Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

It's time

It's time. It's past time. It's at least 20 children past time to do something. For three years plus I have been arguing on this blog for our politicians to stand up to the NRA. For longer than that I have been having ridiculous arguments with those who actually believe that more guns make us safer. I have been attacked by the gun rights extremists whose arguments make no sense. Where are they now? Making excuses. They want to talk about the mental illness but not about the guns. They want to say a teacher with a gun could have stopped the rampage. Have they ever worked in an elementary school like I have to know how insane that idea actually is? Their arguments are not based in reality. They represent the mythical thinking brought to them by the NRA lobbyists who care more about their own agenda than saving lives. Do they even express anger, despair, sadness, anything? NO. They have no idea what to say. Their voices are becoming mute like the voices of the rest of us have been for years. It's about time. It's about time for them to sit down and be quiet. They have nothing relevant to say given the facts and reality. Here's why:

- Charlotte Bacon, 2/22/06, female
Daniel Barden, 9/25/05, male
Rachel Davino, 7/17/83, female.
Olivia Engel, 7/18/06, female
Josephine Gay, 12/11/05, female
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 04/04/06, female
Dylan Hockley, 3/8/06, male
Dawn Hocksprung, 06/28/65, female
Madeleine F. Hsu, 7/10/06, female
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6/08/06, female
Chase Kowalski, 10/31/05, male
Jesse Lewis, 6/30/06, male
James Mattioli , 3/22/06, male
Grace McDonnell, 12/04/05, female
Anne Marie Murphy, 07/25/60, female
Emilie Parker, 5/12/06, female
Jack Pinto, 5/06/06, male
Noah Pozner, 11/20/06, male
Caroline Previdi, 9/07/06, female
Jessica Rekos, 5/10/06, female
Avielle Richman, 10/17/06, female
Lauren Russeau, 6/1982, female (full date of birth not specified)
Mary Sherlach, 2/11/56, female
Victoria Soto, 11/04/85, female
Benjamin Wheeler, 9/12/06, male
Allison N. Wyatt, 7/03/06, female
The names of the shooting victims have been released. Most of these children were 6 or 7 years old. Most were shot many times.
On Saturday, Chief Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver said all the victims at the school were killed up close with a rifle and were shot more than once. All six adults killed at the school were women. Of the 20 children, eight were boys and 12 were girls. All the children were 6 or 7 years old.
Unimaginable. No one can talk about this incident without wiping tears away or grasping for composure. It's time to mourn. It's time to grieve. It's time to talk. It's time to act in the name of the victims listed above. Say their names. Eventually we will see photos of the victims. Look at them. Understand that their murders were senseless acts of terrorism. A young man with mental difficulties or a "personality disorder" shot his mother with her own gun, ( she loved her guns and went to the gun range often), took several of her guns and inexplicably showed up at a near by elementary school where, for unknown reasons, decided to shoot little children. From the linked article:
It's also been revealed that Nancy Lanza—Adam Lanza's mother who he killed in their Newtown home before driving to the school—was not a teacher or substitute at Sandy Hook, also contradicting earlier reports. Janet Robinson, the school's superintendent, did not elaborate upon whether she had any other connections to the school. After fatally shooting his mother in the face, investigators say he took three of his mother's legally-owned weapons that he used in the assault, including a Glock, a SIG Sauer, and a .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle. In addition to those three weapons, cops also recovered a .45-caliber Henry repeating rifle, a .22-caliber Marlin rifle, and a .30-caliber Enfield rifle, a law enforcement source told CNN. "We're investigating the history of each and every weapon and we will know every single thing about those weapons," Vance noted.
“They went target shooting as a family,” Holmes also told The Daily News. “That was a passion. The whole family would go together.” It's unclear where those other three weapons came from, but NBC reports that Lanza went to a Dick's Sporting Goods store in Danbury on Tuesday to buy a rifle, but was turned down because he didn't want to undergo a background check or abide by the state's waiting period for gun sales.
According to the Post, Nancy Lanza was a gun enthusiast who often took her son shooting with her. “She'd take them to the range a lot…Nancy was an enthusiast—so much so that she wanted to pass it on to her kids,” said her former landscaper and "occasional drinking buddy" Dan Holmes. “She took her two sons to the gun ranges quite a bit to practice their aim. She was a really great shot from what she told me. Whenever I finished work and went inside to chit chat, she spoke often about her fascination with firearms. Nancy had an extensive gun collection and she was really quite proud of it.”
Proud. Lanza didn't want to undergo a background check. Why not? Background checks can save lives. He didn't want to wait for those guns. He was in a hurry to shoot people. Waiting periods are a good idea. Neither of these are national policies concerning guns. Why not? Because the NRA lobbyists don't want them. It's time for that to change. It's time for our members of Congress to bar the doors to NRA lobbyists. They should not be writing our gun laws. This time I am joined by a chorus of voices from near and far who are crying and writing and saying what I am saying. It's about time. I've been waiting.

