skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Del Mar Woman Fighting Fairground Gun Shows

A resident of tiny Del Mar in San Diego County town is taking aim at gun shows following the Connecticut school massacre.

Crossroads Of the West Gun Show

Crossroads of the West gunshow is scheduled to visit the Del Mar Fairgrounds in March 2013.

The North County Times says former teacher Rosanne Holliday has begun a grass-roots campaign to stop shows at the Del Mar Fairgrounds. Holliday says it's wrong to celebrate gun culture in a public facility.

She says about 50 people in the town of 4,100 have expressed support. Supporter Bud Emerson says the group has put together a draft petition against the shows.

Fair board President Adam Day says five shows a year bring the fairgrounds a net profit of $324,000. He says the shows, which have been held for two decades, meet all laws and undercover law enforcement officers are on hand.

Comments

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 7, 2013 at 9:10 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I suppose this woman wouldn't have a problem with people selling jewelry on the fairgrounds, right? Jewelry is made of metal. Guns are made of metal. What is wrong with selling inert metal objects at the fairgrounds?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'hueywayne'

hueywayne | January 7, 2013 at 9:16 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Oh Please..!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | January 7, 2013 at 9:47 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JeanMarc, the psychopath who shot up a school in CT used GUNS dear, not necklaces.

Do you really not understand why guns need to be regulated more than jewelery?

If gun shows included the proper background checks I might not have such a problem with them, but the NRA crazies want unregulated, wild, wild, west-type proliferation of firearms to the point where we are afraid for our loved ones to go outside anymore.

Contrary to what the big dumb KOOK that heads the NRA blathered in his self-serving press conference, MORE GUNS = MORE MURDERS. Period. End of Story.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 7, 2013 at 10:32 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

What does this have to do with a gun show?

Anyway, more gun laws only restrict law abiding citizens. Surely even someone like you can understand that criminals don't care about the gun laws and they will modify their weapons to overcome any mandated restrictions like a 10 round magazine, etc.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | January 7, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Jean, the easier guns are to get, the more gun violence and "bad guys" getting uns we have.

This is why the South is an outlier when looking at gun violence nationally, and the U.S.A. is an outlier when looking at gun violence worldwide.

If more guns = safer society as the NRA whacko claims, then the U.S. should be a lot safer than Japan or England - - but it's not.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 7, 2013 at 6:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

How about mexico?

Also, the UK has 3x more violent crime than the USA.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LtBradshaw'

LtBradshaw | January 7, 2013 at 7:46 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

To gun control advocates - please focus your outrage against a real problem. For example; the near continuous bleating of relatively small portions of the population demanding that .gov outlaw things that they do not understand and thus, do not like. Especially those who would stand on the bodies of dead children as a platform for their political agenda.

Thank you

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Pat Finn'

Pat Finn, KPBS Staff | January 7, 2013 at 9:26 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JeanMarc: The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNDOC) study of intentional homicides in all countries lists 5.0 homicides per 100,000 residents for the U.S. in 2009 and 1.2 per 100,000 for the UK.
http://multimedia.unodc.org/southerncone/en/frontpage/2011/10/06-global-study-on-homicide-2011.html

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 8, 2013 at 7:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

And in VT in 2010 there were 7 murders at a rate of 1.12 per 100,000 (and that is all murders, not just firearms related homicides). You don't even need a permit in VT for concealed carry.

PDSD, despite you use of all caps and ending a statement by spelling out the word "period" this is not a simple problem to solve. If you choose not to arm yourself, there is nothing wrong with that but please don't tell those of us who think it is important that we are wrong, especially when your preceding statement isn't universally true.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Pat Finn - I didn't say homicides, I said violent crime. And yes, in the UK, violent crime is three times higher than it is in the USA, where people have guns to protect themselves from violent crime.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 9:19 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Just to back up my statement, though the raw data can be gathered from the home office and FBI statistics to see the hard numbers if you're interested.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 10:06 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

What exactly is the rationale for certain states to exempt gun show vendors from the otherwise legally required background checks? If there's a gun rights advocate in this thread who happens to be in support of background checks, I'd like to hear your take on why you feel that's permissible.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 8, 2013 at 10:47 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Will Roger and Rickkk be tearing down their signs???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 8, 2013 at 10:53 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JEAN-MARK, Mexico is not a gun-manufacturing country. Guns ARE smuggled down there. Also some guns come from the black market, leftover weaponry from the Central American wars of the 80s. (Many US and Israeli-made.) Other guns from the Cartels come from defecting military types or military officer who are in cahoots with the trafficers.

Also, as I read on CNN last year, DC, New Orleans and Chicago have a higher homicide rate than Mexico City.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 8, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Lt. Bradshaw, did Adam Lanza or James Holmes kill/wound all those people with their forefingers, or a pocket knife? Where did Holmes purchase his bullet-proof vest, online? Why did Mama Lanza have so many rounds in her house? And why three pistols? One for each member of the family???

