I think your last point may be your strongest. Individuals on all sides of the issue should do their own research. Of course, most will not.

On Piers Morgan and the talk host you mentioned: As a former television producer for decades I can assure you that theater and high drama sell. Bland and middle ground do not, especially in the world of cable news. Piers Morgan knows that all too well. By booking a loud mouth radical and trying to paint him as a conservative, Morgan knew that he would have a great foil to play off. He also did it to paint ALL conservatives with the brush of this extremist. The guest was brought on to foam at the mouth, which he did right on Morgan's cue.

Morgan himself is using extreme language tactics to bring attention to himself. He knows that only by calling guests "stupid" will his show get ANY attention. In the great cable ratings war there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is NOT being talked about. Until now only a very tiny slice of the cable audience gave Morgan any attention at all.

Both men are showmen in the great tradition of P.T. Barnum. Barnum knew that he was serving up pure baloney but there's still "a sucker born every minute."

The medium may have changed from circus tents to cable and internert but Barnum's theory remains a timeless one: there's a sucker born every minute.

The loudest voices on BOTH sides of the gun debate are banking on it.

Great article!

I'll take issue with one Fact you attempt to disprove. There is no way you can argue against the statement, “If guns are banned, only criminals will have guns.” The statement is a fact onto itself. The example of Japan you use addresses their gun laws and gun violence, not generic crime.

If at some point in time, a law were to be passed banning guns (No, that will never happen.), by definition only criminals will have guns.

More importantly, your attempt to lump all "American gun advocates" as expressing the intractable positions you list does not accurately reflect those who actually do own guns and belong to the NRA. In a poll of NRA members, Frank Luntz showed that there is strong support among NRA members for a number of reasonable gun control measures. (http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr006-12.shtml)

For someone looking to portray gun owners as unreasonably adverse to "facts", you missed a pretty Big Fact right there!

In my opinion, it's a piece like this, that lumps all "American gun advocates" into one group of unreasonable zealots does more to stifle discussion than to encourage it.

And no, I'm neither a gun owner or a NRA member!
http://crankymanslawn.com/2013/01/03/one-conversation-im-unable-to-avoid/

Mike, you say the statement "if guns are banned, only criminals will have guns" is "a fact onto itself," then go on to talk about "generic crime" in Japan, which, as I mentioned, is not relevant to the discussion. My question is- do you have any factual proof to share to support the statement "if guns are banned, only criminals will have guns"? Any studies? Any findings of respected organizations or concrete examples? With regard to lumping all gun advocates together, you will note that I used the singular- "advocate", because the statements listed are all actual statements from individuals. Therefore, as you can see I have not lumped all gun advocates together, but rather, have chosen individual statements by individuals. It happens that those statements are widely repeated by many people, but I did not lump ALL gun advocates together.

When gun enthusiasts speak, they sound like people with a fetish, not people with facts. And I think this is a big part of the problem. Guns have a weird imaginary power for some people where they stop being about recreational shooting or household self-defense, and become magic talismans against neurotic insecurities or free-floating paranoia. When I saw Alex Jones talk, I saw a frightened, angry, irrational man incapable of articulating his feelings and desperately clinging onto some sense of personal power that guns symbolize. It’s really hard to have a rational conversation about guns when so many people are irrationally attracted to them.

Pasted from FB per your request.

Jim DeLizzio By removing non-murder violent crimes you are invalidating your own conclusions. It's the equivalent of removing non-fatal drunk driving accidents from DUI statistics.
19 minutes ago · Like
Rebecca Savastio But I'm not concerned with "non-murder" violent crimes. I'm concerned with murders, specifically mass shootings, and how to prevent them. It would be great if you could comment on the Patch page under the article.
_________________________________________________________________

Do those rapes and assaults not count? How can you separate something which is inherently linked? The false premise creates a false conclusion.

@Jim, rapes and assaults are not related to a discussion on gun violence if no gun was used in the assault. The discussion is about GUNS. Bringing in other, unrelated kinds of assaults is simply a way to attempt to direct attention away from the discussion on guns, mass shootings and homicide by gun. If we were discussing drunk driving and having tighter restrictions on drunk driving, we wouldn't be interested in discussing homicide by car not caused by drunk driving, would we?

@Joe Taxpayer: I did not suggest "banning all firearms." Please read the article first if you would like to have a discussion.

Mass murders are a sub-set of Violent crimes. You can't just ignore all the other murders and violence. You'll never convince me that you can objectively discuss mass murders so emotionally by ignoring the rest of the crimes.

Rebecca, of COURSE you dont want to talk about other (more deadly) forms of violence.
If you did, youd have to admit that MORE people die from knives and hammers than guns. For SOME reason THOSE peoples deaths dont matter to you. For SOME reason you want to IGNORE the TRUTH. For SOME reason you walk over the MORE NUMEROUS dead to attack the things that cause FEWER deaths (guns).
WHY you choose to ignore the MANY to attack the FEW puzzles me.
WHEN will the SCOURGE of knife and hammer deaths stop being IGNORED? WHEN will the focus turn to what is killing MORE people? When will the MANY MORE dead have a TRUE advocate instead of being IGNORED???

"When gun enthusiasts speak, they sound like people with a fetish, not people with facts." What an asinine comment.

People who want to take guns away or ban them have no facts and rely on emotion.

You want some facts
311 million people in the US
in 2011, according to FBI
12,664 homicides
8,500 caused by firearms (mostly in urban cities)
700 ruled justifiable
US highest in gun ownership in world
Yemen #2
US murder rate is 28th in the world in homiced 2.97/1000

In Britian where guns are banned, there were 59 gun murders which is ODD since guns are banned. Britain also sports the 2nd highest crime in the EU and was named the most violent country which is also ODD given guns are banned.

I sleep well at night nowing my Glock is available with its 17 shot capacity. Would it make you feel better if I got a 6 shot 38?

If you want to sleep well at night pretending guns are the problem, enjoy! Tell that to the next criminal who still has his.

I think a big problem with the articles such as this advocating new gun control laws is the condescending tone. It is crazy that I can go online and order as many rounds as possible and kevlar too. It is too simple to go out and buy an assault rifle. Yes, we need to revamp gun laws. However, watching the liberal media handle this issue is painful! The "you're a moron" attitude to anyone who owns guns is completely uncalled for and counterproductive. And let's not pretend that banning assault rifles will stop future mass shootings - wasn't there a ban in place during Columbine?
And yes, we get the focus is GUNS - but don't act like a nut won't kill by other means - aka Mcveigh killing 168 people, including about 20 kids, with a homemade bomb.
The point is that tunnel vision won't stop mass killings like this or end the uptick in violence. Guns are one part of the puzzle. On CNN the media keeps stressing that the "Why of the Newtown tragedy isn't important - how can that be? Without understanding why, we are nowhere.
Yesterday a teenage boy tried to kill two others with a shotgun in class. Where does this fit into the liberal agenda?
The discussion needs to get beyond "Guns are bad!" and "You're not taking my guns!"

Leigh: As you can see from my article, I advocate gun ownership for stable people. I didn't say "guns are bad!" I am not sure why you take my presenting facts as calling "anyone who owns a gun" a "moron." I did no such thing.

Bayboat: I acknowledged that more people die from other objects. However, we're talking about how to curb gun violence, specifically mass shootings. Discussing knives and other objects doesn't help to prevent future mass shootings. Looking to other countries' successes in preventing mass shootings does, however.

Mike: In Japan, there is a complete gun ban, and yet, they do not have a problem with criminals having guns. Therefore, the statement "if guns are banned, only criminals will have guns" does not hold up when looking at Japan as an example. Is this somehow unclear? Not even their version of the mafia uses guns. In other words, their criminals don't have guns. With regard to the Luntz poll, where are all of these rational NRA members in this discussion, and why are they not loudly demanding that their leaders echo their sentiments? Where are their articles and blog posts? Are they making noise and demanding gun control from lawmakers? If so, those NRA members and gun control advocates who are not members of the NRA certainly need to come together immediately to demand tighter laws. With regard to my "indictment" of "all gun owners," are you saying the statements I chose are the statements of a minority of irrational voices? Because those statements are repeated far and wide all over the internet every single day by a lot of people. Show me the blog posts and articles from these people from the Luntz survey. I'd love to see these NRA members standing up for sensible gun control measures.

Look at Austrailia - there the criminals still had guns and crime rates rose. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

You view of only looking at mass shootings and banning the guns used has a very narrow focus and fails to look at future consequences. Let's assume all the assault rifles are banned and removed from the public. Now a shooter uses handguns and goes into a gun free zone and murders 10-15 people. What now - ban handguns, ban all guns?

It is a never ending cycle and banning assault rifles would just be the beginning and the unintended consequences could be dire.

You brush off the China example because none of the children died after being stabbed. By that theory if the children in a school were shot but lived there would be no talk of a gun ban.

I do not believe that any of the other countries you list has a 2nd Amendment which was intended to allow us to defend ourselves from a tryanical government.

Do you believe that the police should have assult type weapons?

"A severely mentally ill man". This is what we should be addressing. Again another national discussion is being clouded by a red herring. Access to mental health services is severely lacking and expensive in this country. If someone does get services, it is easier and less expensive to give them drugs which have as one of their side effects, suicidal thoughts, than give them the treatment they need. This is where the conversation should centered.

People also ignore the fact that the Newtown shooter didn't even OWN the weapons he used. So backgrounds checks, etc are irrelevant.

The emotional responses of the left don't hold up to scrutiny so they try to narrow the discussions to emotions or to a point where there arguments appear to hold water.

