Wednesday, December 26, 2012

THEY DIDN'T HAVE A GUN

BEIJING (AP) — A man angered by a court ruling in the murder of his daughter rammed a car loaded with a gas tank and firecrackers into a group of middle schoolers, injuring 13 in the country's latest attack on students.

The man ran down 23 students at Fengning No. 1 Middle School in northern China's Hebei province on Monday, the official Xinhua News Agency said Tuesday, citing local police.

Xinhua said the man, identified as 48-year-old Yin Tiejun, later lit a bottle of diesel in an attempt to set his car on fire.

Police put out the fire and found the gas tank and firecrackers in the trunk of the car, but Xinhua said Yin told police in an interrogation later that the materials were not meant for an attack.

Yin has been detained on charges of endangering public safety, Xinhua said.

Xinhua described Yin as having been upset for years that a court did not sentence to death all four assailants involved in the murder of his daughter three years ago. The report did not give further details of the murder but said the children hurt in Monday's car crash were not tied to the case.

Xinhua said the man did not act under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

Students were hospitalized with injuries that included skull fractures and crushed feet, Xinhua said.

The local Fengning county government confirmed the incident in a written statement and said Yin was driving a Geely sedan.

Citing eyewitnesses, the Beijing-based state-run Jinghua Times said the accident occurred when students were leaving school for noon break and that the car accelerated and knocked down students, many of whom were on bikes.

On Dec. 14, a Chinese man took a kitchen knife and went on a stabbing spree that left 23 students wounded in an elementary school in Henan province.

China has seen more than a half-dozen school attacks in less than three years...China largely prohibits private ownership of guns.

There was more to these stories, but the point, of course, is that cars don't kill people, people kill people. Nobody has suggested banning cars because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

Likewise, knives don't kill people. People kill people. Nobody has suggested banning knives because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

My son collects knives, daggers and swords, all of which could be used to cause bodily harm. Someone could even steal one or more and go on a stabbing spree.

Carrying the logic one step further, guns don't kill people. People kill people. Yet there has been quite a clamour to ban guns.

Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws and ordinances that reinforce the political correctness that prohibits us from recognizing that someone needs to be taken off the streets because he(she) is unstable? Wouldn't it be better to profile people who are likely to snap and get them help before they cause mayhem?

That would help prevent mass mayhem of many kinds, rather than focusing on guns alone.

The latest example, of course, is four volunteer firefighters responding to a pre-dawn house fire who were shot Monday morning, two fatally, leading to a shootout in suburban Rochester, N.Y. with the alleged gunman.

The gunman was known to have had mental issues and was unstable, but nothing was done about it.

How long are we going to let this stuff go on until we take the really appropriate steps to stop it? How long before we take these mentally disturbed people out of the general population?

ADDENDUM: I am not the first to advocate armed officers in schools. The darling of the left did it.

47 comments:

Fredd said...

Apparently we're going to let the nuts roam among us indefinitely, or so it seems.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - Amazingly, you completely miss the most obvious point of your own post.

In the Chinese attacks you referenced, NO ONE DIED!

The victims were injured, they were hospitalized, but they will all recover. They will all live.

NO. ONE. DIED.

Why? Because the attackers could not get access to guns.

If the nut job in Connecticut had walked into that school with a couple of knives we wouldn't be talking about 26 dead people.

And speaking of nut jobs, don't be too quick to advocate the "profile people who are likely to snap and get them help before they cause mayhem?" bandwagon.

Because most oof your rabid, right wing commentors on this blog would find themselves heavily sedated and drooling in a padded cell in a heartbeat.

Craig said...

Nobody has suggested banning cars because they are used to cause mass mayhem.

Cars are heavily regulated. They must meet certain safety standards to be sold here. They are registered, and some states require vehicle inspections to renew plates. Drivers are tested and licensed and can have that license revoked. How about treating guns like cars?

Yet there has been quite a clamour to ban guns.

Just certain types of guns and limiting the number of rounds that can be fired before reloading. No one in a position to do something about it is advocating confiscating everyone's guns.

Wouldn't it be better to profile people who are likely to snap and get them help before they cause mayhem?

Yes it would. One of Paul Wellstone's legislative causes was mental health parity. He was trying to get people with mental health problems the help they needed. It was the Republicans and the insurance industry who fought him, tooth and nail. It is Republicans who are cutting state aid for health services and mental health funding is the first to get axed. If this is so important, why do you vote for people who are adamantly opposed to it?