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 8, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Why 3 pistols? Possibly for three different purposes. Target practice, Home defense, Concealed carry, Heirloom, Collection, Hunting (yes there are pistol hunters... it baffles me too) or some combination of the above. This is like asking why anyone would have three screwdrivers in their house.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 12:29 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

It's uh, actually not at all like asking why anyone would have three screwdrivers.

Don't lose sight of why we have gun control legislation in the first place. It is because they are inherently dangerous. Significantly more dangerous than screwdrivers. If you don't get that, you're lying to yourself.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Guns are inherently dangerous? That's funny. One time I took one of my guns out and set it on the table and watched it to see if it would do anything dangerous. After two hours, nothing happened. Then I started thinking... how can an inanimate object be dangerous?

Wild bears are dangerous, they have been known to attack humans. Same with rabid raccoons. But a metal object? Inherently dangerous? Sorry Ilk... it's just not the case.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

As for the three handgun question... why not? Guns are fun to shoot and collect. There are lots of different types, why not have three? Why not have more? It's not like they are going to go on a shooting rampage on their own, or blow up, or cause some kind of disaster.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 4:06 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Guess I forgot to mention that when I say "guns" I mean "guns being used by people" and when I say "being used" I mean "shoot bullets at things." I thought it was implied, but I guess you'd prefer to play naive.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 4:17 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

That cannot be inferred from your statement:

"It is because they are inherently dangerous. Significantly more dangerous than screwdrivers."

Guns are not dangerous. People are dangerous. Placing restrictions on weapons will not keep criminals from getting dangerous guns. They will circumvent the restrictions that make their guns legal because they don't follow the law... why is this hard to understand?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'LtBradshaw'

LtBradshaw | January 8, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Missionaccomplished, something tells me you can bleat with the best of them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 4:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

People are more dangerous with guns than without. Restrictions make it more difficult for criminals to get them. Why is THAT hard to understand?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 5:36 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

People are more dangerous with knives than without. People are more dangerous with cars than without. With bombs than without. With martial arts training than without.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 5:37 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

That is correct.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 8, 2013 at 5:39 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Which is why we don't sell knives to children, or let them drive. I'm glad you're finally starting to get it!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 8, 2013 at 10:53 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

We also don't sell guns to children...

Anyway, I get the point that more guns around does leave more guns accessible to criminals. But the cat is out of the bag, so to speak. Banning guns, or even restricting guns, is like closing the barn door after the horses got out.

I truly believe more restrictions on guns will not reduce gun crime, but will only put the "best" or most effective guns in the hands of criminals and out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Do you agree with this basic premise? If not, I would like to hear your rationale. I'll quit with the little snipes, for now... :)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 8:42 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

That's correct, we don't sell guns to children. Or the mentally insane. Or convicted felons. Good ideas, right? That's the point of a background check, and the point of gun control legislation that requires those background checks. However, those background checks are waived for gun shows in certain states, and it makes no sense to me. That's why I brought it up.

I disagree with your basic premise and I doubt you have any sort of proof to that claim. But even if I did agree, it would seem to me there would still be better solutions than simply having more guns around.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 9:39 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Well, lets just think about it for a second.

Criminals don't follow gun laws. Most armed criminals are already prohibited from owning firearms because they are felons, but that doesn't stop them. Fully automatic weapons are illegal. High capacity magazines are illegal. Criminals regularly modify their weapons to make them fully automatic with huge 50 round magazines.

Would law abiding citizens do that? No... because they follow the law. But criminals would, and do, do things like that, because they don't care about the law. Doesn't that make sense?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 9, 2013 at 9:55 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Lt. Bradshaw, NO sarcasm. They are straight questions that some prefer to dodge or play the disingenous card because they blow away their thesis.

You guns-for-everyone people speak of "responsible" gun owners, well how responsible was Mama Lanza in her failure to keep her firearms away from her usntable son? How responsible are our easy-access gun laws when a former military guy, like Jon Hammar, with PTSD, has possession of a shotgun, which he then takes into a foreign country??? (And then he is made into a victim by the Far Right, but that's another tale for another day.)

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 9, 2013 at 9:59 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago


"Criminals don't follow gun laws."

JEAN MARK, so how did you vote on Prop 19?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'scotto1992'

scotto1992 | January 9, 2013 at 10:13 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I just want to say thank you to Rosanne for reminding me that I need to go buy my gun. Can't wait for the Del Mar gun show. Never gone...nor really have a desire to go to gun shows...but the free advertising by Rosanne and KPBS worked great!! My wife really wants us to have a gun in the house. I was medically retired after Iraq from the USMC. Lots of training with weapons but never desired to own my own. Now I do! Thanks again Rosanne!!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 10:24 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Thanks for bravely serving our country and its oil resources in Iraq, scotto!!!! Semper fi!!!! Hope you and your wife really love your new gun!!!!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 11:22 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Missionaccomplished - I am not sure why you are asking - perhaps to see if I'm a right winger? - anyway, I voted no on prop 19 because it doesn't decriminalize marijuana. If the measure was something like the one passed in Colorado or Washington I would have voted for it. I think marijuana should be treated like alcohol or cigarettes. I think we should be allowed to damage our minds and bodies if we wish. That is our freedom and the government should not interfere. Personally, I will never use drugs. If other people want to they should be allowed to.

