overcastOvercast and Breezy, 71.0°

Letter to the editor: Protecting gun rights

To the editor:

This letter is an answer to Mr. Dave Kyner’s letter to the editor on Feb. 23. He sounds like an anti-gun zealot. I have been a member of the NRA for almost 50 years and proud of it. I am 84 years old. I bought my first firearm at age 10. At age 11, I received a shotgun for Christmas. Both are single shots and I still have them.

A member of the NRA has not been arrested or charged with any involvement in the recent school shooting. It’s a good thing we have politicians that protect the right of all people, including Dave Kyner. His mind is set in concrete and nothing will change it. Enough said.

Comments

Bill Pasquel

Agreed. Thank you! May God Bless you! And Amen, Mr. Lemon!

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Larry Sturm

Nobody has a right to buy an assault rifle and kill a bunch innocent people.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Nobody has the right to pick up a rock and kill an innocent person. Ya gonna ban rocks?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Glen Stovall

Gosh---I just don't know why we have any laws or regulations..

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Agreed and we already have laws against it.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

P Allen Macfarlane

And those laws are working really well, aren't they? We have all those weak laws on the books so that you and your buddies can have your own private arsenal at home and play Rambo, if you want.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

P you sure do bluster a lot, but unlike me, I haven’t seen you offer up any solutions. The laws we have can work although I agree we can improve them, but for them to work the agencies that are in charge of enforcing them must do their job.

Waiting for your solutions.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

P Allen Macfarlane

"The laws we have can work although I agree we can improve them, but for them to work the agencies that are in charge of enforcing them must do their job."

You know, the problem here is that gun violence is always attributed to something other than the availability of firearms and of course we can't possibility criticize the Second Amendment, even though that piece of text was crafted in a time different from ours when we had muzzle-loading muskets. The answer is not to arm everybody per the NRA's answer to everything; the answer is to be sensible about the kinds of weapons that should be available to the average person. You don't need an arsenal locked away in your home (as a safety measure), unless you want to turn your home into Fort Apache.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Do you really believe that government failure did not contribute to the FL shooting? In finding solutions we must look t the entire problem.

All of the rights in the bill of rights were drafted in a different time - so what? Don’t like it amend it or repeal it.

P tell me what weapons you’d allow us to have and how that will significantly reduce gun violence.

As far as the arsenal, firearms a tool. It is like telling a person they can only have one wrench in their toolbox. I have multiple firearms because each is best suited to a specific task. My hunting rifle is for hunting but is a lousy self-defense weapon. My pistol is great for close range self-defense but is a lousy hunting weapon. My AR 15 is a better self defense tool because it has a bright lite mounted on it to blind and illuminate attackers.

But go ahead and tell me what weapons I should be allowed to own and how it will reduce gun violence.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

"Do you really believe that government failure did not contribute to the FL shooting?"

Gun nuts are typically the same people who blame the government for everything, as you just did. Why in the world would you want to go the route continuing to use bureaucracy as the primary method of keeping guns out of the hands of the wrong people instead of just using the method that's worked nearly everywhere it's been tried?

"But go ahead and tell me what weapons I should be allowed to own and how it will reduce gun violence."

None of them. But I'll meet you halfway and say you can keep hand guns if you pass a background check and maintain a license that includes yearly safety courses, proficiency testing, etc.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Kendall Simmons


Out of genuine curiosity, how many times have you had to use your AR-15 for self-defense? (Indeed, how many times have you used ANY of your firearms for self-defense?)

Thanks in advance!

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

AR -0 Pistol -1 didn’t have to shoot armed guy, but disarmed him and held yeti cops arrived 20 minutes after they were called.

Regardless, we Hefeweizen many safety devices like fire extinguishers that we may never use but it is prudent to have the, just in case.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

I hate posting on phone and crazy autocorrect. Not yeti but until.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

RJ Johnson

Last time I checked Murder was against the law!

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

Owning a nuclear bomb is also against the law. When's the last time one of those were used in an attack?