Wouldn't it be better to repeal the laws and ordinances that reinforce the political correctness that prohibits us from recognizing that someone needs to be taken off the streets because he(she) is unstable?

I see. Due process is now political correctness. I love how you anti-government types are willing to trust the government with determining who is "unstable" and should be locked up for the crimes they might commit. I suggest they start by reading the comment section at blogs like Geeez and lock up the ones posting not so veiled threats of armed insurrection against the commie Kenyan in the White House. The definition of unstable.

There are procedures for getting dangerously disturbed people off the streets. It's not easy and it shouldn't be. Unless you are willing to ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments.

I suppose someone intent on killing a bunch of people or even a spouse who didn't bring them a beer could find another way. Thanks to the NRA, gun manufacturers and their toadies in congress, they have taken all the creativity out of murder. They have fought hard so any one at any point on the 'stability' spectrum can buy a semi automatic assault style rifle and limitless rounds of ammo at a gun show or on the internet without a back ground check. Joe, do you think background checks are unconstitutional and punish gun owners? Or, is it better to start locking up anyone the govt. deems unstable?





Joe said...

Fredd: We have become PC beyond reason.

XO: "...you completely miss the most obvious point of your own post."

No, actually I didn't.

If I read you correctly, it would have been a better illustration if some people had been killed in those incidents.

But my point is that we have to identify potential mass killers and get them off the streets BEFORE they commit mayhem.

You'd rather leave them on the streets, I guess.

Any idea how many people are killed each year by cars compared to how many are killed by guns in the hands of mass murderers or other miscreants?

And check the ADDENDUM link. I am not the only one who has advocated armed officers in schools. http://nation.foxnews.com/bill-clinton/2012/12/22/flashback-president-clinton-asks-60-million-cops-schools-program





Joe said...

Craig: "It was the Republicans and the insurance industry who fought him, tooth and nail."

Being an equal opportunity basher, I do not (and did not) agree with Republicans on this point. The bill itself, however, needed much refinement.

"Due process is now political correctness."

Due process is not at issue here. and of course I believe in following the Constitution, even the amendments I don't agree with.

I have never had, would not choose and will never have an abortion. Until Roe v Wade is reversed (which I suport), it is Constitutional to have an abortion. My doctor, however, would be very shocked.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The only reason no one died was luck - pure and simple luck. Skull fractures could easily lead to death. People hit by cars die every day.

By the same token, many people who have been shot also survive.

sue hanes said...


But Joe - The man who went on a rampage in a kindergarten using a knife did not kill any of the children - had he used a gun they may all be dead.

Guns do kill people - they are easier to do the job.

Craig said...

But my point is that we have to identify potential mass killers and get them off the streets BEFORE they commit mayhem.

Because mass killers are easy to identify. Until we get them off the street, let's give them easy access to mass killing tools.

Who do you trust to decide who a potential mass killer is? The behavior, symptoms and/or diagnosis of your typical mass killer would fit a few million people. Where should we keep them all. We already lock up more people per capita than any country on earth. Maybe we can mark them in some way. A yellow star. Something like Minority Report or the Final Solution.

I can't think of a more authoritarian, anti-American proposal.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Sue,
Again, the guy with the knife only lucked out by not having any children die. People die from knife wound all the time.

And, NO, guns do not kill people, nor do knives, nor do cars, nor do baseball bats, nor do hammers. They are all inanimate articles. They are tools. It is the people who misuse tools for killing who kill people. That is common sense.

Joe said...

sh: I laid a gun on a table one day and watched it continuously for three weeks. It did not shoot anybody. It didn't even fire.

People, using a myriad of tools, kill people.

Craig: " Where should we keep them all."

I don't know. Maybe use the money wasted on trying to confiscate the guns, or as in New York, billions or dollars to "buy back" the guns.

Billions will build a lot of room for probable mental cases.

Actually, we have lots of psychiatrists and psychologists who spend way too much time on "low self-esteem" and not nearly enought time on those who exhibit anti social behavior.

Both the recent NY cop trapper and the Con. mass shooter could easily have been rooted out and given appropriate mental help.

But we're not allowed to even point them out until AFTER they act on their proclivities.

Sort of like the cross streets that don't get traffic signals until after a bunch of people die.

Closing the barn door....

