Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Controlling Guns

A gun uses a contained explosion to propel a chunk of metal through a tube that aims the projectile. The point of it all is for the chunk of metal to cause destruction at the point of impact. Inanimate targets may be used for practice but the function of a gun is to kill some living thing or person. The bullet rips flesh, and may cause bleeding and death, or may destroy one or more vital organs and kill the victim, or it may simply mutilate part of the body, causing permanent disability but not death.

Guns are primitive. It is the same as throwing rocks, but harder than an arm can propel it. A bullet is a superhuman fist.

There is no plus side to it. A gun only breaks things, it does not fix them.

A gun is useful for killing animals to eat, and for killing dangerous animals and people. It makes a loud noise that some people think is fun, and it can be entertaining to shoot cans and bottles and other targets. And some people shoot them into the air on New Years Eve, which sometimes kills people but mostly just makes a lot of noise. Firecrackers are better for this.

Guns have been called "the great equalizer" because they magnify the physical power of an individual, which can be good if you are a little person threatened by a big person or one who is armed, or an individual threatened by a group. In most situations, though, the gun is a great un-equalizer. Last week, when a mentally ill person had a gun and classrooms of schoolchildren did not, equality was not attained.

A gun does not correct a moral imbalance, it only amplifies it in a biased way. A gun makes a bad person worse but it does not make a good person better, because all a bullet does is destroy stuff. There is no way to use a bullet to promote kindness, you can't heal anyone or make them feel better with a gun, but you can use it to take power or money or possessions from an unarmed person -- or an armed person who did not reach for his or her weapon quickly enough -- you can kill an unarmed person or use the threat of death to rape or kidnap them. You could theoretically do good by shooting a bad person, but that doesn't happen very often, and there is something inherently loathsome about impulsively-delivered capital punishment.

There is an argument that if everyone had a gun on them at all times, then everybody would have equal physical power, and nobody could overpower anyone else. There are a few problems with this argument. One we saw last week, some people cannot be trusted with the power of a firearm, they don't make good judgments about using that life-taking power. The other thing is that guns are what my mother used to call "an accident waiting to happen." People fumble, people leave them where children can get them, people drink, people get emotional, people see or hear something and misinterpret, there are a million ways that the power of a firearm amplifies a mistake or bad judgment. And a gun mistake never has a positive result. And by the way, I have seen expert gun users put holes through walls; training and experience are important but mistakes still happen.

The National Rifle Association, our nation's preeminent pro-gun lobbying organization, sort of went dark online after the killings last week in Connecticut. But yesterday they finally issued a statement:
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters – and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown.

"Out of respect for the families, and as a matter of common decency, we have given time for mourning, prayer and a full investigation of the facts before commenting.

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again.

"The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, D.C., area on Friday, December 21."
We'll see what they have planned for their news conference. I don't know what they can say. It's too late to apologize. They represent companies that sell guns, they almost certainly have to pass the blame, soothe the public, divert our attention ... something. But we'll see.

"...to help make sure this never happens again." What do you think?

Down in Virginia, the governor thinks there ought to be more guns in schools.
“If someone had been armed, there would have been a possibility to stop the person from coming into the school,” McDonnell said on Washington’s WTOP radio’s “Ask the Governor” monthly program responding to a caller’s question. “I know there is a knee-jerk reaction against that, but I think we should have a discussion about it.”

He continued: “If a person [like Sandy Hook’s principal Dawn Hochsprung] was armed and trained, could they have stopped the carnage? Perhaps.” Bob McDonnell: Consider guns for school officials
I suppose he is not joking, and I suppose there are other people who think like this, so let's go through the exercise of thinking about this for half a minute. Let's imagine that every school principal and teacher had a holstered gun on them. How many mass murders could they have prevented? Maybe one. How many times would a gun be left on a table where a kid could find it, or would a student grab a gun out of a teacher's holster, how many times would guns be dropped in a classroom and fire randomly, how many times would teachers freak out over classroom misbehavior or someone they don't recognize in the hall and kill somebody? These things would happen every day.

More guns in schools is a Bad Idea.