scotto - I am right with you! A few days after the shooting when people starting going crazy about gun control, I bought one of the last AR-15s available. I will see you in March at the Crossroads gunshow buddy!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon1'

Anon1 | January 9, 2013 at 12:57 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Prohibition doesn't work. When are we going to learn this? Whether it's drugs, guns, sex, marriage, etc., it all boils down to a group of advocates trying to force their beliefs onto others, instead of practicing their beliefs personally.

The lack of tolerance and respect for someone whose views differ is horribly anti-American in spirit. The freedoms given to us by the Constitution are to protect those with unpopular opinions, because popular opinions don't need protections. When any of our Constitutional freedoms are threatened, we should be bipartisan in protecting the rights of the people - all of them. A purpose of those protections is to prevent the exact types of political measures that are being exercised by the gun control advocates currently... The kind that use fear to manipulate someone into giving up their rights. The basic moral concept holds true: If you are not infringing upon the rights of another individual, you should be free to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

That being said...

Guns are tools. They are designed to kill. The unfortunate reality of life is that sometimes we are placed in situations where we need to defend ourselves with deadly force, and the law allows it. Having the best tool for the job is always smart. Guns are no exception.

We already have laws in place to punish people that misuse guns or own them illegally. Why isn't this sufficient? The idea of preemptive prosecution is the most slippery of slopes.

Almost anything can be abused or misused. People sniff glues and paints.. are we banning those? Cars kill way more people than gun murders, and there are instances where the car was purposefully used as a weapon. Are we banning those? No.

Logically, we should not ban guns because a handful of people misuse them.

Logically, we should seek to ban the most dangerous things first.

Logically, we should learn from the mistakes of prohibition.

Logically, we shouldn't allow bans on anything that gets a popular vote, whether it's gay marriage or guns. Ban one, ban all.

Sadly enough, it seems logic often eludes people in this discussion. Behind every gun control/prohibition advocate, you'll find an argument with selective statistics taken out of context, used to instill fear and illicit an emotional response. That is very dangerous, and it seems to be working.

When faced with a threat to your life, would you rather be armed or unarmed?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 1:19 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

We'll never stop people from murdering each other. Yet, murder is still illegal in most countries. No one seems to have a problem with that.

We allow our government to control a lot of dangerous things. Weapons are one of them. Some are available to the general public, some are not. Most do not have a problem with this because it is a reasonable thing to do.

The reason we don't ban cars is because cars help us get from one place to another. Glues are designed to adhere things together, and paints coat surfaces in various colors. Unlike guns, these things are not designed to kill. This is obvious. It is not reasonable to group all things together and argue they should all either be banned or not. We can discriminate and say that Item A is more dangerous to society than Item B. I shouldn't have to be explaining this.

When faced with trying to go about your daily life peacefully, would you rather everyone around you be armed or unarmed?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Cars are used for transportation. Glue is used to glue. Guns are used for self defense and home protection. I think that is quite important.

Anon hit the nail on the head - Leftists use emotions, rather than logic, to make decisions.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 1:55 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"When faced with trying to go about your daily life peacefully, would you rather everyone around you be armed or unarmed?"

What would I like? In a fantasy land non-existent utopia, we would like everyone to be unarmed. No guns, knives, rocks, sticks, fists, feet, and we also wouldn't want psychotic killers walking around either. Oh well. Question is irrelevant since that can never, ever happen.

As such, I would rather be armed and able to defend myself against a deranged person than be a helpless nancy waiting for someone to rescue me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"Guns are used for self defense and home protection. I think that is quite important."

Well, except for when they're used for massacring innocent people. I don't believe that's been something that cars or glue have been used for lately, but maybe I've just missed those particular headlines.

"Leftists use emotions, rather than logic, to make decisions."

Gee, I guess all scientists must be right-wingers then. Had no idea.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 2:23 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

It is funny how you pick and choose little points to respond to, yet you never respond to the questions to which the only logical answer would go against the leftist, anti-gun stance.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 9, 2013 at 2:41 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Ilk, would you care to estimate the percentage of private firearms used in crimes?

Perhaps a more accurate statement for JM to have made would have been 'The overwhelming majority of privately owned firearms are never used in crimes but are used for other purposes like self defense and home protection.'

I don't think anyone is blind to the fact that there are bad actors out there that should not have access to firearms and who should be punished for their crimes, but it seems there are people who are so shocked by criminal misuse that they think proper use should be banned as well. How does that make sense?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 2:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Nothing gives you the right to ask loaded questions designed to substantiate your argument. And I reserve the right to respond or not respond to anything I wish.

