Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Wrong targets

Start focusing ‘on the lawbreakers’

January 20, 2013

By MARY CAREY Since the horrendous Newtown shootings, once again guns are being targeted as villains. Guns are only tools; people kill people....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(35)

Regelski

Mar-01-13 12:39 PM

Mary: has there been in instance in your life in WNY where you've felt that owning guns protected you (or your neighbors)? One reason for all this debate it that rural owners of guns seem to 'plug into' TV violence about guns in urban areas, where they are much more of a problem. Why do you suppose that the Police Chiefs of major cities want better gun regulation? Because their officers are at risk in those areas. In cities where guns are tightly controlled (e.g., Chicago) they are easily available in the surrounding areas. It is no more to blame good upstanding gun owning citizens for gun violence, than to blame all car owners for DUI. Yet we have laws against DUI (etc). I'm not interested in the NRA argument that the present laws need to be enforced better; we simply need more caution as to who can have access to guns. Gun control is not confiscation: that's a fear propounded by the NRA and those who think they're super-patriots defending out nation against OUR government. Sill

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-26-13 2:19 PM

Cars kill people-in them and outside. Society feels that it should have laws that minimize such events--whether accidental or careless. What gets lost in all the anti-government rhetoric is the responsibility of citizens to protect against harm to others (e.g., DWI laws, insurance laws). Laws exist to protect innocent citizens from those who are irresponsible: meaning that they don't take into consideration that public interest is at stake. All this BS about the second amendment flies in the face of the first: A citizen has the right to object to the "freedom to" of the second amendment, and the "freedom from" of the fist.A tenons that involves thought. Those who argue otherwise are cherry-picking what suits their ideologies or opinions. I wish that more gun owners would 'police' others and stand up for their rights as properly exercised. Guns are too accessible. They make it easy for suicide or accidents (e,g., children's access).

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Regelski

Feb-17-13 1:04 PM

StrangV8: You live up to your self=chosen moniker. Your views are strange in the extreme, as a V8 motor is powerful (but wasteful. If you're not aware of your bias, in this case against Democrats generally, then I sorry for you. This kind of name-calling is not reasonable. In another time, it was Jews; then it became immigrants; now it is Democrats. Have you no shame? No integrity? No decency? Why can't you have a conversation without shouting insults? Do you think this advances your 'cause' in the minds of anyone already not committed to you ideology, your preaching to a particular choir. Were it not for my defense of free speech, I'd find your remarks harmful and unpatriotic to the the extent that they should be stricken from public view. On the other hand, they reveal the lack of substance of your allegations. Is George Zimmerman, your hero, a Republican? Why further worsen the gap in our society with this politically abusive B.S.?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1923newdealer

Jan-25-13 9:09 AM

MikeDavis--Glad to oblige!

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 2:44 PM

And you have shown time and again your profound "open to new experiences" mind set, 1923. Thanks for the laughs, you did made my day a little brighter because of them.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 2:40 PM

"MikeDavis your insights into the "liberal mindset" continue to astound and dazzle." Wow, you finally said something we can agree on 1923. Wasn't that hard to do, was it?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1923newdealer

Jan-24-13 1:05 PM

*******grist****/politics/a-chat-with-chris-mooney-about-the-republican-brain/

Chris Mooney The Republican Brain

"…On average, conservatives prefer simplicity and clear distinctions, where liberals display “integrative complexity” and are more comfortable with ambiguity and nuance. Conservatives are “hierarchs” and highly sensitive to in-group/out-group distinctions, where liberals are egalitarians. Conservatives come to decisions quickly and stick to them; liberals deliberate, sometimes to the point of dithering. Conservatives are more sensitive to threats while liberals are more open to new experiences.

As Mooney emphasizes over and over again in the book, this is not determinism. No substantive belief is “hard-wired.” Our nature does not determine our fate any more than our nurture does. These are averages and tendencies, not destinies, and individuals can be found all along a broad spectrum..."

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1923newdealer

Jan-24-13 11:44 AM

MikeDavis your insights into the "liberal mindset" continue to astound and dazzle. In just this series of postings alone your comments include: "typical liberal," "liberals constantly say," Liberals flock to a good showman, a cult of personality, "the liberal mindset." These are not the words of someone who really wants to listen to an argument from the other side. But, since you're an expert on liberals maybe you now want to take your expertise over to the other side. Check out what Chris Mooney says about the conservative brain.

And by the way, the most egregious example of the cult of personality in modern times is the hagiography concerning St Ronald Reagan. For that matter the most egregious example of spoiled brat attitudes is coming straight from our Conservative Republican tea party colleagues in Congress. They won't even play with their own "leadership."

*******grist****/politics/a-chat-with-chris-mooney-about-the-republic

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 8:35 AM

stang8..I didn't know that. Interesting isn't it? That the liberal mindset seems to be the one that can't take being told no? Like a spoiled child that never had to earn the money all his or her toys cost, they always want more from everyone. And when they can't they throw a tantrum, in these cases horrendous tantrums. Bobbie? What do you think? Marcia and Judeye, I am expecting you to look this up and verify or prove this claim wrong. If it's true, well, I find it indicative of a parenting problem. To be blunt, a child raised in a conservative household, with rules and discipline, seems to be able to cope with disappointment better than a child raised with fewer controls.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-24-13 8:27 AM

You asked.."I just find it interesting that so many people only become so obsessed with our tyrannical government when a democrat is in power (militia groups increased during both Clinton and Obama's tenures.) Why is that?" Marcia. I will be glad to offer my theory on that. Conservative people are afraid of megalomaniacs, that's why. Liberals flock to a good showman, a cult of personality. The elections are more and more becoming American idol and less and less about experience and substance of the candidates.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-23-13 12:40 PM

The fix to the "gun" problem is obvious.

1.The shooter at Virginia Tech was a registered Democrat 2.The shooter at Ft. Hood was a registered Democrat 3.The owner of the guns used at Newtown was a registered Democrat. 4.The shooter in Aurora,Dem., Obama campaign worker, Occupy 5.The shooter in Mesa, AZ, Dem, Obama supporter, Occupy & Marxist 6.The shooters in Columbine both lived in liberal Democrat homes.

They all had three things in common: white, liberal, non-NRA members

Confiscate all firearms owned by liberal Democrats.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Jan-23-13 9:14 AM

No, it's the fact that people can bring guns in from anywhere. Which is why we need federal legislation.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-22-13 1:24 PM

An observation, why does it seem the most (worst in number of causalities?) mass shootings happen in the most liberal states? With fairly strict gun control laws already in place? Is there some small iota of a chance it isn't the weapons, but the whack jobs doing the shooting, that is the problem?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Marcia

Jan-22-13 11:17 AM

Mike, the reason we have a stable country is not because so many people own guns. It is because we have a representative government and elections. If we don't like what the government does, we vote them out. Then we have an orderly transition. I just find it interesting that so many people only become so obsessed with our tyrannical government when a democrat is in power (militia groups increased during both Clinton and Obama's tenures.) Why is that?

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-21-13 9:56 PM

Judeye, your "so?" argument just took a huge blow to the face. Cuomo's whole argument for trying to ban "assault weapons" was that the AR-15 was the weapon used, and the reason that the death tally was as high is it was. If that is not true, then, once again, the left bore false witness, and lied to the American public. Again. And used the Rahm Emanuel rule to exploit a crisis for all it is worth, truth be damned. Cuomo just yanked the 2nd amendment from the hands of the people he is supposed to protect. He is an enemy of the people, period.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

localresident

Jan-21-13 9:50 PM

Ranger, if I remember correctly, Judeye does own guns.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-21-13 4:35 PM

Who's going to confiscate guns? Go to U Tube and type in "democrats want to register and confiscate our guns"

Interesting what was contained in some of the bills before the NY State Assembly.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-21-13 2:39 PM

1923, what? I do try and have a conversation but it seems to consistently come down to the argument that there is no real need for these particular weapons. Wrong, they are doing exactly what they were intended for by the writers of the 2nd. They are keeping the amendments in place without a tyrannical government changing them on the say so of some politicians. Why do you insist that a government of America cannot go off the tracks? History ignored is repeated. While I would dearly love it if the Utopian society that liberals constantly say is possible were reality. Until that happens, with an agreed upon document that would replace it, I'd prefer to hold onto the rights and privileges the US Constitution grants me as a free law abiding citizen of America. In your reverse psychology ploy is there any room for you to possibly understand that, or am I again talking to a wall?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

1923newdealer

Jan-21-13 12:18 PM

Forceful and lucid response MIKEDAVIS..."So?" It says a lot about attempting to have a conversation with you about anything. Typical CONSERVATIVE, if you don't agree with them you get this response. Or, if a point is really easy for the people to understand, the POOR WHITE BOY DISCRIMINATION card comes flying.

Listen to yourself. lol

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MikeDavis

Jan-21-13 11:57 AM

Forceful and lucid response judeye...."So?" It says a lot about attempting to have a conversation with you about anything. Typical liberal, if you don't agree with them you get this response. Or, if a point is really easy for the people to understand, the racist card comes flying.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Rangersfriend

Jan-21-13 10:43 AM

My family and I are very pleased that Judeye does not have access to a gun.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-21-13 9:53 AM

Judeye, hate to tell you but wielding a rifle while committing a crime is a bit awkward. Handguns are much easier to control in close quarter environments. FBI stats prove your statement to be false. All the ban did was to ban cosmetics; simple cosmetics. You really believe that by adding cosmetics increased its use in crime?

Also, you’re on here whining and crying how the big bad assault weapon killed the children and it’s found out the weapon was never used and all you can say is “so”.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-21-13 9:17 AM

stangv8...so?

Still is there a reason why a civilian should have one of these weapons? If only for target practice..why not check them in at the range like some have suggested?

Since the ban was lifted (look it up...they used to be banned)...police departments report an increase in criminals using them during crimes.

So far, I have not heard any justification for anyone owning one of these weapons.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

judeye

Jan-21-13 9:08 AM

concerned...they did not say.

Having a gun in the home though does increase the likely hood that someone will be harmed by the gun, whether accident, murder, or suicide.

Oxford Journal vol 160 issue 10

"The findings of this study add to the body of research showing an association between guns in the home and risk of a violent death"

to once again make it clear though..I am NOT against guns. We own guns and keep them in our home. It is just the type of weapons and ammo that I think should be restricted.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

stangv8

Jan-21-13 9:06 AM

Google it

"NBC News reports no assault rifle used"

The AR-15 was not used in the Sandy Hook shootings. NBC news is finally admitting to this too. Look it up for yourselves.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web