Moms Demand Action Because Eight American Children Are Killed By Guns Every Day

Moms Demand Action for gun sense in America. Politicians and lobbyists can argue about the details. Ordinary Americans are just sick and tired of witnessing the mounting toll of gun violence.

  1. #1 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 9:02 am


    Do you have pictures or video of these guns putting rounds in the magazine, inserting the magazines into themselves, finding a target and then pulling their own trigger?

    According to the American Anthropological Association about 200 women kill their children in the United States each year. Three to five children a day are killed by their parents.

    Other research shows:

    -A parent is the killer in most murders involving children under age 5, according to the Bureau of Justice.

    Maybe these moms should start looking toward other mothers first.

    And exactly what is the definition of a “child” being used in the video?

    According the the CDC for actual children 0-17, there 1,337 fatalities of all intentions relating to firearms in 2010.

    1999 – 2010, United States
    Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
    All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
    ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,

    Year Number of
    Deaths Population*** Crude
    1999 1,776 71,946,051 2.47
    2000 1,544 72,293,812 2.14
    2001 1,433 72,671,175 1.97
    2002 1,443 72,936,457 1.98
    2003 1,317 73,100,758 1.80
    2004 1,385 73,297,735 1.89
    2005 1,490 73,523,669 2.03
    2006 1,593 73,757,714 2.16
    2007 1,520 74,019,405 2.05
    2008 1,475 74,104,602 1.99
    2009 1,392 74,134,167 1.88
    2010 1,337 74,181,467 1.80
    Total 17,705 879,967,012 2.01

    That is 4 per day — or 1 every 8 hours, not 8 per day.

    Take out the ‘children’ that are running drugs, robbing people and other drug dealers— and what is the rate? Much lower.

    How about addressing the parenting of the ‘children’ involved in Gangs, drugs and other crimes?

    Or how about motor vehicle fatalities? Twice as many Children die per day in motor vehicle related incidences then firearm related ones.

    Those details you are sick of are sort of important, don’t you think?

    Or do you want to admit you don’t care about facts, don’t care about the law, don’t care about the Constitution- you just want to get rid of guns?

  2. #2 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 9:21 am


  3. #3 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 10:52 am

    Bob S.–

    If the Gun Lobby is going to quibble about how many children get shot and killed per day, good luck with that. Mothers Against Drunk Driving proved that this kind of campaign is going to be hard to stop.

    Children’s Defense Fund (PDF):

    In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from guns in the United States and 2,793 died in 2009 for a total of 5,740— one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years.

  4. #4 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 11:50 am

    Ohh…. a report that starts off with a 3 or 4 year old picture of Trayvon Martin — not the gansta pictures he had recently tweeted or posted on his face book.
    And nothing in the report about Travyon Martin being suspended from school; not once, not twice but 3 times wasn’t it?

    No mention of his possession of jewelry that didn’t belong to him and a screw driver (police call that a burglary tool).

    No mention of Skittles and Energy Drinks being two of the components in a street drug called “Drank” or “Purple Lean” — codeine from cough syrup being the third.

    Do those facts change the context of Zimmerman’s action? Could, that is what the Court of Law will decide.

    But facts are important…..just as you keep bleating about the fact you pay less in taxes then Romney, Right?

    But let’s move on — know this is going to be an unbiased report.

    Protect Children, Not Guns 2012 analyzes the latest fatal and nonfatal firearm injury data from the
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for 2008 and 2009 for children and teens ages 0-19.1

    Hey, you know what we call someone who is either 18 or 19?


    Let’s turn to the source that the report says they used.

    2008 – 2009, United States
    Firearm Deaths and Rates per 100,000
    All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
    ICD-10 Codes: W32-W34,X72-X74,X93-X95,Y22-Y24,

    Year Number of
    Deaths Population*** Crude
    2008 1,475 74,104,602 1.99
    2009 1,392 74,134,167 1.88
    Total 2,867 148,238,769 1.93

    Half the numbers – NOT quibbling Richard ! Laws should be made on the basis of fact, not fiction, not lies!

    M.A.D.D. didn’t have to lie to get the attitude changed; they stated the facts as they were.

    Richard, I thought you were supposed to be one of OneUtah’s top researchers (according to Larry) — so either you don’t research the issue to discover the truth or you aren’t interested in the truth.

    Which is it sir?

    Oh, and to put those numbers in Context — without lying

    2008 – 2009, United States
    MV Traffic Deaths and Rates per 100,000
    All Races, Both Sexes, Ages 0 to 17
    ICD-10 Codes: V30-V39 (.4-.9), V40-V49 (.4-.9), V50-V59 (.4-.9),
    V60-V69 (.4-.9), V70-V79 (.4-.9), V81.1 V82.1,V83-V86 (.0-.3),
    V20-V28 (.3-.9),V29 (.4-.9),V12-V14 (.3-.9),V19 (.4-.6),
    V02-V04 (.1,.9),V09.2,V80 (.3-.5),V87(.0-.8),V89.2

    Year Number of
    Deaths Population*** Crude
    2008 2,927 74,104,602 3.95
    2009 2,645 74,134,167 3.57
    Total 5,572 148,238,769 3.76

    Nearly twice as many children actual child died in motor vehicle related fatalities in 2008 and 2009.

    So Richard – are you interested in saving the lives of Children or getting guns out of the hands of the law abiding?

  5. #5 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 12:39 pm

    Bob S.–

    Say whatever you want to smear Trayvon Martin, he was an unarmed teenager shot by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who wasn’t supposed to be carrying a gun in the first place.

    Nobody is coming to take your guns away. Stop claiming that. The proposed federal laws are intended to reduce gun crime, especially mass shootings. They are supported by a majority of gun owners. These laws will save the lives of many children and teenagers.

    The tone-deafness of your argument tells me the Gun Lobby is probably going to lose this time.

    • #6 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 12:52 pm


      I’m not smearing, I’m stating facts.

      Just like I’m calling you on your LIE about Zimmerman — now who is trying to smear !

      Zimmerman was licensed to carry concealed as he was that day. He wasn’t on patrol (and all Neighborhood watch volunteers are self appointed ). He was on his way to the store when he followed recommendations from the federal government — if you see something say something

      He did. He was asked by the 911 Dispatcher where and what Martin was doing after Martin approached Zimmerman’s car and tried to stare him down. That is in the affidavit sworn by Zimmerman.

      So you are lying about Zimmerman not supposed to be carrying a gun. Don’t care apparently that Martin could have been out to rob someone — a contention supported by his past — and was did hurt, possibly trying to fatally injure Zimmerman.

      The facts of that are supported by the forensic evidence. Martin has no bruising on his face or upper body; indicating that Zimmerman didn’t strike him. That supports Zimmerman’s sworn statement that Martin attacked him without provocation.

      Next you keep lying about people not wanting to take our firearms. Despite documented evidence to the contrary.

      Once again there is evidence that people are trying to do just that.

      DARE YOU TO POST THIS VIDEO in the comments or top post it

      “We want everything on the table. This is a moment of opportunity”.

      “We are going to push as hard as we can as far as we can”

      Interviewer “So the assault weapon ban is just the beginning?”

      Rep. “Oh absolutely. I’m against hand guns”.

      Is there anything you won’t lie about?

      You don’t tell the truth about Travyon Martin – a lie of omission.

      You deny people are seeking to confiscate firearms – a lie of commission.

      Do you have no decency in you, no willingness to tell the truth?

  6. #7 by cav on March 12, 2013 - 12:44 pm

    Gun suicides exceed auto deaths in five of the United States – including The Behave State.

    Come on gun advocates, let’s be stepping up there. Can’t let auto death be re-taking the lead now, can we?

    • #8 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:01 pm


      Look at the reason for suicide and address the issues, not the tools.

      In Australia, the issue has been studied (search for the quote to find the study)

      Trends in hanging and firearm suicide rates were examined from 1975 to 1998 for all Australian males and from 1971 to 1998 for a subset of Australian male youth, as well as a group of Australian males aged over 64 years at the time of their death. When the firearm suicide rate for Australian males declined the hanging rate increased simultaneously, with no statistical difference in the rate of change of the two methods

      Similar ‘substitution’ effects have been seen in America and other places.

      So how much sense does it make to focus on the tool and not the reason?

  7. #9 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:00 pm

    The facts:

    [T]hrough a statement released by the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) — the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch — it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

    “In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket,” Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens’ Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. “Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon.”

    Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot — all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.

    • #10 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:07 pm


      Is that the only group that organizes neighborhood watches?

      Oh and what part of “Zimmerman wasn’t on patrol” that night don’t you understand?

      The man was going to the store and saw something suspicious – he reported it to the police like the federal government says he should.

      He violated no law in reporting Martin, he violated no law in getting out of his car, he violated no law in carrying a weapon, he violated no law in walking around.

      Those are the facts !

  8. #11 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:06 pm

    Rep. Jan Schakowsky did not say, and has never said, she wants to ban handguns. She supports the same thing that the NRA once supported- a system of universal background checks.

    • #12 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:11 pm


      No she didn’t say she wanted to ban handguns. She did agree that an ‘assault weapon ban was just the start’, didn’t she?

      So what is next after an assault weapon ban?

      Post the video, let the people hear it here.

      I would say it is the height of hypocrisy for you to be supporting universal background checks but I know you are more hypocritical than that.

      YOU who will not disclose your charitable giving, you who will not disclose your tax returns or your income — want people who are buying and selling personal property to have to get governmental approval by disclosing personal information.

  9. #13 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:13 pm

    George Zimmerman’s Own Words: ‘The Dispatcher Told Me Not To Follow The Suspect’

    In an affidavit filed in April, special prosecutor Angela Corey wrote that Zimmerman kept following Martin through the gated community despite being told to stop.

    “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home,” the affidavit said. “Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

  10. #14 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:21 pm

    No need to post the video, you linked to it. I’m not interested in showcasing a right-wing ambush video which uses ominous music and deceptive captioning to distort Rep. Schakowsky’s views.

    Why can’t I support universal background checks? The NRA used to support exactly that.

    • #15 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:28 pm


      You can support anything you want. You can not deprive me of my rights because you support something though.

      Deceptive captioning? What a laugh !! They quoted her words exactly. NO deception there unless it is what the gun grabbers are trying to sell America.

      How many people have to advocate for confiscation before you accept there are people doing it?

      How many bills have to be introduced requiring people to turn in their guns before you accept it?

      Or maybe a better question — how many attempts to disarm people have to take place before you stop lying about it?

  11. #16 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 1:25 pm


    You fail to mention the ‘scared’ child Trayvon Martin circled Zimmerman’s car staring at him – if he was scared someone was following him; why would he risk a confrontation by circling the car?

    Or the fact that the dispatcher was asking Zimmerman what direction Martin went and on what street. So Zimmerman got out of his car to see which street and direction.

    “The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route,” Zimmerman wrote in the statement, which was released to the public for the first time on Thursday morning. “As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said ‘you got a problem?’”

    From the article — which your quote wasn’t from the affidavit but from the article

    No witnesses have stepped forward publicly to say that they saw the shooting itself or even how the confrontation began, and authorities haven’t pointed to any evidence proving Zimmerman ignored the police dispatcher who was telling him to stop.

    Sorry but the affidavit doesn’t say what you claim.

  12. #17 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    Bob S.–

    I think we’re going to have to accept that the lack of witnesses is going to prevent anyone from knowing exactly what happened to Trayvon Martin. That’s why I stuck to the facts, saying only that he was an unarmed teen shot by a self-appointed neighborhood watchman who should have been unarmed. The prosecutor says that Zimmerman ignored instructions to stop following Martin.

    I know nothing of Martin’s state of mind during the incident, or Zimmerman for that matter. Neither do you.

    • #18 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 2:04 pm


      I’m not claiming to know the state of mind of either party but I’ll disagree with you about not knowing exactly what happened.

      Forensic evidence can support one statement and does so. — Nothing released in the press to date has contradicted that Martin was the aggressor.

      Eyewitness statements also corroborate Zimmerman’s statement – there is a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman swinging away.
      — Now if an angelic young choir boy only seeking to return home to his family had knocked someone down; why would he risk losing a fight instead of running several hundred feet to the home he was staying at?

      Under any scenario; Martin had the time and opportunity to avoid the confrontation.

      Why are you continually saying that Zimmerman had to be unarmed?

      He was not on patrol, he was acting as an average citizen. Are you stating that ordinary people shouldn’t be armed?

      So, let’s sum up the facts we do know.

      Zimmerman was legally where he should have been. So was Martin.

      Zimmerman’s behavior did not meet the profile of someone casing a home for a break in. Martin’s did.
      (not saying he was casing it, just his behavior fit the profile).

