Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

January 8, 2013 - Morning Headlines

- Ali Harzi, the only suspect held in the attack on the us consulate in Benghazi, has been released due to lack of evidence (Fox News):

- Gabby Giffords and husband Mark Kelly are launching a new initiative that proposes "common sense" solutions to curb gun violence (ABC News):

- After initial thoughts of death by natural causes, the death of the Chicago lottery winner Urooj Kahn has been determined to have been caused by cyanide poisoning (CBS News):

*** Be sure to visit and "like" our new Facebook page ***


  1. Wow! They let the ONLY suspect (that they EVEN BOTHERED 'trying' to catch) in the Benghazi massacre go free?

    Who'da thunk it? And so soon after Hitlery recovers from her mysterious 'Benghazi fever' induced stroke?

    Why do I get the feeling that NOTHING will come of the 'investigation'; NO ONE will take responsibility and the whole thing will go down the tubes to sleep with the fishes - right beside Fast and Furious...

    This ENTIRE (Obama) fish is rotten from the head down!

    I felt badly for Giffords and pray she continues to recover... but... her 'appearances' are nothing more than the left's sick baiting of their 'base' with the sympathy card, in an attempt to ram through their latest gun grab insanity.

    IMO She and her husband have jumped on Sarah Brady's coattails - as self-proclaimed 'protectors of the people' from those 'e-e-vil' (LEGALLY OWNED) guns.

    What the anti-gun camp REFUSE get through their THICK SKULLLS: Guns do NOT kill people - crazy, immoral PEOPLE kill people.

    Lost in this hysteria is the FACT that Gifford's shooter and in Aurora and CT - the perps were CRAZY... people around them KNEW IT and SAID NOTHING.

    One more time: THOUSANDS MORE murders were committed in the U.S. last year with HAMMERS and BARE HANDS than with FIREARMS of ANY TYPE.

    Historically, the disarming of the citizenry, by the GOVERNMENT has ALWAYS ended BADLY. The UK, Australia - heck even RUSSIA are warning us against letting this happen.

    Once we ALLOW our freedom to be TAKEN by a government, charging full steam ahead toward tyranny - Game. Over.

    We can NEVER hope to regain it.

    NO ONE in the CHICAGO P.D or Coroners Office EVEN CONSIDERED that a previously HEALTHY, 46 yr. old man, who died 'suddenly' the day AFTER he won a MILLION dollars - just MIGHT be the VICTIM of foul play?

    Oh, that's right.. it's Chicago - never mind...

    So many rants... so little time. : )

    1. Hey there Dara, just one question:
      "Historically, the disarming of the citizenry, by the GOVERNMENT has ALWAYS ended BADLY. The UK, Australia - heck even RUSSIA are warning us against letting this happen."

      I'm curious in how those countries have exemplified it ending badly? Australia in particular, has had very few issues at all that I know of. As far as I understand, UK as well. I'm not too familiar with Russia.

    2. Hi Dara (and RKen)... Do you have a link to statistics supporting your claim that "THOUSANDS MORE murders were committed in the U.S. last year with HAMMERS and BARE HANDS than with FIREARMS of ANY TYPE." The claim, on the surface, seems outlandish.

      Also, and this isn't about you other than you're the person who said it that I'm responding to, I find the 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' mantra to be the most asinine argument there is (well, that and 'cars kill more people than guns, should we ban cars?'). Guns are inherently dangerous and should be controlled. However, the control should not come from removing guns from society so much as holding gun owners accountable at the highest level. You own a gun and it kills someone while still in your legal possession, welcome to the world of accessory to murder. Gun owners need to be held accountable. The old NRA mantra doesn't work when a child finds mommy or daddy's gun and shoots themself in the face or shoots his friend he/she is showing it to. Guns are made to kill yet the laws and society as a whole generally provide no accountability. There are MANY places where gun owners aren't even required to report a gun stolen. We live in a country where Philip Morris is held accountable for giving people cancer but gun manufacturers who continue to flood the market with killing weapons are held to absolutely no account. The gun lobby in this country (the NRA in particular) is partially to blame but those who take their money and pass their laws (or don't pass the ones they are against) are the ultimate culprits. There is no doubt that this country needs gun control but not in the way most people want it. I believe citizens should be able to own just about any weapon that's out there so long as they are required to be accountable for it.

      As far as the crazies, it's just another example of the government failing its people. Children are checked anually for lice and scoliosis and hearing, etc., etc. There should be quarterly (or bi-annually at the least) mental health evaluations at schools. It's convenient that the government wants to throw all sorts of counseling at kids AFTER something happens (my childrens' school here in PA offered counseling after the shooting in CT) but don't do a damn thing in the front end to prevent such occurances. There will always be crazy people and we will never stop everything. But a few common sense measures could help to prevent some of these occurances. If the CT mom had her guns locked up in a safe and only she knew the password, it is likely that ALL of many of those children would be alive today.

    3. "THOUSANDS MORE murders were committed in the U.S. last year with HAMMERS and BARE HANDS than with FIREARMS of ANY TYPE.

      This is true. Look it up.

      It's plain dumb that Philip Morris is held accountable for giving people cancer, just as it's plain dumb to think the NRA is responsible for guns falling into the hands of bad people who use them for bad things. Should a rope maker be held responsible in strangulation deaths?