Time ran out for those 20 children and 6 adults. It's past time to do something about our weak gun laws. It's past time for the grieving families of the many mass shootings. It's past time for the families of the daily shootings. We have wasted years arguing about the wrong things while people have lost their lives in numbers so large that it begs credulity that we have done nothing about it.

These are real people with real families who had real dreams and real fears. Never did they imagine that the end for them would come in this way. The little children barely had time on this earth to make a mark.  Read some vignettes about the victims here. After you are done reading about them, think about how little time the families of the children had to spend with them. Think about the time left in the lives of the adults to do more with themselves and to love their own children and grandchildren. Their families will miss them at all times. Time may heal their grief but will not let them forget the moment in time when their loved one was murdered by bullets. As found in the New Testament in Ecclesiastes 3: 1-8:
There is a time for everything,
    and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2     a time to be born and a time to die,
    a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3     a time to kill and a time to heal,
    a time to tear down and a time to build,
4     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
    a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
    a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6     a time to search and a time to give up,
    a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7     a time to tear and a time to mend,
    a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8     a time to love and a time to hate,
    a time for war and a time for peace.
This time, the deaths of little children have awakened the country and the world to the insane gun culture in America that has led to the untimely deaths of too many. Shooting little children is beyond the pale. This was not their time to die. This was their time to live, to search, to scatter stones, to love and dance and laugh. The words of the Bible were made famous by the Byrds in this rendition of the words to music:

It's time to act in the names of the children and the adults who died before their time last Friday, December 14th, 2012. It's time for common sense.

I want to end with this very cogent editorial by Nicholas Kristof, New York Times writer:
The tragedy isn’t one school shooting, it’s the unceasing toll across our country. More Americans die in gun homicides and suicides in six months than have died in the last 25 years in every terrorist attack and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined.
So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.
We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun.
“We’ve endured too many of these tragedies in the past few years,” President Obama noted in a tearful statement on television. He’s right, but the solution isn’t just to mourn the victims — it’s to change our policies. Let’s see leadership on this issue, not just moving speeches.
Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.
The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.
In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.
Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.
For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”
Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.
Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.
Thank you Nicholas Kristof. We know we are better than the daily carnage and the shooting of 20 young children. This must stop. The only way to stop it is for the American public to take the time to call or write their Representatives and Senators and the White House. Tell them the time is now. This time we are not going to shrug our shoulders and move on. This time, for the sake of the children, do something about too many guns owned and carried by too many people in too many places. There are too many victims. Too many children are dying. Demand a plan.


  1. I just found your blog, and I thank you for your work. I have always believed what you do, but now I am called to action. Gun control advocacy will have my ACTIVE support.

  2. We could have stopped at least some if not all of these shootings had we done something about our gun problem a long time ago.

    There will be substantial opposition, but we need to prevail anyway.

  3. www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html?_r=1&

    The gunman in the Connecticut shooting blasted his way into the elementary school and then sprayed the children with bullets, first from a distance and then at close range, hitting some of them as many as 11 times, as he fired a semiautomat
    ic rifle loaded with ammunition designed for maximum damage, officials said Saturday...
    The state’s chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said all of the 20 children and 6 adults gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., had been struck more than once in the fusillade...
    “This is a very devastating set of injuries,” he said at a briefing in Newtown. When he was asked if they had suffered after they were hit, he said, “Not for very long.”