      Martin had been suspended from school for having jewelry that didn’t belong to him and burglary tools.

      None of the forensic evidence contradict Zimmerman’s statement.

      No evidence has been presented that in any of the 3 voluntary interviews Zimmerman gave to the police contradicted any of his statements.

      Zimmerman willing took a voice stress analysis and passed.

      Those are the facts.

      So, from this you take what?

      That people should let strangers walk around their neighborhoods despite a rash of crime in the area?

      That people should be unarmed as they run errands?

  13. #19 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 2:22 pm

    Bob S.–

    There are four people who have claimed to be eyewitnesses. None of their names have been made public. All four have changed their stories. It’s not clear from the evolving accounts who was attacking who.

    Zimmerman fits the profile of a wannabe cop. He was a nuisance to Sanford Police Department operators, calling at least 46 times. Mostly for “suspicious activity” or alleged disturbances like parties or children “running and playing in the street.”

    • #20 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 2:51 pm


      Stick to one set of facts please. Was Zimmerman a self appointed neighborhood watch or not?

      Isn’t that what a ‘neighborhood watch’ is supposed to do? Report suspicious activity?

      And those 46 phone calls — they started in 2004 and go until 2012 — 8 years. so they average just over 5 calls a year. Wow….really bothering the police isn’t he.

      Let’s just focus on one witness for the moment.

      • Witness 6: This witness lived a few feet from where Martin and Zimmerman fought. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man “just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style.”

      He also said the one calling for help was “the one being beat up,” a reference to Zimmerman.

      But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by a state agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.

      “I truly can’t tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk,” he said.

      He also said he was no longer sure Martin was throwing punches. The teenager may have merely pinned Zimmerman to the ground, he said.

      He did not equivocate about who was on top, however.

      “The black guy was on top,” he said.

      Is there a bit of forensic evidence to contradict that Zimmerman was being punched by Martin?

      NOT that has been released.

      The pictures support both his first statement and Zimmerman’s.

      The autopsy report does not show any evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s statement.

      So we have a witness under what could be considered pressure changing a story — think any of the publicity had anything to do with it?

      But the facts remain unchanged and still his statement one was on top of the other does not support the contention that Martin was afraid and ran away from Zimmerman. Why would a healthy teenager stop just hundreds of feet from the home he was staying at.

      Then on to another witness

      Witness 13: He is important because he talked with Zimmerman and watched the way he behaved immediately after the shooting, before police arrived.

      After this neighbor heard gunfire, he went outside and spotted Zimmerman standing there with “blood on the back of his head,” he told Sanford police the night of the shooting.

      Zimmerman told him that Martin “was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him,” the witness told Serino. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, then asked the witness to call his wife, Shellie, and tell her what had happened.

      In two subsequent interviews about a month later — one with a state investigator and one with De la Rionda — the witness described Zimmerman’s demeanor in greater detail, adding that he spoke as if the shooting were no big deal.

      Zimmerman’s tone, the witness said, was “not like, ‘I can’t believe I just shot someone!’ — it was more like, ‘Just tell my wife I shot somebody’ … like it was nothing.”

      Nice of you to classify this as ‘changing his story’. I would say more like clarifying or further describing. NOTHING contradicts the evidence or his first statement. And for those who are not used to dealing with shock the symptoms can be misinterpreted. What could be seem as “not a big deal” was likely the effects of shock.

      So….again. NO physical evidence contradicts the forensic evidence. The witness statements may have changed by don’t contradict the evidence.

      Again Richard — since you avoided the questions — Do you think that everyone should be unarmed when they go about their errands?

      Do you think that people shouldn’t watch out for their neighborhoods?

  14. #21 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 3:06 pm

    Bob S.–

    Zimmerman was totally self-appointed. He apparently was the neighborhood watch, all on his own. I have never called the police for anything, let alone an open garage door. Because I am not paranoid.

    There is no witness who now claims to have seen either one punching the other. I’m not sure we know what all the forensic evidence is, prior to trial.

    If you claim to be a “neighborhood watch captain,” as Zimmerman told police after killing Trayvon Martin, then don’t carry a gun or follow anyone around. Observe and report – only.

  15. #22 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 3:56 pm


    Are you speaking as a professional lawyer? Neighborhood watch volunteer trainer? Law Enforcement official — anything with standing when you say “Observe and Report -only”?

    I don’t think so. You are just someone puffed up on his own opinion.

    You keep focusing on the fact that Zimmerman was part of the neighborhood watch but you ignore the fact he wasn’t on patrol, he was on a personal errand.

    Mr. Zimmerman was not acting outside the legal boundaries of Florida Statute by carrying his weapon when this incident occurred. He was in fact on a personal errand in his vehicle when he observed Mr. Martin in the community and called the Sanford Police Department.

    There was a witness who claimed to see one punching the other. I quoted his statements above — you remember one of the 4 people you claim changed their statements, right.

    YOU may not want to have looked at the forensic evidence but I have. It is out there for you to do it. Just as the photographs are – that is part of the forensic evidence by the way. Along with the Autopsy report and other information such as where the body was found, etc.

    So….. again. Since George Zimmerman was on his way to the store when he encountered Trayvon Martin — are you saying that people should go unarmed on their errands?

    That no one should carry a firearm?

    Do you think it is right or wrong to call the police when a person sees suspicious behavior?

  16. #23 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 4:28 pm

    Bob S.–

    Amazing, one photo of Trayvon Martin set you off like a stick of dynamite. This case hasn’t gone to trial yet, and I expect there are a lot of facts that haven’t been made public.

    Zimmerman wasn’t on a personal errand when he followed Martin carrying a concealed weapon – apparently he was acting in his capacity as self-appointed neighborhood watchman, although violating the rules that govern neighborhood watch.

    All we know so far is an unarmed teenager got shot and killed. Was it self defense? I’ll wait for the trial.

    • #24 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 5:26 pm


      Why do you lie so often?
      It wasn’t a picture of Trayvon Martin — It was you attempting to use his death as a means to your end — the confiscation, banning, restriction, ‘common sense’ regulation of firearms — what ever you want to call it.

      The reality is people have been calling for restriction of my rights and I’m tired of it. People like you are using biased media accounts of a situation for political purposes.

      You admit you haven’t seen the evidence but you still claim to know what you are talking about.

      Present evidence showing that Zimmerman wasn’t on a personal errand?

      You aren’t telling the truth. We know more than an unarmed teenager got shot and killed.

      We know Trayvon’s past record with the school included 3 suspensions, including the one that had him in Sanford.

      There is forensic evidence out there — factual information as to where Martin was shot. Evidence that supports Zimmerman’s affidavit.

      There is evidence that Martin injured Zimmerman.
      There is evidence that Zimmerman did not injure Martin other than the gun shot.

      There is evidence the media lied, deliberately, to make Zimmerman sound racist.

      There is evidence that people like you don’t know what you are talking about but that doesn’t stop you from doing it.

  17. #25 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 6:31 pm

    I think the rule used religiously when determining who is at fault in a driving accident should be used in the Trayvon Martin case. The guy who hits you from behind is ALWAYS at fault, because it was his responsibility to follow at a safe distance. Zimmerman was told to back off specifically by the dispatcher and that’s what he should have done. Period.

    However, as this case is battered around the media, it distresses me greatly that many others have died as a result of the laws ALEC enacted and you WILL NOT be getting that aspect of the story.

    • #26 by Bob S. on March 12, 2013 - 7:13 pm


      The transcript of the 911 call seems to indicate that Zimmerman was returning to his car as directed.

      The evidence supports Zimmerman’s statement he was returning to his car as directed. The evidence supports Zimmerman’s statement that Trayvon confronted him, not the other way around.

      Why would Trayvon stop running 70 yards from the home he was staying at? It doesn’t make sense .

      Next a police dispatcher is not a law enforcement personnel in Sanford Florida. In most locations, they are not law enforcement personnel.

      So do you believe that a person who lives in a gated community shouldn’t keep an eye on what is going on? Shouldn’t be able to walk around without being jumped by a thug?

      Because that is what appears to have happened.

      If you feel the media isn’t covering the issue fairly (it isn’t, it is mostly slanted for Martin) then report on it.

      Show how a person walking in his own neighborhood shouldn’t be allowed to use lethal force to defend his life.

      Show how a person being beaten by another shouldn’t be allowed to force to stop the beating.

      NO evidence has been presented to suggest that Martin had any intention of stopping his beating of Zimmerman.

      If you don’t like the law; how do you suggest we write it so people can defend themselves?

      Put it in writing or stop complaining about a law that has stood the test of time and the court system.

  18. #27 by Richard Warnick on March 12, 2013 - 7:15 pm

    Bob S.–

    You claimed that guns don’t kill 8 American children per day. But it’s true, and I linked to a report about it. A report that happened to have a picture of Trayvon Martin, and that sent you off the deep end.

    Look, nobody who’s playing cop by strapping on a gun and following a black teenager around is on an innocent personal errand.

    Gun safety is not a restriction of your rights. You own guns? Fine, nobody is going to do anything to you. We want to reduce gun violence, and if you’re not part of the problem you have nothing to worry about. Most gun owners understand this, according to the polls.

    • #28 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 4:23 am


      I debunked that ‘report’ easily using CDC information. The “report” uses 18 and 19 year olds in its definition of ‘children’.

      Were you a child at 18? at 19?

      Once again — you lie.

      I said that it starts off with a 3 or 4 year old picture — IT being the ‘report’ you cited. A report that lies about what ‘children’ are – did you write it?

      Look, nobody who’s playing cop by strapping on a gun and following a black teenager around is on an innocent personal errand.

      Now you are a mind reader – I thought you said you didn’t know what Zimmerman’s frame of mind was.

      So either you are lying now or you were lying then.

      Which is it Richard?

      Why don’t you present some evidence to contradict the sworn statement of Zimmerman ?

      Nope that isn’t your way, you just try to smear a person you don’t know, you don’t know what he was doing the night of the shooting — Can you say adhomien attack?

      Gun safety is not a restriction of your rights. You own guns? Fine, nobody is going to do anything to you. We want to reduce gun violence, and if you’re not part of the problem you have nothing to worry about.

      If I am not a problem, why are all your proposals and those of other anti-rights advocates directed at people like me instead of criminals?

      Do you propose to keep the criminals in jail?
      Do you propose to make their sentences longer?

      Nope YOU do nothing of the sort.

      What you want to do is take away rifles that are used in less then 500 homicides a year despite there being several million — probably around 5 million or more of them.

      What you want to do is make people like me submit my personal information to the government when I purchase a piece of property.

      What you want to do is keep people like me from owning standard capacity magazines.

      NOTHING you do isn’t directed at people like me.

      Stop lying about ‘nobody is going to do anything to you’.

      Colorado legislation just passed a law banning standard capacity magazines — like New York State did — meaning people like me will not be able to buy or sell property we already own.

      Why don’t you propose laws that will affect criminals more then the law abiding?

  19. #29 by Larry Bergan on March 12, 2013 - 7:58 pm

    It’s bad law Bob S. and it’s getting people killed. ALEC writes law for the privileged and powerful and the “stand your ground” laws are designed to let those people get away with shooting others that scare them without experiencing any repercussions.

    It’s basically a license to kill poor people.

    • #30 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 4:27 am


      I didn’t know that George Zimmerman and people like him were “privileged and powerful’. He seems like an average guy.

      Can you write him and tell him how lucky he is to be privileged and powerful. I’m sure it will come as a surprise since he is standing trial for a crime you say he is getting away with.

      Why are you pro-criminal?
      Why do you want criminals to have every advantage over the people defending their lives?

      Every ‘Stand Your Ground” law I’ve read contains a provision that says the defender can not be breaking the law at the time. Seems to me you want the criminals to have a safe operating environment.

  20. #31 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 8:15 am

    Richard, such statements as…

    “Gun safety is not a restriction of your rights. You own guns? Fine, nobody is going to do anything to you. We want to reduce gun violence, and if you’re not part of the problem you have nothing to worry about.”

    …back-handedly condition the public to assume the modern surveillance state really means well, and that only evildoers object to ubiquitous surveillance.

    Clearly Bob S’s, and many many other of us, contend that this has yet to be clearly established.

    • #32 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 8:48 am


      I agree that has yet to be clearly established with our government — but indications show that the government is ever encroaching on our rights.

      PATRIOT ACT, for example and many many more. Look at KELO v City of New London. The city used eminent domain to take a person’s property someone who could pay more in taxes could use the property.

      So much for property rights, and privacy. Let’s look at the TSA; supposed to keep us safe from Terrorists flying planes into buildings again- now they want to search people boarding buses and trains. And Border Patrol stopping people to ask if they are U.S. Citizens up to 100 miles away from the border.

