David Frum: 2nd Amendment Supporters ‘Enable Shootings’

Like all of us, David Frum of The Daily Beast was angered by the shootings in a Connecticut Grade School today. He was also angered by those 2nd Amendment supporters Tweeting him about the incident saying that he “won’t accept lectures” from “those who enable the shootings in the first place.”

Frum’s despair and anger over the incident is, of course, the proper emotional response to this crime. But, like many in the media, he also took this incident as an opportunity to discuss gun control.

The Daily Beast writer took to Twitter upon learning of the incident and his response was to needle concealed carry supporters saying,

Shooting at CT elementary school. Obviously, we need to lower the age limit for concealed carry so toddlers can defend themselves.

The author’s initial Tweet brought him the ire of conservatives when the Twitter-watching site Twitchy noticed his entry.

After getting a slew of scolding replies to his Tweet, Frum took to his blog at The Daily Beast to further explain his feelings about the criminal school shooting.

Frum related his attack on concealed carry supporters by noting that a federal court in Illinois recently told the Illinois State legislature that its concealed carry ban was unconstitutional.

But, Frum doubled down on his attack saying in his Daily Beast post that he would not backtrack or apologize for his first Tweet.

He went on to rely on a common, but wholly unsupportable, position that many anti-2nd Amendment advocates use to excuse their desire for stricter gun control.

But we can say that if the United States worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be many, many fewer atrocities like the one in Connecticut.

Something notable is that every state but Illinois now has some kind of concealed carry law. This is something relatively new in America. But, if Frum’s point was valid, with the fact that every state but one has a legal concealed carry we should be seeing every state with multiple incidents such as that in Connecticut today. But that just isn’t happening.

Frum went on to wave off any thought that his Tweets were unsupportable and further claimed that it is the supporters of the Constitution that are the enablers of these tragedies.

And I’ll say: I’ll accept no lectures about “sensitivity” on days of tragedy like today from people who work the other 364 days of the year against any attempt to prevent such tragedies.

So, no apologies from David Frum.

#Benghazi: Hillary Takes A Spill; Won't Testify
Unions Attack/Destroy African American Hot Dog Vendor's Equipment
  • jim_m

    Because they have no rational basis to back up their arguments so they first call us racists and now they call us murderers. If they had any rational evidence that gun control would fix this problem they would lead with that. Instead they make groundless accusations. This is how dictatorships take power, by whipping up emotions and finding scape goats.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      The question is now whether they can do it in an era where those they’re trying to fuck over can communicate with each other and fight back through the courts.

      The Alinsky model is to isolate the victim (or victim group) and then destroy them. That works – if the victim allows itself to be isolated and silenced.

      But what if it doesn’t? With the internet, someone’s always listening and memes spread fast. What if the silencers are themselves exposed, and isolated?

      The next 4 years are going to be very interesting… probably in the worst sense of the word in some aspects, and the best in others.

      Me? I’m hoping for the best.

    • LiberalNightmare

      We already have gun control.

      The rational evidence is that it doesn’t work.

      This leads the Left to decide that since it didn’t work in the first place, we must need +more+ gun control.

      • jim_m

        As I have said repeatedly, Leftist ideas are never wrong, they just haven’t been tried hard enough. Gun control is the perfect example.

        What the left really hates is that for the last 20 years ccw has spread like wildfire across this nation and violent crime has been in decline over the same time frame.

      • Linda

        how about no guns at all? And if you are caught with a gun, you’re in deep shit? How’s that sound?

        • jim_m

          Sounds like you would have preferred to have lived in Castro’s Cuba or Hitler’s Germany. Both countries instituted radical gun control when those leaders came to power.

          How about Switzerland where nearly every houshold has a gun and violent crime is relatively low?

          • Linda

            What’s the population of Switzerland? less than 8,000,000. Are we talking in relation to that or just in general?

          • jim_m

            The point is that gins are not what drive violent crime. Culture does. You can remove guns and you will still have violence. Guns are illegal in the UK. 35% of murders in 2009 were related to domestic violence. It’s not the guns that are killing people.

          • Linda

            I’ll agree about the culture thing. Do you believe that American culture is to blame for what’s been happening? That’s a point i can relate to you in.

          • jim_m

            I believe that we have desensitized people to violence. I believe that we have eroded the sense of community where people believe that they need to help and take care of each other.

            I think that we have lost the sense that we are the solution and we have invested that in government which is ill equipped to provide the solutions we need.

          • Linda

            do you believe that a greater than 2 party system would help?

          • jim_m

            I don’t think it is related to the mechanics of government.

            Elsewhere I have stated that we no longer teach children morality. We teach relativism. Relativism is little more than excusing amoral behavior. If we taught real morality then there would be less likelihood for people doing these sorts of things. There would also be a higher liklihood of someone stepping up and saying that an individual needed help before they did something.

        • jim_m

          Sounds like you would have preferred to have lived in Castro’s Cuba or Hitler’s Germany. Both countries instituted radical gun control when those leaders came to power.

          How about Switzerland where nearly every houshold has a gun and violent crime is relatively low?

      • retired.military

        Sorta like how they do with taxes and throwing money at problems.

    • Linda

      this is sick. who is calling you a racist? who is calling you a murderer? All people want is for this to be a safer country and who wouldn’t want that? Some people think it would be safer if everyone had a gun, others think it would be safer if nobody had one. The only thing people can rely on are facts and in other countries where gun access is very limited, deaths by guns are very minimal. In our country where there are relatively loose gun control laws, a lot of people get killed every year. These are facts: please try to understand that.

      • jim_m

        ll people want is for this to be a safer country and who wouldn’t want that?

        You apparently. Many studies have demonstrated the statistical link between legal gun ownership and reduction in violent crime. CCW has increased dramatically in this country over the last 20 years. Violent crime has decreased over that time and continues to do so.

        Your answer is that we should remove guns from legal owners and disarm law abiding citizens so the criminals can do whatever they want. When they did that in the UK the murder rate jumped 35%. YOU are the one advocating for more murder and more violence.

        • Linda

          All i’m advocating is taking the guns out of households like the one in Newton where a 20 year old boy killed his mother, took her “legally owned weapons” and then ruined the lives of hundreds of other people in what was once, an ideal suburban town in one of the wealthiest, more educated states in this country.

          • jim_m

            And instead of confiscating guns I recommend helping the mentally ill. My solution is to help people in need your solution is to punish innocent people on the presumption that someday someone might commit a crime.

            What you advocate is despotism. What I advocate is compassion.

          • Linda

            Are you a politician? You should run because you’re certainly good at getting your point across, no matter how mean it is.

          • jim_m

            My point is valid. You are saying that we should restrict rights based on the idea that someone, somewhere might commit a crime. Go watch “Minority Report” with Tom Cruise and tell me how that works for you.

          • Linda

            You’re going to quote a movie starring a closet homosexual actor who is part of a semi-religious cult based on Alien spirits inhabiting souls on earth? Please…and I was going to vote for you.