      As far as gun control, we have it. LOTS of it. Background checks, serial registration, waiting periods, and more all amount to control. What you so-called "gun control" types want is gun restriction and prohibition. It's an absolutely ridiculous concept. Know why? Because, well, just think about it. Would ANY law, previously mentioned or soon to be debated stopped Sandy Hook. NO. End of story.

    4. Anonymous -

      How do you know it's true if you don't provide evidence (a link)? If I could just snap and look it up, I would but I don't have that time (shouldn't really be taking the time to write today but I like discussing this issue).

      I agree it's dumb to hold Philip Morris accountable and should have been more clear about my position. If the country is going to hold PM accountable than it should also hold gun manufacturers accountable - I personally don't think either should be accountable. And your argument is the same, weak argument I pointed out above except instead of car you went rope. All lame arguments in my opinion.

      Did you read my post... ALL of my post? If so, not sure how you come up with "What you so-called "gun control" types want is gun restriction and prohibition." I certainly don't want prohibition and I guess I want restriction if you call being accountable being restrictive. The laws you mentioned are great. What about laws requiring guns to be reported stolen? What about laws that hold gun owners' feet to the fire? As an example, I buy a gun and it is stolen on Monday. On Wednesday, my gun is used to kill someone. I never reported it stolen even though I was aware. I should be help criminally liable.. that is my position. What about taking the firing signature of all guns before they are sold? No, the NRA doesn't want that. Also, I didn't blame the NRA. I said that it is their lobby that adds to the lack of gun control.

    5. @Whatsamatta

      Every 'group' contains a small percentage individuals who WILL behave irresponsibly, no matter what. It's a FACT of human nature. What YOU propose is to PUNISH ALL members of the group - for the irresponsible behavior of the few. I can't buy into that.

      Nor can I buy into 'different' punishments for the MANNER in which a criminal CHOOSES to commit his/her murder. The person is NO LESS DEAD whether the deed is accomplished with a gun or a knife or a table lamp.

      **If, in the commission of a crime, you DELIBERATELY and with MALICE - KILL another human being, you should be punished the same - no matter WHAT OBJECT or BODY PART you used to do it. Dead is permanent - and so should your punishment be... whether it's life in prison - or death is up to the jury and the court.

      **This is simply MY personal opinion - and I'd not be trying to 'push' any new laws to this end.

      Gun control is not about firearms - it's about control. Liberty lost, is GONE - FOREVER.

      Side Note: Those banging the drum for gun 'control' and outright banning of firearms - 'to protect the innocent' is the SAME group who 'celebrates' the destruction of 35 THOUSAND innocent souls PER YEAR - through abortion.

      I find this attitude extremely odd.

    6. Dara -

      How do you figure I want to punish all? Because I want to include the ngligent gun owners? Negligence is a crime in many aspects of life. Negligent Homicide is a crime and perhaps that's what those gun owners who allow anyone to access them ought to be charged with. Gun ownership should come with responsibility. Unfortunately, in this country, it does not. As I mentioned in another post today, I can buy a gun and have it stolen every day of the year and have no accountability for the 365 guns I allowed to walk out of my house. I'm surprised you can't get on board with this as it seems you've been trying to hold Obama accountable for Fast & Furious which is the same thing. Accountability for those responsible for the safe keeping of guns. Am I wrong or are you having your cake and eating it too (whatever that saying means)? Obama allowed guns to walk out of his house because he did not secure them. People were killed by those guns. He should be held to account I agree but so should EVERYONE else who is responsible for the same.

      I don't think I said anything about different punishments. I certainly don't go for that so, if I did, it's likely that I just wasn't clear. Just as I don't believe in special designations of 'hate crimes'... all crimes are hate crimes!

    7. Anon/Whatsamattausa: Actually, one ironic thing I find in this whole debate is that it seems common to bring up comparisons between cars and guns when it comes to death, but then ignore the somewhat odd fact (at least, to me) that cars are far more regulated and controlled than guns are.

      It's far easier for someone with no prior ownership or desire, to turn around one day and say "I want to own a gun" and then buy one, than it is for the same person to turn around one day and say "I want to drive a car" and then drive one. Legally, at least.

      Further, the laws that govern the purchase, ownership, and sale of cars are also much more strict, thorough, and nationalized. There are also yearly costs associated with it; registration fees, property taxes, and in some cases even more taxes/fees (emission fees, inspections, etc). So is the type of car you're allowed to legally drive, and where, and how, and when, etc.

      Tests have to be passed, classes have to be taken, certain healthcare related tests must be passed, proper use and skill with the vehicle has to be demonstrated, and many penalties for negligence in these or any of the other areas ultimately result in you losing the privilege for an extended time (or permanently) and/or heavy fines.

      Knowing all this, I don't even understand why the comparison is being made... unless people would want guns to be regulated more like cars? I personally think it could be potential solution, with the major downside in my view being the potential increased costs, but doubt that many people (particularly on the right) are too fond of it?

      I’m not for any kind of a prohibition either though… but I do believe we can do a much better job regulating them.

    8. RKen -

      Interesting points and with all the comparisons between the two, the points you've raised never dawned on me (which is a reason I so enjoy these debates).

      I wouldn't want guns regulated any more than is necessary. In fact, in a perfect world, the government wouldn't know I owned a gun (if I did). A government that knows where the guns are is a government that can forcibly collect them if they so felt. The 2nd Amendment was written so that we, the people, could have the weapons necessary to stand up against our (or other) government should the need arise.

