Mass killings - some food for thought

Some interesting reading following the tragic recent school shooting and the anti gun backlash that is sure to follow.

The Facts about Mass Shootings - John Fund - National Review Online

Thanks that was a intresting read...

These are hard facts, unfortunately, the antis just disregard them and bring forward emotional issues.

this is an eye opener , im going to forward this to nearly every one i know

IMO you cannot ban weapons on public spaces unless something is done about identifying persons with mental health problems AND do something to keep this guys away from guns.
Like US, we love our guns in Norway but its a bit work to get a permit, ans you need a permit for every gun you want to buy. Mass killer and crazy neonazi ABB got his Ruger mini14 and a automatic pistol, completely legal, even when the intelligense department of the police had marked him as a security risk. This because of lack of communication between different police departments and lokal police chief who gave him permit to buy the gun. With proper communication, he would never had a gun, at least not legal. And maybe a early arrest could have prevented the following bombing and mass murder.

Diamond,

What an excellent read. Thanks for sharing.

I recently posted a comment on Congressman Ed Perlmutter's (D-Seventh Congressional District, Colorado) Facebook page. He's gung-ho to push an anti-gun agenda. I hope nobody minds me sharing. Please advise if you feel I missed something:

Congressmen Perlmutter, allow me to point out a simple fact. "Soft targets" make easy prey for evil. With that being said, would you compare and contrast the differences between an "Assault weapon" and a "defense weapon"? Is an "assault weapon" the brick used to smash Reginald Denny's head in California? Is it the gasoline used to douse Melissa Coon's son in Kansas City? Could an "assault weapon" be the planes used against our World Trade Center and Pentagon? Perhaps it is a spoon, a knife, a fork? In my opinion, an "assault weapon" is the fabrication of tiny thinking politicians. A "defense weapon" belongs to decent people. The latter brings no harm to anyone except evil; it deters the use of the former.

Your Honor, can you face reality? As United States citizens, we do not live in a bubble impenetrable to evil minds, whereas "evil minds" are the epitome of "assault weapons"! If we did, we would not be witness to the atrocities which bombard us daily! We are subject to the "Battlefield" whether we're willing to admit it or not!

It has been said, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away? Sadly, for Ambassador Stevens the police never came! Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only victim of evil! Those minutes for the first Americans could have amounted to days, months, and even years. Thus, the founding fathers of this great nation prescribed the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They considered it an "inalienable" right-not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

Can we take a moment to seriously look at the Second Amendment? It states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As I read it, each and every citizen of the United States has an obligation, a duty if you will, to own a firearm, and to bear that firearm against evil. In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

Deterring undemocratic government;
Repelling invasion;
Suppressing insurrection;
Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Participating in law enforcement;

I also believe there is an obligation to individually secure those firearms (as a militia member) so that they cannot be used against us. The locked front and back doors to a home is not enough. Gun locks and gun safes do a much better job! Nobody but the gun owner should have access to a firearm's security (yes, we can learn from what recently happened). We need to take it upon ourselves, as decent people, to secure our defense, and the means for that defense.

Now, I have a few questions to ask of my fellow citizens, my President, every United States Senator and Congressman, State Representative, et al. On this planet, as we currently know it, what man has the right to decide for another man how he is going to protect and defend himself and his loved ones within the confines of his own home, and beyond? I was of the understanding that such defense, the right to bear arms, was God given. Shall we defend ourselves with hope and/or prayer (for those among us who still hold God in our heart)? You seek "Change." I seek to be left alone, with my inalienable right intact. I fully understand, "Where there is an evil will, there is an evil way! Why are you considering denying me the ability to fight fire with fire-force with equal and opposite force? If I am harmed, injured, or worse yet killed, shouldn't I (or my surviving family) be able to hold you (personally) culpable, and thus subject to liability? If you do not want to play by the rules (e.g. The Constitution of the United States), then by all means vacate your office or citizenship! It's hard for me to trust a government for my protection when that government cannot even balance a budget..

Originally Posted by iamyourhuckleberry

Diamond,

What an excellent read. Thanks for sharing.

I recently posted a comment on Congressman Ed Perlmutter's (D-Seventh Congressional District, Colorado) Facebook page. He's gung-ho to push an anti-gun agenda. I hope nobody minds me sharing. Please advise if you feel I missed something:

Congressmen Perlmutter, allow me to point out a simple fact. "Soft targets" make easy prey for evil. With that being said, would you compare and contrast the differences between an "Assault weapon" and a "defense weapon"? Is an "assault weapon" the brick used to smash Reginald Denny's head in California? Is it the gasoline used to douse Melissa Coon's son in Kansas City? Could an "assault weapon" be the planes used against our World Trade Center and Pentagon? Perhaps it is a spoon, a knife, a fork? In my opinion, an "assault weapon" is the fabrication of tiny thinking politicians. A "defense weapon" belongs to decent people. The latter brings no harm to anyone except evil; it deters the use of the former.