Guns have their place. They are good for hunting, and for protection. Some people believe they need to be armed to resist a tyrannical government, okay, whatever, if it makes them happy. Because they kill people, guns can be used to threaten, rob, rape, and murder, and so there needs to be some control over them. It's a tricky balance but we can't let this keep happening.

28 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where was God?

Unhinged Right-Wing Responses to Connecticut Massacre

1. Ann Coulter: Everybody should carry a concealed firearm.

2. Mike Huckabee: Massacre the result of church-state separation.

3. Bryan Fischer: God let massacre happen in public school because he's not wanted there.

4. Steve Deace: Killings caused by widespread child-murder by parents and a school assignment in France.

5. Glenn Beck: Killings caused by soul problems.

6. Larry Pratt: Making schools gun-free zones caused the problem.

7. Louie Gohmert: If only Sandy Hook principal had an assault rifle, everyone would have been saved.

8, James Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, said he believes the Connecticut shooting is a result of God allowing judgment to fall on America because it has turned its back on Him.

December 19, 2012 2:38 PM  
Anonymous More guns are not the answer said...

WENTZVILLE, Mo. (AP) - A Wentzville man is jailed after allegedly becoming agitated during a barber shop discussion of the Newtown, Conn., shooting and allegedly shooting in the direction of a patron.

Assault, armed criminal action and unlawful possession of a weapon charges were filed against 57-year-old Lester Davis of Wentzville following the shooting Tuesday at All Cuts Barber Shop in Wentzville.

A patron made the comment that the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School made him want to kill the suspect. For unknown reasons, police say Davis took the comment as a threat and asked, “You want to murder me?”

Davis then allegedly went to his car, retrieved a pistol and fired three times in the customer’s direction. No one was hurt.

Davis turned himself in and is jailed on $400,000 bond.

December 20, 2012 9:49 AM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"Ann Coulter: Everybody should carry a concealed firearm.

Larry Pratt: Making schools gun-free zones caused the problem.

Louie Gohmert: If only Sandy Hook principal had an assault rifle, everyone would have been saved."

People who believe such things are only looking at the situation incredibly superficially and need to sit back and think out the implications of what they're advocating.

If Sandy Hook the principal had an assault rifle, its still highly unlikely everyone would have been saved. The gunman upon entering the school had a target rich environment and its virtually a certainty that he would have killed a number of children before Sandy hook could have gotten her gun and focused in on her one target. She would have had one target, he would have had dozens, odds are he'd have shot several before she could have shot him and there's nothing saying he wouldn't have shot her first anyway. So, no, more guns most certainly wouldn't have saved every life.

What's much more likely is that more guns would result in more psychopaths getting ahold of them and going on even more rampages. If Sandy Hook had a gun, that was just yet another opportunity for an angry young man to get ahold of it and attack innocent people. After all, this is what happened with the shooter's mother's gun purchases. If there had been much better gun control she wouldn't have had any guns in her house, wouldn't have taught her son how to shoot and this never would have happened.

What happens if we take Ann Coulter's suggestion to its logical conclusion? Now instead of having perhaps one psychopath in 100 having a gun, every psychopath has a gun or at least easy access to several people that do. Does anyone honestly think everytime a psychopath pulls a gun to kill innocent people he'd always be shot by another gun owner before he killed anyone? Obviously, that's absurd, the psychopath has the advantage of surprise and is going to draw and shoot his gun at least a few times before anyone around him can realize what's going on and react. Everyone owning a concealed gun is not going to prevent such murders, its going to enable even more of them.

You can imagine if a psychopath pulled a gun in a mall and started shooting and 50 people pulled their guns and started shooting back, someone would certainly kill the psychopath at some point but many other stray bullets from "good citizens" would kill even more innocent bystanders.

The idea that more careful screening will keep guns out of the hands of psychopaths is a pipe dream. A few years back a psychopath in Canada entered a school with several guns and started shooting. Everyone of his guns was legally purchased and he passed all the evaluations. One reason why there is 6 times more gun deaths per capita in the States compared to Canada is that guns in general are much harder to get and are more highly restricted.
More guns most certainly won't stop such events, only fewer guns will.

