Comment on Entry: Open Post on Guns, authored by pudge
1. BTW, I know that Obama nominated someone to be the ATF Director a couple of years ago, but neither Obama nor the Democrats in the Senate pushed for hearings, and they never happened. If Leahy and the Democrats in the Senate wanted hearings, they would have happened. If Obama pushed for them, they would have happened. They didn't because they didn't want it to happen, and he effectively became un-nominated silently, a long time ago.

Technically still the nominee, Obama acted today as if there was no nominee, instead promising to nominate the current acting director. Pay no attention to the nominee behind the curtain.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 09:23 AM
2. Obama is merely showing his inner dick-tator. As I said on a previous post; he strongly emulates Hugo Chavez and the Castro's.

Posted by KDS at January 16, 2013 09:53 AM
3. My last post was incomplete; this is only showing him in front of the curtain. It is strongly rumored that he is ready with up to 19 Executive orders, depending on what Congress does. That is when his inner dick-tator will show.

If that turns out to be nothing but bluster - that will be OK for the safety of the populace, for it will become clear that he is preoccupied by exploding the budget or some related expansion of Federal Government that is unconstitutional, just like a wannabe dick-tator.

Posted by KDS at January 16, 2013 10:00 AM
4. A whole lot of feel-good BS that will not do a damn thing to lower gun violence. Which BTW is already quite low as compared with the past, except for in Democrat controlled "gun-free" havens like Chicago.

This is about the same thing as it is with everything else Obama. Exert more control. Grow the state. Crush the individual. Crush self reliance and personal responsibility.

Obama wants to create a nation of helpless victims. And he is doing a very good job of that.

Posted by Leftover at January 16, 2013 10:40 AM
5. Also for some great entertainment on the gun hypocrisy of the idiots on the Left, see this video.

Note that many of the hypocrites who shriek hysterically about gun violence and try to limit those who use guns only for personal safety and defense, are protected by armed security teams.

Posted by Leftover at January 16, 2013 10:51 AM
6. Also, we should have more cops, apparently, because they stop gun crime ... although I guess he opposes guards in schools, because ... they don't stop gun crime in schools?

Armed school guards is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby. It's a matter of scale: massive costs for miniscule benefits.

Conservatively, if you assume that you'd hire at least one guard for every school for each of the 100,000 public schools in the US, the price tag would likely be AT LEAST $3-4 billion dollars per year total (or more for multiple guards).

If you're hiring this many people to protect against 30 to 40 deaths from school shootings per year, you're not getting much in the way of a benefit. $4 billion in spending on teen counseling to lower suicide rates or driver's education to lower accident rates would reduce the number of deaths more than armed guards could ever hope to do.

But that's not the only possible impact. If you have ANY appreciable increase in accidental gun deaths from having an extra 100,000 guns around kindergarteners, you've erased the benefit completely. Current rates are 0.2 per 100,000... if you were to increase that by even 5%, you'd be spending $4 billion for NO net lives saved.

And that's not even beginning to touch whether a security guard would be effective at preventing those 30 to 40 deaths per year. Didn't have much of an effect at Columbine, and some loser with a rifle could likely blow away a hometown hero with a pistol in no time flat. Additionally, most school shootings are single events -- one kid shoots another, and its all over quickly. How would security help with that, exactly?

Sensationalist news reporting and grandstanding by some NRA loser at a news conference shouldn't get in the way of rational policy discussions. This proposal might be good for gun manufacturers and out-of-work rent-a-cops, but not for actually addressing this problem.

But if it makes you feel any better, I don't think that banning "assault weapons" would make too much of a difference either.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 10:55 AM
7. "Doctor" Steve? demokid? Mike Boy Scout? tensor?

Can we get you to join in and put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your front yard? I assume you are all against gun violence and afraid that a loaded gun might go off in your house by itself, and therefore do not own any guns. This has to stop! Right?! Are you going to back that up? Or are you afraid that you might become a victim of a criminal who knows you are defenseless?

Posted by Leftover at January 16, 2013 11:00 AM
8. The entire gun control is a deliberate, political distraction away from the life or death situation facing our nation. Debt, deficits, spending and tax reform should dominate our national debate.

Special interests and the media shield Obama from having to defend his fiscal policies by pushing gun control.

Pudge, your blog post is part of the problem. Change the subject.

Posted by Paddy at January 16, 2013 11:09 AM
9. "Pudge, your blog post is part of the problem."

False.

"Change the subject."

No.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 11:23 AM
10. In the 1950s & 60s rural kids took guns to school during the hunting season. The teachers stood them in a corner. The kids picked them up at the end of the school day, and hunted on the way home.

No one got shot..... and as a matter of fact..... no one thought any thing about the practice.

My how things have changed!

If the, Liberals-Democrats-Anti-Gun, bunch were really serious about curbing gun violence in our society there are two obvious places to start.

1. The educational system needs to return to
teaching personal responsibility.

2. The entertainment industry badly needs
regulations to curb its Glorification and
Promotion of Gun Violence as the solution to
all of societies problems.

Everything else is Grandstanding.

Posted by Jim Wallace Jr. at January 16, 2013 11:42 AM
11. @10 - well stated !

Posted by KDS at January 16, 2013 12:31 PM
12. demokid: "Armed school guards is the single dumbest proposal..."

So remove them from Obama's kids school.

Posted by Art at January 16, 2013 12:36 PM
13. @7: Can we get you to join in and put a "Gun Free Zone" sign in your front yard? I assume you are all against gun violence and afraid that a loaded gun might go off in your house by itself, and therefore do not own any guns.

Wow... excuse the ad hominem personal attack here, but you're pretty damned stupid.

First, where have I said anything about heavy restrictions on gun owners? At best, I think that background checks are reasonable, but everything else is pointless. As far as I can tell, that doesn't restrict the right for you to own a gun, only to attempt to transfer one.

Second, by your argument, are you saying that you are FOR gun violence and NOT afraid that a loaded gun would go off in your house? Sounds pretty unsafe! Remind me not to accept an invitation for a dinner party.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 12:37 PM
14. @8: The entire gun control is a deliberate, political distraction away from the life or death situation facing our nation. Debt, deficits, spending and tax reform should dominate our national debate.

Just as abortion and union busting are "political distractions" used by the right.

But with respect to debt, deficits, spending, and tax reform, there's no objection to that. However, this is all simply just coalition politics on display. Republicans aren't going to go against their base constituents: rural folks, farm/resource companies, defense, the elderly, social conservatives, the rich, etc. Democrats aren't going to go against theirs, either: urban, poor, labour, social progressives, creatives, minority communities, etc. That's the true issue, not that the Republicans want to cut spending while the Democrats want to increase revenue.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 12:38 PM
15. @9: The educational system needs to return to teaching personal responsibility.

Until, of course, you object to the way that "personal responsibility" is being taught, or you don't like the way your child is being treated, and you complain to the school about your right to exclusively parent your child.

The entertainment industry badly needs regulations to curb its Glorification and Promotion of Gun Violence as the solution to all of societies problems.

So then, you are for the Second Amendment, but against the First?

And it isn't just the entertainment industry. When you have talking head after talking head idolizing and fetishizing guns as somehow protecting people's rights in accordance with the Founding Fathers' wishes, that's certainly "glorifying" and "promoting" guns.

It also isn't quite the "Liberals-Democrats-Anti-Gun" bunch that's always cheering for more violence in movies...

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 12:40 PM
16. Well, dumbo, I'm sure that you are equally upset with the president. After all, THAT waste of skin sends HIS kids to schools with armed security.

Can't have your fellow fringe-leftist nutjob engage in rank hypocrisy... again... can we?

Posted by hinton at January 16, 2013 01:04 PM
17. Liberals have come out today and said that the President's children are more important than ours.

So, it's okay for their school to be armed, but according to demokid it's "dumb" for other schools.

Posted by Art at January 16, 2013 01:15 PM
18. It certainly hasn't taken Obama long to give hapless, ignorant, low information liberals exactly what they were told they'd get. Where's that gun bragging Roger Rabbit??

Bueller? Bueller?

Congratulations on the tyranny YOU chose. Please refer back to Pastor Martin Niemoller.

Why Does the Anti-Gun Camp Need to Lie? **

Duh: 'Never let a crisis go to waste.'


In 1999, Obama wouldn't support tougher prosecution for school shooters **

OOPS.
Loud tyrant...er, LEFTY is spelled H Y P O C R I T E

Please sign the petition to keep Obama and his family safe by making the White House a gun-free zone **

OOPS.
Loud tyrant...er, LEFTY is spelled H Y P O C R I T E

The Purpose of the Second Amendment **

The 2nd Amendment Is What Makes The Other Nine Possible **

Less than One Percent of Deaths in 2011 Were Gun-Related **

America needs a national abortion registry **

Abortion is a very serious matter, and the "right to privacy" has been the law of the land since 1973. Yet that right only means a woman can have the procedure. There is no Constitutional right to secrecy.

Many people have serious moral objections to abortion. Others have serious moral objections to restricting it. Yet people on both sides of the issue can agree that values matter. Parents want to raise their children without having them corrupted. An abortion registry would help parents raise better children.


There is no Constitutional right to secrecy.

Yep it's time for FOIA requests, cameras and website postings of baby killers, baby killer enablers.

OOPS.
Loud tyrant...er, LEFTY is spelled H Y P O C R I T E

Obama Surrounds Himself With Children To Push Gun Control- Photos Show Hitler Used Kids Too **

Top 5 Movies: 65 Violent Scenes, 185 Victims **

Gun Control: Obama Declares War on Bitter Clingers, Hollywood Gets a Pass **

OOPS.
Loud tyrant...er, LEFTY is spelled H Y P O C R I T E

Only 28% of Americans Consider Gun Control a Top Priority, Despite MSNBC, CNN, and CBS Reporting Otherwise **

OOPS.
Loud tyrant...er, LEFTY is spelled E X P L O I T A T I O N

Actions:Consequences, lefties.

Yes, we conservatives will endure the same consequences but we are still better off than you: we KNEW they were coming. You were suckered. Congrats. Where can we contribute to your "I'm a FOOL" shirt fund?

**I know, I know: 'But, but that's a right winger site. I'm a loud lefty too ideologically narrow minded to read/believe THAT'. ... Hmmm, maybe their legal toking will help expand their closed minds.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 01:32 PM
19. I will soften my initial position a bit;

from: Obama is merely showing his inner dick-tator.

to: Obama is merely showing his inner monarch.
and wannabe king...