I'm not advocating for a generalized firearm ban in the United States. While I think it might be a good idea, I don't think it's realistic. I'm also not advocating for a repeal of the Second Amendment, although part of me thinks I should, because I believe the original intent is no longer relevant.

Here's what I am advocating for, because I think gun violence is a problem in the U.S. and these two things are reasonable and practical solutions to that problem:

1. Reinstate the Federal ban on assault weapons. Ban military-style "tactical" semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity magazines.

2. Pass Federal legislation to close the "gun show loophole" and require background checks on the same of all firearms and ammunition anywhere in the U.S.

JeanMarc, if you want to make any progress in an argument, you need to drop the diviside left/right rhetoric. Stop classifying people based on their positions on one particular issue, and stop generalizing about what those made-up classes think.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"Ilk, would you care to estimate the percentage of private firearms used in crimes?"

No, benz, I don't care to "estimate" a statistic.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 3:07 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Ilk I do agree completely about the gunshow loophole, that always confounded me. Background checks for weapons of course, but for ammo? That is a hassle and pointless since ammo is not marked, anyone could buy it for their buddies.

I would like to know your reasoning for banning "military style" assault weapons. Rifles, all rifles, not just "military style" rifles, only accounted for something like 3.6% of all gun deaths in this country. Wouldn't it make more sense to regulate the guns that actually cause the problems?

This is an example of my emotion vs. logic argument. Why ban the weapon that accounts for 3.6% of gun crime? Because it looks scary and is associated with a few well-publicized deaths. That does not make sense to me.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm glad we agree on the gunshow loophole. Yes, background checks are a hassle, but they exist to keep us safe. They're not pointless if they reduce the total number of bullets available.

We do already regulate the guns that cause most of the problems, handguns. Other than stricter regulations and stricter enforcement for non-compliance with those regulations, I don't know what else can be done. But keep in mind the Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT massacres. These were done with "military style" assault weapons that make it much easier for an assailant to injure or kill greater numbers of people than they could with a handgun. In my opinion, these weapons are far more than adequate for protecting one's home. It's simply too much power for the public to have. That's why I want them banned again.

No one here is making any arguments based solely on emotion. Not me, and probably not the few who feel they need a gun in their home because they're so scared of the scary robbers...

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 9, 2013 at 3:45 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Ilk, is there a reason that you believe strict enforcement of the current laws would not provide the improvement you are seeking?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 3:49 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

benz, it would not provide the improvement I'm seeking because the improvement I'm seeking is two new laws: assault weapons ban and gun show loophole ban. But sure, stricter handgun regulation and enforcement is important too.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

A car that can go 100 mph is far too powerful and fast for the public to have.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 6:32 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Whether or not that's true, we do enforce speed limits, so I have no idea where you're taking that rather lame analogy.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 9, 2013 at 6:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

So let people have powerful guns and enforce the laws that prevent people from using them incorrectly.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'grinningsoul'

grinningsoul | January 9, 2013 at 7:11 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

The UK also has a major drinking problem. Add guns to the UK mix and you will see homicide rates go up. Why is imposing background checks at gun shows so reactionary? What does one possible need a gun for that they cannot wait for a background check? We banned the selling of fireworks on the corner to protect our homes and families, you'd think we could ban gun peddlers.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 9, 2013 at 7:13 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

People already have powerful guns. Handguns, shotguns, and rifles are already powerful enough to kill. The problem is that for some (like James Holmes and Adam Lanza and apparently you) those guns aren't powerful enough, and they need assault rifle power. In my opinion, we don't need that kind of power to protect our homes or fight off a tyrannical government (who, by the way, probably won't be deterred by our guns in the unlikely event they do whatever it is the Tea Party thinks they might do).

One way to reduce the severity of massacres is by reducing access to assault rifles, which have been demonstrated by Holmes, Lanza, and our military to be excellent tools of massacre. Therefore, enforcement of the status quo is not enough.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 9, 2013 at 8:38 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JEAN MARK, you have it all backwards. It is you the conservatives, and the ultra conservatives the feed off of emotions, whether it one of our many imperialist wars abroad, drumming up the local jingoism or the rabid ethnocentrism and Nativism toward the immigrant, regardless of their status. The on-demand abortion issue too, (which I happen to oppose but for different reasons than the Religious Right), always trying to shock the fence-sitter off the fence with emotion. Or this gun issue, desperately and feverishly wrapping themselves around the flag (or is it the other way around?) for an anachronistic cause.

If that's not emotion, I don't know what is.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 10, 2013 at 7:39 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Which one of the crimes mentioned above was committed by a firearm that was bought by the criminal at a gun show? Would Adam Lanza and James Holmes have failed background checks and been denied the ability to purchase weapons? As far as I can tell, neither had a criminal record (though there is lots of confusing information on the web). In what way do you envision background checks at gunshows having an effect on either of these crimes?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I don't need a more powerful gun to defend my home. I just want one for fun. Why can't I have one? I am not going to break the law. Shooting big guns is fun. Just like putting the pedal to the metal in a powerful car is fun.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 9:48 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

It is a slippery, dangerous slope when the government starts playing the role of parent and deciding what I need and don't need.