Steve American Patriot said...

I'm literally getting sick and tired of these anti everything people - who instead of having anything constructive or even intelligent for that matter to add to any conversation they disagree with everything and everyone who wants to protect the rights given to us Americans by our founding fathers.
If Thomas Jefferson could only see America now he'd think that he was in some Communist country..

Joe said...

SAP: They hate wat America was and have wanted it changed to their way of thinking.

Unfortunately, they have made great headway, turning this into a "Santa Clause" nation.

Ducky's here said...

When did right/center Clinton become the darling of the left? Do you know any liberals, Joe (forget leftists)?

I have little to add to XO's succinct review of the nature of the Chinese vs. American casualties.

Joe, hear the voices? Those are your corner men yelling, "Stay Down".

Ducky's here said...

By the way, Joe. The issue is not banning all guns. Few favor that idea or consider it practical.

Myself, I support pretty broad home protection rights. You may have to explain to me why a Bushmaster is necessary. If you don't get the job done with fewer rounds, you probably ain't going to get it done.
I would also require the owner to demonstrate proper storage facilities.

I also want a dialog on point of sales controls.
I would ban bulk sales.
Strictly enforce waiting periods.
I would require checks at gun shows.

I would put strict restrictions on high capacity magazines and semi autos.
If you enjoy target shooting with a mini gun, find something else.

Craig mentioned Paul Wellstone. I hope that didn't startle you but if you keep an open mind and try to understand what liberals are saying, rather than what the rabies media tell you we are saying it will benefit you.

Ducky's here said...

Any idea how many people are killed each year by cars compared to how many are killed by guns in the hands of mass murderers or other miscreants?
------

Just an outstanding straw man argument.

Anyway, Craig mentioned that cars are heavily regulated. Even the fringe right may admit that government requirements have made cars considerably safer in the last several decades.

Xavier Onassis said...

I find it HYSTERICAL that that the conservatives are so in love with their guns that they are willing to give up everything just to keep them.

They are willing to take this country into a "Minority Report" future where thought police who claim to be able to "predict" what you might be capable of in the future, take you into custody with no presumption of innocence, commit you to some sort of preemptive mental institution and hold you there indefinitely in order to prevent a crime you haven't committed.

Really, Right Wing Nut Jobs? That's your Constitution-loving plan for the future of America?

Because I got news for you...that plan would backfire on you like a thermonuclear blast.

What was it Ted Nugent said on Fox? Something about if Obama got reelected he'd either be dead or in jail? BOOM! Off the street!

Even our own beloved Jo Joe once advocated wiping out Iran (or Palestine, or Syria, or Lybia, or some such nonsense). BOOM! Off the street!

Don't even get me started on Fredd, G.E.C., Jarhead, and the rest of the goonbabbling conservative Peanut Gallery of commentors on this blog.

They would ALL be in custody leaving America to the peace loving liberals who don't think violent thoughts.

On second thought, I support your lunatic plan.

Steve American Patriot said...

On Wednesday, singer Harry Belafonte offered some friendly advice for Barack Obama while speaking with MSNBC's Al Sharpton. In his view, the president should rule like a third world dictator and throw the GOP in jail for opposing him.


“That there should be this lingering infestation of really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given to Barack Obama, and I don’t know what more they want. The only thing left for Barack Obama to do is to work like a third world dictator and just put all these guys in jail,” he said.
In Belafonte's view, Republicans who were elected to office to stop Obama's reckless policies are an "infestation." The word choice is interesting, since one normally deals with an infestation by eliminating it.


But according to Belafonte, Republicans are "violating the American desire" by working to keep government limited, taxes low and the country solvent. In response, he says, they should be thrown in jail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=c1YsjlSVB4I.


Sorry for being off topic, but I thought this was interesting enough

Xavier Onassis said...

SAP - 1st lesson is free. Always check the acronym before choosing a screen name.

But more to the point, the beauty of America is Harry Belafonte gets to express his extremist views just like you do and no one goes to jail.

In the end, Harry gets a vote, you get a vote and I get a vote. Hyperbole counts for nothing.

Steve American Patriot said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steve American Patriot said...