    9. RKen you couldn't be more wrong on this one. Laws, rules, and regulations for the sale, ownership, and use of an automobile are ALL, 100% on the state level. Insurance, for example, is regulated by 51 different department of insurances. Registrations, fees, inspections are ALL state. Age restrictions, testing, and all that are all state laws, too. There are no nationalized laws with respect to automobile ownership, sales, and use. I'm not for any kind of more regulation, but I just thought I'd point out how your fundamental argument is based on non-true information. It is true, however, as coming from someone who has worked in the industry, that all these regulations I've named have contributed to a severely increased cost of automobile ownership which more likely hurts poorer people and restricts their ability to own a car to get to work and all that. Just another example of how the government can, while it thinks it's helping, hurt people indirectly.

    10. @Whatsamatta -

      Your stated 'plan' would force LEGAL gun owners jump through hoops to engage in their CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED right to bear arms. The aim seems to be to make it SO cumbersome, costly and difficult that MOST LAW ABIDING people would just give up.

      The fatal flaw in your plan is that VIOLENT CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW THE LAW - and THEY would STILL have access, while li'l ol' ME would NOT.

      We already have enough laws, we need to enforce them. Murder is already a crime... all YOUR 'plan' would accomplish would be to shift BLAME from the PERPETRATOR of a heinous crime - to someone else... as you attempt to do with the Connecticut shooters mother.

      And I might add - you're doing so - having ZERO idea of the FACTS of circumstances surrounding HOW he came into possession of the weapon(s). Perhaps she was incapacitated BEFORE he got into the LOCKED gun cabinet... I don't know - and neither do YOU.

      My husband is a retired cop, and we've always had weapons in our home. We've always kept them secured, (but NOT locked up - hence inaccessible to US) and we TAUGHT our kids safety and respect for them at ALL times.

      I'm ALL for gun safety training, it's imperative to KNOW and be comfortable with the safe and sane operation and storage of a weapon if you're going to own one; most gun shops offer them at little or no cost to purchasers.

      I'm NOT for the government forcing barriers on LEGAL gun ownership. Criminals steal things - it's their JOB description. Sometimes the owner is NOT AWARE the object has been stolen. To hold a LEGAL, LAW ABIDING NON-criminal owner criminally responsible for the VIOLENT, CRIMINAL activity of a THIEF - after the fact - is pure liberal nonsense.

      Criminal Negligence is ALREADY on the books - everywhere, albeit with varying discrepancies in laws among the states. It CAN and HAS been applied in cases involving guns - where it was actually a mitigating aspect of the crime.

      This WHOLE hub-bub is a recurring knee-jerk liberal reaction to a senseless tragedy. Key word is senseless... MUCH of our current violence is a direct result of OUR DECAYING CULTURE. Violent movies and video games... no father figure around to TEACH our young the DIFFERENCE between right and wrong...etc, etc, etc.

      Any HONEST cop will tell you - the POLICE CAN NOT prevent murder. The best they can do is lessen the body count - AFTER they're notified.

      The best DEFENSE is a good OFFENSE... DO AWAY with 'gun free' zones; arm and train more people for concealed carry.

    11. Oben: I think you're confusing my use of the term "nationalized" with "federalized" there, bud. :)

      Nationalized is simply meant to imply that, nationally, all states regulate and control car ownership through sets of very specific rules for registrations, fees, inspections, restrictions, testing, etc, etc. All states have them; bar no exceptions. It's more a matter of what, where, how much, and the level they take it to. Some are more strict, some have more rules, some have more fees, but ALL of them govern it and do it comprehensively.

      You seem to think that I mean that the US has federal mandates car use and ownership… which obviously isn’t what I’m talking about?

      I mean, that should be implied? Sorry if it’s unclear I suppose.

      I’m curious about the implication you made in your last statement though. Do you feel that the alternative is better? That people shouldn’t have to prove they know how to drive a car, follow the rules of the road (or what they are), before they drive a car? And that they shouldn’t be forced to have any sort of insurance, vision, speed limits, etc?

      I think the trade-off is far more valuable here than the alternative. Cars are not a necessity.

    12. My plan would do nothing to prevent gun ownership. How would anything I've said prevent lil' old you from owning obtaining and owning a gun? In my perfect world, the government wouldn't know if I owned a gun or not. But we don't live in a perfect world. I haven't suggested a single thing that would even imply making it tougher to get a gun (although I'm sure the current system, which I'm naive about, could be better - firing signatures or 'gun fingerprinting' as an example).

      Here's what I can tell you about Sandy Hook... If that mother had locked those guns up from her son who was ineligible to purchase a weapon on his own, Sandy Hook NEVER happens. But she didn't because she is an irresponsible gun owner and she should be held to account for making her guns readily accessible not only to her children but anyone who might've wanted to get at them be it a friend of hers, friend of her childs, intruder, whatever.

      Let me ask you this, Dara... what is a criminal? I agree with RKen that you see to have this notion that they are tattooed at birth.

      If holding someone accountable for their guns is putting the blame on someone else than I guess you're right, I'm blaming someone else for not being accountable. Admittedly, there are A TON of details to work out in such a law but that is the overall goal, to hold people accountable for their guns or machines made for killing. I can tell you that the guns my family owns are locked in a safe that would take no more than 10 seconds to open and have a firearm in your hand, including the passcode. All this BS about being unable to get to your gun if its locked up is nothing more than spouting off the same old tired, meaningless lines.

