Santa Barbara shooting

[SKL]

If the Constitution limited the rights of the government to constrain the ability to drive carriages, in order to allow freedom of movement and guerrilla action against an overmighty government, would there be a pro-car lobby working to limit car licensing?  I'm trying to work out to what extent this is about a) guns or b ) the Constitution.

 

As someone whose country works on developing consensus based on 1000 years of history, the reliance on the Constitution remains a mystery to me.  Again - this is honest curiosity, not an attack.

 

L

 

The history of our Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution, of which Right to Keep and Bear Arms is #2) is emphasized in our education system and an important part of American identity.  The whole point was to prevent the central government from taking more powers than it needs in order to do *its* job (which is limited by design).  One needs a very compelling argument to infringe on these rights.  It can be done, and has been done, but only where there is a very compelling overriding public interest.  Local matters such as urban safety are for states and cities to address.  The vast majority of the USA, geographically, is rural, and I'd bet a disproportionate amount of gun ownership is rural also - and rural gun ownership hasn't proven to be a big problem.

 

Plus, Americans don't particularly trust government.  Our relationship with government may be a bit unusual in the world, but it has worked for us for a long time.  Our country is not perfect, but it isn't a terrible place to live either.

 

I would add that except in very limited ways, the US government does not regulate driving.  Yet cars kill a lot more people than guns.

[Laura Corin]

I would add that except in very limited ways, the US government does not regulate driving.  Yet cars kill a lot more people than guns.

 

Well, I had to take a driving test to drive as a resident of California, and I was arrested for performing a safe but illegal manoeuvre.  So something is going on.  Is your argument that state level control is okay but federal control is not?  

 

You didn't quite address my question: if carriage rights were in the Constitution/Bill or Rights, would they be being defended with such vehemence?  Is it the Constitution or the guns?

 

L

[SKL]

Well, I had to take a driving test to drive as a resident of California, and I was arrested for performing a safe but illegal manoeuvre.  So something is going on.  Is your argument that state level control is okay but federal control is not?  

 

You didn't quite address my question: if carriage rights were in the Constitution/Bill or Rights, would they be being defended with such vehemence?  Is it the Constitution or the guns?

 

L

 

To most people, it's the constitution.  To the gun sellers, it's the guns.  :)  Just keeping it real.  :)

 

The state of California has jurisdiction over your California driver's license, not the federal government.  Yes, that is the way we are set up.  The decision to limit central government power was well-thought-out and thorougly debated 230+ years ago.  :)  We like it.  Our states tend to have more power than states/provinces etc. in other countries.  Each US state has its own laws etc.  It may sound funny, but it works.  Especially considering how large and diverse our population is.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Following the bombing several restrictions were placed on the sale of ammonium nitrate. Also several security measures were enacted.

 

Usually when something happens there are changes made. Buildings are made safer after an earthquake or a tornado. We all take off our shoes in order for them to be checked before getting in a plane. 

 

We all have to go through intrusive screening in order to even get on a plane. Does our right to privacy matter less than the right to bear arms? To me it does not.

 

There are those who believe we should have no restrictions whatesoever to the second amendment.  They do need to do a better job of enforcing the gun laws we currently have in place. Why does there have to be tragedy after tragedy before changes are made? In Virginia they were barely even reporting mental health concerns to the FBI until the Virginia Tech shooting happened. If that was properly enforced it probably would not have happened.

 

In many states one can still go to a gun show and buy a weapon, unrestricted.

 

None of what you posted has anything to do with anything I have said.  I support tighter gun regulations - not everything I have seen proposed but the majority of it.

 

FTR, the privacy issues with screenings are not a Constitutional issue as you are voluntarily entering a checkpoint area to travel.

[SKL]

I remember when the US government first instituted a nationwide speed limit of 55mph to avoid fuel shortages (way back when I was a kid).  The way they got states to go along with it was to make state highway funding dependent upon a 55mph statewide.  It made a lot of people upset because it is not supposed to be the feds' jurisdiction.

 

Another fun tidbit, we have state highways, US highways, and interstate highways, as well a county and city roads, and all of them are funded differently.

[Laura Corin]

To most people, it's the constitution.  To the gun sellers, it's the guns.  :)  Just keeping it real.  :)

 

The state of California has jurisdiction over your California driver's license, not the federal government.  Yes, that is the way we are set up.  The decision to limit central government power was well-thought-out and thorougly debated 230+ years ago.  :)  We like it.  Our states tend to have more power than states/provinces etc. in other countries.  Each US state has its own laws etc.  It may sound funny, but it works.  Especially considering how large and diverse our population is.

 

So does the NRA campaign against states when they want to limit guns?  Because a state limiting guns should not violate the Bill of Rights in the same way, should it?

 

L

[Scrub Jay]

So does the NRA campaign against states when they want to limit guns?  Because a state limiting guns should not violate the Bill of Rights in the same way, should it?

 

L

 

Not states but politicians. 

 

ETA: What is interesting is that the NRA once actually supported gun control.

[brehon]

If the Constitution limited the rights of the government to constrain the ability to drive carriages, in order to allow freedom of movement and guerrilla action against an overmighty government, would there be a pro-car lobby working to limit car licensing? I'm trying to work out to what extent this is about a) guns or b ) the Constitution.

 

As someone whose country works on developing consensus based on 1000 years of history, the reliance on the Constitution remains a mystery to me. Again - this is honest curiosity, not an attack.

 

L

That's a good question, Laura. I think the admittedly confusing answer is either or both, depending on one's point of view. The Constitution isn't about granting people rights; it's purpose is to limit in writing the power of the federal government. Remember, when the Bills of Rights was ratified the Americans has been free of British rule for, um, maybe 10 years at the outside. And, in the colonists' / new Americans' point of view, their views had been routinely disregarded and their interests routinely ignored by the Crown and Parliament for some decades prior to the Revolution. Neither Parliament or George III were interested in including them in any consensus-building.

 

As to guns, honestly, I believe the NRA has gone over the deep end in its fierce opposition to any form of reasonable gun control regulations. However, there are also "originalists" out there who think that they have an inside line on the Founding Fathers' intent and believe the Constitution isn't a living and breathing document in so far as interpretation is concerned.

 

So, the answer seems to me to be dependent on one's Constitutional philosophy. Does this at all answer your question? I feel it really hasn't. As far as carriages/cars and regulation for the federal gov't, I think the answer would be yes, they would be as vigorously defended. We (in America) have vigorous debates and arguments about the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments frequently. The Third hasn't been an issue since the Civil War.

[Laura Corin]

Not states but politicians. 

 

Sorry - I don't understand.  Do you mean that the NRA campaigns against politicians at a state level who seek to limit guns?

 

L

[Slartibartfast]

Sorry - I don't understand.  Do you mean that the NRA campaigns against politicians at a state level who seek to limit guns?

 

L

 

 

Oh yes, very strongly.

[SKL]

So does the NRA campaign against states when they want to limit guns?  Because a state limiting guns should not violate the Bill of Rights in the same way, should it?

 

L

 

ETA: actually the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution does require the states to uphold the US Bill of Rights.  However, as noted, there are ways for public safety considerations to limit the constitutional protections.

 

In addition, states have their own bills of rights.  They are not all the same.  All states have different gun laws, some drastically different.

 

The political side of the NRA - which is not making the longstanding members happy, by the way - is theoretically trying to avoid the "slippery slope."  Not to get into an abortion debate, but politically it is similar.  If you allow one tiny rule in one state to get through, the abortion lobby will insist that this is going to indirectly force all girls and women to be permanently barefoot and pregnant.  Similarly, if a state tries to require something very reasonable, such as a child-safe lock or mandatory test/training, I assume the NRA feels the need to jump up and down even though that in itself is not an issue.  Most people do not agree with the NRA on this and therefore the NRA is not in fact all-powerful.  If they really were that powerful, you wouldn't have a 10-day waiting period among other requirements in California, for example.

[brehon]

So does the NRA campaign against states when they want to limit guns? Because a state limiting guns should not violate the Bill of Rights in the same way, should it?

 

L

The NRA campaigns very vigorously in states where any gun control regulation might be proposed. They also (financially) support or denigrate politicians based on their stance on gun control. I believe the NRA also has a "report card" they issue to politicians based on how they vote on gun control issues.

[SKL]

Actually, when you think about it, the gun sellers should welcome regulations such as safety locks, because they could make more money that way.  Maybe they do welcome such regulations.  I don't know, I'm not an insider.

[SKL]

The NRA is just one voice.  It doesn't run the country.

[Slartibartfast]

The NRA campaigns very vigorously in states where any gun control regulation might be proposed. They also (financially) support or denigrate politicians based on their stance on gun control. I believe the NRA also has a "report card" they issue to politicians based on how they vote on gun control issues.

 

They do indeed.

 

http://www.nrapvf.org/

[poppy]

 

 

  Most people do not agree with the NRA on this and therefore the NRA is not in fact all-powerful.

 

That's pretty much the opposite of how lobbying works. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

That's pretty much the opposite of how lobbying works. 

 

What we are seeing is that at least at the Congressional level, NRA spending is having a limited effect on election results.

 

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/09/421893/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-i-the-nras-ineffective-spending/

[SKL]

Actually I have to correct myself.  Can't believe I made this mistake, but then, I didn't sleep last night.  :p  The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution causes the state governments to also be limited by the US Bill of Rights.  So for example, states are not allowed to establish a state religion etc.  So that means states also can't go all out and completely ban firearms.  But depending on one's interpretation, that doesn't mean they can't regulate them up to a point.  At some point a good argument was made that there was a very compelling public interest in limiting the 2nd Amendment in various ways, depending on the state.

[Reefgazer]

In a nutshell, the US constitution is about severely limiting the power of government and giving the power to the individual.  This may be why you are struggling with it - your country seems to put it's eggs in the "consensus" basket, and the eggs here are in the "individual" basket.  Any power not expressly granted to the federal government is the states' responsibility.  But the founding fathers did leave room to change this because amendments can be added to the constitution.

If the Constitution limited the rights of the government to constrain the ability to drive carriages, in order to allow freedom of movement and guerrilla action against an overmighty government, would there be a pro-car lobby working to limit car licensing?  I'm trying to work out to what extent this is about a) guns or b ) the Constitution.

 

As someone whose country works on developing consensus based on 1000 years of history, the reliance on the Constitution remains a mystery to me.  Again - this is honest curiosity, not an attack.

 

L

 

[Reefgazer]

To the bolded, yes, states have more power to regulate the individual than the federal government does, but they must operate within the confines of the limited authority that the federal government exercises. 

 

If carriage rights were in the constitution, they would be defended with equal vehemence, like freedom of speech and assembly.  So this is a constitutional issue (at least from my POV), and not a gun or carriage issue.

Well, I had to take a driving test to drive as a resident of California, and I was arrested for performing a safe but illegal manoeuvre.  So something is going on.  Is your argument that state level control is okay but federal control is not?  

 

You didn't quite address my question: if carriage rights were in the Constitution/Bill or Rights, would they be being defended with such vehemence?  Is it the Constitution or the guns?

 

L

 

[Jkacz]

If gun control works, how do you explain the number of gun deaths per capita in Washington DC, Chicago, and New York City? They have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet their crime rates including gun deaths are among the highest in the country. Meanwhile, states such as Vermont and New Hampshire, which have VERY lax gun control have among the lowest gun deaths and crime rates.

 

I live in New Hampshire. We own multiple guns. To get any gun (rifle or handgun) requires that the purchaser has a federal background check (takes 1 to 3 hours depending on how busy the system is). That is it. We are an open carry state, which means that I do not have to have a permit to carry or transport a gun so long as it is openly visible. A concealed carry permit is issued through the town's police department. It takes 7 days, requires you to list 3 or 4 character references and costs $10. If the chief of police refuses to issue, he or she must provide a reason for the refusal. Yet, as lax as these laws are, we have one of the lowest gun violence rates. Why?

 

Meanwhile, my father in law lives in Long Island, New York. He is an Army veteran (Vietnam) who has never had a speeding ticket. He has been trying to get a permit to purchase a gun for home defense for over SIX months and continues to get the run around (lost paperwork, personal interview with law enforcement, etc, etc, etc). He's retired but it's taken so much time, he's finally given up. Yet, gun crime rates are higher there than here in New Hampshire.

 

Gun laws don't prevent criminals from obtaining weapons, just law abiding citizens.

 

Jenn

[flyingiguana]

The NRA campaigns very vigorously in states where any gun control regulation might be proposed. They also (financially) support or denigrate politicians based on their stance on gun control. I believe the NRA also has a "report card" they issue to politicians based on how they vote on gun control issues.

 

http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year

 

"The NRA and its affiliate spent nearly $3 million on federal-level lobbying in 2012 — more than it has during any previous year, according to data maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, but spending during this year's first quarter puts it on pace to exceed that mark."

 

Of course, it's money they made .... selling guns.

 

[Reefgazer]

If he hires a lawyer, he'll have it in 6 days. 

If gun control works, how do you explain the number of gun deaths per capita in Washington DC, Chicago, and New York City? They have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet their crime rates including gun deaths are among the highest in the country. Meanwhile, states such as Vermont and New Hampshire, which have VERY lax gun control have among the lowest gun deaths and crime rates.

I live in New Hampshire. We own multiple guns. To get any gun (rifle or handgun) requires that the purchaser has a federal background check (takes 1 to 3 hours depending on how busy the system is). That is it. We are an open carry state, which means that I do not have to have a permit to carry or transport a gun so long as it is openly visible. A concealed carry permit is issued through the town's police department. It takes 7 days, requires you to list 3 or 4 character references and costs $10. If the chief of police refuses to issue, he or she must provide a reason for the refusal. Yet, as lax as these laws are, we have one of the lowest gun violence rates. Why?

Meanwhile, my father in law lives in Long Island, New York. He is an Army veteran (Vietnam) who has never had a speeding ticket. He has been trying to get a permit to purchase a gun for home defense for over SIX months and continues to get the run around (lost paperwork, personal interview with law enforcement, etc, etc, etc). He's retired but it's taken so much time, he's finally given up. Yet, gun crime rates are higher there than here in New Hampshire.

Gun laws don't prevent criminals from obtaining weapons, just law abiding citizens.

Jenn

 

[flyingiguana]

If gun control works, how do you explain the number of gun deaths per capita in Washington DC, Chicago, and New York City? They have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet their crime rates including gun deaths are among the highest in the country. Meanwhile, states such as Vermont and New Hampshire, which have VERY lax gun control have among the lowest gun deaths and crime rates.

 

 

Because these cities don't live in a magic bubble.  Anyone can bring anything over state/city lines.

 

May or may not be legal, but it's not like anyone's checking.

 

This is why it needs to be a nationwide thing.

[Joanne]

If gun control works, how do you explain the number of gun deaths per capita in Washington DC, Chicago, and New York City? They have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, yet their crime rates including gun deaths are among the highest in the country. Meanwhile, states such as Vermont and New Hampshire, which have VERY lax gun control have among the lowest gun deaths and crime rates.

 

Yet, as lax as these laws are, we have one of the lowest gun violence rates. Why?

 

 

 

Demographics; sociological demographics.

[poppy]

Straw purchase sales are the primary way criminals get guns.

Frontline report.

[Jkacz]

Because these cities don't live in a magic bubble. Anyone can bring anything over state/city lines.

 

May or may not be legal, but it's not like anyone's checking.

 

This is why it needs to be a nationwide thing.

The problem is that there are millions and millions of guns already in this country. Even if you could get law abiding citizens to give their guns up, criminals will continue to have them. Then that leaves law abiding citizens defenseless.

[Jkacz]

Demographics; sociological demographics.

I agree. So if the reason behind gun deaths is demographics, why is the solution gun control?

[SKL]

I was checking some stats online for gun crime trends in US and Australia (because an Australian person brought up Australian law).  It seemed to me that the rate of gun crime decreased more in the US than in Australia in the years since Australia enacted its heightened gun control.  Now to be honest, I am not sure I was comparing apples to apples, but I looked at a number of sources and they all seemed to show the same thing.  In fact, all the sources I saw showed a spike in Australian gun violence after gun control was enacted, followed by a gradual reduction to approximately where it was before.  While in the US, it has decreased a lot over time.  Australia is an island, so you can't really say they must be sneaking it over the border from a neighboring state.

 

I just don't see compelling evidence that extreme gun control stops gun violence.

 

Someone mentioned the different rules in different US states, and how they correlate to higher gun violence.  My thought would be that the rules are stricter because the violence was already higher.  If you live in a place where people use guns for the right reasons, you don't need so much regulation.  I wouldn't want a nationwide law to address problems that are not nationwide.

[poppy]

 

 

Gun laws don't prevent criminals from obtaining weapons, just law abiding citizens.

 

That is a ridiculous statement. Guns laws have unquestionably saved lives in domestic violence situations.

In at least one case, a state loosen its gun restrictions led to a higher murder rate. 'Using state-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012, researchers concluded that removing the licensing requirement contributed to an “additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.â€'.  

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/15/3297141/study-proves-background-checks-save-lives/

 

[Jkacz]

If he hires a lawyer, he'll have it in 6 days.

At $300 to $350 an hour, that's an expensive proposition for a retiree.

[Reefgazer]

Yes, it is.  NY is a notorious PITA for getting your permit.  Another option is to get the permit in another state that has reciprocity with NY. 

At $300 to $350 an hour, that's an expensive proposition for a retiree.

 

[Joanne]

I agree. So if the reason behind gun deaths is demographics, why is the solution gun control?

 

You can kill more people in a short period of time with guns.

 

 

The options aren't:

 

1. Unlimited guns or restricted access

 

or

 

2. Defenseless innocent, law abiding, non mentally ill citizens

[brehon]

Sorry - I don't understand. Do you mean that the NRA campaigns against politicians at a state level who seek to limit guns?

 

L

Oh, my!! Yes, it does. If any type of governmental entity (federal, state, local/municipal) attempts to legislate any type of gun control, the NRA will be there actively campaigning against the pols who wrote the proposed legislation and against the legislation itself.

 

In fact, in conservative states politicians will tout their NRA score to drum up support.

[Reefgazer]

If criminals have guns and you have pepper spray or a knife, you are essentially defenseless and don't have a prayer.  So yes, those are the two options.  We already have gun control; just enforce that. 

You can kill more people in a short period of time with guns.

 

 

The options aren't:

 

1. Unlimited guns or restricted access

 

or

 

2. Defenseless innocent, law abiding, non mentally ill citizens

 

[Jkacz]

That is a ridiculous statement. Guns laws have unquestionably saved lives in domestic violence situations.

In at least one case, a state loosen its gun restrictions led to a higher murder rate. 'Using state-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012, researchers concluded that removing the licensing requirement contributed to an “additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.â€'.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/15/3297141/study-proves-background-checks-save-lives/

From one biased source to another:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/02/21/media-cherry-picks-missouri-gun-data-to-make-misleading-case-for-more-control/

 

The article points put that the murder rate was increasing at a faster rate before the repeal than after.

