which would be decades after he may have changed his life. Perhaps, if there was an alternative for nonviolent felons like a 10 year no strike policy to regain legal gun rights? If they are going to stick with the criminal lifestyle, they will obtain one, despite any type of gun control.

I also agree with you that the problem lies with the culture of America. I don't really know how to fix it. My personal opinion is that people have abandoned God. They have abandoned family values. They engage in self-gratification and the children suffer. The children are growing up in fear, yet seem to have a sense of entitlement. No wonder they are screwed up. Single parent households and broken homes can never give a kid the sense of security they need to develop mentally in a healthy and normal fashion.

Let's get to proposed solutions. I want to see our mental health system strengthened. I would support some changes, but we need to be careful. If we institute a waiting period for purchases, innocent stalking victims will die. There have been a few women being stalked who were killed during a waiting period.

I think our best chance at reducing gun violence is education. We agree on that. We need to start with responsible parents who don't store firearms in the closet and educate their kids to treat firearms with respect. From there, I propose a hunters safety for all teens/preteens, whether they live in an urban area or not. It teaches basic common sense about guns. I found the CCW/CPL NRA home defense course informative and helpful, despite extensive military training. I realize these suggestions can only address the accidental deaths and the intentional murders must be dealt with differently. Suicides shouldn't count. A person intent on killing themselves will find a way no matter what. I am pretty sure the lack of a firearm wouldn't be a deal breaker for them.

The intentional gun assaults and homicides contribute to the vast majority of gun crimes in my area. These are usually stolen handguns which are used in botched robberies and drive by shootings. This seems like our law enforcement has failed us.

My solution to all gun problems is to allow law abiding citizens the right to constitutional concealed carry in all 50 states. Keep carrying prohibited in court/federal buildings without a federal permit. Make it a felony to carry intoxicated and give law enforcement more tax dollars for policing high crime areas.

Banning plastic guns isn't the way to deal with a problem.

...and I don't entirely disagree with your rebuttal.

Sorry +David Greene ....I was typing on my phone to your previous post while you posted this one. I own a PC, but usually on my phone, which puts me at a disadvantage with my tiny screen and copy/paste restrictions. Not intentionally ignoring you. I think I get tunnel vision when these people attack me and only see the paragraph on my phone screen.
+tim eckardt Wrong.  Military Police carry.  Soldiers posting guard in certain airs.   I know for a fact because I've pulled ARMED fire watches, and had and ARMED guard just outside the barrack at the Ammo depot there.  So you are incorrect, presumption on you opart,  I never said ALL soldiers were.  
+William Howard Pot meet kettle.    And bill is a liar with no credibility.  Says a lot about you that you'd take his side. 
Must be hard to be a cranky old man so butthurt about peoples right to bear arms. 
For those of you without any values; Calling someone a piece of crap: not hate speech. It's an opinion.

Calling someone a faggot: hate speech.

It's funny though, in the end, my last comment was calling someone a piece of crap. you called our president a sack of crap, but that was cool. So, basically as long as someone doesn't call a conservative a piece of crap, it's okay?

You guys are the ones anti-free speech. You guys are the ones who promote racism, hate, etc.

For 8 years, if you so much as disagreed with Bush, you were a commie traitor that should go to another country. Now, if you agree with Obama, it's the same thing.

You won't even stop to notice your own hypocrisy.
Add a comment...