Perhaps the only legal weapons should be the kind that existed at the time the second amendment was written?
This would sure limit (only if truly enforced) mass shootings. By the time you got off your first shot and then went through the same loading procedure that they had to use to reload a flintlock mechanism, someone would sure as heck tackle you and put you down!!
Even with semi-autos, it’s when they run out of ammo they get taken down as they try to change clips/magazines. The more they have at one loading, the more people die. Civilians now have magazines that hold twice what ours did in ‘Nam, and we don’t call them “military” or “assault” weapons???
And how would that have prevented the school shooting? If teachers have firearms in the classroom, how can they kee them handy enough to be drawn quickly without being too easy for the children to get hold of one? Or maybe you want some of the kids to pack heat.Seriously, the shooter and his mother WERE law – abiding citizens! The mother bought the weapons legally, and was trained in using them. She just didn’t need a Bushmaster for self defense. And if she hadn’t been allowed to own one, her son wouldn’t have had it.You conservatives are pathetic.
As one who appreciates pistols, shotguns, and rifles, I have still always spoken against the ownership of military grade weapons in the hands of unregulated civilians unless they had special licenses as collectors or as members of police auxiliary or national guard. I have always been totally against clips holding more than 10 rounds. As one who once lived in a rural community with one sheriff overseeing a large area, I know how weapons for home defense can also be important Perhaps Mortyfortyrant can help me with this…On my visit to Germany in 2008, I believe I was told that anyone who wanted to own a firearm had to take a mandatory class on care, use, storage, etc. I was given the impression it was a pretty in depth course.In Virginia, you can go to a Gun show, they have several in my area per year, and without a background check waiting period, or training, walk away with a weapon that can shoot through walls.Guns don’t kill people, People kill people. This is true. But a 30 round clip makes people able to kill A LOT of people, and THAT is what we need to change. No one person should be able to kill so many people before having to reload.The only argument against this come from those who say we need these weapons to defend against a US government that turns on its own people, or so said Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. Mr. Pratt is certain that guns in the hands of citizens will protect us from dictatorship, voter fraud, and other ills.If we descend into that level of civil war, the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer apply and the USA will no longer exist except as a name. I don’t believe in this scenario.Gun control is not a gun ban. It is like speed control on the highways, or laws requiring seat belts and not texting while driving. It allows you to do what you want and need to do without being a danger to your community.Respectfully, but sadly,C.
Toles’ only problem is a complete lack of basic knowledge of the subject: NO fully automatic weapon was used in any of the civilian massacres. They sometimes appear in drug gang wars, and of course the cops and military use them all the time.
It doesn’t matter where you stand on an issue, if you are going to keppep from appearing the fool, you must learn the basics of the subject matter.
I don’t understand hwo people can focus on gun control while ignoring the real issue and that is people with serious mental health problems not getting the help they need.
Of coruse people don’t want to think that their children, spouse or friends might have some mental health problems
It appears that even the gun advocates in this forum agree that civilians should not own the kind of guns illustrated in this cartoon, and are happy with that fact present law makes it difficult and expensive to do so. They aren’t complaining about the laws that limit the ownership of fully automatic weapons! They favor that sort of gun control! So why do they complain about a cartoon they agree with? Right now there are TOO MANY gun laws. Mostly because the ones we have are so convoluted and full of holes, as well as being state laws, federal laws, local rules. Fewer, simpler, and more effective would be better. Why should it be easier to buy a lethal weapon than to adopt a puppy from a shelter? Why should guns be looked upon as grownup playthings? Does requiring someone to register, maintain, insure, and get a operator’s license for his car deny him the right to move about freely? With 80,000,000 gun owners in this country, and 300,000,000 privately owned guns, how can it be said that there just aren’t enough guns in America? How many more guns would it take to make us safer? Consider the recent successes in Australia and South Africa in reducing violence. Consider that most adult makes in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq owned AK47s. Are Australian less safe because they have fewer guns and stricter laws today? Are South Africans? Did widespread gun ownership in Iraq make the country more free? Guns ought to be treated with respect, and the laws designed to improve public safety: in some places at some times that may mean more guns, in many others, fewer or different guns. This isn’t an all or nothing proposition.