Another reason why there are far more gun deaths per capita in the States than anywhere else is that the vast majority of gun owners in the States have a degree of homicidal tendencies. Just about none of the guns purchased in the U.S. are intended for hunting use. The vast majority of Americans who purchase a gun do it because they fantasize about shooting other people. Whether they fantasize about shooting would be criminals invading their homes, or the evil government coming to take their guns or force them to accept gay marriage, the vast majority of Americans buying guns do so out of a desire to feel more powerful and dangerous to their fellow man. More guns is only going to create more Americans that feel that way. Only fewer guns will make Americans feel they've got to have an advantage over the next guy.

December 20, 2012 12:33 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

That last sentence should be "Only fewer guns will stop Americans from feeling like they've got to have an advantage over the next guy".

December 20, 2012 12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

while I agree with nasty-pri that gun skills shouldn't be a requirement for principals, if we are that worried, we should assign armed guards to the schools or put schools in places that already have guards or expand homeschooling

when the random shooter was prowling the D.C. area a few years ago, homeschooling parents felt fortunate

truth is that America's homicide rate is less than half what is what in 1980

and if you remove high crime areas, America has a lower homicide rate than Canada

in 1980, the U.S. had a homicide rate of 10.1 per 100,000

it starting dropping when Reagan became President and now stands at 4.8

all without banning guns

oh, Canada currently has a rate of 1.9 but don't be deceived

Canadians are vicious and violent

here in Fairfax County, the homicide rate is .3

why is it more than six times higher in Canada than Fairfax County?

Canadians who buy guns have homicidal fantasies

in all my decades on the planet, I've only seen a gun pulled on someone once- when I stopped for gas in one of the wrong quadrants of the city and the station was robbed

America is perfectly safe, no change in our laws is needed

as for those inner urban areas that skew our statistics, the basic problem is that Federal programs that seemed a good idea when the "war on poverty" started have actually destroyed the family structure in those communities

unsupervised males are the problem

the cause is anti-family government programs

and despite the incident in Newtown, America's schools are perfectly safe

December 20, 2012 2:24 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

"and if you remove high crime areas, America has a lower homicide rate than Canada".

LOL, you are hilarious!

Yes, if you exclude all the crime going on in the U.S., the united states has a lower crime rate than Canada. That's not saying anything - you are really reaching! It doesn't get any more pathetic than that.

And if you ignore all Donald Trump's billions I'm richer than he is. If you exclude most of the U.S. population more people live in Canada than the U.S. If you exclude most of its land mass Canada is smaller than Luxembourg.

Typical Republican American - desperate to boost his justifiably low self esteem and incredibly stupid.

December 20, 2012 2:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you didn't count all the times Anon has been wrong about things, he is right a hundred percent of the time.

Once again, Priya Lynn kicks Anon's butt.

December 20, 2012 3:01 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

And contrary to bad anonymous's pathetic attempt to give Reagan credit for the recent drop in U.S. homicide rates there was little change in homicide rates during his presidency and the significant drops didn't start until after 1996:


http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0873729.html


Contrary to the B.S. bad anonymous absurdly claims about what great things Reagan did, he was one of the worst U.S. presidents:

During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan. He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/05/142288/reagan-centennial/

While Republicans like to claim Obama added 5.1 trillion to the U.S. debt during his first term, 4 trillion of that debt increase was due to Bush policies while 1 trillion of that was due to Obama's stimulus spending in 2009 that started the economic recovery.

What’s also important to remember is that Obama’s major expenses were temporary — the stimulus is over now — while Bush’s were, effectively, recurring. In addition to undunded war spending Bush conned the American public into, the Bush tax cuts didn’t just lower revenue for 10 years. It’s clear now that they lowered it indefinitely, which means this chart is understating their true cost. Similarly, the Medicare drug benefit is costing money on perpetuity, not just for two or three years. And Boehner, Ryan and others voted for these laws and, in some cases, helped to craft and pass them.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/obamas-and-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit-in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAELOrYI_blog.html

December 20, 2012 3:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Suppose the principal at Sandy Hook Elementary who was killed lunging at the gunman was instead holding a firearm and was well trained to use it. Would the result have been different? Or suppose you had been in that school when the killer entered, would you have preferred to be armed?

Evidence and common sense suggest yes.