You don't need a gun this powerful.
You don't need all that sugary soda.
You don't need the right to gather peacefully.
You don't need freedom of speech.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Outside2view'

Outside2view | January 10, 2013 at 11:14 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Message to all the advocates out there for keeping the status quo or loosening restrictions on current gun control rules:

LOGIC dictates that if all things remain equal, results are predictably going to be the same.

So not changing current practice predictably means that the massacres of the past will continue to occur in the future.

In which case gun deaths should make as much news as cancer because statistically as predictable.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 11:46 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Outside2view correct. So lets do something that will make a difference: find ways to detect and treat psychopathic mass murderers before they go on a rampage.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 11:47 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"In what way do you envision background checks at gunshows having an effect on either of these crimes?"

The assault weapons ban would be better at preventing massacres, but closing the gun show loophole would be better at reducing the overall amount of guns. Both are important changes.

"I don't need a more powerful gun to defend my home. I just want one for fun. Why can't I have one? I am not going to break the law. Shooting big guns is fun. Just like putting the pedal to the metal in a powerful car is fun."

Nancy Lanza apparently shared this very same sentiment. So you like to shoot big guns. Good for you. But you need to remember you're not the only one living in this country. Sure, one responsible individual may not contribute any individual problems, but one of millions of individuals certainly will. Maybe we should think about having the most powerful guns only available to the public within self-contained shooting ranges?

"It is a slippery, dangerous slope when the government starts playing the role of parent and deciding what I need and don't need."

Not really. You just see it that way.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 11:49 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"So lets do something that will make a difference: find ways to detect and treat psychopathic mass murderers before they go on a rampage."

I agree, we absolutely need to reform our mental health care system in order to prevent any potentially violent behavior in anyone. But that's not to say we can't enact stricter gun control legislation simultaneously.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

It is incomprehensible to me how anyone could not think it is dangerous for the government to take on a parental role. I just... I am speechless.

I will leave us with this quote by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 12:16 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

And I guess if the people fear the people, more guns should help.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 12:21 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JeanMarc, you yourself have admitted that you think required background checks for weapon sales are a good idea. If I may assume you would characterize that as a "parental" role by the government, then you are being logically inconsistent when you say now that it is "dangerous" for the government to do so.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 10, 2013 at 12:31 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

“The assault weapons ban would be better at preventing massacres, but closing the gun show loophole would be better at reducing the overall amount of guns. Both are important changes.”
I am skeptical that your proposed ban would prevent massacres, though we can discuss it. What really does not follow is that requiring background checks at gun shows would in any way reduce the number of firearms. Is it the intent to make the background check so onerous that people will stop demanding guns and manufacturers will stop making them? If not, how is the number of guns going to be in any way reduced?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 12:46 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Presently, 17 states regulate private firearm sales at gun shows. Seven states require background checks on all gun sales at gun shows (California, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Oregon, New York, Illinois and Colorado). Four states (Hawaii, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania) require background checks on all handgun, but not long gun, purchasers at gun shows. Six states require individuals to obtain a permit to purchase handguns that involves a background check (Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Iowa, Nebraska). Certain counties in Florida require background checks on all private sales of handguns at gun shows. The remaining 33 states do not restrict private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows in any manner.

Were these 33 states to begin restricting private, intrastate sales of firearms at gun shows, it follows that the total number of guns sold would decline. Of course, this is assuming that all other factors are controlled for (e.g. people that would pass background checks aren't so incensed by the new restrictions that they all rush out to buy new guns, driving sales up).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 1:35 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

But why would requiring background checks at gunshows reduce the number of guns sold? Do you think a large portion of people who buy guns at gun shows wouldn't pass a background check? A background check wouldn't (and didn't) stop me from buying guns.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 10, 2013 at 1:44 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I was going to ask two questions but JM beat me to one of them. The other is, even if there are fewer private sales, how does that reduce the number of firearms. Private sales only transfer them, not create them.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 1:45 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I think it's safe to assume that a portion of guns sold at shows without background checks were sold to individuals who would not have been able to pass background checks in states where they are required. Requiring background checks everywhere would stop this, and therefore reduce the total number of guns sold. It's really not that difficult to understand.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

benz, when I talk about reducing the number of firearms, I mean reducing the number in people's hands, in their homes, on the streets. The number of guns "in use." I don't mean reducing the number that are sitting in boxes at Walmart or the manufacturer's warehouse shelves.

I have no idea how to approach a discussion about controlling manufacturing, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 10, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

The explanation “a portion of guns sold at shows without background checks were sold to individuals who would not have been able to pass background checks in states where they are required. Requiring background checks everywhere would stop this, and therefore reduce the total number of guns sold”
does not lead to the conclusion “closing the gun show loophole would be better at reducing the overall amount of guns”
One statement addresses the number of times guns are privately transferred, the other the total number in existence (presumably intended to be read as ‘privately owned in the US).
To ‘reduce the overall amount of guns’ would require you to separate them from their owners and destroy them. There are buyback programs that do this, but restricting sales cannot logically accomplish that stated goal (which I happen to think is the wrong to begin with).