          • jim_m

            Art, theater and literature provide useful metaphors for life. Shakespeare is significant not because he wrote interesting theater but because he spoke to significant issues of the human condition.

            The point is that restricting rights based on a presumption of possible future criminality is called oppression. You favor that as a solution to Newtown, CT. I do not.

          • Linda

            I’m not sure that’s what i’m saying, my friend. But i’ll stop trying to make a point now.

          • jim_m

            You want to eliminate guns and/or ammunition. How does that not restrict rights based on a presumption of future conduct? Certainly it does not restrict criminals who will not obey the law regardless.

      • jim_m

        ll people want is for this to be a safer country and who wouldn’t want that?

        You apparently. Many studies have demonstrated the statistical link between legal gun ownership and reduction in violent crime. CCW has increased dramatically in this country over the last 20 years. Violent crime has decreased over that time and continues to do so.

        Your answer is that we should remove guns from legal owners and disarm law abiding citizens so the criminals can do whatever they want. When they did that in the UK the murder rate jumped 35%. YOU are the one advocating for more murder and more violence.

  • Carl

    This is Victoria. She died a hero today. She hid her first graders in the cabinets and closets after hearing the gunfire. When the shooter came to her classroom, she told him that her students were in the gym. He then gunned her down and moved on. She
    saved the lives of all of her students. Please pass this on if you see it. She deserves to be remembered for her bravery.

    • arcman46

      If the school hadn’t been a “gun-free” zone, and Victoria had been armed and trained how to use it, both her and her students, along with many others might have been alive today. The tragedy is that she died protecting her students, and yet had no way to protect herself. Victoria is a hero. The sad thing is that she died senselessly because there was no one or no way to protect herself.

      • Commander_Chico

        Yeah, all first grade teachers should be strapped and ready for action.

        Only question is, hip, shoulder, or underarm holsters? I go with underarm – the kids can’t reach up that far.

        • arcman46

          It sounds like you’re being sarcastic. The schools, like Libnightmare says, has a duty, legally and morally to protect our children, just as I would have a duty to protect them when they are at home and with me. I have a CCW, carry almost all the time, and no one, including my friends know that it is there. Many of them know I carry, but they would have a hard time knowing when or if I am or not at the moment. A teacher, even a female could carry responsibly, underneath a blazer or vest, and the children would have no clue to it’s presence. I sold insurance many years ago, and one of the closing phases that we used was “It’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.” A gun is like any insurance policy: It’s a hedge against something bad happening. I hope I never have to use mine, but it is there if I need it.

        • jim_m

          Here is a story about school officials shooting terrorists dead and preventing a mass murder. Of course this is in Israel so you probably think that the prevention of the children’s slaughter was a negative.

          Armed adults at the school would reduce the likelihood of anyone thinking hat the children there are “weak and vulnerable”, to use the words of a mass murderer of school children in China.

          In fact both Israel and Thailand have armed teachers to prevent muslims from slaughtering school children. Since we have turned hundreds of thousands of mental patients out onto the streets, perhaps we should be doing the same.

          Then again, we could do something about the mental health crisis in this country, but that would mean not blaming guns and advancing the left wing agenda. Fat chance of that ever happening. The day the left does something to help this nation will be a very cold day indeed.

          • Brucehenry

            Who is this “we” you keep saying could help the mentally ill? By “we” do you mean taxpayers? Or the insured, premium-payers? Helping the mentally ill, half of whom, you say, are currently being left untreated, would cost a great deal of money. Who will pay? Who will do the actual helping? The government? The health insurance companies?

            Are you willing for your taxes to go up to pay for someone else’s mental health care? Because you damn sure aren’t willing for your taxes to rise to pay to feed someone else’s children.

          • jim_m

            That’s right Bruce. Like you I assume that the only solutions are tax payer funded and government run. Don’t be a dumbass for once. The people doing the actual helping would be the mental health professionals. You think that government or insurance companies are the only ones involved because you think that money is the only thing that is required.

            We did it before with a mix of public and private mental institutions and paid for it with a mix of public and private dollars,

            Like most leftists you apparently assume that we will have to house mental patients forever. This is he typical lefty solution to everything. Achieve total stasis and everything is taken care of. Patients will never get better and lead productive lives. We just need to house them in institutions forever.

            The reality is that while some people will be institutionalized for their whole lives most will not. and many will be able to make significant contributions to society so the actual cost is somewhat less than you think because we will take people who cannot contribute and enable them to do so.

            Next you will come up with the other lefty answer to any problem which is that if you cannot solve all problems everywhere then you shouldn’t try to solve any problems anywhere.

          • Brucehenry

            What do you think a “mix of public and private dollars” means, Jim, if not taxes and insurance premiums? I suppose some charitable contributions would be included, but what else constitutes a “mix of private and public dollars”?

            And I didn’t say ANYTHING about what I “assume” treatment would entail, beyond the fact that it would be expensive. Do you deny that it would be expensive? “”Somewhat less than you think” is still expensive, is it not?

          • jim_m

            In many cases treatment is a matter of getting people on meds. We have a lot better treatment than we did 50 years ago when we started kicking mental patients out into the street.

            I find it astonishing that you don’t think twice about a multi billion dollar effort to restrict the 2nd amendment or even confiscate guns but someone suggests that we should spend that money to help someone and you get your panties in a bunch because it’s too much money.

            More proof that the left doesn’t care about people but cares far more about their political agenda.

          • Brucehenry

            You haven’t seen ME advocating for more gun control. I was just observing that you keep calling for “us” to help the mentally ill, but weren’t mentioning how “we” were supposed to pay for this help, or even who “we” were.

          • jim_m

            One of my common themes has been that liberals alleviate themselves of the need to take personal responsibility for helping their fellow man by shifting that responsibility to government. I am not suggesting that helping the mentally ill is free. I understand that it costs money. I do not labor under the misconception that many people do that healthcare workers work for free (and yes, people really do believe that).

          • Brucehenry

            OK, but if not government and not insurance companies, who will provide this “mix of public and private funds” to pay mental health professionals, who, as you say, don’t work for free?

            Seems to me, and maybe I’m wrong, that it was cutting federal funds to help the mentally ill back in the 80s that led to mental patients being “mainstreamed” or whatever they call it. I’m sure you remember it differently.

          • Brucehenry

            Check out this essay, Jim. I agree that helping the mentally ill is the most important thing that can be done to reduce the frequency of these incidents, btw.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/blackberry/p.html?id=2311009

          • jim_m

            Really, really good article.

            People need help. The boy in the article is not a criminal. The justice system will not get him the help he needs. It will only make him a victim. We need a mental health system that can help him. We had one. It had problems so we dismantled it without regard to the people that it helped.

            It’s time to act to correct this problem.

          • Brucehenry

            I hear ya. What do you suggest?