In 2007, a gunman entered New Life Church in Colorado Springs and shot and killed two girls. Jeanne Assam, a former police officer stationed as a volunteer security guard at the church, drew her firearm, shot and wounded the gunman before he could kill anyone else. The gunman then killed himself.

In 1997, high school student Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi, and shot and killed two people. He then got back in his car to drive to Pearl Junior High to continue his killings, but Joel Myrick, the assistant principal, ran to his truck and grabbed his pistol, aimed it at Woodham and made him surrender.

These are but a few of many examples that the best deterrent of crime when it is occurring is effective self-defense. And the best self-defense against a gunman has proved to be a firearm.

And yet, there is a near impenetrable belief among anti-gun activists that guns are the cause of violence and crime. Like Frodo's ring in "The Lord of The Rings," they believe that guns are agencies of corruption and corrupt the souls of whoever touches them. Therefore, more guns must lead to more crime.

But the evidence simply doesn't support that. Take the controversial concealed-carry permit issue, for example.

In a recent article for The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, by no means an avowed gun-rights advocate, declared, "There is no proof to support the idea that concealed-carry permit holders create more violence in society than would otherwise occur; they may, in fact, reduce it."

Goldberg cites evidence from Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA, that concealed-carry permit holders actually commit crimes at a lower rate than the general population.

The General Accountability Office recently found that the number of concealed weapon permits in America has surged to approximately 8 million.

According to anti-gun advocates, such an increase in guns would cause a cause a corresponding increase in gun-related violence or crime. In fact, the opposite is true. The FBI reported this year that violent crime rates in the U.S. are reaching historic lows.

December 20, 2012 8:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comes in spite of the fact that the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004. Supporters of the ban (not including anti-gun groups who thought it didn't go far enough in the first place) claimed that gun crime would skyrocket when the ban was lifted. That wasn't true at all.

In fact, after the expiration of the ban, The New York Times, whose editorial pages are now awash with calls for more gun restrictions, wrote in early 2005, "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say. It also has not caused any noticeable increase in gun crime in the past seven months, according to several city police departments."

But let's take the issue one step further and examine places where all guns, regardless of make or type, are outlawed: gun-free zones. Are gun-free zones truly safe from guns?

John Lott, economist and gun-rights advocate, has extensively studied mass shootings and reports that, with just one exception, the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011, every public shooting since 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns. The massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary, Columbine, Virginia Tech and the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, all took place in gun-free zones.

These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They shoot up schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back. Perhaps "gun-free zones" would be better named "defenseless victim zones."

To illustrate the absurdity of gun-free zones, Goldberg dug up the advice that gun-free universities offer to its students should a gunman open fire on campus. West Virginia University tells students to "act with physical aggression and throw items at the active shooter." These items could include "student desks, keys, shoes, belts, books, cell phones, iPods, book bags, laptops, pens, pencils, etc." Such "higher education" would be laughable if it weren't true and funded by taxpayer dollars.

Eliminating or restricting firearms for public self-defense doesn't make our citizens safer; it makes them targets. If we're going to have a national debate about guns, it should be acknowledged that guns, in the hands of qualified and trained individuals subject to background checks, prevent crime and improve public safety

December 20, 2012 8:22 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Those are all anecdotal claims, there is no evidence to back up the suggestion that such anecdotes are typical, if there were gun nuts would be ranting about such studies as we speak. Quite simply those anecdotes are presented dishonestly to pretend they are typical when they are not.

And note that in the first two anecdotes people were killed anyway despite the eventual reaction of armed citizens, its just as I said, arming citizens won't prevent psychopaths from killing people, only denying them guns in the first place will.

Studies have shown that when there's a gun in a household its much more likely to be used in a suicide or domestic violence incident then it is to stop a robbery or home invasion. Many guns in homes are stolen and eventually used in other crimes including murder. Limiting the supply of guns in the homes of Americans is the only way to limit criminals getting access to them. Clearly if the mother of the Sandy Hook killer hadn't armed herself to the teeth because guns were harder to get she and the students at Sandy Hook would still be alive today.

John Lott, as you note, is a "gun right's" advocate, he is biased and has cherry picked anecdotes to reach his pre-desired conclusions.