 

Then there is the murder rate after Massachusetts enacted a permit to purchase and how the rate increased substantially more than neighboring states after enactment. http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/02/massachusetts-murder-rate-has-risen.html

[Joanne]

If criminals have guns and you have pepper spray or a knife, you are essentially defenseless and don't have a prayer.  So yes, those are the two options.  We already have gun control; just enforce that. 

 

Did you READ my post?

[poppy]

 

 

From one biased source to another:
http://www.foxnews.c...r-more-control/

 

Fair enough, but I will add that CBS, MSNBC, PBS, the Washington Post and BBC  agreed with my source, not the guns right advocate.

[Laurie]

Do you have children at, or near, adult age?

 

Yes.

 

[Jkacz]

How about Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

 

It points out that as gun sales have soared, gun crimes have plummeted. It also points out that only less than 15% of criminals that owned guns when they were arrested, obtained them through "legal" channels. The rest were from family or friends and 40% obtained them illegally (surprise, surprise...). So if we limit guns available to law abiding citizens, but at least 40% of criminals still would have access, how would that work?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

How about Forbes? http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/05/14/disarming-realities-as-gun-sales-soar-gun-crimes-plummet/

 

It points out that as gun sales have soared, gun crimes have plummeted. It also points out that only less than 15% of criminals that owned guns when they were arrested, obtained them through "legal" channels. The rest were from family or friends and 40% obtained them illegally (surprise, surprise...). So if we limit guns available to law abiding citizens, but at least 40% of criminals still would have access, how would that work?

 

To be fair, the 40% obtaining guns illegally likely includes those acquired via straw purchases, which could be lessened through stricter regulations and enforcement.

[Melissa in Australia]

quote"What are you saying? That the NSW Premier wanted tighter gun laws so he planned a massacre?

 

I can't fathom any Australian politician planning a massacre of Australian people....no...not even Tony Abbott LOL.

 

So yes..if he did say that then I would call coincidence...although it was probably a misquote taken out of context while talking about something else entirely.

 

I don't think any of our politicians are savvy enough to embark on conspiracies....look at the past Labour govt. They self-destructed just trying to stab each other in the back LOL.

 

I wouldn't credit them with enough brains to maintain a cover up like that. "

 

I can not like this enough. I actually fell off my chair laughing. it has made my day! I agree completely with the politicians not having enough brain to maintain a cover :-)

[ChocolateReignRemix]

quote"What are you saying? That the NSW Premier wanted tighter gun laws so he planned a massacre? I can't fathom any Australian politician planning a massacre of Australian people....no...not even Tony Abbott LOL. So yes..if he did say that then I would call coincidence...although it was probably a misquote taken out of context while talking about something else entirely. I don't think any of our politicians are savvy enough to embark on conspiracies....look at the past Labour govt. They self-destructed just trying to stab each other in the back LOL. I wouldn't credit them with enough brains to maintain a cover up like that. " I can not like this enough. I actually fell off my chair laughing. it has made my day! I agree completely with the politicians not having enough brain to maintain a cover :-)

 

Currently a segment of the population seems to believe that every event that occurs pretty much anywhere is part of a false flag operation or general conspiracy.

[Melissa in Australia]

sounds like they have been watching too much TV and lost touch with reality ;-)

[Reefgazer]

I read it as this:  We have more than the 2 choices you presented (1 and 2).  But if I mis-read, I apologize. 

Did you READ my post?

 

[Reefgazer]

Unless you are the potential DV victim in a tightly-regulated state and were unable to defend yourself against a domestic violence perpetrator because you couldn't get a gun.  Then it would seem that gun control could increase the death rate. 

That is a ridiculous statement. Guns laws have unquestionably saved lives in domestic violence situations.

In at least one case, a state loosen its gun restrictions led to a higher murder rate. 'Using state-level murder data for the time period 1999-2012, researchers concluded that removing the licensing requirement contributed to an “additional 55 to 63 murders per year in Missouri between 2008 and 2012.â€'.  

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/15/3297141/study-proves-background-checks-save-lives/

 

As someone whose country works on developing consensus based on 1000 years of history, the reliance on the Constitution remains a mystery to me.  Again - this is honest curiosity, not an attack.