          • jim_m

            We need to revisit the laws on forcible commitment. We also need to look at the law regarding forcible outpatient treatment. The mental hospitals have gone away because we could not put people in them. If we change that they will come back.

            Real solutions take time.

          • Brucehenry

            Seem like good ideas, Jim. But I was under the impression that involuntary commitment laws were changed in the first place because they were often abused by officious bureaucrats, greedy relatives, etc.

            I don’t want people forcibly committed to cuckoo’s-nest situations if they don’t belong there. And wasn’t a Kennedy daughter lobotomized and stashed in an “institution” sometime in the 1930s?

          • jim_m

            And I agree with that too. I think there is a balance between making it too easy to commit someone and impossible. Just because abuses happened in the past is no reason to abandon treatment of the mentally ill as we have done.

            The sad reality is hat we either accept that some injustices will be done to the mentally ill or that the mentally ill will commit injustices on the rest of us. We need to make a choice as a society and then suck it up and deal with it.

            If we are not going to treat the mentally ill we will need to reconcile ourselves to their occasionally murdering large numbers of people. (or acting like Carl)

          • retired.military

            Bruce

            I agree with you totally. At the same time there are the same officious bearucrats that a lot on the left want to entrust our health care to. If they abused the “insane” what makes you think they wont abuse us?

          • retired.military

            Bruce they were being helped before the libs HELPED them right out of the hospitals they were in.

          • Commander_Chico

            Agreed with doing something about the mental health crisis, particularly identifying the causes of guys like Cho, Loughner, Holmes, and now Lanza. It wasn’t always that guys slipping into schizophrenia went on shooting sprees. Maybe Whitman at the Texas Tower was the first one.

            Crisis of masculinity + social isolation + mental illness + first person shooter games + guns = mass shootings.

            Goes back to Chico’s First Theory – guys not getting laid cause a lot of the problems in the world.

          • Linda

            DUDE – you are talking about terrorists here! The people who are killing everyone in this country are DISTURBED YOUNG PEOPLE IN THEIR EARLY 20′S. GET IT STRAIGHT!!! THESE KIDS DON’T CARE ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE THEY WANT TO DIE…IT DOESN’T MATTER IF SOMEONE IS ARMED OR NOT. THEY ARE GOING TO KILL, NO MATTER WHAT.

      • LiberalNightmare

        I believe that the school systems have a duty, both legal and moral to protect our children when we drop them off at school.

        There should be at least one armed staff member at the school during school hours.

        • SteveCrickmore075

          sounds like a conservativeNightmare enforced and ordered by new ‘conservative’ government regulations..and what happens when one of these teachers goes berserk or accidents happen?. Our kids are stressed enough without having to enter combat zones.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Are you suggesting that we cant trust teachers with fire arms? I mean these are the same people that get to give my kids birth control. Are you sure the NEA knows what you think about them?

          • retired.military

            Not only birth control but abortions.

          • retired.military

            “Nightmare enforced and ordered by new liberal’ government regulations.”
            Are we talking about Obama care here?

    • SteveCrickmore075

      Too bad none of our politicians had this bravery!

    • retired.military

      If Victoriia had a gun she could have hidden her students and shot the asshole when he came into her classroom.

  • GarandFan

    Frum, like the rest of the liberal idiots will just regurgitate their talking points. Some moron Democratic Congressman was on Piers Morgan. He was asked what laws should be passed to stop such actions in the future. So the guy blabs about the assault weapons ban, micro-stamping, and closing ‘the gun show loophole’. NONE of that had a damned thing to do with Friday’s shooting. Semi-autos have been around for 100 years and this didn’t occur. The gun hasn’t changed. The laws have changed. SO WHAT ARE WE MISSING? Don’t ask a lib, they don’t want to have to THINK.

  • TomInCali

    Frum: if the United States worked harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people…

    Huston: if Frum’s point was valid, with the fact that every state but one has a
    legal concealed carry we should be seeing every state with multiple
    incidents such as that in Connecticut today. But that just isn’t
    happening.

    Where does Frum say that concealed carry equals guns getting into the hands of dangerous people? You’re just making this up.

    Let me try… I think that if Huston’s point was valid, then we’d see fewer lions eating zebras. But that just isn’t happening, so Huston’s point is clearly invalid.

  • Commander_Chico

    This will be the solution, not gun control:

    https://twitter.com/FearDept/status/280178133045485568

    U.S. Dept. of Fear ‏@FearDept

    The answer is surveillance. If we know when people are opening their gun cabinets, we can get SWAT to their homes in time.

    • Vagabond661

      Big Brother is watching. Of course that won’t work but it is a classic government solution.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    So the end result on wizbang is we should do absolutely zero, apart from individually buying more guns… Jim, thinks we should do more to help the mentally ill and naturally but rather incoherently blames liberals. when as everyone knows conservatives, and the GOP when in power, such as in the Reagan administration when much of the deinstutionalization occured, not surpisingly didn’t distinguish themselves, with their help to the mentally ill, on the contrary.

    Certain forms of social welfare spending, such as programs for the mentally ill,
    were perceived as wasteful
    and thus easy targets for budget cuts. Cuts in funding for mental health services continued throughout the 1980s, with
    the emphasis being on the provision of services via the private sector. Overall,
    the number of beds available to the mentally ill in public and private hospitals
    dropped over forty percent..

    Conventional wisdom suggests that the reduction of funding for social welfare policies during the 1980s is the result of a conservative backlash against the welfare state. With such a backlash, it should be expected that changes in the policies toward involuntary commitment of the mentally ill reflect a generally conservative approach to social policy more
    generally. In this case, however, the complex of social forces that lead to less
    restrictive guidelines for involuntary commitment are not the result of
    conservative politics per se, but rather a coalition of fiscal conservatives,
    law and order Republicans, relatives of mentally ill patients, and the
    practitioners working with those patients. Combined with a sharp rise in
    homelessness during the 1980s, Ronald Reagan pursued a policy toward the
    treatment of mental illness that satisfied special interest groups and the
    demands of the business community, but failed to address the issue: the
    treatment of mental illness.

    As long as we have a health for profit system, insurers will be reluctant to cover mental illness and as I mentioned to jim the other day the tea party candidate such as Sharron Angle, made what he called “a dumbass coment “on mental ilness, tastelessly mocking it. Ann Coulter is another. They really don’t take it seriously. It goes against their principles of law n order, individual responsibility, too many social welfare programs; they want to weaken the safety net, not strengthen it. And the private insurance companies certainly don’t want to cover mental illness, treatment is expensive and long term, they don’t want to include it in their policies.- In the case of the Connecticut shooter, the kindergarten teacher quit her job to look after her son and we see the consequences.

    • The_Weege_99

      How typical – everything is the mean old Republicans’ fault. And no, it wasn’t conservatives or conservative policy that emptied the intsitutions of their patients. But it was generally fiscally sound policy to close those institutions when they had already been emptied. Blaming it on Reagan, when these were STATE run institution, only demonstrates that the author you quote is a LIAR and that you are clueless about the history.

