Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Obama's Chicago is off to a great start... #1 with a bullet.


How many of the 'gun deaths' occurred in city/states
that have highly restrictive gun ownership laws?

Denny's corporate policy welcomes any law enforcement officer to carry his or her weapon.

I suppose it just stands to reason that you would be stupid enough to stand there and let someone threatening you with a knife or gasoline walk up to you.

How many people hunt deer with knives or swords? Why do you think guns are the preferred method over hand held cutting tools?

I think you are confused MM. He never states the Communist party was illegal. He said membership was illegal. In fact many members were prosecuted under the Smith act for promoting violent overthrow of the government. They used Marx's writings to prosecute them. They didn't require testimony that they were actually promoting a violent overthrow.

I suppose we could use the Smith act to prosecute NRA members under the same scenario. Simply use the writings of NRA members that have advocated they need the guns to protect themselves from an overreaching government.

Perhaps you should read what the author wrote MM.

You obviously didn't look at them MM when you claimed only 50% were by guns
68% of murders were with guns.

I would say that something that is used 68% of the time is the most common murder weapon, wouldn't you MM?

Total murders - 12664
Total firearms - 8583

Can you think at all, or are you so limited you have to confine yourself to meaningless statements?

Your comment is as idiotic as saying there are no cancer deaths as cancer is just one of the diseases that can cause death, but it's not the actual cause of death.
And, why bother to treat cancer, since people will wind up dying from something else anyway.

Your failure to acknowledge the reality and actuality of gun violence in our country, let alone to care about it, or its effects on public health and safety, really removes you from the discussion. You simply have nothing to contribute, and that's been evident in your posts throughout this thread.

The dialogue that has to take place, on a national level, will involve those responsible gun owners who do realize the problem with gun violence, and who do want to see it addressed--and there are many such responsible gun owners. Those like you, who delight in the current run on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition clips, and who then claim that our infatuation with guns is too massive, or too deeply ingrained in our culture, to even attempt to control, obviously have nothing to offer or bring to the table.

There is a reason you want to carry a gun rather than other types of weapons to allegedly protect yourself, yet you persist in your nonsensical, and hypocritical, elaborations of how many other methods there are of killing people. Well, if those other methods and "tools" are so easily portable and carried, and so equally efficient, why don't you trade in your gun and use one of them?

In the drunk driving thread you advocated raising the legal BAC level above .08--because you don't think people are sufficiently impaired at that level, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And, just as raising the BAC is an illogical, and irrational, way to address the drunk driving problem, promoting the ownership of even more guns, to address an existing problem with gun violence, is equally illogical and irrational--you don't end gun violence by having more gunfights.

Fortunately, there are enough responsible gun owners in this country, including those who sit in our state and federal legislatures, to engage in a meaningful and productive discussion on how we can better control and contain our problems with gun violence. People like you, who really have nothing at all to contribute, and who can't even admit the problem, will simply be ignored in that real-life discussion, and will be left to remain as another meaningless voice on an insignificant Web site.

Gun By-Back program fact:
Liberals would need to buy-back 65 thousand guns in order to 'save' one single life.

Gun By-Back program fact:
Criminals do not participate in gun 'buy-back' programs, they just note who is no longer armed.

You forgot bows man.
I hunt with my bow most the time, especially in the beginning of the season to not spook the deers. Guns are only preferred for long range hunting, at least for me. I'm trying to pass my previous record of 951 yards kill and hoping to get a 1000 yard shot this year.

http://www.demandaplan.org/

Some actors in this video demanding a "plan" to end gun violence are ******* hypocrites, as they play characters in movies which partake in graphic gun violence.

Are you suggesting we should eliminate movie and video game graphic gun violence? Would that be part of your plan to curb gun violence?

These entertainers are seeking, and demanding, a plan to address our real-life gun violence. They are part of a grassroots movement, using various social media, demanding some governmental action and plan to address the problem. Perhaps that discussion should include looking at the graphic gun violence sold to the public as "entertainment"--as well as looking at the gun manufacturers, who try to capitalize on that enjoyment of graphic fantasy gun violence, particularly in interactive violent video games, to sell their products for real life use.

http://www.demandaplan.org/

Isn't that cruel? An arrow often only wounds and the animal gets away to die a painful death of gangrene or something similar.

Sometimes with rifles too. But less often.

Have you every seen a hunting tip arrow head?

Any animal that is hit with one is going to bleed out in short order.

Yes, perhaps we should try to cover as many variables as possible, and not just go all out banging pots and pans after a single variable hoping we can solve the problem at hand. I wish it was easy as that, but no single variable can tell the whole story in reality.

Nothing cruel or unethical about it, because if I don't have a clean shot, I don't push my luck. As range permits, a neck shot near the spine will most of the time drop a deer right in its track, as well as a straight shot through both lungs shooting from the broad side will drop it quick. Every deer is different, because I've seen some big bucks run a good 50 yards even with a good placed vital shot before its legs collapse underneath it; but 50 yards is ok as it is easy enough to track by the blood trail it leaves behind. Amateurs will get partial lung shots, and I've seen deer easily run around 300 yards with an arrow partially through its lung, or even close to its heart before the legs drop underneath it. The deers are recovered in most instances. I've also seen a lot of amateurs aim for the neck and end up shooting the ham. The lucky ones will hit a big artery and the deer will drop within 20 to 50 yards all the while leaving a very heavy blood laden trail to follow, but most don't hit any major arteries in such an area and are never recovered.

I didn't forget bows. Guns are still the weapon used most.

So what if some of the people now use one type of weapon over another?

If the anti guns nuts get their wise and make somehow all those 300 millions firearms hard to get a hold of the mixed will just change not the results.

What does that mean?

Are you a bit soft in the head Bill?

Agreed!