Obama: Gun-control advocates have to ...

Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more

There are 671 comments on the WOI story from Jan 27, 2013, titled Obama: Gun-control advocates have to listen more. In it, WOI reports that:

16, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama, accompanied by Vice President Joe Biden, talks about proposals to reduce gun violence at the White House in Washington.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WOI.

Tray

Tupelo, MS

#614 Feb 19, 2013
Columbine High School massacre.
Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre. Yet neither law prevented the attack.

On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun,(which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.

Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times. Not one was an AR15.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#615 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again, if these assult weapons were not used in the majority of children mass murders, I would not object the use of these weapons in the hands of responsible gun owners".
You can show me all the stats you wish, but I will counter with the majority of mass murders are committed with weapons that were developed after military type weapons which primary use is to kill as many as quickly as possible.
If you would, how many mass murders were and are committed with "blunt instruments", I'll wait for this answer.
Now let's talk about the "majority" bull crap of yours.
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#616 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Now let's talk about the "majority" bull crap of yours.
Forget it, she's officially brain-dead.
xxxrayted

Brook Park, OH

#617 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong again, if these assult weapons were not used in the majority of children mass murders, I would not object the use of these weapons in the hands of responsible gun owners".
You can show me all the stats you wish, but I will counter with the majority of mass murders are committed with weapons that were developed after military type weapons which primary use is to kill as many as quickly as possible.
If you would, how many mass murders were and are committed with "blunt instruments", I'll wait for this answer.
I wrote "murders" period, and yes, that would include those killed in mass murders since they are part of that figure.

WIth the exception of revolvers, any gun can kill masses of students long before the cops get there. This is why I don't understand the argument. Like it's okay if a crazy kills 23 kids and adults in a school because it could have been 26?

That's not much of an accomplishment if you ask me. It may make you feel better that the kids were killed with a smaller gun, but as for myself, I would think more that those 23 kids could have lived if an armed security guard, or at the very least, armed faculty was there to prevent it or perhaps lessen the casualties as much as humanly possible. Banning assault weapons won't do that.

I also feel that an armed school in itself is a deterrent. I believe that if a kook has a choice, he will carry out his evil where there is least resistance. After all, their goal is to kill as many people as possible. It's one of the reasons most stores and restaurants don't post that NO GUNS ALLOWED sign in their window. Those signs are a WELCOME CRIMINAL sign to most people.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#618 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Now let's talk about the "majority" bull crap of yours.
What you fail to include in your above outlined shootings, are the number of Dead. Post each of those and then compare them with number of dead in Newtown and time it took to carry out that Massacre with those Weapons Of Mass Destruction VS other shootings.
No gun laws will prevent ALL shootings, but actually adhering to laws in place and making them universal will have an impact.
Chris Rock,(Comedian/Actor) joked a few years ago that making Ammo more expensive would cut down on 'innocent bystanders' being shot. "If bullets cost five thousand a round, they ain't gonna waste em on the kid standing next door to the house they wanna shoot up."
He was joking of course, but what if bullets really did cost $5,000 a round? 5G is unrealistic, but we could make it more expensive. Insurance Companies could sell insurance to Ammo buyers if it was required to purchase Guns and Ammo.
Like Insurance is required in some states if people own a vicious dog.
guest

Tacoma, WA

#619 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
Columbine High School massacre.
Harris and Klebold constructed a total of 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes. They sawed the barrels and butts off their shotguns to make them easier to conceal. They committed numerous felony violations of state and federal law, including the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, before they began the massacre. Yet neither law prevented the attack.
On April 20, Harris was equipped with a 12-gauge Savage-Springfield 67H pump-action shotgun,(which he discharged a total of 25 times) and a Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm carbine with thirteen 10-round magazines, which he fired a total of 96 times.
Klebold was equipped with a 9 mm Intratec TEC-9 semi-automatic handgun and a 12-gauge Stevens 311D double-barreled sawed-off shotgun. Klebold primarily fired the TEC-9 handgun, for a total of 55 times. Not one was an AR15.
Have you ever seen this?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcripts_of_...

