Gun owners, speak out

4 free views left!

By Joe Kelly

Thursday, January 10, 2013

I’m speaking out as a lifetime gun owner. I grew up on a farm in New York state. I started shooting at age 7, and by age 10 I was hunting squirrels and rabbits alone with a .22. My family and friends did lots of hunting and plinking. I read “The Shooters Bible” religiously. I developed a lifelong love of the outdoors and guns. I own many guns today including three that were my father’s guns. I’ve taught both my daughters to shoot safely.

When I was growing up there were no “assault rifles,” no violent, graphic “first-person shooter” video games. We hunted birds after school, and the most violent acts on TV and in the movies involved Gene Autry shooting the bad guys. The problem today is not just a gun problem but a complex societal problem.

Fifty years ago I brought my shotgun to school and asked the shop teacher to help me improve the shot pattern for grouse hunting. If a kid tried that today they would call 911 and some SWAT team member would likely kill him. I don’t remember any school shootings before the University of Texas bell tower mass shooting in 1966. After that came Kent State and Jackson State shootings, when antiwar protestors were shot and killed by the police and National Guard in 1970.

Now it seems everything has changed. More Americans are arming themselves for self-defense despite the fact that the national crime rate and murder rate have both dropped. The statistics clearly show that having a gun in the house is far more likely to result in an accident, suicide or domestic violence than in any defense against an intruder.

The gun manufacturers exploited a desire for military-style weapons. There are huge profits in assault weapons. Where I live in Eastern Washington many people hunt, but assault rifles aren’t legal for big game. Yet, in the past 15 years, I’ve seen hundreds of young men mesmerized by the mythic images of war and warfare, including the assault rifle.

Here are my ideas on sensible gun laws:

1. Ban the production and sale of semi-automatic military style assault rifles and large-capacity magazines. These guns are designed for one thing only – killing lots of human beings. But partially due to wholesale closures and underfunding of mental health services that began during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, the assault rifle has become the weapon of choice for mass murders and school shooters. Will the ban stop mass shootings in our society? Probably not. Will criminals still get guns illegally? Yes, but make it harder.

2. Mandate background checks at gun shows.

3. Increase mental health funding. Ensure mental health issues are detectable in background checks.

4. Limit gun sales to one per person per month. There is a river of illegal gun sales from southern states into northern cities because it’s hugely profitable. Stop straw buyers in Texas, Arizona and New Mexico from selling 10 or 20 AK-47s to gun runners for the Mexican drug cartels.

5. Enforce a waiting periods: I’ve never met a gun I couldn’t wait 30 days to own.

6. Pass a test. If you are required to take a course, pass a test and possess a license to drive a car, fly a plane, be a massage therapist, and to go hunting, why not have a license for responsible gun owners? I’ve seen far too many gun owners who are not safe or competent in their ownership.

I think most of us average hunters and gun owners have kept quiet while extremists in the “gun rights” movement speak the loudest. Responsible gun owners can do more than non-owners to stop the extremist rhetoric that has Americans believing that mass killings are normal and that nothing can be done. But we aren’t speaking out, or writing to our congressmen encouraging sane gun laws, and demanding increased budgets for mental agencies and mental health treatments.

It’s time for us to weigh in on this issue, time to speak out, write letters, and let the people decide.

Joe Kelly is 67, with a degree in wildlife management from Cornell University, a retired federal biologist, and a hunter. He lives on a small farm near Entiat.

» Recommend this story.

» 59 comments on this story

Want to comment on this story? All Wenatchee World members are invited to comment on stories, by using the form below. Please know that we at wenatcheeworld.com hope our site is useful, entertaining and civil. So we'll delete comments that are obscene, abusive or way off topic. We appreciate it when readers use the "suggest removal" button to flag inappropriate comments. For more about interacting with the site, see our Use Policy.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

Finally, a sane gun owner!!!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Gosh, Joe, you sure seem to think that the government is capable of flawlessly administering a whole new set of laws. It's curious to me that they can't seem to administer the laws that we currently have.

A whole new set of laws/procedures seems to me to be just another tool in the insidious plan to usurp our freedoms and subvert the constitution.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

What, What!!? Your statements make no sense to me for several obvious reasons!!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Care to elaborate?

TerryFinn 4 months, 1 week ago

Nice well thought out suggestions.

Good luck with the backlash!

mizmaus 4 months, 1 week ago

The tiny bodies from the alien craft were taken in 1947 from the crash site at Roswell, New Mexico to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base.

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

If you were serious, you'll like this link. If you were joking, it may just change your mind.

http://www.disclosureproject.org/

I got into the writings of Dr. Steven Greer from a prominent local businesswoman in the area whose husband has been a small plane pilot for decades. These people are neither idiots, nor fools. They've met Dr. Greer and quite frankly, if he's okay with them, he's fine by me.

redtigre62 4 months, 1 week ago

Just because you can't remember any shootings before 1966 doesn't mean they didn't happen... took me seconds to pull up over 50 from 1900-1966. Why do you think crime and murder rates have dropped? Could it be that more people have been armed with better self-defense laws?

No assault rifles growing up? I remember M1 Garands, M1 Carbines in the 60's, and Ruger Mini-14's in the mid-70's, and more available at that. Heck, one could buy a 30-round mag for a Ruger 10-22 then. I had friends in the 70's that the Garand was the deer rifle of choice, it was an assault rifle if nothing else (2 wars and armies around the world proved that) and legal for deer.

Your opinion of sensible gun laws are just that, your opinion. The NRA doesn't speak for me any more than you do, but I believe they understand the 2nd Amendment a tad better. Frankly, I think you both are missing the boat on to many issues for responsible firearm ownership. We don't have a gun problem, guns are inanimate objects and totally amoral, we have an increasingly nihilistic cultural problem. You can't legislate away societies current issues.

Tell the abused spouse they have to wait 30 days for protection before they are put into a hospital, or a morgue. The police (or a hunter) can't be there for protection all the time when needed, one may find themselves alive because of our current laws.

Gun shows are regulated by the state... many states already have as many laws for gun shows as a gun dealer in a shop would have, and often must be dealers with an FFL (Colorado is an example). Straw purchases are a problem, but AK-47's? Really? Requiring a Class III license and a fully automatic weapon transaction for 10 or 20 at a pop? Really? And you think this wouldn't draw the attention of the BATF(e)? If the feds couldn't catch that in the system then it not a regulation problem. Our OWN government passed guns to the cartels, do you really expect them to have any enforcement credibility? Where is lawlessness defined?

While you see yourself as sensible, I do question your "sensibility". I think I'm just as sensible as you, but as it is, your rights end where my nose begins. (man, I love that quote). I would and will probably end up arguing with other posters how well thought out they were.

I guess I'm like you, a lifetime gun owner, but with different experiences. I'd just as soon keep the rights granted me, both by the constitution and responsible gun ownership. What I choose to own shouldn't bother you... what you own doesn't bother me. I'm glad we are both responsible (yet how can we both be sensible if we disagree?) :D

Thank goodness our 1st Amendment rights are as strong as our 2nd.

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

rogburn509 4 months, 1 week ago

Thank you for a well thought out and articulate column. Your suggestions are spot on, and a welcome dose of sanity in this discussion. I too grew up with guns, and took an NRA hunter safety course as a boy. I still own my guns and support gun ownership, but see no legitimate purpose in military type assault rifles or high capacity magazines. Surely we can agree on sensible restrictions on such things. The capture of the NRA by the radical fringe and their "all or nothing" approach to gun safety is very harmful to our society.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

the problem is the government will not stop at just the military style weapons. they want them all. Hillary's plan with the U.N. and that special little rule shows that. History shows that where gun confiscation is concerned it starts with one type of weapon. I do fully agree with you Robert that there is a class of weapons on the streets that have no reason to be there. Just because they are fun to shoot is not a reason to have them on the streets. If you want to shoot a military style gun--join the military! If one can buy one of these weapons legally--the criminal and or whack job can get them illegally. Home defense or self defense doesn't cut it either. a shotgun does a great job of protecting a home. What the government needs to do is fully enforcing the current laws. Keep the convicted criminals in prison. One knows where the government is going when the president is going to by-pass our system and constitution with another executive order to grab the guns.

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

Love him or hate him, Alex Jones hit the Sandy Hook nail on the head in a recent column:

http://www.infowars.com/prominent-rifle-manufacturer-killed-in-mysterious-car-crash-days-after-posting-psych-drug-link-to-school-shooters/

Some key points on that from the link above are as follows:

"Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill..."

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

I totally understand that it could never be in any given small town newspaper's best self interests to run a guest column from anybody who does not mirror editorial staff's views, especially on hot button issues like this. But there is absolutely so much to this issue that is not getting any press that it's getting disgusting to bother reading anything about it at all.

So again, click on the following link and see a lot of what you haven't been reading post Sandy Hook. Because as is the case with most any given crisis, the legislative fall-out is onerous, draconian, and as usual: way off target.

http://www.infowars.com/prominent-rifle-manufacturer-killed-in-mysterious-car-crash-days-after-posting-psych-drug-link-to-school-shooters/

The fact remains that the pharmaceutical lobby is far more culpable in these instances than the gun lobby ever was. One would think that the denizens of the small town that introduced "Dr. Prozac" to the world would have an intrinsic understanding of this- or at least a good feel for it. Instead, the paper of record here stays mum, leaving many of us to wonder why.

twomacs2 4 months, 1 week ago

When little children and devoted teachers are riddled with bullets in their school, sane discussion is required.Crazed statements from the gun lobby are only going to repulse those of us who believe in reasonable gun safety laws.The NRA represents the Gun Industry, not it's citizen members. This is another instance of Corporate influence bullying the rest of us. 85% of gun owners including NRA members believe in reasonable gun safety laws. Australia has a 20 day waiting period when one applies for a gun. WE can do much better and still retain the integrity of the 2nd Amendment. I own a firearm so that you know I am not a radical left wing nut!

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Pray tell, to which of the laws you referred would have stopped the Connecticut tragedy? You do know that the gomer was denied the purchase of a rifle by the existing universal background checks?

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

Is this an issue worth exploring??? Anything to deflect the real issues...sensible gun laws that protect the citizens who chose not to arm themselves. Many of us don't need guns for protection! We don't believe the government wants to take guns from the true sportsman. There is big money being made selling these military assault weapons and too many crazies purchasing them!!!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Of course it's worth exploring.

Define "sensible". I suspect that your definition would vary greatly from a lot of other people's.

If you don't need guns for protection, why do you give them to your police? Why not let the police protect you with squirt guns? Because the protector must be armed with at least as lethal, if not more lethal, than what the bad guys are armed with you say? Why should a homeowner not be allowed to have the same sort of abilty to protect themselves that the police can provide? Do you disagree with the old addage of "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Only Minutes Away"?

Define "true sportsman". Is it not sportsmanlike to want to go to the shooting range and be able to target shoot for a while without having to reload every few minutes?

Private citizens are not legally allowed to possess "military assault weapons" therefore your reference to "too many crazies purchasing them" is not only misleading but inaccurate as well.

Any weapon can be labled an "assault weapon" if it is used in an aggressive or an assaultive manner. Do you propose to ban them all? If so, do you propose the wholesale roundup and confiscation of all weapons? If not, what is your criteria for only confiscating select weapons?

Do you propose to mandate that all citizens undergo mental health screenings on a daily basis? You do realize that a person may be considered of sound mind on one day and not so much on the next day, don't you?

The government seems relatively incapable of enforcing our existing gun laws as it is, why do you believe that piling on more laws will make the government more effective?

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

"Anything to deflect the real issues...sensible gun laws that protect the citizens who chose not to arm themselves. " ,br>

So that's what you believe it's all about? No , , , , I'm afraid you don't understand the issue at all Dawn. I own many guns, but I am not a threat to you or anyone else and I don't need the government to tell me what kind of guns I can buy or what I can do with them once I own them any more so than what they already do. If you understood this issue you would realize that there are already any number of "sensible laws" and some that are not so sensible already in place. You have no more right to dictate those things to me than I have to dictate to you what sort of vehicles you can purchase or how many of them are allowed. Teach your children not to beat people up, hit, kill, destroy and blow things up and we wouldn't have this sort of issue, to the extent that we see them today. Take the violence out of our society, You don't need to take or fear guns, you need to fear the mental misfits who use them in ways they were never intended.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

The purchase of vehicles and military assault weapons are hardly comparable. The purpose for each of these things are so different!One is for transportation,the other to kill.I do not fear the government but those who buy all these assault weapons!! Did you use my name to intiminate me from voicing my opinion? As a retired elementary teacher, I can not imagine our teachers, administrators, playground aids carrying assault weapons to protect students!! The idea is out of the mainstream of the majority of Americans. We are are a Country of laws and do not have the right to do as we please.I do not fear guns...I fear the crazies who think they need these assault weapons!

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

No DCM, I used your name to address you as an individual rather than a faceless entity. Why in the world do you believe I have any desire or need to intimidate you?

You say that the comparison of guns and vehicles cannot be made? Why is that? Are you not aware that far more people are killed on our highways each year than by firearms? Firearm fatalities become almost obscure when compared to the number of deaths on our highways

You are wrong again, Ms Mataya. The purpose of a military assault weapon is not to kill, but rather to injure. A dead man can be left where he falls, while a wounded soldier must be transported to a medical facility by his fellow soldiers. By wounding the opposition, you diminish the number of soldiers left to oppose you at a far greater rate than is possible by killing.

However, I agree with you that the concept of a school official carrying an assault weapon is ludicrous, but I don't believe that anyone has suggested that. Being armed does not mean carrying an M16 or an M60 around, but I don't believe that teachers and administrators carrying firearms around in school is the answer in any case. I suggest that you ma'am do not know what an assault weapon is by definition and therefore confuse yourself and others with your adamant stand against firearms in general..

As for me personally, although you may choose to imply that I am among those "crazies" that you fear, I don't have a preference for the modern military style weapons either, but I don't feel a need or obligation to regulate what others can have if they are properly licensed and trained. What I fear is the "crazies" out there who continue to clamor for and put in place even more restrictive laws out of fear for the actions of others. I submit that the video gaming and entertainment industries give us far more to fear than the weapons manufacturers. They are the ones who instill this violent response mentality in our youth. Why is it that "mainstream" Americans fail to recognize this and continue to blame inanimate objects?

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

The purpose of a gun is determined by its use. A gun can be used to kill, which is a good thing when used in self-defense. A gun can be used in competition. A gun can be used for recreation. A gun can be a collector's hobby. A gun can be used for hunting. A gun can be used for predator control, and for predator protection. So like many inanimate objects, a gun has the potential for illegal misuse or legal multiple uses. The fact that one purpose of a gun can be to kill a human being is both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on the nature of the killing.

In a few states like Ohio and Utah, there are hundreds of teachers who have been taking classes and training since the Connecticut shooting in order to obtain concealed carry permits, with the express purpose of being able to have them at school should the laws permit, which seems likely on a state-by-state and district-by-district basis. So it is plainly obvious that not all teachers agree with your opinion.

It is also the case that there are school districts which have a history of allowing teachers and administrators to carry guns in school. There has also been at least one case in which a wanna-be mass school killer was stopped by an administrator who shot the gomer.

You state that you do not fear guns, and yet your language indicates that you do. You continue to use the term "assault weapons" and create hyperbolic scenarios that indicate that you not only lack an understanding of guns, but also have no trust in your law-abiding fellow citizens to own semi-automatic guns. Since the vast majority of violent gun-related shootings and crimes are done with revolvers and shotguns, not semi-automatic rifles, why are you not concerned about law-abiding folks owning these items?

Many of my friends and family own AR-15 platform rifles. They enjoy using them for target shooting and hunting. They chose that style of rifle not because they "need" it, but because they LIKE it. It is fun to shoot. It is highly accurate. The women enjoy it because it is lighter on the recoil and is easier for them to handle.

When you state that "I fear the crazies who think they need these assault weapons", you have just categorized family and friends, and everyone else who legally owns and enjoys shooting the AR-15 as "crazies". That is not either a factual or a rational opinion.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Part One

Ah, here you are using "deflection" by claiming "deflection". Again, which of the laws that are proposed would have stopped ANY of the school shootings. There are over 42,000 "sensible gun laws" already in existence.. none of which have made a difference in the mind of a deranged gomer. The universally required NICS background check (NRA sponsored and lobbied for) denied the do-bad the ability to purchase a firearm, so the system seemed to work.

Given that the AR-15 platform (which originally was developed as a 'civilian' rifle, and remains a civilian rifle) is the most popular target, sport shooting competition, and hunting rifle in America, and given that gun-haters and hoplophobes wish to ban ALL semi-automatic guns (which equals about 75 to 82% of all recreationally used guns) then contrary to your incorrect assertions, the current administration and many in the government do indeed "want to take guns from true sportsman (sic)".

"Military assault weapons", by which I take it you incorrectly mean AR-15 style rifles, are not being sold to the public. In fact, the AR-15 doesn't even qualify, nor would it be used in the military. By the way, the AR in AR-15 does not stand for "assault rifle", it stands for Armalite Rifle, which is the name of the company which originally produced the AR-15 platform.

By focusing your angst on a rifle mechanism of operation (the semi-automatic) which has been around for the last century, and which has been adopted by millions as the gun of choice for sporting purposes, that you are not even focusing on the type of guns which kills the vast majority of folks in violent crimes? That distinction belongs primarily to the revolver and the shotgun. Which frequently includes the very small .22 caliber round, which no one is talking about banning.

End Part One

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Part Two

You try and argue that you want "sensible gun laws that protect the citizens who chose not to arm themselves." Such an argument is hardly the basis for reason. First of all, what you deem "sensible" is nothing but a subjective opinion. Based on your writings thus far, your opinion is not even based on factual information. My opinion of what is "sensible" is at odds with those things which you have posted which have nothing to do with identifying and keeping guns out of the hands of do-bads. Putting gun restrictions or bans on the backs of rational and law-abiding folks in order to deal with criminals is a non-starter as far as "sensible" is concerned. You want to require everyone at gun shows who purchases a firearm have the NICS background check, that is common ground where I am willing to talk.

Secondly, it is not the gun or the lawful and legal gun owner from which you need protection, it is the parasite who decides to use a gun in order to force his will against you, from which you need protection. The same gomer who would use any and all implements at his or her disposal to force you to do whatever he or she wishes, including the taking of your life.

You wish to do is to exert your right NOT to own a firearm by eliminating the right of gun owners to determine the method by which they choose to protect themselves. However you wish to argue this, yours is not only flagrantly Unconstitutional, but goes against the natural rights which are granted to individuals to defend themselves. You feel that you don't need a gun to protect yourself? Fine. I won't argue with your choice. But by that same token, you have no foundation on which to determine how I will protect myself and my family, which I have had to do in the past.

"There is big money being made selling these military assault weapons and too many crazies purchasing them!!!"

Again, there are no military assault weapons being sold to the general market of civilians. I have no idea why you find the idea of companies making money on an honest and legal and in-demand product a bad thing. And the "crazies" are not allowed, by law, to purchase firearms, just as happened to the gomer in Connecticut.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

Sorry, I do not buy into your argument for military assault weapons. I continue to feel you are the ones to fear, not our government, the responsible sportsman or the ones who feel a hand gun is necessary for protection for any reason. We are still a Country of laws and our rights are limited.Other Countries that have strict gun laws also have the same video games, movies and access to the internet as our citizens do. Yet, deaths from guns are rare.These Countries also have the mentally ill! I continue to feel the group who advocates military weapons are the dangerous ones in our society. They certainly do not fit my definition of a sportsman.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

OK, here's another thought for you DCM. Since you believe that while "military" style weapons should be banned but "sportsmen" should be allowed to own and use their weapons of choice, I'll assume that you would consider a 12 guage shotgun to be something that there is no reason to fear. Have you ever heard of "double ought buckshot"? A 12 guage double ought round chambers in and can be fired from any 12 guage shotgun. Are you aware that most semi-auto shotguns will hold five rounds, but that our laws here in WA limit magazine capacity to two rounds plus one in the chamber while hunting upland birds and waterfowl. That limit is achieved by simply inserting a wooden "plug" in the magazine. Are you further aware of the makeup of a 12 guage double ought round? It contains nine approximately .30 caliber lead balls in each round. That means that one can take the "plug" out of that seemingly innocuous sporting gun and turn it into a weapon that can place forty-five .30 caliber projectiles downrange as fast as you can pull the trigger five times. That's 1-1/2 times as many bullets down range with 1/6th the number of trigger pulls than a legally owned AR-15 with a thirty round magazine is capable of firing. That seems to put a lot of holes in your "sportsman" argument in my mind. Sorry, but I do not buy into your argument for a ban of military "style" weapons either.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

You have now confirmed the points I made to you in my previous posts. Thank you.

It is difficult to have a meaningful debate with someone who is willing to ignore logic in favor of fear. The fact that you say that you "fear me" without even knowing me, is an example of why you, and hoplophobes like you, have nothing meaningful to add to a proper debate.

I am certainly not asking you to ".. buy into your argument..". I am not arguing with you, I am refuting your hyperbole and incorrect information for the benefit of those who glance through this thread. Nor does my information become less valid simply because you chose not to "buy into it". That is the rhetorical equivalent of shutting one's eyes, plugging one's ears, and shouting "lalalalalalalala". It is well within your right to ignore facts and logic; what you cannot do is use your fear as the basis for banning an historic class of firearms from the law-abiding citizenry.

You claim that you are OK, ie you do not "fear", those who have handguns for self-defense. But the vast, vast, majority of gun homicides are committed with handguns. Most of the mass school shooting were either perpetrated with handguns or shotguns, not AR-15s. Very, very few AR-15s have ever been used for murder. In addition, the majority of handguns used use a semi-automatic mechanism, the same type of mechanism as an AR-15.

In countries where firearms a strictly regulated, gun-related murders are relatively rare. It would be strange if they were not. Yet, as in the UK, the rate of gun deaths prior to a ban was already rare in comparison to the US. What the statistics show is that the rate of gun related murders is actually higher post ban than pre ban. Not only that, but the rate of murders from all instruments has continued to grow. Great Britain now suffers the highest violent crime rate of all western nations, including the US. So violent crime and gun deaths have increased despite the type of regulations which you endorse. So yes, even in those countries that you point to as examples, the mentally ill and the criminals still prey on the weak, the innocent, and the unprotected.

"I continue to feel the group who advocates military weapons are the dangerous ones in our society.*"

Since I have not advocated military weapons for civilians, your comment makes no sense.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

What! What! Be more concise!!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

How much more concise do you need him to be? No matter...you still wouldn't get it.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

The only reason to be even more concise than I was would be either a problem with the level of attention spans, or to hobble myself from making an effective rebuttal. I do not find either to be a problem on my end.

Chuck 4 months, 1 week ago

George Luger, an American, patented his semi-automatic sidearm in the late 19th century, and had it on the market here in the early 20th.

Remington offered semi-automatic hunting rifles early in the 20th century.

This notion that the semi-automatic hasn't been around very long is pure, unadulterated, weapons-grade cow-flop.

And nevermind that at 3 aimed shots/minute, the Brown Bess muskets used in the Revolutionay War were the "AK-47's" of their day. Additonally we had rifled barrels then too, used by snipers-the infamous "Brown Shirts"-whom the Brits decried as "unsporting."

When the Second Amendment was penned, the everyday American could purchase the state-of-the-art military grade arm of his choosing.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

well for one, we didn't grow medicated by the large pharmaceutical companies that create drugs that severely alter ones mental state. Secondly we grew up responsible for our own actions and were not victims of anything expect our own bad judgment. These people need to leave the inanimate objects out of the equation and go after the root cause. Oh wait, that's right the members of congress probably get nice kickbacks from these companies. It is either that or the presidents handlers really do want us unarmed so we cannot stop the take over of this country.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

"You have now confirmed the points I made to you in my previous posts. Thank you."

I suspect your efforts and mine fall on deaf ears Dave. I'm going to attempt to post a cartoon that was passed to me today. It seems to reflect DCM's philosophy to a "T" so I hope it works.

by Jim Buhring

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

It does hit the target.

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Perfect. Pretty much sums up the mindset of the left.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

Left of what? This is NOT a Republican or Democratic issue. It is about Americans being gunned down in malls, theaters, schools with these high powered assault weapons! Weapons that are capable of killing many citizens before they can be stopped!!! If you think this is okaY...SO BE IT!

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Thank you for illustrating my point. As you can clearly see in the cartoon, the victim is in equally a bad way as a result of the misuse of all of the inanimate objects ie: the club, the rope, the knife and the gun. Why are you not advocating the banning of any weapons besides the gun?

I didn't say it was a democrat or a republican issue, those are your words, but let's be honest...it is usually those on the left (usually liberals & usually democrats) that take the stance as portrayed in the cartoon.

DCM 4 months, 1 week ago

This shows what? An assault weapon kills many citizens very quickly, before they can be stopped!! People who advocate these assault weapons are not serious sportsman. Hope the Court decides soon on the legallity of these weapons. Anthony Scalia will play a part in the Court's decision. Joe Scarboro, Republican represenative (past)is the one who coined the phrase "crazies" to describe your group who advocates for the use of these weapons. The Wenatchee World's recent piece appears to walk the line.
No, Jim you and I will never agree on this issue.

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

"This shows what?"

Surely Ms. Mataya, you are not that dense. If you can't figure out what this cartoon is saying/showing, I'm amazed that you were once an educator.Do we really need to explain it to you? Should we explain the meaning of ". . . shall not be infringed" as well?

JimboBear 4 months, 1 week ago

" An assault weapon kills many citizens very quickly . . ."

No it does not. An assault weapon (if they were readily available to begin with) just lays there and does nothing because it is an inanimate object. However, when some nut case who probably should have been hospitalized rather than dumbed down by pharmaceutical products picks one up and uses it in a manner seen fit only in the minds of the mentally ill or the entertainment industry, then it is a very effective tool to use in carrying out their deranged fantasies. I'm wondering if we perhaps need to get that set of crazies off our streets so the average citizen doesn't have to worry about encountering mad shooters in the course of enjoying their lives.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

Most, if not all, of the over 500 gun deaths in Chicago last month were committed with handguns and shotguns. The same is true of all but a tiny fraction of gun-related deaths. You claim you are ok with "serious sportsman(sic)" having the types of guns which are used by the criminals and insane to kill folks (mostly other criminals), but you want to ban the style of gun that is used, with few exceptions, for sporting and recreation? How very odd.

sourtellinme 4 months, 1 week ago

The last box in the cartoon should have at least five or six bodies down to make it more realistic

kyook 4 months, 1 week ago

Why? Aren't knives, ropes, and clubs capable of producing multiple victims? Is the man weilding the rope, knife, club less deranged than the gun holder? Are you assuming that the shooter fired more than once or has a mental issue that would induce him to shoot several people at random for no other reason than to satisfy his deranged need to produce mass carnage? If that's the case, the other guy in the cartoon had better be able to defend himself PDQ, the right to which some would prefer to deny him.

davebugg 4 months, 1 week ago

The cartoon is quite accurate in both its practical and political interpretation. The argument that it takes a gun to accomplish a mass killing, or that banning AR-15 style sport rifles would eliminate mass killings, is pure propaganda by hoplophobes and gun-haters to take advantage of tragedies in order to further their own agendas.

Knives have been used in multiple mass killings, in schools and in public places.

From Wikipedia On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping, Fujian province; The attack was widely reported in Chinese media (called 南平实验小学重大凶杀案), sparking fears of copycat crimes. Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.

Then we have the killer in Tokyo who plowed a truck into pedestrians, got out and, using a knife, killed seven people and wounded 10.

Again in Japan, this time in Osaka, a man went into a school and killed eight children mainly aged seven and eight, and seriously wounding thirteen other children and two teachers.

We can also bring up the largest killing of school children in an American school (no, it wasn't Connecticut) where explosives were used. It occurred in Bath Township, Michigan. Thirty-eight elementary school children and six adults were killed, and 58 other people were injured.

Explosives were also a primary component of the Columbine killings, where the do-bads had planted many explosives and bombs. In that incident NO AR-15 sport rifles or "assault weapons" of the type that are proposed to be banned were used, only shotguns and pistols and a low magazine capacity pistol-grade carbine. PLEASE NOTE: Columbine is the perfect example of why the liberal's proposal to ban all magazines over 10-rounds in capacity is profoundly silly. Harris carried thirteen 10-round magazines from which he fired about 100 rounds over the course of the hour or so of the siege.

lonedog3 4 months, 1 week ago

Let's ban the bad medications that really are the cause of all this carnage.

maxpress 4 months, 1 week ago

The straw purchases in southern states? The ddrug cartels are in a panic over money lost from legalizing marijuana and said they need a new money maker. they have found it waiting for America to ban guns. You can buy a crate of AK47's in columbia for $250 then run them up here and sell them for $600 a piece. You have the direction the guns are going wrong. Sounds like CNN.

By the way. The second amendment had nothing to do with hunting and everything to do with protection of its citecens.

j007rmc 4 months, 1 week ago

Too many bleeding heart liberals in this country so assault rifles are banned for legal sale and ownership to the general public, so what is next? Responsible gun owners should not suffer for the atrocities of the mentally ill. I stand firm on my constitutional right as an American to own and bear firearms (assault) rifles included. Please read your constitutional rights for those who disagree, pray you carry a firearm if in the event you ever need to bear it.

lonedog3 4 months ago

Just recently a gang member was caught with a "AK-47" no pictures so some doubt is there. This gang member has a list of criminal offenses, weapons related, and is still on the street. WHY? Who among us honestly believes this gang member, a criminal, would have registered his weapon or turned it in? Does anyone feel that he would have submitted to a background check? All the current administration is doing is passing laws, by by-passing congress using "executive orders" which also by-passes our constitution, to disarm the citizens on this nation. No one could possibility that dense or brainwashed to think otherwise. Question why the liberal left is exploiting the deaths of so many due to over medicated lunatics? Why do they refuse to go after the pharmaceutical companies marketing bad drugs that cause this carnage? Listen to any drug ad on TV and pay attention to the side effects.

sourtellinme 4 months ago

Because of the billions we give them. Money rules. The only way they can be stopped is to stop taking their product. It's a free counrty. As long as there is no specific laws saying a company can't make a product, and the pubic buys it, anything is game. That's the way greedy,not honest, capitalism works. If there is no problem or need,create one,get rich,then get richer selling us the cure to the problem they created.