Readers' Comments

"It is totally and utterly hypocritical to speak of 'gun control' without addressing the causes of gun viokence."

Sorry, you're going to get even more fed up. Demands for gun control aren't going away, because others are more and more fed up with with gun violence.

For one thing, the people who cling to the mantra "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" are, by and large, the very same people who most hate having their tax dollars spent on social services. You know, dealing with people problems.

For another thing, whether you like it or not, "addressing the causes of gun violence" isn't going to work without limiting the availability of guns. You can shame the violent video gamers all you want, but as long as the guns are there, it's only going to strengthen the appeal of guns to people who shouldn't have them guns.

And there's really no way you can escape this: fewer rounds per magazine, fewer kills per killing spree. Fewer guns, more criminals having to make do with knives or baseball bats and therefore fewer deaths.

It's going to take generations of biting the bullet at both ends -- ponying up for social services and limiting gun proliferation -- to make a serious difference.

I am really fed up with the emphasis being placed on guns rather than mental health or the benefits of banning violence in movies, on TV and in video games. It is totally and utterly hypocritical to speak of "gun control" without addressing the causes of gun viokence. Psychologists have known for many decades that the depiction of violence predisposes people, even normal college students, to violence. What do you think happens when unstable persons are filled with the kinds of things depicted in our media? Criminals will always gain access to guns, and so will the mentally ill if they are sufficiently determined. Why don't you talk about removing violence from the media? Free speech, as protected in the constitution, was never meant to protect the filth and insanity that pours daily from the media in the U.S. I consider myself a liberal, but I am thoroughly disgusted by the refusal of other supposed liberals to deal with the real causes.

Dear Bruce:
Thank you for your kind note!! I would love to come back to Delaware to speak and meet with other concerned citizens. Please send along your email to editor@prwatch.org.
Lisa

How do you want it to be? People who joined @10 think that regular Americans and subject matter experts – not government or the media -- are in the best position to solve problems. They want to build and share examples of those strategies from communities across the country. They want an easier way to participate, solve problems, and hold leaders accountable between election. www.at10us.com

In the aftermath of Newtown, CT and amid the debate about gun control, I would like to point out that the guns bought by Nancy Lanza for her own defense in the end did not save her life.

Concealed Carry is allowed in most state office buildings in Wisconsin. In contrast, UW and many local governments do not allow guns in their buildings. Allowing Concealed Carry in state office buildings does change the security situation for anyone in those buildings. The change was implemented with no input from the workers who must spend 8 hours each day in these buildings. I don't think it's right. People who have to work there should have some input in such a serious security policy change.

How do you want it to be? There is an easier way to participate, solve problems, and hold leaders accountable between elections. www.at10us.com

HOW DO WE GET RID OF THIS GUY...FAST? AMERICANS MUST STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK UNTIL WE GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE TEAPARTY/REPUBLIKKKLAN IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE! THEY ARE EVIL, EVIL, EVIL, EVIL! END THE TERROR REIGN OF THE NAZI KOCH-ROACH BROS.

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.

Let's see: If all or any terrorists went to the airport looking like a terrorist, it could be very upsetting to law abiding people (sworn on the airport bible with a cast of thousands) who dressed down just because they wanted to wear frumpy clothes and be sloppy comfortable. The commercial fallout is too screaming obvious to say, which is why all terrorists have been requested to dress nicely and not stick out their tongues in isolation booths.

If you want to avoid suspicion at airports, dress as if you just crawled out from under a bridge, and, what is more, that way the ‘bad guys’ will stand out like practical-jokers and bankers.

What hasn't been widely understood is that gun loving terrorists— birds of a feather —have infiltrated the NRA (Not Really Awful) to support weapons-grade freedom, and several of the terrorist lobbies are openly feeding Congress, the monkeys, Fred Bosbee's grandmother, already spell-checked legislation in favor of deporting any person found on US soil without a functioning, bullet pumping (not caps, not water, not flags that say "Boom") mass-consumption weapon of considerable local destruction.

Instead of whacking a baby on the backside at birth, fire a wake-up round next his/her/their ear, then hand him/her/them a first baptismal birth-arm, and from that point Fort Knox is the limit— the sky is a place to shoot things out of. It's only a question of time before the real-guys-with-guns at the Never Reasonable Android can come out of the gun-closet and speak openly for violent, cinema-grade fun, and an end to bumming people out at airports.

You say, "The AR-15 or AK-47 platforms today are nothing more than an average semi-automatic hunting rifle and that is what they are used for."

Obviously you are not a hunter. Someone who has to use this type of weapon for hunting is not properly trained and/or skilled enough to be a hunter, and should therefore not be allowed to possess a hunting license.

You say, "When only police and military are allowed to have weapons, the country becomes corrupt and very dangerous as is Mexico today."

Knock it off with the strawman "ban ALL weapons" nonsense. Gun control advocates aren't asking for a complete ban. They're asking for a ban on ONLY military-style assault weapons and high-capacity clips, both of which are completely unnecessary for civilians to own.

You say, "when you compare the US to other smaller countries, the total population should be considered."

Did you even read the linked report? Obviously not. Even the article stated: "the gun murder rate in the U.S. is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined."

See that? 20 times higher than the next 22 MOST POPULOUS NATIONS COMBINED. Sounds to me like population was indeed considered.

You say, "30 people a year are killed by guns."

Where on earth do you get that figure? The actual figure is well over 30,000 per year.

You say, "The other issue is that many gun deaths are accidental or suicides. I have not seen any mention of this."

It's in the linked report. READ IT.

You say, "Don't sway them to make them look like our country is full of murderers. That is just not the case."

So, the murder of 20 innocent children is NOT a big deal to you?! And the loss of their precious lives should only be viewed from the perspective of the entire population?! That is INSANE.

You say, "there was an incident in China where a madman stabbed many small children to death with a big knife."

God, you are SO full of misinformation. NOT A SINGLE victim DIED in that incident!

You say, "China is more populous than we are. I guarantee there are a lot of mass murders in China and likely Russia too."

And I guarantee you are WRONG. Do your research before spouting such nonsense.

You say, "many of these anti-gun people don't know how to look at things mathematically...that is wrong."

NO, what's WRONG is the murder of 27 innocent children and adults. What's WRONG is the senseless loss of life. What's WRONG is looking at this and other tragedies "mathematically" and in terms of population size. What's truly WRONG is ANY innocent life taken. And what's WRONG is NOT doing anything to prevent another.