@rightisright… Promise us that you’ll tell us how you feel should a tragic event like this ever happen to your child or grandchild? I’d be interested to see if your position shifts….
Try 300. Even your number (50,000) is 150% higher than most gun nuts would say:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/how-many-gun-laws-are-there-study-disputes-20000-number
These tragedies are probably not like a scene out of Burn Notice or the A-Team. Automatic weapons fire all around and explosions.
It is usually one lone person that has lost it.
It is usually not the state or the system that has failed these people. There is only so much time, money, personnel, and resources.
Friends, acquaintances, family stand a better chance. But most of us are busy rolled up in our own pain and problems.
But yes all of these could work better and harder and maybe catch a few more that would have fallen between the cracks.
But still there will be a few.
Really it does not matter that he used a gun. It does not matter what the rate of fire is. Clip size may make a difference. (But then there are people who will just mod there own. So really that isn’t an argument either.) Whether he used a bomb knife or rock… does not matter.
Imagine the possible devastation if he had driven a car or truck into that school. Loaded with a fertilizer bomb.
It happened. It is going to happen. The best we can do is for everyone to try and be vigilant and try and stop it before it starts.
I think a hug, a smile, or specifically a friend might have prevented most of these. We human beings do not treat each other well. And that may be the truest biggest tragedy.
What type of weapon is Toles drawing? If it’s an automatic assault weapon like the M16, it fires 700 to 900 rounds per minute. The caption doesn’t say that it’s the Connecticut shooter’s weapon.
You conservatives are pointless. If you had the guts to allow the enforcement of half those gun laws you claim, we wouldn"t need the other half. This is too difficult a concept for conservatives to grasp.
“Mr Toles, this is a lie. No weapon available to the public can fire 60+ rounds a second. You sir, mislead people, as liberals always do. Get help.”Mr. Toles say nothing about 60 rounds/second. You, Sir, owe Mr. Toles an apoogy.
The right to bear arms has more to do with protecting the citizenry than overthrowing the government. If another Hitler arose and wanted to exterminate Jews, blacks, hispanics it would be prohibitive with a well armed population.
Private ownership of military weapons severely endangers tyrants and criminals. That’s why there is a second amendment— and why the people who drafted it would rather accept the dangers of private ownership was simple: They had faced the British government, the army had gone house to house, raiding, and imprisoning those who failed to appease them.
Robert Landers: You left out the big blue-gray cloud to let everyone know where you are! My guns are “original intent” weapons: a .54 cal. rifle and a 32 ga. double barrel shotgun. Unfortunately, global warming, urbanization, and other factors have reduced quail numbers and the white-tails are about the size of a large dog, so there is not much use for them. Now if someone can guarantee me a shot at the feral hog problem here abouts, I might get a chance to use one. A 30 second reload time (if you are in practice) is ample time to charge an assassin.
First of all, this kid did not “shoot his mother and then take her guns”. He had to have had at least one of her guns to shoot her. Knowing that she had both a troubled kid and 3 very lethal guns in her house, you’d think that she would have them locked up where he could not get to them. This is one of my gripes with so many “pro gun” advocates. I’m not against owning guns, but am 100% against careless people not taking 100% responsibility for their guns.
I had a discussion about guns recently with a friend who has over 20 years of experience with the FBI. We were talking about gun owners taking their guns out in public for their own protection, or in the chance that they may be able to stop some other crime. He said that he was surprised and disappointed that so many had so little respect for the intense gun training that people in law enforcement must undergo. Imagine that you are carrying a gun while at your local Starbucks while someone comes in to rob it at gunpoint. Not only do you have to know how to shoot accurately. You also have to know when and when not to use it. If you miss, are you likely to hit an innocent bystander? What are the odds that the robber will take the money and leave without firing a shot? What if the robber sees your gun, panics and then starts shooting? A big part of law enforcement gun training is knowing when NOT to use it. Few if any gun owners outside of law enforcement have this training.
Note that I am not talking at all about owning a gun for protection in your home. I am ONLY talking about taking a gun out of the home and into a public place.
Funny how it the “good people” comitting these thing – until ofc. after they commit them then they are “bad people”. So looking at what you say then that would only cause more cases like this.
