Comments on: Goodlatte will be key player in gun control debate

By: Joweco

Joweco — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:16:06 +0000

Touché, Sandi

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 01:01:37 +0000

I can’t imagine there is a human being on earth not interested in a serious conversation with you “Willy Snap”.

By: Willy Snap

Willy Snap — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:49:51 +0000

Good. Lets get rid of all the stupid bills currently proposed, and then proceed to have that serious conversation the gun haters keep talking about but cannot seem to calm down long enough to have.

We can talk about high capacity clippies, heat seeking bullets, exploding bullets, cop killer missiles, a-salt gun thingies, pistol grippers, barrel shroud watchemcalits, gun show donut holes, and all kinds of other false and misleading derp the anti-gun crowd knows NOTHING about.

By: Kristen

Kristen — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 19:56:34 +0000

” To me, 1 in 24,000 is an acceptable cost for the right to own a semi-automatic AR15 rifle with a standard 30 round magazine that has harmed no one.”

That’s fine, Mr Smith. And your say is exactly as valuable as everyone else’s, and your vote worth exactly as much.

By: jim smith

jim smith — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 15:53:07 +0000

The facts are in 2010 there were about 12,996 people murdered by firearms in the US which works out to about 36 people per day (See http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls). These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 310 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 24,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 24,000 people. To me, 1 in 24,000 is an acceptable cost for the right to own a semi-automatic AR15 rifle with a standard 30 round magazine that has harmed no one. If 1 in 24,000 is too high, how about 1 in 860,000. That’s about the number of people that can be accommodated by 10 Dallas Cowboy stadiums. Would that be acceptable? That is the equivalent number of people (358 out of 310 million Americans) that were murdered with a rifle in 2010 (The AR15 is considered a type of rifle for you non-gun folks). If that is not an acceptable cost, than what is? Assuming you accept the fact that life is not risk free what number would ever satisfy you? If all the guns were banned, do you really think that would stop a person who is determined to kill a lot of people? Human beings adapt to situations and constraints – it’s called tactics. The school shooter probably chose the rifle (AR15) because it was available and met his needs. Ban all the guns and a determined individual could have used something else and there are a lot of other options thanks to the Internet. If you think this was a horrific crime, imagine the carnage and suffering if he had used a homemade flamethrower and accomplished the task in half the time. What would you ban then? Gasoline?

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 05:29:25 +0000

"Goodlatte will be key player", Reagan was way wrong on the "most terrifying words in the English language". By far.

By: Roadkill

Roadkill — Fri, 04 Jan 2013 17:38:05 +0000

Assault weapons are very very rarely used in crimes for a lot of reasons. That they’re too big to conceal and very expensive even on the black market are two of the chiefest. Most cops are most worried about the smallest guns, ones they never see until it is too late. No, banning assault weapons is a bad choice. The cost of registering and enforcement alone will be too high and also the very real possibility of the Supreme Court striking the law down as unconstitutional. Then of all that time and effort wasted on something that wouldn’t even do any good except to make lawmakers ‘look’ like they’re doing something useful!

Most murders are actually committed by repeat felons upon other felons! Most of those are directly related to the drug trade. Legalizing pot would defund gangs and cartels greatly, reduce their fighting, and also keep criminals from growing pot and setting booby traps on public land.

By: Jerry Guzi

Jerry Guzi — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:36:23 +0000

Respect hunters and traditional responsible gun owners. But there is also this: “They [conservatives, gun owners, NRA members] say it, not me: ‘The crazies have taken over the NRA.’” – Joe Scarborough

By: Glenn Brown

Glenn Brown — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 15:28:21 +0000

It is not surprising that Hurt dodged the question since he is an empty suit and only responds to the whims of corporate donors and the NRA. Cantor chose well when he backed Hurt as his puppet.

By: Howard Grizzle

Howard Grizzle — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 07:49:15 +0000

The overlooked factor in this tragedy is mental health programs in our country. We had at one time a system where mentally ill people were committed to an institution, where treatment and proper care would be provided. Mental health must be a part of the discussion. Remember the Oklahoma incident, Tim McVeigh did not use a gun. I am concerned that our current leadership will go too far in an attempt to demonize all firearms. We must have better reporting and record keeping of people who must not have access to any weapons. The Constitution is still the law of the land.