Mike: The article I was referring to is: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ which clearly states that the Yakuzi very rarely use guns and generally use other things: "Even the country's infamous, mafia-like Yakuza tend to forgo guns; the few exceptions tend to become big national news stories." Since guns are so very difficult to obtain, even the mafia has very limited access, and lower level criminals can't access them at all. With regard to your statement about the NRA members not being required to speak up, well, I think it's incumbent upon all of us as a society to speak up. If there are NRA members who are in a unique position to create change from within, then they should do so out of moral obligation.

Adrian, I agree with you, but I think we need a multi-leveled approach, and one that includes addressing the mental health issue as well as looking to other countries for examples of success in controlling mass shootings.

FA Hayek: Please refrain from posting false statistics from a known conservative group when I have already posted the actual data from the Australian government's own official web page.

Bayboat: To be honest, I'm not calling for a ban on handguns, and while it may sound callous, gang-related violence is not really my focus here. I've had jobs that have taken me to areas where gangs and guns proliferate, and I've been perfectly comfortable sitting outside there, and not worried one bit that I would be the target of anyone in a gang. In fact, I feel safer in the "worst" neighborhoods of Camden or North Philly than I do in a suburban movie theater prone to nerdy white teens in long trench coats who might have an assault rifle with them. Of course I mourn for anyone murdered for any reason, but my main concern here is random mass shootings in public places, which are very different from gang shootings. I agree completely with those who have stated we also need to pay attention to the mental health aspect. This may make it sound as though I care more about 20 innocent little children than about gang members... and I guess I do. With regard to knife and hammer deaths, you asked why I'm not concerned about them. That's like asking someone why they are concerned with drunk driving and not with a car skidding on ice or intentional manslaughter by car with no alcohol involved. So because these other types of car accidents exist, we should forgo having drunk driving laws?

The issue with the article is "is not really my focus here". I find it hard to believe the statement about the movie theater and Camden.

Answer me this. The guns used by the Newtown shooter were not his. How can gun bans protect anyone from stealing another's legally acquired guns and using them for ill purposes?

Your emotional response to this is understandable, but don't let your emotions rule your intellect. I know you're much smarter than that.

TRUTH!
People are forgetting the point, assault riffles in the hands of American citizens are not for shooting home burglars, not for hunting, and not for target practice. They are to serve as a psychological deterrent to their own government to NOT engage in sweeping cultural changes that are against the will of the people.

This right should NOT be infringed, and it is necessary to the security of a free state. The founding fathers knew their history and were wise enough to put in place the Second Amendment, in order to protect future generations of Americans from the same threat of tyrannical and oppressive government that they had faced. Our Constitution sets in place a government free of tyranny. In order to make sure it stays that way, the people have the right to remain armed, as a last check on a government gone awry. As soon as we are told that we should give up our right to keep and bear arms, we should become extremely awake, alert, and ready to defend our rights.

“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” -- George Washington

this 'blog or wht-ever you call it is a bloody joke!!
it heavily CENSORS any pro-gun comments with strong arguments and facts to back them up!
the only arguments that *MS* Savastio has are ad-hominems!

Of course gun control should be a part of the discussion but not the beginning part. Are we also going to discuss movies and videos games that children watch and play? No because they are protected by the 1st Amendment. Are we going to address the fact that since the sixties we have been telling our children that its OK to kill your babies and they have done so by the millions? Of course not. A woman has a right to do that. My point being that we need to have a frank discussion on the cause...not weapon. If you ban assault rifles and such do you really think the mas killings will stop? Would a gun ban have stopped the Oklahoma city bombing? 911? We have a culture of a lack of a respect for life. Until we address these issues your not going to stop the violence. Unfortunately to much money comes in from these groups to our leaders (republicans and democrats) and there to afraid to offend...

FAR more people are murdered with knives each year than AR-15s, yet it's AR-15s you want to ban? If your real concern is saving human lives, start with Planned Parenthood. After that, perhaps we can have an honest discussion.

FA Hayak: From the link you posted: "However, the crime rate in 2011/2012 is still significantly lower than in past years. Over the last ten financial years, the crime rate per 100,000 population has decreased by 18.4%." As I'm certain you are already aware, crime can vary slightly year to year; it is the overall trend over the years that should be taken into account. The other statistics you posted are from a known conservative group with a gun agenda. With regard to the rest of your original post, I already let readers know I would not have time to re-address what I had already stated in the article. Yes, I do believe police should be able to have assault guns.

James Von Buren: Thank you citing an actual study. The link you posted is not working. After searching online, I could only find the abstract. I need to read the entire study to comment. Would you be able to email it to me or post a working link?

Kenneth Devlin: You raise some excellent points. There are loads of studies linking violent video games to an increase in violence. It's a good idea for a follow-up article.

Barb O'Donnell: Buyback programs have proven to be effective in several countries (see the link to the World Health Organization study.)

James Von Brunn: Not one comment has been censored or deleted. There was a technical issue earlier which presented some comments from showing up right away, I noticed, but nothing has been removed. To which ad-hominems are you referring? I've only answered facts with facts, cited some statistics as coming from a conservative group, and pointed people to information in the article. I'm not interested in attacking anyone personally. It's nothing personal, just a debate.

@Jim Delizzio: I have been on porches and sidewalks of Camden and North Philadelphia many, many times for both teaching jobs (at which I taught in some of the most "dangerous" schools in Philly) and other jobs involving real estate. I spoke directly with drug dealers, gang members and the roughest seeming people imaginable. Once, a guy who referred to himself as a "thug and a pimp" helped me when I locked my keys in my car on the street in the worst neighborhood in North Philly. HE was worried it would get dark out and I would get lost going home. He and his friends were not interested in shooting me. Unfortunately, they were only interested in shooting each other. I don't want to sound cold about it, but as I said, gangs are a whole different story. With regard to "being emotional," do you view my presentation above of a lot of research to be "emotional?" Quite frankly, the statement "you're smarter than that," is patronizing. I don't feel emotional when discussing gun control. All I'm concerned about is the facts. With regard to your question "The guns used by the Newtown shooter were not his. How can gun bans protect anyone from stealing another's legally acquired guns and using them for ill purposes?" The answer is- they can't. I don't believe all shootings will cease and will never happen again, but we can reduce the overall risk.

Good article Rebecca. I agree something needs to be done. No one is saying to Ban guns totally but to have more stricter laws. Mental health reform is also much needed. There should be many levels of approvals and background checks before a gun should be sold and also what type of guns are sold. Recently on the "Gun by back program" held in CA, the cops came across two shoulder rocket launchers which were given back!! Why should civilians need access to shoulder rocket launchers and semi automatic or machine guns of any kind?????? This stuff should not be SOLD. . No easy access to deadly weapons!

@Shachi - No access to deadly weapons? What a joke. You're over simplifying things. Hammers and clubs kill more people annually than guns. Should we have background checks on those too? How about cars? Fertilizer? Perhaps we should do away with the Constitution and crown BHO as our savior and king. Get out of fairytale land and into reality.

Jim, it's interesting you bring up fertilizer and cars. The World Health Organization recommends reducing access to dangerous chemicals. We have enacted hundreds of laws to reduce car accidents and deaths, including seat belt laws, drunk driving laws, licensing laws, etc. As Shachi said, no one is calling for a gun ban, only for common sense laws that have been effective elsewhere.

@James by deadly weapons I am indicating rocket launchers and machine guns. so you are saying its okay for civilians to have access to rocket launchers and machine guns? automatic can kill 20 people in one second if that deranged person had a hammer less people would have died or harmed. I am not SAYING COMPLETE BAN I am saying no access to deadly weapons such as rocket launchers and machine guns.

FA Hayek: The link you posted is to a known right-wing think tank with a pro-gun agenda. The source they listed, The Examiner, is not widely considered to be a credible, reputable source. It has nothing to do with my "not liking" the statistics. I asked in the article for people to use reputable evidence, defined as studies, data from studies, governmental websites of the countries in question, large, widely respected organizations and expert opinion. If folks here don't trust or believe any governmental information and choose instead to believe the skewed statistics of known conservative groups, meaningful discussion will be very difficult. I am interested in the study posted by James Von Buren, and am waiting to receive a working link so I can read it.

FA Hayek: Given the choice between a right wing conservative group and the official documents of the Australian crime office, I think most would agree that the official statistics are more credible. The job of the office I posted information from is to track crime in Australia, nothing more. They say when crime has increased or decreased. If you examine the links I posted you will see both positive and negative information provided through the years. If they had an "agenda," they would not be posting objective information that also reflects upswings in crime in certain areas or years, would they? My research is not "lacking," and as I said in the article, I support gun ownership. My only agenda is to see how we can reduce the incidences of mass shootings, and upon researching it, found a lot of credible information and studies, recommendations by the World Health Organization, etc. that point to reduced guns equaling reduced homicides. Do you also discredit the World Health Organization, then? One person on this entire thread posted a credible seeming study, and I am waiting to receive the working link so I can read more than the abstract. My father is a hunter. My mother protected me with a gun when I was a child. I don't have any set "anti gun" agenda. I'm only interested in looking into credible research to prevent mass shootings

I may have missed this idea in some one other comment but i do remember when
many people who needed mental health support got it then the funds dried up and now they are hung out to blow around in our society-like Timothy McVeigh did.How about if the N.R.A. picked up the tab for the rehabilitation of some of the "nuts" they claim are responsible for gun violence or knife violence or 4 ft. iron bar violence?Or they could all go to Texas and secede, to wait for the coming Gov. assault.