      What many people are seeing is a pattern played out many times through out history – democracies never last. They generally dissolve into tyranny.

      What I object to about Richard’s proposals is they do not address the criminals as much as the law abiding. Why not crack down on the gangs and drug cartels; they are responsible for up to 80% of the violent crime in America according to the F.B.I.

      Richard and others complain about the loss of our civil liberties but turns around to say “Hey, don’t mind us pushing THIS loss of your civil liberties.

  21. #33 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:27 am

    Bob S.–

    I have a right to my opinion, and even if you disagree with a report I cite that does not constitute “lying” on my part. You just sound ridiculous when you say everything that’s not Gun Lobby propaganda is a “lie.”

    I can honestly say you are the first right-winger that I have encountered who has anything bad to say about the USA PATRIOT Act. When did you come to the realization that it violates the Constitution?


    You’re right about the surveillance state of course. But in the larger scheme of things, what difference would it make if the government did have a database of gun owners (which would be illegal)? There are no Minutemen anymore, they and their single-shot muzzle-loading weapons are a thing of the past. Something the Gun Lobby needs to understand.

    • #34 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 10:40 am


      I don’t call everything you say a lie. YOU posted from the report this:

      In 2008, 2,947 children and teens died from guns in the United States and 2,793 died in 2009 for a total of 5,740— one child or teen every three hours, eight every day, 55 every week for two years.

      In order to get that number, they had to include 18 and 19 year old adults in the count. 18 and 19 year old people aren’t children are they.

      YOU lied when YOU claimed it was 1 every 3 hours. Repeating their lie and claiming it as your own.

      What is the legal definition of a child regarding age? Do you know what it is? If you do and still claim that 8 children a day die, then you are lying.

      You say you only report facts but I’ve shown time and time again you aren’t accurate, you distort the facts and out right lie.

      We can disagree about policies and opinions but you aren’t entitled to your own facts.

      When did you come to the realization that it violates the Constitution?

      A more important question is “When are you going to realize the laws you propose and support violate the Constitution?”

    • #35 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 10:43 am

      Let me address your point about the Minutemen and their “single shot muzzle loading weapons” also.

      You do realize the standing army no longer uses muskets, right?
      I know you’ve been out of the army for some time and things have changed but even back in the day they weren’t using muskets.

      So….you ask what difference it would make in the larger scheme of things?

      How about looking to history and pointing out a single incident in history where registration didn’t lead to confiscation?

  22. #36 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:50 am

    Bob S.–

    (1) You ignore the fact that to a mother, her child is always her child regardless of age. I don’t think a technicality like the legal age of majority is going to be a winning argument for the Gun Lobby.

    (2) 24/8 = 3.

    (3) In the USA, age of majority is 18. Like I said, a technicality in this context and not likely to win any sympathy for the poor downtrodden Gun Lobby.

    (4) See #1.

    (5) Thanks for not answering my question, it confirms that you are not serious in your opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act. None of the proposed federal gun safety laws violate the Constitution.

    • #37 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 11:05 am


      The report didn’t say “some mother’s child” is killed. It said and you repeated that 8 children per day are killed with firearms.

      Now words have meanings and those are generally agreed upon by society. You would be really upset if I accused you of having sex with a child wouldn’t you?

      Even if my definition of a child included legal adults.

      So the truth is important when we are discussing our rights, don’t you think?

      I’m not answering your question about the PATRIOT Act because you seem to want to move the discussion to it.

      How can you object to the government encroaching on our rights in one area and then strongly advocate for the encroachment of our right to keep and bear arms.

      To me that is hypocrisy.

      YOU claim that the gun control laws don’t violate the constitution – isn’t that the same claim you made about the Gun Bans in Washington D.C. and Chicago?

      Bans that the Supreme Court (and many other lower courts) have ruled as Unconstitutional?

  23. #38 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 10:52 am

    Bob S.–

    My point about the Minutemen is that the Gun Lobby talks about fighting the U.S. government as if this were still the 18th Century. Well, too bad, this is the 21st Century and you’re not going to fight the U.S. government. That is bullshit.

    • #39 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 11:08 am


      Nice straw man argument. Can you back up your words with something from the “gun lobby”?

      I find it hilarious that you accuse the gun lobby of this — while using your 1st Amendment rights on a computer, the electrical grid, servers and the internet.

      Surely you realize your tired argument that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the militia is treating the country as it was still the 18th century.

      I don’t want to fight the U.S. Government. I want the government to respect my rights. Why don’t you want the same thing?

  24. #40 by cav on March 13, 2013 - 11:12 am

    I don’t think the U. S. government is a monolithic block.

    Some sworn to uphold the Constitution, will do just that.

    Others, more beholden to the corporations and the status quo, might need some persuasion, some massaging. ; )

    • #42 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 11:37 am


      I don’t even have to open your links — I guess you focused on the fighting part and I focused on the part where you claimed the “gun lobby thought it was the 18th century.”

      But let’s take the first link — and go back to the original article instead of what someone says about it.

      Williamson wrote:

      he purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny.

      That isn’t overthrowing the government is it?

      And he quotes Justice Joseph Story:

      The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

      You might have to work at it, but most people will clearly recognize that the people have a right to restore liberty — if the government is keeping liberty safe, then there is nothing to overthrow, right?

      The 2nd link is from the Brady Campaign for the Prevention of gun ownership, I mean gun violence.

      Hmm, the most controversial thing in the video is ‘unestablishing the government’ — surely you agree the people have the right to change government if they don’t like it, right?

      Let’s move on to the third link

      CHRIS MATTHEWS (HOST): So you’re like Sharron Angle, out in Nevada, who said we need our Second Amendment rights to control when our politicians get out of hand.

      PRATT: That’s our Second Amendment rights, she’s not making that up.

      MATTHEWS: So how would you use your Second Amendment rights if you didn’t like the way your congressman or senator is representing you?

      PRATT: By being prepared.

      MATTHEWS: So Larry, it’s not just the right to use guns to protect your homes, it’s the right to take on your government?

      Larry Pratt never says anything illegal or talks about taking on the government. That is Chris Matthews. Again — if the government strips you of your rights; are you just going to take it or be prepared to do something about it?

      And your 4th link is just someone’s opinion piece about a rally at the capital. I can see how you mistook opinion for fact.

      Now. Show me where the gun lobby thinks it is the 18th century.

  25. #43 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 1:00 pm

    Bob S.–

    So you think the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to overthrow the U.S. government by force of arms, except maybe you don’t?

    It’s my personal opinion that the Gun Lobby thinks this is the 18th Century. Because when Wayne LaPierre says “The people have a right to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government,” he is living more than 200 years in the past.

    Not to mention that the “well-regulated militia” envisioned by the Second Amendment was obviously supposed to fight FOR the government, not against it.

    • #44 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 1:20 pm


      I think the 2nd Amendment supports the rights of the citizens to control their government.

      It grants NOTHING.
      The Bill of Rights grants not a single right to the people. All it does is specifically enumerate rights the government is limited in controlling. The 9th and 10th Amendments clearly show the design of the Constitution — limited Federal powers. Anything not specifically listed to the government is reserved to the people or the states.

      Now, please tell me that how the Founding Fathers — after just overthrowing a tyrannical government that had lost legitimacy — didn’t ensure future citizens couldn’t do the same thing?

      I agree with you the militia — and therefore the individuals that make up or can make up the militia — is supposed for fight for the government.

      So who is the government: just the elected people in state capitals or Washington D.C. or is the government the whole of the people?

      WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. WE are the people we are fighting for. Those who fail to obey the Constitution, Those who Fail to respect our Rights aren’t the goverment — they are petty bureaucrats out of control.

      We hold the following truths to be obvious and undeniable,

      · All men are created equal and have been equipped and supplied by the Creator with certain rights that cannot and must not be taken away which include:

      o Personal freedom (liberty)

      o And the right to pursue happiness.

      To secure these God-ordained rights, Governments are created and they derive their power and authority from the People they govern, who give them permission to govern, and willingly submit to their authority.

      However, when any Government decides to take away the right of personal freedom and the pursuit of happiness, it is the right of the People under that Government to change the Government, or if necessary, get rid of the Government altogether, to recreate a Government which are once again founded upon the principles of freedom, and organized in such a way as to guarantee those freedoms.

      Logic, caution and good judgment requires that established Governments should not be altered hastily, without good reason or for temporary circumstances. As well, experience has demonstrated that the People have a tendency to suffer Government evils, rather than change them, as long as the suffering is not too extreme. Why? Because People get used to things being a certain way, and it is difficult and takes great effort to change.

      But… when a long series of abuses and stealing of freedoms has occurred by the Government, which are all meant to achieve the goal of putting the People under the rule of violent tyrants, it becomes the right of the People – even more it becomes the duty of the People – to defeat and cast away that Government and create a new Government and new safeguards to protect their freedom.

  26. #45 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 1:36 pm

    Bob S.–

    No government passes laws allowing its own violent overthrow. As Americans, I assume we’re all committed to influencing Washington by peaceful means only. Any other plan is, to put it mildly, insane.

    I want you to understand that a vast majority of people consider Wayne LaPierre and his fellow fanatics to be nuts.

    • #46 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:09 pm


      They didn’t pass a law allowing its own violent overthrow.

      The passed a Constitutional Amendment denying the government the power to disarm the people — ensuring (hopefully) that the government will never get out of control again and need to be changed violently…..but remember the founding fathers had just a decade before done exactly that.

      The question is why don’t you support the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

      Who are you afraid of having firearms?
      Why should the government be afraid of the people having firearms?

      • #47 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 2:14 pm

        The Second Amendment is an historical relic. There is no point to civilians owning military weapons (except for collectors, and they can obtain accurate replicas or real weapons that have been rendered permanently inoperable). Machine guns are already banned by law, for example, and nobody says that’s a violation of the Second Amendment.

        This Gun Lobby fantasy of fighting against the U.S. Army in the streets of America is just that, a fantasy.

  27. #48 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 1:48 pm

    Michael Moore:

    I believe someone in Newtown, Connecticut – a grieving parent, an upset law enforcement officer, a citizen who has seen enough of this carnage in our country – somebody, someday soon, is going to leak the crime scene photos of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre. And when the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA. It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.

    • #49 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:23 pm


      Of course the AR-15 can do appalling damage. That is the point of firearms – it makes people think twice or should about robbing people, about murder, about rape.

      You focus on the negative without recognizing the positive that firearms do. How many people’s lives are saved every day, how many rapes prevented, kidnappings stopped, robberies ended?

      How many people hunt, and yes people hunt with AR type weapons, prairie dogs and coyotes are often hunted using the .223/5.56 caliber.

      How many people peacefully enjoy the shooting sports every day?

      And more importantly — what price are you willing to put on our freedom?
      I’ve done nothing wrong, illegal or immoral with my firearms.
      Yet you propose and support laws that will make me turn them in or go to jail.

      Why? Why should I who have harmed no one be forced to give up my firearms?
      Why should I not be allowed to pass them down to my children and grandchildren?

      Why do you support such an encroachment into our civil liberties?

      • #50 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 2:27 pm

        Here again you are weighing the convenience of gun hobbyists versus public safety. Most people – including gun owners – come down on the side of public safety.

        If Moore is right, and those photos do get out on the Web or in the media, good luck with your argument about the positive benefits of owning an AR-15.

        • #51 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:44 pm


          Can you not make a straw man argument ?

          There is snark…oh wait ! It isn’t snark it is an honest question.

          I am weighing MY RIGHTS against public safety. Just like you do in regards to the PATRIOT Act — by the way…that is something that I opposed before it was ever passed –

          My rights and the rights of at least 85 MILLION people versus the 300 or 400 deaths attributed to long guns – not just assault rifles but all rifles and shotguns — Yeah, I’m going to come down on my rights.

          Just like you do in driving, in keeping your information private, in being allowed to speak in public places and in private.

          IF we gave up our rights we could save hundreds of lives a year.

          Heck if you gave up half your income we could probably save a life or three. Think of the medical treatment you could provide, the food you could give a family.

          Are you going to selfishly allow people to die just because you are unwilling to give up half your income?

          • #52 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 4:18 pm

            The Gun Lobby says that America’s ridiculously high firearm death rate is the price we must pay for that fabulous Second Amendment.

            I say the Second Amendment is little more than an historical curiosity, and not worth dying for.

  28. #53 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 2:01 pm

    Four Dead In Upstate New York, Police Search For Suspect

    The mayor described his village as close-knit and friendly, “the kind of place where you’d say, `Oh, it would never happen here.'”

    2012 was the worst year for random gun massacres. What will happen this year?