      You talk about all these existing laws. Who cares??? In PA there isn't a law requiring guns be reported stolen. Your solution appears to be not to fix it because there are THOUSANDS of laws already on the books. The laws aren't good ones... tear up the gun laws and start over if makes you happy... god forbid we go over the magical number of laws that is satisfactory to you!

      My solution is simple, don't punish people by making it harder to get guns (I think you've somehow missed that part of my 'plan') and start making people accountable (or, in summarizing your words, start blaming the innocents) for their guns. If I knowingly give someone a weapon for a crime, I am an accessory to that crime. If you knowingly leave your guns unsecured from the possession of others then you are a negligent gun owner and should be punished as such. If you lock them up you'll never have to worry about it. Your making a choice with something that is meant to kill. If you chose to leave them available than you should suffer the consequences. It has nothing to do with restricting gun ownership or making it harder to get a gun, it has EVERYTHING to do with gun owners knowing where their weapons are and being accountable for them.

    13. One other thing Dara... I am curious how you conclude that Obama should be held accountable for Fast & Furious but you think nobody else in the country should be held to the same standard. Obama had guns that were not secured and they walked (regardless of how that happened - it is just as feasible to think the son or daughter of a gun owner granted access to that(those) gun(s) to a friend of theirs who then committed a murder... same scenario as Fast & Furious) just as many gun owners, apparently including yourself, leave their guns totally exposed for anyone to take. If those unsecured guns walk, how can you say POTUS should be accountable but that he is the only person on the planet that should be? Or are you just blaming the innocents in that scenario because it benefits your political agenda?

    14. ANYTHING (legal)that I have in my possession is absolutely NO business of the FEDERAL government... and I WILL KEEP IT THAT WAY.

      YOUR plan seeks to have the gubmint's grubby fingers in every aspect of gun ownership... who, what, where, when and why.... no, no, no, no, and no.

      99.999% of ALL gun owners follow ALL fed and local laws and common sense rules of ownership. YOU seek to PUNISH ALL for the stupidity of .001%. Sorry, but THAT won't help... you can't FIX nor can you LEGISLATE STUPID.

      Chris thrill up my leg Matthews or Al not-so Sharpton will grab a gun crime headline and twist it to fit their agenda - and don't think for one minute the new 'laws' you seek will do ANYTHING to STOP the REAL criminals, they'll only 'apply to' those people the LEFT and their minion LAME STEAM MEDIA CHOOSE TO DEPICT AS MONSTERS - White. Christian. Conservative. Men. Those who can be served up as sacrificial lambs 'to the cause.'

      One more time: YOU can inflict all the nonsensical laws you want on gun owners - THEY will grumble and protest and fight back, but in the end - THEY'LL abide by the asinine stupidity...and the POINT you LEFTIES are attempting to make... will remain MOOT!

      BY DEFINITION - Criminals DO NOT follow LAWS. They WILL continue to access weapons. They WILL continue to rob, and rape, and maim and kill. The DIFFERENCE - MORE victims because LESS law abiding citizens will have the SAME access, due to THIS administration's BRAND SPANKING NEW - insane and restrictive LAWS.

      Have STRICTEST gun laws in the nation STOPPED gun violence in Chicago, in Baltimore, in Philadelphia, in New Jersey, in New York?... NO. Those areas with the STRICTEST laws - have the HIGHEST incidents of gun crimes and gun murders. Although HUNDREDS are injured and killed EVERY YEAR - adults, teens even babies in their OWN living rooms - the LAME STEAM MEDIA - as well as THIS administration has taken ZERO INTEREST.

      "Here's what I can tell you about Sandy Hook... If that mother had locked those guns up from her son who was ineligible to purchase a weapon on his own, Sandy Hook NEVER happens"...

      You seem like a reasonably intelligent person - but THIS is the most IGNORANT statement I've EVER seen! And WRONG - DEADLY wrong. An EVIL person HELL-BENT on destruction WILL find a way. Period.

      ex: Oklahoma City - FERTILIZER BOMB. O.J. Simpson - KNIFE. 9-11 - AIRPLANES.

      UNLESS and UNTIL there is SOMEONE on the scene with the WILL and the MEANS to DETER and/or DESTROY THE EVIL - 'I' can't stop it, YOU can't stop it. The COPS can't stop it.

      Obama KNOWS THIS to be a FACT - which is WHY HIS KIDS' school has ELEVEN ARMED SECURITY GUARDS in ADDITION to their Secret Service detail.

      And MORE LEGISLATION certainly won't stop it.

    15. cont...

      YOUR equating of Fast and Furious to THIS administration's current gun grab hysteria - is LUDICROUS!

      THIS is what we've 'been allowed to' KNOW (so far): In Fast and Furious - guns were LEGALLY SOLD to KNOWN criminals ON THE ORDERS of THIS administration. After leaving the shops - in the hands of KNOWN CRIMINALS - the guns WERE NOT TRACKED - a DELIBERATE MOVE by THIS administration. The SHOP OWNERS protested; ATF officers protested; ALL were silenced BY THIS administration; when 'whistleblowers' finally spoke out, THEY were DISCIPLINED - by THIS administration.

      THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE have been KILLED and INJURED - CONTINUE to be KILLED and INJURED as a DIRECT RESULT of the CRIMINAL Fast and Furious ACTIVITY of THIS administration.