    The assault rifle was meant for killing, not for sporting purposes. There is no reason these should be sold on the civilian market.

    They should receive the same regulation as mashineguns.

  4. "They want to say a teacher with a gun could have stopped the rampage. Have they ever worked in an elementary school like I have to know how insane that idea actually is?"

    Yes, Joan, I have. I taught in public schools for 12 years. And I support the idea. Would it have made a difference? I don't know; but then neither do you. I DO know it couldn't possibly have made the circumstances any worse.

    I also know that armed citizens do in fact make a difference. Not always. Not in every circumstance; there is no perfect solution. But they save far more lives than they cost.

    I also know that the solutions you propose will not change anything. They wouldn't have prevented this tragedy.

    You do not have the high road here; certainly your side does not have any monopoly on empathy or caring. What you offer, we know, is a road map to what does not work; it has not worked anywhere else, and it will not work here (in addition to the fact that it is constitutionally suspect).

    What we should be talking about is our system for identifying and treating the mentally ill.

    I, too, mourn the dead. But I will not cease opposing your position. It will not bring back the dead, and it will not stop the next maniac.

    1. Just knew someone would use this ludicrous argument. You are wrong. It's too late. The national conversation is moving forward without you guys. If you don't stop offering excuses you will be left in the dust. Your crazy ideas are just not believable any more. No one wants to hear them. Get on board. Have you been watching the news coverage? Gun right advocates are being taken to task. If I were you I'd stop commenting. You just make it all worse and reveal the stupid and dangerous agenda of the NRA. You've lost already.

    2. Really, when has there actually been an instance of an armed civilian actually STOPPING a mass shooting?

      You forget that the Columbine Shooters actually engaged a Jefferson County Sheriff's deputy before continuing on their rampage.

      There are numerous incidents post-Columbine where an armed citizen admitted he was present, yet failed to act.

      I would add that an armed citizen is likely to encounter armed LEO who will assume said citizen is the shooter with a predictable outcome.

      So, forget the fantasy, GMC70, the reality is that more guns have failed to make the US a safe society.

    3. You have no reliable statistical basis for the claim that armed citizens save more lives than they cost.

      There are exactly ZERO examples of anyone with a gun, not private citizens, not security guards, and not law enforcement stopping or preventing a mass shooting.

      There ARE cases where someone with a gun made the situation worse, either by confusing the situation for law enforcement, or by getting themselves shot (either injured or killed) in the attempt. They add to the cases of friendly fire casualties.

      You know what DOES work? NOT having a lot of people around with guns. That has worked around the world in countries similar to ours. Since Columbine in 1999, this country which has only 5% of the population of the world, has had 31 instances of school massacres. The entire rest of the world, the 95% of the global population, has had 14. We have had 16 mass shootings in the US this year alone, with two more school massacres prevented by law enforcement on the same Friday as the Newtown, CT massacre.

      The answer is NOT more guns. The answer is fewer guns. YOU live in a delusional world that is fact averse, you have bought into the emotional appeal of guns, the illusion they give you power over the bad guys. They don't.

      You seek a violent solution; that makes you part of the violence problem, not any kind of solution. Your thinking IS part of the problem.

    4. "I would add that an armed citizen is likely to encounter armed LEO who will assume said citizen is the shooter with a predictable outcome."

      As I have said before, I would much rather rely on the judgement of a police officer to decide on whether I'm a threat, than someone who has already made the decision to shoot everyone.

      If the police are as quick to shhot as you suggest, how do you explain Mr. Holmes surviving his encounter with police in Aurora?

    5. Come on Mark. Are you serious? The police would prefer to apprehend the shooters so they can find out why they did this in the first place. Most often they commit suicide as in Columbine, Virginia Tech, Connecticut and many others. How do you explain it? I'm interested. Your remarks are bordering on ridiculous given the circumstances and your side should just be quiet. You really have nothing useful to say in this argument. The public is moving beyond the NRA now. You had better stop your arguing. No one is in the mood for it.