•There is no point in outlawing guns. They are out there, there are millions, they are made of metal and will last for a thousand years if they are kept oiled. Failing that, I could find materials in my basement that would produce a workable gun, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of the subject to figure out how to do it.
Bullets, on the other hand, are time consuming to make and require specific equipment. Production of enough to do serious damage would require planning and patience that are not characteristic of those who shoot up elementary schools. And, working on such a project might attract the attention of someone sane. Bullets can be individually stamped, and their sale can be registered, so that every bullet can be traced back to the person who purchased it. This way, a guy who wants to buy a couple boxes of bullets to go shoot deer, or the woman who wants a box to keep with the gun in her bedside drawer, won’t set off any warning bells. But the guy who is buying an arsenal will attract attention before he finds a more lethal way to do it.
Wow, how can spend your life living being so fearful of everything? You’re afraid of guns, you’re afraid of knives AND you sleep with hornet spray? .Here’s one for your nightmares, what if the person breaks in quietly, brings his own knife, and uses your hornet spray against you?
please…PLEASE…PLEASE STOP USING LIBERAL AS A SWEAR WORD!
I’m an old time liberal who believes everyone should live and let live. I am anti-totalitarian whether it’s left wing or right wing. .By equating left wing totalitarianism with liberalism we are losing what liberalism really is. It’s anti totalitarianism, not anti conservative.
Guy from the CATO Institute was on NPR yesterday, stating more or less that we can’t control it,as it’s too immense, there are over 250,000 violent incidents each year in US. But he never said GUN incidents. There are 100,000 GUN incidents each year. The rest are fists, clubs, knives, etc. Any guesses on how many MULTIPLE murders are committed in those other acts? I remember Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower massacre. Nothing was done then, and he was just using a high power rifle. Guns don’t kill, people kill. But they always leave out the qualifier: WITH GUNS!
Did you all know that 19 children died at the hands of Tim McVeigh at the OKC bombing. To this day it is still legal to rent a U-haul, buy racing fuel and fertilzer.
Drugs have been illegal for years, yet they take lives and ruin lives every day. The 2009 drug related deaths were 37,792 for drugs as compared to 11,493 gun deaths in crimes/18,217 suicides (29,710 gun related deaths). In 2010, 10,228 people were killed by drunk drivers (Source: MADD) vs. 11,493 gun related deaths (Source: CDC) in 2009
So to a liberal legalizing drugs would amount to sane policy and a “right” even though the stats show they are more harmful than guns.
No one has the right to tell me how and what I can use to protect my life and the lives of my family.
Oddly, my comment made no mention of banning weapons nor of preventing gun-related deaths, or even drunk driving. Thus I am forced to believe your reply to be a rubberstamped arguement to be applied at the drop of an opposing viewpoint. Keep in mind that if the gun laws were as well enforced as the ones covering alcoholic beverages, we’d have stood a better chance of this rampage not happening.
frodo1008 over 11 years ago
Perhaps the only legal weapons should be the kind that existed at the time the second amendment was written?
This would sure limit (only if truly enforced) mass shootings. By the time you got off your first shot and then went through the same loading procedure that they had to use to reload a flintlock mechanism, someone would sure as heck tackle you and put you down!!
Oh well, just dreaming, I guess…….
Dtroutma over 11 years ago
Even with semi-autos, it’s when they run out of ammo they get taken down as they try to change clips/magazines. The more they have at one loading, the more people die. Civilians now have magazines that hold twice what ours did in ‘Nam, and we don’t call them “military” or “assault” weapons???
jnik23260 over 11 years ago
And how would that have prevented the school shooting? If teachers have firearms in the classroom, how can they kee them handy enough to be drawn quickly without being too easy for the children to get hold of one? Or maybe you want some of the kids to pack heat.Seriously, the shooter and his mother WERE law – abiding citizens! The mother bought the weapons legally, and was trained in using them. She just didn’t need a Bushmaster for self defense. And if she hadn’t been allowed to own one, her son wouldn’t have had it.You conservatives are pathetic.
sjc14850 over 11 years ago
Ad hominem attacks are pointless, but if they make you feel better…
Anyway, NOBODY needs a weapon that fires hundreds of rounds a minute. Nobody.
trantor0815 over 11 years ago
@rightisrightyou make it too easy for yourself. Fight Fire with Fire. Maybe you wouldn’t need that if you don’t give everyone a lighter.