Everyone, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. It's just a rifle. Liberals like to add words to things to help frame their emotional cause. Kinda like a hate crime because regular crimes probably didn't involve "hate"

A few more murders in Chicago last night.....those gun laws are really keeping the criminals at bay!

FA Hayek, I suppose maybe I have been unclear about what is considered a "widely respected, credible source." I'm sorry, but video blogs from pro-gun individuals do not count as credible sources. Where are the statistics they are discussing? Are these statistics published anywhere, such as in a peer-reviewed journal? Distinguishing what is a "widely respected credible source" is really important in a debate.

Francis, that is an excellent point. The mental health aspect absolutely must be addressed. A multi-pronged approach is best.

FA Hayek, the only person who has posted legitimate-seeming sources, and a few of them, is James Von Brunn. He has, today, posted several studies and links I would like to check out. Obviously, it will take me some time to do so. Unfortunately, the links you posted were to video blogs of unknown individuals/not widely known groups, and don't meet the criteria outlined as credible sources.

James Von Brunn: Thank you for taking the research aspect seriously. Unfortunately, I have not been able to access the first study you mentioned after extensive searching. If you run across it again or are able to recover it from your computer, let me know. I examined all of the other links you posted. The strongest piece of evidence you present is the article in The Age about the resignation of the police chief. There is speculation that his resignation came about because of the too-early release of incomplete crime statistics for 2010. A quote from another article from The Age indicates- "Mr Andrews said Mr Overland had been up front about the fact he made a mistake releasing the crime figures early but had done nothing to warrant the government’s campaign to undermine him."
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/i-wasnt-pushed-says-overland-of-resignation-20110616-1g4oe.html#ixzz2HssXhBWb

The statistics in question were from three years ago, and many studies/statistics have been released since then, both for Australia and the UK which show declines in crime rates. The study you posted, as you say, "found no significant alteration in fire-arm homicide rates." The other links you posted deal with other crimes such as home invasions and other forms of crime. People have been asking repeatedly why I am only concerned with mass shootings. To be perfectly frank, I would rather have someone break into my home and steal something than to be shot in a mass shooting.

James Von Brunn: With regard to the Yakuzi, I'd rather be a shopkeeper in Japan paying a fee to the mafia than to fall victim to a mass shooting. Sorry, but that's just me. Given the choice between those two scenarios, I'd take the one that spares my life. They just don't have mass shootings in Japan. I'd rather be mugged at knifepoint than to fall victim to a mass shooting. I'd rather have anything happen to me that spares my life than fall victim to a mass shooting in a public place. It's really one of the most horrible things I can think of to happen to someone.

James, I think that the point missing or unclear in my article is that I'm not inherently anti-gun. I'm not. I was raised on venison and doves my father and grandfather shot and cooked and served to me the same day. I grew up with no messages that "guns are bad," on the contrary, I was taught they were neccesary for self-defense and for hunting. I support the right of qualified people to own guns. I'm an independent thinker and I like to examine all the research available. At the end of the day, I feel that what I found by way of credible research lends to the theory that fewer guns = fewer gun homicides and far fewer mass shootings in the countries that have tighter gun laws than we do here in the US. I came to this conclusion after reading studies and examining the statistics I deem to be credible. The World Health organization and studies from universities are far more credible sources, to me, than established pro-gun groups/websites/individuals whose sole purpose it is to promote guns. It boils down to what is important to you and what you chose to believe as credible evidence.

James, I have carefully read the Saurdi and Lee study. This study combines suicides with homicides, which, of course, greatly dilutes the results when it comes to homicides by gun, as suicides are not an issue in this discussion. As sad as suicide is, it is of no concern to me as it pertains to the issue of mass shootings. Please take a look at the bottom of the study, which shows the rates of gun homicides by year. You can see from 1996, when the gun ban went into effect, to the ending year of the study, 2004, there was a rather steady decline in gun homicides:

1996: 0.5406671
1997: 0.4050209
1998: 0.2885961
1999: 0.3275942
2000: 0.3132606
2001: 0.2575562
2002: 0.2138386
2003: 0.1861856
2004: 0.1592713

I think that's pretty compelling, don't you?

Rebecca, you may be a liberal troll , maybe not. One thing is for sure. A masterful command of liberal bullet points vs common sense. If every law abiding citizen surrendered their guns to the govt. Only those armed would be criminals, and the gov't? Every true patriot should make sure they're as armed as well as the common criminal. Behind every blade of grass.

We don't care about Japan. We don't care about Europe, This is America. Our democratic experiment will fail if the people continue to be willing to be bribed by politicians with their own money. That is the people's own money.

i will say no more on this matter here.......except for this.......ultimately, the whole issue will be determined by the SCotUS and, quite possibly, any gun laws can be stymied by writ of mandamus and/or injunction as unconstitutional as per the recent Heller/MacDonald decisions!

as such, apart from, maybe, universal back-ground checks, it is hard to see how any other ban or restriction could *not* be argued to be unconstitutional and a direct infringement as per the SA;

considering the aversion of almost all Repubs and quite a n° of Dmcrts to major gun law changes @ the moment, it certainly seems that such proposed lgsltn would not even get off the ground!

i notice that even the spokes-man for the Brady campaign (forget his name for now!) was just t'other day cited as saying that they did not support "bans" because that would only empower the NRA, their millions of supporters and most of the Congress/Senate to vote it down.....they only support more stringent UBCs!

the Constitution of the USA is the supreme law of the land.....any lgstln or statute that is in opposition to that must, ultimately, fail.....these so-called "Executive Orders" included! (from my under-standing, "Executive Orders" can only be directed @ the civil service bureaucracy....they have no real force of law against the ordinary citz, as such!)

The Truth About Assault Weapons
http://www.assaultweapon.info/

I have read a lot of the comments listed here. My immediate thoughts are that while tragic, the deaths of the innocents wherever are part of a larger problem within our society. Look in any larger city newspaper and you will find a story about how cheap life has become. When kids are killing other kids over a pair of sneakers or a jacket then the respect for human life has degraded to nothing, yet rather then focusing on the real issue of why, we are focusing on how. A ban on assault weapons will serve nothing but alienating a group of law abiding citizens. Will there be a drop in violence - most likely not. Will those determined to obtaining a weapon still be able to get one - absolutely, so don't think you are soothing your societal guilt by introducing a ban on assault weapons and high capacity clips, you are accomplishing little towards the why, as opposed to the quick knee jerk fix of the how.

@Area Man: I don't know what is meant by the term "liberal troll." I am the author of the article, Sir, and spent a great deal of time combing through governmental websites, digging into Harvard Law studies, considering what sources to include as credible and which to dismiss as biased. Furthermore, Sir, I assure you I do not live under a bridge, nor do I possess hooves, nor a beard. My lower canines are of normal human size, as are my ears. My skin color is normal for a caucasian woman, and while I get rather tan in summertime, I have never been accused of being green, nor do I have bulbous warts growing from my face. I submit my photo, above, next to my article (the one here being rather small), as evidence, Sir, that I fall into the species of Homo Sapien.

James, like I said, at the end of the day, it boils down to which evidence is more credible and more abundant. In my article, I list really solid, peer-reviewed, published studies that say more guns = more homicdes. The link to Harvard lists four solid peer-reviewed studies that say the same thing. We've examined Australia and found that there have been no similar-scale mass shootings since their gun ban in 1996. That's 16 years without a mass shooting (there were just two, much smaller, shooting incidents since then, as compared to our 30 mass shootings.) I appreciate the one study you did post, because that was, out of the huge number of comments here, the only attempt someone made to find a credible, solid, published, non-biased study. Since that study combines suicide and homicide, though, it's difficult to isolate and extract homicide statistics from it. I attempted to look at the time from the gun ban to now, and I don't think the 1950's bear any relevance to modern times. We have no idea what was going on in the 1950's that inflated those numbers. Like I said, it comes down to which evidence is more credible and more abundant, and I feel that, especially in light of what some folks here have given as "evidence," (opinion videos from unknown people, articles from organizations whose sole purpose it is to promote guns, etc.) the facts speak for themselves.

Moe: Thank you for the lengthy semantics lesson. I'll be sure to keep it in mind moving forward.

David, I agree with the first part of your statement wholeheartedly. However, I would direct you back to the numerous studies I listed when it comes to gun control laws.

The Womb - another gun free zone where millions of defenseless children are murdered each year.

This is a FANTASTIC article, and the author's discussion in the comments is great too. Every comment I saw was cool-headed, fact based and respectful. A good example that anyone on either side of the issue should follow, in communicating their own views. I am someone who is on the fence about what to do, and I am not persuaded by rhetoric, name calling, etc.

Jane, thank you very much :)

What I'm not hearing a lot about is how people plan on protecting themselves. It seems the majority is under the false assumption that their government, or local police will make sure they don't die (or aren't killed) today. What everyone has failed to realize is, if you don't want to die today, then you must do everything in YOUR power to make sure that doesn't happen? If you were raised to trust society, then you'll probably go about your day assuming you won't need a gun to properly protect yourself, and you have every right. But if you can see through the fake peace and harmony of today's world, then you'd rather take the approach of being prepared for the worst by stocking up on arms and ammo, again which is your right, but now comes with the new label of being the so-called "nut".

Trying to control guns because of mass shootings, is like trying to control cars by welding car doors shut to prevent DUI deaths. If someone is determined enough, there's no way to prevent it, unless you're the one in control of the gun or the car.

In short, only you can protect you....as long as the playing field is fair.