    6. http://www.easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html

      Haven't seen this reported in the wake of the school shooting. You wanted examples...Here ya go..

    7. @Dog Gone

      "There are exactly ZERO examples of anyone with a gun, not private citizens, not security guards, and not law enforcement stopping or preventing a mass shooting."

      You are simply wrong. Let's list a few.
      Dec. 12, 2007 Security Guard Jeanne Assam stopped Matthew Murray as he attacked a church.

      Andrew Wurst, 1998 Edinboro, Pennsylvania
      Wurst attacked students at a school dance killing a teacher and wounded several students until he was stopped by a citizen with a shotgun and held for the police.

      I doubt Joan would let me list the next 10 but let's agree that putting ZERO in capitals does not make you right.

    8. Jake- the man's story is that he could have done something but didn't. We have no proof. That is his story. He didn't affect the outcome in any way.

    9. THese people did not stop a shooting before it happened, 18 Echol

    10. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-attempts-to-open-fire-on-crowd-at-movie-theater-armed-off-duty-sheriffs-deputy-drops-him-with-one-bullet/

      and another one..

    11. The officer didn't stop the shooting in the first place. In almost all shootings like this, the element of surprise is in effect. Hardly anyone can react quickly. This officer shot the man after he had already shot someone. He did not prevent the shooting in the first place. We need to prevent shootings like this one. It was a domestic dispute gone wrong. Where did he get the gun? I will be interested in that.

    12. You're blinded by your hate/fear japete...You asked for examples, I gave them to you and you ignore them and move the goalposts...Banning guns or extended "clips" is not the answer...I agree that everyone should have a background check before purchasing a firearm..More needs to be done to make it easier for family members and police to work together with mental health professionals and if someone shows dangerous warning signs then they can be flagged..But that flag can't be permanent b/c then people will not be inclined to talk.

      I will never be for a complete ban of any weapon type..Add background checks for all, better mental health reporting and things will change for the better..

    13. Fear? Hate? That's what's coming from your side. You are the pot calling he kettle black. I know you aren't for a ban. Too bad for you that the public is largely in favor of it and will most likely happen whether you like it or not. You might as well try working to make it a bill that you can accept. That's called compromise in the name of public safety and common sense.

    14. "That's called compromise in the name of public safety and common sense."

      Pretty funny you posted that since your side isn't willing to compromise at all..As I've told you many times japete, I'm a card carrying independent and with the exception of gun control I'm as liberal as they come...I'll gladly compromise but a ban is overreach and not necessary..

    15. But Jake, it is a compromise. In the interest of public safety we do things we dont' like. How did you survive the last AWB? Was it the end of the world? No. We can and will do it again. It is a compromise on all sides to do what's right for the children of America. You still get your guns. You will still have your guns. Some people who shouldn't have them won't. It's pretty simple. What's the problem? Don't you want to save lives?

    16. I survived the last ban by being in the Army japete. Fix the mental health system and the stigma that's associated with it, make it easier for reporting so that people are flagged during a background check, make background checks mandatory for *all* purchases in every state and you will achieve the same goal without the need for a ban. You're right, it is pretty simple.

    17. I love your first ideas. I don't agree about the ban. You and I will not agree about that so there's no sense in continuing the back and forth about that one. As it turns out, your views are only shared by 20-25% of Americans. I believe we will see it happen and you will go about your business with no changes to your life.

  5. For the sake of argument, I'm presuming a renewed, and tougher AWB is forthcoming.

    Sounds like Senator Feinstein's proposed ban, while not retroactive, also would make illegal the transfer of banned weapons or accessories.

    So when I die (hopefully at a ripe old age), if I've got an AR-15 and pile of 30 round magazines sitting in the gun safe since 2012, my heirs will implicitly become felons without any direct action.