Whether its dick-tator or king - is insignificant it is about absolute control/power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely - Lord Acton, which will always ring
true.

Posted by KDS at January 16, 2013 01:37 PM
20. @17-VERIFIED: Slate Lib Matt Yglesias: Obama's Kids More Important Than Yours **

**I know, I know: But, but that's a right winger site. I'm a loud lefty too ideologically narrow minded to read/believe THAT

Founding Father, Constitution loving, thinking Americans, prepare to be sick to your stomach. Loud lefties, prepare to learn something ... if it's possible to penetrate your ideology with simple facts.

Thousands of Guns Confiscated & Destroyed in Australia Results in More Crime

Welcome to Obamamerica.

**!**

My son wrote an article today that gave me a kick:

You know the problem with the Presidency? The President thinks he has a serious job to do. So then he tries to do this imaginary job, and it just makes everyone worse off. You know the only part of Barack Obama's presidency he's gotten right? Playing golf and going on vacation. (Well, actually, Bobo actually HAS managed to screw it up given how much he absurdly spends on doing so. What the hell is wrong with Camp David, Barry?) Seriously. You can't screw up America while you're on the golf course. So just... stay there, OK? And give me your cell phone. No calling anybody. Just golf. Just keep golfing, OK? When you finish your 18 holes, play another 18. No no, the country will be fine - just, focus on the golf. FOCUS.

Anyway.

I have a really great idea guys.

We should elect a large, predatory cat to the office. You know, like a lion or a cheetah or something. It'd totally get voter support. I mean, who doesn't like cats? I honestly don't know why we don't.

It would just laze about in the Oval Office all day and eat anyone that comes in.

This would be perfect because, for anyone who wants anything from the federal government, we could just say, "Of course. Let me escort you to the President's office." And then we'd lock the door behind them and not open it until the screaming and begging for help stopped. Imagine how quickly we'd clean out the worst people in Congress! And those annoying special-interest lobbyists! The same goes for foreign diplomats (and foreign leaders!). Man, screw other countries. I'm sick of those assholes. How great would it be if like, President Mahmoud Pajamabottoms came to discuss American/Iranian relations and we just introduced him to the President who then ATE HIM ALIVE. Plus, you know, whenever we had something to say to another country, we could just put the President on the television who would simply ROAR very menacingly.

And, of course, since it can't speak English and lacks the opposable thumbs necessary to sign bills into law, the American people get left alone. Which is awesome.

We could save a lot of money on transport, because there'd be no reason whatsoever for the President to leave the Oval Office. Similarly, it wouldn't need expensive security details because, well... lion.

Yea, there's the whole Constitutional issue of it in Article 2. "No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible..." But, think of how it would appease PETA (and all the other "animals rights" nutballs) if we started recognizing man-eating lions as people. We could be all like, "Hey, he's just like Aslan."

They'd probably fall for that, not realizing the Jesus parallels...

Liberals are so stupid.

Also, they'd protect him because he's endangered.

All in all, it'd be pretty awesome because eventually people would wise up and realize that it's a bad idea to go to the President for things. Because you get eaten. Then they'd start figuring stuff out on their own.

Maybe a puma. A puma could work.

I would give total support to Vice President Grizzly Bear.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 01:50 PM
21. More Guns = Less Crime

As far as the upcoming debt limit issue is concerned, you Republicans should just remove the debt limit entirely from the Federal government. Let them run-up whatever tab they want, then you can use the disaster created by such an act to campaign against the Dems in 2014.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at January 16, 2013 01:53 PM
22. @21: More Guns = Less Crime

Both gun ownership rates and crime have been declining in recent years. (Save for recently, when gun nutters have been scooping up what guns they can.)

As far as the upcoming debt limit issue is concerned, you Republicans should just remove the debt limit entirely from the Federal government.

Again, the debt ceiling doesn't control how much is approved to be borrowed in the budget, merely how much debt is issued to cover existing obligations.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 02:00 PM
23. @18/20: Man, if you were an employee of mine, I'd fire you immediately for wasting everyone's time. Can't you say in a sentence what you tried to get out with all of these links and logorrhea?

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 02:04 PM
24. But hey, I have to tweak a "low information voter" when I can... :)

@18: Yes, we conservatives will endure the same consequences but we are still better off than you: we KNEW they were coming. You were suckered. Congrats. Where can we contribute to your "I'm a FOOL" shirt fund?

So you link to a statement about taxes that is... true? In an attempt to make OTHER people look like a fool? Can you show me tax increases on folks earning less than $250k lately?

I know, I know: 'But, but that's a right winger site. I'm a loud lefty too ideologically narrow minded to read/believe THAT'.

And you're idealogically "broad minded"? :) Hardly. If you're not taking the arguments of a highly partisan website with a big grain of salt -- even those that you agree with -- how are you "high information"?

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 02:14 PM
25. Demokid @ 13:

California and Illinois require transfers of all firearms to go through an FFL. Face to face is not allowed; you must sell through a store and fill out a NICS report.

Interesting to note that these two states also have the highest levels of firearm violence...

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 16, 2013 02:19 PM
26. Both gun ownership rates and crime have been declining in recent years.

Are you insane, delusional or just too invested in your own paper thin narrative?

Americans Buy Enough Guns in Last Two Months to Outfit the Entire Chinese and Indian Armies
Monday, January 14, 2013

Gun sales jump with Obama's reelection

California gun sales jump; gun injuries, deaths fall

Gun sales jump on Obama re-election
Some fear president will restrict ownership

Gun Manufacturer Stocks Jump 10% Day After Obama's Reelection

Gun Sales, Permit Applications Jump In Florida

60 percent of young Americans plan to purchase firearms, study reveals

Gun Stores Sell Out of AR-15s

Las Vegas gun stores selling out as nation debates gun control

Gun Frenzy: Stores Across The Nation Are Selling Out

Gun show vendors are selling out in Fargo

Gun enthusiasts pack shows to buy assault weapons

Gun Frenzy: Photos Show How Quickly Stores Across the Nation Are Selling Out: "Lines Out the Door"

Black Friday Gun Sales Set A Record, FBI Data Indicates

FBI gun background checks hit record highs

Ammunition sells out
Retailers across the country have seen their shelves stripped bare of ammunition.Ammunition sells out
Retailers across the country have seen their shelves stripped bare of ammunition.

re: 23 & 24 - Thanks!

Can you show me tax increases on folks earning less than $250k lately?

Search it. One of many laughing at the hapless loud, lefty, low information voters:

Liberal Rubes Shocked To Find Less Money In Their Paychecks"

Obama supporters shocked, angry at new tax increases

And you're idealogically {sic}** "broad minded"?

** One of your fellow loud lefty's has appointed himself grammar police. I suggest you check with him.

I'm honest about it. I don't whine when loud lefty's post their sites. I've offered to post all the sites I read daily in hope that the loud lefties will do the same. There is a huge discrepancy in FACTS. I believe the lefty sites are dishonest with FACTS and opinions by sins of OMISSION.

The FACT that you think people are buying fewer guns is anecdotal but compelling proof.

And BTW, you are free to bypass my posts. I almost wish you would... but you are too darn easy to mock and disprove.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 02:38 PM
27. "...the debt ceiling doesn't control how much is approved to be borrowed in the budget, merely how much debt is issued to cover existing obligations."

Demo kid,

If we raise the debt ceiling, the House and Senate will borrow and spend up to the new level. I suggest we simply abolish the limit and let these bastards (Dems and Reps) sink in their own greedy stench.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at January 16, 2013 02:39 PM
28. I believe the lefty sites are dishonest with FACTS and opinions by sins of OMISSION.

Viral Video Points Out Media Discrepancies in Sandy Hook Shooting

With over 8 million views on YouTube, this video points out the conflicting media reports about the details of the Sandy Hook Shooting.

What do you think? Is the confusion surrounding the reporting just that? Or is there something bigger at work here?


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 02:45 PM
29. RE 27 - One of the best articles I read today:

How Increasing Spending Counts As A Spending Cut

Here's how to lose 5 pounds in a week the Washington D.C. way. First, set a goal to gain 10 pounds in a week. Let's say, by the end of the week, you've only gained 5. Congratulations, you just lost 5 pounds in a week's time.
Some people like to compare Washington's spending cut claims to not going on lavish vacations. Here's A. Barton Hinkle of Reason:

"Plan a month-long vacation to Disneyland and budget $20,000 for the trip. Then don't go. Presto! You just 'cut' your family budget by 20 grand."

No one would take a person seriously if he was claiming to lose weight or slash his budget by cutting proposed increases as in the above examples. These are absolutely absurd, but this is not at all an exaggeration when it comes to politicians in Washington claiming that they "cut" spending.


Uh oh.
Tax cheat Timmy let the cat out of the bag

"The U.S. government makes approximately 80 million separate payments per month. These include payments for Social Security; Supplemental Security Income; Medicare; Medicaid; national security needs, including military salaries, military retirement, veterans' benefits, and defense contractors; income tax refunds; federal employee salaries and retirement; law enforcement and operation of the justice system; unemployment insurance; disaster relief; goods and services sold to the government under contracts with small and large businesses; and many others. If Congress does not act to extend borrowing authority, all of these payments would be at risk. This would impose severe economic hardship on millions of individuals and businesses across the country." (emphasis added)

So, according to Geithner's own words, Social Security payments are not derived from savings. No, they have to be borrowed just like any other expense.

Social Security is bankrupt. So is the government. Geithner is advising us to use to bury ourselves deeper in debt to make payments without a hint of a plan for a crash landing.

Inconvenient to the narrative, eh?

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 02:55 PM
30. @25: Interesting to note that these two states also have the highest levels of firearm violence...

And the second- and third-largest cities in the US. Correlation is not causation.

@26: Wow... you are not quite firing on all cylinders today, are you?

Are you insane, delusional or just too invested in your own paper thin narrative?

No... but as usual you just make yourself look stupid. Seems like a talent of yours.

First, you point to short-term increases in gun sales, but over the long term, gun ownership has been slowly dwindling while violent crime is on the decline.

Search it. One of many laughing at the hapless loud, lefty, low information voters:

What tax "increase"? It was a limited payroll tax holiday that expired. There was no vote to increase taxes on anyone. Not to mention, of course, that this was a temporary reduction that the Republicans opposed.