@Chris Taraborelli: Trying to control guns because of mass shootings is like trying to control DUI deaths by enacting strict drunk driving laws. Since those laws were enacted, studies have shown a significant reduction in drunk driving fatalities, with the strongest effect coming from random sobriety checkpoints. Laws work.

Moe: Yes, of course there are still drunk driving accidents, but that does not mean we shouldn't have made laws to reduce the incidence of such accidents. Laws reduce overall risk, and that is what we are aiming for. Again, I don't call for a complete ban on guns, and most people don't. We only want tighter regulations, similar to regulations for cars, Sudafed, and all the other potentially dangerous things which carry regulations for their use. No one is niave enough to think that tighter regulation will stop ALL gun homicides, but other countries have solidly proven that tighter laws will reduce the overall risk. This has been confirmed by a pretty solid, wide body of peer reviewed evidence and studies, as indicated in the article.

MAN, I hope when I ask my question THIS time I get an answer!

Rebecca, I was wondering WHY you are ignoring the LARGER problem of knife and hammer deaths, to focus on the SMALLER problem of gun deaths.
Why do the GREATER NUMBER of dead from hammer/knives, not warrant your attention?
(Unless I missed your article on hammer and knife control, then Ill withdraw my question)

Stronger regulations work! Please note the strict permit requirements that follow. Before the 1986 ban on machine gun sales The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it unlawful for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department and payment of a $200 tax every time their ownership changed from one federally registered owner to another. Under that Law to become a registered owner, a complete FBI background investigation was conducted, including checking criminal history or tendencies toward violence. Any application required sets of fingerprints and a recent photo of the applicant. The application form also required the signature of a chief law enforcement officer with jurisdiction over the applicant's area of residency. Sale by a permit holder required the buyer to obtain a permit before the sale could be made. There are about 240,000 legally acquired and licensed machine guns in the U.S. Only 2 have been found to have been used in an unlawful killing. Tight regulations work!

@Bayboat: My apologies. I've been trying to be as thorough as possible, but as you can see, I am trying to answer everyone who addressed me directly with questions and comments, and it's quite time consuming. You have asked why I am concerned with mass shootings over knife and hammer deaths. Firstly, guns are a much, much larger problem than knife and club deaths. You are welcome to view the 2011 report from the US census entitled "Murder Victims-Circumstances and Weapons Used or Cause of Death: 2000-2009" to view the latest available statistics. Now, I am aware that someone extracted "rifles" from the large list of firearms and prepared an article saying that more people were killed by blunt objects and knives than by rifles, but gun control proponents want tighter regulations on ALL firearms, not just rifles, so bringing up that point is totally irrelevant because firearms kill vastly larger amount of people than all other obejcts combined. Secondly, knifes, clubs, etc. do not have the capacity to perform a mass killing, as evidenced by the fact that there have been no mass killings in a public forum by those objects, ever, as far as I know. Take China as an example. The criminal went into the school with the intent to perform a mass killing with a knife, and he failed miserably, as all the children survived. So, other objects cannot be compared to firearms in any way, since the number of deaths is much smaller, as is the capacity for mass killing in one incident.

More facts and stats:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

Moe: With regard to the record murder rate in Chicago in 2012, I'm going to assume you know the gun ban was struck down a couple of years prior. Also, as previously mentioned, gang related violence is not really of concern to this discussion. The vast majority of people are at a very low risk of falling prey to gang-related gun violence since they are not involved in a gang, and gang members are not the ones performing mass shootings.

True. Gang members are not the ones performing mass shootings. It's the students walking into their own schools to murder their classmates and teachers.

James Von Brunn: There are a greater number of published studies that show a decline in firearm-related deaths than the one which found no significant difference. Here are some of the studies I found that pertain to Australia:

http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

http://andrewleigh.org/pdf/GunBuyback_Panel.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/117085853/Firearm-Availability-and-Homicide-Rates-across-26-High-Income-Countries

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=203874

There are reams of other studies that pertain to the United States. So far, though, the one study you posted above is the ONLY credible study anyone has posted, and that only shows no significant decrease rather than an increase. There was one study pertaining to Australia that claimed the reason for the declining gun homicides was that "it was already decreasing before the ban," but the person who performed the study is the president of a gun group, so I'm not able to view that as legitimate.

4 hand guns used?( he had four guns with him) not a rifle( this was recovered from the vic.). we all need to look at the facts( do your own homework) .Four guns was the first report from the scene . Then a report of the above rifle only to have this corrected.
now the families(Newtown) have a group. I think this is where the real discussion will begin . I for one will be watching this very closely. Both sides will be trying to spin this to their side of any arguement.
As a new gun buyer ( gun is back ordered ) I take my freedoms very seriously. The gun is the owners to control ( lock it up when not in use ) carry and to use within the law. We as owners need to understand the laws of gun owership. We as citizens need to protect freedoms of the many from all foes. This is done better with calm debate of the facts.
Watching the familys talk, with gun owners in the group. I hope will make for a fair and rational train of thought.

Area Man: My article from a few months ago, regarding internet addiction, is but the tip of the iceberg. On that subject I've performed two years of research and am writing a book which I expect to be out in about a year's time. As for getting online attention and the corresponding release of brain chemicals, well, that is unfortunately, unavoidable in the process of attempting to make a living as a writer in this day and age. I'm sure that someone as seemingly concerned as you about the welfare of others would not a deny a person the right to eke out funds for bread, would you?

Prez "executive orders" can NOT be used to enact domestic/US gun bans says Congressman Paul Gosar!
http://www.santanvalley.com/news/news-stories/local/item/8655-presidential-gun-ban-executive-power-or-unconstitutional-power-grab#.UPTxiJZJEUQ ;

only an alteration of THE SECOND AMENDMENT can radically change current US gun laws!

(good luck with that, you gun-grabbing goons!)

James: Re the Sarah Brady quote- it's widely thought to be a fake. Sarah Brady is a conservative Republican and as such, would never mention striving toward socialism. Even this pro-gun site illustrates how the quote is fake: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcbogus_brady.html

With regard to the claims of "guilt by association" of the study authors, don't you think that's stretching a little bit there? For the study I mentioned, the author was the head of a gun group. I don't think you can compare that association with someone being "tied to the UN in some way." The UN performs millions of functions. It's not an anti-gun group. And, the two studies which show no significant decrease in gun homicides (the one you provided and the one I mentioned which says there has, indeed been a decrease, but that decrease was happening before the ban) don't show any increase. Plus, they are outweighed by a greater body of evidence showing there has been a significant decrease.

I've really been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I'm starting to get a little annoyed....no reasonable American is trying to take away your hunting rifles or you personal protection handguns. All they are trying to do is make uniform and easier to enforce the laws that, I am sure, my law-abiding friends gun-owning friends are already following. Just as I, who never intends to use it to hurt another person, had to follow the laws like everyone else and pass a test to be allowed to. Drive a car, so anyone who wants to own a firearm should have to get a license. And, just as I could lose my license if I use my car in dangerous or unlawful ways, so too should dangerous people lose their license to have a gun. Will this stop all bad guys and crazies from getting a hold of guns? No, of course not. But it might help. And if you are a law abiding, licensed gun owner, why on earth would you not be in support of everyone else who wants a gun to have to jump through the same hoops you did? And really, military grade weapons? Those only have one purpose: to kill as many people as possible. No one who is not in the military needs those. Ever.

And lest you think my ire is reserved for conservative, republican gun owners, the way the ultra liberals have latched onto the argument against assault weapons to extend it to a ban on them in the military or to want to hold the military and companies that supply to the military to the same standards as private citizens is irresponsible. Until the entire, wider world is free from bad guys and crazies, the military must have military grade weapons, like it or not. But, only the military needs military grade weapons, and anything we can do to make that reality, I am all for. We do not allow John Q Average to drive Indy 500 cars on our roads. We cannot allow John Q Average to have military weapons on our streets either.

Calm down, james. Keep it civil.

James Von Brunn: Please review Patch's Terms of Use here: http://haddon.patch.com/terms or I'll have to report you to my editor for the profanity. Thank you.

Kristine: Very good points. The military should, of course, be exempt from any bans, as should any arm of the law. Thanks for jumping into the discussion :)

James Von Brunn you have used threats against the writer in your comments. I am reporting you to the authorities as you seem likely to be the next person who would take a gun and shoot people. You don't seem stable as you are using such profanity as a demented teen would and don't have the maturity to communicate or debate like a mature adult.

Moe: As I had previously mentioned, I don't call for, nor do I believe in, a complete ban on guns. All I want, really, is better background checks, longer waiting periods, etc. I'm sure you're aware that it is more difficult to purchase Sudafed here than to purchase a gun. I don't think that makes sense.

This is gun control:

Learn the mechanical and handling characteristics of the firearm you are using.

Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction, and keep your finger off the trigger, until you are ready to shoot.

Firearms should be unloaded and securely stored when not in use.

Be sure the barrel is clear of obstructions before using.

Be sure of your target before you shoot.

Wear shooting glasses and ear protection when you shoot.

Never climb a tree or fence, or do anything awkward with a loaded firearm.

Don’t shoot at a hard surface or at water.

Never transport a loaded firearm.

Avoid alcoholic beverages or drugs when shooting or handling a gun.

I'll add that you should learn the firearms laws of your state regarding carrying, transport, etc. And practice!

Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearm Act can be found here:
http://paopencarry.org/uniform-firearms-act

Moe, my idea is basically to approach the issue like a public health problem. To do that, we would need to look to other countries, and what they have implemented successfully. You asked how it helps. I would direct you to the studies I posted in the article and in the previous comment, where I listed four studies pertaining to Australia specifically. Another example is Canada. I had a very good quote I found online under another article from a Canadian gun owner who described what he has to go through to get a gun for hunting. He says it's very tough to get a gun and he has to jump through a lot of hoops to prove what he needs the gun for, super strict background checks, etc. However, he is in support of the laws 100% and said he feels sorry for the US. I guess what confounds many of us who call for tougher gun laws is the reaction of many gun owners. Why can't they be like the man from Canada? He owns guns, he loves guns, but he feels that Canada's gun laws work perfectly to prevent mass shootings, and for that he is glad. It's confusing as to why anyone would object to tougher restrictions when they would still be able to own guns. Yes, it would inconvenience them a little, but wouldn't that inconvenience be worth it if it could save even one innocent life?

As a resident of Australia posted somewhere above, it isn't all as pleasant as you make it out to be. Thankfully, we have a Constitution that is the envy of many countries.

The solutions being proposed will do nothing to cure the evils of a morally corrupt society continuously brainwashed by the "entertainment" industry. Repeated exposure to violent and immoral acts desensitizes the young and weak of mind leading them to believe this behaviour is "normal". Another law, another ban. It is like trying to fix an amputation with a band-aid. Fix the corruption and evil at the root of the problem starting in the White House and work down to the local level.

Moe: We can agree on many points. I hear you on the exposure to violence, the desensitization of young people and the corruption and evil at the top. But, Moe, we need a solution. We've got to come together to objectively examine what works in other places. We can't accept throwing our hands up and saying "oh well, I guess I'll just sit back and wait for the next mass shooting because there's just nothing we can do." Someone above stated that most NRA members support tougher gun laws. We need to come together to calmly and rationally decide what works and what won't. Does anyone honestly think our forefathers, who gave us the right to bear arms (which no one wants to take away), would have stood by and tolerated 20 children being gunned down in broad daylight? I assure you they would not have. It is incumbent upon us as good, upstanding and moral members of society to find a solution to this problem, to put the rights of innocent children above our own fear of being inconvenienced, and to work together to make society safer and stronger.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/01/15/why-am-newly-minted-member-nra/

Such a well thought out article.

James D: Too bad he didn't post links to any of the studies he cites about gun control. His links go to poorly designed websites apparently owned by pro gun individuals. People can say just about anything they want on the internet, make up numbers and "facts" and post them as truth. Notice how there is no supporting evidence, no peer reviewed studies, no actual proof of the data he cites?

It is incumbent upon us good, upstanding and moral members of society to find a solution. However, the solution is not to take away any gun from those same members.

It is the criminal and the mentally ill that have the guns that cause the havoc. The focus should be on the individual not the tool.

10/2/2006 in Nickel Mines, Lancaster County Charles Carl Roberts IV shot 10 school girls killing 5 before killing himself. This was not done with an "assault" rifle. This was done with a pistol.

If we remove all of the assault rifles you have not solved the problem of a killer shooting multiple people. Especially, if the congregate in a gun free zone. You article then would be to ban all pistols or magazines?

Even if follow New York's example of only allowing magazines of 7 rounds maximum. The killer just brings 5 pistols to the school. Shoots 7, replaces the magazine and shoots another 7 and so on and so on.

The only things you have done is changed the tool used and disarmed the good members of society. You would have taken away their rights to defend themselves from the tyrannical government that may or may not ever show its face.

While your intentions are good the logic is flawed.

A general reminder to all: (Extracted from From Patch's Terms of Use):

Without limitation, you agree that you will not post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that:

•is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive;
•violates any party’s right of publicity or right of privacy;
•is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual;
•promotes or encourages violence;
•is inaccurate, false or misleading in any way;
•is illegal or promotes any illegal activities;
•contains “masked” profanity (e.g., F@&#).

Termination of Access

We want to keep Patch a safe and friendly place, so in addition to any right or remedy that may be available to us under these Terms of Use or applicable law, we may suspend, limit or terminate your account, or all or a portion of your access to the Service, at any time with or without notice and with or without cause. In addition, we may refer any information on illegal activities, including your identity, to the proper authorities. Including the police and/or your parents

This is what slavery looks like. Self-slavery.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler
Chancellor, Germany, 1933

"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke
British Statesman, 1784

"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

Anthony Wayne: The Hitler quote and the George Washington quotes are proven fakes. The other two I didn't check but don't pertain to guns, per se. I respectfully ask everyone to check your sources before posting information that could be misleading or false. Thanks.

I think J. Stewart says it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlHP2xk8Crk
Genius!

@Yikes: Luckily, the comments with the disturbing profanity were removed. Patch doesn't want that kind of language on the site. I love Stewart's take on it. The problem is, as you can see from this forum, the gun advocates are MUCH more vocal than the ones who are calling for solutions to mass shootings, and therein lies the problem. As with anything, (the forum itself included) "the squeaky wheel gets the grease." Luckily, I'm a VERY squeaky wheel, and I don't plan on quieting down until meaningful action is taken to reduce our risk of mass shootings.

Kevin: All excellent points. In my opinion, for myself, the conversation does several helpful things. Firstly, it introduces people to each other. For example, I see many points in the advocates' statements I can agree on, and even those which give me additional ideas to discuss and write my representatives about. Secondly, it exposes tactics which can then be addressed. For example, I actually had no idea how much strong credible data was out there supporting gun control (especially the data from other countries) and how little credible data there is supporting the idea of more guns, until I started researching the article. The "evidence" against gun control people have posted here has largely been unsubstantiated and taken from individuals' own websites and videos. I can address that fact whenever I write to my representatives. I can talk about how the very vocal minority uses these tactics of putting out false information to get their way. It has also helped me to realize we need to make the distinction between gang-related shootings by city criminals and mass shootings performed by psychotic suburban maniacs. The two animals are just so vastly different, and that's something the media has been ignoring. Finally, it connects gun control people too. I'd like to ask you to write hand-written letters to your representatives. I've been told that three hand-written letters means more to a rep than 1 million electronic signatures. Together, we can make change happen.

Exactly! The number of deaths from mass shootings in the WORLD in the past 30 years is about 350. INSIGNIFICANT number! No matter how you look at it. More people die in the bathtub each year. 11,000 people die in DUI accidents every year yet LITTLE is done to curb that. If we REALLY wanted to save lives, we'd install ignition-lock devices to prevent drunks from driving. Yes, it is sad kids died in December. However, it is still concerning to me that FACTS about this case have changed and there is still not definite answer to (1) who was running through the woods behind Sandy Hook in camo pants (helicopter footage & police radio) (2) why a long gun (shotgun) was shown being taking from suspects trunk (3) Why reports centered around only handguns in the school (4) Why Robbie Parker's press conference the day after shooting showed him LAUGHING right before he went on. There are TOO MANY inconsistencies which the media is ignoring. I hate conspiracy theories but to be fair, you must watch the video. http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8 I truly believe there is more to the Sandy Hook situation and worry that our gov't figured that Aurora movie theater scenario didn't get the effect they wanted. I have the absolute right to protect myself with a semi-automatic rifle and will not abide by any law restricting that right. Obama has now shown himself to be an elitist who wants to use presidential directives to turn this situation into chaos by killing our 2nd Amendment rights. How sad he is.

Obama IS destroying our Constitution with every gun restriction he announces. The government did not give me the U.S. Constitution and the gov't cannot take it away. Just because he tries to make new laws, does not mean they are LAWFUL and therefore these new "laws" do not need to be followed. He is headed toward impeachment and I cannot wait for that day.

One fact I've been meaning to point out here also is that since the ban on semi-automatic rifles expired, we've experienced an enormous increase in mass shootings. Columbine was the only shooting that happened during the ban, and since the ban lifted, we've had THIRTY. That's half of ALL mass shootings in US history. It's really about the math. If we can stay focused on the facts and the data, the solution becomes more clarified. Did anyone read the study on the 16 years Australia has enjoyed completely free of mass shootings since their ban on semi automatic rifles?

Adrian: Can you draw any conclusion from Australia? Surprisingly, no one ever seems to comment on the fact that since their ban in 1996, they have not had one mass shooting, and that this has been proven by multiple studies. In the article you posted, it states "...As this chart from Princeton’s Sam Wang shows, the number of people killed in mass shootings did go down in the years the ban was in effect (save for a surge in 1999, a year that included Columbine)" and then goes on to say that the correlation "isn't clear." I mean, at a certain point, logic has got to take over. In countries where there are very tight gun control laws, they do not have a problem with mass shootings in the way that we do here. They just don't. We lead the entire world in mass shootings. We've had thirty since the ban was lifted. Those who choose to bring in other types of gun violence such as gangs, into the discussion, are doing that to dilute the argument about mass shootings and ignore the facts.

And - to all of you RATIONAL NRA members: most elected Boards have rules to follow. Somebody check the darn bylaws and get these clowns removed from the Board. NRA is a non-profit - Surely they are breaching policies and breaking laws.
Get a lawyer and call them to task, we are all tired of listening to the insanity!

Jim Delizzio: If bans don't work, why have mass shootings doubled since the ban was lifted and why has Australia not had one in 16 years since they implemented their ban?

DId the ban or any gun law prevent a Muslim terrorist from killing 13 servicemen with a handgun at Forthood? He would have killed more but fortunately at a military base, the servicemen also have guns and they shot him.

Where was the outrage? The fanfare? the new laws?