Clearly the gun nuts think that if the principal had been armed only a few students would have been killed, but they don't care that if there was better gun control no one would have been killed. To gun owners in the U.S. mass killings like Sandy Hook are an acceptable cost of making guns readily available to all the Americans with self-esteem problems.

As I said earlier, take the ideas of gun nuts like John Lott to their obvious conclusions where everyone is armed. If a psychopath pulled a gun in a mall and started shooting and 50 people pulled their guns and started shooting back, someone would certainly kill the psychopath at some point but many other stray bullets from "good citizens" would kill even more innocent bystanders. It would end up being just like a bar brawl where with so many people shooting no one knows who's trying to kill people and who's trying to prevent the killing with people who pulled guns with the thought of protecting others ending up shooting at each other because no one knows the intentions of the other shooters.

There are three times as many gun owners in the United States as in Canada, and six times as many handgun owners in the United states as in Canada. Not surprisingly there are six times as many gun homicides per capita in the United States as there are in Canada, and if we look at the United Kingdom where gun ownership is far more restrictive than in Canada and not even police carry guns the rate of gun homicides is one of the lowest in the world with the rate being .07 gun homicides per 100,000 people compared to the rate in the U.S. which is 70 times higher.

Obviously the idea that a lack of guns amongst citizens(and even police) makes people targets is an outrageous lie.

December 20, 2012 8:55 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Fewer Guns Mean Fewer Gun Homicides

"About one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership."

Increases in gun ownership lead to a higher gun-homicide rate and legislation allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons does not reduce crime, according to a recent NBER Working Paper by Mark Duggan. After peaking in 1993, gun homicides in the United States dropped 36 percent by 1998, while non-gun homicides declined only 18 percent. In that same period, the fraction of households with at least one gun fell from more than 42 percent to less than 35 percent. Duggan finds that about one-third of the gun-homicide decline since 1993 is explained by the fall in gun ownership. The largest declines occur in areas with the largest reductions in firearm ownership.

Duggan finds that state and county-level changes in the rate of gun ownership are positively related to changes in the homicide rate. His findings suggest that gun ownership causes crime, and does not simply reflect individuals purchasing guns in response to increases in criminal activity. In support of this, he finds that increases in gun ownership are positively related to future increases in the gun homicide rate, but bear no corresponding relationship to non-gun homicides. His findings reveal that the relationship with other crime categories is much less marked, suggesting that guns primarily affect crime by increasing the homicide rate.


http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html

December 20, 2012 9:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know what I haven't seen but would like too ?

I would like to know the details of these young men's family situations, and personal habits, and parents, etc.

The guns didn't pick themselves up and shoot people in Aurora or Newton. People did. But it doesn't seem like, or maybe I haven't been paying attention, that the media is looking for parallels in what sort of upbringing these kids had....

December 20, 2012 9:20 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

" the majority of firearms used in crime are obtained either from burglaries or from the secondhand market. Thus as the rate of gun ownership in the general population increases, the ease with which criminals can obtain a gun will increase."


http://www.nber.org/digest/feb01/w7967.html


Anonymous, the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter was a believer in the imminent collapse of society, she hoarded guns and ammunition and extensively trained her son in there use. The shooter was an isolated individual with few friends who spent long days indoors playing first person shooter video games. His mother had been pressuring him to leave the house and either get a job or go to college. She had just returned from a luxury spa vacation when her son killed her and went on the rampage.

December 20, 2012 9:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Priya. why, if Bush caused all these problem with the deficit is it still so bad after he has left office ? The deficit was 500B in Bush's last year (assuming you don't credit the stimulus that Obama passed as part of govt fiscal year 2008/ but calendar early 2009). Govt calendar 2008 starts in Sept 2008 and runs through Sept 2009 - so many liberal websites take the stimulus spending and credit it to Bush - which is outrageous - your quoted site appears to have done the same. The wars are now mostly over. Not sure what the yearly cost is, but would be surprised if it is over 200 b. Though none of the sites do this, I prefer to look at numbers on a YEARLY basis, and on a YEARLY basis the annual deficit jumped from 500B when Bush left office to 1T as soon as Obama took over, and the Democrats were in control of Congress for Obama's last two years. The prescription drug Medicare enhancement - 200B a year ? - what was the yearly cost of this in 2009 ? Even if you assume that most people weren't using it and it only really starting hitting the deficit after Bush left office, you still have 300B more to account for, all of the other policies were already in place during Bush's term.