    The federal laws from 1968 and 1986 has similar consequences for NFA items. Oddly, one legal loophole is if you are a convicted felon, as self-incrimination violates the 5th. See:

    Let's move forward. I'd much rather deal with this in court than on the internet.

  6. I suggest you just get rid of those guns so your children won"t become felons. The country is so over the idea that people like you NEED assault weapons. Your children will have to use other guns for sport. They'll survive. If there are more mass shootings with these guns innocent victims may not survive. The right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness supersedes the right to have any kind of gun available. Get over it.

  7. My value system is not influenced by opinion polls.

    I don't need to justify my legal purchases to anyone. If I ever break the law, feel free to call me out on it.

    The past Black Friday, a major sporting goods retailer outside of Seattle had a 6am door buster special on 30 round Magpul polymer magazines for $9.99 each. There was no limit per shopper. I grabbed 4 as the price was right, but another fellow ahead of me in line grabbed more than 20. We both paid cash, no paperwork or photo ID.

    If the next AWB becomes law, while you can't force me to smile, I will comply with it. If the law permits me to continue to own and use my gear, I will. If you want anything confiscated, I suggest you pass the legislation.

  8. Not fantasy, Laci. Fact. Guns in the hands of citizens save far more lives than they cost. You're not interested in the facts, but those facts are easy enough to find; google "defensive gun uses" and you'll find them. You won't. Indeed, Joan routinely goes out of her way to ignore facts plain as the nose on her face.

    I know where I stand, because 20 years ago, I was where you are. I was advocating what you are advocating. I bought the lie. I was wrong.

    Then I read, and learned, and researched. What I learned was that the 2nd Amendment in fact means what it says, and it works. That citizens who carry are in fact quite safe; that the cries of "blood in the streets" have never come true; that an AR-15 is not magical, it doesn't spew bullets by itself, and like any tool, does only what its bearer tells it to do.

    I understand that it is not up to anyone except me to decide what I "need;" certainly the State is not competent or trustworthy to the task. Neither are you. A state that decides what I need will decide based on the State's best interests, not mine. I - and only I - am in the position to decide what is in my best interest.

    I know that should I be faced with the circumstance of a deadly threat to myself or my loved ones, I will always prefer to have the appropriate tool to defend myself with me, with the options available to me to exercise as I find most appropriate given the circumstances I face. It is my life on the line. Let's be blunt: ANYONE who claims otherwise, if it were their life on the line, is either a liar or a fool.

    If we're smart, we'll focus on changes that might actually make a difference, like taking steps to actually protect our children rather than leave them sitting ducks for a madman. If we're serious about protecting our children, we'll do the common sense measures to do so; gun bans have the same chance of success as "gun free zones" which turn our schools and public places into shooting galleries for madmen.

    Question, japete: how many children are you willing to sacrifice on the alter of political correctness? How many before we say "enough" and do what we must to put a stop to mad gunmen in the only effective way? I know you don't think that's what you are doing, and I know you love your kids and grandkids, just as I love mine. But a madman with a gun will only be stopped by a person armed for the job. Police, while brave and prompt, and I give them kudos for the job they do, will always be a few minutes away - when those few minutes are the difference between life and death.

    If we are smart, we will look long and hard at the consequences of our policy of deinstitutionalization of our mentally ill, and do a real job of treating the mentally ill rather than simply turn them out on the streets.

    I pray we are smart. You advocate doing the easy thing, the thing that makes some of us "feel good," but has little if any chance of effecting substantive change. And more innocents will die, because we ask the wrong questions.

    1. Just keep your ludicrous and nonsensical comments coming GMC. They represent what a fringe group of Americans think. The public is done with this ideology. Don't ask me about sacrificing children. Guns are killing 8 children a day in America, no thanks to our gun culture and our loose gun laws. It's because of you guys and the NRA that this is happening. I'm done with your ridiculous arguments. They make no sense.

    2. GMC70, please provide reputable citations for your facts.

      You can't.

      You can believe what you want, but you aren't persuasive since I know you are full of it.

      But we can start with a few hurdles you have to overcome to prove your interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct.