You better check your stats

Mass shootings in 90's = 42
Mass shootings in 2000's = 28

There sure are a lot of psychics here, everyone seems to think they know exactly what will happen if we have better control on guns. How on earth do you know what will happen until we try? We need to start somewhere don't we? You know that dreaded word, "change" And to all the responsible gun owners, why is better gun control such a problem, won't it help your argument more if we could just narrow the less responsible? I just don't understand why every single gun control argument I see is all about "taking our guns", "The president is taking away our rights". In fact the people taking our rights away are the people who don't see use in stricter gun laws. I respect all gun owners who come out and say yes, we do need to fix loopholes, assault weapons should be banned. The rest of you are just plain scary to me! We don't want your guns. We don't want your 2nd Amendment and we don't want your liberties...we just want you to smarten up a bit, so you can catch up with the rest of us, because the lives of Americans are depending on it.

Annnnd, still no answer about why Australia has had no mass shootings in 16 years since their ban, or why the mass shooting rate here doubled since our ban was lifted. I guess the tactic here is to ignore facts which don't support the gun proponents' agenda.

@James,
Criminals don't obey laws we know that. How do criminals get there guns? That is the question. They can walk into a gun show, steal it from your house, buy it on the street, get them online. AGAIN, we NEED to start somewhere!!!!!!!!!

Rebecca What about their overall crime rate. I am concerned about crime overall. Not just mass shootings.

I'm so tired of statistics, can someone on here please tell me how having better gun regulations will effect you???

@James
How can the law abiding citzen not? What has changed? Please explain???

If you are a law abiding citizen, and you want a gun, why do you fear gun regulations? This is a question I don't get an answer from anyone who wants to argue better gun control.What because Obama had his hand in it? That is what it ultimately comes down to isn't it??

The Nancy Pelosi we must pass the bill to see what's in it disease strikes again

On Tuesday, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the sweeping gun measure, the nation's toughest. It includes a ban on the possession of high-capacity magazines.

Specifically, magazines with more than 7 rounds will be illegal under the new law.

The problem as the statute is currently written does NOT exempt law enforcement officers.

Great, now who is going to arrest the police?!?!?!

Why are liberals so stupid?

The NYPD, the State Police and virtually every law enforcement agency in the state carry 9-milli-meter guns, which have a 15-round capacity.

Unless an exemption is added by the time the law takes effect in March, police would technically be in violation of the new gun measure.

You are so paranoid, sit in your house and wait for the world to end, the government and police to strip you from your freedoms. The rest of us will be living our lives productively.

Joe Taxpayer: What does the population count in Australia have to do with the number of mass shootings since the ban? Prior to the ban, there WERE mass shootings there despite having a smaller population. After the ban, there were NONE. The population count is irrelevant since they had mass shootings before the ban took effect. Here is a complete data set of mass shootings in the United States along with the details of each. You are welcome to count the number of mass shootings during the years the ban was in effect and then count the number of mass shootings since the ban was lifted: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data.

There are many other timelines and data sets online which show roughly the same numbers if you don't like this source for any reason. It is not too difficult to count up incidences being that each one is well documented.

Jim DeLizzio: If you're concerned about overall violent crime as opposed to mass shootings, we're having two different discussions. They are two different animals entirely.

Becky, Are you saying that Mass shootings are not violent crimes?

Joe Taxpayer: You are welcome to pull up your own data and timelines from other sources if you don't like the Mother Jones survey. I chose that one because it was an actual timeline with historical details and it was comprehensive. The FBI has pretty lame stats on their site, with years prior to about 2005 going to some index pages of studies that don't contain the actual study. I was able to pull a report on violent crime overall but I don't know how meaningful it is. Still, it does show a rise in violent crime up until the year of the ban, and then a pretty steady drop in most years until the ban was lifted. You can do your own search at www.fbi.giv since there is no way to copy the table and paste it because it's from a live database. Even Fox News has a timeline that is very incomplete but it still shows 18 mass shootings in the last few years. In Texas, there have been a healthy number of mass shootings and a very healthy murder rate compared to other states (and these ARE from the FBI): -http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-4
So, what is your point about Texas? Go ahead and compare it to other states in the chart I just pasted. Column 7- Murder rate for 100,000 people. It's higher than New York and most other states in the US. Here's an article about how bad crime is in Texas from the Texas Tribune using FBI stats: http://www.texastribune.org/library/data/fbi-crime-statistics-2010/.

Jim D: Of course mass murders are violent crimes but not all violent crimes are mass murders, and they are very different, with very different characteristics and perpetrators. Mass shootings was the topic of the article, and I feel that bringing in gang violence and other violent crimes is diluting the discussion by turning attention away from mass shootings, which have very specific characteristics and a very specific set of circumstances surrounding the shooter which are entirely different than gang violence. I feel much safer with a drug dealer in North Philly who just got out of jail than I do with a psychotic 20 year old white male who plays too many violent video games, wears a trench coat, looks insane and has access to a semi automatic rifle. I will go and sit in Camden right now and stay there all night and feel 100% more at ease than if the aforementioned person comes into a public space where I am. As a matter of fact I have walked out of the mall and movie theaters on several occasions because I spotted a suspicious looking, psychotic looking young male. Conversly, I've been protected by drug dealers on more than one occasion on the job, and have had no issue with the fact that they had a gun on them because they've got zero interest in shooting me.

But the things you are suggesting will affect the ability of Law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those other violent crimes. One affects the other. Your knee jerk reaction to worry about the smaller % of incidents will cause a radical increase in the other areas. I understand you wanted to point out this issue, but you can't ignore the rapes, assaults, home invasions for the sake of preventing one mass shooting.

This puts all of this in perspective.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/01/30821-cartoon-a-weapon-guide-for-the-uninformed/

Jim D: With regard to the cartoon, I already posted a link to the FBI site that shows that guns in total kill way more people than all other objects combined. You can look at it yourself, it's up above. I'm really surprised that the illustrator included drunk driving in the cartoon, since we have about a bazillion effective LAWS and regulations to stop drunk driving, and these laws have definitely reduced the number of deaths from it. Again, will ALL drunk driving deaths stop? No. Will it reduce everyone's overall RISK a great deal? YES. Same exact idea with tighter gun laws. Now, with regard to protecting you home and the ability to protect yourself from home invasion, etc. If my young mother was able to scare away a parolee of my father's using just a handheld pistol, why would anyone else need a giagantic semi automatic rifle for home protection? That's pretty embarrassing, actually, that anyone would feel they would need such an enormous gun, capable of mass killing, to scare away an intruder rather than handling a smaller gun effectively (the way my mom did). Maybe they need shooting lessons. Do you think the intruder will be carrying a semi automatic? How many home invasions involve semi automatic rifles on the part of the intruder? By all means, people should defend their homes with as many guns as they want, but just not with a semi automatic rifle. If they can't do that, they've got bigger problems than the break in.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"- Ben Franklin....You gave up your rights when you allowed the government to implement TSA and Homeland Security. Gun Regulation is not going to make a difference in the lives of law abiding gun owners.

Rebecca, thank you for helping to focus on the facts. We all have a lot of strong feelings about guns, both for and against. Research indicates that well-regulated countries with fewer guns have less gun-related deaths. It's pretty clear. The examples of England and Australia are clear.
Like you, I have family members who are law-abiding gun enthusiasts and hunters, and they understand that the gun control laws that are being introduced don't affect their gun use at all, but will help make us all a little bit safer.

Pamela: Ask Australia if their saftey has been "temporary." Sixteen years with no mass shootings after their gun laws were tightened. See if they think it was worth it.

Wow you are really hung up on Australia.

How many mass murders happened in Texas, a state of equal size to Australia and one without bans?

How many cities as pathetic as Detroit, Chicago or Camden are there in Australia?

550 Murders in Chicago last year. 70+ in Camden and you are fascinated by what's going on down under.

Keep trying to pretend its the guns!!

The lack of mass shootings in Australia, as we all know, is a result of the Australian government banning, confiscating, or buying back almost all guns in the country. Australia does not have a Bill of Right protecting gun ownership. The U.S. is not and never will be Australia in its form of government, Bill of Rights, people, and culture. Let’s deal in reality. There will never be Australian style gun control in America. How can you claim gun advocates don’t deal in reality when it comes to statistics when you have to know that Australian type gun restriction and confiscations will never happen in the us. Let’s ALL deal in realities.

Joe, I am more than happy to discuss Texas. Texas is one of the leading states for mass murders actually, and represents a significant percentage of all mass shootings in the US. Texas has an incredibly high firearms death rate overall. I am starting to wonder if people are researching actual statistics before citing examples. Texas is a terrible example for the pro-gun lobby. You are welcome to view the link to the FBI statistics above, which shows the murder rate for Texas per 100,000 people. It's one of the highest in the US, higher than New York even. Here you can see a map of firearm death rates in Texas as compared to the rest of the nation. It's very hefty and only a handful of states have a higher firearm death rate: http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&yr=92&typ=3&sort=a&rgnhl=45

One of the problems is that people talk and say things with no research to back it up. I am still astounded that out of the hundreds of comments here, only one link to a study or any meaningful statistics have been posted by one person. Please, by all means, review the firearm death rate and mass murders in Texas. I welcome you to do so.