  29. #54 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 2:50 pm


    Still waiting for you to point to a single time in history that Registration of firearms didn’t lead to confiscation.

  30. #55 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 4:13 pm

    Bob S.–

    I suppose that’s your subtle way of invoking Godwin’s Law. But:

    (1) We already know the Gun Lobby’s propaganda about registration of firearms, and

    (2) Nobody in Congress is proposing registration, only the same background check system that the NRA proposed.

    • #56 by Bob S. on March 13, 2013 - 7:11 pm


      You think Hitler is the only person to ever confiscate firearms?

      I’m not invoking Godwin’s law I’m pointing out historical fact. Fact you want to ignore.

      Can you do it or not? Can you name a single time that registration has not lead to confiscation?

      And you haven’t been paying attention to the laws being proposed in Washington — the Universal Background Check Bill includes a requirement for records to be kept !

      Defacto Registration.

      So come on Richard — name a single time in history where registration did not lead to confiscation.

      • #57 by Richard Warnick on March 13, 2013 - 7:58 pm

        Your homework assignment doesn’t interest me. Why not simply link to a Gun Lobby propaganda site to make your point?

        And try to remember that two-thirds of American households manage to live without firearms, as strange as that may seem to you.

  31. #58 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 7:56 pm

    Michael Moore may be right and I believe it would finally change things. When I had my first real job, developing photos for a large facility in Salt Lake City in the early 70’s, we got a few police photo’s of tragic scenes. Although they were ugly, the only one that really got to me was a picture of a very young boy – probably around eight years old – who had fallen off a hay wagon and cracked his head open. I nearly threw up when I saw that. I can still see that horrible image in my mind. What a tragedy for his parents.

    I heard that a mother of one of the children who died at Sandy Hook wanted an open coffin at her child’s funeral. I’m sure the NRA would be screaming that it was morbid, but Emmett Till’s image changed history.

    Maybe if the gun laws were changed to protect the innocent, we would be sparred seeing the horror of that day, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

  32. #59 by Larry Bergan on March 13, 2013 - 9:00 pm

    Bob S.:

    Referring to your comment to me at #30:

    I never said I thought Zimmerman was – in my words – “privileged and powerful”. In fact I think anybody who is so paranoid as to follow people around his neighborhood garnishing a gun and pointing it at teenagers with Skittles is a dork. That doesn’t take away from the fact that the ALEC laws embolden even dorks to fire at people who scare them for whatever reason.

    Unless I’m wrong, Zimmerman was getting funds to defend himself from some interested people until they decided to give up the cause. Like I said: I could be wrong. Did YOU donate?

    You said:

    Every ‘Stand Your Ground” law I’ve read contains a provision that says the defender can not be breaking the law at the time.

    That’s precious!

    How can you break the law by “standing your ground” if it IS the law? An ALEC law.

  33. #60 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 4:19 am


    YOU stated way back up on comment #27:

    Gun safety is not a restriction of your rights. You own guns? Fine, nobody is going to do anything to you. We want to reduce gun violence, and if you’re not part of the problem you have nothing to worry about

    and in Comment #33 you asked Cav

    But in the larger scheme of things, what difference would it make if the government did have a database of gun owners (which would be illegal)?

    So, in the larger scheme of things is the context in which I’m asking the question Can you name a single time in history where registration of firearms did not lead to confiscation?

    YOU asked the question — I’m trying to get you to realize why it is a bad idea. I know the answer. If I link to a ‘gun lobby’ site — you’ll claim bias and ignore the answer.

    Why are you so willing to grant the government more power to infringe on our rights? Why are you so willing to make it easier for criminals?

  34. #61 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 6:46 am

    “Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.”
    ~ John F Kennedy

  35. #62 by cav on March 14, 2013 - 8:00 am

    Bob S.

    This is exactly the problem I have. Somewhere between the conviction that ‘We Are The Government’ (as you expanded on in comment #44), and the ‘the pretend government we rely on to bomb the shit out of ‘over there’, which would spy us into giving up ALL of our rights, is Something which might be considered ‘government’, which might have some value to the broader community, which we might just wish to retain.

    Seems to me it’s a matter of stripping off the elements (cough: corporate hegemony – OK straight up – fascism! :cough) that are keeping us from our little ‘d’ democracy. That would both enable the wish for smaller govt, and provide a govt that really is intent on provision of the common good. Of course, I live in a dream.

    As it’s structured now, nobody knows where the govt ends and the corporations begin – which is just the way the greedy corps (among them the weapon manufacturers) like it.

    • #63 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 8:50 am


      I can agree with your sentiments. I think there should be a strong element of getting the corporations out of government.

      But that has to be accompanied by a concurrent getting government out of corporations.

      Both political parties have tried to tell corporations — which really are just collections of individuals — how to run their business for too long.
      And of course, those businesses push back by lobbying government, bribing government, hiring government – and government does the same thing.

      The Tax code so often complained about is a result of that back and forth (mostly bribing).
      A simplified tax code would reduce the impact — because there wouldn’t be as much room for bribery.
      Reducing the size, scope and reach of the government would also help.

      But the first problem fixed has to be drawing the line in the sand. We have a federal government that is not respecting our rights, not respecting our current laws.

      Yet people like Richard wants to turn over private information (property ownership of firearms to them), wants to let them approve all private firearm transactions.
      We are just supposed to trust that they won’t abuse that power. Yet, name a power the government hasn’t abused.

  36. #64 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 8:01 am

    The Gun Lobby thinks that claiming “they are coming to take away your precious guns” will rally the owners against firearm safety. It’s not working, and 90 percent of current gun owners are in favor of background checks.

    In fact, the universal background check system now before Congress is the same one the NRA proposed. Now Wayne LaPierre falsely asserts a “massive federal registry” is on the way. Not true.

    Fact Check: The Gun Registry Red Herring

    “Background checks do not and cannot lead to gun registration. It’s a lie meant to muddy the debate and distract from our common goal — saving lives with solutions that Americans support overwhelmingly,” Mark Kelly, the husband of former Rep. Gabby Giffords, said in a Tuesday statement.

    • #65 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 8:57 am


      We are not a democracy — I don’t care if 99% of the people support you giving up your privacy completely, I wouldn’t.

      So why do you — who argues against the PATRIOT Act and its abuses — want to force me and others to give up our privacy?

      There has to be an overwhelming positive for the constitutional infringement, that is doctrine established by the Supreme Court.

      Do you think that background checks will stop criminals from getting firearms? If so, what percentage?

      Keep in mind that we have laws against most narcotics that can be purchased on the street — so is it easy today to get those drugs then when the laws were first passed?


      Schumer’s attempt to win support from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) broke down amid a dispute over whether records of background checks should be kept. Democrats believe doing so is necessary to enforce the law. But many Republicans say it would lead to a national gun registry that could eventually be used to confiscate weapons

      Read more:

      So, it doesn’t create a registry — just a keeps records on every background check performed !

      You are right, it isn’t a gun registry – it is a gun owner registry.

      No thanks.

      Why not focus on shutting down the gangs, the drug cartels. Isn’t it interesting not one proposal you’ve mentioned or supported is actually focused on the criminals most responsible for crime?

      Are you pro-criminal?

      • #66 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 9:37 am

        The invasion of privacy you are against is not part of the legislation being debated in Congress.

        The NRA-proposed background check system is a good idea that has near-unanimous support. If this bill can’t pass, nothing can. We know background checks work (PDF).

        In 2010, the FBI and state agencies denied a firearm to nearly 153,000 persons due to National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of felonies, domestic violence offenses, and other prohibiting factors.

        Of course background checks reduce the availability of guns to criminals, but it’s not a perfect solution because some evil people (e.g. the Aurora shooter) won’t be in the database. Which is why we need the ban on mass-murder weapons that passed the Senate Judiciary Committee this morning.

        If no records are required to be kept on background checks, then it will be impossible to go after crooked gun dealers who don’t comply with the law. That’s obvious.

        Your car is registered with the state. You have a driver’s license, Social Security card, and probably other ID cards. Why the paranoia about registering guns?

        • #67 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 10:11 am


          How can you say that when Chuck Schumer’s Background check bill requires all private transactions to be conducted at an FFL and records to be kept?

          Do you have a clue what you are talking about?

          And just how will background checks keep criminals from getting firearms?

          They use straw purchasers now. That won’t change. With out a registry of firearms, it will be impractical to show that a check didn’t occur —
          even the National Institute of Justice admits that.

          Your car is registered with the state. You have a driver’s license, Social Security card, and probably other ID cards. Why the paranoia about registering guns?

          Because you refuse to answer the question “Can you name a single time in history where firearm registration did not lead to confiscation?”

          I can’t. Nor can scholars and experts who have studied the issue. You ask why I’m paranoid about registering my firearms yet you won’t release information about your finances — despite calling for Romney to release his.

          Just who is paranoid Richard?

          — And let’s look at your comments here.

          You approve of the government keeping records on purchases.

          You call for an assault weapon ban.

          Smart people put two and two together to get 4 — confiscation of firearms.

          Time and time again I’ve pointed out politicians who are calling for exactly that.

          Time and Time again I’ve pointed out legislation (New York State & Colorado for example) that mandates confiscation of firearms and magazines.

          And still you deny that confiscation is in play.

          • #68 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 10:21 am

            If you’re worried about confiscation, fine. Most Americans have nothing to worry about, because we don’t own any firearms and have no desire to own them. Here’s why the Gun Lobby promotes paranoia:

            Alarms about imminent gun confiscation—an NRA staple, despite its implausibility—reliably send firearm owners back to retail counters. Sales are booming.

            I’m tired of you telling me we don’t live in a democracy, so we have to do what some well-funded corporatist minority tells us to do, even if it costs lives.

  37. #69 by cav on March 14, 2013 - 8:03 am

    Tag fail above.

    G’ morning Richard.

  38. #70 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 8:06 am

    Fixed it.

  39. #71 by cav on March 14, 2013 - 8:30 am

    : )

  40. #72 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 11:11 am


    If you don’t want to own firearms; great – Don’t. I’m not forcing you to.

    But don’t complain about government intrusion into our rights (re PATRIOT act and others) then turn around and support intrusion into our rights.

    And it is our rights we are talking about.

    I find it incredulous (either that or deliberately misleading) that you say “most Americans have nothing to worry about” when we have a government that has consistently shown a lack of restraint.

    Neither party respects Constitutional limits on search and seizure.
    Neither party respects the limits on the power or authority of the government. We have laws telling us when and where we can text or take a cell call for goodness sake. We have the government telling us how much sodium to have in our meals.
    We have the government pawing through every financial transaction we make, recording and archiving our emails, phone calls.

    You rightly complain about many of these things then turn around and support the government being able to approve what law abiding citizens buy or sell.

    It doesn’t make sense.

    You support the right of people to fly don’t you? Even knowing that an accident or terrorist attack will cost lives.

    You support the right of people to speak freely, don’t you? Even if that right is misused and people die as a result.

    You support the right of the people to drive, don’t you? Even though exercising that right will cost lives.

    What I don’t understand is your focus.
    You don’t focus on the criminals — wouldn’t keeping the violent ones in jail save lives?

    You don’t focus on improving the mental health system; Wouldn’t having beds keep people like the Colorado shooter off the streets?

    You don’t focus on the drug cartels. That is a crime where the criminals can’t call the cops so they use violence to solve their problems. Focus on that and it will save lives.

    I’m not saying don’t do anything about the loss of life but what you focus on will not reduce deaths, injuries or crime.

    The CDC study has shown that. The National Institute of Justice memo reports that.

    The proposals you support will strip law abiding people of their rights and leave people at the mercy of criminals.

    So is that your goal?

    • #73 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      You talk about straw man arguments. Look, people who don’t own firearms are hardly “at the mercy of criminals.” And people who do own firearms are not safer, in fact they are in far more danger because there is a gun in the house.

      We go around and around on these same points because of Gun Lobby propaganda. But the real issue is how to make mass shootings less prevalent, and limiting access to military-style weapons and high-capacity magazines will do that.

  41. #74 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 2:08 pm

    Senators Destroy Ted Cruz’s Argument Against The Assault Weapons Ban

    Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI):

    It is hard to imagine that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it’s not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent somebody from bringing a hundred-round magazine into a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado.

    • #75 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 2:26 pm

      Sad to see a Senator not understand the law.

      It isn’t against the law to yell fire in a theater.

      It is against the law to falsely yell fire to create panic or incite a riot.

      The possession of a 100 round magazine does not harm anyone unless the person decides to break the law.

      What Senator Whitehouse wants to do is gag everyone who goes into a theater to keep them from possibly yelling fire — even if there is one.

      Thanks but no thanks.