      OBAMA and HOLDER - DEFIED OUR OWN LAWS - TO PROMOTE THEIR 'GUNS ARE BAD - JUST LOOK' CONVERSATION. Obama to Sarah Brady (immediately PRIOR to F and F coming to light): "I'm working on it [gun control] I'm just having to do it UNDER THE RADAR."

      Brian Terry's DEATH brought the whole thing into the light of day and THANKFULLY put an END to it... (as far as we know.)

      I can see your mind is closed to the FACT that to Obama and his ilk 'stopping these heinous crimes' is a mere talking point - They KNOW new laws WON'T do the 'trick'... new laws WILL INCREASE THEIR POWER AND CONTROL... and THAT is their TRUE goal.

      Liberty lost is NEVER regained.

      Nice chatting w/you...

    16. Again Dara, you keep renting about how my plan prevents people from getting guns and requires a government supervisor to move into your house to physically watch the guns (yes, I'm taking creative license with your paranoid fantasies). Please, provide ONE thing that I've said that would make procuring a gun different than it is today.. Just one!!! Your scattershot approach to making a point comes across as paranoid and/or delusional. You say alot and make very little sense.

      Again with the "you Lefties" (or different variations of that)... Am I still a lefty when I agree with you? The type of gun ownership I support is VERY liberal (which is perhaps a word you don't understand). What you would like are liberal gun laws, just so you know. What the "Lefties" want are conservative gun laws.

      Another item you continually chose to ingonre is that I could care less about Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton, Bill O'Reilly, etc., etc., etc. I don't watch them and I don't listen to them so I could care less what they do or say, it affects me none at all.

      Dara - Are you a criminal? I'll bet you are... Have you shot anyone? Didn't think so... Neither has my criminal self and likely neither have any of the other criminals on this site.

      I live in Philadelphia and the laws here are not strict.

      So your solution is the NRA's... SHOCKER!!! I would never have guessed the way you spout off their slogans.

      As far as my Sandy Hook comments. Perhaps I should have been more clear. It wouldn't have happened the way it did. That kid would have had to find someone else who is lazy with their weapons. Who knows, maybe he would've drivan all the way out to NV and gotten yours, after all, he would go to no end to induce his evil right?

      Fast & Furious and this are the same. I do think that Obama is culpable (even though, again, you accuse me, again erroneously, of thinking another way). I just want the same standard for all.

      Wish I could say it was nice chatting with you but your incoherent rants and misguided attacks are really just getting old. I will continue to debate but I've learned now to put little stock into what you write. Enjoy NV, enjoy your guns and enjoy your penchant for ignorance.

      Good day!

    17. Good afternoon Whatsamattausa.

      I have just a few questions regarding some of your posts.

      1. "Here's what I can tell you about Sandy Hook... If that mother had locked those guns up from her son who was ineligible to purchase a weapon on his own, Sandy Hook NEVER happens. But she didn't because she is an irresponsible gun owner and she should be held to account for making her guns readily accessible not only to her children but anyone who might've wanted to get at them be it a friend of hers, friend of her childs, intruder, whatever."

      She is dead, how much more accountable can she be?

      2. " In my perfect world, the government wouldn't know if I owned a gun or not."

      So it's none of the governments business if you own a gun or comes up missing? How does that work? So once you have been the victim of a crime (breaking and entering) you are then automatically a co-conspirator/accomplice in every subsequent crime committed with your stolen property?

      I agree with you on the "government shouldn't know if I own a gun or not". But if that is the case; why would I need to report it stolen? They didn't know I had it and they probably don't know who has it now. What is the harm?

      3. How in the hell is everyone on here a "CRIMINAL"?

      4. Could you please explain how 0bama selling guns to criminals (knowingly) and someone staling my gun are the same? I don't see how they are even remotely close to the same.

      5. Are you as disrespectful to your wife, well and all women, as you are to the ladies on this board?

      6. Where is this unusual occurrence of guns being stolen and not reported happening at? Is this some sort of epidemic that I am unaware of?

      7. If guns owners that have been robbed of their guns are "irresponsible gun owners"; are people that have their TV's stolen irresponsible TV owners too?

      8. IF someone breaks into your house, steals your pain pills and overdoses on them (or sells them to someone who overdoses) are you criminally negligent or an irresponsible drug owner? Or does that whole "irresponsible" thing only apply to property that you don't currently own (you know, like guns)?

    18. Hey there slim, good afternoon!

      I just kind of wanted to interject on point #08 that yes, criminal negligence is perusable in any case where the jury may determine that the defendant endangered the lives of others through not acting as a reasonable person; particularly in the case of dealing with kids.

      It’s a very case-by-case principle, but I’m pretty sure that a guy that left their loaded gun on their nightstand out in the open every day of the week, up until their 3y/o got curious and accidently shot someone while playing with it… would very well be convicted of negligence.

      The only difference between that and what whatsamattausa wants, is redefining the standards to which we hold a reasonable person. It may not be so extreme as being held accountable if someone breaks into your house, breaks into your gun cabinet, and steals your guns… but it could potentially lay blame when someone’s gun is stolen off the porch.

    19. Slim -

      1 - I stated previously that in that particular example, she is still alive.

      2 - I stated we don't live in a perfect world and thus it is in the best interest of the country, in my opinion, for their to be records or who owns what guns. You are not a co-conspiritor if you've reported your gun lost or stolen. False reports of such should carry heave penalties.

      3 - Have you ever broken a law (speeding, theft, etc.)? If so, you're a criminal by definition. I assume that nobody is perfect and everyone has likely stolen something in their lives (as a child most likely) or has sped or run a red light or any number of other crimes.

      4 - It's the same thing. Reckless care for your weapons. Whether their stolen or given or rented (which is really the case in Fast & Furious as the goal was retrieval), you should be accountable for the whereabouts of your guns, in my opinion. So whether it's Fast & Furious or Johnny Rotten who stole his mothers gun off her night stand, it's the same.

      5 - What is disrespectful? If calling someone out based upon what they've said is disrespectful than I guess I am probably disrespectful to everyone as I don't go for that stuff. I try to be quite frank and call it like I see it.

      6 - Lots of places, for me personally, in PA where it is not required to report a firearm as stolen (or lost).

      7 - Are TV's made to kill people. Didn't think so.

      8 - Good point but pills aren't meant to kill people either... Guns are. btw - what does me not owning one have to do with? I've stated before I intend to get one as protection. However, I won't do it until I've been trained and have a lock box to keep it in so my 5 and 7 year old children can't purposefully shoot themselves with it (since, you know, only people kill people)... In other words, I want to make absolutely certain I am responsible for my gun(s) before I get one. Just as my family's guns are locked up - because that's how we do it, responsibly.

      I love the car, pill, rope comparisons. Guns are meant to kill so if you want to make a comparison, try making it apples to apples.

    20. RKen, good afternoon to you too, sir.

      I see your point about the 3 year old kid example, but, that is totally different from Whatsamattausa is talking about. I also can see your point about it being stolen off of the porch (but who in their right mind keeps it on the porch). However, if someone breaks into my locked home and steals my TV and guns, I have a hard time seeing where I was negligent and how I could/should be accountable for anything they do after the fact.

      As far as #8 (above) goes, I don't think people stealing medication and dying from it is negligence on the part of the homeowner any more than I should be responsible for what some thief does with my property they stole from me. I especially, don't think someone should be labeled as "IRRESPONSIBLE" for being the victim of a crime.

    21. Slim -

      My plan would only hold you accountable for not reporting your guns stolen. If you know they are stolen (and you should eyeball them on a daily basis unless your out of town) you should be obligated to alert the authorities to remove yourself from liability. I'm not sure why that is so hard to understand or why you feel it is so unreasonable. Nobody forces you to buy a gun. When you do, you should, in my opinion, have responsibility for that weapon.

      So I should never lock or even close my front door, or back door, or windows or anything? As, you seemingly think that's not my responsibility. No matter how I leave things within the confines of my home, I can leave it as unsecured as I feel and I'm still being responsible? Sorry, but I am an accountable person and could never sign up for that. You decide to own a gun, there should be some sort of accountability. Today, there is very little. All I want is more accountability for people who own killing machines.

      Again, there are A TON of kinks that would need to be worked out but I'm not sure how or why anyone would be against accountability.

    22. Whatsamattusa.....

      3. So going 63 in a 55 mph zone is the equivalent of being a rapist or murderer in your book? Seems odd.

      4. So if someone breaks into my locked home and steals my weapons it is the same as if I had sold them to a criminal? Seems even more odd and insane than #3.

      5. In what world is "enjoy your penchant for ignorance" respectful?

      6. So what. It's not like they are going to find it anyway. Have you ever been robbed and got your stuff back? Besides that, if you don't think the government needs to know you bought one why in the hell should you have to tell them it was stolen? But let's say my gun was stolen and I report it; what is that going to accomplish other than "getting me off the hook"? Seriously, what are the police going to do with that information? Sure they could turn in my serial numbers for the pawn shops but what idiot thief is taking a gun to a pawn shop?

      7. I read an article the other day where the number of people killed by TV's has increased (seriously). Go figure. Even though they aren't "made to kill people" they seem to be pretty effective. Are those people IRRESPONSIBLE TV owners?

      8. It appears that "responsible" is the exact way that you do it and no other way. Some people like Dara and me don't have 5 year old and 7 year old future hall of fame baseball players running around our house on a daily basis. SO believe it or not, we can deviate slightly from the way you intend on doing it and still be RESPONSIBLE gun owners.

      Now, for your most recent post, I don’t have a problem with reporting a gun stolen from me if that were to happen. First, if people are having guns stolen from them that they are not reporting stolen you need to ask yourself, WHY are they not reporting them. I would guess that anyone that had a gun stolen from them and did not report it was not supposed to have it to begin with (felon or whatever). Or, because they stole the gun to begin with. I am here to tell you that someone that legally purchased a gun and had it stolen is going to report it—especially if they have insurance. So, while your plan may make you feel all warm, fuzzy, responsible and morally superior to everyone else it ain’t gonna do $h!t for making a difference because people that aren’t supposed to have guns anyway are not going to call and confess to the fact that they DID have one and it was stolen.

      I don’t know where in the world you came up with you shouldn’t lock your doors and windows. In fact, that whole second paragraph is a bit out there. I suppose you were referring to, “However, if someone breaks into my locked home and steals my TV and guns, I have a hard time seeing where I was negligent and how I could/should be accountable for anything they do after the fact.” If you will notice, I specified my LOCKED home. I don’t leave my house unlocked and I don’t why in the hell you would or even think that you should.

    23. Good morning slim,

      Yeah, I think we both agree that holding one accountable to a theft out of a locked gun cabinet in a locked home may be a bit extreme. But I do think that there definitely could/should be a case for negligence in other situations, though rare they may be (like the porch/kid example).

    24. RKen/Slim -

      The plan I envision wouldn't hold anyone accountable for your scenario above so long as the gun was reported stolen. One can only do so much and then it is out of their hands. I wouldn't want to hold anyone accountable who made an effort to safeguard their guns.

      Slim -

      3 - Who said that? A criminal is a criminal. A speeder is a speeder and a muderer is a murderer... but both the speeder and murderer are, by definition, criminals. Agreed, it does seem odd to think the two are equivalent. Wonder where you got that thought from. Certainly not from me.

      4 - That's not what I said. I'm starting to see a trend here with the ignorance.

      5 - Is it disrespectful for you to call me disrespectful? No, it is not because you seem to feel that I am so to you it is fact that I am disrespectful. One thing I should have done, however, is used this phrase - "seemingly paranoid fantasies" - instead of just "paranoid fantasies" as it is my opinion and not fact that they are paranoid fantasies. For that, I do apologize, Dara. As for the line you brought up, I don't consider truth to be disrespectful, perhaps you do (in which case I guess you were disrespectful to me). When someone continually chooses (penchant) to ignore fact (ignorance), it is truth and not disrespect. If someone told me I has out of shape and average looking at best, it would be fact, not disrespect. It might not be what I want to hear but that doesn't change its validity. That's the long answer.. the short answer is, in the real world.

      6 - So who cares whether they find it or not. Without knowing, they can't look for it. You remove liability from yourself and place it on the PD. I didn't say my idea was THE solution, just an idea. I think it's a good one and does not intrude on gun ownership but holds accountability. You may think it's a bad idea and that's fine.

      8 - I can only hope they are future hall of famers but thanks for the confidence! Also, I agree that you can deviate any way you see fit. I am expressing my opinion and my idea. Feel free to agree or not. I don't think that leaving a gun out in the open is responsible ownership but that is my opinion that your clearly disagree with and that is fine. You don't want to be accountable for your weapon and that is also your right to have that opinion, I just disagree with it, regardless of whether you have little ones at home or not.

      So basically what I am proposing is already being done? So what is the issue with making it a law everywhere?

      My point in that paragraph is that you seem to think that so long as the gun is confined within the walls of your house, you have no responsibility as that is your space. So I was clarifying whether I was reading that right. And, yet again, you wouldn't be responsible so long as it was reported stolen UNLESS, of course, there were laws requiring you to have the gun locked up, which I think there should be. Again, my opinion.

    25. RKen and Whatsamattausa, good morning gentlemen.



      4. You said, " It's the same thing. Reckless care for your weapons. Whether their stolen or given or rented ". Do you perhaps have a different definition "SAME"? I don't feel that locked in the confines of my home is reckless care for my weapons. Should I booby trap my home to be more responsible?

      6. I don't see your plan as a bad plan. However, I don't see it as a solution to anything really other than a feel good sensation from knowing that something was done. For instance, if I stole your gun (example only, I wouldn't steal ANYTHING from you, or anyone) and then someone stole it from me. Guess what. I would not report that weapon stolen. A convicted felon that gets his hands on a gun he isn't supposed to have isn't going to report his weapon stolen either. Laws are great and fine but some people just aren't going to follow them-- especially if it is an admission of guilt (Basically). Think about it, are you going to admit to breaking one law to follow another?

      8. I hope both those boys make A-Rod (Is he still the highest paid baseball player?)look like a poor man someday.

      Gentlemen, have a fantastic day.

    26. 4 - Only if it goes unreported and/or if there were laws requiring you to lock your guns when not home. I think I've been pretty clear so I'll just leave it as you disagree with what I think.

      6 - I see your point and agree it is valid. I just disagree with it. The premise is that every gun starts at the manufacturer (btw - another piece of this, that I think I only mentioned in one post somewhat in passing, is that I think guns should be 'fingerprinted' before the sale which would certainly help cops track them - at least their proximity). If such a law existed you could begin to track the weapons. Surely it would do little for the illegitimate (for lack of a better word) guns out there today. I know that people would then just must with the firing mechanism or whatever but the idea is to make some sort of steps. Again, I know there are holes in the plan but I do think it would be helpful, should cause the warm and fuzzy feeling you mentioned (which is a better way to create that feeling than making it harder to even get a gun or, worse, removing certain types of guns from the market), and doesn't infringe on a persons right to procure a gun which is the ultimate priority.

      8 - Thanks again!

      Enjoy your day as well!!!

    27. Guns are fingerprinted. Every one is branded with a unique serial number.

    28. Texas Tea -

      I'm talking about the marks made on the shell casing and/or bullet. Every gun, from what I've read or seen, leaves a unique marking on the shell and/or the bullet. Obviously, I am naive about that but it sounds logical. This way, a guns proximity could be tracked by the bullet and/or casing that might be found at a crime scene. It just sounds like something that should be implemented if indeed as easy as I make it sound like it is.

  2. Hi RKen and Whatsamatta : )

    I had a graphic for this one, but couldn't figure out how to get it to post...



    Pravda: (Russia)

    Historical evidence?

    "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao

    **The left (Obama) reveres Mao and the way he ruthlessly grabbed power in China. The fact that he murdered about 100 million Chinese to do it is, to them, a "feature," not a "bug."

    "If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves. ... The only real power comes out of a long rifle. ... Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. ... We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns? ... The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a statistic." — Joseph Stalin

    “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed the subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.” — Adolf Hitler

    * Hitler disarmed the Jews and others, then murdered about 15 million.
    * Stalin disarmed the Russians, them murdered about 40 million.
    * Mao disarmed the Chinese peasants, then murdered nearly 100 million.
    * The Turks disarmed the Armenians, then murdered 1.5-2 million.
    * Pol Pot disarmed the Cambodians and murdered millions.
    * Rwanda disarmed its ethnic groups, then murdered millions.

    ~ The list goes on … over 170 million people murdered BY THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS in the 20th century – AFTER they allowed those governments disarmed them.~

    "Never forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t let him do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians." - Aaron Zelmanm

    And I'll bet EACH and EVERY one of these peoples thought - "It can't happen HERE."

    1. Dara

      You originally said, "One more time: THOUSANDS MORE murders were committed in the U.S. last year with HAMMERS and BARE HANDS than with FIREARMS of ANY TYPE."

      Any type. While it's true that there were more deaths by blunt objects (hammers, clubs) than rifles, they do not outnumber handguns.

      So yes, it's true that we should ban hammers before we ban assault rifles. :-)

    2. @RKen Okay... my bad, sorry. The point was, collectively the number of murders (not including suicides) by gun, number less than by other means.

      Yup! Down with hammers!

    3. Dara: I appreciate the links, but I can't say I fully agree with the validity of those sources; at least for Australia (only one I had time to check out so far). An American journalistic peace that obviously sought to specifically go out to Australia and interview people upset with the ban? I'm more of a numbers guy, and I mostly just saw opinions. Interviews with previous gun owners who didn’t want to give up the guns they bought, people who didn’t trust or like the politicians, people who have been collecting guns for 40+ years, people who were competitive shooters that can no longer compete… of course all of those people are upset. That’s not surprising. What should really matter here are the facts/results, not the opinions.

      The few facts it did state, provided no sources at all.

      After looking up the data myself, it’s very obvious that either that video piece was made nearly a decade ago, or they were cherry-picking evidence. Every single measure of crime in Australia is down to a low at this point:

      Or, you can go straight to the source of it all:
      • “The rate for robbery peaked in 2001. Rates have declined by 38 percent since 2001, to 86 per 100,000 per year.
      • The homicide rate was 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 (which includes the 35 victims of the Port Arthur massacre) and was at its highest in 1999, at 2.0 per 100,000. In 2007, the rate was 1.3 per 100,000, the lowest recorded (since 1996).
      Over the past 18 years (1 July 1989 to 30 June 2007), the rate* of homicide incidents decreased from 1.9 in 1990-91 and 1992-93 to the second-lowest recorded rate, of 1.3, in 2006-07. *rate per 100,000 population.”

      Further, they haven’t had a mass shooting, ever, since the ban.

      I’m not for a ban, nor would I really want one, but I don’t think that we’re fairly representing how ‘bad’ it really has been in other countries.

    4. One other comment!

      Whether or not more people are killed with blunt objects or cotton swabs or not, is kind of missing the point here.

      I remember reading one person framing up the issue as so: "You're fighting for your right to own a gun. And that's fine, fair; I don't want to take it from you. But I'm fighting for my right to not get shot by a gun, and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to find common ground."

      That makes sense to me, and I don't think it's unreasonable.

      Hammers, blunt objects, or whatever... are a completely different subject here, and for good reason. Guns are inherently more effective and dangerous than any other weapon. And there’s a far greater sense of ‘helplessness’ when it comes to gun violence, which in itself makes a big difference. I, personally, am not anywhere near as afraid of a man coming at me with a hammer as opposed to a gun.

      Think of it this way. If for some reason, bombs were not illegal, and say maybe ‘only’ 10,000 people died from ‘bomb violence’ a year… would the fact that more people are killed by hammers make that OK for you? No, it wouldn’t. Nor should it even be in the same conversation, right? No one likes the idea of suddenly being helpless and blown to peaces, with nothing you could possibly do to prevent it. Similar feeling for being shot by some lunatic that shouldn’t have a gun in the first place.

      I mean, just look at our military spending. We spend excessive amounts of money to prevent what ultimately, kills less people per year on average in our country than lightning strikes. But you don’t see anti-military people criticize the citizens worried about a terrorist attack to “LOL! BAN LIGHTNING TOO!” It’s ridiculous, and missing the point.

    5. Your premise is a bit convoluted and out there.

      Here's the deal (hypothetically, of course : )

      I live in the 'sticks'...

      IF someone comes into MY home or onto MY property, uninvited - I have NO idea of that person's intentions, and quite FRANKLY I don't CARE.

      At 58 yrs. old and 5' nothin' in height, I KNOW the person WON'T be afraid of ME - I WANT the person to SEE my gun, FEAR it and GO AWAY - so the person won't FORCE ME to SHOOT him/her with it.

      IF I had NO gun - replace above with hammer, baseball bat, two by four, kitchen knife etc... As I absolutely REFUSE to become a victim, the result MIGHT be a LOT messier, but the end game WILL be the same... the person WILL go AWAY. Could be upright; could be horizontal, but GO they WILL.

      My CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED right to bear arms just makes this scenario a lot less strenuous for a lil ol' lady - like me: )