December 20, 2012 9:34 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Nonsense bad anonymous, the web site I quoted specifically says Obama was responsible for the 1 trillion in stimulus spending and I said that as well. I have never seen a web site that assigns the stimulus spending to Bush. 4 trillion of the deficit from Obama's first term is attributable to unpaid for wars, the Bush tax cuts, the prescription drug medicare enhancement all of which are ongoing costs. The rest of the 4 trillion is other left over Bush polices, see the link I provided to get the specifics. The deficit hasn't gotten better largely because of the ongoing Bush tax cuts and Republicans have blocked every attempt to raise revenues.

December 20, 2012 10:12 PM  
Blogger Priya Lynn said...

Bad anonymous quoted "Despite dire predictions that America's streets would be awash in military-style guns, the expiration of the decade-long assault weapons ban in September has not set off a sustained surge in the weapons' sales, gun makers and sellers say."

Gun nuts have gone crazy buying guns and magazines since the Sandy Hook shootings:


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/guns-stock-wal-mart-magazine-191639000.html

December 20, 2012 10:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If 4 trillion of the deficit from Obama's first term is actually attributable to unpaid for wars, and these wars have been declining and actually cost us less during the 2009-2012 period, why did the yearly deficit ballon to over 1T when it was 500 B every year under Bush ?

Confused Priya. Hoping you can help.

Are you saying that Obama added unpaid for wars to the yearly numbers starting when he took office and that completely accounts for the 500B per year difference in the deficit ? I don't get that, because you quoted the overall cost of the wars lower than that, and the entire defense budget per year is 600 b.

that would imply it was 1.1 B per year, and I don't believe that is correct.

again, I am looking for YEARLY numbers, not 10 year numbers. they never stick to a plan anyway, so the only thing that matters is yearly numbers... there is no budget passed since harry reid has controlled the senate, so there are no projections to look at, only history.. speaking of which I believe the health care cost for obama care includes 10 year projected 500B dollar cuts to medicare that never happened. I find it helpful to go and look at the yearly budget numbers. It gets complicated, but the 500 billion dollar rise in the deficit is due to the continuining extension of unemployment benefits, rising food stamps,CHIPS, EIC and child credits ... 47 billion dollars of which were claimed by illegals.

you know, I was born in the wrong society, I teach my kids to work hard and earn what they make.

that is no longer a virtue. you are viewed negatively in this society if you work hard. what happens, Priya, when all the hard workers desert you ?

what happens ?


December 20, 2012 10:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"you know, I was born in the wrong society, I teach my kids to work hard and earn what they make"

that makes you an evil villain in the Obama era

even worse, you probably want to leave your hard-earned money to your kids

what's wrong with people like you?

December 20, 2012 11:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Yes, if you exclude all the crime going on in the U.S., the united states has a lower crime rate than Canada. That's not saying anything - you are really reaching! It doesn't get any more pathetic than that."

actually, you're more sad than pathetic

I know it's hard for you to admit how widespread violence is in Canada

the violence in the U.S. is limited to a certain pockets

outside these pockets, where the majority of the population lives, the U.S. is one of the safest places to live in the world

most people here never see violence throughout their lives, much less personally experience it

"And if you ignore all Donald Trump's billions I'm richer than he is. If you exclude most of the U.S. population more people live in Canada than the U.S. If you exclude most of its land mass Canada is smaller than Luxembourg."

the problem you don't grasp is that you, who don't even live here, are proposing we enact blanket bans when there is no problem being experienced by most people

the focus should be on the problems being experienced in these areas where violence exists

namely, the breakdown of the family structure

"Once again, Priya Lynn kicks Anon's butt."