      The portion about AR-15 style weapons being “dangerous and unusual” is insipid. Hundreds of thousands of people in the military and law enforcement carry them nearly daily.

      Millions of veterans have been trained on fully automatic versions of the semi-automatic rifles — Yet the weapons are so ‘dangerous and unusual’ they have to be banned.

      Yet Diane Feinstein’s bill specifically allows retired law enforcement officials to still possess them.

      So she wants to create two classes of Americans — ones she trusts with ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons and one she doesn’t.

      Kellerman’s study (which your cited article is based on) has been debunked so often and so thoroughly even he doesn’t defend it any longer.
      It should be telling that the first time he tried to pass it off, the ratio was 43 Times more likely. Now it is down to 2.7 times

      And even with that look at the other factors he identified:

      Illicit drug use – 5.7
      Home rented – 4.4
      Any household member hit or hurt in a fight in the home — 4.4
      Case subject or control lived alone – 3.7
      Gun or guns kept in the home – 2.7
      Any household member arrested – 2.5

      5.7 times more likely to have a firearm fatality if illegal drug use is involved.
      Stop the drug trade and save lives.
      Do you focus on that — NOPE. Guess you really aren’t interested in saving lives.

      Heck if we made everyone own their homes and not live alone — we could really reduce the risk !!!!

      Hey, would that be Constitutional ???

  42. #76 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 2:45 pm

    Bob S.–

    I suppose you believe that it’s a mere coincidence that America has the highest number of guns per capita of any nation, and one of the highest rates of gun violence.

    • #77 by Bob S. on March 14, 2013 - 3:00 pm

      No Richard,

      I don’t think it is a coincidence.

      First it isn’t true. Ten other countries have a higher firearm related homicide rate than America

      Second, no single factor can explain the violence rate in a country. We are a violent country but why is that?

      Could it be the incredible number of cultures we have ? Or the population density in our cities? Or the education, poverty levels?
      How about a “Justice System” that turns criminals back out again.

      From Chicago recently:

      Jose M. Garcia, 18, of the 600 block of Deepwoods, Mundelein, and Jose Rebollar-Verara, 24, of the 500 block of N. Carol Lane, Round Lake Park, thought that the tilt of Gabriel Gonzales’ hat indicated that he was a member of a rival gang, said Lake County Assistant State’s Atty. Ken LaRue.

      Gonzales was leaving the One Stop Food and Liquor store, at 1015 Fairfield Road at about 12:45 a.m., when Garcia and Rebollar-Verara followed him outside and began flashing gang signs, LaRue said. Gonzales turned to run away and Garcia shot at him ten times, hitting him once in the back, LaRue said.
      Garcia has 30 previous arrests as a juvenile and adult – including six convictions for domestic battery, LaRue said. Rebollar-Verara has eight previous arrests, including two weapons convictions, he said.

      Garcia – 18 years old – 30 arrests, 6 convictions and he is walking the streets. Why?
      Think that murder could have been prevented had he been kept in jail.

      And what does the firearms I OWN have to do with that murder or any other?

      That is like saying because someone produced children pornography you have to register your computer and camera, have them inspected to make sure YOU aren’t doing it.

      It doesn’t make sense.

  43. #78 by Richard Warnick on March 14, 2013 - 4:01 pm

    Bob S.–

    There are 196 countries in the world, the United States ranks 11th in firearm death rate, and you say it’s not true we have one of the highest rates of gun violence?

    I think the Gun Lobby is something we have that other nations don’t. They put a lot of money and effort into pushing firearms.

    And let’s get real here. The United States not only has the highest incarceration rate in the world, amazingly we have the most prisoners (in absolute numbers) of any country. The U.S. has 760 prisoners per 100,000 citizens (if you count only adults, one in 100 Americans is locked up).

    “Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today,” writes the New Yorker’s Adam Gopnik. “Over all, there are now more people under ‘correctional supervision’ in America–more than 6 million–than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height.”

    And you think there aren’t enough Americans in prison to prevent crime. It’s not for lack of trying. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world’s population. But it has almost a quarter of the world’s prisoners.

    I hope you keep your firearms in a safe. But that doesn’t change the fact that in the aggregate, more guns always correlates with more gun violence.

    • #79 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 4:30 am


      Do we have a high crime rate – yes. Is it one of the highest, depends on how you define it.
      The 11th place ranking was just for homicides in the reference I used. Are there other crime that happen more often then homicide? Abosultely.

      Do we have too many people in prison?
      No, we have the wrong people in jail. We fill our jails with non-violent offenders and release the violent ones on probation. Or they only serve 1/3rd to 1/2 of their sentence.
      That is when the prosecutors actually bring charges.

      We need to stop the ridiculous War on Some Drugs and do something sensible — legalize and tax it. Look at how the power of the Mafia was reduced after prohibition.
      We need to stop putting people in jail for simple possession – an act that keeps many from getting decent jobs afterwards. Employment will help reduce the economic need for crime.

      We need to stop making laws like the ones in New York (which was luckily just over turned) making it illegal to have a17 oz soft drink.
      We need to focus on violent crimes where people are hurt and put those offenders in jail for the full length of the possible sentence.
      If they show they are unwilling to abide by the laws of the country by repeatedly harming someone else — let them stay out of society by staying in prison.

      But that doesn’t change the fact that in the aggregate, more guns always correlates with more gun violence.

      Your insistence on this — using the logic fallacy of PROOF BY VIGOROUS ASSERTION — simply isn’t true. There is NO correlation — and definitely no causation — between the number of firearms and violence.
      Note I said violence – because unlike you it doesn’t matter to me if someone robs a store with a knife or a gun or just simply physical intimation.

      It doesn’t matter to me if a woman is raped because the guy over powered her or had a knife or had a gun.

      It is VIOLENCE that we should be working to reduce. Your narrow minded, bigoted focus on firearms ignores the reality that less then 10% of all violent crime in America involves a firearm. That statistic is from the Bureau of Justice Statistic — look it up.

      Are you willing to have more rapes, more assaults, more robberies as long as firearms aren’t used?

    • #80 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 6:12 am


      You say:

      But that doesn’t change the fact that in the aggregate, more guns always correlates with more gun violence.

      Let’s look at some background information.

      Illinois – Permit to Purchase Firearm Required – Texas – no permit needed.
      Illinois – No concealed Carry allowed. Texas – Concealed Carry on Shall Issue basis
      Chicago – no firearm retail stores or licensed dealers the last time I check. Fort Worth — Dozens of stores and even more licensed Dealers.

      So who do you think has more guns: Fort Worth or Chicago?

      Yet Chicago has a higher homicide rate — even Firearm Related Homicides then Fort Worth.

      How do you explain that?

  44. #81 by cav on March 15, 2013 - 8:24 am


    Your comment at #79 was spot on – provided we could find a little space in those jails for some of the bankers and pols whose violence is a step or two removed from their actual hands. Still, they can be hideous criminals if you tease out the details.

    Sadly, bashing hippies still sells. Pols and banksters, not so much.

  45. #82 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 9:51 am

    Bob S.–

    (1) Wikipedia’s “firearm-related death rate” is not the same as “homicide.” If you just counted intentional homicides using guns, more countries would be ahead of the USA.

    (2) I agree with you about the “war on drugs.” Drug addicts need treatment more than jail time. A majority of drug users behind bars were convicted of mere “possession.”

    (3) The correlation I always refer to is between availability of firearms and gun deaths. This is documented by scientific studies. For example:

    Richardson, Erin G; Hemenway, David. Homicide, suicide and unintentional firearm fatality: comparing the United States with other high-income countries, 2003. Journal of Trauma, 2011; 70:238-43. (PDF)

    (4) Chicago isn’t an island. Illinois gun laws are not as strict, and Indiana is even looser. I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this subject before. This is why federal law is needed.

    • #83 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 10:39 am

      Illinois’ gun laws aren’t strict?

      What fantasy world are you in Richard?

      The majority of firearms used in Chicago comes from Illinois ! The ATF Trace data proves this. So if a state required people to get a permit to just purchase a firearm, doesn’t permit carrying of firearms, requires an Firearm Owners Identification card to purchase a firearm — what would you call strict then?

      How about Chicago requiring another permit to own a gun in the city? Think all those crooks shooting each other are getting permits?

      Federal law isn’t needed. There are many states and especially many cities with more and easier access to firearms than Illinois and Chicago – that proves something other then firearm ownership rates is in play.

      Stop trying to deny reality.
      The authors of that study (by the way, did they win a prize for best fiction writing?) had to manipulate the criteria in order to come up with their numbers.
      They had to limit it to “populous (i.e. >1 million inhabitants) high income countries, with membership in the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development.

      Notice that Mexico with it’s very strict gun laws isn’t included. Nor is Jamaica with it’s 2.7 Million people. Wonder why they had to exclude so countries Richard.

      Because they designed the study to get the results they wanted.

      If you just counted intentional homicides using guns, more countries would be ahead of the USA.

      Thanks for proving my point. America with more firearms per person than any other country in the world doesn’t have the highest firearm related homicide rate.

      And let’s go back to the question you still refuse to answer.

      Given that Texas and Fort Worth isn’t an island — and the near by states have gun laws that are as lax or less stringent — why is Chicago’s firearm related homicide rate higher then Fort Worth’s?

  46. #84 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 10:53 am

    No, Chicago Isn’t Proof That Gun Regulation Doesn’t Work

    [I]t is important to understand that Chicago is not an island. Although Chicago has historically had strict gun laws, laws in the surrounding parts of Illinois were much laxer — enabling middlemen to supply the criminals in Chicago with guns they purchased elsewhere. Forty three percent of the guns seized by law enforcement in Chicago were originally purchased in other parts of Illinois. And even if the state had stricter gun laws, Illinois is not an island either. The remaining fifty seven percent of Chicago guns all came from out of state, most significantly from nearby Indiana and distant Mississippi — neither of which are known for their strict gun laws.

    Texas has a higher rate of gun ownership than Illinois, and records more firearm deaths. Also, don’t confuse access to guns with rate of gun ownership. They are two different criteria.

    Source: Mother Jones

  47. #85 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 11:10 am


    Fort Worth criminals — you know the people doing the shooting– have easier access to firearms then the criminals in Chicago — yes or no?

    Correlation isn’t causation.

    Repeat that until you effing understand it.

    And I’ll note you switched from Homicides (what you were arguing to “Gun Deaths). Stick to a metric will ya.!!!

  48. #86 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 11:16 am

    Bob S.–

    I don’t simply use homicides. All gun deaths count, because the victims are equally dead. The Gun Lobby cherry-picks only homicides because they know suicides and accidents are up while homicides are down.

    I have been consistent all along.

    • #87 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 11:34 am


      Fort Worth criminals — you know the people doing the shooting– have easier access to firearms then the criminals in Chicago — yes or no?

      • #88 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 11:36 am

        What is your point?

        • #89 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 11:58 am

          YES OR NO Richard.

          Answer up please.

          • #90 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 12:30 pm

            What you seem to think I know, and what I do know are not the same, apparently.

  49. #91 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 11:44 am

    OK, let’s look at research that correlates gun laws with firearm deaths.

    More Gun Laws = Fewer Deaths, 50-state Study Says

    In the dozen or so states with the most gun control-related laws, far fewer people were shot to death or killed themselves with guns than in the states with the fewest laws, the study found. Overall, states with the most laws had a 42 percent lower gun death rate than states with the least number of laws.

  50. #92 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 12:04 pm

    It is so easy to dismantle your ‘argument’ using just the source you provide.

    Let’s start off with the fact that — ONCE AGAIN — Correlation is NOT Causation.

    He said his study suggests but doesn’t prove that gun laws — or something else — led to fewer gun deaths.

    Hey, what do you know… says right there in the article that it ‘suggests’ but doesn’t prove

    Could it be there is something else involved?

    ditorial author Dr. Garen Wintemute, director the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, said the study doesn’t answer which laws, if any, work.

    Wintemute said it’s likely that gun control measures are more readily enacted in states with few gun owners — a factor that might have more influence on gun deaths than the number of laws.

    Well and we know the answer to which gun laws work — NONE OF THEM.

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

    They had to weasel word it but the fact that they could find no evidence is a strong indication that the laws do not work as advertised.

  51. #93 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 12:32 pm

    And yet…

    On her show Thursday night, MSNBC host Rachel Maddow explained why new details of the tragic mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut showed an assault weapons ban was necessary.

    The Hartford Courant reported Wednesday that the shooter…fired a total of 152 bullets in less than 5 minutes, killing 20 young children and 6 adults. [The shooter] used a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had 30-round magazines. As Maddow noted, he only needed to reload his weapon four times before killing himself with a pistol.