Your Honor, can you face reality? As United States citizens, we do not live in a bubble impenetrable to evil minds, whereas "evil minds" are the epitome of "assault weapons"! If we did, we would not be witness to the atrocities which bombard us daily! We are subject to the "Battlefield" whether we're willing to admit it or not!

It has been said, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away? Sadly, for Ambassador Stevens the police never came! Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only victim of evil! Those minutes for the first Americans could have amounted to days, months, and even years. Thus, the founding fathers of this great nation prescribed the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They considered it an "inalienable" right-not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

Can we take a moment to seriously look at the Second Amendment? It states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As I read it, each and every citizen of the United States has an obligation, a duty if you will, to own a firearm, and to bear that firearm against evil. In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

Deterring undemocratic government;
Repelling invasion;
Suppressing insurrection;
Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Participating in law enforcement;

I also believe there is an obligation to individually secure those firearms (as a militia member) so that they cannot be used against us. The locked front and back doors to a home is not enough. Gun locks and gun safes do a much better job! Nobody but the gun owner should have access to a firearm's security (yes, we can learn from what recently happened). We need to take it upon ourselves, as decent people, to secure our defense, and the means for that defense.

Now, I have a few questions to ask of my fellow citizens, my President, every United States Senator and Congressman, State Representative, et al. On this planet, as we currently know it, what man has the right to decide for another man how he is going to protect and defend himself and his loved ones within the confines of his own home, and beyond? I was of the understanding that such defense, the right to bear arms, was God given. Shall we defend ourselves with hope and/or prayer (for those among us who still hold God in our heart)? You seek "Change." I seek to be left alone, with my inalienable right intact. I fully understand, "Where there is an evil will, there is an evil way! Why are you considering denying me the ability to fight fire with fire-force with equal and opposite force? If I am harmed, injured, or worse yet killed, shouldn't I (or my surviving family) be able to hold you (personally) culpable, and thus subject to liability? If you do not want to play by the rules (e.g. The Constitution of the United States), then by all means vacate your office or citizenship! It's hard for me to trust a government for my protection when that government cannot even balance a budget..

+1!!!! Extremely well said!

Originally Posted by iamyourhuckleberry

Diamond,

What an excellent read. Thanks for sharing.

I recently posted a comment on Congressman Ed Perlmutter's (D-Seventh Congressional District, Colorado) Facebook page. He's gung-ho to push an anti-gun agenda. I hope nobody minds me sharing. Please advise if you feel I missed something:

Congressmen Perlmutter, allow me to point out a simple fact. "Soft targets" make easy prey for evil. With that being said, would you compare and contrast the differences between an "Assault weapon" and a "defense weapon"? Is an "assault weapon" the brick used to smash Reginald Denny's head in California? Is it the gasoline used to douse Melissa Coon's son in Kansas City? Could an "assault weapon" be the planes used against our World Trade Center and Pentagon? Perhaps it is a spoon, a knife, a fork? In my opinion, an "assault weapon" is the fabrication of tiny thinking politicians. A "defense weapon" belongs to decent people. The latter brings no harm to anyone except evil; it deters the use of the former.

Your Honor, can you face reality? As United States citizens, we do not live in a bubble impenetrable to evil minds, whereas "evil minds" are the epitome of "assault weapons"! If we did, we would not be witness to the atrocities which bombard us daily! We are subject to the "Battlefield" whether we're willing to admit it or not!

It has been said, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away? Sadly, for Ambassador Stevens the police never came! Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only victim of evil! Those minutes for the first Americans could have amounted to days, months, and even years. Thus, the founding fathers of this great nation prescribed the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They considered it an "inalienable" right-not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

Can we take a moment to seriously look at the Second Amendment? It states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As I read it, each and every citizen of the United States has an obligation, a duty if you will, to own a firearm, and to bear that firearm against evil. In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

Deterring undemocratic government;
Repelling invasion;
Suppressing insurrection;
Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Participating in law enforcement;

I also believe there is an obligation to individually secure those firearms (as a militia member) so that they cannot be used against us. The locked front and back doors to a home is not enough. Gun locks and gun safes do a much better job! Nobody but the gun owner should have access to a firearm's security (yes, we can learn from what recently happened). We need to take it upon ourselves, as decent people, to secure our defense, and the means for that defense.