    • jim_m

      As long as we have a health for profit system

      Idiot! Providers are far and away not for profit organizations. We had the same system we have today back in the 60′s and it worked. The government regulated what worked out of existence. Your solution is more of what screwed things up in the first place, more government.

      That’s right Steve. Left wing ideology is never wrong. It just hasn’t been tried hard enough. Until you and your lefty friends get a totalitarian government to enforce your ideology at the end of a gun barrel you will never give up.

      • SteveCrickmore075

        Never read anywear that a conservative politician wants society, public or private to put more money or resources into mental illness. You are sounding like a liberal -Why don’t you raise that at your next tea party meeting and see the reaction? The riddle confronting one of the most conservative legislatures in recent times is how to fulfill tea party promises to shrink government without passing burdens such as mental illness care into the most costly forums — hospital emergency rooms and county jails— neither of which are the most healthy venue for someone with a mental illness…If(clients) are in crisis, we’re going to see them. We’re going to do something. When you stop seeing folks early on, when you stop seeing folks in routine services, they are going to go into crisis. And folks who go into crisis are going to end up in our hospital. They are going to end up in our jails.”

        • jim_m

          The reason that we push the burden onto ER’s and county jails is because we cannot force patients to get treatment even on an outpatient basis. We have passed laws that prevent us from treating mental patients in the most appropriate places. The problem is multifaceted. Once again the left looks at the problem and says 1) the government must pay for it all. and 2) if we can’t solve it all simply then we can’t do anything. If we can’t help everyone then we shouldn’t help anyone.

    • LiberalNightmare

      It seems to me that you’re trying to tie this school shooting to a need for govt funded heath care via Obama care, every liberal knows that now is the time to push for gun control.

      You better get on the right page before your hot dog cart gets knocked over buddy.

  • SteveCrickmore075

    Nancy (Lanza) neighbors say, was a gun enthusiast. I suppose that makes her a normal American but why do they always have a ton of guns? Belcher, the linebacker and his girlfriend had eight or nine. Nancy appeared to have as many. Don’t they lose track of them? or do they feel they need almost unlimited firepower to feel safe in Connecticut or Missouri?

    • arcman46

      I have several, and, no, as a responsible gun owner, you don’t lose track of them.

    • jim_m

      The average gun owner owns 4 guns. My coworker hunts pheasant and deer. You don’t use the same gun for both activities.

      People also collect guns. There is nothing wrong with the desire to have examples of different makes and models of gun. I collect paperweights. I don’t have a need for as many as I do. I just like them. The difference between a paperweight collection and a gun collection is that leftists generally don’t call me dangerous and crazy for collecting paperweights.

      If you went to a gun shop you would discover that safety and responsibility are first and foremost in people’s minds. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could “lose track” of a gun. If Ms Lanza was indeed an “enthusiast” she would have taken care of her guns. That does not necessarily mean keeping them under lock and key but it means storing them properly and knowing where they are.

      • Linda

        How about guns but no ammunition? That would be cool.

        • jim_m

          That would be unconstitutional, miss fascist.

          • Linda

            Well how about limited ammunition? As in ammunition that can only pierce at a certain distance?

          • jim_m

            Um, That is called ballistics. Bullets eventually stop. If you had taken science and not history as a major you might understand that.

          • Linda

            Do you believe in global warming, btw? Just asking – or are you one of the scientists who doesn’t think that’s happening? And what about the interglacial period coming to an end? Do you think that’s not happening either?

          • jim_m

            I believe in the IPCC’s forthcoming report which admits that they under estimated the influence of solar forcing.

          • Linda

            so in your scientific opinion, industrialization and greenhouse gases along with our effects on the ozone layer have nothing to do with changes in our weather and environment?

          • jim_m

            In the last two years several studies have indicated that solar influence has been so significantly underrated so as to make the current climate models irrelevant. The models used to predict global warming simply lack the necessary information to make a prediction that is meaningful.

            Combine that with the fact that for the last 15 years climatologists are now admitting that we have been in a cooling cycle and I will say that the evidence is against AGW. It won’t be the first time that environmentalists have been wrong on climate. It won’t be the last.

          • Linda

            we are obviously going into global cooling – the 10,000 year interglacial period is over. If it wasn’t for human caused global warming, we would be in a natural mini ice age by 2018

          • retired.military

            Now we have Al Gore here. I havent seen this predicted by the experts.

            There is only one thing obvious about the weather. If the weather man cant tell you if it is going to rain today he damn sure cant predict what the weather for the world is going to be like in 6 years.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            I’ll actually agree with her somewhat on that. Ruddiman’s paper on AGW does show that if it weren’t for the methane releases from agriculture starting about 8000 years back, we’d be nuts deep in glaciers at this point.

            http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

            Figure 1b is pretty interesting. If the ‘normal’, non-enhanced methane situation had continued, we likely wouldn’t be having this conversation…

          • jim_m

            It’s not even the Winter Solstice yet. Winter does not get to its coldest until the end of January- Early February. Whatever cold we will see because of the current solar minimum is yet to come. Claiming that we would have already been in an ice age is silly and ignores what we know of climate,

            The shift to serious cold will not be felt for a few more years yet and it is highly improbable that man made CO2 will make any difference. Man made CO2 was not making it warmer and causing AGW. It is not saving us from an ice age.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You might want to read the paper all the way through. I’m an AGW supporter – but not one of the “OMG! CO2 WILL MAKE US BOIL SO WE MUST GO PREINDUSTRIAL!!!” crowd.

            I tend to think of it more as terraforming, before we knew what we were doing. It looks to me like it’s methane that smoothed out the cycle this time, and delayed the onset of an ice age enough for civilization to develop.

          • retired.military

            That sums up my belief. Otherwise why did we have warming peoriods before man even appeared on the earth.

          • retired.military

            There is weather change but not manmade.

          • Vagabond661

            Since all these shootings happen in “gun free zones”, how about eliminate gun free zones?

            Wouldn’t that make more sense then limiting ammunition? They made cocaine illegal a long time ago, but it seems to be accessible for those who want to get it.

          • Linda

            they should just have harsher penalties on people who use cocaine. that’s something that should dissappear

          • jim_m

            Funny how you see how criminalizing drugs has not gotten rid of the drug problem but you cannot see that criminalizing gun ownership will not get rid of gun violence. Why are the most violent cities in our nation the ones with the most restrictive gun laws?

          • Linda

            because the biggest cities in the nation are the ones where there are the most desperate people, where the gap between wealthy and poor exist the greatest. I’m surprised so often how little violence there is in NYC where people paying $500 a night for a hotel room are literally ACROSS THE STREET from people living in projects who can’t afford $500 a month in living expense.

          • retired.military

            The bigger cities are mainly run by dems who profit by keeping people poor.