This was the part I found chilling. Actually the whole thing is twisted and chilling, but this part stands out to me.

"They mention the time a clerk from Green Mountain Guns called Eric's home. Eric's dad, Wayne Harris, answered the phone.

"When the clerk told him "Hey, your clips are in." Wayne - who owned guns himself - told the clerk he hadn't ordered any clips. Eric said his father never asked whether the caller even had the right phone number. Eric says if etiher the clerk or his father had asked just one question, "we would have been fucked."
Say the Truth

Ann Arbor, MI

#620 Feb 19, 2013
Cousin DuPrees Cousin wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail to include in your above outlined shootings, are the number of Dead. Post each of those and then compare them with number of dead in Newtown and time it took to carry out that Massacre with those Weapons Of Mass Destruction VS other shootings.
No gun laws will prevent ALL shootings, but actually adhering to laws in place and making them universal will have an impact.
Chris Rock,(Comedian/Actor) joked a few years ago that making Ammo more expensive would cut down on 'innocent bystanders' being shot. "If bullets cost five thousand a round, they ain't gonna waste em on the kid standing next door to the house they wanna shoot up."
He was joking of course, but what if bullets really did cost $5,000 a round? 5G is unrealistic, but we could make it more expensive. Insurance Companies could sell insurance to Ammo buyers if it was required to purchase Guns and Ammo.
Like Insurance is required in some states if people own a vicious dog.
Uh huh. So in states (cite?) that require "vicious dog" insurance, there are absolutely a) no vicious dogs and/or b) no vicious dog bites.

Therefore, more expensive bullets mean that crazed homicidal maniacs would be very certain to a) not waste any shots and/or b) probably decide to think things over and not kill as many people.

How about we enforce current laws instead of creating new unenforced (and ineffective) laws? Ah, but that would mean that legislators are not "doing something."

This country needs an enema.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#621 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Better yet, count how many school shootings happened with AR15s compared to all other school attacks. Let's see that "majority".
And what is your point, the issue is gun nuts who attack children in schools with military type weapons in the majority of cases.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#622 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Now let's talk about the "majority" bull crap of yours.
Fine, let me try again since you seem to not comprehend much.

Gun nuts who choose to kill as many children as quickly as possible in the majority of casses use military type weapons.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#623 Feb 19, 2013
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
I wrote "murders" period, and yes, that would include those killed in mass murders since they are part of that figure.
WIth the exception of revolvers, any gun can kill masses of students long before the cops get there. This is why I don't understand the argument. Like it's okay if a crazy kills 23 kids and adults in a school because it could have been 26?
That's not much of an accomplishment if you ask me. It may make you feel better that the kids were killed with a smaller gun, but as for myself, I would think more that those 23 kids could have lived if an armed security guard, or at the very least, armed faculty was there to prevent it or perhaps lessen the casualties as much as humanly possible. Banning assault weapons won't do that.
I also feel that an armed school in itself is a deterrent. I believe that if a kook has a choice, he will carry out his evil where there is least resistance. After all, their goal is to kill as many people as possible. It's one of the reasons most stores and restaurants don't post that NO GUNS ALLOWED sign in their window. Those signs are a WELCOME CRIMINAL sign to most people.
"23 instead of 26", a lot of difference especially one, or two, or three of those children might be close to you.

I realize some people do not consider the importance of a young life destroyed if they have no connection, but I do!