Nobody need such weapons for hunting deers, bears etc. They are only build for man-hunt
runar over 11 years ago
Anybody who needs an assault weapon to shoot a deer doesn’t deserve a hunting permit.
chazandru over 11 years ago
As one who appreciates pistols, shotguns, and rifles, I have still always spoken against the ownership of military grade weapons in the hands of unregulated civilians unless they had special licenses as collectors or as members of police auxiliary or national guard. I have always been totally against clips holding more than 10 rounds. As one who once lived in a rural community with one sheriff overseeing a large area, I know how weapons for home defense can also be important Perhaps Mortyfortyrant can help me with this…On my visit to Germany in 2008, I believe I was told that anyone who wanted to own a firearm had to take a mandatory class on care, use, storage, etc. I was given the impression it was a pretty in depth course.In Virginia, you can go to a Gun show, they have several in my area per year, and without a background check waiting period, or training, walk away with a weapon that can shoot through walls.Guns don’t kill people, People kill people. This is true. But a 30 round clip makes people able to kill A LOT of people, and THAT is what we need to change. No one person should be able to kill so many people before having to reload.The only argument against this come from those who say we need these weapons to defend against a US government that turns on its own people, or so said Larry Pratt, the executive director of Gun Owners of America. Mr. Pratt is certain that guns in the hands of citizens will protect us from dictatorship, voter fraud, and other ills.If we descend into that level of civil war, the Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer apply and the USA will no longer exist except as a name. I don’t believe in this scenario.Gun control is not a gun ban. It is like speed control on the highways, or laws requiring seat belts and not texting while driving. It allows you to do what you want and need to do without being a danger to your community.Respectfully, but sadly,C.
badgerman over 11 years ago
Toles’ only problem is a complete lack of basic knowledge of the subject: NO fully automatic weapon was used in any of the civilian massacres. They sometimes appear in drug gang wars, and of course the cops and military use them all the time.
It doesn’t matter where you stand on an issue, if you are going to keppep from appearing the fool, you must learn the basics of the subject matter.
douthett72 over 11 years ago
I don’t understand hwo people can focus on gun control while ignoring the real issue and that is people with serious mental health problems not getting the help they need.
Of coruse people don’t want to think that their children, spouse or friends might have some mental health problems
Doughfoot over 11 years ago
It appears that even the gun advocates in this forum agree that civilians should not own the kind of guns illustrated in this cartoon, and are happy with that fact present law makes it difficult and expensive to do so. They aren’t complaining about the laws that limit the ownership of fully automatic weapons! They favor that sort of gun control! So why do they complain about a cartoon they agree with? Right now there are TOO MANY gun laws. Mostly because the ones we have are so convoluted and full of holes, as well as being state laws, federal laws, local rules. Fewer, simpler, and more effective would be better. Why should it be easier to buy a lethal weapon than to adopt a puppy from a shelter? Why should guns be looked upon as grownup playthings? Does requiring someone to register, maintain, insure, and get a operator’s license for his car deny him the right to move about freely? With 80,000,000 gun owners in this country, and 300,000,000 privately owned guns, how can it be said that there just aren’t enough guns in America? How many more guns would it take to make us safer? Consider the recent successes in Australia and South Africa in reducing violence. Consider that most adult makes in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq owned AK47s. Are Australian less safe because they have fewer guns and stricter laws today? Are South Africans? Did widespread gun ownership in Iraq make the country more free? Guns ought to be treated with respect, and the laws designed to improve public safety: in some places at some times that may mean more guns, in many others, fewer or different guns. This isn’t an all or nothing proposition.
ajnotales over 11 years ago
@rightisright… Promise us that you’ll tell us how you feel should a tragic event like this ever happen to your child or grandchild? I’d be interested to see if your position shifts….
SClark55 Premium Member over 11 years ago
Toles, there is one other reason, believe it or not, but there’s the SHOOTER!