Tired_Parent: Bringing up Australia is an example to those who use the blanket statement "gun bans don't work." Obviously, they do, when implemented correctly. The "reality" you speak of is the one which gun advocates want, and not the reality gun control advocates want. Forget Australia for a moment and research the number of mass shootings in the US during the assault rifle ban compared to mass shootings since the ban was lifted. It has doubled in that time. Even Fox News themselves have a timeline of recent mass shootings, which, while incomplete, shows the larger number of mass shootings in the last few years. It's impossible to get around the numbers. People go on making whatever statements they want, and when confronted with statistics, they turn the conversation to something else or bandy about fake Hitler quotations. If you read every single comment here you will find exactly one credible study posted by a gun advocate. All the other "facts" that have been posted are links to blogs and videos by individuals, opinion pieces with no studies to back them up and articles with no citations. I've posted link after link to FBI statistics, studies, data, charts, maps, etc. and no one comments on them, they simply revert back to "gun bans don't work" and "my liberty is at stake." There is a huge body of evidence, study after study, showing fewer guns = fewer gun deaths and vice versa and no evidence to the contrary.

Joe T, with your logic we could also use Colorado as an example. A state smaller than Australia with three mass shootings in 13 years. Two of them, Columbine and Aurora, set new benchmarks in their size and type. They all involved disturbed individuals with assault rifles and Columbine and Aurora involved high-capacity magazines. See! Things are getting worse if you cherry-pick a different state.
The reason why Australia is used is because it enacted laws and had results that can be quantified.
It is true that the majority of gun violence is either on the street or suicides. And the US has more gun deaths than US soldiers lost in Afghanistan and Iraq. That is why having stronger background checks as well as mental health checks are important components of gun control. No one thing will solve all the problems or guarantee anyone's safety, and urban violence is particularly difficult -- we know that just by looking at Philly.

You can pretend it's not the guns, but quality research shows that gun control is one important part of a complicated solution to reduce violent deaths.

Doubled?

According to FBI statistics, people killed in clusters of four or more averaged 163 annually between 2006 and 2008, just two more than back in the 1980s.

One-on-one gun homicides have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980, according to 2010 FBI crime data. The firearm homicide rate sank from 10,000 in 2005 to 8,776 in 2010.

READ IT AGAIN. One-on-one gun homicides have dropped more than 40 percent since 1980

According to a Scripps-Howard study of FBI statistics, 4,685 people died in 965 mass-murders between 1980 and 2008. A USA Today article put the yearly average of incidents at about about 20 a year.

Where is the double of mass murders you write of? Are you saying we have 40 a year now? Show us YOUR PROOF!

FBI numbers:
In 2005, 445 murders by rifles.
605 Murders committed by hammers/clubs.

In 2006, 438 murders by rifle,
618 murders hammers and clubs 618.

2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle
there was 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

According to the FBI, nearly twice as many people are killed by hands and fists each year than are killed by murderers who use rifles.

Wow fists ARE REALLY DANGEROUS!!

Keep blaming the weapon.......I know it's easier than blaming the killers/criminals!

What rights are being taken away?please answer!!!

Oh right Obama!
And what do you need this"assult rifle" for exactly?

Not putting limits on them infringes on my rights!!!

Michigan school hires armed guard who leaves his gun in the bathroom of that K-8 school.

I hear all the time "Guns don't kill people, People do". Then why dont we send our troops into war empty handed? All we need is them to kill the enemy, right? Guns are manufactured for one purpose, killing. Knives, Hammers and axes are tools manufactured for other purposes such carving wood, building houses and cutting down trees.
Also, no one in government is proposing a ban on all guns, just on military style weapons.

Anything that can murder me and the 100 people standing next to me in a matter of seconds would do. So, please tell me what an average civilian needs a gun like that for? And please don't tell me to protect yourself because everyone knows that is bull.
Turn Fox news off, think for yourself and for god sakes stop worring about what the "black" president will do next.

500,000 guns stolen each year from private citizens. These guns go directly into the hands of criminals. Legal Gun owners are arming criminals. The sand hook shooter stole his gun from his mother. These guns need to be locked up, by law.

Honestly, I think you are all just scared. You hide behind your guns and your prejudice, waiting for the other races to take over your country, while all you are doing is forming together spreading your hate and making our society an even worse place to live. It's not about guns anymore, it's all politics and while your worrying about the government taking you rights, your feeding the big companies who actually own your thoughts. Shame on you.

Then please explain what is so Anti constituion? I see a world that is always changing and laws that are staying the same. Why are you afraid to change? Don't we have to change to keep up with the society we live in? And I'm not calling you a racist, but you would have to look at the general public that is saying what you are, and since nobody can answer my questions I have to come up with the same conculsions.

Because to change the CONSTITUTION you need an Amendment. I am not afraid of change, but do the proper thing and seeks an Amendment if you want to change the 2nd Amendment. They have done it plenty of times.

But they are not changing the amendment, you can still bear arms. UGGGG I'm giving up

Tired_Parent: Which statistics and studies would you prefer?

Joe: We're discussing mass shootings, not one on one shootings. Therefore, citing a lot of statistics about one on one shootings does nothing to further the discussion. I have already pasted a very thorough and comprehensive study by Mother Jones which is the most comprehensive I have yet found which shows a complete list of mass shootings in the US in modern times, along with pictures of the shooters, dates, number of people killed, and so on. I said if people didn't like that study then they were welcome to find their own. Shouting "show us your proof!" when I have already so repeatedly is rather offputting to say the least. Extracting rifles from FBI statistics is not helpful, because gun control advocates want tighter restrictions on ALL firearms, and firearms kill many more people than all objects combined as you can clearly see from the FBI link you posted. I don't know the relevance of "According to a Scripps-Howard study of FBI statistics, 4,685 people died in 965 mass-murders between 1980 and 2008. A USA Today article put the yearly average of incidents at about about 20 a year." What does that have to do with the number of mass shootings during the ten years the ban was in place vs. the amount of shootings since the ban expired? Citing unrelated statistics is not helpful to me.

I'm keeping my guns for the day the government decides to go too far with our personal liberties and freedoms. That's The Second Amendment. All other chatter is irrelevant. If you want a gun to protect yourself, fine. If you want a gun to shoot targets, fine. If you want a gun to defend your property, fine. Good for you. I have guns because The Second Amendment is wiser than all of us put together.

Now then, just relax, take a breather, and maybe have a nice cup of tea. Your bickering is background noise.

All of you soft-hearted liberals need to watch this. Yes it's from NRA News, but you have to see what the effect of the slippery slope of bans on firearms. Today it's Assault rifles, tomorrow it's all rifles, and next year it's hand guns. Ohhh England is soooo safe with it's gun ban... REALLY?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

One simple reason why large capacity magazines come in handy.

http://newsok.com/burglars-shot-in-southeast-oklahoma-city-police-said/article/3747217?custom_click=pod_headline_crime

Since the NRA is a gun and ammunition lobby and not a gun owner lobby, it seems that there are gun owners who actually talk themselves into a corner that we can't breathe unless we have 30 shot clips and assault rifles.

I know many gun owners who have so much respect for their weapons, and the damage they can do, wouldn't mind at all limitations on military style weapons.

But there is a broad problem of Hollywood glamorizing gun violence and desensitizing many to harm caused by guns. This extends to video game manufacturers as well.

This problem of gun violence is very broad. Banning assault weapons and their ammunition is a start but barely a drop in the bucket.

Mr. M. - I too, like many others who enjoy and have enjoyed the right to have guns defend and support the (full) Second Amendment. And, like myself many of us also know that the right to bare arms does not mean that we can have whatever we want and the Supremes have already ruled on that fact. What I and many do not support is the NRA's miss interpretation, false representation, and false propaganda of the Second Amendment.

The NRA only represents corporate manufactures and have used their propaganda and misrepresentation of our Second Amendment, to gin up false fear and suspicion. They fight to keep the gun show loophole open and fight gun safety proposals all for the love of manufactures profits.

Frankly speaking, those who would blindly follow (any) organization without question are clearly not making use of commonsense or using intelligence. So, with respect to your question about my implications, all I can say is if the shoe fits... That is your choice if you want to wear it.

How many fertilizer bombings did we have prior to and after the Oklahoma City bombing? In 2007 Congress authorized Homeland Security to establish an Ammonium Nitrate Security Program. The Oklahoma City bombing only mass murder you noted that is relevant to the discussion on eliminating the sale of assault rifles and limiting the magazines.

How absurd that a few common sense regulations regarding deadly weapons put forth by an appointed commission are to be considered actions of some extreme authority - or as you say "the Man" Maybe you smoked one too many in the 60's and the paranoia has warped your mind...?

I was at a child's party today and met 2 fathers who are hunters and own guns. I asked the question, (without stating my opinion on the issue of gun control), What do you think about the gun control issue on banning assault style weapons. I was very surprised by the answer. They said "Why do you need to have 30 round clips and higher which shoot off rounds so quickly? The only reason would be the military." They were actually for the ban. I was expecting the same old argument about the 2nd amendment that so many gun enthusiast employ.

With the argument that criminals would be the only people with assault style weapons, I agree. But there has to be a starting point to rid them from the streets. I'm neither a pro or anti gun enthusiast and I try to listen to both sides of the debate, but some of the pro gun enthusiasts seem to be overly zealous and paranoid that the government is going to take away their guns. And with reading some of the arguments and comments on here, your guns should be taken away.

I was very surprised while talking to to these two men and listening to their view points which were very rational view points. I'm just glad that some gun owners get it. They understand that their is no need for it, hunting, self defense or otherwise. Also, both of these men served in the military years ago.