Greta job on this post Joe.
Let me ask your Liberal readers a question.It always comes back to "it´s the fault of the Republicans in the House," doesn´t it? No one expects anything good out of Democrats so the fact that they are backing Obama in every unconstitutional act goes without comment or complaint. Don´t any of you have Democrat representatives or senators you can complain about? And, if you do, why do you constantly complain about Bush and other Republicans?
It’s like a phobia, where someone reacts to anything that Obama does or says, they are automatically labeled as a "Racist"! I Are these people really Americans? Sometimes I have to think twice about it. It makes me sick when I see these Racist remarks. In the minds of the simpleton liberals and progressives, it was either Bush or the TEA Party for everything that goes wrong.If they can't figure out who to pin the blame on, then just Blame either one, Bush or the Tea Party. In their minds Obama can never do anything wrong. In Obama’s mind his race plays a key role in everything he touches. What a pathetic reason to hate. But that’s Obama for you.
Barack Obama has been a huge failure for this country. He has spent more than any president ten fold and yet unemployment is at 11-12% when you factor in people who have simply stopped looking for work. So don't think it's at 7.8! No president has been reelected with unemployment lower than 8%, and yet he was. There are 4+ million jobs fewer in this country than when Obama started into office. The fact that he cried about the war and how Bush was violating our rights by wiretapping and "torturing?" Funny how he has taking those tactics and turned the knob up a bit on all fronts. You have hundreds of predator drone strikes that kill, yes, but also eliminate any chance to capture and obtain information that could further help. Bush's "torture" tactics are what helped the Obama team eventually get Bin Laden.
Its been almost 4 years since Obama got in office. Where's the hope and change? How are you enjoying the health care bill that was shoved down our throats, that Pelosi said "we needed to vote on it to find out what was in it", that 65%+ of the population now wants to strike out. Wake up people. If your a far left liberal than I am not speaking to you because as far as I can see you probably don't think Obama has done ENOUGH! However, for you simple democrats, your president is destroying your party. And quit complaining about the racism, honestly? You think Bush didn't get pelted with nasty comments? How about the movie that came out about his being assassinated while he was still in office for crying out loud? You people are crazy. The man's mind is clouded by hate, anger and racial bias. Not to mention is Socialist ties..
When I hear your liberal posters say things like "He was a warmonger who let 9/11 happen while he went on constant vacation" It blows my mind. To me it sounds more lime Obama than Bush!

Xavier Onassis said...

SAP - "...they are backing Obama in every unconstitutional act..."

Baloney. Nothing the president has done has been unconstitutional.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was affirmed by the Supreme Court.

If you know of a case where something the president did was judged to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I'd love to hear about it.

"...your president is destroying your party..."

Really? Because I thought we did pretty well in the last election. What with Obama getting reelected, Claire McCaskill beating Tod "legitimate rape" Aiken, etc.

Conservatives have painted themselves into an ignorant, bigoted little corner that guarantees they will never be in power again.

They are on the wrong side of history on every single issue.

Steve American Patriot said...

Xavier Onassis, YOU are exactly the problem I was writing about. Your head is NOT screwed on straight.


Let me give you an example of what I mean. President Bush was portrayed in the media as a war monger and slightly stupid. President Obama makes statements about visiting "all 57 states" and successfully assassinates American citizens, and the media downplays both. It might not be a double standard, but you have to admit it certainly looks like one.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Redneck said...

HELLO Xavier Onassis, and Cuck the Schmucky, you are both opinionated morons. Both your entire arguments are stupid. Gun control doesn't mean that guns won't get into the hands of criminals. You think they buy them off the street, or out of the trunk of some guys car, with a legal permit?

Gun control laws don't affect criminals IN ANY WAY. All it does is leave tax paying, law abiding citizens defenseless. Sounds like YOU are the one with no penis. You're afraid of guns, because you don't understand them in anyway. Sorry Colorado has shitty concealed weapon laws, but guess what
the crazed Killers like the one in Connecticut last week are Crazy, they have nothing to do with LEGAL gun owners. They DON’T obey the Laws! They don’t obey any laws. Some of the worst mass shootings in history have taken place in countries with extreme "restrictive" gun laws. The bad guy still got the guns. Look at New York for example, they have just about the toughest gun laws in the country, and still they have people killing each other almost every day in Harlem.
Guns are the reason you can walk around free every single day. They are the reason we won two World Wars. They the reason your Grand Father lived to see another day, after being thrown in the middle of bullets hurdling across beaches while innocent people around him died. They're the reason he made it home to his wife, after years of pain and loneliness, just so he could conceive you—an ungrateful victim of the media hype machine. Guns DON'T kill people; in fact, they just sit there and DO NOTHING, until an unstable moron like John Holmes decides he wants to shoot up a movie theater.
If we are to follow your lame-brain ideas, let's get rid of everything, and anything relating to weapons, or anything else that could kill people or that could be used to hurt people if put in the hands of someone that had intent to do so, and start with, hunting knives, steak knives, butter knives, baseball bats, the Major League Baseball since they promotes baseball bats, video games, cars, boxing gloves and box cutters. And why not put all Rappers, Football and Basketball players in jail while we are at it, after all they are mostly all sociopaths as well. Look at the crime statistics among professional football and basketball players. A bit of research on this topis resulted in this statistic:
“In 2010, the NFL experienced 507 arrests of its players”