    “Had he only had access to ten-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines he would’ve had to reload 14 times,” she continued. “He would’ve needed 14 spare magazines beyond the one in the gun with the extra round in the chamber. Reloading 14 times. You think he would’ve still pulled off the whole thing in less than five minutes?”

    • #94 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 3:51 pm

      Richard Warnick :
      What you seem to think I know, and what I do know are not the same, apparently.


      I’m not assuming anything or think that I know. That is why I’m asking the question.

      Will you answer it. Do the criminals in Fort Worth have greater access to firearms then the criminals in Chicago?

    • #95 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 3:55 pm

      And yet the Virginia Tech shooter used 10 round Magazines.

      The 9/11 killers of 2800 people used box cutters.
      The Oklahoma City murderer used fertilizer and diesel fuel.

      People have used computers and cameras to make child porn — by your logic you should support registration of all computers and cameras, right?

      Limiting storage capacity on memory cards, Law Enforcement Officials in your town approving your computer.

      How about background checks before every time you post…..who knows what else you do when you aren’t posting at OneUtah.

      Hey….is that why you won’t release your tax returns? Do you have something to hide Richard?

  52. #96 by Richard Warnick on March 15, 2013 - 4:24 pm

    Bob S.–

    I am not here to answer every question you can think of and cater to your every whim. That should go without saying, but apparently I need to explain it to you. 😉

    The main wave of shootings at Sandy Hook, killing the kids and adults lasted around 3-4 minutes. The final shot reported by the dispatcher at 9:40 (5 minutes after first 911 call) was the shooter taking his own life when he heard the police sirens pulling into the school.

    To me, it’s obvious that without the expiration of the federal AWB (which I refer to as the mass-murder weapon ban), many if not most of the Sandy Hook victims would be alive today. It wasn’t a perfect law, but it was good enough to save lives. The Gun Lobby got rid of it, therefore they have blood on their hands. A lot of blood.

    Since the AWB expiration, there have been more and more mass shootings. Last year was the worst.

    • #97 by Bob S. on March 15, 2013 - 4:50 pm


      You claim one thing and when I try to explain it to you….through a simple question and answer method you won’t answer.

      Why? Because you know the answer disproves your ideas.

      You claim that firearms are the problem but Fort Worth has more availability, more firearms per capita than Chicago — yet its crime rate isn’t anywhere near Chicago’s.

      Obviously you don’t want to admit that.

      To me, it’s obvious that without the expiration of the federal AWB (which I refer to as the mass-murder weapon ban), many if not most of the Sandy Hook victims would be alive today.

      What is obvious is that you are a complete and utter idiot when it comes to firearms and their usage. The same number of people could have been killed with pistols and 10 round magazines.

      The police report that the murderer stopped frequently to change magazines. Often ejecting magazines that were half full or more. You clearly have no clue as to what you are talking about.

  53. #98 by Richard Warnick on March 16, 2013 - 7:39 pm

    Bob S.–

    I’m prepared to believe that Fort Worth has more firearms per capita and fewer firearm deaths per capita than Chicago, but I don’t know that and you haven’t linked to a source that says that. Even if true, it’s only anecdotal information.

    • #99 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 6:17 am


      I’m following your model and stating thing without having to source them. Maybe Larry will start to believe that I authoritatively research my comments and posts 🙂

      Chicago and Fort Worth are only one combination but there are many others – do the research yourself. I HAVE. You don’t believe (or selectively ignore) my citations so find the information for yourself.

      Look at Washington D.C. for another example – time and time again we can point out place where there are more firearms but less crime. Given the many times I’ve cited the CDC study showing they found insufficient evidence to show any gun law or combination of gun law affected violent outcomes- does it really make sense to keep pushing for MORE gun laws?

      How about pushing some criminal control laws?

      • #100 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 7:45 am

        Bob S.–

        I have cited several sources for studies that indicate more firearms are associated with more firearm deaths.

        You are welcome to cite sources as well. It’s easy, just provide a link.

        • #101 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 9:17 am


          That is hilarious — you telling me it is easy to provide a link or cite a source.

          I find it interesting that you are not interested in reducing violence in general – only firearm related violence.

          But again — let’s look at Chicago or Washington D.C. — gun free zones for the most part and yet their firearm related crime rates are higher then places like Fort Worth.

          So obviously your studies don’t cover reality very well. NOR IS CORRELATION CAUSATION

          Think that people might have firearms because they live in a high crime area?

          Think that gangs and drug cartels being rampant in an area, using violence to solve problems could be a reason?

          Reasons that no law will affect?

          How do you explain the CDC study that shows no gun control law or combination of gun control law reduced violent outcomes?

          • #102 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 9:50 am

            Bob S.–

            You still haven’t cited any studies to back up your anecdotal comparisons of one city to another.

            You say correlation is not causation. That’s right. But more guns = more gun deaths is an obvious case of cause and effect.

            It’s also true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You haven’t cited the CDC study you keep referring to, but I’m willing to bet they concluded they could not find sufficient evidence. I really doubt that they concluded, as you claim, “no gun control law or combination of gun control law reduced violent outcomes.”

            States With Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death

  54. #103 by cav on March 16, 2013 - 8:54 pm

    If listening to Paul Ryan and Wayne LaPierre have begun to nick you conception of what it means to be Human, then go here, and listen to some, or all of the clips.

  55. #104 by brewski on March 16, 2013 - 10:18 pm

    I loved Mr. Rogers. I did grow up with him. It is not surprising that he was a Presbyterian minister since he is pretty much like all ministers I have known, and I am Presbyterian. That is why when I hear the hate and bigotry hurled at religion and Christianity I think about all of my ministers and about Mr. Rogers, and how far these men and women of God are from the cartoon about them which is painted. If someone hates the Christianity of Mr. Rogers, then there is no way I can help them.

  56. #105 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 10:22 am

    My problem with the advocacy of Macho clips and ‘overboard’ delivery systems is the conflation with all of the other insanity of the smash-and-grab PNAC / AEI / republican whores. I know, for Bob’s sake, that is lamentable.

  57. #106 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 10:28 am

    I can see some of ’em training their AK-47s on a ‘hornet sized ‘targeting’ drone that knows (somehow) there’s OIL just beneath their drive-way entrance.

  58. #107 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 10:49 am


    By clicking on each state you can see the gun ownership rate and violent crime rate of each state, and its ranking on these two issues. By looking at this information you will most likely get the impression that there seems to be no relationship between gun ownership and violent crime. To test if this impression is right, we used statistical program called SPSS. Using a Pearson correlation we found that there is no significant correlation between gun ownership and violent crime (r = -.11, p = .44). This indicates that more guns do not result in more violent crime.

    Or here –

    Most importantly, when it comes to homicide and overall violent crime, Table 2 reveals what VPC wanted to hide. Where “weak” states (RTC) had much higher murder and violent crime rates in Table 1, the full dataset shows that they are safer: 20.7% lower firearms homicide and 15.3% lower non-firearms homicide rates. Moreover, RTC states averaged 21.7% less violent crime and 28.2% lower homicide rates, according to the FBI.

    Table 3 reinforces this negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime: As gun ownership increases, violence decreases.
    Table 3: Percent Gun Ownership vs. FBI Crime Rates
    % Gun Ownership Violent Crime Homicide
    <30 599.7 8.2
    30 to <40 422.4 5.0
    40 to <50 406.5 4.8
    50+ 314.8 3.9

    While VPC wishes to look only at negatives, this highlights the truth that the gun rights issue is a balanced equation: There are benefits to gun ownership, as well as negative consequences for enacting gun control laws.

    Richard, I’ve been very careful to accurately cite the CDC Study — as saying they found insufficient evidence to show the effectiveness of any gun control law or combination of gun control laws.

    While that is what they report; I also correctly point out it is a weasel word attempt to get around saying they couldn’t find any thing supporting your contention.

    Surely if the CDC — a federal AGENCY — could find evidence showing the effectiveness of gun control; they would and report it, right?

  59. #108 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 11:20 am

    Bob S.–

    CDC: Politics affected gun violence research

    Mark Rosenberg, former director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control… “The scientific community has been terrorized by the NRA.”

    …Arthur Kellermann, a former Emory researcher, became a focus of NRA criticism in the 90s after he published CDC-funded studies that found more risks than benefits to having a gun in the home.

    …“I have to acknowledge that the (NRA) strategy of shutting down the pipeline of science was effective,” said Kellermann, who later moved on to the RAND Corp. “It is almost impossible today to get federal funding for firearm injury prevention research.”

    It’s convenient for the Gun Lobby to talk about the CDC, because they’ve been effectively neutralized. It’s also convenient to talk only about crime (even though over half of firearm fatalities are suicides), because that helps ramp up the fear of crime that drives gun sales.

    But other researchers using the same data available to the CDC have concluded that deaths and injuries from firearms are strongly correlated with loose gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.

    MAP: Which Kills More People in Your State—Cars or Guns?

    • #109 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 12:27 pm


      I find in amazing that people who are terrorized by the NRA are so willing to speak up about that terrorism.

      It is almost as if they are making it up.

      And Kellermann? Seriously the guy’s study was so flawed he went from 43 times more likely to result in a death or injury down to 2.7 times

      He also excluded any defensive gun use that didn’t result in a fatality from his study.

      And even then he still found that having a felon in the house (could be still involved in crime,eh?) or renting a house (hey….Housing Crisis caused by crime control) or living alone were still more likely to cause a fatality then owning a firearm.

      As far as funding…you have money. You certainly aren’t out reducing income inequality — why don’t you and those like you pay for the research?

      Oh, that’s right. You want to improve things but you don’t want to ‘reduce your standard of living’ to do so.

      So, let’s take a different tack.

      If you are willing to implement draconian gun control laws that may or may not be constitutional because if it saves just one life, it will be worth it then are you willing to support a law requiring everyone to be armed because if it saves just one life it will be worth it?

      • #110 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 1:05 pm

        Bob S.–

        You know I am convinced that the more guns that are available, the more people are going to get shot. So of course I’m not going to support a law requiring everyone to be armed.

    • #112 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 12:33 pm

      Wow —

      A person so drunk he can’t recognize the wrong house — and you call it a Defensive gun use fail.

      According to the Post, law enforcement sources believed that the teen may have entered the home through a rear window and was not armed.

      Just how many drunks go into their own house through the rear window?

      Could it be there is more to the story?

      Either that or a cautionary tale not to drink too much?

      Hey…let’s save lives by banning Alcohol. I’ll be that works out GREAT.

      • #113 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 12:58 pm

        Shooting an unarmed innocent person is not a mistake in your opinion?

        • #114 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 1:05 pm


          Does “unarmed” equal ‘not dangerous”?

          Who says he was ‘innocent’?
          Do you know what he did in the house, what was said, etc? No you don’t.

          Your bias is showing it seems. You claim to want to wait for the facts in the Martin case — yet you clearly call this guy ‘innocent’ even though there is nothing showing one or another what happened in the house.

          • #115 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 1:57 pm

            Innocent until proved guilty. There is no evidence of criminal intent, no weapon. I could be wrong, but it looks like yet another tragic shooting by somebody who bought into the Gun Lobby myth that guns make you safe.

        • #116 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 1:06 pm

          By the way,

          Yes or no — if you support draconian gun control laws that remove firearms because it might save one life — would you also support a requirement that all adults carry one because that could save just one life?

          • #117 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 2:01 pm

            Asked and answered. BTW who says I support “draconian” laws? The bills now before Congress let every gun owner keep his/her arsenal without even the need to register the weapons!

  60. #118 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 2:15 pm


    What are you smoking?

    There are bills that would require me to turn on the firearms I own because they take greater than 10 round magazines.

    There are proposals out there for registration of firearms. Feinstein’s bill alone reduces the number of ‘acceptable’ a miniscule percentage of what currently exists.

    And you don’t call those ‘draconian’? And aren’t they all laws/proposals you support?

    And back to the drunk.

    Can you tell the difference between a drunk person in the wrong house and a rapist in just a few seconds?

    Time’s up.

    And you absolutely loose — no evidence of criminal intent? He was in the wrong house

    He entered via a rear windown

    He was publicly intoxicated

    Breaking and entering is a crime. Public Intoxication is a crime. How much more criminal intent do you need?

  61. #119 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 4:55 pm

    Bob S.–

    If I knew where it was, I’d make a point to steer clear of your house. 🙁

    What kind of person would shoot someone without warning, which is probably the case? That’s what happened in the last two incidents of DGU FAIL I’ve read about, including one in Utah where the guy was in no danger, could have called 911 but reached for a gun instead. In every case I’ve read about, the homeowner opened fire at an unarmed man.

    You seem to think there is a death penalty for public intoxication.