I see you forgot to answer the previous questioon, how many mass murders were carried out with a blunt instrument.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#624 Feb 19, 2013
Cousin DuPrees Cousin wrote:
<quoted text>
What you fail to include in your above outlined shootings, are the number of Dead. Post each of those and then compare them with number of dead in Newtown and time it took to carry out that Massacre with those Weapons Of Mass Destruction VS other shootings.
No gun laws will prevent ALL shootings, but actually adhering to laws in place and making them universal will have an impact.
Chris Rock,(Comedian/Actor) joked a few years ago that making Ammo more expensive would cut down on 'innocent bystanders' being shot. "If bullets cost five thousand a round, they ain't gonna waste em on the kid standing next door to the house they wanna shoot up."
He was joking of course, but what if bullets really did cost $5,000 a round? 5G is unrealistic, but we could make it more expensive. Insurance Companies could sell insurance to Ammo buyers if it was required to purchase Guns and Ammo.
Like Insurance is required in some states if people own a vicious dog.
The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indians entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only three children survived. Single shot muzzle loaders. No need to buy bullets. No high capacity magazines, no assault rifle. Personally I reload my own so much for insurance and taxing ammo. But I'm sure criminals will be sure to follow these new laws. Haa Haa Haa.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#625 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, let me try again since you seem to not comprehend much.
Gun nuts who choose to kill as many children as quickly as possible in the majority of casses use military type weapons.
Compare your "military us weapons actually used to the MAJORITY of school shootings that didn't need "military use weapons". You can count can't you? You have yet to produce a number as to how many mass school shootings used AR15s.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#626 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, let me try again since you seem to not comprehend much.
Gun nuts who choose to kill as many children as quickly as possible in the majority of casses use military type weapons.
May 18, 1927: Bath, Michigan Bath School Disaster School treasurer Andrew Kehoe, after killing his wife and destroying his house and farm, blew up the Bath Consolidated School by detonating dynamite in the basement of the school, killing 38 people, mostly children. He then pulled up to the school in his car, then set off a bomb, killing himself and four others. This is the deadliest mass murder at a school in United States history and the world's first suicide bombing. NO GUN NEEDED, and killed almost twice as many as your little excuse for violating the rights of citizens.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#627 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>And what is your point, the issue is gun nuts who attack children in schools with military type weapons in the majority of cases.
The incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997 when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his mother, Mary Woodham, as she prepared for a morning jog. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother's car to Pearl High School. Wearing a trench coat, to hide his rifle when he entered the school, Woodham fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School's assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others with a Marlin Model 336 .30-30-caliber rifle.

The school's assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol from his truck and, spotting him near the parking lot, shouted for Woodham to stop. Woodham instead got into his mother's car and tried to escape. Myrick, a U.S. Army Reserve commander, detained Woodham until authorities arrived..........
Notice NO MILITARY USE WEAPON, just an old 30-30 rifle. The main point is a teacher with a gun stopped him. FACT. Can't understand history can you? Everything you keep preaching about has already happened. Every argument your making has already been played out before. Every idea fed to you by the liberals has already been tried and failed. The fact you don't know this just shows you didn't even check you just repeated crap told to you. You may buy the crap but most of us know the same old song and dance and the failure of repeating useless crap.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#628 Feb 19, 2013
CB can see both sides wrote:
<quoted text>Fine, let me try again since you seem to not comprehend much.
Gun nuts who choose to kill as many children as quickly as possible in the majority of casses use military type weapons.
Let me try again. Killers kill. Your attempt to alter human actions with laws and banning any item does not work. Humans are very good at killing each other (long before guns existed). The urge to kill has nothing to do with the tool used but the resolve of the killer. When are you going to grow a brain and realize behavior not tools is what kills.
Tray

Tupelo, MS

#629 Feb 19, 2013

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#630 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Compare your "military us weapons actually used to the MAJORITY of school shootings that didn't need "military use weapons". You can count can't you? You have yet to produce a number as to how many mass school shootings used AR15s.
And I care not how many of your AR15s were used in mass murders.

Any military type weapons that are used by gun nuts in the majority of school shootings should have controls of some sort.

“Now do whats right!”

Since: Jan 09

Doolittle, Mo.

