Obama urges national soul searching over gun violence

"Then on Sunday, a couple with possible links to anti-government militia shot dead two police officers execution-style in a Las Vegas pizza restaurant, before killing another civilian nearby and then themselves."

And the civilian, who had a concealed weapon permit, took out his gun but was shot by the wife after mistaking her for an innocent bystander.

“There is no place else like this!” he said, adding that America should be ashamed it could not enact even the mildest gun reforms.

Spot on. The fact that the NRA, and the roughly 4 million members they represent, can keep the country hostage is simply crazy. What about my rights to go out without fear that some loon who thinks he is gonna take down the bad guy will, instead, lose it, like the guy in the Florida cinema did? And he was ex law enforcement.

More guns certainly aren’t the answer as much as the NRA would like to have you believe. There are already states in the U.S. where gun deaths have outpaced automobile deaths. This is because regulations have made cars safer over time, even though there is more cars than ever.

Fizzbit urges President Obama to do some soul searching over......well pretty much everything.

These killings are the fruit of the NRA's hard work.

The NRA's touting the ideals of its efforts reminds me of these drug commercials we see on TV. Behind the touted positive "benefit" of the drug are an alarming number of often-horrific "side-effects" all spoken very rapidly in a lowered voice.

You will hear of their latest attempt at a positive contribution to the debate: Saddle taxpayers with billions of dollars in costs to house and care for the mentally ill -- people who might otherwise function quite well in societies where they couldn't get their hands on guns.

I really don't see how anything will change. Mass shootings have become to America what terrorist bombings are to Iraq--just part of the white noise of daily life. They happen, and you just hope you're not in the wrong place at the wrong time. The gun lobby--which really only cares about profits--has totally convinced the paranoid preppers in the USA that they can never give in an inch on weapons ownership.

No attempt at discussing the matter rationally with the preppers will work. The preppers are convinced that mass private gun ownership effectively acts as a check on any democratic government's slide towards tyranny. When you then ask the preppers why nations like Japan, Britain, and Australia did not slide towards tyranny after heavily restricting private gun ownership, they'll insist to you that 1) those nations are already tyrannical, or 2) will inevitably become tyrannical. Many of these people have no passports and no idea of what daily life is actually like in a democratic country that has restricted private gun ownership.

How do you reason with people who think this way?

The NRA has gone insane. The arguement that the right to keep and bear arms has NO limitations is farcical. As I posted yesterday, I am a gun owner and I think the current state of affairs is insane.

How on Earth is it acceptable for a 15 year old to get anywhere near an AR-15, much less body armor?

I remember a time when the average citizen didn't have access to assault weapons, when the average joe couldn't carry a weapon, concealed or openly just because, and nobody seemed to think that their rights were under siege from tyrannical govt.

The idea that any limitations on gun rights is an unacceptable afront to liberty is as moronic as the idea that a bunch of well-armed Bubas are going to successfully hold off the govt if it did come.

Time to remember that before the words "Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" comes "The right to life". Only don't say this to "Joe the plumber" (actually he's not a plumber, his name's not Joe, and he hadn't even paid the taxes he was bitching to Obama about. A better knick name would be "Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher the unlicensed tax cheat"). After the shooting at the UC School, he told the parents that his constitutional rights were worth more than their children's lives. No, seriously. He actually said this! That really tells you all you need to know about the Tea Party, the NRA, and the Republican Party which is being held hostage by its most radical fringe.

Again, I am a gun owner (not in Japan of course). Every male member of my family owns guns, I support gun rights, and even I think that enough is enough. If you think the answer is more guns, that ANY licensing or restriction is too intrusive, I just don't know what to say to you. The facts say otherwise.

Just remember gun collecting nutballs think that the rest of the world is crazy, not them. Owning a semi automatic or a shotgun is their right, guaranteed by the constitution and a blessing from baby Jesus. Can anyone give me a hallelujah?

Graham, thank you for your eloquent post.

You are right: the NRA, as a group, have lost any grip they had on sanity. Many feel, like Joe the Plumber, that their interpretation of the second amendment trumps the right to life. And thanks, Joe, NRA-member in good standing, for that poignant reminder to the families of the victims in California.

We can well imagine that if a mass killing ever took place at an NRA convention -- an attack that wiped out scores of their members -- you'd see them changing their tune REAL fast. Until then, they can wax eloquent on the second amendment as long as someone else -- and someone else's kids -- are paying the price.

wow tough crew, the only person who actually addressed the mentally ill correctly was Farmboy. I state that information after spending 13 + years as an Emergency Nurse in Trauma hospital with a Pysch ER.

Psych patients would come in - get 2 weeks inside and be forced out- i remember some crying saying they could not make it, they could not keep it together out there. and sure enough something always happend. the lucky ones were stopped by the police before things got too far.

the unlucky ones hurt themselves or ones they loved or some innocent bystander, I could never find it in my heart to hate someone who was so disturbed and wanted to stay inside where they could do no harm and yet were put on the street with no access to counseling or medicine or more importantly the oversight of someone making sure they took the medicine.

with the exception of the home-grown terrorists we have several cases of a failed mental health system and gun check program which by HIPPA law cannot check to see if someone has a mental health issue.

What say we tax ammunition to fund improved mental healthcare?

(Not that that's got a snowball's chance in hell, but one can dream....)

I remember a time when the average citizen didn't have access to assault weapons, when the average joe couldn't carry a weapon, concealed or openly just because, and nobody seemed to think that their rights were under siege from tyrannical govt.

Unless you don't live/from the USA I doubt the above, those assault weapons(semi-automatic firearms) have never really been banned, citizens have had access to them since before the 1900's. They have been legal since they were created. The average joe in the vast majority of states can legally open carry a firearm in the 50's,60's,70',80's, 90's, and today, heck they have been allowed to do before the 50's. In fact the vast majority of states did not have any licensing requirements in order to openly carry a firearm in public and still don't. If you are indeed from the USA what you remember is just not seeing people carrying their firearms in public even though it was legal for them to do so same with purchasing semi-automatics.

After the shooting at the UC School, he told the parents that his constitutional rights were worth more than their children's lives. No, seriously. He actually said this

As callous as it is the principle is one that you actually probably do agree with. For example do you believe the 4th amendment rights of people trump the lives of children or people in general? Take for example stop and frisk in NYC, if that saved 1 or 10 or 100 lives a year would you be willing to give up your 4th amendment rights, at least in NYC, to save those lives?

Praack, well-said! The inanimate objects themselves are less the problem that the hands of the ill people.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics most recent data(2011, you see how efficiently big gov works),

"The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% from 1992 to 2011, while the percentage of homicide victims killed by a firearm (67%) remained stable."

Look at the data objectively, not the media hype.

I stand by my view on these idiotic attacks on innocent people. Take away the gun they will find another tool.

ALSO, I do not want these to continue! Thorough background checks, strict mandatory penalties with firearms violations, and irresponsible gun owners loose their guns, fines and possible jail time if they "misplace" a gun and it is used in a crime.

The NRA is Jane and Joe USA. What I mean by that is they are everywhere in society. Rich/Poor, Black/White, Christian/Jew, Average citizen/Law Enforcement, You name it, they are NRA. NRA are not "Gun Loons" as some would say. They don't want to loose their rights BUT they are a bit to resistant to needed change.

The guns won't go away. We have too many and many of those folks will not give them up. Some will be "lost" only to turn up in a crime. Just look at Canada- last month a shooting, Mexico- last week. Both with strict gun laws.

Fire, cars, knives, baseball bats, poisons, homemade bombs, carpenters hammer, electricity, and numerous other imaginable and unimaginable tools could be used to harm or kill in numbers. A SICK MIND is hard to identify and stop prior to a brutal rampage.

We have no shame here in USA. You can steal from regular people and brag to friends about it. Cheat on your spouse and brag about it (males). You can collect welfare and feel good about it and demand more. You can be an arrogant jerk and be rewarded for it! It is our downfall as a nation.

That all said I prefer here more than anywhere else in the world. You choose your friend and associates and tolerate what you choose from them. The USA majority are good people, it takes a small fraction to create a negative light for us. We still do have opportunity if you want to better yourself and position. I am happy here. I live in a nice suburban town, little to no violent crime, and good schools for my kids. I made sure of that. I could have stayed where I grew up and would not have the life I have now. I wanted change, I got it. And I am a gun owner. I enjoy shooting. I don't want to give that up because of a small fraction.

Lets identify the problem of these scumbags wanting to commit illogical harm to others. Personally I have no idea why they would or could do such acts! If we do not find the cause, it will continue with other tools. Don't forget Timothy McViegh. He did in 2 minutes what a year or two of mass shooters do. Careful what you wish for.......A new "tool"?

"The inanimate objects themselves are less the problem that the hands of the ill people."

OK, but which ill people? To believe that the only reason democracy persists in your country is because ordinary people are armed to the teeth and therefore inhibit the government from "going Soviet"--I'm sorry, but I can't understand why anybody thinks this way, i.e. be convinced that every politician is a wannabe Stalin or Louis XIV hungry for absolute power over everybody and everything.

Are David Cameron in the UK and Tony Abbott in Australia now gleefully planning to turn their respective countries into Stalinist hellholes, now that 18 years have passed since both of those countries enacted incredibly restrictive gun laws (following the Dunblane, Scotland and Port Arthur, Tasmania massacres of 1996)? What is the basis for believing in this sort of paranoia? I wish the preppers could give us an answer with evidence, but there is none.

The preppers in America don't seem to doubt the good intentions of the bankers at the private sector financial institutions who bankroll and support the gun companies (gee, I wonder why that is), but they're convinced every politician wants to turn America into the Gulag Archipelago. This is something of a problem in the United States, I would say.

After reading this article on suicide contagion or copy cat suicides I wonder how many of these mass attacks are really just copy cat attacks? If suicide contagion guidelines were that effective in Vienna I wonder if it would have the same effect on other activities like these mass attacks or public attacks.

http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/sreporting.pdf

I believe just about ALL are copy cat attacks. Media is feeding the violence. Instant fame seems to be what they want and they get it.

The president said he respected gun rights enshrined in the Constitution,

Society has a vested interest in seeing that only responsible citizens have the right to firearms. Does anyone want to argue that the second amendment honors the rights of irresponsible citizens to have guns? The main problem is that no citizen has to prove his or herself responsible before obtaining a firearm -- outside, that is of some extreme and obvious indicators of irresponsibility. But would venture to say that everyone knows some real idiots who should not have guns, but wouldn't have any problem getting them under the current system -- and many already do.

The NRA will defend the right of any blithering, malevolent and irresponsible idiot to obtain a gun, so long as none of his past acts of stupidity rose to the level of a felony.

I wish President Obama would use a little of that constitutional scholar background to champion a creative solution via the "well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment.

The other problem is that much of the damage that comes from irresponsible and dangerous people abusing their rights that the NRA pressed so hard for them to have is often levied on the taxpayers. An attack at a school, for instance, often results in lawsuits against the local government or school board. No accountability whatsoever against the people who did the most to ensure the widest possible disbursement of lethal firepower in the hands of irresponsible people.

As far as the McVeigh story goes, we don't see people touting the making of homemade bombs, and the materials that McVeigh used (fertilizers) are all much more tightly controlled, as they should be.

Typical Obama solution. Just talk.

As callous as it is the principle is one that you actually probably do agree with.

NoLiving -- speak for yourself. I would never agree that it is a fair trade for a family to lose a loved one, especially a child, so folks who want to play Rambo can own assault rifles. That is crazy. And your comparison of this and the "stop and frisk" policy in NYC and the 4th Amendment is simply foolish.

the right to bear arms was enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers for a reason, to stop government oppression. why does homeland security need tanks and enough bullets to shot every man, women and child 5 time? politicians will do everything they can to stay in power which is why they want to disarm the population so they can't fight back.

We here in Texas support our right to keep and bear arms. All the mass killings dating back to Columbine were at the hands of either liberals or those associated with pro-liberal causes. Liberalism is a mental disease.

Thorough background checks, strict mandatory penalties with firearms violations, and irresponsible gun owners loose their guns, fines and possible jail time if they "misplace" a gun and it is used in a crime.

MarkG, think that this is the first time I've ever agreed with you.

The NRA is Jane and Joe USA.

Whoops - lost me. The majority of Americans support what you mentioned above; it will be a cold day in hell before the NRA stops fighting tooth and nail to prevent these common-sense remedies.

Masswipe, " To believe that the only reason democracy persists in your country is because ordinary people are armed to the teeth and therefore inhibit the government from "going Soviet"--I'm sorry, but I can't understand why anybody thinks this way…"

It's already become its former enemy in some ways. Look at the militarization of regular cops and "security" checkpoints. Then there's the Stasi-style "See Something, Say Something " inform on your neighbor campaign a la East Germany.

Daniel, your previous post(as well as your last) was racist in nature.

Yabits, if Obama respects the Constitution, as you seem to believe, then pigs have sprouted wings and can fly.

the right to bear arms was enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers for a reason, to stop government oppression

Wrong, fds. It was added to the federal constitution by State governments fearing a centralized government tyranny. Each State could maintain its own well-regulated militia, and the federal government would have no authority to disarm a state militia-member. ("Keep and bear" arms is a term directly connected to a military purpose.) Even at its founding, there were certain classes of American citizens who were denied the "right" to keep and bear arms.

If one was an able-bodied man of good character and sound mind, one was duty-bound to take part in the state militia. In fact, the original draft of the second amendment added the words: "but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." (Samuel Adams) A gun might well be needed for personal protection, but "bearing arms" relates to a military context.

As a nation with so many irresponsible people with guns, we have gone very far astray of the Founders' intent. But that doesn't make one bit of difference to the NRA types who are primarily responsible for the current situation.

If a person would prove unfit for state militia duty, the State would be within its authority to deny them the right to possess firearms And therein lies the "second amendment solution" to much of the gun problem.

Random gun rage in America will continue to increase and national soul searching won't halt the rising tide. The modern shift to cyber socialization from traditional interpersonal relations will progressively expand the numbers of mentally unbalanced individuals without sufficient access to therapeutic human contacts. Isolated, socially frustrated and communicationally challenged young humans are far more likely to become extremists willing to trade their lives for a brief experience of "counting" for something in their personal 'me' versus "them" existential struggle.Such people are a product of their environment. Americans must accept the collateral consequences of maintaining a domestic arms bazaar. If the possession of projectile weaponry is a freedom which citizens insist on by constitutional guarantee then higher risks of rampage and impulse shootings will forever be part of that bargain. Perhaps the saddest commentary on all of this is that the NRA zealously exploits its political influence to deepen divisions between blue and red states by shamelessly hyping gun ownership (and themselves) as symbols of patriotism.

All the mass killings dating back to Columbine were at the hands of either liberals or those associated with pro-liberal causes. Liberalism is a mental disease.

Ignoring the inanity and inaccuracy of this statement, so what? If it was all liberals doing the killing, that should be more of a reason for republicans to want to implement gun control. If republicans aren't doing the killing, then they are only getting killed, and therefore should want more gun control so that the liberals can't get anymore guns with which too do mass killings.

But that a said, the comment I quoted is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site, and that's saying a lot.

I was born and raised in Kansas, thank you very much. And assault weapons have most certainly been as prevalent or available at anytime in recent history as they are today. I know this because I've never seen people walking around in public before now.

And the 4th Amendment argument is not analogous as being in favor of strong 4th Amendment protections (as I am) does not lead to mass murder

There really is a place where gun laws make life safe-past the second star to the right and straight on till morning.

The country needs a lot of prayers and overhaul in gun control issue. I have seen enough and I am too sick of it.

As long as Karl Rove and the TEAPUBLICANS are in power, the NRA will stay for gun rights. We need to wake up for change, guys.

Folk in crazy places like TEXAS, very red state and very gun loving NRA think it is funny to make fun of what happened in Columbine high school?? Yeah real funny! Wait till some idiot kid with a grudge goes bezerk at your local high school, or church or bbq ribs, etc..see how many Texans will be laughing then. The only good thing about Texas is that they are not too shy about using the DEATH PENALTY.

The irony of the American constitution: You have the right to own a gun to protect yourself from other people with guns.

So much hoplophobia here, and so much of it I've addressed before. No matter how many times I've defeated the Brady Campaign talking points, people bitterly cling to them and vote my posts "bad" without countering them with substantive arguments. So I'll cut this post short and leave you with Obama saying that he will take issue yet more executive orders for yet more gun control.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/10/white-house-obama-looking-to-act-administratively-unilaterally-on-guns/

With all the twisting, distortion, and outright lying about the NRA by the anti-gun zealots above, did any of you notice that the NRA recently spoke out against open-carry supporters (legally) walking into coffee shops and restaurants with rifles slung over their shoulders? No? Hmmm, how about that. The first two sentences of Graham DeShazo's first post on this thread (and every post yabits ever makes about the subject) already proven false.

The only good thing about Texas is that they are not too shy about using the DEATH PENALTY.

Texas and RED states (the South) are filled with corruptions of law enforcement and legal systems. Hope you remember many sad stories in US history. The states are filled with backward thinkers and poor education standards. We are dealing with those hopeless lost minds and souls.

the right to bear arms was enshrined in the constitution by the founding fathers for a reason, to stop government oppression. why does homeland security need tanks and enough bullets to shot every man, women and child 5 time? politicians will do everything they can to stay in power which is why they want to disarm the population so they can't fight back.

fds -- hogwash. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that limits to the "right to bear arms" is constitutional. Especially since the 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to bear arms is linked to "a well-regulated militia".

Yabits, your misrepresentation of the Founders' intent regarding the Second Amendment is cunningly deceptive, with a sprinkling of truth to cover the basic fallacy.

Who are the militia? WE THE PEOPLE! “Who are we the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom, Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords , and ever other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (Coxe, 1788).

...the NRA recently spoke out against open-carry supporters (legally) walking into coffee shops and restaurants with rifles slung over their shoulders...

It's come to this: Criticizing yahoos lugging assault rifles into family restaurants is considered a "tough" stance.

But - whoops! - turned out to be too harsh on its members. Did you hear, OldHawk, that the National Rifle Association walked back its criticism?

http://time.com/2821799/nra-walks-back-criticisms-of-open-carry-movement/

globalwatcher:

Texas and RED states (the South) are filled with corruptions of law enforcement and legal systems. Hope you remember many sad stories in US history. The states are filled with backward thinkers and poor education standards. We are dealing with those hopeless lost minds and souls.

New Jersey is in the South? :-D

Laguna:

Did you hear, OldHawk, that the National Rifle Association walked back its criticism?

Oh look, Time is using MediaMatters as a legitimate source. How... cute. Did you watch the video? Watch the whole thing. Hear anything about the NRA approving of the tactics used by Open Carry Texas group? No? Pay special attention around the 4:45 mark. The debate about tactics is still ongoing.

The gun supporters will probably win this round again. Best to dig two graves and move on.

Soul searching and a whole lot more clearly is in order for the U.S. And other countries are supposed to look up to the States? really? A matter of time until the next slaughter.

@Texas A&M Aggie, must be flying a big old Confederate flag. Texans still approve secession (oops, spell check: sedition) at about 25%, all you need to know right there. But you see deep down they are tolerant liberals with a Canadian-Cuban senator who may still have dual citizenship (he's only talked about paring it down to one).

So why worry about other states' problems. All y'all know about that horrific clock tower massacre at the University of Texas main campus many years ago, right? Give us the rundown on the shooter's political affiliation. (I honestly don't know.) And throw in your two cents telling us how you really feel about the shooting of JFK in your lovely state.

Again, what is it today that differs from 50 years ago when guns were more easily obtained?

All you anti gun folks ignore a deeper issue. The guns are the tool used and can be replaced! Some will say assault guns. Yes more today the 50 years ago but they are not the primary weapons used. And FYI, some gun owners own machine guns, you know full auto guns. How many of those are used in mass shooting attempts? They certainly would cause the most damage. Clue-ZERO!

Back to why today when more restrictions and potentially better background checks? I believe in mental illness and medications to start. Replace the tool with Boston Bomber like tools or Oklahoma city tools? It would happen.

Right. All gun freaks have a ton of guns and can, at any moment, go on a spree and shoot up the place. Hmmmm. And do we call the sane people the ones that perpetuate the mass kill in the pacific ocean with all the poison being dumped from a failed reactors? And wait, there's more. What about the other 4 reactors they want to crank up? I think I'm keeping my firearms in hopes of being able to pull the trigger after I'm thoroughly irradiated. I would rather go out like that than what governments are doing too us all. Off topic? Probably, but so are those that have little clue of the entire plate set before us. Wake up to the big picture. Guns are not the problem or the answer. I am constantly amazed and the small box many keep their minds contained within... It proves to me that being an I-Phone zombie is more important than knowing the broader picture. Don't forget to duck and cover.

The NRA is part of the problem. Maybe it is the primary problem. Without the NRA the US could join the rest of the developed world with sane gun control.

@global

As long as Karl Rove and the TEAPUBLICANS are in power, the NRA will stay for gun rights. We need to wake up for change, guys.

What does Rove have to do with the gun rights issue?

Texas and RED states (the South) are filled with corruptions of law enforcement and legal systems.

If that's the case, don't even step foot in Washington.

Hope you remember many sad stories in US history. The states are filled with backward thinkers and poor education standards.

So you're saying liberals don't carry guns or use them ever. You have over 29 million registered Democrat and liberal gun owners. Dems will never cross the NRA because they know full well that many of their own constituents are card carrying gun owners and Harry Reid is one of them. It's not going to happen! no matter how much Dems toot the horn of trying to reign in guns. Are these people the backwards people you were referring to?

We are dealing with those hopeless lost minds and souls.

You are describing Washington to a tee.

Death cultists still insist on objectifying gun victims as if they're no more than distant statistics, somebody else's problem.

These fellow Americans: mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, sisters, brothers, friends, and colleagues were once warm, beating hearts, each with more hopes, dreams and ambitions for this world than all the flaccid gun fantasists combined.

Shame on you!

Kabukilover, utter nonsensical deflection tactic: pass the blame.

Torafusu, more ad hominem mumbo-jumbo.

Refer back to the discussion about the mental health of the perpetrators, the drugs(meds) they were on, and let's not neglect the fact that they also knew doing violent acts to others is illegal regardless of the instrument used.

Even the Bureau of Justice Statistics clearly reports the drastic reduction of firearm murders since 1992.

Yabits, if Obama respects the Constitution, as you seem to believe,

Let's see. I wrote the phrase -- "I wish President Obama would use a little of that constitutional scholar background to champion a creative solution via the "well-regulated militia" clause in the second amendment." -- just yesterday. Since I am intimately connected with the writer, I am familiar with his original intent. It never ceases to amaze me how people who claim to be able to discern the intent of people dead well over 200 years can't even get yesterday's writing correctly.

These gun fetishists are what I would term "constitutional ayatollahs" -- in that they think their interpretation of the Constitution is the only correct one, and that anyone who does not interpret things the way they do does not respect the document. It's quite a self-serving and arrogant position. I think anyone who spends their life studying the document -- and here I would cite Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar as one of my favorite sources -- does imply a kind of respect.

Who are the militia? WE THE PEOPLE! “Who are we the militia? Are they not ourselves?

One could replace "militia" with "jury" and come away with the same understanding. I do not believe the Founders were dumb enough to have advocated arming PEOPLE who they (or their fellow citizens) found were irresponsible. Oh, were the militia the people who did not want to bear arms? No. And keep in mind that the second amendment specifies a "well-regulated militia." That means it's not just a bunch of people each deciding for himself what that means. That's the opposite of well-regulated. The chaos we have today with many thousands of guns in the hands of irresponsible people is contrary to the Founders' intent. And it's the NRA that has enabled that outcome more than any other group.

did any of you notice that the NRA recently spoke out against open-carry supporters (legally) walking into coffee shops and restaurants with rifles slung over their shoulders?

LOL!! Yes, I recently saw an NRA sign on an open and empty cow corral saying, "Please come home, cows....and please close the gate while you're at it." The people walking around in shops, restaurants, and the local Home Depot are not the well-regulated militia the Founders intended. They more closely resemble irresponsible children, and their toys need to be taken away from them.

But we'll have another high-profile shooting in a matter of days. The NRA's efforts at stopping any measure that would keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people will continue to bear fruit.

Gun homicides in the England on a per capita basis are roughly 1% of gun homicides in the U.S.A. on a per capita basis. Gun control laws have proven quite effective where J.M. Barrie wrote about that magical (and darkly violent) land past the second star to the right (where children never grow up).

Apparently he wants our laws....

From the ninemsn site.....'He pointed out that Australia hadn’t had a single mass shooting since the crackdown on gun violence in the wake of 1996’s Port Arthur shootings'

It seems to be quite difficult to push laws that would curtail such violence through the American system of government. A real shame....

You may START the " Soul Searching " in your OWN city of Chicago, where THIRTY PEOPLE were shot JUST LAST weekend (according to this very Media that we all believe is reporting accurately).

Yabits, I don't really care what the Yale prof has to say. However, I do care what Tench Coxe had to say on the matter. Never heard of him have you? It's very clear to understand the most prolific contemporary writer on the Right to Bear Arms.

I would rather see incumbent politicians, corporate personhood, derivative banking and the police forces use of military hardware banned before we start confiscating guns. If the former problem remains, then so will our guns.