      1) that private arms were actually an issue in 18th Century Society
      2) That Standing Armies were not seen as threats in 17th, 18th, and 19th century British based societies.
      3) That Article I, Section 8, Clause 16's granting the power to arm the militia was not seen as a threat by those who supported the militia
      4) that the Constitution's purposes don't include "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare"
      5) that a proliferation of firearms is consistent with those purposes
      6) that weapons in general, and firearms in specific, were not regulated in Anglo-American society and that the Second Amendment was seen as a bar to banning personal arms, let alone regulation prior to Heller-McDonald.
      7) That the doctrine of self-defence at the time of the founding allowed for deadly force to be a first option, instead of an extreme last resort..

      If, GMC70, you can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that any of those propositions are incorrect, then I might believe you actually researched the Second Amendment.

      Otherwise, you are a liar.

    3. One further comment, GMC70, if anyone if buying a lie and is wrong--it's you.

      In case you are in an alternative reality, we just witnessed yet another mass shooting in the US where 20 Children were mercilessly slaughtered.

      While you would point out that the weapons he used were "mere objects", the descriptions of the damaged caused by those "mere objects" was pretty devastating. I seriously doubt you read, or was able to understand the previous post where I quoted the Connecticut medical examiner about the injuries.

      Let's contrast that with the mass stabbing which occurred in China the same day with 20 victims--all 20 survived.

      Only firearms can cause that much lethality.

      The only developed nation in the World with as ready access to firearms is the US--which leads in firearms death and injury.

      I seriously doubt, GMC70, that you really researched this topic because you would be aware of how much gun violence costs US society--despite the pro-gun side doing everything in its power to keep those facts hidden.

      It doesn't take too much brainpower to figure it out.

      Try, GMC70.

  9. Been there, done that, Laci. My position stands.

    The fallacy of "more guns, more gun violence" is provably false. We are selling guns at record rates - and are at near 30 year lows in violent crime, despite the horror of last week.

    I won't debate the meaning and purposes of the 2nd Am. with you, Laci; the issue's been decided. That barn door is closed. You've chosen your position; it's historically wrong, and legally wrong, but you'll die on that hill. You're not interested in facts, you're interested in ideology. I have neither the time nor the interest in beating my head against that wall.

    Like I said, I was where you are. I know the arguments, because I've made them.

    I won't make them anymore.

    Japete - I know we have the same goals: to protect our children. The difference is that my proposals have a real chance to actually do so, in the real world. Yours will provide the comfort of "doing something," but out children will be no safer.

    No amount of laws will remove the firearms from this society; right or wrong, good or bad, they are here. They will not go away. Ever. We must deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.

    Laci, the lethality of the weapons is not the point. Putting that lethality in the hands of those who can protect our children is. Wishes and unicorn farts will not protect our kids. Magic signs on the doors will not protect our children; indeed, they make them more vulnerable. Gun bans will not protect our children; the people who obey the bans are not a threat anyway, and those who are a threat will not obey either the signs or the ban.

    You decry the "gun culture;" yet 20+ years of experience has taught us that those who are most involved in that "gun culture," the legal concealed carry holders, are in fact the least likely group of citizens to commit crime we know of. We've found that a CC holder is less likely to be arrested than an officer (or a member of MAIG, by the way!).

    So get off your high horse, and don't preach to me about what is "right." I know what is right, and I will not apologize one iota for opposing new restrictions. I oppose them because they will not work. They will let politicians preen as "doing something," but our children will be no safer. And we will miss the opportunity to make changes that have the real chance to make us safer.

    All so folks like japete can use this crises - which, as the saying goes, must not go to waste - to pursue an ideological agenda. It's shameful.

    1. Dear GMC- take your comments to another blog. I will not be printing any more of these ludicrous comments.

    2. GMC70, you won't debate the Second Amendment with me because you know I will prove you do not understand it.

      Plain and simple, You cannot back up your assertions with credible evidence.

      You lose, GMC70, statements without any factual background are just plain hollow and have no weight in a debate.