#631 Feb 19, 2013
Tray wrote:
<quoted text> Let me try again. Killers kill. Your attempt to alter human actions with laws and banning any item does not work. Humans are very good at killing each other (long before guns existed). The urge to kill has nothing to do with the tool used but the resolve of the killer. When are you going to grow a brain and realize behavior not tools is what kills.
When you cluless people realize it is humanly impossable for a nut to point his fingert and kill children, and would rather to sit on your hands than save lives.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#632 Feb 19, 2013
1. Concealed carry at 16 — with no permit: Most states that allow people to carry a concealed weapon on their person require gun owners to obtain a permit before doing so. But four states — Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont — allow concealed carry without any permit. That means, the Brady Campaign’s Brian Malte tells me, that Jared Loughner was in full compliance with Arizona law up until the moment he used his concealed weapons to kill six people and severely injure Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Vermont, however, stands out from the pack because it allows people as young as 16 to conceal carry without parental permission, as well as buy handguns. So a Vermont teenager aged 16 can’t legally go to an R-rated movie alone or join the military, but he can buy a handgun and carry it in his jeans and be completely within the limits of the law.

2. Property rights end where gun rights begin: According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, 17 states, including Oklahoma and Florida, bar employers from preventing their employees from bringing guns to work and keeping them locked in their vehicles, even if those vehicles are on the property of the employer. Indiana and North Dakota allow employees to sue their employers for damages if asked about gun possession. The North Dakota statue specifically bars employers from asking if employees’ vehicles parked on company property have weapons in them. Georgia bars employers from making employment conditional on not bringing guns to work.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#633 Feb 19, 2013
3. License to kill, even in public: A class of laws, called “castle doctrine” statutes by supporters, in most states clarify that homeowners who feel threatened in their domicile have no duty to retreat from threats or to refrain from the use of deadly force. But most states also have such laws that apply to conflagrations in public places, far removed from the shooter’s “castle.” That is, these 34 states allow people to use deadly force when they feel threatened in public.
These laws vary in severity. Five states, including Ohio and Missouri, only provide for the use of deadly force when the threatened party is in a vehicle. But most states with laws along these lines, most notably Florida, follow the American Legal Exchange Council (ALEC) model law, which bans police from arresting people who use deadly force in public unless there is probable cause that they did not act in response to a perceived threat, and which grants broad immunity from prosecution and civil action to shooters in such case. Indeed, someone who shoots and kills in such a circumstance can himself sue law enforcement agencies if they press charges.
Some researchers have found that castle doctrine laws of this scope, frequently dubbed “stand your ground” laws, have caused a statistically significant increase in homicide rates. The most notorious case where such statutes came into play was the Trayvon Martin case in Sanford, Fla., where George Zimmerman pursued and killed Martin because he states he perceived a threat, despite Martin having no weapons and not having interacted with Zimmerman at all. Zimmerman was eventually charged with second-degree murder by a special prosecutor after the state’s attorney declined to press charges. Zimmerman could still have the charges dismissed under the “stand your ground law” if he demonstrates to a judge that he felt threatened.
Members of the Virginia Citizens Defense League gather in July 2010 to celebrate a new law permitting open carry of guns in bars.(Dayna Smith/For The Washington Post)
4. Open carry without a permit: Most legal disputes around carrying guns in public involved concealed carry. But open carry, which is arguably more threatening to surrounding community members, is largely unregulated. Thirty-five states allow open carry of handguns without a permit, while only three (plus the District of Columbia) ban it outright. Forty-seven states plus the District allow open carry of long guns (that is, rifles or shotguns) in public, while only three ban it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ohio Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 8 relatives shot in the head in Ohio; no suspec... (Apr '16) Fri Geezer 35
News Is it time to legalize fireworks in Ohio? Sep 19 POPS 13
News Shots Fired After Ohio Man Chases Daughter In C... Sep 17 poster 1
Kayla Booth Sep 17 Hillbillysister 1
Birdie and Ralph Troyer=Puppy Mill (Nov '16) Sep 10 hkjstck110 3
News Border Patrol In Ohio Arrest Illegal Immigrant ... Sep 9 billy 4
News How often should we keep reviving overdosed dru... Sep 8 POPS 49
More from around the web