Now, I have a few questions to ask of my fellow citizens, my President, every United States Senator and Congressman, State Representative, et al. On this planet, as we currently know it, what man has the right to decide for another man how he is going to protect and defend himself and his loved ones within the confines of his own home, and beyond? I was of the understanding that such defense, the right to bear arms, was God given. Shall we defend ourselves with hope and/or prayer (for those among us who still hold God in our heart)? You seek "Change." I seek to be left alone, with my inalienable right intact. I fully understand, "Where there is an evil will, there is an evil way! Why are you considering denying me the ability to fight fire with fire-force with equal and opposite force? If I am harmed, injured, or worse yet killed, shouldn't I (or my surviving family) be able to hold you (personally) culpable, and thus subject to liability? If you do not want to play by the rules (e.g. The Constitution of the United States), then by all means vacate your office or citizenship! It's hard for me to trust a government for my protection when that government cannot even balance a budget..

Will, That is very well put and I for one agree with each and every word I just hope that your Congressman as well as all of ours have the intelligence to understand what it is that you just put across. We can only pray.

Originally Posted by iamyourhuckleberry

Diamond,

What an excellent read. Thanks for sharing.

I recently posted a comment on Congressman Ed Perlmutter's (D-Seventh Congressional District, Colorado) Facebook page. He's gung-ho to push an anti-gun agenda. I hope nobody minds me sharing. Please advise if you feel I missed something:

Congressmen Perlmutter, allow me to point out a simple fact. "Soft targets" make easy prey for evil. With that being said, would you compare and contrast the differences between an "Assault weapon" and a "defense weapon"? Is an "assault weapon" the brick used to smash Reginald Denny's head in California? Is it the gasoline used to douse Melissa Coon's son in Kansas City? Could an "assault weapon" be the planes used against our World Trade Center and Pentagon? Perhaps it is a spoon, a knife, a fork? In my opinion, an "assault weapon" is the fabrication of tiny thinking politicians. A "defense weapon" belongs to decent people. The latter brings no harm to anyone except evil; it deters the use of the former.

Your Honor, can you face reality? As United States citizens, we do not live in a bubble impenetrable to evil minds, whereas "evil minds" are the epitome of "assault weapons"! If we did, we would not be witness to the atrocities which bombard us daily! We are subject to the "Battlefield" whether we're willing to admit it or not!

It has been said, "When seconds matter, the police are minutes away? Sadly, for Ambassador Stevens the police never came! Unfortunately, he hasn't been the only victim of evil! Those minutes for the first Americans could have amounted to days, months, and even years. Thus, the founding fathers of this great nation prescribed the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They considered it an "inalienable" right-not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

Can we take a moment to seriously look at the Second Amendment? It states, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". As I read it, each and every citizen of the United States has an obligation, a duty if you will, to own a firearm, and to bear that firearm against evil. In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:

Deterring undemocratic government;
Repelling invasion;
Suppressing insurrection;
Facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
Participating in law enforcement;

I also believe there is an obligation to individually secure those firearms (as a militia member) so that they cannot be used against us. The locked front and back doors to a home is not enough. Gun locks and gun safes do a much better job! Nobody but the gun owner should have access to a firearm's security (yes, we can learn from what recently happened). We need to take it upon ourselves, as decent people, to secure our defense, and the means for that defense.

Now, I have a few questions to ask of my fellow citizens, my President, every United States Senator and Congressman, State Representative, et al. On this planet, as we currently know it, what man has the right to decide for another man how he is going to protect and defend himself and his loved ones within the confines of his own home, and beyond? I was of the understanding that such defense, the right to bear arms, was God given. Shall we defend ourselves with hope and/or prayer (for those among us who still hold God in our heart)? You seek "Change." I seek to be left alone, with my inalienable right intact. I fully understand, "Where there is an evil will, there is an evil way! Why are you considering denying me the ability to fight fire with fire-force with equal and opposite force? If I am harmed, injured, or worse yet killed, shouldn't I (or my surviving family) be able to hold you (personally) culpable, and thus subject to liability? If you do not want to play by the rules (e.g. The Constitution of the United States), then by all means vacate your office or citizenship! It's hard for me to trust a government for my protection when that government cannot even balance a budget..

Wow! I am impressed how well you said it all. I stand with you. Very well done.

Well tkought out.alot of good points there.

This morning I was shocked to see Obama vowing to make gun control his top priority. What an obamanation that would be if succesful, following in Hitlers footsteps, now theres his true legacy of his 2nd term in office.