    • #120 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 7:33 pm


      Were you in the HOUSE? If not,how do you know he wasn’t given warning?

      You are talking out your lower orifice!!

      You have no idea what happened in that house. I don’t either. I do know the police aren’t pressing charges at this point so the preliminary evidence indicates it was justifiable homicide.

      It wasn’t a ‘death penalty for public intoxication’ — A grown man broke into someone else’s home.

      After that we don’t know. If you are so concerned about it, start a campaign to stop people from drinking so much.

      You keep harping on “an unarmed man” — as if people without firearms aren’t dangerous. Imagine the shock of all the people killed before the introduction of firearms to realize their killers weren’t dangerous.

  62. #121 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 5:14 pm

    He probably didn’t feel a thing – just poof and it was over. The poor shooter, on the other hand may never sleep again,

    Sad, really

  63. #122 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 5:18 pm

    Not to mention the shooter’s neighbors might not be as friendly now. The guy he shot lived two doors down. This is what you get for living as if in the midst of the Zombie Apocalypse. I like “The Walking Dead,” but it’s fiction.

    • #123 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 7:35 pm

      There you go again Richard…Your bias is showing.

      You know nothing about the deceased person. Was he a good neighbor or bad. Was he a constant drunk or was this out of the normal.

      YOU know nothing but you are already casting blame on the home owner who defended himself.

      You are a bigot Sir.

  64. #124 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 5:26 pm

    There goes the neighborhood.

  65. #125 by Richard Warnick on March 18, 2013 - 5:47 pm

    What I am talking about.

  66. #126 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 6:12 pm

    I was thinking something under a thousand square feet.

    You know, lotsa trees, a nice garden and a cemetery in the back yard.

    • #127 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 7:44 pm


      Richard may not think of it but I know you do. Imagine the anguish the homeowner is going through today. Unless he is a sociopath (only 4% of population), he is dealing with the aftermath of taking a life.

      He probably had just seconds to determine if the guy breaking into his house was a threat, was a danger to him and his family. Richard may not focus on the fact that the drunk man broke into the house through a rear window but put yourself in the home owner’s shoes. Just how many drunks go into their own home via a rear window?

      How many neighbors are so drunk they can’t recognize their own backyard but can still manage to break into a house?

      I don’t know if you are married, have children or not. I don’t know if the home owner did either….but as a husband and father; if you have to make a mistake – which way to you err?

      On the side of letting a possible murderous thug loose in your house or taking steps to protect your family before you know exactly his intentions?

  67. #128 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 8:08 pm

    “…as a husband and father; if you have to make a mistake – which way to you err?”

    Bob S

    It’s too late to ‘wing’ or ‘knee- cap’ ’em when the mortician’s on the scene.

    It could be said this ‘defense of home’ approach just enables someone to really ‘blow ’em away’ when in another context their compassionate conservatism might manifest. Then there’s stark raving fear.

    • #129 by Bob S. on March 18, 2013 - 8:41 pm


      The idea of ‘winging’ or ‘knee-capping’ someone may play well in Hollywood but in reality is a completely bogus.

      One or two scenarios is most likely; A.) a Drunk broke into a house in the middle of the night when all the lights were on so the homeowner could clearly see the criminal or B.) a Drunk broken into a mostly dark house through a window.

      We don’t know what happen but why assume the homeowner is a blood thirsty savage just waiting to kill and not a normal person trying to protect his family, his home and himself.

      Why assume the drunk was a pleasant jolly fellow who was just in the wrong home by accident instead of a belligerent hostile intruder ?

      We don’t know but put yourself in the homeowners position — what do you risk if you are wrong.

      It isn’t ‘stark raving fear’ — it is the realization that home invasions are real. People have been assaulted, raped and murdered in their own homes.

      It isn’t ‘stark raving fear’ — it is the realization that your family can pay a horrible price if the wrong choice is made.

      Richard and his crowd focuses on the homeowner but completely ignore the culpability of criminal. And yes, cold or not, he was a criminal. He was drunk in public. He broke into another person’s house.
      Why ignore his ‘friends’ who didn’t make sure he got safely into his own home?

      You are right it defense of home could be used to blow them away….but is that a reason to change the law?

      Richard could be a lying scum bag who will use OneUtah as a front for fraud – doesn’t mean we should change the laws because something might be illegal. We investigate it. We look at the totality of the situation.
      Don’t rush to judgement — look at the Martin Zimmerman issue and dozens of others. Let the facts come in, trust the legal system to work.

      But where is the common sense to implement laws like “a duty to retreat’ requiring a home owner to run out of his/her own home and let a criminal have control?

      Where is the common sense in saying we trust the actions of a criminal —Hey I was just going to rob the woman, NOT RAPE — over the judgement of a law abiding person?

  68. #130 by cav on March 18, 2013 - 9:10 pm

    You get what I’m saying. Somehow a slobbering drunk, crawling in through a kitchen window might be persuadable with merely shoving the cold metal of your protective device up against his ear and cautioning him that he’s in the wrong place, headed in the wrong direction.

    The staggering drunk, who doesn’t know even which house, he’s gotten into, may benefit from a round to the foot or thigh, if the presentation of you ‘piece’ and an invitation to just keep headed right out the front door doesn’t suffice. The argument does occasionally go to the good guy with the gun – simply, legally defending his turf – without eleven rounds to the torso.

    I’m not denying horrors can and do occur, but, too frequently this lethality can only be accounted for by ‘stark raving fear’ or lack of empathy and compassion – our either/or mind, unable to consider what it’s going to feel like to have taken another’s life.

    Why not just kill em all and let god sort em out? (Maybe you had to have been there).

  69. #131 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 6:28 am

    Looks like details are starting to come out about the shooting.

    Before the shooting, an alarm was activated inside the home, and the homeowner says he discovered 16-year-old Caleb A. Gordley on the stairwell.

    Gordley lived two doors down from the home – both of which look similar. Authorities add he had been drinking earlier that evening.

    Gordley’s father, Shawn Gordley, said on his Twitter account his son entered the neighbor’s house by mistake and was simply confused.

    Read more:

    Maybe I’ve never been drunk enough ( a very impossible chance by the way – 4 years in the Air Force doing major drinking) but I have never entered the wrong house, with an alarm going off and continued up the stairs without knowing I was in the wrong place.

    Have any of you ever did that?

    And the homeowner may not be such a horrible person either

    Neighbors say the homeowner is a volunteer firefighter.

    So right now, all we have is the father’s word his son went in the wrong house by mistake. But again…how many people have broken into the wrong house by mistake?


    If you ever get down to Texas, I’ll take you out to the range and we can try ‘winging’ someone or ‘knee capping’. You probably will be surprised at just how hard it is to do at the range where stress is the lowest.

    I know. I’ve tried. I’m not a great shot but I’m not terrible either. It is difficult; that is why law enforcement are trained to shoot center of mass. And even winging someone isn’t a guarantee they’ll survive; hit the brachial or femoral arteries and a person will bleed out in minutes.

  70. #132 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 8:45 am

    Bob, In case you were unaware, my standing disclaimer – I live in a dream – also enables me to dodge situations where pulling my head out even comes into play. ; )

    And at today’s parties, I wouldn’t be surprised if his alcohol poisoning weren’t amended with some other mind-bender.

  71. #133 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 9:01 am

    Of course I never said the homeowner/shooter was a horrible person. The account I linked to said good things about him.

    I think someone who buys into the Glock/Gun Lobby fantasy (see video above) is a victim also, in a different way.

    Bob S. is right, everyone aims “center of mass,” otherwise you’re too likely to miss the target completely in an adrenaline-charged situation.

    Which is better – the duty to retreat, or “stand your ground” and regret the needless killing of a neighbor or family member for the rest of your life?

    Retired Cop Fatally Shoots Own Son, After Mistaking Him For Burglar
    A Daughter’s Death, a Father’s Guilt
    Tragedy as father shoots dead masked burglar trying to break into his sister’s house… before realizing it’s his OWN SON
    Mistaken for a Burglar; A Father Shoots His Own Daughter
    Father ‘shot dead teenage daughter he thought was a burglar’
    Dad Guns Down Daughter He Mistook For Burglar

  72. #134 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 9:45 am

    Cherry picking data and stories again Richard.

    Link to the hundreds of home invasions, the thousands of rapes, the dozens of murders also.

    The consider that the lowest estimate of Defensive Gun uses is 118,000 — ten times the number of firearm related homicides!

    Think of the lives saved, the people not beaten, raped — and you want to make it harder. You want to make it easier for the criminal and harder for the law abiding — where is the common sense there?

    Here you are trying to sell a story about a 16 year old basketball player breaking into a house as a reason to restrict our rights.

    You call the home owner a victim of the Gun Lobby fantasy ?!?!?! Yet the reality is simple – in the middle of the night someone broke into his home.

    You don’t know if the home owner had children in bed — should he run out and leave them to a person with unknown intent?

    You don’t know if the home owner was married and his wife was still sleeping — guess he should trust a someone breaking into his house only wants to rob them.

    Do you castigate the friends who dropped him off at the ‘wrong’ house?
    Do you castigate the people who provided alcohol to a minor?
    Do you call for investigations and new laws to prevent underage drinking?

    Or how about calling for an investigation into the parenting of the drunk kid — did his parents know he was drinking?

  73. #135 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 10:01 am

    By itself, getting drunk isn’t a fatal mistake. Add a gun to the scenario, and suddenly the odds change.

    • #136 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 10:11 am

      Whose gun?

      Had the teen just got drunk, no problem. But he didn’t ‘just get drunk’ did he Richard?

      HE BROKE INTO another person’s home.

      So in addition to the crime of minor in possession, drunk in public; you add breaking and entering.

      Suddenly the odds are a little different?

      Again and again you avoid the fact that the 16 year old is capable of making decisions. It is doubtful anyone held him down and forced him to drink. Certainly didn’t force him to break into another person’s house?

      Are you saying we should get rid of firearms so that drunken criminals won’t get shot breaking into homes?

      • #137 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 10:21 am

        In your world, does every crime deserve the death penalty?

  74. #138 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 11:36 am

    In your world, does every crime deserve the death penalty?

    Not at all Richard but every action has consequences.

    For this teen, several of his actions (drinking, breaking and entering) lead to fatal consequences.

    If a person isn’t safe in their own home, where can they be safe?

    If a person can’t or shouldn’t defend his life, his wife, his family in his own home; where should he ?

  75. #139 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 11:52 am

    Another account of what happened, according to the homeowner (the only living witness): Loudoun teen fatally shot by homeowner identified. Emphasis added:

    Caleb Gordley wanted to go to a party Saturday night. But the 16-year-old was grounded because he hadn’t cleaned his room. So he decided he’d sneak out of his Loudoun County house to be with his friends.

    When he left the party about 2 a.m., Caleb needed to sneak home. His friends dropped him off and helped hoist him through a back window. But Caleb had been drinking and had gone to the wrong house. The brick homes on his street are similar, and Caleb was two doors down from his own.

    The homeowner heard his burglar alarm sound, grabbed his gun and went to investigate. When the two met on the stairs inside the house, the man said he told the teen to leave and fired a warning shot, according to a law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation.

    Caleb didn’t stop, and the home-owner fired again, striking and killing the teen, the official said.

    A day later, Caleb’s friends and family were trying to figure out how this promising, well-liked athlete, who stayed out of trouble and generally listened to his parents, could have died in such a way.

    “They have the exact same staircase as us, the exact same carpet. Caleb clearly thought he was in his own house,” said his father, Shawn Gordley, who provided the account of his son’s night. “He probably stumbled around and was just trying to go to his room.”

    The homeowner/shooter was perfectly safe, but he was too paranoid to know it and he had a gun in his hand. Sadly, he bought into the Glock/R. Lee Ermey/Gun Lobby fantasy about shooting an anonymous bad guy intruder.

  76. #140 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 12:18 pm


    You don’t know the “home owner was perfectly” safe! And to state such is outrageous !

    A man who isn’t his father tells a teen to stop and he doesn’t ! In the midst of a burglar alarm going off?

    You don’t seriously expect anyone to believe the teen didn’t realize he wasn’t in his own home at that time!

    “It was an accident,” he said. “Teenagers make mistakes, and it was an accident.”

    1. He broke his father’s rules about leaving the house.
    2. He broke the law by drinking.
    3. He broke the law by becoming intoxicated.
    4. He broke the law by entering another person’s house.
    5. He broke the law by advancing on another person; obviously making him fear for his life — called aggravated meanacing in many areas.
    6. He didn’t stop when the burglar alarm went off — how many kids break into their own home and set off the alarm and then still try to go to bed.
    7. He failed to leave the house when warned. And again when a warning shot was fired.
    — Either he had other intentions on his mind or was so intoxicated that anything could have happened to the family had he continued.