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 3:12 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Again, when I say "overall amount of guns" I'm only talking about the amount of guns in people's possession. Guns sold to an individual, transferred for money, same difference. Unless they're melted down, guns never go away. However, ammunition, once spent, is gone forever. Maybe that's a better thing to control, then.

And I guess you're right, it wouldn't reduce the number of guns, only reduce the rate at which more are being sold. Good enough. After all, the objective is ultimately to stop people from being shot.

And let's not forget that reducing the rate of gun ownership is just one use of the background check. They also prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. That is another means toward the objective.

Since you don't agree with my stated goal to reduce the rate at which guns are being put into our hands, homes, and streets, why are you even bothering to be a pedantic hair-splitter over my own means to an end in the first place? Simply state what changes you'd like to see and why.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 3:56 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I would like to see looser regulations in california so it is not impossible for me to get fun guns. That is one change.

Another change I would like to see that would address the issue of gun violence (gun control won't do this) is mental health support, and family support. I bet most shootings are from gang members shooting other gang members. How many of these kids know who their father is? The root of the problem is a lack of family involvement. Parents not around, or parents not involved in their childs life enough to notice that they have become a psychotic killer.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 4:43 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

No one in the world has ever shot someone because they didn't know who their dad was. My suggestion to you is to enjoy the thrill of loud noises from your super fun guns, and leave the thinking to others.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'EC_Mom'

EC_Mom | January 10, 2013 at 5:47 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Law abiding citizens should always have the right to purchase guns. I don't believe that anyone, including those who hunt, needs an automatic or semi-automatic guns that shoot out a ridiculous number of rounds per minute.

We need to form good laws. Start with requiring a license to purchase a gun. Part of the licensing requirement would be a gun safety course and a passing grade on a test. A thorough background check could be done from the time the application is made to the time the license (with photo) is issued. All gun dealers, including those at gun shows, would be prohibited from selling a firearm to anyone who does not have the license.

A law should also be passed that would make it a crime,- with a significant prison term, if someone allows a gun to fall into the hands of a child and the worst occurs.

Finally, revamp the mental health laws in the State of California.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 10, 2013 at 5:50 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Ilk - The majority of shootings that happen are little thugs having gang fights, not crazy kids going on shoot rampages. Most shootings are committed by gang members with hand guns. Why do children grow up to be degenerate criminals? They have no example in their life, like a father, to guide them.

EC_Mom - basically everything you stated is already a law. The only pertinent thing you said was revamp the mental health system/laws.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 10, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JeanMarc, you're now no longer talking about gun control, you're talking about morality. And no, not everything she stated is a law. In 33 states, you can purchase a gun without a license. Pay attention.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 11, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Why am I trying to clarify how your intended proposal affects the stated problem? Because additional restrictions will be placed on me. If they are not actually going to accomplish their purpose then they should not be issued or enforced. More insidiously, if the actual purpose is other than the stated purpose I don’t want to allow that agenda to advance.
What changes would I like to see?
1)Strict and lethal enforcement of capital crimes, especially those involving firearms.
2)Shall issue for concealed carry for citizens who can pass three basic hurdles (criminal background check, mental health check, demonstrate safe operation of their firearm)
3)Cessation of exclusion zones for places that do not provide armed protection.

I believe that in order to reduce violence in general, and gun violence in particular, the consequences of being ‘the bad guy’ should be very painful and criminals should be perpetually concerned that they are going to be facing armed citizens.

I generally disagree with ‘argument by quotation’ but I believe the sentiment contained in this one is appropriate. Si vis pacem, para bellum.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 11, 2013 at 10:32 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"I would like to see looser regulations in california so it is not impossible for me to get fun guns. That is one change."

Why, do yo have a police record?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 11, 2013 at 10:58 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

No idea about him, but I can't bring my AR15 into the state and I'm on active duty without a hint of a record. There are some really restricitve policies here.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 11, 2013 at 11:22 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm so sorry for your inconvenience, benz. Life in San Diego sure can be tough, can't it? Hope you're able to adequately defend yourself from the relentless onslaught of threats to your well being that you will most certainly face today without your AR15.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 11, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Ilk, sarcasm is unbecoming. You have demonstrated the ability to think rationally and express yourself well. If you have a good reason why you think I shouldn’t be allowed use a rifle I have demonstrated competence with go ahead and state it. We shouldn’t let this discussion degenerate into a name-calling exercise.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 11, 2013 at 12:54 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I'm not confident that your ability to demonstrate competence with your weapon and pass a background check would guarantee that the weapon itself would never be used in the way we don't want it to be used. We both know that James Holmes and Nancy Lanza, for example, purchased their rifles legally. But as a preventative measure, background checks are one of the best ideas we have.