What's the key difference between a nuclear bomb and guns? Actual controls.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Glen Stovall

The well regulated militia has been killing with abandon----33,000/year!

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

There is no militia. It has been destroyed by the federal government. Chief Justice Warren Burger warmed that the federal government will destroy militias when they seek to take away the rights and liberties of the people.

For a long time, the closest thing we had to a state militia was the National Guard, but now the federal government controls it which negates the purpose of a militia; to defend against foreign attacks AND against the federal government when it attempts to become a national government and take away states’ rights.

Criminals in violation of existing laws have killed many of the 33,000 you mention while the bulk of the other deaths came at the own hands of the victim.

Want to reduce death by guns - enforce and strengthen current laws and get people the mental health care they need.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Steve Hicks

I won't argue with your last sentence, Brock.

But you surely know the Constitution was written to make a truly "national government" (in place of the "every-state-for-itself" Articles of Confederation): that the Constitution includes a "Supremacy Clause" (Article VI, clause 2) which establishes federal law and government as superior to states' laws and governments: and that the South's doctrine for starting the Civil War was that they didn't have to obey federal law.

Those all seem pretty definitive about the principle of America's federal government.

Your blather about "the federal government when it attempts to become a national government and take away states’ rights" sounds like the "nullificationist" southern politicians of the 1850s, or the southern "states rights" politicians of the 1960s. What is history's judgement on those men ?

How do you not get that all that anti-government blather is a lie, unConstitutional, and destructive to America ?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Too funny Steve as it was Burger and not me that said it. But hey you know more about the Constitution than a former Chief Justice.

Go back and read up and you will see the Constitution was drafted to protect against a national government.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Steve Hicks

Citation, please, where Burger wrote "against the federal government when it attempts to become a national government and take away states’ rights" ?

And tell me, please, how "the Constitution was drafted to protect against a national government." Did the Articles of Confederation create too strong a federal government, and the Constitution was necessary to make "national government" weaker and afford more protection for "states' rights" ? Strange, isn't it, that the writers of the Constitution would have thought the Supremacy Clause (for one example) would make "national government" weaker ?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Article about limiting Federal government´s power.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/...

Quote from Burger

People of that day were apprehensive about the new “monster” national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment’s guarantees — against “establishment of religion,” “free exercise” of religion, free speech and free press — came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a “national” or “standing” army.

Burger essay
http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

I misread and tributes it to Burger. He was actually quoting In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison’s proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
“to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty … Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins.”
We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the “right” guaranteed; in short, it was declared “necessary” in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Steve Hicks

Now you're talking historical reality.

It was feared that a "standing" (permanent) army would be a ready-made tool for a future wannabe-autocrat president to seize power, and suppress the people's "right" to rule (as Napoleon did in contemporary revolutionary France).

It was a point of pride with Americans that their scrabbled-together army of local militias (with French help) had defeated the greatest professional army of that time (who had their own hired German help). So America didn't need a "standing army."

But it wasn't quite true. The "Continental Army," was created and directed by the Continental Congress because to win the war there had to be a single military force, with operations coordinated by a single authority. State militias under 13 different authorities joined in Continental Army operations: they did not, and could not have, won the war.

America's winning independence required a (temporary) standing army, and a (temporary) "national government." Arguing that "in fragmentation there is strength" is counter-historical, and counter-factual. America tried that with the Articles of Confederation: we have a constitution because government by state-primacy didn't work; and can't work.

Note that the greatest proponent of a "standing" army was President George Washington; the man who'd had the most experience of trying to win a war with temporary militias under state control. Washington found that system unworkable (to put it mildly). But under Gerry's (and your) contention, Washington's belief showed him to be an enemy of Americans' and states' "rights." Does that pass the history, or the commonsense, sniff-test ?

And today ? We have a wannabe-autocrat president. We have a standing army. But I seriously doubt the American military would reverse their 200-year tradition of defending America, and blindly obey this president's orders to suppress citizens' "rights." Don't you ?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

P Allen Macfarlane

"The use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors for homicide in the home. Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/...