ARodney over 11 years ago
Yes, but the modification for AR-15s is simple, and a lot of people have done it. Toles is perfectly correct.
ossiningaling over 11 years ago
Try 300. Even your number (50,000) is 150% higher than most gun nuts would say:http://cnsnews.com/news/article/how-many-gun-laws-are-there-study-disputes-20000-number
BBWolf128 over 11 years ago
These tragedies are probably not like a scene out of Burn Notice or the A-Team. Automatic weapons fire all around and explosions.
It is usually one lone person that has lost it.
It is usually not the state or the system that has failed these people. There is only so much time, money, personnel, and resources.
Friends, acquaintances, family stand a better chance. But most of us are busy rolled up in our own pain and problems.
But yes all of these could work better and harder and maybe catch a few more that would have fallen between the cracks.
But still there will be a few.
Really it does not matter that he used a gun. It does not matter what the rate of fire is. Clip size may make a difference. (But then there are people who will just mod there own. So really that isn’t an argument either.) Whether he used a bomb knife or rock… does not matter.
Imagine the possible devastation if he had driven a car or truck into that school. Loaded with a fertilizer bomb.
It happened. It is going to happen. The best we can do is for everyone to try and be vigilant and try and stop it before it starts.
I think a hug, a smile, or specifically a friend might have prevented most of these. We human beings do not treat each other well. And that may be the truest biggest tragedy.
DavidGBA over 11 years ago
It was SEMI-automatic, doofus. Bad enough, the truth!
lafayetteann over 11 years ago
What type of weapon is Toles drawing? If it’s an automatic assault weapon like the M16, it fires 700 to 900 rounds per minute. The caption doesn’t say that it’s the Connecticut shooter’s weapon.
danketaz Premium Member over 11 years ago
You conservatives are pointless. If you had the guts to allow the enforcement of half those gun laws you claim, we wouldn"t need the other half. This is too difficult a concept for conservatives to grasp.
Justice22 over 11 years ago
“Mr Toles, this is a lie. No weapon available to the public can fire 60+ rounds a second. You sir, mislead people, as liberals always do. Get help.”Mr. Toles say nothing about 60 rounds/second. You, Sir, owe Mr. Toles an apoogy.
echoraven over 11 years ago
The right to bear arms has more to do with protecting the citizenry than overthrowing the government. If another Hitler arose and wanted to exterminate Jews, blacks, hispanics it would be prohibitive with a well armed population.
colcam over 11 years ago
Private ownership of military weapons severely endangers tyrants and criminals. That’s why there is a second amendment— and why the people who drafted it would rather accept the dangers of private ownership was simple: They had faced the British government, the army had gone house to house, raiding, and imprisoning those who failed to appease them.
hippogriff over 11 years ago
Robert Landers: You left out the big blue-gray cloud to let everyone know where you are! My guns are “original intent” weapons: a .54 cal. rifle and a 32 ga. double barrel shotgun. Unfortunately, global warming, urbanization, and other factors have reduced quail numbers and the white-tails are about the size of a large dog, so there is not much use for them. Now if someone can guarantee me a shot at the feral hog problem here abouts, I might get a chance to use one. A 30 second reload time (if you are in practice) is ample time to charge an assassin.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
First of all, this kid did not “shoot his mother and then take her guns”. He had to have had at least one of her guns to shoot her. Knowing that she had both a troubled kid and 3 very lethal guns in her house, you’d think that she would have them locked up where he could not get to them. This is one of my gripes with so many “pro gun” advocates. I’m not against owning guns, but am 100% against careless people not taking 100% responsibility for their guns.
Marty Z over 11 years ago
I had a discussion about guns recently with a friend who has over 20 years of experience with the FBI. We were talking about gun owners taking their guns out in public for their own protection, or in the chance that they may be able to stop some other crime. He said that he was surprised and disappointed that so many had so little respect for the intense gun training that people in law enforcement must undergo. Imagine that you are carrying a gun while at your local Starbucks while someone comes in to rob it at gunpoint. Not only do you have to know how to shoot accurately. You also have to know when and when not to use it. If you miss, are you likely to hit an innocent bystander? What are the odds that the robber will take the money and leave without firing a shot? What if the robber sees your gun, panics and then starts shooting? A big part of law enforcement gun training is knowing when NOT to use it. Few if any gun owners outside of law enforcement have this training.
