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




Jan-20-13 8:29 AM

Most people approach the issue of recent mass shootings like this; A man falls, breaks his forearm, his upper arm and his shoulder. Bystanders all start offering advice on which part of his arm to fix based on their own opinion on what part of the arm is most important. Truth is, unless you fix ALL of the broken parts, his arm won't work.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 9:14 AM

But Christopher,you start to fix part of his arm..hoping to get to the rest of it. You don't just do nothing because you can't get to all of it at once.

In the mass attack in China by a man with a gun...22 children and one adult were INJURED.

Since 1982 62 mass shootings in our Country. 25 since 2006, 7 in 2012. Most of the attacker got their weapons legally. 142 guns were used, 68 semi automatic handguns, 35 assault weapons, 20 revolvers and 19 shotguns.

Jut thought I would throw in some Facts we all should be using as we make decisions on how best to try to prevent any more mass shootings that too often kill our children.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 9:53 AM

Judeye, since roe v wade 50 million abortions for womens choice. If we outlaw guns, the drug gangs will for sure have them. Cars kill people too.There was talk of confiscating guns. An assault weapon was not used at sandy Hook. Judeye, you sound like the feminists who wanted prohibition to stop the violence via alcohol. It backfired big time. You do not learn from history. we had a gun free zone in a school. A stupid liberal thing if ever there wa one. Let people carry concealed weapons. A shooter will be taking a bigger gamble. crime will go down. The libs manage by crisis and never seem to learn. There are hundreds of millions of guns in this country and we have some mass shootings and oure libs go berserk with govt activity.

7 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 9:56 AM

Judeye is calling for a total gun ban, thinly disguised. She fears the common citizen as there should be crime galore with so many guns. Why do you fear the law abiding citizen Judeye and why do you believe restrictions will work for criminals. Are you completely ignorant of history ?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 10:05 AM

And as usual in this discussion, EVERYONE missed the point. I hate to lump Judeye and Steiner together, as Judeye is clearly not mentally ill, but, in this case, I have to.

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 10:53 AM

Out of curiosity, how is it that Canada -- same language, same tastes, same culture, same type of big cities and rural areas, more wilderness than we have, etc, etc -- how is it that THEY don't have a gun problem like we have?

They have mentally ill people like we do, access to violent videos, movies, etc. They have similar faiths and institutions than we have -- in fact, THEY ARE MUCH MORE LIBERAL THAN WE ARE.

Christopher is, again, spot-on (and Steinerdzzz is again, a self-loathing liberal beneficiary): just what is it with us, when Canada doesn't have these problems?

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 3:08 PM

judeye just a quick question to do with these facts you presented . In how many of these incidents was the shooter faced with a victim who was armed??? Bet the outcome would have been much different!

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 7:13 PM


Canada: guns per 100 people: 30.8 U.S.: guns per 100: 88.8

2006: Canada: gun deaths: 1 for every 43,000 people. U.S.: gun deaths: 1 for every 33,333 people.

Canada: 7,500,000 guns U.S.: 300,000,000 guns

Canada seems to have a bigger gun violence problem than the U.S. when comparing to the sheer number of guns the U.S. has. Otherwise, they're pretty close. And wtf does the amount of wilderness have to do with the price of tea in China?

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-20-13 7:31 PM

And the writer is correct. Mental instability is the one common problem with most of the sensationalized crimes that happen. Be it gun, bomb, vehicle, or butter knife, the lack of grasp a person has on reality / their own sanity can be attributed more as a cause of said violence than the weapon they used.

6 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jan-21-13 9:01 AM

Christopher...what was your point that I missed?

Thought your analogy on the arm was saying that the entire arm needed to be fixed in order for it to work again. Was not that your point? That many different things must be addressed in order to reduce violence from guns?

If it was, then my response makes perfect sense.

If it wasn't please explain, as I really did miss your point.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


Jan-21-13 9:17 AM

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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


Jan-21-13 9:50 PM

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

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »


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 »

Showing 25 of 35 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web