And by the way, I have read your posts here before and let me say that you are extremely ignorant... Just like most of the other PROGRESSIVE’S that post here.. Lastly, just as you don't like the "crazy right-winger" talking about guns I don't like your bat-crap left wing ideas either. And Ducky, your colorful vocabulary only goes to prove that you are a simple minded typical Liberal PUTZ!

Ducky's here said...

SAP(sic) if you put up the same level of bozo that you did in the last Republican primary you won't see an "R" in the White House for decades.

Let's review:
Herman Cain --- 9-9-9

Rick Perry - drunk

Michele Bachmann - Maybe Craig can explain that psycho

L'il Ricky Santorum - Young earth moron

... but you get the point. You've become the party of the insane.
You try to convince the normals that gun control is not necessary because you are just as likely to be killed in a knife attack (GEC).
You've fallen off the cliff, bro.

Ducky's here said...

@Radical Redneck -- They are the reason we won two World Wars.
----
Wrong. If the Red Army didn't hold at Stalingrad (losing more men than we have in our entire military history) the war was over.
The blood in Europe was Slavic.

In fact, we lost fewer per capita than any major participant in WW II. I believe that our being shielded from that carnage is one of the reasons the gun loons have no sense in the matter.

Radical Redneck said...

No, the US certainly was a decisive factor but could not have won alone.
No one individual country could have won that war all by itself for the Allied powers.
The USA poured out millions of tons of military equipment, and ships with which gave the Allies the edge and in the end victory.
I'd say that Britain, USSR, and US were all critical to winning the war.
The was in the Pacific theater was won mostly by the USA.. Once the United States forces had a stronghold in Normandy to work in from, Germany surrendered. Italy Surrendered, and Japan was left alone to continue the fight until the United States dropped those two 2 Atomic bombs. One on Hiroshima, and second on Nagasaki. After the second bomb, Hirohito surrerndered ending WWII.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Here's what happened in England when the gov't took their guns:


https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151203469973285

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.
Abortion and slavery were both affirmed by the Supreme Court. Liberals in the Supreme Court violate the Constitution the same way Obamanation does.

Radical Redneck said...

It´s not only Obamacare that I fear. This man has nothing good in store for the USA. Everything he does is intended to harm and destroy the country.
Michele Bachmann and others warned us over and over but she was called crazy.
The Obama years have turned me ugly -- I wish that all Democrats and all Democrat-voting independents suffer horribly from the results of socialist, nationalized medicine. And when they start wailing piteously, I intend to say, "Good! You wanted this, you thought it was a good idea. Thanks for destroying the best medical system in the world. Take two aspirin and die in the morning.."

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

The perfect example of a need for "assault" weapons for the everyday civilian:
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/12/23/when-assault-weapons-saved-koreatown/

sue hanes said...


Joe - That was nice of your gun not to kill anyone. But I still maintain that guns kill people. They are easier used and do the job neatly and quickly. And why do people need these fancy guns and assault (sp) weapons. Why?

Joe said...

sh: I don't know who you mean by "these people."

Some people collect gus, the same way my son collects swords and daggers.

Swords and daggers don't kill people. They just sit there until somone with ill intent decides to use them.

Same with guns.

Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will make no difference, zero, nada. Then only criminals will have guns and I'll have no way to defend myself.

Except, of course, "Please Mr. Bad Guy, don't shoot me. I really don't want to be shot. Can't you just show a little human kindness and go away?

That would probably work, right?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Sue, by your logic, hammers also kill people, as do knives, and rocks. Please, don't be so ignorant as to claim an inanimate object by itself is able to kill someone. The object isn't the killer; the person wielding the object is the killer, which is why the object doesn't go to jail.