Like I said, I also think that maybe we should have the most powerful guns only available to the public within self-contained shooting ranges? Keep the military-style guns and ammunition on military-style "bases." As a civilian, you have no reason to take a gun like that into a densely populated public space.

I would also like to make sure you or anyone else permitted to own an assault rifle could not also use a high-capacity magazine. Unless you're facing an army of hundreds of equally-armed enemies intent on killing you, I fail to see how it is reasonable. If you've got a reason to own one of those, I'd like to hear it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 11, 2013 at 1:08 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

It seems to me like you're completely unwilling to acknowledge any sort of dangerous externalities associated with owning what is essentially a killing machine. As noble as they may be, I'm not overly concerned with your reasons for owning one, because it's not all about you. If something goes wrong, people lose their lives. And that's going to become increasingly likely in this country if we don't do something to better control our guns.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 11, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Owning a firearm is a responsibility and there are people who shouldn't be allowed to own them. That is a different statement altogether than no one should be allowed to. Sometimes invaders don’t work alone. There was a recent case in GA where a woman shot an intruder 5 times with a revolver and he ran away. Had he been working with a partner she and her 9 year olds may not have fared so well.
Q.v. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257966/Paul-Ali-Slater-Intruder-shot-times-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html

Like for any important job, I want to use the best tool available. If I have to kill someone I would rather have spare magazine capacity than run out. Wouldn't you?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 11, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"Like for any important job, I want to use the best tool available. If I have to kill someone I would rather have spare magazine capacity than run out. Wouldn't you?"

Sure, but wouldn't an armed robber feel the same way? The story you linked to didn't mention the suspect being armed, but if I wanted to, I could dig up plenty of stories about armed home invasions in which the resident(s) did not, in fact, fare so well.

This guy was an ex-con from Georgia. Know where ex-cons can buy guns in Georgia? Gun shows.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 11, 2013 at 3:34 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Missionaccomplished no, I do not have a police record. What I am talking about is restrictions like I am limited to a 10 round magazine, I cannot have a normal magazine release button, among many other annoying restrictions placed on me that any criminal could overcome in 5 minutes.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 11, 2013 at 3:36 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

I have a good reason for owning a powerful gun with a high capacity magazine: because I want to and I will never us it illegally.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon1'

Anon1 | January 12, 2013 at 1:48 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

This whole argument boils down to the acknowledgement of the inevitability of tragedy, and how to cope on a societal level.

Whether it's a shooting, or a deadly pile-up on the highway, or a bunch of backyard swimming pool drownings, we have to accept that bad things happen and we can never completely prevent this.

The choice we are left with is: How much of our liberties will we willingly give up in order to even attempt to become more secure? We are often not given the full context of the "problem", so very often an educated solution is near impossible to achieve.

(For example, when faced with the fact that most gun murders are committed with handguns, most gun control advocates divert the argument towards the 'mass' shootings. It's a tactic that distracts from the greater argument of sensible policy, with all variables considered.)

If we can't have an honest, open discussion about the realities of the world, we aren't going to move forward. Almost everything in life can be misused and abused. Risk assessment is something we instinctively do every day. When you choose to get in your car, you understand the risk. But would we ever ban cars, knowing the value they hold for us as a free society? Of course not, because we accept the idea that people can die in accidents as an unintended consequence of being able to travel so efficiently. We seek to reduce the number of accidents, but we know we can never prevent them all.... Can you see the parallels?

This ideology can be traced back to segregation, and more recently to the ban on gay marriage. A majority legislating their morality, forcing their beliefs on others. I still struggle with how people are STILL applying this logic to issues concerning our wonderful American freedoms. I mean, it's the 2nd amendment in our country's founding document. How can you seriously dispute that right, or discriminate against people who have chosen to exercise it?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 13, 2013 at 10:15 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

" I mean, it's the 2nd amendment in our country's founding document. How can you seriously dispute that right, or discriminate against people who have chosen to exercise it?"

Because guns have changed significantly since 1791, and the vast majority of people exercising that right are not seeking to form a well-regulated militia, but wish instead to protect their homes and entertain themselves with their toys.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon1'

Anon1 | January 13, 2013 at 12:04 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

The constitution doesn't have an expiration date.

Would you make the argument that free speech doesn't apply to tv or radio, because those technologies didn't exist then? Of course not. Because the core concept exists, despite the lack of technological advent.

That's the point of having broad rights and freedoms; to preserve the core concept. The core concept of the 2nd amendment was a guarantee to the American citizen a right to arm themselves against potential oppressors.

"...the vast majority of people exercising that right are not seeking to form a well-regulated militia, but wish instead to protect their homes and entertain themselves with their toys."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

Don't hate me for my freedoms!

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'llk'

llk | January 13, 2013 at 1:51 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"Would you make the argument that free speech doesn't apply to tv or radio, because those technologies didn't exist then? Of course not. Because the core concept exists, despite the lack of technological advent."

