Mary Mitchell: Mass murder shows its time to get serious about gun control

[shadowrider]

Tragically, it takes mass murder to bring home the point that we need to get serious about gun control.

There is no way to comprehend that James Holmes, the 24-year-old alleged shooter, stormed into a theater in Aurora, Colo., fatally shot 12 people and injured dozens of others, just as there is no way to comprehend how a dozen people were killed and 45 others were wounded in Chicago over this past Memorial Day weekend.

- SNIP -

While journalists have noted the violence in Chicago, there has been no expression of outrage either from the White House or national civil rights organizations. And powerful people in other influential industries have been silent while the blood of hundreds of black victims has flowed in the street.

- SNIP -

Because the majority of gun violence in urban areas is attributed to gang members, it is still easier for most people to empathize with the victims of a mass murderer than it is for them to empathize with the victims of urban violence.

Unfortunately, too many people who live outside of the war zones that run through neighborhoods such as Austin, Woodlawn, Englewood or Lawndale still take comfort in the myth that the violence can’t happen in their neck of the woods.

http://www.suntimes.com/13896807-761/mary-mitchell-mass-murder-shows-its-time-to-get-serious-about-gun-control.html

Gun control works so well in Chicago, let's try it nationally.

[demosincebirth]

1. Nothing will happen until the Evil NRA is muffled by legislatures getting some backbone and doing

the right thing and put the lives of innocents before their chances of re-election by passing sensible gun laws.

[shadowrider]

3. Chicago has "sensible" gun laws. How's that workin? n/t

[demosincebirth]

8. I don't live in Chicago, you tell me. And I'm sure you will.

[Atypical Liberal]

17. Answer: it isn't.

And the reason is simple: Organized crime revolving around the illegal drug trade.

[Hoyt]

34. Guns from red states with lax gun laws get trafficked to Chicago, sometimes by so-called

"law-abiding" gun owners. Funny how that works.

[gejohnston]

35. really?

let's see what the ATF says
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/download/trace-data/2011/2011-trace-data-illinois.pdf
Oh, I'm sorry. Of course that means they were purchased by FFL in those states. How many were stolen after moving to Illinois? If look at page seven, the average as is about 13 years. That is a pretty slow iron river.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Why would you expect any pol to do that

It is against their very nature.

Its not the NRA membership you have to worry about, its the rest of a large segment of the populace who follow their lead.

[permatex]

6. The other 76 million of us.

which is a powerful political force.

[Hoyt]

31. Majority are right wingers. Who and what RW causes do you think they are going to support?

[gejohnston]

32. tiny minority are right wingers

most are moderate to don't give a shit about politics.

[Hoyt]

33. "Moderate" my rear. Anyone packing guns in a city is not a moderate.

[HALO141]

38. What a self-serving definition. n/t

[demosincebirth]

43. Looking at them, something is wrong with those guys. They look like some one out of Deliverance.

Last edited Thu Jul 26, 2012, 05:30 PM - Edit history (1)

That picture should be used as a poster for anti- NRA groups. It's worth one thousand words.

[Hoyt]

63. Yes it does. How about the pro-gun guy with the "militia" Tshirt? Now that's perfect for NRA types.

[spin]

60. I'm a liberal and I legallly carry concealed in the city. ...

I think the Bill of Rights is one of the most liberal and progressive documents ever written and that includes the 2nd Amendment which is in its proper place right behind the 1st.

[Hoyt]

64. Sorry, I disagree when it comes to guns in the city.

[spin]

67. Of course you do and I understand exactly why. (n/t)

[demosincebirth]

76. You are right about the Bill of Rights. But if the Founding Fathers (Jeez, I get tired of those two

words) where alive today they would go bat-shit over how we have perverted and twisted the 2nd Amendment to where citizens can purchase and hoard enough weapons to where, at times, they might need an armory to house 'em. But, get this, I'm not an anti-gun zealot, either. I'm for sensible and logical gun laws which would be anathema to most gun enthusiasts.

[gejohnston]

77. Don't think so

I think the founding dead white guys would go bat shit over the empire and the MIC and tell us we should have a military more like the Swiss.

[spin]

78. I agree. (n/t)

[demosincebirth]

81. Yep, you can get out of a lot of jams with those little McGiver knives they have

[gejohnston]

82. I like the ones issued to the milita better

This is the latest one issued to the troops. They seem to modernize every 30 years.


Oh yeah, I like how they let kids play with the guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenfest
Yes, that's a high schooler with an issue assault rifle (has the selector switch blocked so she doesn't accidently fire full auto)

[GreenStormCloud]

22. Over 50% of Cengress are members of the NRA.

They don't oppose the NRA because they agree with the NRA and are part of the NRA. You falsely assume that everybody but a few people are anti-gun.

[demosincebirth]

42. they have to, otherwise they wouldn't be in office at the NRA's becken call. Most of 'em are

probably in the south, republican and tea baggers. Notice, I said "most."

[GreenStormCloud]

47. Impossible to be mostly from the South.

The South doesn't have that high a percentage of the U.S. population. The West, except for California, is stongly pro-gun, and the mid-West. Even some Northern states are pro-gun, such a Pennsylvania.

[demosincebirth]

54. I was speaking in generalities, you're are talking facts by your use of the word (impossible). Now,

give me some statistics, facts and figures, to prove your point, otherwise your points are mute.

[gejohnston]

55. I think you mean moot

you may have a thing against southerners, hillbillies, and rednecks; but Vermont, Montana, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania are still part of the union.

[demosincebirth]

69. Moot, Adj. subject to or open for discussion or debate.

[gejohnston]

70. maybe some day

http://languagerules.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/moot-point-not-mute-point/

[demosincebirth]

71. Today, for sure. Websters New Home Dictionary of the American Language. Page 955.

I'll settle for a draw. How about you John

[GreenStormCloud]

57. Do I really need to post census data to prove the South has less than 50% of U.S. population?

Some things are well known. The facts that I posted are well-known.

[demosincebirth]

68. Sorry, but to prove a point, yes nt

[shadowrider]

72. You're kidding, right?

An anti here said, "Some things are so obvious they don't need to be proven."

Good for goose and stuff.

[demosincebirth]

75. My answer is, no. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

74. If you want to believe that the South has more people than the rest of the U.S....

...I will allow you that delusion.

[xxenderwigginxx]

99. 37% of the population live in the south as of the 2010 census

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

100. Welcome to DU...

...and the group.

[xxenderwigginxx]

103. thanks

[Remmah2]

25. How many gang members are NRA members?

How many gang members acutally abide by the law?

[GreenStormCloud]

59. You seem to have a problem with the First Amendment.

If you muffle the NRA, then it won't be long until the same law that muffles the NRA will be used on an organization that you support.

[shadowrider]

73. Most can't see the "Law of Unintended Consequences" n/t

[Clames]

2. Reality and logic.

Alien concepts to gun-control extremists/religionists.

[shadowrider]

4. Yup, the talibanners n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

7. time to get serious about Mental Health Care. Could be wrong but, I would not be

surprised to find out that James Holmes is a Paranoid Schizophrenic.

[gopiscrap]

27. or a republican

[HALO141]

48. Based on what, exactly? The simple fact that you hate him?

[gopiscrap]

50. studies have shown mos mass murderers and serial killers

have a republican bent...Ted Bundy is the prime example (aide to WA state Republican governor) was being groomed by the GOP to run for office.

[HALO141]

51. Got a link to any of these studies?

One data point does not a trend make. Jared Loughner was reportedly apolitical. Likewise, I don't recall any political affiliations of Seung-Hui Cho and we really don't know about James Holmes yet.

[gejohnston]

52. mass murderers and serial killers

are two different things with different profiles.

[Fredjust]

9. It doesn't go far enough.

The reason places like Chicago have gun problems is there is no NATIONAL ban on guns.

REPEAL the DESPICABLE 2nd Amendment/

Make it a FELONY to possess a firearm NATIONALLY.

CONFISCATE all firearms (seize gun shop and gun/ammo/holster/ online stores etc. business records and track down everyone who purchased a firearms) .

Only THEN will the rest of us non-death spewer toting citizens be able to enjoy the peace of knowing our redneck teabagger neighbor won't go off the deep end and start mowing down children at movie theaters.

[Tejas]

11. Brilliant parody, almost took you seriously there for a moment!

[permatex]

12. Well then why don't you just get out there and get a petition going

and then convince 2/3 of the states to ratify the repeal of the 2A. Can't wait to hear how well it's going.
Please keep us informed.

Your never going to get a repeal of the 2A, It won't pass congress and would insure the Dems would be in the political wilderness for a generation.

Why would you want to start a civil war? People like you are the reason the NRA is so powerful.
Everytime people like you open their pie holes, the NRA membership swells and their coffers grow even more.

[Remmah2]

28. Maybe he could just go door to door doing the gun buyback thingy.

Gun confiscation is great when someone else does it for you.

[NewMoonTherian]

19. Seriously, if you ARE trolling, you're doing so quite artfully.

If you are sincere, I hope you'll hang around the Gungeon for a while. You'll learn quite a bit; primarily that your position doesn't even have widespread support among progressives, but also the reasons why it doesn't.

[EX500rider]

24. You mean outlaw them like in Mexico?

How's that working out?

[spin]

61. Would you volunteer to help bust doors down and take firerms away from citizens ...

Many police officers will refuse to do so as will many members of the military. The select Gestapo force that raids homes for firearms will be looking for some extremely brave individuals to fill its ranks.

[Tejas]

10. "Gun control works so well in Chicago," - like the 81yr old with an illegal gun?

Do you mean the 81yr old veteran of the Korean War who illegally possessed a handgunshot and shot a 3am burglar?


on edit; sarcasm LOL LOL LOL LOL

[Fredjust]

13. Laugh all you want...

You want a solution to mass-murdering teabaggers? That's it. You have to dispose of all the guns, nationwide.

There is no reason to own a gun aside from self-glorification or criminal purposes. I don't care if you like collecting or target shooting- we don't allow people to have tanks and rocket launchers for "leisure"- you shouldn't own a death spewer either.

Is this realistic in a country where women and minority rights are still suppressed? Probably not. But that doesn't make it not the solution, it just means the teabaggers and their rich, white corporate masters still have too much of the vote share. This is a prime example of why it is necessary to PERMANENTLY push the Rethugs out of power and silence their disgusting, disingenuous voices once and for all.

[gejohnston]

15. he is crazy, not stupid

which means he isn't a teabagger. They are stupid, crazy is debatable.

Actually, you can own a tank.

[DWC]

16. Your post reminded me of an old saying

that has something to do with the pot calling the kettle black.

Semper Fi,

[DonP]

20. Oh great, another one that wants to get rid of the 1st and the 2nd

"silence their voices"? That's a "very progressive" attitude

But since your ideas stand a snowball's chance in hell of ever even being proposed, we'll just sit back and laugh.

If it wasn't for the fact that idiots like you give the GOP all the ammunition they need to call Dems gun grabbers, it might even be funny

[HALO141]

49. Another great idea from the minds of

Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...

[HALO141]

40. I'm no more concerned with mass-murdering teabaggers

than I am with mass-murders of any other political persuasion.

Why don't you try decafinated coffee next time.

[spin]

62. If anything the 1% would love to see firearm ownership limited to only ...

the rich, the famous and the well connected few.

Just like in mayor Bloomberg's realm New York City.

NYC's '1 percent' totally 'gun'-ho
By BRAD HAMILTON and GARY BUISO

Last Updated: 11:26 AM, April 22, 2012

he “1 percent” comes in piece.

Dozens of New York City’s billionaires, real-estate moguls and Wall Street CEOs are really loaded, according to the NYPD’s gun-permit list obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information Act.

Top guns include Donald Trump, Marvel Comics head Isaac Perlmutter and Gristedes chairman and mayoral wannabe John Catsimatidis.

***snip***

Deep-pocketed shock jocks Howard Stern and Don Imus, and tough-guy troupers Robert De Niro and Harvey Keitel are among the gun-toting celebs.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/the_really_loaded_gsK0QeUR76khfXuWYvruOJ

[xxenderwigginxx]

101. Removing all private gun ownership will not stop mass murder

Mao Ze-Dong -China 49 to 70,000,000
Adolf Hitler -Germany 12,000,000
Leopold II- Belgium 8,000,000
Jozef Stalin-USSR 6,000,000
Hideki Tojo-japan 5,000,000
Pol Pot- Cambodia 1,700,000

Congress estimates that the number of disarmed civilians killed by their own government between 1900 and 1991 to be 169,198,000.

For comparison, estimated gun deaths in the US since 1900 is 2,700,000. That includes accidental, murder, and suicide. 80% of the murders were commited by felons, career criminals, and/or gang members..which dont care about your regulations. To check my numbers see the CDC Threat report 2005.

[DWC]

14. Mary is absolutely correct

Knowing and exercising proper gun control significantly enhances shooting accuracy and reduces potential collateral damage. All responsible adults should be armed and prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge against any violent threat including mass murders.

Semper Fi,

[AndyTiedye]

44. What About Responsible Adults Who are Lousy Shots?

All responsible adults should be armed and prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge against any violent threat including mass murders.

I have spent enough time shooting at targets (and missing a lot) to realize that this is a standard that I would be unable to meet. I am a terrible shot and I don't get any better with practice. I choose not to carry firearms out of concern for the safety of bystanders. Somewhat less responsible adults who miss a lot would invest in high-capacity magazines in the hope that they would hit their target eventually.

[GreenStormCloud]

58. Get laser sights. Your miss rate will go way down. N/T

[spin]

65. Have you ever asked a good shooter to help you? ...

Usually if you show some interest other shooters will be more than happy to give you some good advice. Also realize that self defensive shooting is far difference from target shooting. You should be practicing at 21 feet and less.

[AndyTiedye]

83. The Instructor

Have you ever asked a good shooter to help you?

Well, the instructor.

The real problem is I'm just not steady enough, I move around too much. Nothing to be done about that.
That is in a totally unstressed situation. It would obviously be far worse if I were trying to defend myself.

If the other guy has a gun, the only thing a gun will help me do is get shot.

Even if I got a shot off, the risk of shooting a bystander is still unacceptably high for me.

[spin]

84. It sounds like a fair decision to me. ...

There are alternative methods of self defense such as pepper spray.

The one I use has spray, a flashing strobe light and a siren.



Tornado Defense System w/ Clip
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00407I0TW/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i00

[AndyTiedye]

86. I'm Not that Concerned About it, Really

My wife carried something like that when she worked in a sketchy area some years ago.
She actually had to take a class and get a license to be allowed to carry it back then
(that regulation has since been rescinded).

About the most offensive thing I'm likely to be carrying is a flashlight.
When I am out late at night, I'm going to or from a dance club, and they don't allow weapons anyway.

I was responding initially to this:

All responsible adults should be armed and prepared to defend themselves and those in their charge against any violent threat including mass murders.

which seems unrealistic, to put it mildly.

[spin]

87. Statistically you should be fine ...

as the violent crime rate has fallen to levels last seen in the late 60s.

[Fredjust]

18. Sorry...

but no one who hasn't seen extensive combat can hit the broad side of a barn in a real shootout. Even cops, who supposedly train on a regular basis with their weapons, are notoriously bad shots ( in the year 2000, in a report from the NYPD, showed that officers had a accuracy rating of only 9% in fire fights). All you would have is more dead innocents as the bad guy laughed his way to the morgue.

[burrfoot]

21. You make a valid a point about

the drop in proficiency a legal, licensed, and even well-trained-but-not-professional-shooter will likely experience when confronted by this kind of situation. I think everyone here would agree with you- it's something that's been discussed at length here, over many posts, over many years.

I have to question your assumption, though, that LE should be expected to be a) training regularly, or b) any kind of good shot at all.

No disrespect any LEO's out there, but I think many would agree that a significant proportion of officers (if not a significant majority) get their pistols out once a year, to pass their certification test.

And although I don't have the stats at my fingertips, I'm pretty confident that if you were to look around you'd find that citizens actually have a considerably higher hit % when they shoot. (Overall. Obviously, some cops are going to be spectacular shots, and some citizens are going to be ass hats who not only couldn't hit the broad side of a barn in a shootout, but couldn't hit it at high noon on a sunny day with no wind from a braced position)


Just my .02

[GreenStormCloud]

23. You don't know much about self-defense shootings.

Most self-defense shooting are at such close range that the gun leaves powder burns on the body. At those extreme close ranges, precision accuracy isn't needed. If the attacking criminal is only three feet from me I think I can be pretty sure of hitting him. If you go to youtube and enter "self-defense shootings" it will bring up dozens of video from surviellence cameras of people defending themselves with guns and shooting bad guys. You will see that we aren't such bad shots, even under extreme stress, as you claim we are.

[ileus]

30. Lot's of people pick too much gun also.

I can do a mag dump with my 9mm with much better results than my 40 or 45.



CC makes you want to buy micro guns that have poor accuracy and controllability. I know I'm guilty of such with my LCP.

[armueller2001]

36. So it's better

for no one inside that theater to have any chance of survival, just lie on the ground waiting to die? Is it just a coincidence that most of these shootings happen inside "gun free zones" like that movie theater, Virginia Tech, Columbine, Northern Illinois University, etc? The people are defenseless - just like shooting fish in a barrel. And those "no guns allowed" signs don't seem to have too much of an effect on the guy walking in with the intent to murder dozens of people.

No thanks, I'll at least take a chance of survival with a self-defense firearm. I'm confident in my shooting abilities and skills. I much prefer to have responsibility of my own and my family's security rather than being a sheep and expecting the police to show up in time to protect me.

Check out the Colorado New Life shooting.. Guy goes in a church armed to the teeth and gets stopped by a volunteer security guard who has a concealed weapons permit. It's not impossible to hit what you're aiming at without hitting innocents. How bad would things have gotten if that person wasn't legally carrying? - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Life_Church_(Colorado_Springs,_Colorado)

[HALO141]

41. There is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

[gopiscrap]

26. WTF it was time to get serious about control a long time ago!!!

[ileus]

29. We need to get serious about people victimizing guns and our rights.

[Fredjust]

37. Two points...

1.) I stated earlier that gun free zones only work when the odious Second amendment is either correctly interpreted again (WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS) or repealed because guns flow in from laxer areas.

2.) The Rethugs are obstacles to progress, and thus need to be shoved aside and silenced from spreading their lies. They are the political equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

3.) I'm proud to be called a "gun-grabber."

[gejohnston]

39. two points

1.) I stated earlier that gun free zones only work when the odious Second amendment is either correctly interpreted again (WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS) or repealed because guns flow in from laxer areas.

It has never been interpreted as a collective right. There never has been a SCOTUS saying any such thing. Like it or not, Heller set the first precedent on the subject.
"guns flowing in from laxer areas" is such an old meme.
Pick a year 2006-2011 pick any state or territory. Hint: Bloomburg wasn't careful about what he asked for when he wanted the ATF to make trace data public
http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

2.) The Rethugs are obstacles to progress, and thus need to be shoved aside and silenced from spreading their lies. They are the political equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

If it were up to me, anti-democratic rants would face the same fate as anti-Democratic rants.

3.) I'm proud to be called a "gun-grabber."

I'm glad you show the courage of your convictions. Many on your side don't.

3.) I'm proud to be ca

[Fredjust]

45. Just because...

1.)Heller may have set the precedent, but it's wrong. The SCOTUS is wrong, in the related MCDonald v Chicago, Justice Breyer wrote "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental." THAT is the correct interpretation; it was only because the court is dominated by Rethugs that the Heller and McDonald cases were found in favor of the gun toters. It was a dark, dark day in American history for those who are against random acts of mayhem and death. I understand the reality of it, but I will continue to rail against it.

2.) Not sure what you mean

3.) I'm a private citizen, I have the luxury of being honest. I encourage ALL progressive politicians to pay lip service to gun "rights" while working behind the scenes to limit, control, and eliminate them.

[gejohnston]

46. couple of things.

1.)Heller may have set the precedent, but it's wrong. The SCOTUS is wrong, in the related MCDonald v Chicago, Justice Breyer wrote "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, 'fundamental." THAT is the correct interpretation; it was only because the court is dominated by Rethugs that the Heller and McDonald cases were found in favor of the gun toters. It was a dark, dark day in American history for those who are against random acts of mayhem and death. I understand the reality of it, but I will continue to rail against it.

Those are the interpretations you like. Just because you like it, does not mean it is not correct. As Norman Goldman puts it, judges are politicians in robes. Armed self defense is a natural right, exists in nature. As much as those on your side likes to compare Heller with Scott or Plessey, you forget what McDonald overturned. More accurately, finished off since bits of it has been overturned since the 1930s. I honestly don't think you grasp the reality of it at all. As for violence, day to day in our cities, bong owners are far more responsible for gun violence than the "gun toters" ever will be. The gang violence, which is most of our problem is motivated by turf and market share conflicts, and it is fueled by the drug culture's money. That massive list struggle4progress has been piling up, most of those are drug gang hits. That is before we talk about Mexico. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

2.) Not sure what you mean

You might describe yourself as a progressive, but you don't sound like a liberal. You are advocating authoritarianism. Silencing any voice is anti democratic. It is also not a Democratic value, I would make it a ToS violation, if it were up to me.

3.) I'm a private citizen, I have the luxury of being honest. I encourage ALL progressive politicians to pay lip service to gun "rights" while working behind the scenes to limit, control, and eliminate them.

and taking the guns away from a target shooter in Wyoming will do what for inner city DC or Chicago? Nothing.

[Fredjust]

79. Hey now...

I unshakably oppose Rethugs, Nazis, and tea-baggers 100%; on every issue and work tirelessly to shut them down. Rethug hate speech has NO place in civil discourse.

[gejohnston]

80. I oppose them too, but

The BoR applies to all, even ones we don't like. All hate speech is uncivil, but it is still protected by the BoR. While it might inspire a weak minded person to something dreadful, suppressing it will not only inspire several more, it will enrage them all. Sunlight is always the best disinfectant.

[HALO141]

53. Hmm

1) The decision is what it is. Whether or not it is correct is simply your opinion. I do agree that SCOTUS does, indeed, hand down bad rulings but you and I obviously differ on which ones are correct and which are not. In the end, our opinions mean almost nothing now that the individual rights issue has been settled.

3) So you have the luxury of being honest but you "encourage ALL progressive politicians" to be dishonest? If your goal is to remove progressive politicians from office that's a really good plan.

[spin]

66. It's fine to disagree with the decision that the Supreme Court reached but ...

your opinions are largely irrelevant. The highest court in the land has ruled.

Plenty of conservatives hate the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 but you will notice that despite the fact that we have a conservative court, abortion is still legal 39 years later.

[spin]

88. The Republicans feel the same as you do about Roe v Wade ...

but despite the fact that we have had a conservative Supreme Court for years, it's still the law of the land.

Right or wrong, the highest court in the nation has ruled.

[DWC]

85. Three points...

"1.) I stated earlier that gun free zones only work when the odious Second amendment is either correctly interpreted again (WELL-REGULATED MILITIAS) or repealed because guns flow in from laxer areas."

IMO, Gun Free Zones only work well when significant armed security is provided at that location. The individual, inalienable right of self defense with whatever tools (aka arms) I can get my hands on shall not be infringed.

"2.) The Rethugs are obstacles to progress, and thus need to be shoved aside and silenced from spreading their lies. They are the political equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater."

FYI: There was FIRE in that theater in Colorado and there was not one there with the tools to put it out.

"3.) I'm proud to be called a "gun-grabber."

IMO, Nothing can stop a mass murderer form initiating the act but people like you have made it possible for mass murders to occur much more often and for mass murderers to be much more successful.

Semper Fi,

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

98. Quite so...

and well put.

[PavePusher]

92. "the odious Second amendment "?

I recommend to you Article 5. Go buck-wild.

[xxenderwigginxx]

104. Its disingenuous to quote well regulated militia

and leave out "being necessary to the security of a free state the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed". Also, you are mis-defining the word regulated. As used by the writers of the 2nd it is defined : to make regular, orderly, disciplined and quite predictable, as in, to regulate a clock. It has nothing to do with control, it just meant that the people should train with their weapons. The Bill of Rights is not directed at (though in can impact) citizen v citizen interactions, its primary purpose is to define what the government CANNOT do to us. You obviously don't care about having gun rights, but there are people who would love to strip you of some of the rights that you think are important. I wonder how you will respond if they then decide to use your own tactics on the rest of the Bill of Rights. I think that you are throwing out un-thought, emotional ideas without considering the precedent it would set, and how it would then be used against other rights. As Martin Niemöller said
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

56. I think an incident like the Holmes shooting...

...bears thought and examination. However, why is it that if 100 die in auto crashes on a bad holiday weekend, there is only a passing story of one line in the news, but let a bus crash killing 20 injuring several others and the vans and helicopters show up in force?

[spin]

89. I think that covering stories such as the Colorado theater shooting ...

is responsible. I feel that covering such a story 24/7 for several days is irresponsible.

The media has a definite bias against the Second Amendment. Newspapers and TV commentators frequently foster lies and misinformation about firearms and firearm owners that lead to many readers and viewers who are unfamiliar with firearms to form opinions not based on fact.

Also the wall to wall coverage often generates copy cat killers. It may be a year or more before see the consequences but the glorification of the Colorado shooter may lead others who suffer from mental disorders to make plans to carry out an even more deadly massacre in order to receive hours and hours of "fame."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

90. It isn't my intention...

...to say anything to minimize the evil of the Colorado shooting. But I have for a long time been disgusted by what passes for factual news.

My TV News comes from Philly. I see one station or another report on a crime which occurred at Frankford and Ontario. Later in the same story they characterize the location as West Kensington. The West Kensington neighborhood has a much worse rep than Port Richmond does so I guess that somehow "improves" the news. Occasionally, I will see the media mistakenly say that Port Richmond is in Northeast Philly.

In other instances I see the media from everywhere sometimes call an AR-15 an "assault rifle". Other times I see "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" used interchangeably. I'm able to distinguish the differences in these terms and locations using a search engine.

It's disgusting that reporting a story before taking the time to verify the facts is more important than maybe taking a short time to get the story right.

The media doesn't care that more murders are committed with knives or blunt objects than with any kind of rifle.

I'm learning though. Reporting shocking news is more important than reporting factual news. I think I've got it now.

So let me ask you, is there a media source that you trust?

[spin]

93. It's very difficult for me to trust any news source. ....

I found through personal experience and also in conversations with many other people that the local media often gets hometown events completely wrong. Often if you witness the event, the description you read of it in a newspaper or see on TV seems to be describing another entirely different incident. That might be excusable as the local media has limited resources and time.

What most disturbs me is most is the national media. I developed my distrust over years of watching their coverage on the gun control issue. A moderate amount of research would teach any reasonably intelligent individual to recognize the difference between types of firearms and the correct use of terminology relating to these weapons. The talking heads you see on news programs have a considerable staff including researchers to support their babble.

Firearms technology is hardly rocket science. I will agree that firearms are very lethal devices and people can have different views on if civilians should be allowed to own one. It is the news media's job to report the basic facts to the public to allow them to make an informed decision about the issue. I see no problem with the media presenting an editorial opinion against firearm ownership as long as it has fairly reported the facts of the issue and not merely propaganda from only the pro gun control side. It is fine for the media to editorialize against the ownership of semi-auto rifles but to lead the viewer to believe that a semi-automatic rifle that looks similar to a fully automatic is the same as a military grade weapon is dishonest.

If I can't trust the media to fairly cover a fairly simple issue such as gun control, why should I believe what it reports on far more complicated issues?

In the Bill of Rights the First and Second Amendments are in that order for good reason. Just as gun owners should use their firearms in a responsible manner, the media also has a tremendous responsibly to inform its audience honestly.

Sometimes I wish that reporters were required to obtain a license just as in many states a person has to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. If they failed to report the facts of any issue in an unbiased manner they would lose their right to report. Of course that will never happen as it would infringe on their First Amendment rights but it offers the media a chance to take away the Second Amendment rights of other civilians (which they obviously hate) by using lying and deceit.

The pen may indeed be more powerful than the sword. Therefore those who use the pen have to be aware that they must use that power in a fair manner to report the facts on any given issue in an unbiased and honest fashion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

94. Let's face it.

We all live on lies: Good job... High five... Have you been working out? Etc.

We dish it out as well: Does this dress make my ass look huge? Your check is in the mail. Etc.

The fact that reporters lie let's me know two things:
1- Tells me who I can trust with certain types of stories.
2- The stuff that they lie about that I don't catch is stuff about which I don't care enough. If that's seems like a problem when I finally notice, then I should do something to change my perspective.

I get to pick my own hat.

[spin]

95. LOL. I liked the smilies you used in your comment. (n/t)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

96. I'm just punk like that.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. TuesdayAfternoon: Mass murder shows its time to get serious about Health Care.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

97. I you're referring to...

...mental healthcare, I couldn't agree more.

Some folks with untreated psychosis, would be better off with a diagnosis, treatment and, where needed, commitment.

[xxenderwigginxx]

102. As i've said before

any one notice that some of the same people on DU who rant against police brutality, the "police state", and the military industrial complex, will join 2A conversations and claim that only the police and military should own guns?