 

 

This is a fantastic question.  I think there are several answers.  First, when the country was founded, we didn't have 1,000 years of history to rely on, or, more to the point, we didn't want to rely too much on the history of the nation we recently declared independence from.  What we did have, was about five years of completely ineffective, weak Federalism, that clearly wasn't working.  Moreover, the founders wanted to pick and choose ideas about government from antiquity, English Common Law, the state constitutions and other sources, so they needed to be lawerly-clear about which bits would apply to the new country.

 

As the various states had widely different interests, it was very important to write out what they would all agree to.  And while the US now has a body of common law, now that we have more history, the Constitution is where it is all rooted.

 

Now the Constitution is clearly not perfect  (especially as we see the biases towards small states), it has held up pretty well in the face of enormous economic, societal and political change in the world.  Even more powerful, is the idea of having a short, written Constitution. I can't imagine anyone establishing a new country today without one.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I shouldn't have, but I googled "Port Arthur conspiracy."  I managed to confirm that the conspiracy idiocy on display in the U.S. doesn't stop at our borders. 

 

On a side note, I also learned today that the UCSB shooter was part of a mind control plot by the CIA/Obama/UN/World Bank.  Follow up of the same plan as the Colorado shooter and Adam Lanza.  However, there is a spit among the nutters about Lanza regarding this theory, as some believe the Sandy Hook shooting was part of the mind control plot while others believe the Sandy Hook shootings never happened. Quite the schism.

[brehon]

I shouldn't have, but I googled "Port Arthur conspiracy." I managed to confirm that the conspiracy idiocy on display in the U.S. doesn't stop at our borders.

 

On a side note, I also learned today that the UCSB shooter was part of a mind control plot by the CIA/Obama/UN/World Bank. Follow up of the same plan as the Colorado shooter and Adam Lanza. However, there is a spit among the nutters about Lanza regarding this theory, as some believe the Sandy Hook shooting was part of the mind control plot while others believe the Sandy Hook shootings never happened. Quite the schism.

I *KNEW* it! I knew there was a connection. My fears have been confirmed; after all, I just read it on the interwebs.

[Ipsey]

I assure you that I most certainly do worry about it. 

 

I doubt most people worry about a truck bomb but I know all too well how on a beautiful day in April one's view of the world can change forever. 

 

I am from Oklahoma City.

 

I worry about my children dying by gun as well, honestly.

 

I grew up in a home where my father was in law enforcement, and I had easy access to guns. Not just for my father's work, but for hunting. Very small ranching town. In 7th grade, our science class took a week a did Hunter's Safety so we could get hunting licenses. My brother shot his first rabbit when he was 5 (yummy dinner). I was a little older; don't have the blood lust.

 

Easily 50% of my high school regularly hunted in the fall. Deer, elk, antelope. I was an oddity that I didn't, given my father's profession (which I'm being just a bit vague about).

 

I've been around guns my whole life. I know a half dozen people from my town who have killed themselves intentionally with guns, and several who have accidentally injured themselves.

 

My husband and I have hunting rifles, but I'm scarcely a friend of the NRA.

 

I tell you what, I have issues with guns now.

 

I found that a friend of mine kept a loaded pistol in her top drawer--just in case.  

A couple of years ago, a boy in the local homeschooling group killed another little hs boy when they were playing with a firearm in one of their homes.

 

People do not care for weapons well, i don't think, and with the prevalence of guns in my area, I do worry about it.

 

I haven't quite got up the courage to ask the friends in my new town if they have guns and how they are stored when my kids to go play--but I probably should. I have warned them all what to do if a friend shows them a gun. (I don't imagine most parents outside of the US have to do this). 

 

A little girl in our area was shot in the head playing in a school playground last week. She was playing in a freakin' playground!

 

Granted, my children will likely never be hurt by gunfire. But the chances of it are far higher here in the US than any other developed country.  Is this right?