That's a pretty flawed analogy to draw because unlike modern guns, modern free speech doesn't make it easier to kill people, and you know it.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'OCB'

OCB | January 13, 2013 at 3:12 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

What a ridiculous headline. The headline could easily be tens of thousands attend del mar gun show. The facts is in 2011 31 people w3re murdered with semi automatc guns and 431 people were murdered with hammers. Do we ban hammers? Of course not. 35000 people were killed in. Car accidents, many because people broke the law and were drinking, speeding, texting. Cars kill more than guns because of irresponsible people, we don't ban cars. Of course hammers and cars are not rights......

Then there is Peking, who is entitled to their opinion, but is is it arrogant for him to tell everyone else who hasn't broken the law how to live? Is Peking smarter than Washington, Adams and Jefferson?

s long as we are concerned with protecting life, as we should be, what is America doing to protect unborn babies: 390,000 unborn babies were murdered at planned parenthood last year. Like the Sandy Hook first graders these. Unborn babies that were murdered will never go to prom, never get kissed, never learn to drive, never go to college. What are we doing to protect these 390,000 thousand?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 13, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Sin of omission BENZ, why am I NOT surprised. The article link clearly states that he fell to the floor, and was able to get up and reach his car which was parked OUTSIDE THE VICTIMIZED HOME.

He did NOT "run away" as you scribble.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 13, 2013 at 6:50 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

OCB how did you vote on Prop 19?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Anon1'

Anon1 | January 13, 2013 at 7:18 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

"That's a pretty flawed analogy to draw because unlike modern guns, modern free speech doesn't make it easier to kill people, and you know it."

The analogy holds true in the fact that modern forms of communication allow free speech to be heard faster and farther than ever.

Also, I am unsure how to measure 'ease of kill', and I am sure that no such criteria exists in either the constitution or in any modern gun restrictions. The 'ease of kill' with a shotgun can be higher than a semi-automatic rifle, depending on distance and ammo type, so how do you plan on implementing such a broad criteria into gun control legislation? You really can't... and that's why it's a pointless argument for you to make in the first place.

Plus, you ignored all my other points to focus on a single part. Please address the entirety of my posts, as total context is essential to a completely honest and thought-out debate.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 14, 2013 at 11:12 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Missionaccomplished why do you keep asking everyone how they voted on prop 19? Did you like my answer to your question?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 14, 2013 at 3:56 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

To see if their arguments are CONSISTENT. Why else? Anyone who argues against gun bans because "criminals" will get them anyway and then turns around and wants to throw everyone in jail for smoking pot (i.e. voted against Prop 19), is being inconsitent and intellecutally dishonest. They have no credibility. Kinda like the pro-nuclear power conservative who argues that no one has been killed yet is rabidly anti-drug.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 14, 2013 at 6:29 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

JEANMARK, back up your statement that most shootings are "little thugs having gun fights." Do you seriously think these "little thugs" even know where to acquire such firearms?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 15, 2013 at 8:03 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Sorry if you didn't like my paraphrasing MA, not trying to hide anything but be succinct. The point of the comment was intended to be that putting 5 shots from a medium caliber pistol into an intruder (armed with a crowbar) is no guarantee that it will be incapacitating. Furthermore, after emptying her revolver into this intruder (with an 83% hit rate) she had no more ability to fend off a further attack had there been one. Do you not consider this relevant to the discussion?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 15, 2013 at 8:04 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

“That's a pretty flawed analogy to draw because unlike modern guns, modern free speech doesn't make it easier to kill people, and you know it”

Ilk, this argument is getting pretty far afield, but I believe that if you think about what can be found with Google, what is on Wikipedia and how any action (including offensive ones) can be coordinated through mobile communications you will see that modern free speech does make it easier to kill people.
That being said, it is still a very worthwhile principle whose benefits outweigh these unfortunate side effects.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'JeanMarc'

JeanMarc | January 15, 2013 at 3:51 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

benz72 I appreciate your consistent voice of reason and sound logic here.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | January 15, 2013 at 8:05 p.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

BENZ, relevance wasn't the issue with your post. The way you described it was like-- Iron Man took five slugs and simply turned and ran away. Never once did you mention that he was severely wounded, had fallen to the floor, and that he got no further than his car parked outside the victimized house.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'benz72'

benz72 | January 16, 2013 at 7:06 a.m. ― 1 year, 8 months ago

Sorry you didn't like my wording MA. Would 'still able to take action, the intruder attempted to flee' be better? The point of the statement is to show that the shots were not immediately incapacitating, that her cylinder was empty (which would require several seconds to reload) and that there could easily have been a requirement for more shots had he moved towards her rather than away.
Would you care to address the rephrased statement in light of proposed magazine capacity restrictions?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Joe6Pack'

Joe6Pack | March 11, 2013 at 8:53 a.m. ― 1 year, 6 months ago

Rosanne Holliday should do more to fight the drugs the kids are on that are the crux of the problem.

( | suggest removal )