PERRY: The NRA can’t put a number on too many school shootings

189

The mass shootings and violence comes so fast and often that they can’t even hold the headlines over a weekend.

Six more kids, this time on Friday in Santa Barbara, were slaughtered by another gunman. One of the victim’s father, Richard Martinez, squarely blamed “craven, irresponsible politicians and the (National Rifle Association)” for fighting realistic gun control.

tubeHis son, 20-year-old Christopher Michaels-Martinez, was unluckily standing at a deli near the University of California Santa Barbara campus when last week’s mass shooter, Elliot Rodger, went on a rampage nearby. Fortunately, only 13 students were wounded and six were killed. Sadly, we’re relieved these days when only 20 or so kids are wounded and murdered during mass shootings.

Within hours, Memorial Day traffic stories and the latest on Benghazi pushed news of a mere handful of dead California students off the country’s front pages. 

News about crazy people getting guns and terrorizing schools, campuses, malls — and our own private Aurora hell, movie theaters — is so prosaic that it can’t even hold our attention.

Had Christopher’s father, Richard, not become a TV spectacle in his terrifying grief and anger over the loss of his son, the story would have slipped away.

Suddenly, Richard is news. The horrific massacre? Not so much. He is determined to put the blame where it squarely belongs: on politicians and the NRA. Richard, like me, doesn’t want to  hear the inane arguments that only the warped shooter is responsible for what he did. We all know Rodger was desperately ill and demented in planning and executing his attack. Rodger did everything but buy air time on the local nightly news to announce that he couldn’t find a girlfriend and was going to kill everyone because of that. As a country, we don’t know how to recognize these threats when they’re banging at the door, and we don’t know what to do if we agree someone is serious trouble. In these cases, we let them buy guns and bullets. It’s their right.

Aside from that, we have created a culture of guns, entitlement and vengeance in a world filled with violent games, movies and music. We’ve cemented the nightmare because the nation has kowtowed to bullies at the NRA, failing to enact even the smallest and least invasive forms of gun control.

Ever since the NRA was taken over by right-wing extremists in the late 1970s, it has become a band of inflammatory bullies that have twisted the U.S. Constitution — for what? To preserve the right of self-protection? No. Their mission is to protect a $12-billion-a-year firearms industry that’s pumping about 16 million new guns into American hands each year. 

Don’t look to Washington for help. The NRA made it clear right here in Colorado what the fate is for lawmakers supporting any kind of gun control. Three Colorado legislators were ousted last year after voting for a couple of wimpy gun-control bills. The NRA poured money into the state to oust these lawmakers, showing they’ll attack anyone who dares raise the specter of limiting the size of magazines or arsenals. 

Despite the fact that there is no legitimate argument about the Second Amendment having to do only with a once-mistrusted federal army, the law has been warped beyond recognition.

We have created a perfect storm where we breed crazy boys bent on murderous sprees, ignore their blatant threats, and then make it incredibly easy to gun up and shoot ‘em up at places where we are most vulnerable to gun attacks.

And so Richard, drowning in pain over a nearly conspired loss of his son, has made headlines again, demanding we push past the cowards and the tyrants. We may not get action, since the dead this time were so relatively few and weren’t as young as those slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary School, but we can at least get answers.

They won’t be the answers we want to hear. Like so many parents of gunned-down American children before him, Richard is asking the same question: How many more innocent people must die before we act on gun control? The NRA’s answer is simple: All of them.

Reach editor Dave Perry at 303-750-7555 or [email protected]

0 0 votes
Article Rating
73 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Patriot_70
Patriot_70
8 years ago

“Where they are most vulnerable to gun attacks…”

I carry a gun and I am the strongest of the citizens of the United States because of it. I am better armed than most, better prepared to defend myself or someone else, and yes, my gun makes me strong. It’s a tool, just like a shovel is better than digging with hands, and a car is better than walking, a gun makes me better and stronger at defending myself.

Rambo? Probably if it came to it. Rambo was targeted by a corrupt police department and was forced to defend himself or die. I would defend myself, as would anyone else who was faced with crooked cops.

Vigilante? Well, yes. I am a vigilante. Considering that the word means Night Watch, and considering that I was looking around my house at 3am this morning because I heard what sounded like someone trying to get into my truck, then that would make me night watch. I also watch my neighbors house, well, both of them, on each side of me, because they asked me to, and they know I carry a weapon.