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

You can’t fix stupid. And yes, people using illicit drugs and keeping weapons in their home are stupid.

Do you really advocate for taking away the rights of law abiding citizens because stupid people do stupid things?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

P Allen Macfarlane

No, but you can limit stupid's access.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

How? You said they have illicit drugs, i.e, illegal You can’t limit their access to illegal drugs but you can limit their access to guns? How?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

No response???

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

Nothing is going to be 100% effective, Brocky, and no one claimed it would be.

A seat belt is not going to save you 100% of the time, but you'd still be a fool to not use one.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

So, while a firearm is not going to save you 100% of the time, you'd still be a fool not to carry one? It's the same philosophy.

Seat belts, fire extinguishers, firearms, spare tires, trailer safety chains, and air brakes that require pressure to release rather than engage all serve as a protective mechanism in those instances where they are needed. I have yet to meet a person who only carried their spare tire on trips where they were going to get a flat or only wore their seat belt on trips where they were going to crash.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Larry Sturm

Bob he is not going to kill 20 people in less than 4 minutes with a rock.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

So he takes 5 minutes......

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Aaron McGrogor

And all 20 people just stay put waiting to be killed...

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

You never know these days......

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

Actually, the sound of gunfire allows for a faster recognition of what is happening and prompts the fight or flight response. Silent killing takes longer to be noticed, does not immediately identify the suspect, and causes more confusion than panic. 20 is an unlikely number as most killers want to draw attention to themselves, but it is quite possible if the killer blends in with the panicked throngs trampling each other to escape. Almost nobody is going to stop and see if the body they are stepping over died before or after being trampled.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Aaron McGrogor

So no one would scream while being bludgeoned to death? No one is going to see the mess it makes? I would hardly describe bludgeoning as silent or discreet enough to blend in.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

I was not limiting myself to a rock, but including non-firearm weapons such as knives. However, if done properly a rock to the head will prevent the victim from screaming and there is a good chance it would result in less bleeding than a knife wound. There will be an impact sound, but it will be less noticeable than a gunshot. A good blow that crushes the windpipe would also prevent screaming and produce little to no bleeding while resulting in death by suffocation for most victims.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Aaron McGrogor

A blow to the neck isn't going to prevent noises, and it's not going to go by unnoticed.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

A great essay by Thomas Sowell.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentis...

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

If by 'great' you mean 'a great collection of meaningless gunsplaining, whataboutisms and strawmen'...then sure.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Here is part of the reason we can’t find meaningful solutions to gun violence.

Anti-2nd amendment poster links to article stating that having illicit drugs and guns in the home result in homicides. Wants to make guns illegal to stop it.

Somehow misses the fact that they have illegal drugs and thinks they won’t possess illegal guns AND the fact that they already are prohibited owning guns because of their drug use.

A solution that doesn’t stop the criminal from possessing a gun but does stop law abiding citizens from doing so is not a solution.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Aaron McGrogor

You've criticized others for not bringing anything to the table. What are your viable suggestions?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

He actually has a handful of decent ideas he's posted in other articles. The problem is that he then couples those few good ideas with more of the same 'more guns is the only thing that works' solutions.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Here you go.

Enhance the background check database by adequately funding it and the FBI to manage it.

Prosecute people who lie on their gun purchase affidavit.

Require health care professionals to report patients suffering from certain mental illnesses or using certain drugs for treatment to the background check database. We have to be careful here because we want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have mental illnesses and are more likely to commit a violent act or commit suicide, but we don’t want to deter people from seeking help.

Provide funding for more mental health access that is affordable.

Enact a law that would allow people to report a person who they believe will harm others or themselves and be able, after due process, to remove their guns. Due process is essential, but it can happen quickly. Also, make it a criminal act to falsely accuse someone.

Fund voluntary gun safety training and PSAs to promote the safe handling, storage and use of firearms. We use taxpayer dollars to fund all kinds of safety programs so why not this. I am sure there are people who would like training but can’t afford it.

Increase the penalties from the paltry 3 years many states have for felons illegally possessing guns to 25 years.

Make sentences mandatory no parole for anyone convicted of a felony while using or in possession of a firearm. And such sentences shall be at least 25 years.

Strengthen laws and increase penalties for stealing or possessing a stolen gun to at least 25 years with no possibility of parole.

Stop imprisoning drug users, provide them treatment and thus make room for these deadly criminals.

Allow the CDC to study gun violence and offer recommendations for curbing it.

Ban bump stocks - no purpose other than to circumvent the law regarding full auto.

All are doable, none infringe upon my rights and all will help reduce crime.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

I'll add one to your list. Prevent prosecutors from dropping the associated weapon charges in exchange for a plea deal on the base crime. Without this, your "Make sentences mandatory no parole for anyone convicted of a felony while using or in possession of a firearm." ineffective as the firearm possession has disappeared prior to sentencing.

However, I would remove one as well. Allowing the CDC to study gun violence is a bad idea. First, gun violence does not fall under their field of study. It would be like asking a psychiatrist to research the flu. Further, by allowing the specific study of gun violence rather than making them look at all violence, it introduces massive sampling bias and taints any results that may be produced. Deliberately producing bad results to support an agenda is bad science and even worse policy.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Thanks Andrew. Your post exhibits the kind of back and forth dialogue needed to reduce gun violence. I agree with your suggestion about not dropping the weapon charge. Excellent idea.

Again good point on CDC and not limiting it to gun violence.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

Agree with you both about needing to stop using gun possession as a bargaining chip for the reasons stated by Andrew. I respectfully disagree however over the critique of why the CDC shouldn't be doing research, for the reasons that I stated below. The CDC already does extensive research on the causes of ALL violence, and additionally does research on things like spousal abuse and other subsets as legitimate topics for research with tangible benefits.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Kendall Simmons

Why do you assume that COLLECTING and COMPILING data...that's all...and making it accessible to researchers of all stripes makes it tainted??? Even worse, makes it *deliberately* tainted.

Your assumptions are GROSS...in more than one sense of the word.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

Do you believe that gun violence is the result of a viral or bacterial infection? If you pick either of those, you are either too stupid or too dishonest for any intelligent person to listen to what you say. If you pick neither, you admit that the CDC has no business doing such research.

Now, as to you're inability to understand sampling bias. It's a simple concept. When you put an artificial restriction on the data, you put a related bias on the results. As I have stated before, I have no problem with gun violence data being included in a broad study of all violence. However, that is not what people like Ken Lassman want. They want to focus on just gun violence. But, when you restrict your data set to just gun violence, you taint your results with sampling bias. You can call me gross all you want, but some dishonest stranger trying to insult me on the Internet doesn't change scientific fact, and sampling bias is a scientific fact. For example, ignoring instances where an armed person committed violence without using the a gun implies a stronger correlation between being armed and using that firearm than is true. Granted, even using all violence data there will still be a stronger correlation implied than actually exists because situations where an armed individual managed to avoid actual violence will be missing from the data set as well. Of course, including self defense instances where violence was prevented would interfere with your dishonest attempt to manipulate the results...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

So the fact that the CDC has been studying violence as a whole since 1980 pretty much voids all of your points here, Andrew. That, plus the fact that they have been focusing on the subsectors of the overall violence topic as well: they have done in-depth research on violence between intimate partner and sexual violence, suicide, elder abuse, youth violence, as well as child abuse and neglect: all sectors they have identified in their overall monitoring of violence as a whole. They already are studying the violence that is committed without a gun, Andrew, so to avoid research on the one big cause of violence that includes guns is the sampling bias, not the other way around.