    And still you castigate the homeowner ! Shame on you Richard.

    Not one word about a teen who complains there should be ‘parties every weekend’.
    Not one word against a teen drinking to excess.
    Not one word against the kids who helped him break into a house.
    Not one word about a 16 year old defying his father’s restriction, sneaking out of the house and then trying to ‘apparently’ sneak back in.

    Why are you so pro-criminal ?

  77. #141 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 1:14 pm

    Bob S.–

    Yeah, Caleb Gordley was a hardened criminal, convicted of… not cleaning his room. Clearly a subhuman character who deserved to die… NOT. Going to a party is a crime since when?

    You are assuming quite a lot, including that the alarm was sounding throughout the house, which is something we don’t have information about.

    Remember the homeowner/shooter’s story is all we have at this point, and since there are no other witnesses I would speculate that his lawyer is telling him what to say. Possibly the fatal shot was fired before the “warning shot,” and after the shooter realized he made a mistake killing an unarmed neighbor.

    You know, a reasonable counter-argument might go something like this: “It was a terrible tragedy, an innocent person was killed needlessly. Yet this anecdote does not mean it’s always a mistake to have a gun in the house.” But no, you want to blame the victim. Why?

  78. #142 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 2:08 pm


    Do you know that Caleb wasn’t there to murder someone? Rape someone?

    I don’t. I don’t think he was. But you and I have the luxury of time and additional information to make that decision.

    The news report states the homeowner heard the alarm go off. How many home alarms have you heard that can’t be heard throughout the house?

    Why would a misbehaving teen break into his house knowing he could set off an alarm?
    The obvious answer is his house either didn’t have an alarm or it wasn’t used/turned off prior to him sneaking out.

    So when the alarm went off; he realized he was either busted by his dad, in the wrong house, was so drunk that he didn’t realize it or something more sinister.

    Not a lot of choices to explain his actions, are there?
    That doesn’t stop you from trying to justify his immoral and illegal actions while condemning the homeowner.

    Am I assuming that the teen disobeyed his parent?
    Am I assuming that the teen broke the law in consuming alcohol?

    Those aren’t actions of an innocent mistake — those are deliberate choices to disregard the moral and legal restrictions placed on him by his parents and society.

    What other moral and legal restrictions he chose to ignore we may never know.

  79. #143 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 2:31 pm

    Bob S.–

    The fact that you bought a gun does not make you judge, jury and executioner of everyone you see.

    • #144 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 2:49 pm


      Judge, jury, and executioner is after the fact when the crime is OVER. The crime was in progress.

      what would you have the man do?
      Run out of his own home? Leave wife, kids, valuables behind?

      You may live in a fantasy world where nothing bad every happens but the rest of us don’t.

      Sometime around 7 a.m. Tuesday morning, a man reportedly kicked in the door of a home near the intersection of Aldwick Drive and Lanshire Drive.

      The man reportedly sexually assaulted a woman inside the residence. No one else was home at the time of the incident.

      Dallas Chief of Police David Brown said the department is looking at other recent crimes in the area for potential leads.

      Tuesday’s incident occurred not too far from Ferndale Road, where two sexual assaults occurred in the last month according to Dallas police. Dallas police have arrested one man in connection with the first Ferndale Road case.

      Read more:

      As far as we know, the ‘friends’ who helped in the window could have been helping him rob the place or worse. We currently have only their word for what happened.

      Let’s see….teenagers breaking the law, breaking restriction versus a friendly neighbor who volunteers for the fire department.

      It is sad that the teen’s actions lead the loss of his life but they were his actions.

      Why do you side with the criminals? Why do you want to disarm people so badly?

  80. #145 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 2:36 pm

    While it won’t change a thing, it is possible his buddies ‘helped’ him through a neighbors window, either because they too were chemically impaired, or they thought ‘What a wonderful prank’. What some people think is funny?!

    Again. Sadness all around.

    • #146 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 2:52 pm


      I hadn’t thought of a practical joke angle from the friends; that is possible.

      It is a sad that a teen lost his life. It is sad that his actions forced a homeowner into a choice that no one wants to make but not making it could cost more.

  81. #147 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 2:55 pm

    Bob S.–

    I have lived in the real world for 60 years, not always in the USA either. Number of home invasions so far = 0. Here’s my plan if it ever happens – hide and call 911.


    Why didn’t homeowner/shooter call 911 before opening fire? I think it’s because he bought into the Glock/R. Lee Ermey/Gun Lobby fantasy scenario. Did you watch the video?

    • #148 by Bob S. on March 19, 2013 - 3:11 pm


      I’m glad your magical forcefield and good luck has protected you all these years.

      It is very egotistical though to expect everyone else to follow your plan.

      I have a household with a wife, a son/daughter in law and 3 grandchildren. I would be negligent as a husband, father, grandfather if all I did was “hide and hope the police get there in time”.

      Your right to do as you wish. Stop trying to force your choice on others. Why not let everyone be ‘pro-choice’ eh?

      Do you tell everyone who visits you, who stays over that if something bad happens they are on their own?

      Do you tell your neighbors not to defend you, your house ?

      Why didn’t homeowner/shooter call 911 before opening fire? I

      Well, could be that falsely reporting a break in is a crime.
      Could be that having multiple police responses to an alarm is a crime in some cities.

      How about the simple practical matter that it is his house, his responsibility to see if there is a problem before calling the police?

      Could have been a faulty sensor, could have been a window left open/blown open.

      Could have been nothing at all — but the fact is another person was in his house when the alarm went off.

      Another person who was coming up the stairs.
      Another person who did not stop when a warning shot was fired.

      What good would having the police on the way do?

      The criminal was already in the house while the police where still minutes away.

      • #149 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 3:42 pm

        I have to admit you have an interesting mindset. Did you watch the Glock/R. Lee Ermey/Gun Lobby fantasy video?

  82. #150 by Richard Warnick on March 19, 2013 - 3:07 pm

    Obama’s Gun Reform Package Loses One Major Provision, Another In Danger.

    Senate “Majority Leader” Harry Reid fails utterly, again.

  83. #151 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 5:40 pm

    Richard. I watched the vid and oddly, agree with both you and Bob S.

    Which might explain this splitting headache.

  84. #152 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 6:28 pm

  85. #153 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 6:48 pm


    I’m not going to chase down the link, but a month back I posted an article that suggested the whole 2d Amendment was devised to empower rich slave owners to use these militia to round up ‘wayward’ slave-stock in the event they got too uppity.

    Now here we are with your vid (above). If ever there were a question…

  86. #154 by brewski on March 19, 2013 - 9:02 pm

    Both could be true.

  87. #155 by cav on March 19, 2013 - 9:28 pm

    I hope Bob S’s on it.

    • #156 by Bob S. on March 20, 2013 - 6:31 am


      There is a long history of racism in this country and as Brewski said both can be true.

      The N.R.A. was formed by veterans from the Civil War to teach marksmanship. That was it’s primary purpose and depending on where a chapter was located determined how much local politics affected that goal.

      The N.R.A.’s support of the Concealed Carry Licensing scheme was rooted in that racism.
      The organizations willingness to support licensing, training requirements, etc is one of the reasons I’m not a member of that organization.

      More importantly what can not be denied is the racist roots of gun control laws.
      Some of the earliest gun control laws in the country were designed to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities.
      Later laws were passed to keep freed slaves from being able to defend themselves — many of these laws were the infamous “black codes” after the Civil War.
      The Civil Rights movement prompted another wave of gun control laws after such events as the Black Panther Party showing up in Sacramento California armed — the Legislation didn’t appreciate being reminded that they could fight back. Martin Luther King even applied for a concealed carry permit; ultimately he decided that an appearance and reality of non-violence was a better course for him. But that didn’t stop him from having others guard his house.
      Look up “The Deacons for Defense and Justice”.

      Modern efforts for gun control laws, in my opinion, are not rooted in a racist effort although they have a disparate affect in reality.

  88. #157 by cav on March 20, 2013 - 8:02 am

    As you note, there are instances where by law, rights are denied, and others where they are promoted – all in the furtherance of the attitude or bias of the PTB at the time.

    And, of course, this goes way back.

    Thanks, and good morning.

  89. #158 by Richard Warnick on March 20, 2013 - 8:44 am

    The NRA Fights to Keep Guns in the Hands of Wife Beaters

    At stake here is whether or not states should be able to seize the guns of people who have restraining orders filed against them. The common sense answer is yes, as restraining orders aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on if there isn’t any attempt to actually, you know, restrain the violent person from acting violently towards his victim.

    Apparently the Gun Lobby is not only opposed to taking guns away from law-abiding citizens. They also want to keep guns in the hands of criminals.

    How The NRA Secretly Protects People Who Commit Crimes With Guns

    [A]s a new Center for American Progress report details, the NRA has quietly made enforcing existing gun laws nearly impossible by sneaking gun deregulation into unrelated legislation.

  90. #159 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2013 - 8:57 am

    Ten Years After Caving on Iraq, Senate Democrats Cave on Assault Weapons

    [T]his week the Democratic Party handed the National Rifle Association its biggest victory without even putting up a fight.

    …Reid could very easily bring Feinstein’s bill to the floor as its own piece of legislation and offer it up for a futile symbolic vote, thus putting the biggest Wayne LaPierre fanboys on record opposing a ban on weapons that are solely designed to hunt people and nothing else, but he won’t do that.

  91. #160 by cav on March 22, 2013 - 9:24 am

    While still in the kerfluffle phase, I heard different.

    Not that Harry or the blew-dogs are on the right side or anything.

  92. #161 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2013 - 12:52 pm

    If the Senate refuses to pass popular legislation, then they ought to have a roll-call vote. Instead the cowards kill it without a vote, like they did with the public option.

  93. #162 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2013 - 9:49 am

    • #163 by Bob S. on March 26, 2013 - 2:43 pm

      Is this the same Jim Carrey that is in “Kick Ass 2”?

      Playing a character that uses firearms?
      Now I see why you posted that comment Richard — one hypocrite praising another.

      • #164 by Richard Warnick on March 26, 2013 - 3:16 pm

        Exactly. He’s an actor playing a character. Hollywood actors who play Nazis are not expressing their own political views either.

  94. #165 by brewski on March 26, 2013 - 4:47 pm

    Congratulations Mr. Godwin.

  95. #167 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2013 - 3:45 pm

  96. #168 by cav on March 28, 2013 - 4:27 pm

    Schwia penii, schwia brainz!

  97. #169 by Bob S. on March 28, 2013 - 6:51 pm

    A member of Moms Demand Action said that she felt unsettled by their presence and said that the organizers would have to think twice before holding another event, particularly one where children could be present.

    Way to mis-characterize what the report said. Doesn’t seem that anyone was ‘intimidated’ does it?
    They debated with the gun owners for goodness sake.

    So, is your premise Richard that no one should carry a firearm where anyone who might not like it happens to be?


    Grow up and don’t fall for the psychobabble of the antis like Richard — did you notice the name of the group opposing Mayor Acting Illegally?
    ” Indiana Moms Against Gun Control ”

    Going to accuse them of having small penii?

    • #170 by Richard Warnick on March 28, 2013 - 7:29 pm

      Give one example of me using “psychobabble.”

      Indiana has a “stand your ground” law. If the Moms felt threatened, they ought to have brought some guns of their own (with high-cap mags, natch) and started a firefight. That’s the American Way. 😉

      But seriously, I hope the Gun Lobby sends lots of guys dressed in camo and carrying military-style weaponry to public events. Seriously.

    • #171 by cav on March 28, 2013 - 8:15 pm

      Relative to their guns, I have no doubt. But, I do sometimes wonder the point of waving either around – as if they weren’t there with their ‘tools’ precisely to ‘unsettle’ those Moms.

      I suppose, in some crowds, a feeling of safety might have prevailed.

  98. #172 by cav on March 29, 2013 - 9:58 am

    It’s only in the presence of a Howitzer X10million, that a free leftist ever feels penis challenged.

    Question MY maturity?!

  99. #173 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2013 - 4:43 pm

    Kabuki theater in the Senate. Right-wing senators, including Utah’s Mike Lee, don’t actually have the power to stop gun safety legislation from coming to the floor for debate. It’s all on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

  100. #174 by Richard Warnick on March 30, 2013 - 4:57 pm

    Children’s Defense Fund: The Truth About Guns (PDF).

  101. #175 by cav on March 30, 2013 - 5:02 pm

    It’s a test of the Democrat’s commitment?!! Uh Oh! There must be a sparkly ‘Blew Dog’ somewhere on whom to lay the blame.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: