I think you meant "who are shooting". I don't believe you need a gun permit to be shot.

I'm really sorry about gun violence -- truly and deeply. Having guns in the hands of wackos and thugs is the problem. Let's talk about how to fix that. Not about more regulation that won't work.

Unfortunately, there is no fix for keeping guns out of the hands of thugs/wackos. As you've so rightly observed, they ignore regulations, and said regulations only tend to adversely affect the law-abiding citizens.

The solution? Every law-abiding citizen should be allowed to be armed. That puts the doubt into the mind of the thugs that their intended target(s) aren't such easy pickin's. And who knows what lurks in the mind of a 'wacko' - except that with enough law-abiding armed citizens in the vicinity, a wacko can be taken out action rapidly.

Here in Illinois the State Police performs the background investigations. With regards to the last shooting I am all for "profiling" dirt bags.

And in Colorado the University officials and his Psychiatrist should have alerted the authorities or at least flagged his ability to purchase firearms.

OK, so you want to profile dirt bags and you likely have a pretty good idea of what you think a dirt bag is. The problem is that someone else will have a different idea. And the dirt bag will have yet another idea. It's all very subjective, open to interpretation, and results in a very, very slippery slope.

So rather than flagging people for this or that, profiling them for this or that and then yanking their constitutional rights - we have to give them due process under the law. That means the State goes before a Judge or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction, makes their case - presents their evidence/experts, etc. The defense gets to do the same. The evidence is weighed by a Judge/Jury, and then a decision is made to restrict or not by declaring some incompetent/insane.

But just allowing some Shrink somewhere to say "oh yes, yes, yes, he's so crazy, no guns for you" - now THAT'S crazy, and it should never happen.

You tell em diapers, you carry the load. I'm with you 100%.

This is sort of local. Milwaukee is not too far away.

Um, did you not realize there is a Sikh Temple in Palatine? I think that makes it quite pertinent. I would have been surprised if it wasn't mentioned.

Because Huffpo-aol owned Patch is cheap and they work for chicken feed.
Problem is, Huffpo-AOL Patch has a left lean and makes no apologies for it. Just the way it is Sparky.

Boo hoo. If it bothers you so much, why don't you contribute? Oh, that's right, it's easier to complain on the internet than actually do...anything.

Bob I do what I can--I speak out when ever I can to try to get people to see what evil we are doing as we let gun use grow & grow. I write & call politicians to hopefully someday get people with guts & brains to do what's right & not what the NRA wants.---What do you do??

Bruce (assuming you were responding to me): My response was directed at Rick Thomas complaining about the use of "mostly female writers" on Patch. I applaud your efforts and am in total agreement that something must be done.

Bob, I was away for a while & yes I misunderstood your reply---thanks for the support. I'm afraid the pro gun folks on here can't seem to see all the dead bodies thru their gun butts!! KInda like the forest & the trees.

Like the one about the gang bangers shooting each other right in front of St. Francis Hospital on Ridge Road a couple of nights ago? I'd bet dollars to donuts that the criminals don't have FOID cards. Then again, in Crook County, the DA isn't known for being too tough on the criminals...

Bruce, be quiet. What are you going to do, forcefully disarm over 600 million guns in America? Riiiight, keep dreaming you fool.

"I don't care who is doing the shooting---It's the damn gun thats the problem."

That is quite possibly the most idiotic statement I've read on gun control to date.

Ok Bruce, since you seem to care so much, please go to the south side of Chicago tonight and hold up a sign protesting guns. Since you and every other idiot on here seem to think this is only a white America epidemic based on the idiotic actions of a few crazy people.

Rick, God I hope we ONLY have 300 million. So just keep putting your head in the sand like an emu & maybe it will get better----hasn't in 40 years---but just keep doing the same thing---isn't that called insanity???

Bruce, I do get it that YOU think it's the gun that's the problem. I just don't agree with you. As I've said to you over several different threads now, the problem is the PERSON who controls the gun, and even if you were able to somehow have a gun-free world, criminals hell-bent on committing harm to another will find a way - with a different weapon.

This has been proven time-and-again throughout history, and is still playing out today - in the US, the UK, Australia... The US: Some criminal robbed someone by threatening harm via axe. The UK/Australia: Criminals every day commit knife attacks.

The PROBLEM Bruce is the criminal. Pass a law to deal with the criminal. Leave the law-abiding to their own devices. And yes, people will occasionally "go off the deep end" - again, it's not predictable when or how it'll happen. And even in your mythical gun-free world, it'd still happen somehow. So we just have to deal with it by cleaning up the mess, learning whatever we can from it (if anything at all), and moving on.

Nope, we're not the shame of the world at all. We have been, and continue to be, a shining light of hope to countless oppressed throughout the World.

As for the so-called "wild west days" - they happened in the movies Bruce, not in real life.

David, not to cause problems, but there are many people who would tell you that the "wild West" is still around... People packing guns and concealed weaponry is very prevalent. Not here, but in the farther west and in the South.

No problems BadGer - the term "wild west" used by Bruce doesn't refer to people carrying concealed but rather to his misguided belief that those who do carry are somehow engaging in the "Old West Shootout" on the streets, as mythically portrayed on TV shows like Gunsmoke....

Statistically speaking, concealed carry permitees are some of the most law-abiding persons in the Nation and go out of their way to avoid conflict.

Another fool that knows nothing about existing laws, apparently.

Depends on the record, where it happened, whether it was in the system available to the Sheriff at the time the guy made an application for a permit. From what we can see above, there was nothing available to the Sheriff at the time of the permit to allow the Sheriff to legally restrict the guy.

As reprehensible as I find white supremacists, they're entitled to BELIEVE what they want to BELIEVE. That's no reason to deny them their rights. Now if they start acting upon what they believe, and killing/injuring people - THEN you arrest them and deal with them accordingly. But unless and until the person commits a crime that prohibits him from possessing firearms, there's nothing you can or should do.

What if tomorrow it was decided that everyone of the Probox Religion was a bad person and shouldn't have their rights accorded to them even though they haven't committed a crime? Simply deny them their rights based on what they believe? Wow, that's slippery...

I do agree though that if this guy was arrested and convicted for some "you can't have firearms" crime, and he had a permit issued to him, that it should have popped up in the system within a day or two and then his permit should have been revoked. But I don't think we have all the facts just yet...

Misdemeanors do not exempt you from getting a gun permit, genius.

A misdemeanour don't preclude you (in most states) from purchasing a wepon. A felony will. Odd, eh?

Depends on the misdemeanor or the felony. Criminal mischief? Oh come on... the guy got wasted - IN TEXAS where they only recently prohibited people from driving with open alcohol in the car - and kicked a hole in the wall... Big whoop... Sounds like 90% of every college idiot at Spring Break in Galveston. I wouldn't restrict the right to have firearms for that.

One DUI 13 years ago? Another big yawn for restricting his rights to firearms. DUI's are stupid, but we don't know the circumstances surrounding that either. And it doesn't really serve to prohibit someone from owning firearms.

OMG. If that were the case, you wouldn't be allowed to own a gun because of a speeding ticket, for crying out loud.

It would be funny if so many innocent people weren't being killed by guns every year(Not just by thugs, but accidents, domestic disputes, suicide, guys getting fired & your regular criminals) to think that you can possibly deny the simple fact that with approx. 300 million guns of all type in the U.S. we have an annual death rate from guns usually 10X most other countries. Go ahead & delude your self so you can easily get guns but the truth is what it is. PS Is CC in Ill dead for a while???

We also have more people in our country than most other countries in your stats - so ours are going to be skewed by definition.

Lots of people slip and fall in the bathtub every year. People get killed by vehicles. People drown in swimming pools. People hang themselves with whatever's handy. People bash their boss's head in with a baseball bat or a brick.

Guns aren't the only way that people get accidentally killed, commit suicide, etc. You won't ever be able to totally stop it from happening because of the effects of entropy in the Universe. And blaming a specific item - guns (in your case) - isn't going to solve the problems at all.

In fact, as we've seen in Chicago and other banned areas - it makes the problem worse because it creates Victim Zones.

Rick, your not reading my comment correctly. If you have been convicted of a misdemeanour, you are allowed to purchase a weapon. A felony, you can not.

awww, but I want a PURPLE Unicorn! And they're only available in Utopia! Mom! Mom! Mom! I want a PURPLE UNICORN! MOM!

What part of "...shall not be infringed" is unclear in the 2nd Amendment?

David, what part of well-regulated militia is unclear to you?

Absolutely nothing in the phrase "in the interest of a well-regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is unclear to me. All able-bodied individuals aged 18-48 are in the militia. And "well-regulated" doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT will regulate the militia, it means that the militia will be able to regulate itself by smoothly operating because all of it's members are able to keep and bear arms when necessary in defense of life, liberty, or property.

+1000

OHH no, no, no, no. The founding fathers in powdered wigs said that we must all have that right, no matter how many people are killed. We must not change one freaking word of what the founding fathers said. What applies in 1776 should apply now, right? Oh but yes, as will be pointed out momentarily, I'm un-American.

And of course Captain Concealed Carry will turn the conversation to the Boston Tea Party and violence in Lower Siberia to support his gun toting views.

Mike, you make the assumption that if guns go away so does violence and accidents. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whether you have guns available or not, people still get injured in accidents - some accidents happen more frequently than gun accidents, but you don't get people calling to ban non-firearm items.

@Walter: As for what applied in 1776 should apply now, yep it should. It was written in 1776 because of despots, dictators, and megalomaniac royals for hundreds of years before made it necessary. History since then has also proven the Founders right. "Those who would melt their firearms to make plows, will plow for those who don't." -- Benjamin Franklin

Yes and the founding fathers also chose to count blacks as 3/5 of a person. Now there's something the GOP could get behind.

David, no you are misunderstand me: LESS "GUNS = LESS "GUN" incidents you can replace the word gun with anything.

It really doesn't matter, Mike. He's never going to get it.

Also plenty of things that are considered directly lethal get banned all the time.

Walter, I'm liking you more & more. However I'm afraid there is nothing we can do to help these "pry my gun out of my cold dead hand" guys to see simple logic & math that it is proven More guns---more gun deaths. It is so obvious from the stats of all the other countries but they can't (don't want) to see it. They need their guns---Sad.

Bruce, Walter, and Mike - Less Guns does not equate to less gun crimes. Or to put it another way - correlation does not prove causation. Let's consider another concept: "Less Cars, Less Accidents" - that's not a fact either because drivers have varying skill levels (witness varying insurance rates) and some drivers may have no accidents, while some may have more than one accident. Similarly, less guns doesn't mean less gun crime because when there's less guns, that's in the hands of the law abiding citizens - not the criminals. And criminals, being emboldened by the fact that law-abiding citizens don't have firearms (or have less of them), commit MORE crime with their guns. Chicago, New York, California - all those States have problems with gun crime because of their restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The other 49 States that have enacted concealed carry have seen their crime rates drop.

If you've heard of John Lott - he's a U of Chicago researcher who's written a book called More Guns, Less Crime. Lots of statistical analysis all across the Nation that you guys can read. You can read Dr. Lott's analysis, and then look at the citations and draw your own conclusions... But the info is there.

David, the world can be filled with only the best marksman/drivers etc..... that does not eliminate the probability of an incident to accrue. Removing an item that contributes to the incident would logically equal less of it. Also the fatal relationship is greater when a lethal item is introduced in a scenario.
Even simpler logic, if I tossed the water from my cup I will have less water in that cup.
Sorry I don't follow false statistics/people ....
"The easiest way to summarize the collapse of Lott's thesis is to look at the findings by the National Research Council, which is a branch of the National Academy of Sciences. It sets the gold standard for scientific rigor and integrity. They convened a fifteen member blue-ribbon panel to study the relationship between concealed weapons and crime (Firearms and Violence, 2005). Specifically, they examined the works of Lott and his critics. They found that the scientific evidence does not show a significant relationship between concealed carry (CCW) legislation and crime rates. In other words, John Lott's thesis of more guns less crime is wrong!"

Interesting reports on gun bans

http://www.gunbanfacts.com/Get_the_Facts.aspx

Ah, the slippery slope defense. A sure way to make sure nothing ever changes.

Ahh, the "oh it'll never happen" claim, often made by Dictators, Despots, Meglomaniacs, Madmen, Communist-sympathizers, and Boiling Frogs.

David, Your fear of all these people coming to get you is really sad. I can't keep answering you because you seem to like it this way & are waiting for Paul Revere to ride up & give you your orders! It's a big world out there now with a lot of nice people only too many are dying do to stupid gun violence ----again I don't care who is shooting---I care about the people loosing ALL THEIR RIGHTS due to guns!!!

Bruce, I never said that anyone was "coming to get me" - I'm not paranoid. I'm just alert and aware of my surroundings and realize that bad things can happen, and that it pays to be prepared. I think another large group follows that motto as well, the Boy Scouts.

Yes, it's unfortunate that good people die because of violence or accidents. But whether it's due to guns, car accidents, or slip 'n falls in the tub - you can't prevent them all. Restricting people's rights won't stop them all either. So the best option is to be prepared to deal with a situation if and when it occurs.

You guys keep saying to focus on the criminals. Agreed. But what about the shooters who weren't criminals before they started killing their neighbors? Of course we'd like to just stop all the bad people. But when legal guns and people with no priors are killing innocent people with said guns, something else needs to be done. Greater restrictions on who can buy certain types of weapons will help to rid us of some of the violence and deaths. If you are supposed to be armed to defend your house from tyranny and criminals...why do you need more than one gun (per person) There are restrictions that can be used to curb some of this violence.

@Brian, "But when legal guns and people with no priors are killing innocent people with said guns, something else needs to be done. " - it sure would be nice to think that something could be done, but honestly - these are random events. The Colorado Theater shooter - that guy was surrounded by neuro-scientists, and no one had a clue. Perhaps maybe if his sketch book hadn't been lost in the mail, his shrink might have been able to have a sit down, but it didn't happen that way.

Restricting this weapon or that weapon won't make a bit of difference because a criminal will either find a way to get "that" weapon, or will make due with a different weapon or weapons (which could be more or less destructive). And all this stuff has been tried before - it doesn't work to stop crime or random events at all. What it does do is to make the law-abiding LESS safe because they have LESS access to firearms when necessary.

Ask a cop why you need more than one gun. I know several cops who carry at least two, and sometimes three firearms (two std ammo, 1 taser).

So what I'm gathering is that you feel that all hope is lost and we shouldn't try to keep random gun violence from happening. Instead of trying to prevent it, we should make sure everyone has a gun and the ability shoot someone when they feel threatened. Instead of limiting what people can own legally, let each person become a proverbial "one man army" by legally purchasing large amounts of guns. Involved in the KKK, Neo Nazi movement, extreme religious groups...well...they are all legal groups so...allow them legal access as well. We are a free country and unfortunately these groups can and will exist. Why not limit their ability to easily procure a tool meant to kill? The last three mass killings in America were carried out with legally purchased guns and ammo. Perhaps at least one could have been prevented if gun laws were ultra strict or banned. That should be enough for anyone.

I guess we just value life differently. You come across as valuing your life as greater than that of a child who dies from accidental gunfire, people assembling at a church, inner city kids caught up in gangs. If a person breaks into your house to rob you or tries to steal(s) your wallet and is then caught, is he put to death? No. But you would play judge, jury and executioner on a petty thief because it's your "right" to shoot him...if he dies, oh well. Not all criminals deserve to die.

Bruce, I've never said that all hope is lost, you can certainly try to keep random gun violence from happening - but it's random, so by definition, it's going to occur at some point despite your best efforts.

To that end, yes, every law-abiding citizen (not adjudged incompetent, or insane) who wishes to carry a firearm should be allowed to do so, so they can defend themselves if it becomes necessary to do so. Concealed carry permit holders are involved in VERY FEW shootings, they do what they can to avoid situations where they might have to shoot someone to defend themselves, and they try to avoid escalating situations precisely because they don't want to shoot anyone. But if the need arises, then that's what one carries a weapon for - defense.

Stop being so melodramatic, no one's becoming a "one man army" vis a vis Rambo. They carry a weapon, and maybe a backup if they feel they need it in order to ensure an effective DEFENSE for themselves. Cops don't think themselves 'one man armies' and they carry more than one weapon. Why shouldn't a law-abiding citizen be allowed to do so as well?

As I've said, I don't agree with the KKK, Nazi's, extreme religious groups - but unless they do something illegal, there's no reason to restrict their rights - for reasons I detailed previously.

Mass killings can and do happen w/o firearms - you can't say that one or more could have been prevented because a determined criminal could use some other weapon, or could have acquired a firearm on the black market. There's documented cases of criminals setting fire to subways - 198 people killed. Poisonings - 300 people killed. Vehicles involved in hit 'n runs: thousands per year (I think there were 6 this weekend in Chicago).

But you can say that some mass killings have been prevented because someone on the premise was armed. There was a church in Colorado - the Pastor remarked that as a result of the volunteer, concealed carry permit holder, security guard's actions in shooting the attacker, everyone in the church was saved.

If someone attacks you - you defend yourself. If you feel your life is threatened, you defend yourself accordingly. If someone breaks into your home, you don't ask them why, you defend yourself and your home - if the attacker does something to make you fear for your life, and they lose theirs in the process of committing their attack - so be it.

To be certain, all life is precious. But since time immemorial, humans instinctively defend ourselves, our families. As time went on, we also defend our property, our communities, our countries. I'm unwilling to give up the ability to effectively defend myself, my family, my property, etc. just because of the actions of criminals (real or potential), or the potential for accidents.

I'm not Bruce, but that's not really a big issue here. I'm also not being melodramatic when I speak of a one man army because I'm not talking about every gun owner or even CC people. I'm talking about people like the CO shooter and other pictures you see of people smiling next to their 5, 10, 15, 30....however many guns they have. People like this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/27/authorities-thwart-alleged-mass-shooting-plot-in-maryland-seize-arsenal-weapons/
You keep bring up the church guard as well, which I agree was great. She was also an ex cop which makes her trained to some extent and we have already gone over the fact that most states don't require training to own a gun.

I can say one may have prevented because it may have been. You don't know. If either of the three perpetrators hadn't been able to purchase his guns and ammo legally, maybe he doesn't kill those people or maybe he does in some other manner. We obviously don't know.

If you check the FBI homicide numbers for 2010 I think only 7 states didn't have over half of their total from firearms. 2009: 13,700 murders, 9200 by gun. Guns...nothing but good.

You make some very good points. Leaving the administration of Conceal Carry permits to the states and their own particular standards is not the best approach. Im in favor of a national program that sets bare minimums policies and processes, and then individual states can adjust as they see fit. Similar to how traffic laws work. One state cant just decide to drive on the left side of the road and still expect to get funds from the federal government. However, that also means we can't have states like IL that outlaw CC altogether. I am also in favor of enhancing the system whereby mentally unstable people are reported and prevented from purchasing firearms. Right now IL does a very poor job of this. However, Im completely against the misnamed Assault Weapons ban.

I will ask this though - How many crimes are committed using Assault Weapons? How many crimes are committed by people with valid concealed carry licenses? It is a very small amount of the overall crime problem. Enforce the laws we have before we worry about new ones.

Ah yes and how did that work out?

Well Walter, there ended up being a terrible, bloody war called The Civil War. It led to the ultimate abolition of slavery under the great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.

Yes, off topic but I can't help saying The Republican Party of today is in no way the Party of Lincoln. Ideology Enforcers, small Government except when big Government can further their Ideology. That's the Republican Party of today. Alan Simpson is flipping out about it and Reagan is probably rolling over.

RB, experience has taught me that you can never change a Liberal's mind, the best you can do is correct their facts. Since you offer no facts. I can't help you.

Yes, I have little doubt that YOU never changed a liberal's mind.

Correct, Walter. The reason being that liberals tend to form their beliefs based upon emotion rather than logic. Consequently, facts and logic fail to alter their beliefs.

For example , the CDC reviewed 51 published studies about the effectiveness of eight types of gun-control laws. The laws included bans on specific firearms or ammunition, measures barring felons from buying guns, and mandatory waiting periods and firearm registration. In every case, the CDC was unable to determine that the laws had any effect on reducing gun violence.

Change your mind? I didn't think so.

What is the Center for Disease Control's expertise in gun control? Do the bullets cause cancer? Also, just because a study is "unable to determine" something doesn't mean there isn't a causal relationship. But I'm sure you are not interested in all of that. You see, it takes more than some thrown around words to change a person's mind. Things need to make sense. And this doesn't make sense.

And for that matter, even if I accept the CDC's report, one conclusion that can be drawn from it is that our gun control laws don't have enough teeth. Which would support the argument for stricter gun control laws. So does that change YOUR mind?

You've illustrated the point perfectly, Walter. Trying to change the emotional mindset of a liberal with logic is a complete waste of time. Over and out.

@ William.

Regarding your comment:

“Well Walter, there ended up being a terrible, bloody war called The Civil War. It led to the ultimate abolition of slavery under the great Republican President, Abraham Lincoln.”

William, you seem to believe that social attitude is reversed by legal action, i.e. slavery was outlawed therefore society fell in line and followed the dictates. That sounds a little naive. The relationship between ethnic groups has improved, but the road has been covered with many dead bodies. I don’t know the exact count based on race, but nonetheless, I will guess people restricted from using the same restroom faired worse.

Your thoughts.

Why in Hell do you gun fans think one has to be a "LIBERAL" because one is sick a tired of seeing 30,000 Americans died every year due to some sort of gun involvement ( accidents, suicide & nuts) I can't stand stupidity that can see the connection to more guns=more gun deaths!!

@ Alex Stevens.

I'm with Sully. I mean when I was 10 that would have been "ok" in the company of other ten year olds.

Brian, restrictions on caliber, and magazine capacity have been tried - they had no effect on crime and were dropped.

The 'barrel length' restriction is still in place for long guns, shotguns in particular because sawed off shotguns were too easily concealable, so it remains a Federal Crime to have a sawed off shotgun - under 18" from stock to barrel end I believe...

People want to have higher capacity magazines because criminals don't always attack one at a time. Sometimes one shot doesn't stop an attacker. Sometimes you want to go out target shooting and don't feel like having to stop and reload every few minutes.

"Assault style" weapons - again, what is this exactly? Something with a rail for flashlight attachments? A forward pistol grip? The flashlight allows one to see in the dark, and perhaps blind an attacker so that one doesn't have to shoot at all. The pistol grip is for better control of the weapon. But ultimately all of that stuff is cosmetic, and doesn't mean the weapon is fully-automatic (that's a whole different animal - covered under a class 3 FFL)...

"Tactical style shotguns" - what is this exactly? Something with a pistol grip on the front? It's used to give one "better control" of the shotgun. Some shooters need it to be able to shoot the weapon properly due to some physical issue they have.

You know what types of weapons I am referring to when I say assault style. I don't feel like I have to go over that again and again. We also don't need to go over fully automatic weapons anymore either. I know they are mostly illegal. You don't need to "play dumb" about the weapons I refer to. If you really need me to go through lists of guns and categorize them I will. Then you can disagree and call bunk as you don't like my placement. I don't think we need to waste our time on that dance. Again, if you should have a good idea to what I am talking about.

And yes, there is the restriction on short shotguns but as I understand it, you can still posses them by paying a tax and registering the gun....along with a few other checks. So...whats the harm in putting all guns under the blanket of the NFA? Guns could still be owned and greater checks must be passed as well as registering. That would go a long way towards collecting illegal weapons and knowing when some kid stocks up on 6000 rounds via mail order.

The problem with putting all firearms under the same classification as fully-auto is that you shouldn't have to register your firearms. Doing so has been proven historically to be disastrous to liberty - if a tyrannical government takes over, they have a list of addresses with firearms, and that's where they go to confiscate things. The Nazi's took advantage of gun registration implemented by their predecessors.

Further, registration doesn't help prevent or solve any crimes whatsoever. Witness Canada - they had a long gun registry around for many years. Spent about $1 BILLION on it - it didn't solve a single crime, and they've finally now just shut that worthless thing down.

We tried recording/registering ammunition sales - the recordkeeping was very burdensome, and it didn't solve a single crime. BATFE testified to Congress that it was basically a worthless regulation, and we've gotten rid of it.

There's already plenty of checks that one has to go through before purchasing a firearm or ammunition legally, and it only has an adverse affect on the law-abiding. None of it stops a criminal from acquiring what they want though.

We don't need more regulation. We need better enforcement of the existing 20K+ laws already on the books related to firearms.

Hey David,, I see Texas got into the fight--didn't want to be LEFT out!!! A cop got killed in todays shootout---so much for CC right?? When will it be enough---WHEN???

Obviously the cop and any other parties involved simply weren't trained properly.

Walter, I'm not sure your tongue was in your cheek or not---If not my reply would be--I guess you or David would have gotten him before he got a shot off!!! Tongue is in MY cheek!!!

Well hell yes! There just no reason for 12 year olds NOT to be trained to use firearms! If they die it's their own fault. Mine can pick off a hummingbird in ground cover at 1000 yards. (Yes, this is sarcasm)

Again Bruce, the details haven't been published yet. But on it's face, it appears that a criminal committed a crime. And as we've discussed many times already in the threads on this site, banning or restricting firearms won't prevent a criminal from getting a firearm and committing a criminal act with it.

Walter - I'm not advocating that minors carry firearms unless accompanied by a competent adult. But there's nothing wrong with teaching children firearm safety. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program does just that. And I'd hazard a guess that millions of parents who have taught their children firearm safety, and usage would take issue with your thoughts. There's plenty of children who were taught how to hunt, and target shoot as young as 5 and who have grown up to be responsible firearm owner/using adults. Some have even gone on to the Olympics...

I'm also not talking about giving a 5 yr old a shotgun, or even a semi-auto. I've seen plenty of children taught firearm safety and use with a Daisy 22 single-shot, bolt-action rifle.

LOL Dave, you're the best! The gift to gun control that just keeps on giving.

Because agreeing to disagree isn't a solution that anyone should have to come to, especially on a message board. I have no ill will towards anyone here....I don't even know who any of them are....I guess I may know some, but message board names don't always match the face behind the screen. I would imagine everyone on here knows that no one will convince the other to change their mind, it's just a place to get our opinions out and hope the others read them and can acknowledge that there are other options or views even if they don't/won't back or agree with them.

If all the laws change and everyone can have a gun on their hip and shoulder, I would live and wouldn't look down on those who own or carry a gun just as I am sure...(I think Local who said, could be wrong)..."I'd like to see you try and take our guns" isn't going to make a last stand if guns get tighter restrictions.

Yes, some of what happens here is very unproductive (liberal fart smell, can't stand the stupidity of the right..) but there are stats and stories brought up that can at least open people's minds to both sides of the issue. You just have to deal with the trolls and minutia of an internet message board.

http://www.louisvuittonspambags-4idiots.org/ Louis Vuitton Handbags Outlet

http://www.gunsRusfactoryoutlet.org/ NRA Tax-Deductible Contributions Clearinghouse

I've been saying all along that at this time the argument is how to have CC safely. So far, States have done a poor job. Gut the program and start over. Kind of the Republican approach to the Affordable Care Act. Reciprocal benefits between States makes it absolutely important to get it right. No CC until there is a manageable program that prevents law breakers, insane, nearly insane, hot heads and others from getting their hands on guns and going 'postal'. No Assault weapons in the hands of the public, restrict the manufacturing and distribution to law enforcement and the military only.

Bruce, you do realize that Eagles are a Federally protected species, and shooting one is a Federal Crime right? Even picking up an Eagle Feather and possessing that is a Federal Crime. So enough with the melodrama already.

People can and sometimes do things which are unexpected. As we've discussed, there's NO way to predict or prevent that. Banning or restricting firearms isn't going to prevent people from doing harm to someone when they're hell bent on it, and just because that's a possibility doesn't mean that we have to give up one iota of our Constitutionally-guaranteed NATURAL right.

"No CC until there is a manageable program that prevents law breakers, insane, nearly insane, hot heads and others from getting their hands on guns and going 'postal'

Felons are already so prohibited. Misdemeanors aren't nor should they be. Insane/incompetent (properly adjudged by a Court) are already so prohibited. Define "Nearly Insane" - who gets to define that? "Hot Heads" - define that too. Define what "others" shouldn't be allowed to possess firearms. As for "going postal" - there's no way to predict this, so the proper solution is to allow the rest of us to defend ourselves if it becomes necessary to do so.

"No Assault weapons in the hands of the public, restrict the manufacturing and distribution to law enforcement and the military only."

A fully-automatic weapon is already restricted to Law Enforcement, Military, and Class 3 FFL holders. The rest shouldn't be so restricted simply because of how a weapon happens to look. And there's no such thing as an "assault weapon" - it's a made up term designed to frighten persons into believing that a semi-automatic weapon is somehow a fully-automatic weapon simply because of some cosmetic characteristic.

David, Well said about Eagles, Now Do you realize that human beings are also supposed to be protected by FEDERAL LAWS----but they keep dying by gun nuts every day---where is the compassion there--- AGAIN--when is enough---Please advise even if it's 10 million or 20---when is it going to be enough---there must be some number in your brain!!!

Carrying a firearm isn't the problem. It's how it's used. If you use it in a criminal act, go to jail. The NRA actively supported such a program in Philadelphia I believe - late '90's perhaps (the exact dates escape me right now) - it really did have a great impact on crimes committed with firearms. But it required a concerted effort between the State and Federal prosecutors.

Second: If you pass the FBI background check, you can purchase a firearm. If you have a FFL from the Federal Government, you can purchase a firearm. If there's a problem with people that have cloudy backgrounds getting firearms when they ought not to, start with the Federal Background check.

Licensed dealers have to run the background check at shows, meets, flea markets, etc...

I agree that what we're doing with regard to gun bans and restrictions isn't working. Just look to Chicago/Illinois - the Criminals have de facto concealed carry, while the law abiding are defenseless - and the criminals are emboldened by it.

Oh good grief....

Bruce, you can't kill an Eagle nor can you kill a person - both are illegal. Whether it's via firearm, arrow, poison, slingshot, etc. it doesn't matter. The same with people killing people with guns - also illegal. The law simply needs to be enforced against those committing criminal acts with firearms. Leave the law-abiding alone.

Hey David, I see another gun fan did a job on a beautiful, talented young lady in St, Louie!!! Score one more for the guy guys!!! When will it be enough???

Hey Bruce, a CRIMINAL committed a criminal act during a robbery. The CRIMINAL should go to jail. Too bad the young lady didn't have her own weapon to defend herself.

Again, BLAME the criminal, not the gun. This criminal certainly could have attacked her some other way - a knife perhaps? Broken bottle...

@David - Actually it seems to be you who is blaming her for not being adequately armed and prepared to use deadly force at a moment's notice.

Please don't put words into my mouth. I NEVER blame the victim. I ALWAYS blame the criminal. I said it was too bad that she didn't have her own weapon to defend herself - and I did not say that with sarcasm.

Ultimately, the blame falls to the CRIMINAL not the item the criminal chose to commit the crime with (which could have easily have been his fists in a strongarm robbery...)

You must be one sick puppy, Bruce to read an article about a young woman being murdered and post "a gun fan did a number on her" just to further your agenda. Crawl back under your rock, creep.

@David - Just so you know my perspective, I am a gun owner. I have multiple handguns, rifles and shotguns. I have been around firearms since I was a child. My children know how to handle firearms and they are very good marksmen.

I would never delude myself into thinking that guns are going to deter this type of crime. For every violent crime that is stopped, there are multiple innocent victims who are killed. In addition, there is always the risk that the criminal would be able to disarm the victim and render the weapon useless.

It's not the gun, my friend -- it's the trigger-finger. A simple snip would take care of the problem. You first.

That really is a tired argument. It's a gun. It's sole purpose as an invention was to facilitate the ease of wounding and killing a person or food. That's it. They have evolved into some other technologies now but the majority of them are still made to be a stopping device usually resulting in death. You don't own your 12 gauge to open your can of soup or your AR-15 derived rifle to cut your steak.

Not that it's right by any stretch of the imagination, but threats against whomever the President is are pretty common. And that's NO reason to try and ban firearms for the rest of us - because if the criminals are dead set on wanting to do harm to our Chief, they're going to try, and it's up to the Secret Service to deal with it - which they do with aplomb.

David, Who said the guy threatening the Prez was a criminal-----I think he is just one more "good guy" with LEGAL guns who maybe is going bonkers & looking to put his guns to use & I don't mean cutting grass, making breakfast or unique transportation---just good old fashion killing. Although if you could come up with an egg cooking lawn mower gun I could ride to Schaumburg I might buy one!!

It's illegal to threaten anyone, let alone the President of the United States. So by definition, the moron doing so is a criminal. If you can't understand that....

David, Since the guy threatening the Prez hasn't been convicted of anything I would say he is just another nut who plays with guns.

The guy threatening the President has been charged with just that crime. It has a sentence of 5 yrs in prison. So he hasn't been convicted yet, but arrested.

You could have stopped with "he is just another nut." and you would have been just spot on.

David, Can't Just leave it that he's a nut---no problem there. Look how many times you & I have been called a nut on these threads. BIG PROBLEM is he's got guns---see a common theme---Too many people with guns!

Like many of the stats both sides throw around, those are loaded numbers. Inner city violence attributes a greater percentage of the total and we know that you guys aren't arguing your stance for those people. They have more guns and they have a tremendous amount of crime with innocents and felons on the receiving end of the bullet.

Why are so many cars "out there", Bruce?
And toasters -- don't forget the toasters.
And lawn mowers?
They're called tools, Bruce. And they are available when a job has to be done. Millions of citizens will have millions of tools, after all.
It's not rocket-surgery, or even brain-science. Try to keep up, OK?

" BUT why are so many guns out there?"

At some point in the not too distant future, there will be a lot more guns out there. No legislation can stop it; prohibition is doomed to failure:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/30/do-3d-printers-make-prohibitions-impossi

Max, you keep comparing guns to other commonplace tools and items. The y aren't used to make breakfast, they aren't used to cut grass, they aren't used to get us from point a to point b. The tool we are debating is one that's purpose is to maim and kill.

Guns could be used to make breakfast - it'd be an unusual usage, but one could do it.

You could also cut grass - one or two blades at a time. Again, pretty nuts, but one could do it.

You could get from point a to point b if you are sitting on a platform and use the gun as the force to overcome friction and move forward by creating some inertia. Another strange usage, but could be done - although it'd probably work better that way in space w/very low gravity...

I'm hoping you realize how foolish you just sounded. You like to compare guns to common items and there is no comparison. If you want to tell me that gun is an acceptable replacement for a lawnmower or a toaster, feel free. Citing strange and inappropriate uses for a "tool" is saying that you don't know how to use it and therefor shouldn't.

Tools can be used for unintended purposes. That one realizes that they CAN be used for such purposes does not mean that someone doesn't know how to properly use the tool, or that they WOULD use it in such a manner. It's a thought experiment.

As for comparing guns to common items - given that there's well over 300 million firearms in private hands, I'd have to say that guns ARE common items.

I would assume you knew what I meant with common items. You will find a toaster in many more houses then you would find a gun. Sheer numbers of guns doesn't equate to being a common household item.

And yes, people who use tools in the wrong manner probably know how to use them. But they still try and manipulate it a different way that can lead to bad results. That's why we have some very idiotic warnings on things like toasters and not using them in the bathtub.

And if you are saying that people don't use guns to cut grass, why are using that to tell me a gun has many uses?

Guns are not meant to kill and injure. They are tools - they can be used to kill and injure, or they can be used w/o ever firing a shot (as happens countless times every year).

So tell me again what guns were invented for? I have no problem agreeing with the statement that they are tools. But their first purpose is that of death/destruction. A side effect has become sport shooting (which target and trap are ways to improve your aim and proficiency in hitting a live target.) And even when being used as a prop to "stop" crime, the basis of it working is the threat of injury or death.

So once again, tell me their original purpose and how they weren't intended to kill/maim from the get go. Yes, they have other secondary uses almost none of which lead to direct betterment of society as a whole.

Depends on the gun. I have a nail gun - it was invented for driving a fastener between two pieces of wood using pneumatic pressure. I suppose it could have nefarious purposes if one chose to do that.

I know someone else with a fastener gun - it uses a .22 blank round to fire a fastener into concrete again using pneumatic pressure that's provided by the cartridge. It too could have nefarious purposes.

As for the secondary uses - defending oneself without firing a shot seems like a pretty good betterment of society to me. As is the deterrent effect against many criminals who don't want to risk getting shot themselves - that leads to a decrease in crime, which of course benefits society. As we've seen in Chicago and other 'gun free' zones, a lack of firearms by the law abiding leads to criminal activity.

But you have now broadened out to inventions that used some technologies from guns, but you should be intelligent enough to realize those don't have bearings on this argument. A nail gun is a nail gun. You aren't shooting bullets, you are framing your wall...or whatever construction project you do. You also require some sort of compressor to work it and unless you are standing next to the person, the nail won't do much damage. Your other nail gun, for concrete framing isn't a projectile either. For most to work you have to have them on a hard surface while applying ample pressure to avoid kick. And you said it yourself, that perhaps it could have a secondary nefarious use which means it's first use isn't to kill or injure.

Are you going to start to describe what paint ball and cap guns are for too or are you going to answer my actual question about the guns this debate is about and what they were invented for?

And your description isn't a secondary use. Its something you see as a benefit from their first and intended use, as a threat to inflict harm or death. An example would be your argument involving cars. Yes, one of their many secondary uses can be to cause death, but we all know that their primary use is as a transportation device. Two distinctly different uses.

For all your grandstanding about more guns saving lives, it doesn't just magically work. Their are plenty of guns in major cities and people still risk getting shot to shoot others.

Brian, after I sent my "snitty" reply I realized it was to you & figgered you had a different meaning---sorry. I fully agree our current 2 parties both care more about $$$ & staying in office rather than helping the country. I think a 3rd independent party of about 15% of congress would help to move things along (hopefully the right way)

You mean, NYC, where guns are heavily restricted? That explains a lot. The same can be said for Chicago. You are naming places where "government" is hindering law-abiding citizens from having guns while doing nothing to stop the criminals. Want to make a wager on whether the Chicago killer(s) had FOID cards and had gone though Chicago's training / registration requirements.

You can pick and choose, but the truth is that these events are happening nationwide. AZ has some of the loosest gun laws and a man still managed to kill 6 people and injure another 14 before unarmed citizens stopped him. The events are also getting greater attention from people like me because in most of these recent cases all the guns had been purchased legally by people with previously clean records. I won't comment on the New York shooting yet because it's too recent and facts are always fuzzy this close to the event, but the CO shooter, the AZ shooter and the WI shooter "slipped" through cracks because they hadn't done enough in the eyes of our current laws to question their gun ownership.

Bruce, you continue to be as melodramatic as ever. In New York - a criminal shot some people. Interestingly enough - New York has some hefty restrictions on firearms - so just like Chicago, only the law-abiding are disarmed.

And in Chicago - more criminals shooting at more criminals in a gang war, in a city that has extreme gun restrictions.

Gun control doesn't work because criminals don't care. The only thing that works? More guns in the hands of LAW-ABIDING people.

And these events will continue to happen worldwide because people have been finding ways to kill each other since time immemorial. It's not a 'good thing', but it's a fact of life and removing the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves isn't going to make a bit of difference.

When these events occur, we need to prosecute the criminals and move on.

No, the shoppers, workers & tourists got in the Cops' way. Any properly-licensed CC holder would probably have done a better job of directing his fire. I hope the City of New York pays dearly for its LEOs' incompetence.

How on earth do you get to assume CC people would be better in those situations? Especially when some states don't require any kind of classes? According to number roughly 6 million permits for CC exist. Some people may have multiple, and there are a few states that don't need permits, so that number is rough. We also know people carry illegally as some have said on this board (other stories) that they do so. So 6 million citizens carrying a gun, they all would be better then the 800,000 or so law enforcement officers in the US.

How would it have been beneficial to have more people pulling guns and shooting at this man in a crowded city street? The cops were there very fast. The man pulls his gun and three other people pull a gun. Now it appears (in the heat of a gun fight) that the criminal had at least one accomplice. Yes, it's just another scenario, but if we get to assume that all people carrying a gun are better shots then all cops, we can also assume more people would have been shot at with more guns on the scene.

How many people are killed by cars? They're popping up everywhere! What's your number before we say "enough" to cars? I mean, besides the obvious pedestrian v. vehicle tragedies, we have people who die from lung disease from pollution created by cars. Cancers caused by fuel and oil used in cars. People who get killed or injured in accidents with trucks that are transporting fuel and oil for cars. People who get killed or injured in accidents with trucks transporting parts for cars. And on and on and on...

Somehow I think that if we went back to horses and buggies, we'd still have accidents with pedestrians, and stagecoaches which were transporting goods to the General Stores could occasionally break a wheel and flip over and kill someone too...

Focus on the person misusing the firearm - not the firearm.

And we are now trying to to do things to help lower emissions and cut down on some of those carcinogens (with more backlash from the right.) And you also refuse to ever acknowledge that guns are made to kill and cars are made to transport. Both items have other uses but those are primary.

You advocate all this safety but for everything you say, people will still die by gunfire. If the criminal shoots them, if the "law abiding" shoots them, or if the CC permit holder shoots them (criminal or not.) On top of that, nothing you say has any bearing on the people dying in DC or Chicago's poorer areas. More guns will never equal less deaths in places like that.

So the portly revenue agents shoot a bunch of people and you call them well-trained and professional.

Further, you use that canard to malign a hypothetical private citizen.

You have a serious problem with authority fellation.

Further, your premise is that corpulent revenue agents are well-trained in firearm discharge. There is sufficient evidence to find your premise lacking.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firearm-politics-2nd-amendment-issues/15949-law-enforcement-qualification.html

Nothing like citing a good old credible unbiased source. Really? A forum post on a conceal carry website? I'm sure there are plenty of cops who aren't trained properly just as there are plenty who are. There are also plenty of gun owners who are trained better then cops, but on that token I'm sure there is a greater percentage who has no formal training in firearm use.

In all these discussions I have been involved in people cite completely biased sources as pure and total fact. First, this is the internet, web pages aren't always truth. Second, when you quote a study from a site like the NRA, USAcarry, bradycampaign...you should know you are being fed flawed or cooked statistics.

Brian, AMEN!!!

"Nothing like citing a good old credible unbiased source."

There is no such thing as an unbiased source.

I will take the instructor's word over the word of any replete revenue agent.

http://www.policemisconduct.net/

If you can't understand that you are making a very flawed argument, then oh well. Your first citation was literally some guy who said the story was true, and then was only indicative of one department in WI. He also doesn't give a number a failures, just says several failed once and three failed multiple times out of a force of 12. So this one force in obviously a smaller town is indicative of the entire 800,000 law enforcement officers nationwide? Try again.

Your second site, while disturbing, only shows that some cops are bad news. I think, or hope, that many people already realized that. But guess what? Many CC holders are bad people and so are many gun owners. We have cops doing immoral and bad things (some of which that site says alleged) and we have legal gun owners going on mass killing sprees.

"Cops that like Donuts!!1!!111!!! What other news do you have."

In other news, Bruce is the King of Strawmen Construction and Uniform Fetishes.

"OK lets just say Fat armed people shot bystanders----I'm sure you would have done much better"

No one, husky or otherwise, with a scintilla of adequate training would have done worse.

"bet you could have shot the Big Ape off the roof too!!!11!!!1!"

Everyone knows that King Kong was impervious to gunfire.

And another:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/expd/7857954928/

To protect and serve....... and occassionally riddle innocent bystanders with bullets.