Do you really understand what an assault weapon is? It is a label put on a scary-looking gun so they can outlaw it.

Why do we need these weapons? I just posted a link to a video demonstrating how a community was able to protect themselves against rioters by use of "assault" rifles. We need them for personal protection because the police aren't always around.

I would wager your house if full of stuff I would say you don't need. But is it anyone's business to decide what another person "needs"?

I like target shooting and have never shot a living thing. But I enjoy the sport and use a military-stlye pistol. Should that be outlawed just because someone decides it is scary-looking?

sue hanes said...


Glenn - I still maintain that guns kill people - more easily than any other weapon. If the killer hadn't had that rifle he wouldn't have killed as many people as he did. He purposely used the rifle to kill and saved the handgun to kill himself. He knew what he was doing.

He didn't take a hammer along to kill. No - a gun is much faster and easier.

There has got to be a better way to control guns. Not ELIMINATE them. No one is talking about taking all the guns away. Just to be more sensible about gun control.

Guns do kill people. When are people going to admit that.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Sue,
If no one touches the gun, nothing will happen. ERGO, the gun can't kill people.

If the man had gotten a baseball bat he could have beat his mother to death, and he could have taken a butcher knife to school and killed who knows how many. Or he could have driven his car through the playground and killed people.

A gun doesn't kill people any more than a hammer can build a house.

CT has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. More gun control won't fix anything. Enforcing what is on the books already would certainly help, but they don't even do that!

Guns do not kill people - when will liberals and people like you admit that.

sue hanes said...


Glenn - Guns are an easy way for people to kill people. That is why I say that guns Do kill people.

Yes, people do kill people and especially people with guns.

The Piper's Wife said...

Sue,
You can continue stating that which is not true (that guns kill people) as often as you like, but that will still not make it true. What is a fact is that guns do not kill people.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I just noticed that the last post, which says "The Piper's Wife," is actually mine. I was on the laptop and didn't notice my wife was signed on to her blog.

Joe said...

sh: Words have meaning. We can't go changing the meaning of words to suit our agenda.

I can't say I drive a Lincoln Town Car when I drive a Saturn without changing the meaning of Lincoln Town Car.

Inanimate objects have no brain, no blood, no will of their own, no ability to get up and go somewhere and no desires.

It takes a "people" do do those things. People using guns kill people. People using knives kill people. People using baseball bats kill people. Thos objects do NOT by themselves kill people.

Xavier Onassis said...

OK, let's cut to the chase here.

The term "assault rifle" is not an arbitrary term applied to ugly, threatening looking militaristic hunting rifles.

We're talking about the AR-15, also known as the Bushmaster, which is the "civilian", semi-automatic version of the M-16 fully automatic military issue people killer.

You can buy these at Walmart. You can buy them in bulk, without any sort of background check at "gun shows". You can buy as many as you can fit in your U-Haul Trailer. There are n limitations, at all.

Semi-automatic means it will fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Fully automatic means you can pull the trigger once and it will fire as fast as it can as long as you hold the trigger.

Go to Google and search "AR-15 to M-16" and you will find THOUSANDS of web sites showing you how incredibly easy it is to convert an AR-15 Bushmaster "hunting rifle" into a fully automatic military weapon.

In fully automatic mode, am M-16 can fire 800-1000 rounds per minute.

For you mathematically challenged conservatives, that's about 15 rounds PER SECOND.

In the time it takes to say "One Missisppi", 15 people just died.

By contrast, it would be difficult to kill 1 person a second with a baseball bat, knife or car.

But with a fully automatic military-grade machine gun, with a large capacity clip, loaded with 223 solid copper hollow points, every shot is a kill shot.

A crazy person can kill 1000 people in 1 minute because our distorted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment allows people access to these weapons.

If these weapons were illegal to purchase and illegal to own it would be much easier to keep them out of circulation.

A crazy person with a single shot, bolt action, .22 caliber squirrel rifle won't be able to kill quite as many people before the police arrive.

There is NO justification for civilian sportsmen being allowed to own military grade weapons.

Joe said...

XO: "There is NO justification for civilian sportsmen being allowed to own military grade weapons."

Who are these people you're talking to who say people should be allowed to have military grade weapons because they want to use them for sports purposes?