My condolances to everyone in the US especially those on here who voted for thos idiot.

Originally Posted by Diamondhitch

Well tkought out.alot of good points there.

This morning I was shocked to see Obama vowing to make gun control his top priority. What an obamanation that would be if succesful, following in Hitlers footsteps, now theres his true legacy of his 2nd term in office.

My condolances to everyone in the US especially those on here who voted for thos idiot.

unfortunately i think he will succeed with his agenda.with the general mood politicians wont want to be seen to do what is perceived as the wrong thing. it is this unfortunate knee jerk reaction that allows legislation to get through , when in more rational times it wouldnt happen. this is what happened in the uk with first the hungerford shootings when in 1987 michael ryan killed 16 people and wounded 15 then shot himself. he used an ak type of rifle an m1 carbine and a beretta 92 pistol. the following year the firearms law was changed banning centre fire semiauto rifles and putting shotguns with a capacity of more than 3rnds onto full firearms licence. then in 1996 thomas hamilton went to dunblane primary school with 2 browning hi-powers and 2 s&w .357`s. he killed 16 of the children and 1 adult then killed himself. as is happening in america now there was mass outrage , and petitions etc were started for the banning of handguns. in 1997 the firearms act was amended banning handgun ownership apart from special circumstances in the uk. i dont think one politician in either of these circumstances even tried to stand against the tidal wave let alone try and reason even slightly, as they would have been crucified by the public and the press, especially after dunblane. a friend in london handed his handguns in to the police at the last moment and said "to make me feel better tell me this will make a difference". the policeman said "sorry sir this wont make the slightest difference" ....then we had the cumbria shootings in 2010 when derrick bird killed 12 and wounded 11 others. this in a country with by now some of the strictest firearms laws in the world, where you are interviewed by the police your security is checked etc, etc , etc. in certain cities in the uk its fairly easy to get a gun illegally for the criminally minded. there are all sorts of banned guns available even ak`s and ex eastern block weapons were coming into the uk after the break up of the soviet block. so as we know, in the end its the responsible gun owners/shooters that enjoy shooting who end up being punished for the actions of certain people whom it is impossible to legislate against, as in most cases they arent rational normal people.

as DH said my condolences to the families involved, but to you gun owners over there WATCH OUT, BEWARE or you will find yourselves wondering what happened to your favourite sport/pastime ........ and it could happen very quickly.........

Spike, it has been said that common sense has no place in politics. I have seen little evidence to the contrary.

Originally Posted by Diamondhitch

Spike, it has been said that common sense has no place in politics. I have seen little evidence to the contrary.

unfortunately it is usually the vocal minority that inflict their opinions and views on the unfortunately quiet majority

just the beginning of the fallout maybe..... but cerberus capital management who own remington(bushmaster) has put the company up for sale.

Unfortunately emotions overtake common sense in politics.

Will, you summed up my feelings very well about the subject.

Mental health is the real issue. Until we admit and recognize the way we close our eye's to protect and hide ourselves from this disease nothing will change.

I fully expect and am resigned to another useless ban on so-called assault weapons, even though they aren't. With no 10 year sunset like the Clinton ban.

A ban on magazines over 10 rounds. No 10 year sunset.

Closing of the so-called Gun Show "loophole". In other words ALL private sales of guns will have to go thru a dealer and background check, no exceptions, even within family. Nevermind that the guns used were legally owned by the mother and as far as I know bought in stores, not gun shows.

AG Holder said yesterday that he can see where Obama may very well do some of this by executive order, ie. go around Congress and just make it happen and let the courts decide years later if its Constitutional. It wont matter to him, he'll be out of office.

Unfortunately when some evil, sick SOB walks into a school and kills 20 beautiful 5-6 year old children, there will be consequences and the stars are aligned for this to be our Dunblane. I believe its a fait acommpli.

ses your last paragraph says it all .

CCCTV News on 29th Dec 2012, NE Pakistan...34 killed by 'Toxic' Cough Syrup. Didn't even make news on CNN, Sky or AlJazeera...Will there now be a lobby to ban cough syrup? Like my mother always said...where there's a will there's a way.

Hello. Good post. However the 2nd amendment is not about personal self defense. It is the afirmation, by the then newly formed government, of God given human rights (as was the rest of the bill of rights); specifically the means to resist tyranny by a duely constituted government. Being armed keeps power in the hands of the citizens. That is why governments, including ours, want a disarmed populace. Gun control is about control, not guns. The 2nd amendment is not about self defense or hunting. Those are just side benefits for citizens to enjoy.
Best,
jpj3