Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Armed sky marshals are hardly like arming teachers. The only purpose a sky marshal is on the plane is in the event of trouble. Maybe we should arm flight attendants and then hope no one grabs their gun when they lean over to hand someone a drink. That should give the sky marshals more opportunities to shoot passengers.

That's interesting Bill. At the same time crime is dropping the number of households with guns seems to be dropping from 54% in 1994 to 41% last year. We can only wait and see if the recent increase in gun ownership will result in increase in gun deaths and violent crime.

Good for Sen. Giffords. A mark of a civilised and brave person, if you ask me.

You are apparently unaware that police clear rocks and other potential missiles away from trouble spots when they think there may be crowd trouble.

.

Even if true what the hell does that have anything to do with the subject at hand or the comment that blaming the gun is like blaming a rock for being thrown?

I'm not opposed to having a plan that includes most of the things you mention, and I've said that, but I want a plan that also looks at the weapons and ammunition available for sale, in just about limitless quantity, which are capable of rapidly causing the multiple deaths and woundings we have seen in our mass shootings, and contains better provisions to protect the general public from such damage due to gunfire. And I also want a plan which addresses the wisdom and risks of encouraging the carrying of handguns by the general public, since the prevalence of such at-hand weapons also leads to many impulsive spur-of-the-moment shootings, by people with poor impulse control, or anger management issues, in incidents like road rage, and escalates simple arguments or fights, particularly after people have been drinking, in bars and restaurants, house parties, and even in the parking lots of sports stadiums, to deadly encounters that lead to senseless deaths, and often wound or kill bystanders in the vicinity.

I think we have to address the gun violence in our country as a public health problem because it is a problem that ultimately and potentially affects the general welfare and safety of everyone--including law-abiding and responsible gun owners--because it's a problem that has infiltrated virtually every venue where we congregate in groups--houses of worship, commuter trains, college campuses, shopping malls, supermarkets, movie theaters, restaurants, and our public school classrooms--in addition to those individual people who are being hit and killed on sidewalks, or even in their own homes, by stray bullets fired from a gun somewhere.

No I'm not ignoring you, and I haven't ignored you. Nor am I posting "anti-gun propaganda", or propaganda of any sort. I am anti-NRA, but so are many gun owners. I do not think the NRA should determine our country's gun policies with their constant intimidation of our elected representatives, and I think it's high time these representatives showed more backbone and resolve, and high time that more citizens concerned about gun violence pushed these representatives into taking more effective action to address the problem. And I do think we are seeing that happen right now. If it took this tragedy in a Connecticut school to accomplish that, perhaps some good can come out of it.

Nationalität or Staatsbürgerschaft, these words can be used interchangeably in casual conversations, it's just that Nationalität have an additional meaning to include ethnicity. Anyway, there is nothing to get riled up about me calling you a German, as it isn't a derogatory term in anyway. I'll call you by your real name if I feel like it.

Ok then.... glad we can agree on somethings.

There is a very thin line between brave and stupid. I'm afraid being "brave" in such a case was crossing the line into stupidity, seeing that there were past threats in her rallies and she willfully chose to not learn from it, and being "brave" didn't help her avoid the life changing wounds by Jared Lee Loughner's hands.
Anyway, I wish her good health.

Sorry Bill, if you need an answer to that and can't find it, the problem is between your ears.

http://www.app.com/viewart/20121215/NJNEWS/312150059/No-rise-mass-killings-their-impact-huge

And yet those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.

“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.

The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says. Most people who die of bullet wounds knew the identity of their killer.

Society moves on, he says, because of our ability to distance ourselves from the horror of the day, and because people believe that these tragedies are “one of the unfortunate prices we pay for our freedoms.”
Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
Chances of being killed in a mass shooting, he says, are probably no greater than being struck by lightning.

Still, he understands the public perception — and extensive media coverage — when mass shootings occur in places like malls and schools. “There is this feeling that could have been me. It makes it so much more frightening.”

Correct.

The frequency of these sick events has decreased as gun ownership has increased.

Except Gallup shows that gun ownership has decreased in the 90s through the 00s.

That was then... much has changed especially since Obama was elected to his disastrous first term
in office, sales have skyrocketed, gun ownership is way, way up and his being rewarded with a second
term has only increased US citizens determination to exercise their individual constitutional rights.

Strange is it not that both President Reagen and GW Bush did more to limit gun owners right then Obama to date.

If that is so, what is even stranger is why so many gun owners didn't support him, but did support Reagan and Bush.

There is a lot of insanity concerning Obama such as the birther and secret muslin nonsense.

Could be due to him being our first black president as no white candidate for President needed to put up with the degree of nonsense surrounding Obama a middle of the road democrat.

Or that the far far right nuts cases have gotten control of the GOP or both more then likely.

Gun owners' rights can't be limited without the Constitution being amended. They can only be violated.

That said, W never did any harm to gun owners. He was for our rights throughout his presidency.

http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/190407Second.htm


Many point to the fact that Bush allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004 as an indication that he caved in to the NRA. John Kerry even accused Bush of conspiring to "chose his powerful friends in the gun lobby over the police officers and families that he promised to protect."

In Reality Bush wanted to renew the assault weapons ban but was forced to let it expire when it became clear that he may not retain office in 2004 should he alienate core Republican voters.

At the time Bush was applauded by Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer for his stance.

The assault weapons ban is just one of the numerous anti-gun positions taken by the Bush Administration. Additional examples include disarming airline pilots, forfeiting gun rights for misdemeanors, and arguing that the total DC gun ban is a reasonable restriction on the 2nd Amendment.

Speaking in late 2005 on the topic of the second amendment, former Republican Congressman, CIA official and board member on the NRA Bob Barr said that his position had enabled him to judge the difference between how the Clinton and Bush administration's approached the issue of gun control. Barr echoed the sentiments of many other prominent conservatives in expressing his frustration about how the Bush administration was even more anti-second amendment than the Clinton office.

"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration."

In the past another Republican Congressman, and now Presidential candidate, Ron Paul has accused the Bush administration of attempting to set in motion a militarized police state in America by enacting gun confiscation martial law provisions in the event of emergencies such as an avian flu pandemic or natural disasters.

"I think they're concerned about the remnant, the remnant of those individuals who don't buy into stuff and think that they should take care of themselves on their own, that they should have their own guns and their own provisions and they don't want to depend on the government at all and I think that is a threat to those who want to hold power. They don't want any resistance to their authoritarian rule."

Paul, a staunch gun-rights supporter, has previously blasted the administration's position on so-called "assault weapons" while claiming it is gun-rights oriented as hypocritical.

In making his point, Paul quoted Georgetown University professor Robert Levy, who recently offered this comparison: "Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.' Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?"

"Tortured interpretations of the Second Amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed," said Paul.

Bush was never in favor of any assault weapons ban. He just lied and said he was because the anti-gunners are gullible and easily deceived. It was a convenient way to get them to pipe down and stop making a fuss.