            You will always have poor people. THey have been there since the beginning of time and they will be there until all the lights go out. YOu can give everyone a million dollars and guess what a loaf of bread would cost’? Damn near a million dollars.

            And the poor people keep on electing the dems because the dems give them just enough to get by.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            You’ve studied history. What happens when a nation – or nation-state – is seen by its neighbors as being weak and defenseless?

            Or to put another way – is the predator going to go after the animal that can fight back effectively? Or is it going to go after the sick and weak?

            When concealed carry is passed in a city or state – the crime rate usually goes down. All of a sudden, the chance that the criminal will get his precious skin ventilated by a victim goes WAY up. Sure – the person he chooses likely won’t be armed… but what if he is?

            When guns are outlawed… well, you know the rest of the phrase. Criminals love helpless victims. It’s so unfair when they can fight back!

          • Vagabond661

            The point is it doesn’t matter how illegal you make something, crooks will still find a way. Ask Lindsay Lohan.
            The places where these shootings are happening are gun-free zones. How much more gun control than that can you get? Pass a law and make them Ammunition-free zones too? If making something gun-free doesn’t stop the crazies, how will adding ammunition on to that really help? The obvious answer is: it won’t.

            Even the crazies know not to step into a gun store and open fire. Why don’t the liberals know that? The reason is that is not their end game.

          • retired.military

            The harsher penalties for the most part dont work. We know this because people still murder for things as trivial as $20.
            I am not for legalizing drugs. I am saying you cant make a problem go away by simply increasing the punishment. Now if you want to shoot on sight anyone who is in possession of cocaine than you will maybe get rid of it after a few million corpses.

            Of course that may offend your IVY league sensibilities.

          • Linda

            Well how about limited ammunition? As in ammunition that can only pierce at a certain distance?

  • Par4Course

    Liberals see every event as an opportunity to grow government and restrict freedom. Thus, it can hardly be a surprise that the Connecticut grade school shooting would cause liberals, like Mayor Bloomberg and David Frum, to immediately demand the feds start “controlling” (i.e, seizing) guns. However, the longer Obama remains President, the more guns Americans will own as his election and reelection have been the biggest stimulants to gun sales in or nation’s history.

  • herddog505

    I saw Frum’s Tweet early on. My immediate thought was, “You c*cksucker!”

    Upon reflection, my thought is, “You c*cksucker!”

    Frum is blaming gunowners and RKBA supporters for this???? A lunatic commits an atrocity, and those of us who enjoy sportshooting, hunting, collecting, or keeping guns for defense (oh, if only one of us had been in the school!) are to blame???
    Now, he’s doubled down, making it even MORE clear that, in his opinion, it’s our fault that those children are dead.

    F*ck you, Frum, you dirty little pig.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Don’t you right wing nuts get it?
    If we just took guns away, nothing bad would happen. Ever!

    Well if we take away guns and knives.

    And large sodas.

    And baby formula.

    And everyone exercised 3 times a week.

    And no one ate fried food.

    And everyone quits smoking (tobacco)

    And you have to wear a helmet.

    And you shouldn’t be allowed to say whatever you want.

    And don’t forget free healthcare

    And rich people, no more rich people.

    And you shouldn’t watch news that we don’t like.

    And your toilets shouldn’t use so much water when you flush.

    • jim_m

      But don’t worry. The left really is concerned about your freedom. (about your having way too much of it)

    • Linda

      What’s wrong with most of the things you wrote? Large soda is fucking horrible for you. Baby formula is mostly bad…what’s wrong with exercise? Fried food is bad for you – smoking is bad for you. Helmets prevent injuries. The right is taking away free speech, not the left. Healthcare should be a right if you are a legal citizen in this country. Everyone should have access to whatever news they want to read. Toilet water is a complete waste.

      • jim_m

        Healthcare should be a right if you are a legal citizen in this country.

        You already have a right to get as much healthcare as you like in this country whether you are a citizen or not. You just have to pay for it. What you advocate is not access to healthcare but access to free healthcare. There is a difference. Quality healthcare is not free, People come from all over the world to the US for treatment because we provide better quality outcomes than they can get in their socialized systems elsewhere.

        • Linda

          Ahh, perhaps you are correct about people coming for great treatment here but only people with a certain amount of wealth can do that, no? It’s not like we have half of the Dominican Republic showing up asking for heart transplants, now do we? No. We might get some Swedish real estate millionaires coming over for brain surgery, yes but that’s about it.

          Think about this. I went to an IVY league school and have a degree in history. I have few prospects in terms of jobs with attached health care plans and live in a very large city in the USA. I grew up in this country yet if i get ill, i will probably not be able to afford to take care of myself without having my parents sell any/all of their assets. This is wrong, don’t you think?

          • jim_m

            No I don’t think it is wrong. You fucked up. I shouldn’t have to pay for your mistake, You got a degree from an expensive university and you can’t do anything with it. I got a science degree from a private midwestern university that didn’t cost so much. I make a good living because I got a useful skill so I could support myself, my family and not be a burden upon society.

            You’re an adult. Take some responsibility for yourself. The government is not an extension of your parent’s home. My Parents didn’t expect their parents or the government to take care of their every need. I didn’t expect that. Why are you so special that all of a sudden we should radically change our society because you are so irresponsible that you cannot and will not take care of your own needs?

          • Linda

            Here’s the funny thing: we’re both Americans. You studied science, I studied history. We both went to private schools – you don’t even know what I paid to go to the school I went to. I’m not expecting anyone to pay for my healthcare, i’m just asking why it shouldn’t be provided, that’s all. Why are you attacking me so personally?

          • Linda

            No response to that? You don’t know why you’re attacking me personally – because you don’t have a reason to.

          • jim_m

            It’s not personal. BruceHenry will tell you that this is just how I am. (so will my exwife)

          • Linda

            I’m NOT complaining, jim. I’m just asking why you believe that American citizens, legal citizens, should not have access to healthcare? It doesn’t need to be “the best” healthcare – i get it that if you have a good job and can afford top quality care, than so be it! You should have access to that. But for those who don’t have top jobs, should those people not have something too? Aside from the ER or clinics?

          • jim_m

            I just stated that they do. It is the law that anyone needing treatment who presents at an ER must be treated.

            I believe that you get the same quality health care whether you have insurance or no. The question becomes should you have the same treatment options if you cannot or will not pay? Healthcare workers do not work for free. Most solutions that the government has proposed (including obamacare) do not address costs but only address what will be paid.

            Under a socialized system you get lower quality healthcare and you get limited amounts of it. If the quota for a procedure has been reached you end up waiting. In Canada the constitution guarantees access to health care. The Supreme Court of Quebec ruled that the Canadian Health System violated the constitution . In the ruling they remarked that “Access to a waiting list is not access to healthcare.”

          • retired.military

            THEY DO.