However, I do care what Tench Coxe had to say on the matter. Never heard of him have you? It's very clear to understand the most prolific contemporary writer on the Right to Bear Arms.

Unlike you, I will read or listen to what anyone has to say on the matter. I won't form an opinion by shutting other sides to an argument out. This is what the elitists and they ayatollahs do -- legends in their own minds, proud at who's ideas they shut out.

Prof. Reed has a few references to Coxe in his book on the Constitution. I guess that's what makes folks like Reed "scholarly" -- they don't presume to have the complete truth and that anyone who doesn't agree with them doesn't respect the Constitution.

Yabits, seriously??? You read and listen to anyone without forming an opinion or shutting other sides out? Have you been on the road to Damascus? Cuz that does NOT resemble the previous poster by the moniker "yabits".

If you honestly want to know about Tench Coxe, there's a link.

He experienced disarmament under the British. His words hold weight. Can't say the same for your supposed "constitutional scholar" who rules by Executive Order, like a dictator.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm

That is crazy. And your comparison of this and the "stop and frisk" policy in NYC and the 4th Amendment is simply foolish

Really crazy Jerseyboy? So you would be willing to raise the minimum drinking age to 30 if that saved a family of four in the US? I don't know to many people that would be willing to raise the drinking age to 30 if it reduced the number of deaths caused by alcohol by four people.

My comparison is not foolish at all, 'joe the plumber' was talking about constitutional rights, he was not talking only about 2nd amendment rights but all of them. The stop and frisk policy, violation of 4th amendment rights, captured over 200 firearms that were being illegally carried in NYC. Is it really unrealistic to say that policy probably did in fact save some lives? If so would you be willing to trade your 4th amendment rights for those lives? If not would it not be fair to say that you are saying that your rights trump their lives?

And the 4th Amendment argument is not analogous as being in favor of strong 4th Amendment protections (as I am) does not lead to mass murder

Graham - I disagree, law enforcement does stop and frisk for the purpose of finding weapons, especially on teenagers, and drugs. If we got rid of the 4th amendment law enforcement would be able to setup road blocks at the state borders to enforce state gun laws and other state laws in fact they would be able to do it by city even. Do you disagree that the movement of weapons across state lines or even city lines is a significant contributor to violence in places like Chicago, Baltimore, NYC, Detroit, LA, Oakland, New Orleans?

Heck a lot of states don't do roadblocks to check for drunk drivers because they are afraid of the 4th amendment. How many lives could be saved by doing road blocks to check for drunk drivers in the US? Is not saving their lives worth more than your 4th amendment rights?

You read and listen to anyone without forming an opinion or shutting other sides out?

I will read and listen to anyone, without shutting them out, prior to forming an opinion.

He experienced disarmament under the British. His words hold weight. Can't say the same for your supposed "constitutional scholar" who rules by Executive Order, like a dictator.

First, I would have to believe that Coxe was not the only person to have experienced disarmament under the British. Second, not all those who experienced disarmament would reach the same opinion that Coxe did. You happen to think Coxe is the end-all because his opinions line up with yours. I respect Reed because he is able to show a grasp for multiple sides to an issue.

Yes it is the nature of dictators to ask for soul-searching, isn't it? I get confused at times how members of the loony right portray the president: First he's weak, and the next moment he's a brutal dictator.

Heck a lot of states don't do roadblocks to check for drunk drivers because they are afraid of the 4th amendment.

Huh? And so the states that do roadblocks have managed to get beyond their fears. Or they realize that the fears are irrational and unfounded from the start. That's what the gun fetishists have tried to sell all along: Fear. But, as a result of the NRA's efforts, Americans have more fear now because nobody knows when they will be the next ones in the line of fire when some disgruntled or disturbed individual enters a public place and begins shooting.

Huh? And so the states that do roadblocks have managed to get beyond their fears.

I know it is weird, to be fair some of the states in their state constitution have stronger 4th amendment rights in them and so any checkpoint would be 'illegal'.

Another school shooting yesterday, this time in Oregon. It is time for a cowardly Congress to act. SHAMEFULLY, there have been 74 school shootings since 20 children and 6 staff members were murdered at Sandy Hook. Some of you may have seen the map showing the locations of those shootings, which have occurred across our nation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/06/10/map-at-least-74-school-shootings-since-newtown/ Yesterday, President Obama said, "If public opinion does not demand change in Congress, it will not change." It is up to us to make it happen.

Amen. Protect Our Children, Not Guns!!

Yabits, you have quite the trail of posts on here proving exactly the opposite.

And I listened (and laughed) at the idea that the NRA is showing responsibility by pooh-poohing those carrying weapons in public places like stores and restaurants. I did find that quite funny, and I'm glad I could return the humor.

Your claim to "prove the opposite" takes the absurd position that just because I'll listen to an argument it means I have to accept it. What I accept is the fact that there are morons with guns out there -- thank you, NRA -- and that many like to walk around in public places showing them off. It's nice to know where morons stand on things. Yes, there are people who own guns who are not morons. But it's relatively few who would support taking guns away from incompetent idiots who are just an accident (or worse) waiting to happen. Nope, according to the NRA, every irresponsible idiot who wants a gun should be able to have one.

A person needs 2 or 3 character references for a job, but zero for obtaining the easiest means to kill people, and with no other real purpose other than that -- outside of the occasional hunter.

Some people are callous enough to keep their interpretation of the second amendment intact despite the image of 20 little kids blown to pieces by the son of a gun lover. Others might come to the conclusion that the founding fathers could not have intended these kinds of outcomes. (At least not in the same way they intended slaveholding.) Could they have made two terrible blunders?

Note that I have not anywhere come out in opposition to guns themselves. (I have always been opposed to idiots in a lot of things, but especially as it regards their "right" to have guns.). I believe responsible citizens should have them if they so desire. The bottom part of that "responsible" line is the person who is still smart enough to realize the serious responsibility that gun ownership entails and has doubts if they can live up to it. Below that line, you've got the people who should only be around guns under careful adult supervision.

Guns don't kill people do!!

Horizon360 puts it in a nutshell excellent observation Great comment !

Random gun rage in America will continue to increase and national soul searching won't halt the rising tide. The modern shift to cyber socialization from traditional interpersonal relations will progressively expand the numbers of mentally unbalanced individuals without sufficient access to therapeutic human contacts. Isolated, socially frustrated and communicationally challenged young humans are far more likely to become extremists willing to trade their lives for a brief experience of "counting" for something in their personal 'me' versus "them" existential struggle.Such people are a product of their environment. Americans must accept the collateral consequences of maintaining a domestic arms bazaar. If the possession of projectile weaponry is a freedom which citizens insist on by constitutional guarantee then higher risks of rampage and impulse shootings will forever be part of that bargain. Perhaps the saddest commentary on all of this is that the NRA zealously exploits its political influence to deepen divisions between blue and red states by shamelessly hyping gun ownership (and themselves) as symbols of patriotism.

bass4funkJun. 11, 2014 - 07:50PM JST

@global

As long as Karl Rove and the TEAPUBLICANS are in power, the NRA will stay for gun rights. We need to wake up for change, guys.

What does Rove have to do with the gun rights issue?

Texas and RED states (the South) are filled with corruptions of law enforcement and legal systems.

If that's the case, don't even step foot in Washington.

Hope you remember many sad stories in US history. The states are filled with backward thinkers and poor education standards.

So you're saying liberals don't carry guns or use them ever. You have over 29 million registered Democrat and liberal gun owners. Dems will never cross the NRA because they know full well that many of their own constituents are card carrying gun owners and Harry Reid is one of them. It's not going to happen! no matter how much Dems toot the horn of trying to reign in guns. Are these people the backwards people you were referring to?

We are dealing with those hopeless lost minds and souls.

You are describing Washington to a tee.

Well, Karl Rove is a big figure in American politics for years. He has been the biggest gun advocate WITH NRA Too bad you do not know, bass. You are missing an American politics #101.

You may want to tell Karl Rove not to step foot in Washington.

What happened yesterday in Virginia primary?

bass4funkJun. 11, 2014 - 07:50PM JST

@global

As long as Karl Rove and the TEAPUBLICANS are in power, the NRA will stay for gun rights. We need to wake up for change, guys.

What does Rove have to do with the gun rights issue?

Texas and RED states (the South) are filled with corruptions of law enforcement and legal systems.

If that's the case, don't even step foot in Washington.

Hope you remember many sad stories in US history. The states are filled with backward thinkers and poor education standards.

So you're saying liberals don't carry guns or use them ever. You have over 29 million registered Democrat and liberal gun owners. Dems will never cross the NRA because they know full well that many of their own constituents are card carrying gun owners and Harry Reid is one of them. It's not going to happen! no matter how much Dems toot the horn of trying to reign in guns. Are these people the backwards people you were referring to?

We are dealing with those hopeless lost minds and souls.

You are describing Washington to a tee.

Well, Karl Rove is a big figure in American politics for years. He has been the biggest gun advocate WITH NRA Too bad you do not know, bass. You are missing an American politics #101.

You may want to tell Karl Rove not to step foot in Washington.

What happened yesterday in Virginia primary?

Obama urges national soul searching over gun violence

Notice Obama is not urging a repeal of the second amendment to the US Constitution.

Facts are things that Obama prefers to ignore but the fact is school shootings in the U.S. have gone DOWN since 1992, not up.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/06/11/are-school-homicides-becoming-the-norm#fold

We are the only developed country on earth where this happens

Obama once again proves he's disconnected from reality when he said this only happens here in America. The worst mass shooting that ever occurred took place in Norway. There was also a shooting in Canada this month as well. Perhaps Obama doesn't consider Canada and Norway developed countries.

Bottom line: Liberals are afraid of freedom. They are more comfortable with government making their decisions for them. They should just turn themselves in to their local prison. Problem solved.

Texas A&M AggieJun. 12, 2014 - 08:26AM JST

Bottom line: Liberals are afraid of freedom

This is a typical south response I may say. That's why you are called backward thinkers by many.

Whoat? This is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Are you American? You are twisting the truth.

The other side of coin of FREEDOM is a personal responsibility. Freedom does not come as free as you know. You are always challenged to make a right decision for every action you take for outcome. In gun control issue, Americans are failing to do this.

Of course Obama is going to try to blame this on the NRA and/or the republicans. He has to pass the buck to someone when in truth there have been more mass killings held under his presidency than any prior administration.

http://rt.com/usa/ho...ngs-triple-519/

From 2009 to 2012, 404 people were shot and 207 killed, according to the US Department of Justice. From 2000 to 2008, 324 people were shot and 145 were killed.

Guns don't kill people do!!

And people with guns do so terrifyingly efficient!

It is not so much a problem of proliferation of guns but one of the proliferation of people who love guns that plagues the US.

If you believe you need to threaten others with a killing tool in order to maintain your freedom then I sincerely doubt you've understood the concept of freedom in a democratic civil society of the 21st Century.

Texas A&M Aggie writes in one post:

"Facts are things that Obama prefers to ignore but the fact is school shootings in the U.S. have gone DOWN since 1992, not up."

...and follows up in another:

"when in truth there have been more mass killings held under his presidency than any prior administration."

Now, I know how a mass can be held, but how does one hold a mass killing?

Perhaps we've found the source of the infamous "Aggie jokes" one often hears in those parts. No, liberals don't hate liberty; we just deplore what idiots do with it.

Note the shootings mentioned in this story all took place in Blue States (Washington, Oregon, Calif., Conn.). What's more, not one person involved in these shootings have been connected to the NRA. Liberalism is a mental disorder.

WA4TKGJun. 11, 2014 - 08:27PM JST

You may START the " Soul Searching " in your OWN city of Chicago, where THIRTY PEOPLE were shot JUST LAST weekend (according to this very Media that we all believe is reporting accurately).

If you are referring "You" to Barack, here is something you may want to read.

Texas A&M AggieJun. 12, 2014 - 10:42AM JST

Of course Obama is going to try to blame this on the NRA and/or the republicans. He has to pass the buck to someone when in truth there have been more mass killings held under his presidency than any prior administration.

Why are you attacking Obama? You are shifting a blame to someone else. The truth is you are not doing anything for you and your love ones. You do nothing but "blah, blah, blah" lip service to society. We want your action instead. Take responsibility as American if you talk about Freedom.

My biggest frustration is that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. signed by Barack Obama

Are you willing to take action to stop this nonsense with us?

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

And I suppose you own guns to defend your freedom from mentally disordered fellow citizens?

Judging from how some people are arguing here I would do everything to keep them from owning a gun... in order to defend my freedom.

Texas A&M AggieJun. 12, 2014 - 11:14AM JST

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

Bhaha. Again, this is a typical south response. You do not understand the difference in meaning between Liberalism and Liberal. Unbelievable!!