Certainly some people don't pay attention... but it doesn't seem as if they are only liberals.

** One of your fellow loud lefty's has appointed himself grammar police. I suggest you check with him.

I don't think so -- it was a spelling mistake, not a mistake of grammar. Forgive me for not checking for typos.

I'm honest about it. I don't whine when loud lefty's post their sites. I've offered to post all the sites I read daily in hope that the loud lefties will do the same. There is a huge discrepancy in FACTS. I believe the lefty sites are dishonest with FACTS and opinions by sins of OMISSION.

No, the problem is that it's all that you post. You're spamming the site, you're not offering your own well-reasoned opinion. I could be "honest" and line the comments section with quotes from the Huffington Post... but that doesn't make for interesting or insightful analysis.

Likewise, to assume that "lefty sites" are dishonest with facts is sometimes true... but to turn around and link to Breitbart and comparable "righty sites" and say that they are the "truth" is absurd.

The FACT that you think people are buying fewer guns is anecdotal but compelling proof.

Most of the sites that you're linking to are actually "anecdotal", funny enough. :)

However, gun ownership has actually been decreasing over time. See for example:

The Declining Culture of Guns and Violence in the United States

First, we are a less violent nation now than we've been in over forty years. In 2010, violent crime rates hit a low not seen since 1972; murder rates sunk to levels last experienced during the Kennedy Administration. Our perceptions of our own safety have shifted, as well. In the early 1980s, almost half of Americans told the General Social Survey (GSS) they were "afraid to walk alone at night" in their own neighborhoods; now only one-third feel this way.

...

Second, for all the attention given to America's culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows. Since 1973, the GSS has been asking Americans whether they keep a gun in their home. In the 1970s, about half of the nation said yes; today only about one-third do. Driving the decline: a dramatic drop in ownership of pistols and shotguns, the very weapons most likely to be used in violent crimes.

Simply put: crime is going down, gun ownership is going down (but with a sharp recent increase of gun sales, which is unrelated to both trends).

And BTW, you are free to bypass my posts. I almost wish you would... but you are too darn easy to mock and disprove.

And you're too darn easy to ridicule for making zero sense whatsoever.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 03:03 PM
31. What tax "increase"?

Did or did not every working American have their pay cut with their first paycheck of 2013?

You loud lefty's want it both ways. You call (whine, lie about) a cut in an increase a tax cut, but when taxes go back up - a situation Obama could have prevented, you refuse to acknowledge it.

H Y P O C R I T E
L I E S of OMMISSION

I will concede your long term gun ownership trend info based on the FBI chart (assuming its true).

As far as Gallup - well, let's just say if a polling organization or a doctor asked about my possible gun ownership, I would refuse to answer, tell them it's none of their business and/or lie.

I will also suggest that recent trends will change those FBI charts in the near future.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 03:36 PM
32. Many years ago, I watched as "60 Minutes" story about Louis L'Amour (SP?). L'Amour was a writer of western stories, and he tried to be very authentic with his prose. One of the scenes that was often portrayed in the movies was the cowboys shooting up the town. L'Amour stated this type of a scene was entirely a Hollywood fiction because most of the men of the town would have been Civil War (War Between the States) veterans, and they knew how to use guns in a threatening situation. Had a bunch of cowboys tried to "shoot up the town," L'Amour said "they would have been shot to pieces."

The cowboys may have had guns, but so did the townspeople.

Posted by Politically Incorrect at January 16, 2013 03:37 PM
33. Regarding the NRA ad that has caused so much angst on both the right and left.

I don't believe the ad just meant the girls Secret Service protection. Their school has armed guards as a matter of their own policy. Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak as does the private school lefty Brian Williams sends his kids.

Secondly, it takes unmitigated gall to whine about using the presidents children when today the president used children to announce his fiats. You can't have it both ways. His kids are not "more important" than mine or yours and NONE should be exploited for political purposes.

Thirdly, when the wealthy whiners and loud lefty's give up their armed protection, then they can act offended.

That said, the NRA ad is a web ad. If not for folks talking about it (yes, like me) I doubt many would have seen it.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 03:50 PM
34. Oh no! What's our committed loud lefty's to do in this horrendous betrayal of everything they hold sacred ... er, profane ... ???

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 03:56 PM
35. @33: Obama sends his kids to a school where armed guards are used as a matter of fact. The school, Sidwell Friends School in Washington, DC, has 11 security officers and is seeking to hire a new police officer as we speak as does the private school lefty Brian Williams sends his kids.

I don't really think that you're making a coherent point here.

First of all, what precisely did Obama do today that would prevent any schools that needed them from hiring guards?

Second, you're confusing the need for security in specific places with the need for security EVERYWHERE. If you have a school where there is much higher need for security staff, then by all means they should go for it! Metal detectors and armed guards at some troubled schools are necessary, and few would argue about that. In other cases, security staff have to keep journalists or eccentrics from mobbing a senator or celebrity's nine-year-old kid.

But is every single school in the country like that? As I mentioned above, if your only purpose is to stop school shootings and 30-40 kids die per year from that, what is the point? Spending $30,000 of local money so that Gomer Pyle can walk around the halls of James Madison High School in upstate Wisconsin is pointless, and just a means for the gun industry to sell an extra firearm or two. Unless there is a MASSIVE uptick in mass school shootings, that $3 billion is best spent elsewhere.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 04:28 PM
36. Who cares whether the guards are needed or not? Guards in every school would create a lot of jobs -- good jobs -- if it's not privatized.

If it's privatized -- forget it. I'm against some well connected douchebag making a lot of money when hiring poorly trained Nimnulls.

Posted by str8eight at January 16, 2013 04:40 PM
37. @31: You loud lefty's want it both ways. You call (whine, lie about) a cut in an increase a tax cut, but when taxes go back up - a situation Obama could have prevented, you refuse to acknowledge it.

He wasn't quite the only one that could have prevented it. Again, the Republicans were opposed to the payroll tax cut and also made no moves to include it in the fiscal cliff deal.

And I'm not speaking about anything else but a temporary holiday on payroll taxes. Again, there was no vote on increasing payroll taxes or income taxes. Heck, when Bush Junior doled out stimulus checks -- which had exactly the same rationale as the payroll tax holiday! -- there wasn't a hue and cry that he "increased taxes" because people didn't receive them the following year.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 04:42 PM
38. Ragnar and Demokid have veered off the post. Let's get back to the main post.

1. I do feel Pudge captured what Obama said and where he was too general and non-specific. Shame on Barack! This is despite the fact that Pudge didn't provide even a link to a transcript of what Obama said so one could compare.

2. On Obama's point 1, I do feel there is a need for expanding background checks, but also agree that private exchange between family members is too far. The question for Congress will be is where to draw that line that is farther than status quo, but not to the extreme described in Pudge's summary. Also, who is to say background checks have to be done by the government. The government can provide data, but these can be performed by private enterprises, like they are done for businesses everyday (like in hiring background checks).

3. On Obama's point 2, I agree that this is a pointless endeaver. How does one even write a law that then can be enforced. The minute you describe certain features, the manufacturers will change. Do we get into a case like Porn (i.e., I know it when I see it)? As far as limitation on clips, this is nonsense. I had a 22 semi-automatic when I was a kid. It could hold 18 standard size bullets in the tube. This was back in the 70's. I say instead, look at ammo sales. Track who is purchasing what and if someone purchases large quantities (and isn't a range, or expected to buy large quantities), then raise a flag. We restrict sudafed purchases, but not bullets. Hmmm?

4. On Obama's point #4, fully agree with what Pudge wrote. Barack, why even state it without any real definition of what you mean? Poor point, Barack.

Posted by tc at January 16, 2013 04:52 PM
39. demokid: Both gun ownership rates and crime have been declining in recent years. (Save for recently, when gun nutters have been scooping up what guns they can.)

I've seen this claim, and it's not well-established, for several reasons. It's based exclusively on polling data, and the question of "do you own a gun" is one of those that it's hard to get honest responses to. Many people I know would always just answer No, despite owning a gun. And in some places, like Chicago, you would be admitting to a crime.

Further, the data shows a lot of fluctuations, rather than a clear downward trend.

Note that the first big jump downward started around the time the sociopolitical war on guns really got going, when the government started actually banning the manufacture of certain guns. And then it comes up again as the disfavor started waning. So do the numbers come down because people didn't own guns, or because they didn't want to admit to owning guns? It's not clear, and it's unreasonable to assume.

And this should be pretty clear even from the data that it is unreliable. Does anyone really think that gun ownership dropped about 5 percent of households in one year, and gained it all back two years later? And doing that twice in the span of just a few years?

No. We know the data is unreliable. We cannot say gun ownership ever really dropped, not from this data.

Anyway, the point of "more guns = less crime" is more about gun rights, than actual increase in guns. It's both, of course, but the claim is more based on liberalization of gun rights: more rights to concealed carry, and so on.


As far as the upcoming debt limit issue is concerned, you Republicans should just remove the debt limit entirely from the Federal government.

False. This would be stupid.

That said, I won't discuss it further here, as it is off-topic.


Again, the debt ceiling doesn't control how much is approved to be borrowed in the budget, merely how much debt is issued to cover existing obligations.

True, but false. What the debt limit should do -- the part you left out -- is restrict what is spent. Not approved, but spent. And please do not believe the lie that allocation of funds requires those funds be spent. Paul Krugman keeps saying this, but it is utter bunk. If you want to have this discussion, though, prepare it for a different post, as it is off-topic here.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 05:09 PM
40. demokid: Armed school guards is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby. It's a matter of scale: massive costs for miniscule benefits.

If you mean armed school guards in every school, I agree that it is a bad idea, and while I won't bother analyzing your calculations, the principle is correct: we need to weigh cost versus benefit, and the cost is usually too high. Further, the federal government has no right to mandate schools have armed guards, and state government should leave that up to school districts.

But the way you state it -- "armed school guards" -- is not necessarily a bad idea at all. It depends on the school.

Of course, that is not my point. My point is simply that Obama said armed security reduces gun crime, which disagrees with the claim of many on the left that we shouldn't have armed security in schools because, well, guns are bad, mmmmmkay?


But that's not the only possible impact. If you have ANY appreciable increase in accidental gun deaths from having an extra 100,000 guns around kindergarteners, you've erased the benefit completely.

Yes, but that is extremely unlikely. It's not more guns, though it is more exposure of kids to guns, but assuming the guards are well-trained (a valid assumption for argument's sake), we don't have such deaths now when people, including children, are around armed security.


Current rates are 0.2 per 100,000... if you were to increase that by even 5%, you'd be spending $4 billion for NO net lives saved.

There's no way it would increase that much. That's nuts.


And that's not even beginning to touch whether a security guard would be effective at preventing those 30 to 40 deaths per year.

Again, it should be up to the school district to make that calculation.


This proposal might be good for gun manufacturers

Not really, no. Almost every hired guard would be using his own gun -- that is how the private security business works -- which most of the guard will already own: most people in the private security business already have a gun, and won't go out and buy one just for this job. I'd probably use my existing gun if I were going to take such a job. I might buy a new one, but then again, I might buy that same gun even if I am not a hired security guard.

But if it makes you feel any better, I don't think that banning "assault weapons" would make too much of a difference either.

No, it does not. :p

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 05:10 PM
41. demokid: I don't really think that you're making a coherent point here.

The point is that many people say guns do not belong in schools, even for armed guards, but Obama and many other people whom they vote for have armed guards at their kids' schools.

It's a reasonable thing to point out.


Second, you're confusing the need for security in specific places with the need for security EVERYWHERE.

The NRA said every school should have an armed security force. But their critics often said that no schools should have a security force. We all need to be more specific about scope (including you).


He wasn't quite the only one that could have prevented it. Again, the Republicans were opposed to the payroll tax cut and also made no moves to include it in the fiscal cliff deal.

I agree. Everyone knows that the payroll tax cut was a dumb idea and only hurts us down the road. Both sides are now blaming the other side for doing the right thing by letting it expire.


Again, there was no vote on increasing payroll taxes or income taxes.

Except for the vote that raised income taxes, you mean? Not on everyone, yes, but on some.


Heck, when Bush Junior doled out stimulus checks -- which had exactly the same rationale as the payroll tax holiday! -- there wasn't a hue and cry that he "increased taxes" because people didn't receive them the following year.

People don't see those the same way, of course. Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't.

But at the time, I was glad to get the stimulus check. Later, after thinking about it, I realized it was not a good idea. That said, for stimulative purposes, a one-time check probably works better than a small change in each paycheck. But maybe I am wrong about that.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 05:16 PM
42. tc: This is despite the fact that Pudge didn't provide even a link to a transcript of what Obama said so one could compare.

None existed, as far as I know, when I posted this, which was upon completion of his speech.


I do feel there is a need for expanding background checks

Why? I can't see how it would help anything. Can you explain?


I say instead, look at ammo sales. Track who is purchasing what and if someone purchases large quantities (and isn't a range, or expected to buy large quantities), then raise a flag. We restrict sudafed purchases, but not bullets. Hmmm?

We shouldn't restrict sudafed purchases.

That said, what do you upon raising that flag? I bought a lot of ammo, you come to my house and say, "we see you bought a lot of ammo." I close the door in your face and go back to playing Grand Theft Auto.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 05:45 PM
43. On link: You have updated other posts in the past. In this case, the link would help back up what you stated.

On background checks: A couple of points from what I understand the current state is:
1. There is, as far as I know, no national standard for background checks. Therefore, the current law is hodgepodge and in some states gun shows and private sales do not require background checks, like dealers need to perform. I am not talking about a dad giving his son a gun that has been in the family (or even recently bought). These transactions are between independent parties. These type of sales can be prime sources for gun traffickers.

2. Now, if you think gun dealers also shouldn't have to perform background checks, then additional background checks for private party sales also doesn't make sense. However, a majority of the country does feel background checks are beneficial. The question should be where does the line need to be. I would agree exchanges between family members is too far.

As far as red flag, I mean it raises the issue up to law enforcement to check on. If it is you Pudge, and the officer probably knows you, they would probably dismiss the red flag. It is you and they know you aren't going to some school to have a shooting rampage. If it is a Jared Loughner or the recent incident, then it may be enough for the police to check them out and stop a crime before it happens.

That being said, I find it silly the money some people spend on guns and ammo. To each his own, as long as you aren't a threat to me and my family.

Posted by tc at January 16, 2013 06:20 PM
44. I don't really think that you're making a coherent point here.

PLEASE learn to read ... or be honest enough to stay in CONTEXT: "Regarding the NRA ad that has caused so much angst on both the right and left."

Missed that opening SUBJECT line, did you? Or was it just inconvenient to your paper thin narrative.

As far as Gallup - well, let's just say if a polling organization or a doctor asked about my possible gun ownership, I would refuse to answer, tell them it's none of their business and/or lie.

And I did so today. In addition to being a paid mystery shopper, I participate in consumer and political pols: Ipsos I-say, Harris, You.gov, e-Rewards....
Today a poll opportunity cam from Ipsos-I-say. The opening questions were regarding the number of times you've been fishing in the last year, the number of times you've been hunting the past year. Easy enough to answer. The next question was about owning/intention of buying handguns and long rifles. Yep, I simply lied and to the plethora of choices I checked 'none of the above'. I lie/refuse to answer poll questions about my financial and banking habits as well.

Second, you're confusing the need for security in specific places with the need for security EVERYWHERE. If you have a school where there is much higher need for security staff, then by all means they should go for it! Metal detectors and armed guards at some troubled schools are necessary, and few would argue about that. In other cases, security staff have to keep journalists or eccentrics from mobbing a senator or celebrity's nine-year-old kid.

Really. Hmm, explain that to the parents of Sandy Hook.

And I'm not speaking about anything else but a temporary holiday on payroll taxes.

To quote:

So you link to a statement about taxes that is... true? In an attempt to make OTHER people look like a fool? Can you show me tax increases on folks earning less than $250k lately?
- Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 02:14 PM

Hmm I don't see anything there referring to "temporary holiday on payroll taxes".
Can you show me tax increases on folks earning less than $250k lately?
Nope nothing there about "temporary holiday on payroll taxes".
So, either you conveniently changed the subject (per usual), you thought you were being cleverly coy and we caught in your dishonesty or you think we can read your .... mind.

If it is a Jared Loughner or the recent incident, then it may be enough for the police to check them out and stop a crime before it happens.

The shooter in Sandy Hook did not legally own guns. He stole them.

That being said, I find it silly the money some people spend on guns and ammo. To each his own, as long as you aren't a threat to me and my family.

LEGAL gun owners, law abiding gun owners are not a threat to you and your family. It is disgusting to lump them with criminals when in fact they might be the only thing standing between you and the criminals. SHAME ON YOU. If you don't want your kid to go to them home of someone with gun, then deny your kid... and explain to them you're a paranoid hypocrite. SHAME ON YOU. When our kids were young, we had people tell us they had guns in the house and explain how they kept them safe. We appreciated that but would never judge them as a threat or an enemy. We would have never though to ask, to judge their worthiness, to be that intolerant. SHAME ON YOU. You have well and truly disgusted and offended me. I realize you don't give a fat rats butt. Back at ya, sweetcheeks.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 16, 2013 07:03 PM
45. tc: here's your link

And yes, illegal gun trafficking might happen in transactions without background checks. Saying that it is illegal if you don't do a background check for your illegal activity seems a bit daffy, doesn't it?

It is not about whether background checks are beneficial, it is about whether adding background checks for these purchases would be beneficial, and how "a majority of the country" feels doesn't inform us on the issue.

And no, the officer doesn't know me. As far as he knows, I am Jared Loughner. What's he going to do with this information? What would he have done with it in the case of Loughner? How would they "check him out" and "stop a crime"?

I don't see it. They can know he bought a lot of ammo, but that doesn't give them probable cause to search his residence.

And, of course, no one cares what you find to be silly. I find most of what most people do to be silly. I don't bother to tell them, because they don't care ... or, at least, they shouldn't care. It's none of my business.


Also, please don't forget to respond regarding your false claims about me in the other discussion.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 07:07 PM
46. Demokid @ 30:

And the second- and third-largest cities in the US. Correlation is not causation.

Cool. More households in Israel and Switzerland have firearms than in the US. Perhaps correlation of number of guns in households isn't smart to create the cause of gun violence.

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 16, 2013 07:09 PM
47. tc @ 38:

You're correct about the bans being bandied about. For example, the "assault weapons" ban. They are basically banned here in California - you have to have a bullet button (a restricted magazine release that requires use of a special tool or bullet tip to release) and can't have a pistol grip and flash muzzle, for example.

I have a rifle, a Kel Tec SU-16B, that uses the exact same ammunition and magazine as an AR-15, and uses an AK-47-style action. And because it has a "normal" stock, it's completely legal, don't need a bullet button for it. It's as deadly as an AR-15, but because it doesn't look "evil" it's exempted.

Just shows the insanity of the laws as currently existing and as proposed for the nation.

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 16, 2013 07:14 PM
48. demokid, armed resource officers in schools are a GREAT idea, but for reasons that you cannot comprehend. An official presence at the school does wonders for reducing student drug offenses, student assaults and also does wonders for dramatically reducing absenteeism (assuming that officer is willing to go knocking on doors).

We have great data from experimenting with that at our school. Drug offenses, assualts, absenteeism, all reduced - drug offenses by 100%, assaults by 90%, absenteeism (due to non-approved activities) by over 50%.

The problem we had was that when the funding was out, the union would rather fight for another teacher, than spend the money on that.

It was a great use of money and if done right would be great for any school that has more than a couple hundred students.

Posted by doug at January 16, 2013 07:28 PM
49. I got a new shotgun in honor of demokid, tensor, MBS, et. al. I also bought a lot of concealed carry capsicum spray. I will be joining the NRA too to give more dollars to the gun lobby to counteract misguided Democrats.

Hopefully we can again become a country where most citizens are armed with whatever force they can handle so that when a crazy strikes there is someone there to stop him. It is each American's responsibility to defend, not the government's.

Posted by Leftover at January 16, 2013 08:30 PM
50. @39: I've seen this claim, and it's not well-established, for several reasons. It's based exclusively on polling data, and the question of "do you own a gun" is one of those that it's hard to get honest responses to. Many people I know would always just answer No, despite owning a gun. And in some places, like Chicago, you would be admitting to a crime.

I don't buy that argument. There are two separate polls here that show a slight decline (with a fair bit of noise). To make the case that gun ownership was stable (or increased!), you would have to show that the propensity for people to lie about owning a gun would have increased over time, instead of being associated with the noise in the data.

Further, the data shows a lot of fluctuations, rather than a clear downward trend.

A weak downward trend with noise, but still a trend. I would welcome rebutting evidence that would show that ownership was increasing.

No. We know the data is unreliable. We cannot say gun ownership ever really dropped, not from this data.

We can say it. You can choose not to believe contradicting evidence if you like.

Anyway, the point of "more guns = less crime" is more about gun rights, than actual increase in guns. It's both, of course, but the claim is more based on liberalization of gun rights: more rights to concealed carry, and so on.

The evidence for the more guns, less crime theory is weak and highly politicized at best. The work that was done in the 1990s about it omitted some key variables, and a number of studies made strong critiques of the data and methods used. In the end, it was more of a means for the NRA to push concealed carry laws with cherry-picked science than a sustained track of research.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 09:48 PM
51. @40: But the way you state it -- "armed school guards" -- is not necessarily a bad idea at all. It depends on the school.

It does depend on the school, and I don't disagree with that statement. However, that wasn't what the NRA proposal was all about. The quote was:

I call on Congress today, to act immediately to appropriate whatever is necessary to put armed police officers in every single school in this nation.

Now, given that LaPierre knew that Congress would NOT act on his proposal, it's obvious that the intended audience wasn't the federal government, but teachers, administrators, and parents that could work to get this done at the state and local levels.

Which, of course, is fine to do, and well within their rights to pursue... but still very dumb.

Yes, but that is extremely unlikely. It's not more guns, though it is more exposure of kids to guns, but assuming the guards are well-trained (a valid assumption for argument's sake), we don't have such deaths now when people, including children, are around armed security.

I don't know about whether all would be well-trained (or even whether they wouldn't be potential sources of incidents themselves). However, the point is that any value calculation needs to consider that: a.) they may not be able to prevent gun deaths, and b.) additional gun deaths or other injuries could result from having them there.

Again, it should be up to the school district to make that calculation.

I didn't claim that they shouldn't, just that for most schools it would be questionable.

I'd probably use my existing gun if I were going to take such a job. I might buy a new one, but then again, I might buy that same gun even if I am not a hired security guard.

A better case to make is that even 100,000 guns would be a drop in the bucket in terms of gun sales. Still, there is money to be made -- guns, ammunition, security firms, etc. The profit motive needs to be considered, especially when companies start marketing security services that local schools simply don't need.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 10:18 PM
52. demokid: I don't buy that argument.

OK, but you're wrong. Hell, my family has lied about owning guns to doctors, because we had one illegally in Massachusetts. They required us to purchase a license just to have a gun in our home, and I refused to get permission from government to own something that is designed in part to protect myself from government.

I am not remotely unique in this.


To make the case that gun ownership was stable (or increased!), you would have to show that the propensity for people to lie about owning a gun would have increased over time, instead of being associated with the noise in the data.

First, I am not making that case. I am saying the data cannot be trusted.

Second, yes, I think propoensity for lying about gun ownership fluctuates over time.


I would welcome rebutting evidence that would show that ownership was increasing.

None is needed. You do not have serious evidence that it was decreasing, so why should I feel any obligation to provide counterevidence?


The evidence for the more guns, less crime theory is weak and highly politicized at best.

It is much stronger than your evidence that gun ownership has decreased. And it's actually pretty strong. I will concede that in many cases, it's mostly mere correlation, but then again mere correlation is really all that's necessary to my mind, since the left guaranteed us that gun violence would increase with more guns and liberalized (meaning non-liberal :-) gun laws, and it just never happened. At all. Anywhere in the U.S. Not even close.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 10:28 PM
53. The evidence for the more guns, less crime theory is weak and highly politicized at best.

Actually, that statement should be reversed for truthfullness. If some of the more daft among us don't get it, that's their problem.

Posted by Rick D. at January 16, 2013 10:28 PM
54.
@41. The point is that many people say guns do not belong in schools, even for armed guards, but Obama and many other people whom they vote for have armed guards at their kids' schools.

The reason why it is incoherent is that they are two completely different things. Putting armed guards into a random high school to provide protection against a school shooting that is not likely to happen is not the same as protecting the children of politicians and celebrities that may be the subject of harassment. Putting UNNECESSARY guns into schools is pointless.

The NRA said every school should have an armed security force. But their critics often said that no schools should have a security force. We all need to be more specific about scope (including you).

I was criticizing the overly broad NRA proposal. To be honest, I care about this as it relates to sound public policy -- spending billions that would be best used elsewhere is foolish. I would object to this at a school that my children would attend, and I'd object to federal or state funding going towards this, but if local governments want to do it, they can have at it.

I agree. Everyone knows that the payroll tax cut was a dumb idea and only hurts us down the road. Both sides are now blaming the other side for doing the right thing by letting it expire.

It was a back-door approach to a new stimulus. Personally, there are better and less confusing ways of doing it.

Except for the vote that raised income taxes, you mean? Not on everyone, yes, but on some.

Ragnar was specifically focused on people with incomes less than $250k per year.

But at the time, I was glad to get the stimulus check. Later, after thinking about it, I realized it was not a good idea. That said, for stimulative purposes, a one-time check probably works better than a small change in each paycheck. But maybe I am wrong about that.

The first stimulus check was nothing but a sham -- merely an advance on your taxes. Seemed almost like a means to get people to consume more without being honest about the source of the money. Beats me which approach is better... would be interesting to see.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 10:34 PM
55. demokid: that wasn't what the NRA proposal was all about

As I said explicitly, I disagreed with the NRA proposal. But your words were, "Armed school guards is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby," not "Armed school guards for every school is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby."


Now, given that LaPierre knew that Congress would NOT act on his proposal, it's obvious that the intended audience wasn't the federal government, but teachers, administrators, and parents that could work to get this done at the state and local levels.

Which, of course, is fine to do, and well within their rights to pursue... but still very dumb.

... unless it is appropriate for a given school, in which case it is not dumb at all. You're not making much of a point, if any at all.


I don't know about whether all would be well-trained ...

It doesn't matter. We're talking about a proposal that won't ever be enacted, and the proposal assumes well-trained, so that is the assumption we make in discussing it.


any value calculation needs to consider that: a.) they may not be able to prevent gun deaths, and b.) additional gun deaths or other injuries could result from having them there.

a. is a given that doesn't even need to be discussed, to my mind, and b. is extremely unlikely. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a significant increase in liklihood of gun deaths or injuries from the presence of a gun in the hands of a well-trained security guard. None. You're just making things up.

Still, there is money to be made -- guns, ammunition, security firms, etc.

Again, almost nothing in guns and ammo. So this isn't about the gun/ammo makers making money, at least, not directly. That is just a dumb claim to make.

Obviously the security firms stand to make a great deal of money.

But none of this is going to happen, so it doesn't matter. A few more schools here and there will add armed guards. Maybe they should, maybe not. Since there is no reason to think the kids will be in more danger from it, I couldn't care less if the school is wasting money, as long as it is not my school district, or my state/federal tax dollars paying for it.

OK, yes, fine, I know that them wasting money can hurt me modestly in various ways. I buy a pack of gum from a guy whose headquarters is based in a district that pays for unnecessary armed guards, which means his taxes are too high, which makes my gum cost a penny or two more. But I won't lie awake worrying about it.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 10:38 PM
56. demokid: Putting armed guards into a random high school to provide protection against a school shooting that is not likely to happen is not the same as protecting the children of politicians and celebrities that may be the subject of harassment. Putting UNNECESSARY guns into schools is pointless.

Again, you miss the fact that many of the critics have said NO ARMED GUARDS IN ANY SCHOOLS.

Bur more importantly, realize that Obama said in response, "I am skeptical that the only answer is putting more guns in schools."

Yes, he is not saying "don't have armed security in any schools." But he is also very obviously implicitly criticizing armed guards in schools, by putting the guns in the hands of well-trained protectors of students on par with guns in the hands of murderers of students, saying that having the former merely adds to the latter.

With him so obviously deriding the very notion of putting armed security in schools, it is reasonable to call him out as a hypocrite.

Posted by pudge at January 16, 2013 10:46 PM
57. @44: PLEASE learn to read ... or be honest enough to stay in CONTEXT: "Regarding the NRA ad that has caused so much angst on both the right and left."

Please learn to make a coherent point, instead of wandering around and effectively mumbling to yourself.

As far as Gallup - well, let's just say if a polling organization or a doctor asked about my possible gun ownership, I would refuse to answer, tell them it's none of their business and/or lie.

See my response to pudge above. I'd guess that the noise might be caused by that, but again, unless you can provide better data that shows that people are more likely to lie over time, I'd go with the two independent surveys.

But yeah, I don't even respond to those surveys myself.

Really. Hmm, explain that to the parents of Sandy Hook.

Sorry? This isn't about looking back in retrospect. If you knew for certain that something like that would happen, then sure... hire a SWAT team.

However, this isn't about one school, it's about 100,000 of them, a good number of which will have no real use for a security guard. If you were going to spend $4 billion on saving childrens' lives, would you really just put an armed guard in each school? Isn't there something else that you could do that would save a kid for a little less than $100 million each?

So, either you conveniently changed the subject (per usual), you thought you were being cleverly coy and we caught in your dishonesty or you think we can read your .... mind.

I've stated my case -- the "tax increase" was when a temporary holiday expired. No permanent cut was created, and no tax raise was voted on. Blather all you want about it, but trying to connect this to raising people's taxes is silly. At best, it was just another stimulus check, spread out over two years.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 10:49 PM
58. @46: Cool. More households in Israel and Switzerland have firearms than in the US. Perhaps correlation of number of guns in households isn't smart to create the cause of gun violence.

That sentence didn't quite make sense, but I'll try to answer anyway:

Only a limited number of Israelis are allowed to own guns, usually those in settlements, in the military, or otherwise at risk. About 40% of people that apply for gun permits in Israel are turned down, and all guns are registered and traceable. Furthermore, members of the military now have to leave their weapons on their bases.

Many of Switzerland's restrictions are by canton, but most are tightening. Members of the militia are no longer given ammunition to store at home in sealed boxes, and military weapons kept after required service are not kept fully automatic. All sales require a permit and background check. Carrying loaded guns in public requires a permit that is typically only issued to security guards and similar professions.

Overall, with both countries you need to have a demonstrated need to carry a gun. Similarly, Israel and Switzerland are working to limit the guns available in the home to reduce the safety risks to people in the household.

So yeah... if you're willing to adopt their gun laws, I'd be all for that.

Oh, and if you're correlating guns with countries or states, there is a correlation between more guns and higher homicide rates. If you'd like to read a few dry public health articles, I can point you in the right direction.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 11:05 PM
59. @55: As I said explicitly, I disagreed with the NRA proposal. But your words were, "Armed school guards is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby," not "Armed school guards for every school is the single dumbest proposal that could come out of the gun lobby."

Now you're just being an idiot, and arguing for the sake of arguing. I specifically made the case that school guards for EVERY school would be stupid.

... unless it is appropriate for a given school, in which case it is not dumb at all. You're not making much of a point, if any at all.

Again, EVERY SCHOOL. It's dumb whether it's done by the federal government in one program or local governments in 100,000 individual ones.

It doesn't matter. We're talking about a proposal that won't ever be enacted, and the proposal assumes well-trained, so that is the assumption we make in discussing it.

The proposal is rather ludicrous all around. Still, you're too confident that such jobs would be taken by "well-trained" folks all across the country.

a. is a given that doesn't even need to be discussed, to my mind, and b. is extremely unlikely. There is no evidence of any kind that there is a significant increase in liklihood of gun deaths or injuries from the presence of a gun in the hands of a well-trained security guard. None. You're just making things up.

I'm making up the entire scenario, since it's not going to happen. But again, assuming that at least 100,000 people with guns would walk around schools all over the country and nothing would happen is... well... optimistic.

OK, yes, fine, I know that them wasting money can hurt me modestly in various ways. I buy a pack of gum from a guy whose headquarters is based in a district that pays for unnecessary armed guards, which means his taxes are too high, which makes my gum cost a penny or two more. But I won't lie awake worrying about it.

?? No, the argument is that if you're looking to save children's lives, why wouldn't you spend the same amount of money on counseling to prevent teen suicide? The benefits would be far greater.

But hey... if you prefer getting another pack of gum at the expense of kids' lives, that's fine too.

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 11:29 PM
60. @56: Again, you miss the fact that many of the critics have said NO ARMED GUARDS IN ANY SCHOOLS.

I must have missed the part where I said I agreed with that.

Yes, he is not saying "don't have armed security in any schools." But he is also very obviously implicitly criticizing armed guards in schools, by putting the guns in the hands of well-trained protectors of students on par with guns in the hands of murderers of students, saying that having the former merely adds to the latter.

He does nothing of the sort. He's making a direct reference to LaPierre's statements, and calling the NRA shill out for being a complete buffoon.

With him so obviously deriding the very notion of putting armed security in schools, it is reasonable to call him out as a hypocrite.

"Obvious" to you and no one else?

Posted by demokid at January 16, 2013 11:30 PM
61. demokid: See my response to pudge above. I'd guess that the noise might be caused by that, but again, unless you can provide better data that shows that people are more likely to lie over time, I'd go with the two independent surveys.

Unless you provide good data, there is no need to supply other data.

And I already gave you plausible explanations: the government was increasing its anti-gun policies at the time the responses dropped precipitously (the Brady Bill and AWB were passed around this time). That, very obviously, could result in an increase in lying.


I've stated my case -- the "tax increase" was when a temporary holiday expired.

Yes, it was a tax increase. No quotes are necessary.


Blather all you want about it, but trying to connect this to raising people's taxes is silly.

Well, it happened. People's taxes were raised. It's a fact. It's also a fact that the majorities of both parties know that this tax increase was necessary. Social Security is already -- despite the lies of Obama and Durbin -- adding to our deficit, even before the payroll tax cut. Not only are we right now borrowing money from China to pay Social Security benefits, but our top politicians are lying about it.

(BTW, I found this hilarious post claiming otherwise. It snottily says, SSI had revenues of $831B and expenditures of $775B, obviously it is not adding to the debt! What the moron who wrote that doesn't understand is that the revenues include a $120B transfer from the general fund to make up for the payroll tax holiday, and $114B in interest that also comes from the general fund. They say it doesn't get counted in the budget deficit, which is true, but that is just accounting, and ignores the fact that we still spent that money from the general fund.)


I specifically made the case that school guards for EVERY school would be stupid.

No, you did not. That is the point. You hinted at it, but you were not at all specific.


Still, you're too confident that such jobs would be taken by "well-trained" folks all across the country.

You're making things up. As I explicitly stated, I am merely confident that this was assumed in the proposal.


assuming that at least 100,000 people with guns would walk around schools all over the country and nothing would happen is... well... optimistic.

I don't assume nothing would happen. I state, based on the wealth of evidence of armed guards being around kids all the time and nothing happening from it, that it is extremely unlikely that anything would happen.


the argument is that if you're looking to save children's lives, why wouldn't you spend the same amount of money on counseling to prevent teen suicide?

No, that is separate from my point.


But hey... if you prefer getting another pack of gum at the expense of kids' lives, that's fine too.

I prefer buying a pack of gum to the federal government generally getting involved in kids' lives.


I must have missed the part where I said I agreed with that.

I didn't say you did. What I said is that you are arguing against my points as though they are about guns in all schools, when I have repeatedly and explicitly stated -- from the very first comment about it -- they are not.

He does nothing of the sort.

You're not fooling anyone. You can deny it, but that you don't try to provide any argument against my argument is telling.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 06:11 AM
62. Although I don't agree with his gun control proposals at least he's taking a stand and the lead, as a POTUS should. :)

Posted by Duffman at January 17, 2013 06:58 AM
63. Meaningless, time and attention-wasting gestures (albeit un-Constitutional) while I crash and burn. Genius!

Posted by the economy at January 17, 2013 07:15 AM
64. Duffman: that is the problem. He's not.

Most of the executive orders don't do anything of substance, and most of those that do are things that should've been done before anyway.

And of his two somewhat specific legislative proposals, one of them (AWB) literally won't go anywhere and everyone knows it, so he is only proposing it for political reasons, and the other (background checks) won't have any effect on crime. Hardly taking a stand.

This was a pathetic attempt to look like he was doing something, when he wasn't.

Again, I think some of the executive orders make sense, but none of them are earth-shattering, and all of them he could've done four years ago (except the ones about the ACA of course!).

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 08:32 AM
65. He leads...we criticize, fair exchange I guess. :)

Posted by Duffman at January 17, 2013 08:42 AM
66. Demokid @ 58:

Thanks for proving my point. Firearms are harder to get - more restricted - in Illinois, New York, and California than in Israel or Switzerland. The former 3 have much higher levels of gun violence than the latter 2.

It's not the presence or control of guns that is at issue; making it "about the guns being there" is a cop-out. It's society and how it tolerates or even glorifies violence.

FWIW, when I purchase a firearm here in California I go through a full test, background check, and thorough examination - and must register with the State. It's more invasive than when I registered a vehicle down here and got my CA driver's license. Yet we don't blame cars for killing more people than firearms here in CA. We blame the OPERATOR.

It's an easy cop-out to blame the tool, rather than the person wielding it...

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 17, 2013 08:47 AM
67.
Pudge @ 64:

And of his two somewhat specific legislative proposals, one of them (AWB) literally won't go anywhere and everyone knows it, so he is only proposing it for political reasons, and the other (background checks) won't have any effect on crime. Hardly taking a stand.

Case in point: here's a fully-compliant AWB rifle that uses the same magazines as the AR-15, fires 5.56mm ammunition, has a wonderfully reliable AK-style action, and is quite accurate. Folds down to around 16" total length to make it very compact and portable as well. 100% California compliant (which maintained the AWB from 1994, which is what the President proposes we reinstate). Don't even need a bullet-button to swap magazines, meaning I can do the 2 second magazine change without worry.

All the "assault weapons" bans wouldn't touch this rifle at all - and it has the same ballistics, capabilities, and performance of pretty much any AR-15/M-16 style rifle. It doesn't "look evil" so it must be safe, right?

AW bans are simply lunacy, banning things based upon how they look, not based on how they perform. I guess we should ban spoilers and stickers and extra-wide rear tires from cars because only race cars have those, and race cars aren't permitted for the street. Go ahead and take your class-A fuelly down Aurora, as long as you don't have stickers and big wing and wide tires - it must not be a race car!

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 17, 2013 08:54 AM
68. It's an easy cop-out to blame the tool, rather than the person wielding it...

And that's why we never get anything solved with Democrats. They love to shriek and surround themselves with children and other victims for photo ops, but when it comes to solving real problems, no action ever happens. All talk, no chalk. But they feel good when they take and spend other people's money. And they feel good because Obama is so hipster cool!

Posted by Leftover at January 17, 2013 10:30 AM
69. It's not the presence or control of guns that is at issue; making it "about the guns being there" is a cop-out. It's society and how it tolerates or even glorifies violence.

FWIW, when I purchase a firearm here in California I go through a full test, background check, and thorough examination - and must register with the State. It's more invasive than when I registered a vehicle down here and got my CA driver's license. Yet we don't blame cars for killing more people than firearms here in CA. We blame the OPERATOR.

It's an easy cop-out to blame the tool, rather than the person wielding it...

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 17, 2013 08:47 AM

True story. To further illuminate and simplify this issue; this is primarily a power grab by Obama's inner-monarch as he has held a long time grudge against the pro-gun lobby. Dr. John Lott used to teach with him at the Univ. of Chicago in the mid-1990's and it was readily apparent then as Obama, when John introduced himself; Obama's response was; "Oh, so you're the gun guy" and when Lott tried to reach out to invite Obama to get together sometime, he did not bother to responsd, just turned his back, shrugged and walked away.

Yes, folks that is the kind of closed-minded, narcissistic individual who was elected POTUS again last November. Rather than refer to his supporters as leftists, it would be more appropriate to refer to them as "banana republicans" or anarchists because that is essentially what is trying to transform this country into with his blatant disregard of the constitution. The GOP is pathetic, as they fail to challenge him - except Sen. Rubio challenged his 23 executive orders and a few others, but the GOP leadership has been feckless and Mr. Obama is daring anyone to stop his constitutional anarchy.

Name one thing that any of the 23 Exec. Orders did to address the root cause of the killing of school age children by a mentally deranged young psychopath. Nothing except use children as props to distract from the real issues that were not addressed. Mental Health funding, making people more able to be placed in a mental health facility by others - which is a big problem now.

DemoKid (MikeBS is conspicuously missing)- it is apparently that while you don't necessarily support all of Obama's Executive actions, you appear to applaud his hubris and audacity for his intentions, but fail to understand that his intentions will not help but likely hinder efforts to curb this violence.

Armed guards should be considered on a case-by-case basis and volunteers also (the Federal Government will likely try to squelch that based on the tone of Obama's presentation). There is a financially responsible way to do this for the safety that will in Obama's words - save at least one young and precious life. American ingenuity has been squelched by this administration - big government has that effect on ingenuity. So, as I see it the battle lines show Big Government anarchy vs. American creativity and ingenuity. Polarization of Congress is a contributing factor that will be present for the immediate future.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 10:40 AM
70. Leftover @ 68:

Since Newtown there have been at least 926 gun deaths in the US. But all we care about is Newtown.

I've met the same thing with liberals here in Santa Barbara; the tragedy is not the 30+ killed EVERY DAY across the US, it's the once-a-year 15-20 killed at one time. The tragedy is when it happens "en masse", not when it's scattered in many shootings all around.

Apparently, to liberals - and I've challenged them on this - it's only a problem when the deaths occur in groups. Gun violence is fine in 1-2 at a time; when it's many, it's a tragedy. Get them to actually challenge that statement - that all gun violence is equally abhorrent - and the call for assault weapons bans and magazine bans fall apart, since the VAST majority of those shootings happen with pistols and fewer than 5 shots discharged.

Feel good window dressing is more desirable than actual solutions.

Posted by Shanghai Dan at January 17, 2013 10:47 AM
71. "Feel good window dressing is more desirable than actual solutions."

It is a product of constitutional anarchy, which is front and center in our current style of Federal Government by the Executive Branch. This is nothing new, it is just more brazen than ever before.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 11:04 AM
72. Lots of chatter here about how an assault weapons ban is not possible. Think you need to rethink.

for example: I Went After Guns. Obama Can, Too.
By JOHN HOWARD
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

If the definition of the old law is bad and flawed, it does not mean it is impossible to do, it means those flaws need to be addressed.

Our constitution gives us the right to own weapons in a well regulated manner. We need to figure out a better way to regulate, not deny that regulation is needed.

Posted by observer at January 17, 2013 11:07 AM
73. observer: Lots of chatter here about how an assault weapons ban is not possible.

No one said that. It's not politically possible, obviously, at the current time; and further, all the assault weapons bans proposed will not actually ban any rid us of any weapons, because the gun manufacturers will just slightly modify their guns to comply with the law.


Think you need to rethink.

Why? You didn't give us any reason to rethink.


If the definition of the old law is bad and flawed, it does not mean it is impossible to do, it means those flaws need to be addressed.

Yes. What's that got to do with this?


Our constitution gives us the right to own weapons in a well regulated manner. We need to figure out a better way to regulate, not deny that regulation is needed.

Shrug. If you have a better way to regulate, let us know. You seem to be implying that banning assault weapons -- whatever that means to you -- should happen, but you give no reason to think that would be "better" than what we have now.

You need to figure out a better way to make your point, not simply assert that you have one.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 11:16 AM
74. Yeah. O-dumber really cares about the kids.
BULL
**********
Obama voted "present" on 1999 Illinois law to crack down on school shootings SB-759.

Posted by Medic/Vet at January 17, 2013 11:31 AM
75. Dan @70,

Yep. And those on the Left never pause to consider the terrible culture that they and their comrades in Hollywood and Academia foste. The failed culture which has generated the ghetto violence that is the vast majority of those killings.

Gangster rap culture is edgy and hipster cool to the Left. They love to use the lingo of that culture and show their color bonafides. Similarly, within that culture you get a hatred of our culture of hard work and success such that one commentator will call RG3 a cornball brother, etc.

The Left created this mess, but they want to blame it on an inanimate object that looks scary because they know low info voters are dumb and will believe anything.

Own it Dems.

Posted by Leftover at January 17, 2013 11:59 AM
76. Although I don't agree with his gun control proposals at least he's taking a stand and the lead, as a POTUS should. :)- Posted by Duffman at January 17, 2013 06:58 AM

Excuse me, he's not taking a lead he's exploiting.

If Obama and his wife really wanted to take a lead, especially by their inarguably fine example they would have, SHOULD HAVE led on the subject of fatherless homes, particularly in the black community where 72% of children are born out of wedlock, where the dropout rate is 43%, where unemployment rose to an unbelievable 14 percent, where teen unemployment is over 40%, where their crime rates are high and their prison rates are 10x that of whites, 5x that of Hispanics.

The SINGLE one thing that Obama COULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE focused on from day one is the importance of intact black families, the importance of FATHERS in those intact families. But he didn't. Instead, with his bully pulpit, he cuts welfare to work requirements, he advertise food stamps and encourages them to live off the state perpetuating the one single thing that will keep them in bondage.

Why are 70 percent of births in the black community to single mothers?

Liberalism:

In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it's 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it's 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in "The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925," "Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents." Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what's the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery -- a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.

The SINGLE one thing that Obama COULD HAVE/SHOULD HAVE done is focus/preach on the importance of intact black families, the importance of FATHERS in those intact families. But he didn't.

In 2012, President Barack Obama's adopted hometown had 506 murders, including more than 60 children. Philadelphia, a city that local television newscasters frequently call 'Killadelphia," saw 331 killed last year. In Detroit, 386 people were murdered.

Since 1966, there have been 90 school shootings in the U.S., with 231 fatalities. Yes, Sandy Hook shocked us. But the odds of a child being killed at a school shooting are longer than the odds of being struck by lightning.

Of the 11,000 to 12,000 gun murders each year, more than half involve both black killers and black victims, mostly in urban areas and mostly gang-related. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is not auto accidents or accidental drowning, but homicide.

What happened?

Dads disappeared. Or, more precisely, to use Bill Cosby's term, the number of "unwed fathers" exploded.


Minority women constitute only about 13% of the female population (age 15-44) in the United States, but they underwent approximately 36% of the abortions. On average, 1,876 black babies are aborted every day in the United States.

This incidence of abortion has resulted in a tremendous loss of life. It has been estimated that since 1973 Black women have had about 16 million abortions. Michael Novak had calculated "Since the number of current living Blacks (in the U.S.) is 36 million, the missing 16 million represents an enormous loss, for without abortion, America's Black community would now number 52 million persons. It would be 36 percent larger than it is. Abortion has swept through the Black community like a scythe, cutting down every fourth member."

Obama is all about surrounding himself with and doing it "for the children, when if FACT he, by his silence is doing it TO the children of his own (when its convenient and/or politically expedient) community:

"These are our kids. . . . And so what we should be thinking about is our responsibility to care for them, and shield them from harm . . . ."
Obama made similar remarks on December 16, 2012, in a speech at the Sandy Hook interfaith prayer vigil for the victims of the elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. At that event he said:
"Can we say that we're truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?"

Bullsh*t on/from him

To liberals, gun-killing is an abomination that needs to be stopped, and right now. Newtown was the turning point. The lives of our children are at stake.

Except, of course, if those children are unborn. Then it's Newton every day, and no one says a thing.

When the hell are you loud lefty's going to look in the mirror and examine your hypocrisy. Your faux sanctimony and outrage is a joke.

Your pendulum has reached its apex.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 01:13 PM
77. @76 - Also refer to them as "banana republicans", anarchists or low information voters. Other terms such as Obama-zombies, moonbats also have an applicable shelf-life.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 01:47 PM
78. The Story of A Man Who Only Had 7 Rounds in His Pistol

"Jason heard the loudest sound he ever heard in his life..."
Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 02:14 PM
79. Inconvenient to the narrative, eh?
It takes six to eight seconds to fire off a 30-round magazine like that used in the Newtown killings, said Joseph Green, a retired firearms instructor and agent of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

A well-trained shooter would need roughly 13.5 to 22 seconds to fire off the same number of bullets with six magazines of five rounds each, which are legal in New York.

A shooter needs 1.5 seconds to swap out each cartridge, and each five-round cartridge takes one to two seconds to shoot.

Killers facing stressful situations -- such as a lot of screaming people -- might need a bit more time to swap cartridges, Green said.

But he and other experts say swapping magazines means just a minor delay for determined mass killers.

Further, it ignores the simple FACT that a determined killer only need to arm himself with MORE THAN ONE GUN to get around the Oh my God, we have to do something, knee jerk feel good "solution".

Knee jerks never THINK.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 02:42 PM
80. Rags, I agree, except, there are some cases where a shooter exposes himself by having a smaller magazine.

As I understand it, the guy who shot Giffords was taken down when he went to swap magazines. This situation was unique, in that he was surrounded by people and had no opportunity to gain cover or a buffer.

Now, this was a very specific circumstance, but the point is that magazine size can in a very few cases make a difference in how many people are shot. Yes, he could've had another gun, but he didn't.

Compare that to pretty much all school shootings, where the shooter has lots of space around him (people running for cover), etc.

The question is not whether it can make a difference. It can. The question is whether that difference is worth taking away our rights. I don't think it is. It's such a tiny part of the problem, and the very fact that the left is so willing to spend so much time and money and effort on such a mostly meaningless "reform" tells you they don't have any real ideas about how to lessen gun violence.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 03:06 PM
81. Now, this was a very specific circumstance, but the point is that magazine size can in a very few cases make a difference in how many people are shot. Yes, he could've had another gun, but he didn't.

The same can be said in reverse. The woman protecting her daughters while hiding in her attic crawl space. On the phone her panicked can be heard to yell "keep shooting, keep shooting". She ran out of bullets. Had there been more than one intruder, she and her daughters wouldn't have had a chance.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 03:17 PM
82. *her panicked husband.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 03:18 PM
83. Rags: The same can be said in reverse. The woman protecting her daughters while hiding in her attic crawl space. On the phone her panicked can be heard to yell "keep shooting, keep shooting". She ran out of bullets. Had there been more than one intruder, she and her daughters wouldn't have had a chance.

Absolutely right.

Posted by pudge at January 17, 2013 03:33 PM
84. Twisted individuals who crave attention like to attain it by murdering large numbers of innocent, defenseless victims with firearms.

Much to-do is made of it in the press, deploring the firearms.

Twisted politicians who crave attention like to attain it by spewing large numbers of new 'laws' or 'regulations' to damage or discomfit their political opponents. When guns are involved, it doesn't matter whether those laws will increase public safety, or damage the Constitution, but it matters a great deal that the Republicans and the NRA be demonized.

Much the same to-do is made of this in the press, deploring the firearms and their owners present and future, but strangely not holding the politicians to account for Constitutional damage, nor for failure to increase public safety.

Bad way to run a democracy.

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at January 17, 2013 06:10 PM
85. "Bad way to run a democracy."

Posted by Insufficiently Sensitive at January 17, 2013 06:10 PM

The methodology employed as you accurately described is what makes banana republics smothered in fascism what they are.

Posted by KDS at January 17, 2013 06:55 PM
86. As it turns out, the public is not as clueless and gullible as the messengers from the White House believe they are. This is the time for loyal opposition to further challenge the false narrative of quasi-monarch Obama.

NBC Poll: Public Blames Parents, Hollywood Over Guns for Violence

Friday, 18 Jan 2013 11:07 AM

By Jim Meyers

"Americans place more blame for mass shootings on parents and Hollywood than they do on guns, a surprising new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll reveals.

Asked how much responsibility several choices might bear for the shootings that have taken place in Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; and Newtown, Conn., guns came in fifth.

The top choice was "parents not paying enough attention to what is going on in their children's lives" -- 83 percent said that was "a great deal" or a "good amount" responsible. Only 4 percent said "none at all."

The second choice, selected by 82 percent as "a great deal"
or "a good amount," was "the lack of effective treatment for mental illness."

Next came "the amount of media coverage of mass shootings," at 67 percent.

Fourth was "movies, television programs, and video games that portray violence and violent behavior," chosen by 62 percent.

Tied for fifth place at 59 percent each was "assault and military-style firearms being legal to purchase," and "the availability of high capacity ammunition clips."

Another 49 percent blamed "the lack of security measures at schools, malls, and other places where people gather."

The poll also found that 56 percent believe the laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, compared with 42 percent who want them less strict or kept the same.

However, support for stricter controls is significantly less today than it was during the 1990s, when more than 60 percent supported stricter laws, topping out at 78 percent in 1990.

Another interesting finding of the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll: Asked how they view the National Rifle Association, 24 percent said "very positive" and 17 percent said "somewhat positive," while 20 percent were "neutral." That's up from 21 percent "very positive" in January 2011, and significantly higher than in June 1995, when just 12 percent said "very positive."

Also, those who view the NRA as "very negative" is at 23 percent, down from 30 percent in July 1995."


Posted by KDS at January 18, 2013 09:45 AM
87. KDS: I place ZERO blame for violence on Hollywood. I don't understand why people do. I also do not place any blame on media coverage.

And, of course, I do not blame availability of guns (let alone militaty-style guns, since those are not generally available) or magazines or lack of strict laws.

Posted by pudge at January 18, 2013 10:48 AM
88. So, our suddenly absent loud lefty's evidently no longer want to talk about gun violence.

Well, I want to talk about gun violence.

I want to talk about those owners of 300 million guns who were NOT involved in violence yesterday.

Or the day before.

Or the day before that.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a LYING media problem. We have an exploitative politician problem.

... And, we have a lemming liberal problem with a bad case of knee jerk "Do something!" disease.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 18, 2013 10:55 AM
89. @87 - I concur with your comment for the most part, except I do place some blame on our culture and parents.

However, I place considerably more blame on the gun free zones that exist and the negligence of people who are mentally ill and should be institutionalized in some form, like the last two publicized shooters in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT.

@88 - I also concur with your assessment.

Posted by KDS at January 18, 2013 11:23 AM
90. I didn't say I don't blame *culture.* But Hollywood and media are just symptoms of the culture, not causes.

Posted by pudge at January 18, 2013 12:10 PM
91. Best headline of the day

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 18, 2013 12:47 PM
92. Right. Holder is just the type of AG lacking any morals and character and a hypocrite that the loud lefties (MikeBS, tensor, faux-dr.steve, dorkman, scottd) uphold.

Just one more piece of evidence that the inmates in the jump suits that attract the bedbugs are currently running the asylum.

Posted by KDS at January 18, 2013 01:00 PM
93. ... if some social engineering genius determines that real people can't be trusted with dangerous guns, then it's just a matter of time until they decide that they can't be trusted with dangerous ideas either. Dangerous ideas have killed many millions more people than dangerous handguns. Just listen to the voices calling to you from the gulag and the death camps and all of the blood soaked killing fields throughout human history..

... but understand this, 11,000 handgun deaths a year over 4 years is very roughly 50,000 killed. In Nazi Geermany, with a tenth of our current population, an unarmed people was unable to resist the abduction and murder of 6 million Jews and about 9 million additional gypsy's, homosexuals, prisoners of war, disabled and untold other individuals in a similar period. That is a number THREE HUNDRED TIMES higher.

There is a dead murder vitim in an armed society. There is a ditch filled with a THOUSAND people in an unarmed one.


Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 18, 2013 07:24 PM
94. Physicians are responsible each year for more deaths through malpractice than the populace is from guns.
When you are under a Doctor's care and you develop more than one condition related to malpractice from that person's specialty, one of which you are told will kill you within 2 years you have to ask which is worse.
On the one hand, situational awareness and the ability to protect yourself trump the other hand - being able to do nothing.
America's uniqueness came from the kind of self reliance that called guns "liberty's teeth".

Posted by carter at January 18, 2013 10:49 PM
95. Reducing fatherlessness is the only true preventative for violence in our society. We don't need to disarm America; we need to restore fathers.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 19, 2013 02:10 PM
96. Wasn't it Will Rogers that said "No man's life or property is safe while Congress is in session"?

Posted by Bob in SeaTac at January 19, 2013 02:18 PM
97. At What Point Do We Call Obama's Policies 'Tyranny'?


Luke Rudkowski hits the streets of NYC to find out what people think about the possibility of Tyranny in the United States.

Source 1: NDAA 2013 Allows Indefinite Detention Of U.S. Citizens By President http://www.policymic.com/articles/22288/ndaa-2013-allows-indefinite-detention-of-u-s-citizens-by-president

Source 2: Obama Poised to Restrict Protest Rights http://www.thenation.com/blog/166625/obama-poised-restrict-protest-rights#

Source 3: Martial Law by Executive Order http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-garrison/martial-law-under-another_b_1370819.html?view=print&comm_ref=false

Source 4: Military Drones Prowl US Skies http://news.yahoo.com/military-drones-prowl-us-skies-204238872.html

Source 5: Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=print

Source 6: How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

Source 7: Relatives Sue Officials Over U.S. Citizens Killed by Drone Strikes in Yemen http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/us-officials-sued-over-citizens-killed-in-yemen.html

thenation.com
huffingtonpost.com
news.yahoo.com
www.nytimes.com
theatlantic.com
www.nytimes.com

Huh. Darn those evil right wing web sites trying to depose this beloved tyrant ... er, KING.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 19, 2013 02:59 PM
98. Rags, at least some of that is incorrect (the NDAA explicitly does not authorize indefinite detention for U.S. citizens) and others seem overblown.

Posted by pudge at January 19, 2013 03:25 PM
99. I will continue to cling to my Bible and my guns, refusing to give up either as long as there is a breath of life in me. May the Marxist Obamunists die in the Hell they clamor for and so richly deserve.

Posted by Independent Voter at January 19, 2013 09:01 PM
100. flonase discount - online pharmacy prescription

Posted by John Athey at January 21, 2013 02:04 AM
101. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/18/the-end-of-gun-control-or-anarchy-see-the-chilling-possibilities-created-by-3d-printed-guns/

Posted by Comrade X at January 21, 2013 11:28 AM
102. I graduated high school not too long ago, and we had an armed police officer on campus during school hours. I believe this was due to gang violence in the area, but we were obviously never told that. Anyways, the officer formed a buddy-buddy relationship with the at risk students and because of this learned of, and properly addressed issues that might have been much worse had he not been there.

An example of how this worked was when a student brought a weapon to school and showed it to one of his friends. The friend, frighted, then went up to the police officer and told him about it. They arrested the student and all was well. As a student, I felt safe knowing there was an armed officer and marked police car in front of our school. It have no idea why this is a controversial issue.

Posted by Drew S. at January 21, 2013 06:15 PM
103. Knee jerks never THINK.

Posted by RagnarDanneskold at January 17, 2013 02:42 PM

Yes, Rags; true story (e.g. the clown who posts as Doctor Steve and tensor), as the fecal matter in their heads interferes with their thinking ability. We know they are incapable of critical thinking already - low information voters in every sense of the word.

Posted by KDS at January 21, 2013 09:15 PM
104. @104 - I won't pass homepages of spammers. Try a different approach next time.

Posted by KDS at January 22, 2013 05:20 PM
105. A reasoned take on Obama's 2nd inauguration speech yesterday - reading between the lines and connecting the dots; (h/t Breitbart). Yep, that sounds a lot like the talking points of several low information voters who are merely non-critical thinking sheeple (one who proclaims himself to be a commie fascist);

According to Obama, Republicans who oppose his progressivism:

* Don't care about the elderly or the disabled: According to Obama, forcing a choice between "caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future" - also known as reality - is actually siding with a benighted past in which "twilight years were spent in poverty and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn";
* Are selfish: If we worry about the future viability of programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, then we don't want to "take the risks that make this country great";
* Hate science: If we don't believe Obama's version of climate change, then we "deny the overwhelming judgment of science";
* Are warmongers: Obama says that his agenda, and the agenda of the people, is opposed to "perpetual war";
* Hate black people: Said Obama of voter ID laws, "Our journey is not complete until no citizen is forced to wait for hours to exercise the right to vote";
* Hate immigrants: Obama set up a false choice between welcoming "the striving hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity" and "expell[ing] them from our country";
* Don't care about kids: Those who oppose Obama's gun control agenda don't make children "know that they are cared for and cherished and always safe from harm";
* Hate gays: Obama said that opposing same-sex marriage means we don't believe in equality, since "if we are all truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal, as well";
* Are anarchists: Failing to buy into Obama's agenda means that we don't believe in roads, and think American soldiers "could have met the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias."

In other words, we're rotten skunks if we oppose President Obama's agenda: racist, sexist, bigoted homophobes who hate the elderly and the disabled, ignore science in favor of darkness, love war, and want to live in a Hobbesian chaos.

But no name-calling, please.

Posted by KDS at January 22, 2013 05:41 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?