another flashback from a bad acid trip by a TTFer

"And contrary to bad anonymous's pathetic attempt to give Reagan credit for the recent drop in U.S. homicide rates there was little change in homicide rates during his presidency and the significant drops didn't start until after 1996"

the homocide rate was 20% lower after Reagan's first term

the revolution started by Reagan eliminated welfare dependency, which really started the homicide rate dropping in the mid-90s

now, it's less than half what it was when Reagan became President, with no gun bans

but then there's Canada

with violence is everywhere

as we've seen, it's SIX times higher than a typical American suburb,like Fairfax County

it's higher than France and UK

it's FOUR times higher than Norway, another bored and barren wasteland

it's TWICE as high as Germany and Netherlands

I don't know what they're doing up there but they need to try something else

the population has vicious and violent tendencies, eh?





December 21, 2012 12:32 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

My students were largely of the opinion that they would not attend the classes of a fair number of their teachers if they were armed. They found the governor's statement laughable.

It's worth noting, however, that despite my best efforts, in our school students with conservative opinions may be more reluctant to express thoughs, for concern about being shouted down.

I spent some of my day Monday reassuring students who were worried about school not being safe.

My biggest worry is my students diagnosed with Aspberger's, who may feel unfortunate identification or negative reactions because of the reports about Adam Lanza.

rrjr

December 21, 2012 5:51 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...

Anonymous, having taken a page from anti-gay marriage organizations, compares an affluent American suburb to all of Canada. I assume he's kidding.

Mark Twain said that there are three types of lies:

lies, damned lies, and statistics.

December 21, 2012 5:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A Message From the AOL.com Team

Posted Dec 21st 2012 5:00AM by AOL.com Team
Tags: AOLGun ControlNewtown

At AOL.com, we were shaken by the senseless and tragic events that unfolded last Friday in Newtown, Connecticut. It's our job to curate the news, even the most difficult stories, but at the same time, we grieve along with you for the lives that were lost, both the young and those of the adults who dedicated themselves to nurturing America's youth.

While we are inspired by the heroics of people like Victoria Soto, we wonder what great things she may have gone on to do in the future had she not been forced to sacrifice her life to prevent the senseless killing of children. To that end, we feel strongly that it's incumbent upon us to do something that makes a difference.

We're not a political website and we typically shy away from editorials. But we also know the status quo surrounding gun violence in America is unacceptable.

So we're doing four things today.

First, we're observing the national web moment of silence on AOL.com at 9:30 a.m. in honor of the Sandy Hook victims.

Second, we're joining with 750 mayors and other leaders in the Demand a Plan campaign (http://www.demandaplan.org/) to ban high volume assault weapons and require criminal background checks for firearms. This is a sensible idea and is in line with our commitment to family safety.

Third, we know not all of our members agree on potential changes to gun laws. So if you have different ideas on how to prevent tragedies like the one in Newtown, please let us know in the comments area below and we'll share the best of them on AOL.com. This isn't about ideology -- it is about reducing the number of mass murders, so please share any realistic solution you may have.

And fourth, we're sharing how the nation's elected representatives have voted on gun laws to allow you to see where your representative stands, and we urge you to contact them to express your point of view on how to prevent these tragedies.

click here and scroll down to the Gun Control Scorecard of our elected officials

December 21, 2012 7:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My students were largely of the opinion that they would not attend the classes of a fair number of their teachers if they were armed. They found the governor's statement laughable."

you might want to remind these students that they have supported a government that doesn't give kids a choice about whether they want to go to school or not

I find their idea that can get away with quitting school laughable

"It's worth noting, however, that despite my best efforts, in our school students with conservative opinions may be more reluctant to express thoughs, for concern about being shouted down."

nice that you've made an effort

most public school teachers are liberal bullies who try to intimidate students who disagree with them

the kids learn if they want to succeed at school, they have to keep silent if they don't agree with the agenda of the NEAers

"I spent some of my day Monday reassuring students who were worried about school not being safe."

you might remind them that they have a much higher chance of dying in a car crash than ever being shot by a serial killer at school

although, if they're worried, they could lobby to have armed guards placed at schools

the evidence suggests these types choose schools because is unlikely to be armed resistance

"My biggest worry is my students diagnosed with Aspberger's, who may feel unfortunate identification or negative reactions because of the reports about Adam Lanza."