They should be allowed to own them because they should be allowed to own them. It is their right, and it is recognized by the Constitution.

While those with mental illnesses, emotional disorders, and anti-social behavior patterns should not have access to any weapons, Americans in general must be allowed to own whatever they want to.

It's called "liberty," and it is the essence of why America became a nation to begin with.

Liberty must not be restricted just because there are those who violate its principles.

We've been doing that far too often for too long.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - How is it perfectly acceptable to heavily regulate the ability to own, tax, license and drive a deadly weapon like a car but not guns?

We recognize that a quarter ton of steel and glass hurtling down a concrete road at 70 MPH just inches away from other people doing the same thing in the opposite direction is a potentially deadly weapon.

So we require that drivers be of a certain age.

We require that drivers demonstrate a level of knowledge and proficiency before being granted a license to drive,

We require that licensed driver's carry liability insurance.

We require that licensed driver's pay annual taxes on their vehicles and regularly renew their license to drive.

We know the name, address, phone number, employer, insurer of every single car owner and which cars they own.

The number of people owning and driving unregistered, uninsured cars are relatively small and easy to police.

Yet you advocate that any idiot should be able to buy any firearm, stockpile them in any quantity, buy any man-killing level of ammo in any quantity, without any supervision, licensing, training or control.

Please explain how that makes any rational sense.

And if all you have is to quote the 2nd Amendment which SPECIFICALLY restricts firearms to a "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" in a time when a "firearm" was a breech-loading muzzle rifle, then don't embarrass yourself by trying to defend your position.

The 2nd Amendment needs to be amended.

Every gun owner should be over 21.

Every gun owner should take and pass a certified gun safety course.

Every gun owner should take and pass a justified use course based on their state laws.

Every gun owner should have to register every gun they own.

Every gun owner should have to carry liability insurance on every gun they own.

Every gun owner should have to sign for and register every ammunition purchase they make.

Every gun owner should be held liable for any crime committed by a gun that can be linked to them that didn't meet the previously stated regulations.

Any ammunition sales above "target shooting" or "sport hunting" caliber should be HEAVILY regulated and restricted to law enforcement.

Nothing violates the 2nd Amendment.

That's a start.

Joe said...

XO: You're forgiven if, and only if, you realize that we don't have a right to drive a car.

That is right, it is not a right. It is a priviledge granted by the individual states, not the federal government.

Mine is a Florida License. I'm sure you would prefer it to be a federal license.

We have an inate right to self defense, and there are few restrictions needed on that right. Specfically we need to assure that those carrying are not mentally ill, emotionally unstable or who exhibit marked anti-scocial behavior.

All of these gunmen showed one or more of these attributes and nothing was done about it.

Therein lies the shame.

And the Second Amendment needs no adjustment.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Let's see,

A man can get married at 18, be drafted and go to war at 18, but X.O. doesn't want him to own a gun until he is 21. My son married at 20, but X.O. doesn't want him to own a gun. My dad married at 19 and by the time he at 20 had a kid and another on the way, but X.O. wouldn't have wanted him to have a gun.

Young men have gone to war legally at 16, but X.O. wouldn't want them to own a gun.

X.O. is the reason we need guns - because people like him want the government to control everything as we give a Hitler-type salute.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

And for X.O. and his ilk, let me again remind them just what the 2nd amendment meant according to laws since (I've written this so often that I just cut and paste now from a permanent file on my hard drive):

The first 10 amendments were added by popular demand to give "the people" specific guarantees. The amendments clearly indicated reference to individual rights, not states' rights.



The term "militia" referred to all able-bodied male citizens at least 18 years old.



In 1903 an act was passed creating the federal control, funding and training of state forces as organized militia. It designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.



An act of 1916 designated the organized militia as the National Guard. This was further clarified by the National Defense Act of June 4, 1920, and this act again designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.



Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45. It also specifies two classes of militia exist; the organized and unorganized.



In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, there were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the same kind in common use" at the time.



The 2nd Amendment mentions the need for a militia as the primary reason for the right to bear arms, but it does not limit it to solely the militia, be it organized or unorganized.

Pay close attention to what type of weapons we are expected to have in accordance with U.S. vs Miller.

Joe said...

Glenn, Glenn, Glenn! When have liberal/leftist/progressives ever been confused by facts?

They absolutely do not care what the Constitution mean WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, they only care what they want it to mean when they want it to mean what they want it to mean.