I am afraid and that’s why I carry a gun. Yes, I am. I’ve seen what comes out of our prison system, and the kinds of people who raid houses in the middle of the night. If you were smart, you would be afraid as well.

Do I keep a gun because I feel inadequate? Well, I do feel inadequate, and yes, that is one of the reasons I carry a gun. Again, I see what prisons do to people, and know that if they attacked me and me not armed, they would win.

Do I have a small… no. But only in a liberal mind does this apply to anything. Liberals, get your mind out of the gutter.

So, I’m stronger than you are, better armed, and willing to act. And so you feel, what? Fear of me? Afraid I might make things worse? Afraid I might make the man shooting shoot someone else? Afraid that I might stop someone and accidentally shoot someone else – trade the ten lives he would have shot to one that I shoot to stop him? Or do you support the criminal? Do you want the police to deal with him peacefully? Do you want him to have his day in court and are willing to let him kill a dozen more to keep him alive for a trial and execution?

Help me understand. Why is it that you write laws that prevent me from stopping these kinds of shootings? Why do you try to disarm me and make me as helpless and weak as you are? Tell me why you desire these kinds of killings so badly that you are willing to disarm me, and prevent me from acting to protect you, your children, your sons, and your daughters?

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Patriot_70

“Help me understand. Why is it that you write laws that prevent me from stopping these kinds of shootings?”

Fallacy number one : Good guys with guns stop bad guys with guns. See Curtis Reeves of Tampa, FL as case in point

“Why do you try to disarm me and make me as helpless and weak as you are?”

It’s not weakness to say that a lethal weapon, in public seems to be brought to bear not on “bad guys” but rather on neighbors, friends and family – or worse yet, innocent strangers – too often.

It’s not weakness to say that civil societies don’t rely on the threat of lethal reprisals to maintain order.

” Tell me why you desire these kinds of killings so badly…”
Shenanigans.

Even the American Journal of Medicine, a publisher of data compiled by people that actually count the bullet holes debunk this ridiculous assertion. The presence of more guns leads to more violence, rape and killing – not the other way around.

If you think that having every pinhead armed to the teeth and ready to defend the honor of The Tribe is a stairway to Nirvana, you’re right – take a stroll through Waziristan on any pleasant evening.

It’s the logical end to what you’ve proposed – honor killings, stonings
and endless clan feuds. You can have it.

“… that you are willing to disarm me, and prevent me from acting to protect you, your children, your sons, and your daughters?”

Nobody asked you vigilantes, and we trust you until you’re in ballistic range. Fallacy number two, see George Zimmerman.

Face it – you’re no different than Rogers, you just haven’t picked
out your target, yet.

Confiscation seems in order, and can’t come soon enough.

Patriot_70
Patriot_70
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Good guys with guns can’t stop bad guys with guns? Do you not have a brain in your head? Honestly, do you say, Hey, this guy is trying to break into my house, but I’m not going to call the police because a good guy with a gun won’t be able to help me here!” You’re stupid. It’s really that simple. You think that if you submit to criminals, they will have compassion on you and leave you with your life, property and peace intact. What is scary is that sick people like you try to make me into victims to make yourself feel less cowardly.

You fear everyone with a gun? Do you also fear everyone with a knife? A butter knife? A little spit in their mouths? You’re a coward. Face it.

Your idea that a criminal will act in a civil manner is not only dangerous, but brainless. This shooting proves you wrong.

The presence of more guns leads to more violence? Then explain why EVERY state that allows open carry has a lower murder rate than EVER state that has your cherish anti-gun criminal activity zones. The states with the most guns, the fewer gun laws, had 4 murders last year. The state with the least guns, and most restrictive gun laws had 1,700 murders. Fact prove you wrong, but hey, you are entitled to act like a moron as long as you don’t try to get me killed, too.

Yes, I am a vigilante. Zimmerman was too. We both protect others from little punk kids who run around trying to break into houses. And just so you know, that happened a few miles from me, and Zimmerman is a hero here, and your little punk kid, he’s still dead and not robbing anyone else this week. Z probably prevented dozens of robberies and a few murders when he stopped this kid.

Confiscation? By YOU? Are you kidding me? You would never face me eye to eye, let along try to take one of my weapons. I am stronger than you, and you are weaker than me unless you hire someone with a gun to attack me.

Be Responsible
Be Responsible
8 years ago
Reply to  Patriot_70

I don’t want to take your gun and bullets away from you. I do think that every gun owner should carry liability insurance. As a society, we require it to operate a motor vehicle. Why not gun owners? What do you think?

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Be Responsible

I think you are trying to find a backdoor to make a RIGHT unaffordable…a typical Statist (“liberal) tactic. Fail.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Be Responsible

I think making gun ownership as expensive as possible eliminates the possibility for the poor to own a firearm to protect themselves

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Patriot_70

So I’m reading this manifesto and wondering,

“What part of this doesn’t sound unhinged, paranoid or delusional?” Three things that should disqualify gun ownership.

*********
“Honestly, do you say, Hey, this guy is trying to break into my house, but I’m not going to call the police because a good guy with a gun won’t be able to help me here!” You’re stupid.”

*********

I thought you were engaged and clever, but you appear to be deranged, maybe sleep deprived.

That’s a strawman, but you probably think it’s a rhetorical flourish. This isn’t an argument or a position statement – it’s an indictment of your

World view.

I note with grim satisfaction that you bolstered none of the shaky framework that you base your support of the status quo in pointless violence with guns, and commit another fistful of fallacious attempts to prove your point.

Shifting the goalposts, appeals to emotion, comparing apples to squidshit – they’re all in there.

This letter, like so many you have scattered across the internet is just the latest incoherent rant by someone who seems willing to shoot first.

Do I fear everyone with a gun? If you’re out of uniform – your’e neither well regulated nor discernible from “little punk kids who run around trying to break into
houses” – Judge/Jury/Executioner all in one.

Do I fear vigilantes? You bet. It’s pretty clear that in this exchange as with SO many you’ve scattered elsewhere that you have no compunction about shooting in a public place to “defend” yourself.

“You would never face me eye to eye, let along try to take one of my weapons. I am stronger than you, and you are weaker than me unless you hire someone with a gun to attack me.”

We’ll likely never meet. I live in a neighborhood where we all know each other and have an effective police force. The sort of panting NRA wetdream you seem to cling to (Break ins, assaults, rapes) don’t happen here. Getting a lethal weapon here is difficult.

Bringing one in from out of State will get you 25 years.

Gun laws are responses to violence with guns,
not the other way around.

I doubt we’ll ever know one another. Will I come for your guns? No.

Unlike vigilantes, I see the futility of pacifying the area within ballistic range around me.

Look around – you claim to protect the rest of us from
hidden threats; and are too dim to realize that’s you.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Naome, the guy is mad because you are trying to take his Right away. Just like how gays and women who want abortions get mad when others try to take their Rights away.

It IS a natural Right to defend oneself, Naomi, whether you agree with it or not, you opinion is irrelevant as it is in gay marriage and abortion. If you don’t want any of those things, don’t have any of them and shut up already.

It’s a RIGHT to have a gun because that is the most common form of weapon these days and people should have access to equal weapons to defend themselves from harm.

Why, exactly, are you so bent on disarming the elderly, single women, people who live in bad areas where the cops don’t come and folks who live far from the police? Why are you so morally okay with such a selfish and unworkable suggestion???

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“It IS a natural Right to defend oneself, Naomi, whether you agree with it or not, you opinion is irrelevant as it is in gay marriage and abortion.”

Horseshit.

Gay marriage or abortion aren’t something you do to other people. Shooting is.

“Why, exactly, are you so bent on disarming the elderly, single women, people who live in bad areas where the cops don’t come and folks who live far from the police?”

That’s a strawman, but you don’t know it.

It should be VERY difficult to get a gun, which is not the current state of affairs.

The very same people you claim that this anachronism protects are living in fear BECAUSE guns are prevalent.

This leads to more gun sales, which leads to more
fear which leads to more gun sales.

“Why are you so morally okay with such a selfish and unworkable suggestion???”

Maybe because you’re defending gun ownership among the frightened and jumpy based on theoretical, imagined threats and those of us that think you’re wrong are frightened and jumpy because you’re shooting at us.

Your fantasy is getting kids killed.

Feel free to insert anecdotal “evidence” to bolster your position. Our facts are easier to validate,
they’re written on granite tombstones.

You seem to be all about your rights, and light on your responsibilities. Carrying a lethal weapon seems to be an irresponsible act.

Confiscation, NOW.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Guns exist in free men and women’s hands to keep people like you powerless and in the minority. Hateful, bigoted, moronic, short-sighted losers. Stay classy, b!tch.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“Hateful, bigoted, moronic, short-sighted losers. Stay classy, b!tch.”

I list facts, insist on responsibilities that accompany any rights and I’m hateful, or short-sighted.

Perhaps there should be a battery of tests prior to gun ownership licenses. So many of you 2A religionists
are unhinged from reality and in denial about the
number of dead an wounded in your wake.

The aroused anger you’ve expressed took what –
three exchanges to display?

It’s doubtful that your self-control while armed is
any better, and a prime example of why confiscation is not only coming, it’s not coming soon enough.

People only attack real threats, right?

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

You seem confused. Murdering someone with a gun and using a firearm to defend yourself from a deadly threat are not the same thing.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

The problem seems to be that you lot are willing to accept the murder in a public place for the rare, provable instance where a gun in public prevented a murder, rape or robbery.

You’ve got anecdotes on your side.

We’ve got tombstones.

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

Nope.

Just another pissed-off parent.
Getting the NRA to lobby for gun laws is like having Michael Milken advising you on best banking practices.

It’s a conflict of interests.

Frank2525
Frank2525
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Move to California where they have teams to do that. And it would have been better if so many of you progressives-liberals had not moved to Colorado to try and change it. Try to explain why it took good guys with guns in Chicago to take out the Mafia and criminals earlier in our history. You just love an argument, but I would wager if you have a kitchen, with a sink in it, you have more lethal weapons stored under it, than any gun. Just as most kitchens in this country could never pass a food inspection. Your mind is made up, and you don’t want to be convinced with facts, history, or other opinions. You are wasting time, effort, and not convincing anyone. Come to think of that, is that not a form of insanity? You would not qualify to buy a gun with that.

lance highland
lance highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Patriot_70

Please cease from arming yourself outside of your home forthwith. You or someone elsewill end up being needlessly killed.
Yes you are a vigilant just like Zimmerman. You are a police officer’s worse nightmare. Had Zimmerman just done what he was told by trained people none of that would have happened. But no, the police buff and hero had to follow and confront that kid. Was the kid a POS? Yes he was. Hewas not harming anyone. Report it and let the trained people handle the
situation.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  lance highland

Trayvon Martin wasn’t harming anyone? Bashing someone’s head into the sidewalk seems violent to me

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Naomi, you are the unhinged one if you believe good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns. It’s you RELIGION that makes you think this doesn’t happen very frequently, not FACTS…so there is no use me or anyone else wasting any time with you. Thank goodness that you have no power and we have Rights enshrined in the Constitution to protect us from people like YOU!

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

Really.

Since you have the facts, present them.
Easy enough to count the facts opposing you lot.

They’re carved on granite tombstones.

“Thank goodness that you have no power and we have Rights enshrined in the Constitution to protect us from people like YOU!” That’s where you’re wrong.

That’s why the NRA puts on a full page ad to bolster
your position; you’re outnumbered and losing ground.

Those rights come in the form of an amendment.
To amend implies change.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Moron, to change a Constitutional Amendment in the Bill of Rights your need a Constitutional Convention. Good luck on that. Look up what it requires, you ignorant know-nothing b!tch.

Just try it and find yourself added to those “facts” on granite tombstones. I’d be happy to put a worthless, moron POS control freak like you in the ground myself.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“I’d be happy to put a worthless, moron POS control freak like you in the ground myself.”

Thank you for confirming our estimation of 2A absolutists – if you can’t win at the ballot box, you’ll pull out the S&W remedy.

We whipped junior league Fascists like you in Europe, and again when you tried to Goosestep behind McCarthy over the phony “Red Menace”.

You’re not prepared to face the facts – you’re the ones doing the shooting, you’ve got the guns.

You sound afraid.

Welcome.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

We are NOT winning, fool.

Not afraid, aware. You threatened me, I threatened you back. Deal with it, hypocrite loser.

Funny how you think a Fascist is someone who wants a freedom and a liberty. Hitler took the guns away, idiot…

Wow, you are DENSE and not worth anyone’s time.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

” You threatened me…”

Really? Where?

Was it the part where I poked holes in your already

flimsy support for the carnage wrought with guns?

Was it the part where I claimed your rights don’t trump your responsibilities? Which part has you so bent?

“Hitler took the guns away, idiot…”

That’s a common misconception among the symbol minded. Guns were prevalent in Nazi Germany.

The pious fraud you’re referring to has been debunked as a false attribution to Adolf Hitler.

The 1938 Waffengesetz restricted the possession of militarily usefulweapons and forbadetrade inweapons without a government-issued license.

Read more:https://stason.org/TULARC/society/pro-guns/99-APPENDIX-VI-Pious-Frauds-Or-If-It-Sounds-Too-Good-T.html#.U4iXa_ldVIp#ixzz33D4vQNHp

“Funny how you think a Fascist is someone who wants a freedom and a liberty”

It’s not freedom if it requires confiscation from someone else – the shooting victims are routinely robbed of their lives.

It’s not liberty if it is used to silence, threaten and

intimidate the public at large – that’s tyranny.

Perhaps you should consider purchasing a dictionary.

Fascism is an authoritarian form of government opposed to extending civil liberties (and even curtailing or removing existing ones) in exchange for radical empowerment of business and economy. Fascist countries usually have elite armies, and see war as a sport or honour event. Lax views on imperialism, a holier-than-thou immigration discrimination policies (first generation immigrants to work for half minimum wage), and everything ‘for the state’.

If you’re willing to abide by the rules, then fascism is your best friend. If not, the fascists give you a bullet.

You’ve already offered me one, after I “threatened”

you. Like I said, people like you are just belligerent tools for the larger concerns that willingly use you.

The difference between you and me is that I won’t lick the boot that’s kicking my ass.

You might want to expand your search for data points.

Connecting all the dots, we find a picture derived almost entirely from one news source.

As with many people that lack specific knowledge about the topic, you have strong views on it.

“Deal with it, hypocrite loser.”

People like me are.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/21/colorado-gun-control-legislation

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Hitler took guns away from the Jews

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“We are NOT winning, fool.”

I couldn’t have said it better, myself.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

You can scream Second Amendment all you want. The reality is the amendment was high jacked by the NRA and other gun groups, who were very successful in brain
washing America. Ask any lay American what the amendment says. They will say “the right to bear arms.” A “well regulated militia” is never mentioned.
Furthermore, “bear arms” in that era almost always pertained to the military (militia).

Do I want to take guns away? No. But we need common sense regulations (as stated in the amendment) and accountability. The ability to purchase a firearm via a
newspaper ad is ridiculous. Firearms should be registered (to who bought it and to whom he or she later sold it. Buyers should take a class on the use of deadly force and gun safety.

Children were slaughtered in their classroom as the mother of that lunatic didn’t respect what an assault
rifle could do, nor did she understand that the weapon he used was designed to kill human beings. She failed to properly secure it as a responsible gun owner should have done. She even purchased him a gun.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Children were slaughtered because we value the lives of lawyers, judges and politicians more than we do those kids. Take the armed security currently used to protect the people I’ve mentioned and station one at every school. He or she can double as a DARE officer. THEN, post signs that state those courthouses and government buildings are “gun free zones”. That should protect them just as well as it’s protected our schoolchildren.

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Curtis Reeves was not a good guy stopping a bad guy with a gun, Funny you used a fallacy to refute a fallacy.

Here are some facts:
https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2012/12/mass-killings-stopped-by-armed-citizens.html

And here are many more stories of good guys using guns to stop bad guys:
https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

I read the list.

There are 45 entries.

Two of them are people shooting their own pitbulls.

At least one of them, Johnathan Haith has a history of drug dealing and this instance was likely another gone wrong.

You might want to do a little background on them, as you’re obviously skeptical of anything in print, right?

Only one is an bystander, unrelated to the events

(neither in her home, or place of business) preventing

violence.

45 documented instances in your favor.

Mostly in convenience stores, or down at the heels neighborhoods. (East St. Louis, Houston, Detroit)

Here’s mine.

12,042 matched gun deaths between Dec 14, 2012

and December 31, 2013

That’s .7% of the verified gun usages in a year.

Put it another way, 99.3% of the verified gun usages in the time period you quote were murderous.

That’s not a compelling reason to allow this to continue.

Curtis Reeves was a good guy, by all accounts, until he became the bad guy, lost his temper and fired his weapon in anger in a dark, public place.

https://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/closer-look-at-curtis-reeves-shows-theater-shooters-two-sides/2161618

That’s menace.

See the difference?

Even with your figures, you’re weighting rare events more than prevalent ones.

Feel free to make the erroneous comparison of guns to planes, tranes, automobiles, kitchen implements, hammers and bath toys.

I’ve got a response for that load, too.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Tell that to women with restraining orders who try to get a firearm for protection and die waiting for the license

Silver Fox
Silver Fox
8 years ago

I’m with you Mr. Perry. Thank you for being the voice of reason.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Silver Fox

You are dumb then. Very dumb and NOT the voice of reason.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

It’s scary that so many angry and disgruntled people in this Country actually arm themselves in public.

I’d place money that a large percentage of gun owners don’t even understand the basic rules of the use of deadly force, yet they can walk into any gun shop and buy something designed to kill people.

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Take the criminals out of your guess and you would lose that money.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

No. Look below. What’s that arm citizen going to do when he confronts the people breaking into his truck? Shoot them in defense of his property?

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

What you just described is very legal in many States…the good States.

Life, liberty and pursuit if happiness can be very quickly messed up by someone stealing your paycheck in your truck, fool. Defending property SHOULD be met with use of force…as its allowed in more places than not.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

You are the perfect example of a person who should not be armed outside your home. You need to understand the law and case law before you strap up to save the world. If you want to defend property via deadly force go for it. You can think about it sitting in prison.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

You are allowed to use a firearm to confront someone trying to steal your property. IF, they come at you, attack you, you CAN use deadly force at that time.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“What you just described is very legal in many States…the good States.”

You might want to dig into that and find out how many shooting victims knew their killers in those “good” states.

More guns = more shooting

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens=less victims

Frank2525
Frank2525
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Read the Colorado Constitution. You are lucky to be born in this PC era, because you would be dead, dead, dead if you took someone else’s property in earlier decades. What is your beef with gun owners? Did someone kick sand in your face in your youth, or are you still in your youth? Just asking? I really don’t care. You have an opinion, just as you have a rear end.

Silver Fox
Silver Fox
8 years ago
Reply to  Frank2525

If you are not a police officer in uniform or displaying some other sort of official ID and you have a gun, I consider you armed and dangerous. I do not trust you. I will not trust you. I do not know who you are. I do not consider armed individuals ‘friendlies’. You are armed and dangerous. If I have a weapon (which you will likely not know), you should do the same toward me.

Frank2525
Frank2525
8 years ago
Reply to  Silver Fox

You should not consider unknown with same idea. Let the bad guys guess who is armed or not. Born in 1929, I did not know a single family in my community, county, who did not have rifles, shotguns, and pistols with ammunition. As family, when traveling there was always a loaded pistol under front seat of car (families only owned 1 or 2 vehicles) and we carried our own drinking water, lunch, etc with us. At 13 my father taught me to shoot rifle, and I started hunting squirrels and groundhogs. At 16, I walked into hardware store in Romney WV, visiting from Ohio. No ID, no paperwork, and I bought 8mm Radome, made in 1935 for $8.00 plus a box of 20 rounds. Carried rifle in one hand, ammo in other, and walked about 6 blocks to Uncles House. We went back to Ohio couple days later and no one stopped us at border, or elsewhere, questioned us, and my family did not see anything wrong. I still have that rifle, plus others inherited and bought through the years. It is not your business what I have, as it is not mine about what you have. Too bad some folks wet themselves if a gun is mentioned, even arresting children for eating a cookie in shape of gun, or playing bang bang on school ground by pointing fingers. Shame on those folks.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Frank2525

And the Colorado Constitution allows you to shoot someone for a property crime?

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

If you confront them with your firearm and they come at you? You can shoot to protect yourself. I’d use my firearm to get them away from my property. I wouldn’t fire at them UNLESS they came at me. USMC liberal, you’re an idiot.

Turbo_lancer
Turbo_lancer
8 years ago

These violent gun related episodes carry one other common denominator, the effects by some form of nepotism. Finding ones that do not are more rare than any stats I’ve noticed.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Turbo_lancer

Ok. Thanks for pointing out the relevance of his race.

Turbo_lancer
Turbo_lancer
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Whose race? There is nothing in my retent that points to the “racial” issue. It is yours alone to pursue, not mine.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Turbo_lancer

Don’t forget that they’re young men shooting guns in anger.

Or the guns – that, too.

Turbo_lancer
Turbo_lancer
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

In some instances, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of “foreign agency” projecting “engineered influence”.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Turbo_lancer

Occam’s razor applies, here.

You’re infusing a lot of assumptions in your explanation.
Rodgers proves how easy it is to buy a gun, and use it.

Turbo_lancer
Turbo_lancer
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

The exact science of pulling a trigger can be accomplished by anyone……

Frank2525
Frank2525
8 years ago

Well, where do I start? First – Rodgers killed his 3 roommates with knife or knives. Now where is the law that all knife owners have to be registered, go through training, and have liability insurance? Only 3 others were killed with guns, while he injured others with car and guns. And until folks received his manifesto, no one knew of his plans, that he had bought guns, or was planning anything. He legally bought the guns, passed background check, had nothing on records, and when police talked to him was lucid enough to convince them he was okay, nothing to see, “drive on by”. And if you think anyone can look at others and see who is crazy, then look at those you pass on street in Denver any time of day or night. If folks are aware of others, why are certain types “playing knockout game in downtown Denver”? My grandson was hit unexpectedly by a young black, and told police when arrested “that is what I do, I hit Whitey”. My grandson is half Philipino and half Caucasian. Young black went to jail on a different charge. So “hitting Whitey” is okay? Just part of his culture. Downtown Denver, on 1 way street is only time I had a 9 mm pointed at me from car passing on left. I was driving west, through downtown to take my mother-in-law and her sister home to Francis Heights in West Denver from Doctors appointment about 1 PM. Wife was beside me in passenger car, in her early 60s, and I was in late 60s at the time. Have no idea what provoked him, since I drive in one lane, do not tailgate, or cut in and out. Thankfully he went on his way without shooting. Now 84, I still wonder about that. Have traveled in 44 of our 50 states, and served in military 26 years (1950-76), never shot anyone. Owned guns since age 16, and on 4 occasions showing (not waving) weapon sent bad guys on their way, leaving me and family alone. I believe in 2nd Amendment. Also the 1st, but resent some who abuse that right, with their language and comments at times.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago
Reply to  Frank2525

What’s a “black” have to do with this?

Frank2525
Frank2525
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Because that was the race of the guy who hit my grandson, and said that is what he did “He hit Whitey”? So why not say it/ If you are that thin skinned, you are too sensitive for this earth. Planet earth, in case you did not notice is populated by blacks, whites, browns, and shades in between. Have some of all of those in my family tree, and I do not feel ashamed of it. So where are you coming from?

xian
8 years ago
Reply to  Frank2525

when knives are outlawed, only outlaws will have knives

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago

Gun free zones enacted by wimpy Statist “liberals” are almost always the common themes where these shootings occur. The “liberals” (Statists) always look for the stupid, unworkable answer that is pie-in-the-sky instead of the most sensible one.

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

Has there been a recent mass shooting in an area that was not a gun free zone?

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

Has there been a recent mass shooting that didn’t involve guns?

You’re ducking the issue, moving the goalposts and asking begging the question – it’s the dumbass logical failure trifecta.

Reduce the problem to the simplest conditions.
Remove the implement from the mix, and the situation dissolves.

No gun = no shooting

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

No gun=only your precious government that you worship like a poorly educated stooge and criminals have guns.

You are on a missions and it doesn’t take the totality of the situation into consideration but selfish, immature, irrational and foolish people like you just don’t care.

Sadly, for you, you are an EXTREME minority and losing…and you are too smug and arrogant to look around and see it! 🙂

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“You are on a missions and it doesn’t take the totality of the situation into consideration…”

Then explain to me why nearl 12,000 people were killed with guns in America last year and there are only 85 certifiable instances where Americans successfully defended themselves with guns?

Two of them were people shooting their own pitbulls,

one of them appears to have been a drug deal gone wrong. Care to guess how many were “good guys with guns” stopping violence?

ONE

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

That’s a slim ratio, if you can do math.

(Let me help you with this, it’s a small number…
.007, .7 Percent. Put another way – 99.3% of the reported gun uses in America in the same period
were murderous.)

“…but selfish, immature, irrational and foolish people like you just don’t care.”

You’re the one clinging to your right to carry a lethal implement in a crowd of people that neither know your state of mind, competence or current mood –
and I’m the one that’s selfish?

You still haven’t bought that dictionary, I take it?

“No gun=only your precious government that you worship like a poorly educated stooge…”

Right. I’m demonstrating a limited education.

Good one. You seem to know more than me about my own mind : what makes you certain that I worship a government that is completely sidelined about this,
a public health threat that can be easily curtailed?

Remember, I’m the one that’s bigoted and intolerant.
You may need to explain it to me in small words, so I’ll understand.

“… and criminals have guns.”

That’s my supposition, right there. Nice to see we’re in agreement about at least one aspect.

Criminals have guns. Do you think there’s a factory, just for them? Do you think they steal all their guns?

Do you think they’re making them in a warehouse?

Where do you think all those guns came from?

Restrictions are insufficient from keeping those that would use guns for criminal acts.

Shouldn’t it be a little harder to get one?

Even Elliot Rogers bought his, across the counter.
Confiscation is a logical response to this, which is
very similar to an epidemic.

I think we should approach this differently.

Legalize marijuana and make gunpowder a controlled
substance. The same sort of weight/sentencing
guidelines for crack cocaine should be sufficient.

“Sadly, for you, you are an EXTREME minority and losing…” Among the 2A religionists, I’m definitely in the minority. I don’t think dead innocent people are
an acceptable price to pay for a demented fantasy.

But do prattle on…

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Aldo Elmnight

Nope. All of coastal CA is a gun free zone.

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago

Sorry, corrupt “liberal” Statists….no more gun control. More like gun liberalization. If you were REAL liberals you’d like that, but you are just corrupt Statists in reality.

Aldo Elmnight
Aldo Elmnight
8 years ago

A mass shooting has 4 or more people killed. Only 3 people were killed with a firearm by the crazed, spoiled brat, liberal. But I repeat myself.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago

Perry,

You are such a dellsional liberal. Gun control, even reasonable, would do nothing. All you have to do is look at Japan. They are very restrictive if not totally.

Japan has a handful (literally) of gun deaths each year. America, last I checked, had over 11,000. Common sense regulation would do nothing for dead school and adults.

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Lance Highland

Bwah?

Sounds to me like Japan has few gun deaths, because of restrictions.
It appears that America has lots of gun deaths, for lack of them.

How would common sense regulation be ineffective?

Julie Lenarhes
Julie Lenarhes
8 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Naome, you make it very clear that your intent is gun bans and confiscation. Why are you pretending otherwise?

This is also the long term goal of most “gun control” groups. Why on Earth would anyone want to give anyone or any group with this stated goal anything, ever?

We don’t. We won’t. You lose. Back to your sh!t life, Nagwesgseagwegwregf or whatever your annoying name is! 🙂

Naome Lixes
Naome Lixes
8 years ago
Reply to  Julie Lenarhes

“We don’t. We won’t. You lose. Back to your sh!t life, ”

You must be really ticked off.

Good.

Welcome to the party.

Japan has common sense regulations.

The US is effectively unregulated.

There are too many guns in the hands of deranged people and previous illustrations flesh out how fine that line can be (see Curtis Reeves, in Tampa).

Confiscation seems prudent, much like a quarantine for people infected with a virus that is uniformly fatal and without any known treatment.

Gun ownership has become America’s Ebola virus.

“Naome, you make it very clear that your intent is gun bans and confiscation. Why are you pretending otherwise?” That’s a falsification, and typical of people that are screwed up about a position but can’t justify it.

You’re not logical, arguing that another death is worth it.

Bring it on. I enjoy dealing with the deranged, at a distance. You are at the very least consistently belligerent – an indication that you are at the very least
worried that you’re not convinced of your stance.

At the very least, we should be talking about disarming the demographic that does this kind of thing;

Men between 16 and 40.

Feel free to toss the insults and threaten more violence.
It effectively bolsters my position that you 2A religionists
are dangerous fanatics, threatening the rest of us.

Joeg
Joeg
7 years ago
Reply to  Naome Lixes

Psst, somebody ought to ask Naome whether she thinks that there should be common sense personal responsibility to try to change the fact that 55,000,000 children have died via abortion. But don’t even think of insinuating that she has killed a child this way. She’ll cry to the moderators that it is a personal attack and try to have you shut out of the conversation. Interesting trend eh? Miss Lixes is quite happy to call you “Ammosexuals” and anything else she can think of but as soon as there is any responsibility passed to her she will look to shout you down and shut you down. Sounds like a bitter baby momma to me.

Lance Highland
Lance Highland
8 years ago

And Perry, you’ve shook the hornet’s nest yet again. Standby for a beating.

CarpaDM
CarpaDM
8 years ago

Perry is proof liberalism is a mental disorder.

Joe Turcotte
Joe Turcotte
7 years ago

Of course we make it INCREDIBLY easy. The first thing we do is tell them that their target is a “gun free zone”. That supposedly produce a force field around the building that is impenetrable. Here’s a thought, lets protect our most valuable resource like we protect our judges, lawyer and politicians, with ARMED security. We can take those security people from those location and replace them with the “gun free zone” signs we currently use at our schools.