I don't think you understand how research works, Andrew. I suggest you do some more reading up on how populations to be researched are selected, how the research is conducted within that population, and how the conclusions of that research are applied to similar groups and to the population as a whole. The Dickey Bill only harms the American taxpayer and should be repealed and replaced with sensible research quality standards that typifies the rest of the CDC research practiced today.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

I have asked multiple times that you leave me alone. You have lied to me too many times for me to even believe your name is Ken Lassman. So, you can bugger off at any time or you can continue to prove yourself to be a worthless piece of cow pie. Either way, I will not respond to you with anything other than a restatement of my utter disdain for your lack of integrity and continued harassment.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

Dear Reader (pointedly NOT Andrew, so if this is you, Andrew, you can stop reading now so you don't have to waste your time coming up with another insult):

This is an example of an ad hominem attack: instead of addressing the issue at hand, the commenter attacks the person making the point. For more information on this logical fallacy, I recommend checking out the following resource: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/t...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

And why exactly should I agree to discuss the issue with you, when you are such a lying piece of bovine excrement that you have even argued against a direct quote of yourself? You said it, not because you believed it, but because you thought it would win the moment at hand. Thus, when I quoted it you failed to recognize it was something you had said. I tried debating with you over a very considerable number of posts, but when you "clarify" everything you say into something completely unrelated to the original comment when called upon it, there really is no point. You have nothing but lies and "clarifications" to distract from your lies.

So, I will ask again. Please leave me alone. If you don't like being "insulted" by having the truth repeated, simply leave me alone and you will be free to be a deceitful dingleberry without me reminding everybody what you have shown yourself to be. The choice is yours.

PS: Making a truthful accounting of a person's character that prevents engaging in honest debate is not an ad hominem attack. Your attempt to deflect that truth by besmirching my reputation with false claims, however, would qualify.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

Your words speak for themselves, Andrew. It is you who interrupted this ongoing dialogue with an unbidden hail of insults, entirely of your own initiation. If you don't want to participate in the exchange of ideas in the comments section, then save your bile and your posts. But if you do, don't expect your ideas to go unchallenged if others hold different opinions.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

You give me to much "credit". Of course, if you were honest enough to accept responsibility for your words and actions we wouldn't be in this discussion.

Also, in case you really are too stupid to understand what I'm saying instead of just too dishonest to admit it, you are the only person I have asked to stop harassing me. You have earned that singular honor, so do not lie by saying I "don't want to participate in the exchange of ideas in the comments section". An honest person would see that I debate with a lot of people in this comments section. Heck, if you had an inkling of honesty and looked at how many times I replied to you before throwing in the towel at your aberrant refusal to stand behind your own words you would be ashamed to make such a bold faced lie. However, the fact that you are not ashamed to post with absolutely no regard for the truth is why we are in this spot.

So, I ask again. Please leave me alone.

If that requires more integrity than you possess, then be prepared for me to continue to remind people what a dishonest and dishonorable piece of scum you really are.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

I have always stuck to the topics being discussed and will continue to maintain such integrity, devoid of any ad hominem attacks, Andrew. I review my comments in this comment thread and I see absolutely no evidence of displaying any other kind of behavior. I am not treating your ideas any differently than any other comments by anyone else, i.e. am either agreeing with them or offering evidence of a different perspective, with reasons stated why. I will continue to address everyone's ideas, yours included, with the respect that they deserve, and as such "leave you alone." Responding to your posts as I would anyone elses' is a sign of respect, Andrew, despite your taking it as otherwise.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

You can keep digging, little worm, hoping to find something that will stop me from pointing out what a dishonest thing you are, but the only one that will work is to leave me alone. There is no point in engaging in any other conversation with a person like you.

When you say " I review my comments in this comment thread" you highlight again just how dishonest you are. I stated very clearly from the first time you dishonored me with a comment in this thread that I would not engage you in debate because you have shown yourself to be too dishonest in previous discussions. Obviously, to the intelligent and/or honest person, that would mean that it happened in a different comment thread or threads. Nice try, but once again it's nothing but an attempt to mislead to discredit me instead of accepting responsibility for your past actions. It's the very reason why trying to have an honest debate with you is simply impossible.

So, feel free to continue to be a dishonest and dishonorable piece of fecal matter, or show a wee bit of integrity and leave me alone. The choice is yours, but you have no grounds to complain when I do exactly what I say I will do. You see, I stand behind my words, unlike you.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Ken Lassman

I see nothing new here: ignoring the ideas and continuing with the ad hominem attacks. I will continue to address the former to move the discussion ahead as I see fit and ignore the latter and I am confident that you will do the opposite.

3 months, 1 week ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

And why would you expect to see anything new? I have stated very clearly that I will continue to remind you, every time I notice you replying to one of my posts, of the reason why I will not even bother to try to have an honest debate with you. That reason (your dishonesty) has not changed and I stand by my words, so of course what I say will be basically the same thing every time. I'm sorry that you are incapable of understanding such a simple concept.

I will say again, stating why a honest debate with you is not possible is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply a statement of fact.

Now, despite knowing that you are incapable of such intelligence or integrity, I ask again that you simply leave me alone.

3 months, 1 week ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

PS: When you say "I will continue to address the former to move the discussion ahead" you are getting even more blatant in your dishonest distortion of reality. As I have stated, and demonstrated, on multiple occasions that all I will do in response to your evil presence is to repeat why an honest debate is not possible with you. As such, unless you are completely mentally defective, you know that replying to me cannot "move the discussion ahead". As such, you trap yourself in yet another lie and prove what I have been saying.

Please, quit while you are behind and leave me alone. You don't need to keep lying to me to prove what a dishonest dung pile you are. You've already convinced me!

3 months, 1 week ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

PPS: You really suck at your alleged ability to "ignore the latter" as you appear incapable of leaving me alone but instead keep replying with full knowledge it will create more posts you are apparently incapable of ignoring.

Feel free to prove me wrong on this point by never replying to one of my posts again!

3 months, 1 week ago

Report

Ken Lassman

Thanks, Brock; I think you have an excellent list that actually identifies the common ground that I think exists way more than the vested interests want you to believe and who all too often drive the national debate from their extremist edges. I say let's start with these measures and see where it gets us as a nation.

And thank you for including the CDC funding for studying gun violence. This would be an ideal time to fund them to do research that would study each one of these proposed measures as they are unrolled to see their impact across the country, so we can evaluate their effectiveness. Contrary to what some folks have stated, the CDC is ideally set up to study this; there have been studies that show, for instance, that gun violence follows epidemiological patterns when it spreads: what better an institution to study these types of patterns?

And the criticism that the CDC should be studying all forms of violence instead of the more specific gun violence, my only reply is: they already do. And they do an excellent job of doing just that, which is precisely why they should add gun violence to the list of sub-categories that they already study. To leave it out is just bogus. Check out their page on violence research here: https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventio...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Good info. Thanks.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

We need to look for solutions based on fact. I know people question sources so I chose Mother Jones’ data to get a sense of what type of weapons are being used in mass shootings. Figure MJ will be acceptable to the anti-2nd amendment crowd.

Based on the data only 2% of mass shootings were committed using an AR 15. 70% were committed using handguns, 22% using a rifle other than AR15 and 6% using a shotgun. Of the shooters, 53% had prior signs of mental illness.

Now, considering the data explain to me why the focus is on AR 15s? Why aren’t we focused more on mental health issues?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Glen Stovall

Mental illness---less than 5%. Males---98% of murders.Guns---close to 100% Hmmmmmm? I know where I stand.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

"Now, considering the data explain to me why the focus is on AR 15s?"

Because they are the low-hanging fruit. We know gun nuts are so temperamental we have to approach everything with kids gloves. After the Sandy Hook shooting, they were seen as a good starting point that everyone could agree on.

Sadly, we misjudged just how delusional the gun nuts had become...they can't even agree that assault weapons shouldn't be available on every street corner.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Andrew Applegarth

Because it's easier to fool the low-intelligence crowd with 'scary' AR-15s and terms like "Assault Rifle".

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Keep in mind that laws only make an act illegal so those who commit the act can be punished. Laws do not prevent the act. We need to look for solutions that change behavior and ways to keep criminals from getting firearms, not passing new laws to make acts illegal.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

When an addict has a problem with a drug, you don't give them a stern talking to but leave the drugs in their hand. You make the drug unavailable to them.

Surely you can at least admit there are people who have not committed a crime yet, but have obvious issues that should prevent them from having a gun...right?

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

Brock, I saw part of a short clip on kc news about a Overland Park company that has built a secure device for classroom doors that a 5 year old can operate in 2 seconds, You probably seen the high school kid in Wisconsin has a idea for a device, My point,, the small town in Texas will be decimated when bump stocks are banned, I think it's like 8 of the 12 people in that town work there, these are talented, creative, ambitious people, Why can't they make devices like this or other helpful solutions,

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

Brock there are 2 guys in a machine shop in South Dakota, they have made pallets of machined tungsten steel silencers waiting on legislation to make them legal and start selling, You know perfectly well silencers are on the nra wish list for 2018 Really !! Do you think we need silencers on these guns, I know these guys could be making door devices or sometime productive for positive solutions

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Suppressors are legal now if you pay the $200 tax and have the proper NFA paperwork completed. Suppressors are commonly used by hunters in Europe.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

You advocating for European type gun laws now bob

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

You're getting as bad as Dorothy when it comes to wildly misunderstanding what people say.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

You're getting as bad as Dorothy when it comes to wildly misunderstanding what people say. 99% of your vile coments are just to instagate and agitate, thats not hard to understand,I get the feeling you know there is a problem but you like it that way

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Feeling threatened by the existence of an alternate viewpoint, Brucie?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Bruce it depends. Silencers is a misnomer and connotes the hitman silently murdering their victim. We don’t need silencers for illegal activities, but the actual name is suppressor. It doesn’t completely silence the weapon but does reduce it significantly thus making target practice more enjoyable and reduces hearing damage. So that purpose I see no problem with a suppressor.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

That is total bs, put your muffs on,,and I thought you were showing signs of having some common srnce

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

more bs brock, read the bill its silencers, the only people that call them suppressors is the american suppressor ass. a small arm of the nra they also call them moderator's all in an attempt to hide there true meaning. you gun nerds play your little games with the terminology think this is helping your cause, Big Mistake

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

more bs brock, read the bill its silencers, the only people that call them suppressors is the american suppressor ass. a small arm of the nra they also call them moderator's all in an attempt to hide there true meaning. you gun nerds play your little games with the terminology think this is helping your cause, Big Mistake

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Bruce why do you resort to name calling instead it of articulating why it is bs? Are you incapable of debating an issue in a reapectful manner and by forming and articulating a counter to what put forth?

It is really disappointing because I like opposing views. They keep me straight and I learn and grow from them. Ken Lassman and I have different POVs on issues but we’ve discussed issues rationally. Frankly, some of my gun violence solutions have been a result of those discussions.

I thought you had promise but off you go into the troll bin.

As I’ve told my personal admirer and chief troll, just because I don’t respond to you doesn’t mean you’re right; only that you’re not worth my time.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

Great job, Bruce. Brock's falling back to his 'omg why are you guise so mean to me' defense...that's how you know you've won.

If he keeps taking his ball and going home every-time he loses a debate he'll be off the site for good in a few weeks.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

I called you a gun nerd, and you should concider that a compliment, being called a nerd implies you vast knolege of your chosen topic

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Marc Wilborn

Only if you are going to arm the librarians.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bruce Weber

Yes Bob and congress wants to pass the Hearing Protections Act that would drop those requiremen's that include submitting fingerprints and can take up to 9 months,

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Gary Cauthon

Who is suggesting we take everyone's single-load shotguns away? What does this family heirloom have to do with selling AR-15s to deranged kids who have publicly announced plans to shoot up schools? You want to sleep with a revolver under your pillow, that's your business. That has nothing to do with the mass market for assault weapons. If you conflate the two, then you're simply making excuses for these mass shootings.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Gary Stussie

Gary, Seems like you are "conflating" semi-automatic rifles with fully automatic assault rifles (Assault Weapons). If semi-automatic rifles are banned, why wouldn't the next call be to ban semi-automatic pistols ..... which are essentially all modern pistols. Both fire one round each time the trigger is pulled. Both are equally dangerous in the hands of a "deranged kid". Seems to me we should be working on the "deranged kid" side of the equation.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Gary Cauthon

OK, so Lemon is concerned that taking away his 200 year old shotgun will be the logical next step after banning AR-15s. Is that what he's thinking? Or is that what the NRA talking point is, so clearly you would both be on the same page?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Daniel Kennamore

"A member of the NRA has not been arrested or charged with any involvement in the recent school shooting."

No, but their decades long use of propaganda (funded by Russia recently) and refusal to allow even the most common sense gun laws contributed.

If I was a gun nut, I'd be taking a step back and looking for ways to get the politics other than gun rights out of the NRA or starting a different organization completely. Their brand is toxic to anyone who doesn't already think 5th graders should be packing.

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Gary Stussie

"Funded by the Russians recently" ... Yah, those Russians want all U.S. citizens armed to the teeth! Get a grip!

3 months, 3 weeks ago

Report

Bob Summers

The gun nuts will do and say anything to take away your personal property.

What are u non congenital Liberal's going to do to protect your property?

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Government to sell 100,000 ex-military rifles to civilians. M1 Garands, that is. https://bearingarms.com/patrick-r/201...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Dale Miller

Government to sell 100,000 ex-military rifles to civilians. M1 Garands, that is.

Here we go first time gun buyers! Here's your opportunity to get your foot in the door with a fine weapon and piece of American history. Not only will you experience the raw power and accuracy of this semi-automatic weapon, you will also know there was a time that very weapon was used to protect you, your loved ones and all the Constitutional Rights you enjoy today. The military heros which fought with that weapon for your rights ask nothing in return.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Guess who else wants to disarm Americans? https://pjmedia.com/trending/irans-su...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Brock Masters

Not surprising since they have openly called for the death of America. Would make attacking us easier if the populace was not armed. Would Iran ever actually attack us? Most likely not, but in a concerted effort with Russia they might.

Consider Russia in recent years has invaded other countries, disrupted our election discussions to create division among us, and just fired a shot over our bow about their military superiority so attacking us is a real possibility.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

Speaking of ignorance, Shannon Watts is in a dither over a bolt-action .22. https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/03...

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Tracy Bedell

Thank you for your post. I agree 100%.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Richard Heckler

Politicians will say anything to shut americans up about guns when in reality are only waiting for this massive teen slaughter situation to run out of steam.

The GOP which is controlled by very radical right wing money aka ALEC will do nothing about deregulated gun sales. Nothing will change.

This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with a few new regulations need to stay active and loud.

Politicians will say anything to shut americans up and in reality are only waiting for this sitaution to run out of steam.

The news media must stay on top of this matter. Assault weapons must be taken off the retail market, the black market and not allowed in gun shows.

Military and law enforcement weapons when retired MUST be melted down and perhaps brought back as picinic tables.

Arming teachers is shallow thinking. Security officers are acceptable HOWEVER they cannot stop an action if they don't when a shooting is going to take place or where it will take place

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

I KNEW you'd drag ALEC into this sooner or later!

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Bob Smith

"...This is why the loud voices for replacing all laws with a few new regulations need to stay active and loud..." There are thousands, if not tens of thousands, of laws regulating firearms in America. Those laws exist at the federal, state and local levers. You're really banking on sweeping them all out at once? Sounds kinda unrealistic to me. And you never did tell us how you are defining assault weapons. That's sort of important if you're going to be banning them.

3 months, 2 weeks ago

Report

Full LJWorld.com site