Note that I am not talking at all about owning a gun for protection in your home. I am ONLY talking about taking a gun out of the home and into a public place.
Tue Elung-Jensen over 11 years ago
Funny how it the “good people” comitting these thing – until ofc. after they commit them then they are “bad people”. So looking at what you say then that would only cause more cases like this.
Diane Lee Premium Member over 11 years ago
•There is no point in outlawing guns. They are out there, there are millions, they are made of metal and will last for a thousand years if they are kept oiled. Failing that, I could find materials in my basement that would produce a workable gun, and it doesn’t take much knowledge of the subject to figure out how to do it.
Bullets, on the other hand, are time consuming to make and require specific equipment. Production of enough to do serious damage would require planning and patience that are not characteristic of those who shoot up elementary schools. And, working on such a project might attract the attention of someone sane. Bullets can be individually stamped, and their sale can be registered, so that every bullet can be traced back to the person who purchased it. This way, a guy who wants to buy a couple boxes of bullets to go shoot deer, or the woman who wants a box to keep with the gun in her bedside drawer, won’t set off any warning bells. But the guy who is buying an arsenal will attract attention before he finds a more lethal way to do it.
Rickapolis over 11 years ago
Latest asinine argument from the gun lobby: No use passing new guns laws, criminals disobey them.
Rottiluv over 11 years ago
Wow, how can spend your life living being so fearful of everything? You’re afraid of guns, you’re afraid of knives AND you sleep with hornet spray? .Here’s one for your nightmares, what if the person breaks in quietly, brings his own knife, and uses your hornet spray against you?
Rottiluv over 11 years ago
please…PLEASE…PLEASE STOP USING LIBERAL AS A SWEAR WORD!
I’m an old time liberal who believes everyone should live and let live. I am anti-totalitarian whether it’s left wing or right wing. .By equating left wing totalitarianism with liberalism we are losing what liberalism really is. It’s anti totalitarianism, not anti conservative.
avalanche289 over 11 years ago
so rightisright How’d that work for Sandy Hook?
edward thomas Premium Member over 11 years ago
Guy from the CATO Institute was on NPR yesterday, stating more or less that we can’t control it,as it’s too immense, there are over 250,000 violent incidents each year in US. But he never said GUN incidents. There are 100,000 GUN incidents each year. The rest are fists, clubs, knives, etc. Any guesses on how many MULTIPLE murders are committed in those other acts? I remember Charles Whitman and the Texas Tower massacre. Nothing was done then, and he was just using a high power rifle. Guns don’t kill, people kill. But they always leave out the qualifier: WITH GUNS!
Marty Z over 11 years ago
All the more reason she should have kept her guns locked up. I’m not sure what your point is.
duckmansmoon over 11 years ago
Did you all know that 19 children died at the hands of Tim McVeigh at the OKC bombing. To this day it is still legal to rent a U-haul, buy racing fuel and fertilzer.
Drugs have been illegal for years, yet they take lives and ruin lives every day. The 2009 drug related deaths were 37,792 for drugs as compared to 11,493 gun deaths in crimes/18,217 suicides (29,710 gun related deaths). In 2010, 10,228 people were killed by drunk drivers (Source: MADD) vs. 11,493 gun related deaths (Source: CDC) in 2009
So to a liberal legalizing drugs would amount to sane policy and a “right” even though the stats show they are more harmful than guns.
No one has the right to tell me how and what I can use to protect my life and the lives of my family.
danketaz Premium Member over 11 years ago
Oddly, my comment made no mention of banning weapons nor of preventing gun-related deaths, or even drunk driving. Thus I am forced to believe your reply to be a rubberstamped arguement to be applied at the drop of an opposing viewpoint. Keep in mind that if the gun laws were as well enforced as the ones covering alcoholic beverages, we’d have stood a better chance of this rampage not happening.
kaffekup over 11 years ago
Right, let’s have 330 million people examined and lock up the ones we don’t like, right? You’d be ok with that?