I have done this many times but let me tell you I am very proud to be a Liberal. Here it is.

If by a LIBERAL they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a LIBERAL. By John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage

Gun fetishists' denial and mendacity knows no bounds.

Now some shootings on school premises are even branded "fake school shootings."

http://www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jun/12/gun-lobby-tactic-redefining-school-shootings

If you look at crime statistics in America, you will see that incidences of violent crime have fallen by more than 1/3 over the last 40 years, and this includes gun violence. Despite the school shootings, and headline stories we read in the papers, America has been becoming more and more safe.

What I dislike is the media sharks who sniff around for blood, and who live for stories like school shootings and other violence. While violent crime has decreased more than a third in recent years, new stories reporting violent crimes have increased ten-fold over the same period. One of the main reasons things like school shootings and the like happen is because the shooters want their actions and names to be heard, and the media, who profit more from bloodshed than firearms companies, are happy to oblige them.

Whenever I see a headline about a school shooting or other act of senseless violence, I will not read the article. I don't want to know anything about the shooter, or his deranged life. But to the media, "if it bleeds, it leads".

Texas A&M AggieJun. 11, 2014 - 11:23AM JST "We here in Texas support our right to keep and bear arms. All the mass killings dating back to Columbine were at the hands of either liberals or those associated with pro-liberal causes. Liberalism is a mental disease."

Wow, I must say that it is quite a surprise to have the opportunity to listen to the "voice of Texas" directly here, on a news source that is in Japan. I am really impressed that you have taken the time to read articles outside your state, let alone country and comment so that we can understand what you are thinking. And thank you for linking one of several of my state of origin's most tragic mass murders to liberal causes. If you remember correctly, the accident occured on April 20.... chosen as the birthday for ....who was it... oh, yes....... that great Anti-leftist, Commie hating...dictator....NOT a liberal!!!!

Since you did bring up "a" mass murder in "Norway," I was keen to see the list of school shootings world-wide. It does happen.....far more in the US of A than in any other country. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

Looking forward to more of your direct reports from that great state of Texas....where the liberal city of Austin is.

yabits:

A person needs 2 or 3 character references for a job, but zero for obtaining the easiest means to kill people, and with no other real purpose other than that -- outside of the occasional hunter.

You claim you'll read or listen to anyone, and yet you've clearly never read or listened to my own experience with using a gun in self-defense, regardless of the many times I've posted it on JT. And I didn't kill the guy. I didn't even have to fire the weapon. The instant he realized his life was in danger, he let go of the strap he had around my neck and ran off into the night.

globalwatcher:

SHAMEFULLY, there have been 74 school shootings since 20 children and 6 staff members were murdered at Sandy Hook.

Already debunked by none other than CNN, which leans far more to NPR than to NRA. The source for the "74" number was none other than Bloomberg's myopically anti-gun group. They used the the same long-debunked tactics the CDC used years ago when trying to hype guns as the #1 cause of death for children: By counting gang activity. By counting suicides. By counting shootings in self-defense as homicides. Etc., etc.

CNN found the true number to be 15. I'm sure you'll respond with "Fifteen is still too many." And yes, it is. But if 15 is too many, why lie and say it's 74? Same reason the IPCC scientists over-hyped the threat of Man-Made Global Climate Change: To scare the public into giving them more money and more power.

So why does it seem like mass shootings are increasing? Here's an article that offers some possible answers: http://spectator.org/articles/59521/there-really-epidemic-mass-shootings

My biggest frustration is that this society has not been willing to take some basic steps to keep guns out of hands of people who can do just unbelievable damage. signed by Barack Obama

"I don't believe people should own guns." - Barack Obama

SenseNotSoCommon:

Gun fetishists' denial and mendacity knows no bounds. Now some shootings on school premises are even branded "fake school shootings."

Did you make the same complaint when reactionary Leftist rag Mother Jones tried to claim that the presence of legally-owned guns have never stopped a mass shooting... by discounting all of the times a legal gun owner stopped a mass shooting?

You claim you'll read or listen to anyone, and yet you've clearly never read or listened to my own experience with using a gun in self-defense, regardless of the many times I've posted it on JT. And I didn't kill the guy. I didn't even have to fire the weapon. The instant he realized his life was in danger, he let go of the strap he had around my neck and ran off into the night.

Of course I have listened to it, and accept that it happened exactly as you described it. No reasonable person would take an anecdote and attempt to use it to rationalize a state or national policy on gun-ownership -- at least without asking some very important, "soul-searching" questions. Before I cite a few of them, I will repeat my support for the second amendment as a right of responsible citizens to obtain firearms and keep them for as long as they are responsible citizens. Companies try to determine that people applying for a job will be responsible employees by doing background checks which usually include at least three character references. (Back in the Founders' days, there was far less anonymity , and a man's reputation was more clearly established in his community. They knew who couldn't be trusted with guns. At least, they identified certain "types" for whom the second amendment clearly did not apply. So much for their intent of it as a "universal god-given right." )

As to the questions, here are a few:

You allowed your attacker to get close enough to you to put a strap around your neck. Did having a gun give you a false sense of confidence which allowed you to put yourself in that situation? Could a reasonable person come to a conclusion that guns would give some people a false sense of security?

With the advantage to the attacker, he could just as easily have knocked you unconscious with a blow to the head as it was to put a strap around your neck. Once knocked out, he would find your gun along with your money and now society has to deal with a criminal who is armed with more than a strap, thanks to you. You don't see that? Perhaps the guy who attacked you could have successfully attacked one of your gun-toting comrades, got his gun and, instead of wasting time with a strap, simply shot you. Now he's got two guns.

Would a properly trained person not carrying a gun been able to fend off the attack? I would argue that a properly trained person would have been far more aware of the potential danger, and prepared for it, and never allowed it to get to the point that you did. Not having a gun provides a tremendous incentive to staying alert and on guard.

That's the problem with these "neat" little anecdotes: they tend to unravel once serious questions are asked. It also shows that the conservative mindset is primarily self-centered. Your primary concern is you. Given the above, the scenario could have turned out differently, with you knocked out and possibly killed, and your attacker going on a rampage with your gun killing others. You don't seem to care about that very possible outcome at all. You'll pack your gun and take your chances. It's not what I would call "responsible," and you might well fear that many other Americans could agree with that.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings

"gun-free" Chicago has far more deaths and injuries by itself than all gun damage by Lib nutters on drugs.

yabits:

Of course I have listened to it, and accept that it happened exactly as you described it.

Okay, but you just stated in your previous post that there is "no other real purpose" of a gun than to kill people. You didn't allow any leeway - "outside of the occasional hunter."

The problem with your statement is that guns do have a purpose outside of killing people and hunting. And yes, even aside from punching holes in paper targets. Guns are used in self-defense tens of thousands of times a year, and rarely do they result in death. In most cases (such as mine) the gun does not even have to be fired. Just the perpetrator of the crime realizing that their victim is not a victim after all is enough to end their activity.

Now, on to your questions...

1: The attacker snuck up on me. I had no idea he was there until the strap passed by my eyes.

2a: Yes, the attacker could have knocked me unconscious. Perhaps he wanted me conscious for some reason? Such as making me go to the nearest ATM and withdraw a large amount of cash, which is a very common robbery technique here in America.

2b: I was alone. But if he had taken a gun-toting friend by surprise and disarmed him or her, that would have given me far more than enough time to drop my bags of groceries and draw my weapon, aim, and fire at him.

3: He had by my neck, from behind, and off balance. I had no leverage, no access to him, and no oxygen. Can you think of a method to defend myself in that situation? Can you imagine the training required to prepare myself for just that moment? And considering all of the different methods and variations used by the hundreds of thousands of violent criminals in this country, can you imagine the training required to prepare myself for all of those scenarios? Who has the time and money for such training, besides Batman?

Now imagine a woman in that same situation. Being an average of 5 inches shorter, and 75 pounds lighter than me, making her much smaller, lighter, and weaker than the man who attacked me. Women are easier targets than men in America (but they're not attacked as often as in Australia, where they're not allowed to have any handguns), and you're indicating that you would consider women "irresponsible" if they used a weapon that would remove their disadvantage. Wow, so you're a misogynist too.

Your primary concern is you.

No $#... I'm the only me I've got.

Given the above, the scenario could have turned out differently, with you knocked out and possibly killed, and your attacker going on a rampage with your gun killing others. You don't seem to care about that very possible outcome at all.

The odds of it are quite low, frankly. The percentages of muggings/robberies that involve knocking the person unconscious (especially in an area where witnesses are likely if you stay there for more than a moment, such as the grocery store parking lot where I was attacked) are in the single digits or have the decimal point in front of the number, if I remember correctly.

Before I cite a few of them, I will repeat my support for the second amendment as a right of responsible citizens to obtain firearms and keep them for as long as they are responsible citizens.

You'll pack your gun and take your chances. It's not what I would call "responsible,"

You've contradicted yourself again, yabits. It sounds like you support the Second Amendment right of citizens, unless they actually practice those rights. Can't have it both ways.

The Vegas odds are vastly in my favor. You can sit there, in the comfort of your insulated little world, and propose all sorts of scenarios and defenses you've seen in movies. But since I've actually survived an attack, I'll keep doing what has been proven to work.

By the way... how did you get the indented paragraphs in your questions?

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/99999999/SPECIAL01/120606001 (Detroit crime map -long download)

UPDATE, March 1, 2014: This map is no longer being updated due to the Detroit Police Department's cessation of crime summary reports.

In Detroit proper you are looking at 1-2hrs for the police to arrive --> that's if they come at all. Sadly there is so much crime that they choose to not even report it -it seems. Lib City.

You've contradicted yourself again, yabits. It sounds like you support the Second Amendment right of citizens, unless they actually practice those rights. Can't have it both ways.

There is no contradiction. I also support the police carrying weapons. However, when a police officer as much as draws his/her weapon against a member of the public, there must a review to ensure he/she acted properly. While an officer's judgment at the time is given some leeway, society can't simply sit back and assume that all officers will use good judgment at the critical times when good judgment is most required.

I can't think of a more awful scenario for a law enforcement officer (and for society) than to have his weapon taken from him and used against others. In your personal scenario, the worst outcome would have been for the criminal to take your weapon. Whether or not you survived the attack would have been lower on the scale of importance. I contend that the personal gun owner who feels his life trumps the lives of other members of society stands a very high risk of making irresponsible decisions.

As you did not attempt to respond to the question which asked: "Did having a gun give you a false sense of security which allowed you to put yourself in the situation you did?" (Would you have felt safe walking alone in that place without a weapon?) Was the trip necessary at that time? I am still deeply incredulous how you put yourself on a path that enabled someone to sneak up on you like that. I ask those questions because, in my view, your primary responsibility at that time was to protect your weapon not yourself.

When I first purchased a motorcycle back in the early 1970s, a veteran Navy rider shared with me his opinion that whenever a motorcycle was involved in an accident, 99% of the time it was the motorcyclist's fault. Naturally, I rejected his argument, and spent a lot of time putting scenarios to him, just as you are trying to do here.

Over time, and with more experience on a bike, I came to begrudgingly concede his point: A motorcycle is quick enough and maneuverable enough for a responsible and aware rider to avoid nearly every situation. More importantly, my acceptance of his point meant that I rode my motorcycle with a far higher sense of responsibility than I ever did before. (That may have been his intent all along.) I feel the same way about citizens carrying weapons: They have a far higher level of responsibility not to put themselves in situations where their weapons could be taken from them and used against others.

You misunderstood the situation where I wrote about your gun-toting "comrade". I meant a person who shares your self-centered viewpoint and who was successfully attacked, and his weapon taken, hours or days before the attacker planned his attack on you. I won't go at great length into the contradictions in your story, other than to point out that a person who is choking a person with a strap isn't going to be very likely to get him to an ATM, any more than if he knocked him over the head. Something isn't right there. Also, your claim that you had no access: Baloney. Unless your attacker was using a robot, he was at the other end of that strap.

Suffice to say that a self-centered person will find a way to interpret or bend any story in a way to make whatever decisions he makes into the right ones.

"We are the only developed country on earth where this happens" No, Mr Obama, that is not true. I guess you forgot about the guy who killed over 100 in Norway a few years ago, and that is only one example.

The potus jumps from one political talking point to the other, without ever looking in the mirror. "Soul searching" -- great idea. How about some soul-searching about the current unmanagable immigrant flood, about the Benghazi disaster and your claim that it was caused by a "video", about releasing terrorists from Guantanamo in exhange for a deserter, about your use of the IRS as a political Gestapo to harras your political opponents, about the running disaster of Obamacare... shall I go on?

Instead, he soul-searches one convenient political talking point after another, as if still running for election. Sheesh.