their concerns are warranted

the media is irresponsible in their generalizations

this guy had more problems than that

"Anonymous, having taken a page from anti-gay marriage organizations, compares an affluent American suburb to all of Canada. I assume he's kidding."

actually, I was just turning the tables on nasty-pri for this ignorant and fallacious comment:

"Another reason why there are far more gun deaths per capita in the States than anywhere else is that the vast majority of gun owners in the States have a degree of homicidal tendencies. Just about none of the guns purchased in the U.S. are intended for hunting use. The vast majority of Americans who purchase a gun do it because they fantasize about shooting other people."

there are three or four completely false statements there

interesting that you had no problem with that but you object to my statement, which is actually valid

outside of certain pockets, where the vast majority of Americans live, ours is a society as safe as any in the world

do you ever see any real gun violence?

in Canada, however, which is demographically similar to Europe, homocide is much higher per capita than most places in the industrialized democracies

we can only speculate why but it is surely a fatal flaw in their national character

"Mark Twain said that there are three types of lies:

lies, damned lies, and statistics."

like a-hole Canadians who claim we are a seriouly violent society based on stats skewed by pockets where the family structure has broken down because of dependence on the government



December 21, 2012 10:38 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

It’s December 21st and we’re STILL ALIVE!!!


The Doctor saved us!!!

(Mom got a big laugh this morning when I ran downstairs and excitedly exclaimed that to her.)



Anon (I’m guessing Theresa) wondered:

“hough none of the sites do this, I prefer to look at numbers on a YEARLY basis, and on a YEARLY basis the annual deficit jumped from 500B when Bush left office to 1T as soon as Obama took over, and the Democrats were in control of Congress for Obama's last two years. The prescription drug Medicare enhancement - 200B a year ? - what was the yearly cost of this in 2009 ? Even if you assume that most people weren't using it and it only really starting hitting the deficit after Bush left office, you still have 300B more to account for, all of the other policies were already in place during Bush's term.”


Use the Google. It can be your friend:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

Look down column 2. Federal tax revenues dropped by $419 billion dollars between 2008 and 2009. Any more exorbitantly difficult math questions?


Have a nice day,

Cynthia

December 21, 2012 11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

all this talk about what Bush is responsible for is a little pointless

four years after he left, Democrats haven't tried to cancel the Medicare prescription enhancement or most if the Bush tax cuts

the Democrats at the time voted for them and they continue to support them

the only difference is they want to cancel a small part of the tax cuts for an unpopular minority as a political strategy

it won't make any meaningful reduction in the deficit and is just an attempt to turn America into the kind of petty resentful class warfare state that exists in Europe

December 21, 2012 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Robert said...


"most public school teachers are liberal bullies who try to intimidate students who disagree with them

the kids learn if they want to succeed at school, they have to keep silent if they don't agree with the agenda of the NEAers"

Where do you get ideas such as these? Seriously, I'm asking, where do you get these ideas? Most teachers are very reluctant to express political ideas, even to other staff. My colleague stopped drinking a particular size of 7-11 coffee, because the chain forced him to purchase either an Obama or a Romney cup.

For full disclosure, I'm not so shy. But then again, I'm clear with my students that I will continue to like and respect them even if their politics disagree with mine (including on same-gender marriage, but not extending to what I consider prejudice or disrespect of classes of people).

December 21, 2012 1:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

During the NRA press conference, four people were killed in Pennsylvania shooting

HOLLIDAYSBURG, PA. – A prosecutor says a shooting along a rural road in central Pennsylvania has left four people dead, including the gunman. Three state troopers were injured.

Blair County District Attorney Rich Consiglio says the shooting scene on Friday morning “extended over several miles” in Frankstown Township, about 70 miles west of Harrisburg.

Consiglio says the dead were three men and one woman.

State police say one trooper was struck by gunfire but escaped serious injury because he was wearing a bulletproof vest.

Consiglio says a second trooper was hit by shattered glass and a third was in a crash involving the gunman.

He says the public isn’t at risk. Township supervisor Mark Schroyer says nearby schools weren’t placed on lockdown.

The identities of the victims and gunman weren’t immediately released.

December 21, 2012 2:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home