The term "well-regulated" is perhaps the least understood part of the second amendment by both sides of the gun control argument. Those supporting gun control would have you believe that the term establishes government oversight of the right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights proponents are more correct in their understanding, realizing that the archaic definition that was in common use at the time meant something being in proper working order. They also correctly interpret the militia to consist of the people, united for the common defense of a free state.
Unfortunately, gun rights advocates fail to connect the two. What does it mean for a militia to be in proper working order? Let's look at Federalist 29 "Concerning the Militia": "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

I think Hamilton's words indicate very clearly what it requires for a militia to be in proper working order: continuous and vigorous training.

Before you buy your next gun or expensive gun accessory, or your first gun for that matter, I challenge you to take AT LEAST one formal training class in the use of arms and commit to regular and consistent continuing education. This is your DUTY as a gun owner, inconvenient though it may be. If we fail to self-regulate, we can expect to be regulated. from a facebook post on "gun people who hate gun people"

@I-Love_Delco: Have you seen "Silver Linings Playbook"? It's filmed on Landsdowne Avenue and there are scenes at the Llanarch Diner and Upper Darby High School. Sorry for the off-topic post :)

Guns do not kill people, people that attend MLK day parades kill people ...

http://www.wwltv.com/news/crime/NOPD-4-shot-on-MLK-and-LaSalle-in-Central-City-187769051.html

MarpleResident, The shooting took place after the parade. Had nothing to do with the parade and was... I believe the description was a white car with some one shooting out of the sun roof at people. Don't know what the update is, but no one was killed at the time of my reading an article on the shooting.

The Fox News watchers do nothing but spread their hate and then bully everyone else by putting them down. Don't give me the crap that other news organizations do that to, because that is just false. Having different opinions and spreading hate are two different things. I'm so tired of hearing the same thing over and over again from the same class of people, at some point you all need to look in the mirror, wake up from your Armageddon dream and show some respect for your country and the people who live in it!!
@Erik M, Planned parenthood does a whole more than abortions, have you ever stepped your foot in one? I'm assuming not.

My basic outlook on the subject is... that America as an entity, needs to continue to stand for higher principles, as in the past. In setting limitations on detestable behavior, we are saying to each other and to the world that we care about each other, and are taking responsibility for our place as a country in the world. By allowing our base human instincts to run the show, under the umbrella of freedom, we regress....I think we need to get back to collective thinking, which in the big picture, is freedom at it's finest.

"Assault Weapon" in this context = semi-automatic gun = 1 bullet for each pull of the trigger. These are not automatic "machine gun" style weapons. You should watch or learn about semi-automatics....they are not what the gun control advocates want you to think they are.

I Love Delco and Yikes!,

If you two are indicative of the Kool-Aid guzzlers and willfully ignorant who voted for Obama, our country is indeed in dire straits. Hey, how's that rise in payroll tax working out for you? D'oh! But, but, but, didn't your Dear Leader say he was going after the richie rich whites and was going to leave the middle class alone? LOL!! Ignorant sheep, the whole lot of you.

WoW - you two are extra cranky today. Take a chill pill. Not every day is The-inauguration-of-the-president-you-didn't-want day! You'll get through it...

@Erik M: You do realize that the payroll tax holiday we were all enjoying was never permanent, right? Republicans forced Obama to let it expire. Obama didn't "raise" taxes.

Erik, Rebecca lies. While the holiday was meant to be temporary, an increase in your taxes is AN INCREASE. Obama and the Democrats let taxes increase on all working Americans!

So Becca tell us how Repubs were able to force Obama to "let it expire" when they couldn't force spending cuts, deficit reduction, a budget or even no tax increases or "force" any other legislation? It's amazing how they have such power when liberals need a convenient excuse. Why couldn't they stop Obamacare? Of all things they should have wielded their power on and yet today we have too much spending, no budget, tax increases and Obamacare.

Wow, with power like that Republicans have about as much success as the Eagles!

You do know Dems control the Senate right? Harry Reid, the crook. Where's the budget? Where's the bill supporting the payroll tax cut.

Show us any evidence of any Dem or Obama fighting for the payroll holiday to continue. In all of Obama's speeches and campaigning, produce some video where he asks to extend it.

Obama raised taxes on everyone! FACT

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/first-term-obama-increased-debt-50521-household-more-first-42-presidents-53-terms

Donkey Tales: I suggest you tread very carefully in calling me a liar. Did you ever hear of something called "libel?" You just said that the holiday was meant to be temporary, which is exactly what I said. The Patch terms of use specifically state to refrain from attacking someone personally. If you can't abide by the terms of use I will have to report you to my editor.

@Erik M,Your statement here is very insensitive. I to know what a unborn fetus looks like, when I miscarried my first child at 4 months. I also know what the face of a very scared young girl looks like when shes about to take on the biggest job in her life with no support what so ever, i've seen the sad faces of the happy couple patiently waiting for that baby they wanted, only to find out the last minute it would not be theirs. I don't live my life in my own shoes, I try other shoes on to see how comfortable they are.

Call me whatever political name you want, I know in my life I don't cry about MY injustices, I don't believe what the media tells me to, I live through others lives to gain compassion. Same with guns my friend. I personally hate guns, i'm not going to tell you can't have them to protect yourself , but your crazy if you don't agree with trying to make sure they get in the right hands, however that will happen, we need to try and start somewhere. So, I respect my friends who are pro life, I respect the responsible gun owners. I don't respect people who claim their rights trump everyone else, you could try to put yourself in other peoples positions before you scream about your freedoms.
And for the record, guns will never be taken away from our society, and anyone on here who actually believes that is what our president will do is living in a dream world, it's the most impossible thing that could ever be done in our life time, so please stop worrying, and worrying everyone else. Our counrty is in dire straights because of people like you!

Donkey Tales: Obama pushes to extend payroll tax holiday for middle class: http://huelskamp.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3776

Obama fights for middle class tax cuts: http://tndp.org/blog/2012/12/05/tndp-chairman-applauds-president-obamas-fight-for-middle-class-tax-cuts/

Obama to push for middle class tax cuts: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303343404577516313033019898.html

Obama campaigns for middle-class tax cuts: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/nov/27/news/la-pn-obama-middle-class-tax-cuts-20121127

GOP holds middle class tax cuts "hostage" to try to force Obama's hand for fiscal cliff deal: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/12/obama-accuses-house-gop-of-holding-middle-class-tax-cuts-hostage/

And the final word from Forbes: "Your Higher Payroll Taxes are not the Result of a Tax Increase" http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2013/01/14/dear-america-your-higher-payroll-taxes-are-not-the-result-of-a-tax-increase/

Don't call me a liar again.

LOL. A bunch of articles is proof of nothing!! Show me a bill or something the Congress introduced - date, time and bill #? Obama LIES all the time. Where's the bill? Where's Harry Reid? Where are the vote Amendments? Amazing that Repubs have this much power but only on certain things.

Not a tax increase? Hey everyone who is paying 2% more. Good news. No one raised your taxes. It just happened magically!!

In March 2006, then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., found the notion of raising the debt ceiling quite distasteful.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure,” he said. “It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

He did. It passed narrowly – by a vote of 52-48.

Erik M: Anyone can express their opinion freely and nothing you said violates Patch's Terms of Use, so no, I won't be blocking you or anything of that nature :)

The Immaculate Payroll Tax Increase

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/239111-senate-democrats-not-in-favor-of-extending-payroll-tax-holiday-because-of-social-security-concerns

AARP opposed the payroll tax holiday saying "Further extension of the payroll tax holiday would undermine confidence in Social Security and put at risk the program’s dedicated funding stream and the hard-earned benefits of millions of Americans and their families."
http://www.aarp.org/about-aarp/press-center/info-10-2012/AARP-No-Further-Extension-of-Payroll-Tax-Holiday.html

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, while supporting the initial tax holiday and the 10-month extension as a way to shore up the wobbly economy, told Congress earlier this year there was no reason to extend it beyond 2012.

Those dang Republicans "forcing" Obama to do stuff!!!

On a positive note, at least SS won't add MORE the debt. In liberal terms, the SS tax holiday was an UNFUNDED TAX CUT!! LOL!
"Extending the payroll tax holiday for another year would cost an estimated $120 billion. The loss of revenue to the Social Security trust fund has been replaced with general treasury funds, adding to the federal debt."

I'm sorry but how am I victim? Erik, your continue name calling and bullying is so amusing, and I'm pretty sure you just described yourself:)

Erik, there are 369 comments on here, and very few of them agree with my stance. There is no banning or censoring UNLESS someone violates the Terms of Use. That includes name-calling. As I mentioned, nothing you've said to me violates the Terms of Use, so you have nothing to worry about. Just follow the Terms of Use and you will be able to continue to participate in the discussion. We want everyone to be able to participate.

Here is the requested Bill with # and date introduced, as requested as proof of the attempt to extend the middle class tax cuts: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3412

Becca, well good for you to locate and post that. Unfortunately, after reviewing it, I don't see mention of the payroll tax ie FICA ie Social Security tax mentioned also known as the 2% tax increase. It could be the hot wing sauce affecting my vision so please point out the applicable sections dealing with the payroll tax component.

I also found it interesting that it passed 51-48. I wonder who the Dem was who voted NO.

Rebecca - No name-calling - are you serious?? I beg to differ, here's a partial list:
"Liar", "Kool Aid Guzzler", "willfully ignorant", "Ignorant sheep", "some obese nude guy hunkered down behind a computer in his mother's basement, sweating and eating cheese crackers", "mouth-breathers who are better suited for trailer park living instead of being capable of rational thought.", " the stupidest person on this thread, or completely drunk on Kool Aid", "hateful, racist, homophobic, vitriolic"
Looks pretty much like name-calling to me.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

. In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the US Constitution such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a collective right to bear arms in a militia. So be it.