            It is called the emergency room. TRY TO FIND A JOB and get healthcare. As I suggested above the military is always looking for folks especially with degrees. And the ER and clinics take care of a lot of things they shouldnt have to. People go to the ER with a cold because they want medicine given to them or have their insurance company pay for it when they can get it over the counter.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            My brother had a heart attack. No insurance, minimum wage job – he called 911 and was in an operating room inside of 45 minutes. They put in stents, he was released a few days later. Total bill – $74k. He worked out a way to pay it – $100 a month. After three months, they told him the rest of the bill was written off.

            He wasn’t so lucky with his second heart attack – he didn’t manage to call 911.

            Whenever someone starts going on about how the poor don’t have access to health care, it’s easy to tell they believe what they’ve been told – but they haven’t bothered to actually see whether it’s true or not.

          • Brucehenry

            I can vouch for that. Jim’s not a hater — he just plays one on the internet lol.

          • jim_m

            Gee, thanks Bruce.

          • jim_m

            It is provided. You can pay for it. I shouldn’t have to pay for mine and yours as well.

            And I have worked in a bone marrow transplant program where we provided very expensive therapy. We found sources of payment for people whose insurance wouldn’t cover it. Charity still exists. People still get help.

            It’s not personal. I just think that you come here and complain that you got this history degree and you can’t get a job and now you can’t afford healthcare if something were to happen. That’s not my problem. You can find a job that gets you benefits.

            There was a time in my career where I took a job because it provided income even though it did not relate to my education or expertise. I did what I had to because I took responsibility for myself and my family. I did not complain that the government should step in and do it for me.

          • SteveCrickmore075

            Don’t take it personally Linda conservatives always attack personally anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Why, i think they don’t like people who are different than they are and therefore think differently They are extremely touchy people.

          • retired.military

            Oh now I get it. Personal attack is liberal talk for telling someone to take respoinsibility for their life.

          • retired.military

            ” you don’t even know what I paid to go to the school I went to”

            All we know is you piad too much for a degree you cant get a job in. We could care less how much you paid.

            “. I’m not expecting anyone to pay for my healthcare, i’m just asking why it shouldn’t be provided, that’s all.”
            Provided by WHO? You dont want us to pay for it but you want it provided? Someone has to do the providing?
            How about this. GO into the military. With your degree you will qualify for Officer candidate school. (See your degree is good for something). And you will get your health care provided for. IN the process you will probably learn to GROW THE FUCK UP and become an adult.

            ” Why are you attacking me so personall””

            He isnt. He is simply explaining something to you that your parents obvlously didnt.

            LIFE ISNT FAIR. Go back to the person who told you it was and tell them THEY LIED.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            She still hasn’t figured out that someone ALWAYS has to pay the bill.

            Rather pathetic. You’d think studying history would have taught her there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            “I’m not expecting anyone to pay for my healthcare, i’m just asking why it shouldn’t be provided, that’s all.”

            Who are you expecting to provide it?

            SOMEONE always pays. Government, insurance, charities, the people treated – someone pays. Occasionally the hospitals will write off what they won’t be able to collect – but that just jacks up the costs others have to pay.

          • retired.military

            THANK YOU

          • retired.military

            “This is wrong, don’t you think?”

            NO. Why dont I ? Because you made the choice. WHy do I have to pay for your poor choices? How about this. GO BACK TO SCHOOL. GET A DEGREE IN SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN GET A JOB IN AND GO FROM THERE.

            With great freedom comes great responsibility. You had your freedom now suck up that responsibility.

            What a whiner you are. I cant get a job in my field WHINE so you have to pay for it.
            ANd your IVY league school is most of the problem.

        • Linda

          Ahh, perhaps you are correct about people coming for great treatment here but only people with a certain amount of wealth can do that, no? It’s not like we have half of the Dominican Republic showing up asking for heart transplants, now do we? No. We might get some Swedish real estate millionaires coming over for brain surgery, yes but that’s about it.

          Think about this. I went to an IVY league school and have a degree in history. I have few prospects in terms of jobs with attached health care plans and live in a very large city in the USA. I grew up in this country yet if i get ill, i will probably not be able to afford to take care of myself without having my parents sell any/all of their assets. This is wrong, don’t you think?

      • jim_m

        Linda, while soda and transfats etc might not be good for you, there is no one and no government that should have the right or ability to force you to not partake of those things. Alcohol is not good for you either. WE tried prohibition and it did not turn out well.

        Fried food is a staple in many cultures. Are you going to ban ethnic groups from celebrating their native culture because you hate fried foods? I hope not.

        You cannot legislate behavior. You cannot control people to the degree that you think is necessary.

        • Linda

          Prohibition just showed the true colors of the drunks in this nation. Alcohol is the biggest killer of them all – if we could get rid of alcohol and keep guns, i’d take that deal in a heartbeat.

          • jim_m

            Actually, under prohibition we saw increased drunkenness and increased criminality. Two things that the temperance movement claimed would be reduced. This is often used as an argument in favor of legalizing drugs. It’s funny how the left uses this argument for legalizing drugs but does not see the parallel to criminalizing guns.

          • Linda

            Of course ! people want things they can’t have – take away alcohol, they want to drink. Ban drugs? They’ll use them twice as much. If you banned guns, people would get guns. But if you banned all these things and then brought VERY BAD NEWS upon the people who tried to access them, i doubt people would go out of their way to get them.

          • jim_m

            That’s a very totalitarian mindset.

          • Linda

            perhaps but it would work.

          • jim_m

            And it would be wrong. That’s the problem with the left. The ends justify the means as long as the ends are their ends.

          • herddog505

            Kind of frightening to see it stated so explicitly, ain’t it?

          • retired.military

            NO IT WOULD NOT. DId gun free zone work? Nope Did Prohibition work? NO. Does the war on drugs work? No.

            How about executing people for murder, does it stop murder? NO.

            Your own words above tells you that it doesnt work but yet you want to take away things from people just because YOU DONT AGREE WITH THEM.

            What if I were in power and what I said mattered and suddenly I said “I think everyone with history degree from IVY league schools should get thrown in jail for life”
            Gee you dont like that do you. BUt yet you have no problem trying to impose your wants on others.

            Open your eyes and take off the rose colored glasses.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Linda’s got a degree in History? From an Ivy League college? And she can’t find a job?

            From her posting – I’m thinking she learned how to parrot back what the teacher said, so she could get a good grade – but didn’t make it to the point of understanding and being able to draw conclusions from the data she’s exposed to.

            Probably ought to sue her college – they’ve utterly failed to teach her how to think.

          • jim_m

            How about executing people for murder, does it stop murder? NO

            Stops recidivism.

          • jim_m

            You remind me of a group of Brown students on the T in Boston discussing politics. They really couldn’t understand what was wrong with communism and why people were against it. To them it seemed a very reasonable and fair way to run a country.

            Of course they obviously either had no clue about the history of Eastern Europe and Asia in the 20th century and the millions of people who lost their lives to communism and the oppression that communism required to keep itself in power.

            In a similar way you seem to have a very scary ends-justify-the-means viewpoint that leaves out any consideration of human nature and human rights.

          • retired.military

            You twit. LAW ABIDING CITIZENS wouldnt get guns because BY DEFINTION THEY ARE LAW ABIDING citizens. Criminals will always get guns because they are BY DEFINITION CRIMINALS!!. Once you understand that concept you will realize that gun control makes little sense in issues like this. the shooting took place in a gun free zone which was a crime. He was going to commit suicide which means that nothing would have deterred him from getting a gun legally or illegally.
            Here is a clue for you. Dont tell anyone you have a degree from an IVY league school. You are only reinforcing stereotypes.

          • retired.military

            Nothing wrong with Alcohol, transfat, fried foods or most of the other things you mentioned as long as it is done in moderation. You see you feel that just because you wont take responsiblity for your life that others cant.

      • retired.military

        “The right is taking away free speech, not the left. ”

        Really then why have a dozen or so right wing speakers been cancelled at universities in just the past year but umm no left wing speakers have had their engagements cancelled?

        Why is it whenever a conservative dsapproves of a policy of Obama they are called racist by the left?

        You are smoking dope.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Here’s a headline you wont see for the next few weeks – or ever.

    Chicago Shootings Spike 49% In November Despite Strict Gun Laws

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwyn-williams-jr/chicago-shootings-spike-49-november-despite-strict-gun-laws

    I guess chicago needs ‘more’ gun control

    • jim_m

      From the article:

      Rahm Emanuel plans on restricting gun ownership further by banning individuals with a violent misdemeanor conviction from getting a gun permit for five years. The mayor also hopes to ban convicted felons from ever owning a gun.

      First of all, felons cannot legally own guns as a matter of federal law so Rahm manages to provide further evidence that the left has no concept of what current gun law is. He also obviously remains under the misapprehension that criminals obey gun laws. Why do lefties think that if they pass gun restrictions that criminals will obey them?

    • Linda

      Chicago needs less morons.

      • jim_m

        We would empty the city if we were to get rid of them all.

        • Linda

          What’s your favorite sports team, jim?

          • jim_m

            The reds

            I also like the Red Sox

          • Linda

            Cincinnati & Boston are filled with morons, too. A large majority play on those teams. I’m a Blackhawks fan and I think those guys are the biggest morons in Chicago, by far.

          • jim_m

            You didn’t follow the link. The Reds are from Liverpool.

            I agree with Boston. Filled with idiots. Many have gone to Ivy league universities and almost all are outrageously liberal.

          • Linda

            lol there’s only one IVY league school in the Boston area. Most of the schools there aren’t great – Williams, MIT, Amherst, Tufts, Boston College being some of the better ones, however.

          • jim_m

            I had staff that commuted from Providence to Boston so I would include Brown in the metro area. Other than MIT I would not have rated any of the other schools as great and having listened to Brown and Harvard undergrads talking on the T, I would say that they are no more impressive than any Big Ten university student but they are a heck of a lot more arrogant and uneducated about the real world.

          • Linda

            the big ten students are good students, for sure. Given the same opportunities that most of the kids who go to IVY’s get, i think they would be just as, if not more successful.

            The question is why do all of our presidents come out of IVY league schools when there are really better options out there?

          • jim_m

            Because as in many things it is not what you know but who you know.

          • retired.military

            Because you arent really paying for a better education.

            It is like a pair of Jordache (do they still make those) jeans. Pretty much the same thing but you pay for the name.

            In Ivy league schools you are paying for the name along with the connections you make. If you dont realize that by now I think that money you spent on your IVY league education was wasted.
            Also it is becoming easier to see why you cant get a job with decent pay and benefits.
            here is another clue. The vast majority of history majors go on to teach school. There is very little job market for history majors outside of places like museums (other than teaching school).
            How many people need a person who can name all the major battles of the American revolution or the Napoleanic wars to make money in today’s society. After all JOBS (other than govt) are about making money for a company. Companies are in business to make money and not to provide jobs.

            Sorry to turn on the harsh light of reality on you but someone should have done so a long time ago.

          • retired.military

            Here is a clue. Watch less sports and look for jobs more. Maybe you will be able to afford healthcare.

  • Linda

    What is wrong with all of you people? The second amendment was written to protect the citizens of this nation from the potential rise of a tyrannical American government at a time when a home owned musket was the same weaponry used by the soldiers in the military. This does not apply today in the least and I think it’s sick that the Supreme Court voted to change what has been written, clear as day, to appeal to sick folk such as yourselves.

    If your child was killed by someone with a gun today, what would you feel about this? Think about that, please. Please.

    • jim_m

      I would ask why was a crazy person out there and not gotten help? When Timothy McVeigh blew up the OKC federal building and killed all those people did we ask why he could purchase fuel oil and fertilizer? Nope.

      Why do you assume that the individual has no responsibility for his own actions? That is exactly what you are doing. You presume that he would not have hurt anyone had he not had a gun. You presume that he would not have made a bomb. You presume that he would not have taken an axe to those kids.

      Your answer is to ban fertilizer to prevent bombing.

      • Linda

        Really? Do you think if that kid took an AXE to the school, somebody wouldn’t have stopped him? An AXE dude? You can see an axe and move out of the way of an axe: an axe can only attack ONE person at a time: you can RUN away from an axe.

        As for a bomb: that would’ve taken effort. How many kids are bombing schools and movie theaters and then how many are shooting them up?

        I’m not assuming anything about the kid other than that he was obviously messed up in the head. He was not “evil” : he was sick. Everyone plays the good vs evil card – everyone has their own definition of what that could possibly mean.

        • jim_m

          A ccw holder could have stopped this and there are multiple cases where exactly that has happened. The recent mall shooting in Oregon is an example where once confronted with a gun from a CCW holder the crazed gunman took his own life and he incident was over.

          Your cure is saying that to end mass shootings which are less likely to kill you than being hit by lightning, we should turn the country into a dictatorship where a defenseless population is victim to a corrupt government.

          • Linda

            If the government imposed martial law right now and the military decided to take the side of the government as opposed to the people, would the second amendment and the right to bear arms help? No. The population is not allowed access to the same weaponry that the government and the military have access to. This is not the 19th century anymore.

          • jim_m

            US hunters comprise the 3rd largest standing army in the world. You fool yourself if you think that the US military could impose a dictatorship without the deliberate acquiescence of the public.

          • Linda

            One bomb from the sky destroys every one of those hunters. What then?

          • jim_m

            Then I suggest that you figure out a way to control the deer population and get used to the idea of deliberately poisoning wildlife.

            But seriously, we would be talking asymetric warfare in such a case and you would be claiming that the military were willing to indiscriminately bomb the civilian population of the United States.

          • Linda

            What i’m saying is that it would be an unfair fight – hunters with rifles and semi automatics against the most advanced military in the world. The 2nd amendment would need to be adjusted so that the militia population would be armed with the same weaponry as the military.

          • jim_m

            Actually, that was the case before the 1934 National Firearms act which was meant to reduce the access of machine guns etc to the gangs that prohibition had spawned.

          • Linda

            Jim, the point is that it would never happen. And if it did happen, the population would lose. Back when the amendment was written, it was a fair fight because “we the people”, the few that there were who were in the army against the UK, would be the same ones joining into a well regulated militia.

          • jim_m

            Up until 1934 it still could have been a fair fight. After that not as much.

          • retired.military

            I disagree Jim. We have 50 caliber rifles you can buy in gun stores here. A lot of folks can convert semiautomatic into full automatic. I know of numerous civilians with military style body armor and with thousands of rounds. Plus TX also has hollow points. They are the preferred ammunition for home defense.

          • 914

            The population would lose because the military is populated with the population. So either way we as Americans lose.

          • retired.military

            The population would win. And quite handily.

          • jim_m

            Sounds like the American revolution. A bunch of farmers against the greatest military power in the world which was capable of deploying professional soldiers 1000′s of miles from home wherever they wanted. Didn’t work out well for the world power then either.

            As I recall the government was trying to squeeze the public for taxes because they were in serious debt back then too.

          • retired.military

            You are an idiot. Really. Have a clue about what you are talking about. Yes the military does have slightly better weapons. But you have to have a politician with the will to have dead bodies in the streets. Look at what happened at the college back in the 60s. Look at what happened at WACO.

            Then you have the soldiers who wouldnt fire on civilians. Then you have the facts that say in a city of killeen Tx. That is right outside Ft Hood. They have 200k or so people in the surrounding area. Most are former military. ALmost everyone owns at least one or 2 guns. So you will have the military going up against former military who were trained just as well.

            The military taking over sasasfras Wyoming but in the large cities I sincerely doubt it would happen. Hell the drug gangs have weapons almost as good as the military. Unless you are saying that the govt will use jets to bomb civilians. Oh wait up above you said that there isnt a chance in the world of the govt being run by tyrants.

          • Brucehenry

            “The recent mall shooting in Oregon is an example…”

            Citation?

          • jim_m

            My error, the Clackamas shooting the CCW holder did not confront the shooter because he felt he could not get a clear shot. However there are other stories of CCW stopping mass shootings. I recall a story several years ago of a school shooting in a high school where the shooter was stopped by an unarmed student who understood how to grab the handgun and take it out of battery so the gun would not fire. People who understand guns and are responsible owners can significantly benefit the community.

        • retired.military

          How naive you are.

          Let me paint a scenario.

          I sneak into a school with a knife (A knife dudette, you can move out of the way opf that).

          Go to a classroom at random. Knock on the door, open door, act confused as if I was lost. Walk up to the teacher with a peice of paper. Pull knife on teacher and tell everyone to not scream or I will kill the teacher.

          While holding knife to teacher I tell her to duct tape kids hands and feet and over their mouth. If she doesnt I will kill her and the kids.

          After she duct tapes everyone I slit all their throats.

          Change clothes, go to next classroom.

          In most schools I bet you could make ti through at least 2 class rooms before an alarm gets raised.

          And that is using a knife DUDETTE, A knife.

          ——————–

          After shool when kids are letting out go driving through the parking lot killing as many as I could. Throw molatov cocktails out the windows as I go to get any more.

          ——————————–

          2 Scenarios, no gun used. Body count gaurentted to be at least 5 in the first and porbably as many as 40. Same for the second.

          “How many kids are bombing schools and movie theaters and then how many are shooting them up?”

          I would imagine the number would go up if no bombs were available. At columbine they used pipe bombs.

          You see it isnt the gun that does it , it is and always will be the willingness to kill and amount of planning you put into it. Nothing else. The gun is a tool, like a pipe bomb, a car, a knife or even a scary axe.

    • herddog505

      I’d want to punish the guilty party, not my innocent neighbors.

      I know, I know: it’s crazy, but not punishing the not-guilty is how I was raised.

    • jim_m

      Linda, If easy gun ownership is the cause of this crime then why is it that with more guns than ever and more availability of concealed carry has the actual rate of firearms use in violent crime declined from 2.4 crimes per 1000 people in the year 200 to 1.4 crimes per 1000 people in 2009?

      If guns are the problem why is the rate of their use in crime declining and not increasing when we are not doing anything to remove them from society?

      • retired.military

        Better yet Linda answer me th is.

        You are a law abiding citizen.

        Why shouldnt you have a firearm to protect yourself? If someone breaks in with a gun are you going to pull out your awesome axe to stop them from raping you, killing you and your familiy?

        I certainly hope you have a firearm and the will to use it and you arent somewhere where you will be prosecuted because you didnt run and hide while your family was bing killed and you didnt have enough “just cause” to kill the guy.

        • jim_m

          Since she wants gun confiscation then she should answer what she will do when someone breaks into her house with an illegal gun (criminals are like that, they don’t turn in their guns because the law says they have to). When that person murders her and then tortures and murders her children what will she have preferred to do?

          Somehow I find it hard to accept that in her death and the death of her children that she will find moral satisfaction that she did not use something evil like a gun to defend herself and her family.

          Then again, maybe she is related to Dukakis.

    • jim_m

      Linda,

      Thanks also for joining us here. You have made for lively discussion.

      • retired.military

        Now she just needs to live a little more in the real world.

    • retired.military

      “This does not apply today in the least ”

      Says who? You? Glad you aren an expert and oh so trusting of the govt. As someone who has worked (something you should try ) for the govt for 30+ years I can say I dont trust the govt so much. BTW I spent 5 years at NSA at Ft Meade and another 10 years with a TS SCIF clearance.

      You are incredibly naive.

      “If your child was killed by someone with a gun today, what would you feel about this?”

      What was my child doing? If nothing than incredibly sad., If he was breaking into someone’s house and it happened I would still be sad but wouldnt blame the homeowner. My son was raised to know better. He also knows that with great freedom comes great responsibility and not to break the law.

      • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

        “He also knows that with great freedom comes great responsibility ”

        You’ve done good. That’s been something effectively decoupled in society as a whole – the concept that with freedom comes responsibility. Too many see the freedom, and refuse the responsibility.

        • retired.military

          Thank you sir.

  • GarandFan

    As much as I disagree with what this local writer has to saw on some issues, on this one, I think he’s spot on.

    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/dec/16/tp-lauras-law-might-help-stop-future-massacres/

  • cathymv

    so according to frum logic…. all men and their penis’ enable rape… is that the kind of analogy he is making? Frumkin’ is really reaching here… but then thats what liberals do.

  • retired.military

    Gee the founding fathers enabled the shooters. Who knew.

  • Quietus

    Arm the children. Let’s end this. The NRA is right.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE