You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 4:32 p.m.

Violence becoming too accepted in American culture

By Letters to the Editor

America has crumbled into a culture of evil. Where anything is tolerated as long as there is a profit to be made. We have become a nation that glorifies war and guns; we give the military free access to our schools where they romanticize military righteousness. We have become addicted to violence on television, movies and disturbing TV games.

A culture that condones killing of children and teaches killing to be acceptable. Our government and its leaders have done nothing for years, and could have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre and others if they had stood up to the NRA and the Gun Lobby. Why does the government that is supposed to represent the people and especially its children allow a group of gun-totting cowboys to dictate policy and how we should live?

Assault weapons like the semi-automatic Bushmaster 223, Glock and Sig-Sauer Pistols, and any weapons used in the U.S. military should not be allowed for personal use. And should not be sold in any gun shop in the U.S. We must have gun control and find far better people than what we have allowed to devastate our country.

In Australia in 1996, 35 people were shot to death by a mentally deranged shooter. Unlike the U.S., it took their government just 12 days to put through a strong gun law bill that the people demanded. There hasn’t been a mass shooting since.

The following statistics illustrate what we have become. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence found in one year guns killed 17 people in Finland, 35 in Australia, 39 in Britain, 60 in Spain, 194 in Germany, 200 in Canada and 9,484 in the U.S. The gun control lobbyists and the NRA must be stopped in their reckless desire to arm America.

“What gift has Providence bestowed on man, that is so dear to him as his children.” from Cicero

Pat R. O’Malley Ann Arbor



Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 5:33 p.m.

Hmm, even famously liberal novelist Stephen King says that claim about America's violence culture is bunkum. (he used another term in his essay "GUNS" but I can't use it here). And King isn't the only one. It's a myth: one promoted out of ignorance, mostly - but sometimes intentionally by extremist anti-gun groups like the Brady Center (aka, The Brady Bunch). Picking other countries which are much smaller than the U.S. to make their total stats look good by comparison is another manipulative trick. That, and using redefinitions of terms like "number of people killed" and IMPLYING they are valid or even applicable are outright dishonest and the mark of an ideologue. How can we believe that people using these ploys have the best interest of the American people at heart? Among those kind are Barack Obama - who I stupidly voted for twice. Just pointing out: those mass shootings in which semi-auto "military style" rifles were used all involved massive lapses with ALSO involved massive carelessness on the part of school authorities, theater owners, law enforcement, and even common sense. It's virtually impossible to openly transport a dangerous looking rifle w/o being seen and reported (or stopped). In the movie "Signs"- the whole world chatters about crop circles but never catches on that crop circles are sign posts for alien invasion. - THAT KIND of "not noticing" or not understanding is why we've had 2 generations of gun control effort w/o accomplishing anything. Eventually, the public realizes that these cyclical hysterical screams for more government control are just that. The NRA was just a giant gun & hunting club until the attacks on the 2nd Amendment began. They reacted in defense, that's all the NRA has done for 2 generations - but liars call them evil.


Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 2:42 p.m.

Hollywood pushes a "Violent/romantic kill someone with a gun culture" to make money - liberals silent. Blacks push a "violent gangster gun culture" to make drug money- Liberals silent This administration as provided guns to hundreds of foreign groups to kill people. - Liberals silent Criminals kill people every day - Liberals silent A law abiding citizen owns a gun - Liberals scream "Grab it!"

buvda fray

Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 3:09 p.m.

Headline: Violence becoming to accepted in American Culture. Agree. Substance of article: Disagree. Gun lovers and gun haters pick on each other incessantly. Let's be civil, shall we? Neither brand of tantrum will change anything. Evildoers still do evil in 2013 and if they come in my house I won't be a defenseless target. Wishing things to be different and describing an idyllic society derived from fantasy are the stuff of meaningless drivel in politics, on "news" programs and in article comments.

Ron Smith

Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:33 p.m.

Pat, After Columbine, the wonderful President Bill Clinton called for armed security in our nation's schools. The NRA supported the proposal then. It was not implemented in any meaningful way, but interestingly, no one (certainly not in the media) called the President a "gun-toting cowboy" or that he "glorified guns". Now we have another sad shooting of children. The NRA again proposed armed security in schools to attempt to deter violence against the defenseless. I won't bore you with the silly charges and accusations leveled against them, but I have this question. Why can we demand fire sprinklers, extinguishers, alarms and drills for a fire threat which has not (to my knowledge) caused the death of any child in school for 50 years, but refuse to provide armed security to deter a threat which has? Respectfully,


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:35 p.m.

Lack of disipline on the parents end... Am I the only one who can see that since whooping a child is illegal crime rate with young kids (like the 15 year old who killed his fam a few days ago) has been going crazzy


Wed, Feb 20, 2013 : 8:10 p.m.

Well you will just have the problems you have today lol


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 11:46 p.m.

I would argue that based on research, whooping a child promotes violence in them. There are many alternative forms of discipline that are effective when used consistently and if the parent is willing to put in the extra time in raising their child. Are there more people commiting acts of violence now than forty years ago or do we just have a higher population and more publicity? I would also argue that a culture that accepts or promotes any form of violence against others, including children, except for justifiable defensive reasons, will be more violent. Glorifying the violence takes it to another level. Some parents are able to use physical discipline while always controlling their anger but, there is a fine line. Our child abuse and domestic violence rates are nothing to be proud of. Also, I don't think that whooping your own child is illegal, at least in this area. It usually takes a lot more than that for CPS to act. And, from what I have seen in social media and comments like this, the majority of people not only accept it as a form of discipline but, also currently use it, at least on occasion. Discipline is important but I think are more effective and culturally beneficial and responsible ways to train a child how to behave, respect, be responsible, and interact with others. But, I would not judge a parent who spanked their child for running into traffic or slapped their hand for playing with an electrical socket. Parenting is not an easy job and I think it is too easy for some to make a blanket statement blaming current parents for all of our cultural issues. The majority of parents out there are dedicated, responsible, love and prioritize their children and want to make the right choices. Most kids in this country turn out pretty well.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:42 p.m.

I do not understand how someone can preach about the gun violence in another country. How does anyone die from a gunshot in Britain? How does the violent crime rate reflect from there to here? I do know, and I do not like their rates. How come rape, robberies & murder went up in the land down under after their ban? How come I walk down the street gun showing and nothing happens? How come, guns were taken away in Rwanda in 1979 and 800k were slaughtered? BTW Decree-Law No. 12, 1979 in which Owners must justify the need, and gave the state confiscation powers How come in Norway which has a VERY strict gun laws, so strict, 75 people were slaughtered, not even the police could stop him? What about ball bats and hammers? If it is not guns, it will be survival of the fittest Free men own guns, SLAVES do not.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:25 p.m.

Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, is a con man. He has spent decades enriching himself, his fellow NRA executives and the organization's board members by doing what he does best: shamelessly mainstreaming conspiracy theories that lead an increasingly paranoid subset of Americans (the percent of households owning guns has declined dramatically over the past generation) to arm themselves to the teeth, while ensuring any laws that might prevent the horrifying tragedy that occurred in Newtown, CT. last month are unable to make it through Congress. LaPierre talks of gun confiscation being just around the corner, when he knows no such thing would ever happen in the United States. The irredeemably violent make good customers too, don't you know? So whether the NRA is working to restore gun rights to violent felons, protect the ability of terrorists, drug kingpins and serial domestic abusers to purchase high-capacity clips at gun shows, or fighting for military style weapons to be available to the Jared Loughners, John Patrick Bedells and James Holmes' of the world, you can bet that whatever comes out of LaPierre's mouth, his only interest is protecting the real clients of today's NRA: arms dealers. This is made crystal-clear by the fact that the NRA's own membership, many of whom joined only because of an outdated understanding of what the leadership of this organization actually stands for, agree with most Americans that our gun laws should protect our families, and not the financial interests of a clique of craven elites.


Tue, Jan 29, 2013 : 5:59 p.m.

If all your wild negative claims about the NRA are true - then the NRA is nothing to worry about, right? If 4 million NRA members "all agree" that new gun laws are needed and/or would solve the problem of a score of school shootings over a 10 year period: then the NRA couldn't KEEP those 4 million members, now could it? ACTUAL HISTORY: The NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the 1934 National Firearms Act, the first major gun control legislation in the United States. At the time, the NRA supported the act without studying its impact on the second amendment, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The NRA doesn't sound like a crazy man's fraud to anyone but people like you: gun phobic liberals. Please stop using public forums to spread your liberal psych ops. You violate standards of honesty and moral decency by doing so. :-)


Sat, Jan 26, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.

Poor ol' Wayne LaPierre. Every time I see the guy on TV, he has the same unhappy demeanor. He spouts the same claptrap with a hangdog "Why me?" expression on his face. He should hang up the NRA gig and do something he actually likes. Guess it's no fun being the shill for the US gun industry, which is really all the NRA is.

Boo Radley

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 10:04 p.m.

"...while ensuring any laws that might prevent the horrifying tragedy that occurred in Newtown, CT. last month are unable to make it through Congress." What many fail to grasp is that there is no such thing as a law that might have prevented the tragedy in CT.

Linda Peck

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:26 p.m.

I agree with you Pat O'Malley. That is not the whole story, but it is sure the story in the entertainment media, the government's lack of backbone, and the parents who buy into this evil part of our culture. There are many parents living in USA who don't give their children ugly video games to play with most of their waking hours, but for the rest? What help is there for such a trend? Who is going to turn this ship around?


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 7:07 p.m.

dsponini, so do other parts of the world. Contrary to popular belief, guns are available in both the UK and Australia. Canada is actually the most comparable to the US. They have an extremely high ration of guns to population, not nearly as high as the US, but have an extremely low number of gun murders every year. It's not the gun that causes these crimes. Where there are guns there will always be gun murders but there's some other factor that is causing people to snap and commit these crimes that does not exist in places like Canada.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:50 p.m.

@ hail...exactly...yes these movies, games are available to all countries in the rest of the world...what's the difference? The USA has guns that are readily available!


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:51 p.m.

Linda, these games are available in most cultures around the world - specifically in the UK. These are not the causes or you'd see the same events happening everywhere.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:54 p.m.

Violence has always been a part of every culture. From little boys running around with their toy guns while playing cowboys and Indians, to gladiators in the Colosseum - none of this is new. What has chanced in the last decade or so is America's obsession with individual fame. Our television screens are jam-packed with trashy reality shows, kids are putting ridiculous stunts on youtube hoping to be a star, and we try to get thousands of followers for our 140-character thoughts. On top of that, we have computer applications to broadcast how popular we are and what exciting lives we live. Children who grew up with the idea that they could be "whatever they want to be" are realizing that isn't quite true. And now we are told that we can all be famous. We don't have to be a famous actor in Hollywood to get attention anymore. We can all be a reality star, or a youtube star, or a local hero. For a person who is sick in the head and lonely, who feels irrelevant - what does this type of culture do to them? How are they going to get their names and faces across our television screens, on the front page of our news websites? They are going to hurt people. They are going to commit shocking crimes more horrible than ones before it. They will do it with guns, with knives, with bombs - ANYTHING.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:37 p.m.

Most people know the NRA is nothing but a sham. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, is a con man. He has spent decades enriching himself, his fellow NRA executives and the organization's board members by doing what he does best: shamelessly mainstreaming conspiracy theories that lead an increasingly paranoid subset of Americans (the percent of households owing guns has declined dramatically over the past generation) to arm themselves to the teeth, while ensuring any laws that might prevent the horrifying tragedy that occurred in Newtown, CT. are unable to make it through Congress.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:39 a.m.

Or all-time low...accept the facts, places where there are fewer guns have less crime, and way, way, fewer gun deaths. Having a gun makes one LESS safe. Ll data says so.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:35 a.m.

Bcar, i keep citing the same thing, but you won't listen! Gun ownership which means the percentage of households that own guns, is near an ll-tie low. Deal with it.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:19 p.m.

And I forgot to add...LOL.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.

How many sources do you want? wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/ nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass- shootings-in-the-united-states/ /feb01/w7967.html /jul/23/news/la-pn-crime -is-down-and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722 post/18619485785/declining-gun-ownership


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:42 p.m.

"the percent of households owing guns has declined dramatically over the past generation" really? please cite, would love to see that one... LOL.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:02 p.m.

If 2% of Americans are NRA members, what makes the NRA think it make laws for the other 98% of us?! The NRA is a bully lobbying group that only cares about getting your $$


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:16 p.m.

And I think it's worth stating that I did vote for Obama, I just don't agree with him on firearms.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:13 p.m.

Beardown, it's a pretty clear progression. The Feinstein bill actually states that you wouldn't be allowed to transfer any firearm that you currently own that would be banned under the bill. Meaning, if I owned an AR and died - it would have to go in the garbage and be destroyed. It would not be able to be sold, transfered or given to someone else. That's pretty clearly going after people's firearms. And no, Obama hasn't done anything yet to make firearms easier to buy, nor has he done anything yet to make it harder. But what he wants pushed through would limit the types of firearms availible, in a sense, slowly erroding the 2nd Amendment. Is he planning on coming to my house and having me hand over my handgun with a 15 round magazine? No....but it's pretty darn close to that. As I stated to you in a post above: Limiting magazine size will do nothing. Most people don't realize that the Colorado shooter actuall switched out his magazine 4-5 times on his AR. The amount of time it takes to swap out a magazine would have no impact on 99.99% of gun crimes. In this case, it's my opinon that it hurts someone trying to protect themselves in their home far more than it helps protect people in the public from mass shooters. If someone is breaking into your house do you want a firearm with 7 shots, 10 shots or 30 shots? Personally, I'd want the best chances to survive. And when you consider that even trained police officers have a hit percentage of aroudn 10% when they're forced to use their firearms in real life situations....a 30 round magazine becomes a lot more practical. The 2nd Amendment is not to protect hunters. And I'd argue that you don't need the right to free speech online, how about we change that next? Or would you be up in arms, pun intended, if someone went after your ability to excersize any one of your bill of rights?


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:06 a.m.

Who is trying to ban guns? People keep saying that there is a movement to ban guns when Obama has actually made them easier to buy. We need tighter controls on the background check process to make sure nutters aren't buying guns. True, this would not have stopped the shootings in CT. Those could have been prevented if the shooters parents had locked up their weapons. I have no issue whatsoever if hunters, with legally purchased weapons, hunt whatever game they want to hunt. Our state makes a killing (no pun intended) off of hunting, so banning guns would decimate our economy. But let's just tighten the controls on background checks and limit clips. Hunter's and people who own for self defense don't need or want 30 round clips, so lets get rid of them.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:38 p.m.

almost 50% of the country favors keeping gun laws the same and adding no new regulations. This is not 2% vs. 98% as you suggest, in fact, it's farthest from the truth. If you want to ban guns, find a voting population to do so. Unfortunately, you wont' be able to because, despite what you think, a large majority of Americans support gun rights, despite not being members of the NRA.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:33 p.m.

Heaven forbid we teach any moral values, I guess conservative views should be outlawed along with any sense of accountability or respect,we want freedom of expression and more liberalism so we can undermine a decent society and a culture that was once more tame and less volient. Many idolize the insanity and glorify those that destroy our basic virtues and comon courtesy for the sake of money. Funny how other countries that follow that golden rule of consrvatism and family unity have less tensions and volience among them?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:28 p.m.

Children were killed, it was a tragic day no question, Our people were also killed in Bengahzi BOTH things happened because our government failed to protect our people. BOTH things happened because some low life KNEW they could get away with it because BOTH places were left unprotected by our government. our politicians have become more important than the people they have 24/7 protection, we DON'T not if they take our guns away. this culture is becoming more and more evil because people do not value life we are (thanks to many liberal's agendas) too worried about the values of others (terrorist muslims) so that we renounce god and his teachings. our government wants to talk to people and negotiate with those that's ONLY mission in life is to kill us. guns are not the problem, PEOPLE are the PROBLEM, some are mentally ill, some are just pissed off and can't live off welfare anymore and want to go out i we have a president that preaches hate for republicans, but then preaches loves for deviants exploits young children for HIS political purposes and has thousands of pictures showing them standing by him as he breaks the constitution (again) but when someone points out that HIS children are not more important than your children or my children (that's right ARMED GUARDS in EVERY school should be REQUIRED) they are called every name in the book with no repercussions from the media, in fact the media leads teh way with the insults and hate. it's a PEOPLE problem NOT a gun problem.

Superior Twp voter

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 9:15 p.m.



Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:25 p.m.

When guns are outlawed ,outlaws will still have guns.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:21 p.m.

You started off good talking about TV, movies, games, overall violence etc. but why aren't you preaching doing anything about those industries??? Hmm??? Hey now, get your facts straight. The military is NOT allowed to use Glocks, but they all wish they could! LOL! Please provide stats for Finland, Australia, BG, Spain, Germany, Canada on ALL VIOLENT CRIME per and POST BAN...

David Muzzatti

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:24 a.m.

How is it that after the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut.....a movie like "God Bless America" is even allowed to see the light of day? YouTube the trailer for this latest installment from the Hollywood Mind Control Factory.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:36 p.m.

Well, the first amendment. You want to remove that one as well?

Jay Thomas

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:18 a.m.

Blame liberals like Harvey Weinstein of Miramax and his director of choice Quentin Tarantino. All Tarantino puts out are bloody gun filled pictures full of bad language. Then Weinstein gives some of the profits to liberal politicians at fundraisers he sponsors so they can take guns away from law abiding citizens. Disarming the populace is the first goal of every dictatorship. The reason we have Bushmasters in private hands is to be a check on a government that evolves into a tyranny. This is what the founders wanted and warned us about. It wasn't until the 70's that the left's view of guns became in line with such countries as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Before that democrats understood the necessity of the right (JFK was an NRA member and wanted us to be a "nation of minutemen"). Crime has only gone up in Britain and Australia since the ban (with gun crime exploding in Britain where the guns are smuggled in like drugs). The number of knifings is many times worse than here as well in response to the gun ban. Even in a police state like China a man went on a stabbing spree at a school. How do you stop that? I don't believe banning guns will happen in America. 54% of Americans own guns (a majority) which makes us much different than Britain and Australia. Even a new poll after Sandyhook showed that 60% of young people want to own guns. That will make it very difficult for the gun grabbers.

Superior Twp voter

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 9:14 p.m.


Dog Guy

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 5:34 a.m.

Here is one suggestion for profiling mental illness associated with firearm mass murders:


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:07 p.m.

breardown, I have no problem with extra background checks, however, doing it without forcing everyone to register all of their firearms seems impossible to me. Even in that case, no criminal is going to voluntarily go in and register their firearms they plan to commit crimes with. The problem we have now is that there are some 150,000,000+ unregistered, legal, firearms in this country with very little documentation behind them. You might, if you're lucky, find out where a gun was purchased out of an FFL dealer. But from that point, documenting who had the gun becomes impossible. Let's say tomorrow a law passes saying every gun sale needs a background check. If someone sells me their firearm without doing a background check and I'm caught with the gun - how do the police know that I bought it illegally? I could just say that I've owned the firearm since before the law was implimented - you see the problem here? Furthermore, magazine size will do nothing. Most people don't realize that the Colorado shooter actuall switched out his magazine 4-5 times on his AR. The amount of time it takes to swap out a magazine would have no impact on 99.99% of gun crimes. In this case, it's my opinon that it hurts someone trying to protect themselves in their home far more than it helps protect people in the public from mass shooters. If someone is breaking into your house do you want a firearm with 7 shots, 10 shots or 30 shots? Personally, I'd want the best chances to survive. And when you consider that even trained police officers have a hit percentage of aroudn 10% when they're forced to use their firearms in real life situations....a 30 round magazine becomes a lot more practical.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:10 a.m.

Actually, Bcar, the NRA is fighting Obama on his call for increased background checks. Most anti gun people, like myself, would be happy with limits in clips and increase checks into the backgrounds of buyers. I don't understand why people want to hunt, but if they are thoroughly checked when the buy their weapons and lock their guns when they are done, then I would imagine most people like me would be fine with it. The saddest part of this entire debate is that I would imagine almsot everyone who is not in Congress or running the NRA are on the same page. Gun advocates, at least from what I have read, are fine with increased checks into their background because they have nothing to hide.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:29 p.m.

You might as well post FOX news links and expect us to believe their lies?!


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:44 p.m.

last I checked beardown the NRA supports the background checks, its the ACLU that DOES NOT.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 6:04 a.m.

Why watch it since it is from Get us a neutral third party site please. And, last time I checked, the president is trying to profile people with mental illnesses to try and stop mass murders. But the NRA is trying to stop him. Give us better background checks to allow the government to search potential owners mental health records (if they figure out HIPPA) to rule out the nutters and to let regular persons buy guns. If you are a person without mental issues or a criminal past, then I have no issue with you buying a rifle or whatever you want as long as you follow the law and lock the gun up. The ironic thing is that the pro-gun and anti-gun people want the same thing, law abiding gun owners with weapons. Problem is, the NRA doesn't. The NRA, through its gun manufacturing donors, wants to sell guns to anyone and everyone. I couldn't care less if the guy next to me owns hunting rifles as long as he passed a mental health and legal background check and then locks the weapons up.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 4:31 a.m.

come on most of us are peaceful its a few nuts in the basket and most gun owners never end shooting anybody. The issue is mental illness and not video because that entertainment. blame Hitchcock!!!!

Atlas Shrugged

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:31 a.m.

"America has crumbled into a culture of evil." Because of guns??.... REALLY? You think it's the guns and legal gun owners who account for America's evils???? Please help me understand the focus -- no, the unbridled and I believe wholly misguided and I'll-informed outrage -- over guns. I'll venture a guess that most of you who are anti gunners, and who rightfully lament the loss of innocent children's lives (as I truly do too), have absolutely no qualms about outright INFANTICIDE, somewhat more euphemistically called abortion (a word some of you can't even utter, instead using the oh-so-comforting word "coice." How many innocent kids are killed every year, not because of a condition that is life-threatening to mother and/or child, or a pregnancy from incest or rape, but for the "convenience" or some other wishes or desires of someone who has already been blessed with life, no matter how good or bad, and basically wants to kill the kid? A conservative estimate? Over 1 million friggin abortions in the US every year. Where's your outrage, your call for new and tougher laws, stronger accountability, stronger enforcement? You speak out against abortion, harass your legislators, write letters of outrage, picket Planned Parenthood, and do all that and more. Then, when you do that and succeed, I'll give up my semi-auto. Hell, I'll get rid of all 8 of them.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 5:16 a.m.

Simon, I stand corrected.

Simon Green

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:29 p.m. The CDC says 784,507 abortions were reported to them in 2009, but this does not include CA, DE, MD, and NH and the reporting is not mandatory. One million per year is probably a pretty good number.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:24 a.m.

1 million abortions a year? Cite where you got that statistic. As of 2005, there were roughly 1800 clinics that had the ability to perform abortions. So how did they pump out a million abortions? Tell us where you got this statistic. Back your argument with fact, not illogical statements.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:27 a.m.

You forgot to mention that we also passed laws making it legal to kill millions of our children through abortion.

Dog Guy

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:22 a.m.

A culture that condones killing of children and teaches killing to be acceptable has been the law of the land since Roe v. Wade. The NRA was not involved . . . were you?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:22 p.m.

a single-celled embryo is not a child, and to compare it to one shows a complete disregard for life.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:35 p.m.

justcurious, no - I don't think the legalization has had any impact on the violent nature of our society. Kids aren't even aware of what an abortion is usually until their later teens - far after their done developing mentally.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:20 a.m.

We are also a country that kills convicts, some of whom did not receive a fair trial. We are also a nation that went through slavery, through Jim Crow, and other very violent eras. Murder has been engrained in American culture long before Roe v Wade. Your argument is simplistic, pathetic, and not even remotely relevant in any way whatsoever. Are you next going to relate abortion to violent cartoons in the 60's and 70's or maybe to concussions in the NFL?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:29 a.m.

hail2thevictOr, yup! Do you really believe that condoning abortion has had no effect on our population? It made murder acceptable didn't it?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:37 a.m.'re relating this to abortion? I'm sure that's what these kids were thinking about when they were shooting little kids and people in a movie theater - "I'm doing this because I've been desensitized from abortions".....


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:41 a.m.

There are many things going on that are bad for our society. Single parent househoulds, government spending $1.2 trillion a year in borrowed money, 54 million abortions in 40 years, schools that no longer teach basic skills, politicians that bribe us to vote for them, politicians that reward their friends and punish their enemies.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:17 a.m.

"54 million abortions in 40 years" What does that have to do with gun violence? Have we had a shooter, outside of a pro life protester, who killed someone because of abortion? "politicians that reward their friends and punish their enemies." You don't know much of your countries history. Do a little reading of our past politicians and you will see that this is something that has occurred since the birth of the country.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:40 a.m.

These 20 year olds grew up under Shock and Awe and now that they are grown, they make their own Shock and Awe People should have complain 10 - 12 years ago, now its too late


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:11 a.m.

A key component of persuasive writing is explaing why you feel a certain way, offering solutions, and stating facts to bolster your position. This article fails on all fronts...


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:15 a.m.

It's an art that is lost in most current debates. On tv or radio or in person, just yell loud enough. In paper/online, just throw out cliches and, if you are really desperate, made up facts that most people won't fact check

Jon Wax

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:01 a.m.

Incompetent parenting. fix parenting, fix the problems. the culture of violence and everything else you are complaining about comes from a lack of parenting. People stopped raising their kids back in the 70s. Peace Wax


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:22 p.m.

Tell me then, what is going on with white suburban parents that their kids want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible with the most violent weapons they can get their hands on?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:40 p.m.

Please run for president!


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:53 a.m.

Even competent parents can't raise their children in a bubble.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:50 a.m.

I think culture is to blame before parenting.

The Great Gazoo

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:36 p.m.

Everyone seems to be forgetting why the second amendment was created and adopted. As passed by the Congress: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This should be more of a discussion on mental health. If I were a person who favored wearing a tin foil hats I would almost think that, all over the world the governments were conspiring to work together to control the ever growing population and by getting rid of most of the guns owned and controlled by the citizens, then working to over arm local and police departments with military grade weapons and body armor. Meanwhile all the time working to destroy the value of our currency and property values, re-electing someone who enforces the largest tax increase in over twenty years while still continuing to spend our tax dollars like the world is going to end. Just so the mindless masses in this country would realize what is really going on, in this country. But Nah ... this isn't happening and a government would never kill or pretend to kill citizens to sway popular opinion. I know that the changes that are happening to our freedoms won't affect too me much in my life time, but my children and grandchildren will not know freedom like we have if something isn't done to stop the holy wars against the Christen and Jewish faiths, our country, our way of life, and our freedoms. Remember folks... there was a good reason the second amendment was created, and also like our forefathers: I love my country, but I fear our government. Instead of the King of Britain, today have Obama, Homeland Security, NarusInsight and citizens so scared that they are actually begging to be controlled and owned

Bill Wilson

Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 1:06 a.m.

Sorry Ron, But a closer reading demonstrates Gazoo's assertion that the argument lends itself to "mental health." Continuing, he/she makes elastic uses of the second amendment that I'm fairly sure the framers did not intend. No insult intended, but you should actually read an entire piece before commenting.

Ron Smith

Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

Bill Wilson, Now I am confused. Unless I am missing something, you and Gazoo are in agreement. Respectfully,

Bill Wilson

Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 2:13 a.m.

Gazoo, We're not confused.... you seem to be. The militia is the general body of people healthy in body and mind that have not been convicted of a felony or other serious crime. In other words: just about all of us. When the army is in need of soldiers, it may borrow from the militia: again, all of us. Hence the need for the militia to be armed. In times of need, we may literally be expected to grab our guns and join in a fight with a foreign enemy.

Clay Moore

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:25 p.m.

"A culture that condones killing of children and teaches killing to be acceptable. "... which government could have prevented if they had stood up to the NRA and the Gun Lobby." Ah, liberal logic's circular reasoning at its best. Challenge anyone to produce verification, validation and/or citations attributing that to NRA or GL. Don't even bother with benign inferences. You want cultural influences try the Music Industry and Hollywood which glamorizes drugs, violence and pornography. That's where the catalyst for sociopaths and psychopaths who commit these atrocities originates. Today Leon Panetta, President Obama's defense secretary, announced a policy change, which opens hundreds of thousands of front-line combat positions and potentially elite commando jobs to military women. However in an ironic twist, at the same hour Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the Obama administration would allow women to serve in combat, Presidential Advisor Valerie Jarrett announced "that If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act." Come one, come all to Obama's 3 ring circus of fools and court jesters. Geeze!


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:13 a.m.

"You want cultural influences try the Music Industry and Hollywood which glamorizes drugs, violence and pornography. That's where the catalyst for sociopaths and psychopaths who commit these atrocities originates. " As a person who is against weapons (but not willing to get rid of the 2nd amendment), I agree with this part of your post 100%. Turn on CBS or ABC after 8pm and every non comedy starts with a dead women or some other violent crime. My wife watches Scandal on ABC and I watched an episode with her, a couple days after the massacre in CT (on DVR) in which an entire family was mowed down, complete with scenes showing the children and dogs with bullet holes in their heads. It seems like we as a country now see violence as either a part of a tv show or something that we just have to deal with, like taxes or snow.


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:23 p.m.

I also love people who blame the NRA. The NRA represents the PEOPLE who join it. If you're not happy with the NRA, join your own group and throw money into it. The fact of the matter is that something like 40% of US households have a firearm in them. That's a large portion of the population and the NRA does, to some respect, represent a large voting majority in the US. People seem to think that the NRA members get like 2 extra votes or something.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:33 p.m.

sayzme, just because someone isn't part of the NRA doesn't mean that they don't' support them. I agree with a lot of things they stand up for, but am not a member. It's not 2% against 98%. The fact is, the nation is pretty split, almost 50/50, on stricter gun control. Almost half the entire population does not want it. So don't act like 2% of the population is somehow out-voting 98%, because that's simply not factual. And that's the point I tried to make above, the NRA may have some dumb ideas but fighting gun control laws is something that a lot of American support. The only way it can "bully" anyone is if it has a significant voting base behind it, and it does. So if you don't like that - out vote them, the problem is - you probably won't find as many people on your side as you think.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.

If 2% of Americans are NRA members...what makes the NRA think they get to make the laws for the other 98% of us? The NRA is a bully lobbying group for firearms dealers, they don't care about anything other than getting as much of you $$ as they can, so Wayne LaPierre can keep his cushy job


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:30 p.m.

they do have their own group, it's called the democratic party.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:59 a.m.

And to add to my last statement, a national gun registry only works if people bring in their guns to voluntarily register them. I'm going to guess you aren't going to find many criminals coming in to register their guns, as they'd be arrested on the spot. Furthermore, Canada just removed such a law because they were so rarely catching people based on their national registry that they deemed it too complicated and expensive to run for the payoff (catching criminals).


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:56 a.m.

Gun manufacturers actually make up quite a small percentage of the NRA's budget. And obviously and organization that represents millions of people is not going to be able to collect and represent all the opinions in that group - but there's a reason those people are still paying members of the NRA. And from the NRA members that I know almost all of them already own firearms with 30 round magazines, as the AR is one of the most common rifle in the US. If you go to a shooting range, a large majority of the people there have one. I really don't think people know how common they are and how little crime is committed with them every year: (only an estimated 150 people are killed by what would be classified "assault rifles" every year). And while I'm fundamentally for background checks, even in private sales, you must realize that it's an impossible thing to do unless there's a national gun registry (which I'm 100% against - see the new york newspaper that published all handgun owners names and addresses). Without forcing people to register ALL of their firearms, there's no way the government can tell if a gun has been sold to someone illegally or not. In the end, if someone is caught with a firearm they can simply claim they've had it all along. And if they say they bought it from someone, how do they prove it? I have 3 firearms in my house, 2 of which are over 80 years old and maybe, if their lucky, the government could find a piece of paper form then saying who bought it. Since then, there's no record of them existing. And that's the problem that no one is talking about when they bring up universal background checks.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:09 a.m.

Knowing a good deal of gun owners, I highly doubt your assertion that the NRA represents the opinion of their members. Most of the members I have met, hunters and people who collect weapons, have no desire to ever own a weapon with a 30 round clip and have no problem with more background checks to make sure that only legal applicants can become gun owners. I think the NRA, like most political organizations (both right and left wing) represent the people that fund them. In their case, it is the gun manufacturers who stand to lost a good deal of money if Walmart can no longer sell the AR-15 or other weapons that would shred a deer.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:05 a.m.

I'm glad you got a laugh out of it, but the members wouldn't be members if they didn't want to voluntarily hand over their money to the NRA. I don't necessarily agree with their opinions but arguing that this organization that people give money to do lobby on their behalf is somehow distant from the opinions of their paying body of people that make up the organization is silly to me.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:43 a.m.

Hail, your comment about the NRA representing the people who join it made me laugh out loud!


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:03 p.m.

Ignorance of the Country one lives in is astounding. It is the masses of uninformed who get to vote and look what we get as a result. Please read the Constitution and all amendments. Your 2nd amendment right to preach this junk under the 1st Amendment is no more or less sacred or protected than the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment Get out there and petition for an amendment to the 2nd Amendment. That is the only way to address your gun grabbing desires. Good luck too. I'm guessing the reason libs don't go after amending the Constitution, except through liberal judges, is that it is very hard and there would be other amendments that would surface at same time - like a balanced budget amendment that would "steal" from those who live off the Nanny State (libs) by reducing or eliminating benefits or requiring work or drug tests before one can enjoy the freebies...

Superior Twp voter

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 9:09 p.m.



Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11 p.m.

I agree with the right to defend yourself, but why in the world do you need an assault rifle or semi- automatic/automatic weapon to protect yourself or your property?


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.

For the same reason that the president surrounds himself by them. Clearly there's a self defense advantage by having one or else the president would army the secret service with single shot hunting rifles..right? Either way, it's not up to you to decide what someone "needs" or feels they "need" to defend themselves. If 5 people invade your home in new york, you're now limited to 7 shots....hope you don't miss. You may not "need" a rifle with 30 shots, but if your home is being invaded wouldn't you want the best shot possible to survive? I'm going to live, and that person is going to die. That's why someone would "need" the items you speak of.

gerald brennan

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:46 a.m.

It's always been illegal to own what you ignorantly refer to as an "assault rife" or any automatic rifle. As for semi-autos, you get one bullet per trigger pull -- just like a revolver or bolt-action or pump action or lever action etc, gun. Opining without knowledge is not always a good thing to do.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:51 a.m.

Why does SWAT need assult rifles to arrest citizens? Or maybe a better question is why does the Department of Education have a SWAT team?

Angry Moderate

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:34 p.m.

Hmm, I wonder if there are any other difference between the U.S. and Australia besides gun laws that could explain CAUSATION, rather than mere correlation. Perhaps their mental health system is different? Or the population's demographics? Their approach to the drug trade?


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.

Perhaps they don't have a constitutional right to bear arms to defend themselves against a tyranical government. Just might be reason they took the guns and I would bet that "the people" of Austraila did not demand action, just the vocal libs who want to control every aspect of life.

Rabid Wolverine

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:25 p.m.

Wow..No one condones the murders which occurred at Sandy Hook. No one. How do you believe that pistols are now assault weapons? How did you come up with this definition? Do you think it is an assault weapon if the military or police use it? You know that revolvers used to be the gun of choice for the police. The use shotguns as well so I am not sure you have really thought to much before writing this opinion piece. Perhaps you should do a bit more thinking on the topic before blabbing incoherent ramblings for all to read.


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:13 p.m.

If I'm not mistaken the "file photo" you're using is from an earlier article on Ann Arbor Arms. I can't imagine they appreciate having that photo associated with this "opinion".


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:30 p.m.

LOL! and they dont have nearly that many guns in stock any more either, sold out! ha ha ha.


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.

AHHHHH, there's so much wrong with this column I don't know where to even start: "Assault weapons like the semi-automatic Bushmaster 223, Glock and Sig-Sauer Pistols, and any weapons used in the U.S. military should not be allowed for personal use. " I can guarantee that 2/3 of these "brands" and rifle, as specifically stated first, are not used by the US military. None of them are "assault weapons". The US military would never adopt a Semi-Auto rifle as their primary foot-soldier and haven't in 30+ years. So having the military use a firearm means we shouldn't be able to own it as citizens? So the thousands of firearms brands outside of the few the US army uses would be OK? Is the military using it the determination to what we should be allowed to own? You can see how silly this is - especially when the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is intended to equalize the citizen population with the governing body that oversees it. Let's just say what you want to say - All semi-auto firearms should be illegal. To which I would say - you have no right to determine what I use for protection in my home. I don't think people like you should have the right to post anti-Constitutional content online like this but, unfortunately, our Constitutional allows you to. You can't slowly erode my constitutional rights, and everyone's, simply because you "think" that more gun laws will stop these things from happening. The fact is, I'm not sure you even know what a Glock is or a Sig Saur is and further prove you don't have the knowledge about the topic to form an educated solution to the problem. The fact is that nothing you mention will stop mass shootings or gun crime in general and the previous assault weapons ban proved that. It's reactionary and won't solve a thing. And it's been said multiple times so far during these debates, but there is a reason that England's violent crime rate has spiked to almost 4x that of the US after their gun laws were put


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.

Anthony, the Consitution has been amended but a right guarenteed in the bill of rights has never been removed. There's a big difference in expanding the rights of the people, allowing minorities/women to have equal rights, and removing a right of the people. Times have changed, and just because the internet didn't exist 250 years ago doesn't mean that the founding fathers didn't inded for you to have free speach on it. The intent of the 2nd amendment was to give the citizen population enough means to fight back against a government, local or federal, and protect themselves in their homes from just about anyone. It was to give the citizens a fighting chance. So while military weapons have changed, the intent of the 2nd amendment has not. In 200 years if our military is using laser guns, I expect those to be availible to the civilian population. If the founding fathers intended for the citicens to only have muskets, they would have written the word "musket" instead of "arms". But they knew that military weaponry was rapidly changing and wanted to encompous the firearms of the time, or else the 2nd amendment would be pointless. A civilian armed with a musket in today's world would not adequately be able to protect themselves against anyone.


Fri, Jan 25, 2013 : 4:21 a.m.

If we never amended the Constitution, white people would still be owning black people. Time goes on, weapon technology advances. The Constitution was written in the time of muskets. Comparing modern guns to muskets is like comparing a tank to a horse drawn buggy. Times have changed, wake up.


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.

Gun laws don't work, criminals still get the guns. Look at Chicago, the land of strict gun laws and high gun violence. All gun laws do is take the guns out of the hands of the people who bother to follow the laws. Criminals don't follow laws, that's the nature of being a criminal. Law abiding gun owners don't perpetuate the violence, criminals do. Start by prosecuting criminals and keeping them in jail.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.

Committing a crime with any firearm is illegal, already. That comes with a pretty stiff legal penalty; the Colorado shooter will be in jail for life, if not on death row. Rifles are already regulated. And unlike other dangerous materials, firearms are a guaranteed right. I'm not sure what other regulations you would slap on them that would have any impact on crimes committed with them. As stated above, they are only used in an estimated 150 murders per year. They are not a danger to society, as the media would like to suggest. 3x as many people are killed with knives every year compared to "assault rifles".


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:25 p.m.

SH, the reason you don't see people stealing automatic weapons for 1 is because they can get the job done with a $150 handgun. Criminals don't need fully automatic weapons to rob a store, house or person walking down the street. Firearms are tools and you use the tool that best fits what you're trying to do. Once you rob a store, do you think a criminal wants a full size AK on their back while they're running down the street? no. It's the same reason you don't see many crimes committed with semi-auto rifles, or rifles in general. Which leads to another point, why steal a fully automatic m16 when you can buy a semi-auto AR for $800? They aren't exactly the same thing, and you can't lay down the fire that a fully auto m16 can....but, as I said above, criminals don't use these rifles often. It doesn't fit their need and criminals often go through the path of least resistance. Another reason is what I emphasized above, there aren't a lot of fully automatic weapons out there. Finding someone who owns one to steal would probably be pretty hard. No question that fully automatic weapons would be cheaper if they opened the market. And there's no question that if semi-auto rifles were regulated as tightly as fully automatic ones that semi-auto rifles would be more expensive. But as we say in the last assault weapons ban, they would still be like 1/20 of the price of the fully automatic version simply because there are millions more in the market. A used AR that would sell for $800 now turned into a $2000 firearm. But still completely affordable for the average person. By "Detroit" I meant the general metro-Detroit area...Flint included in that.

Stupid Hick

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

hail2victor: "Unlike the cost of a fully automatic weapon that a civilian can own, which would cost around $30,000 to buy, a standard AR would raise in price $500-$1000." If fully-automatic weapons were not as tightly-controlled, they would certainly be less expensive. I read somewhere that in Somalia, fully-automatic AKs sell for under $200. I'm curious, why in the US do you think we don't see as many crimes committed with stolen automatic weapons?

Stupid Hick

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:26 p.m.

hail2victor: "bill is stupid anyway, it bans cosmetic features of the guns." I agree with you one hundred percent. I don't think military-style semi-automatic weapons should be illegal, just regulated like other dangerous controlled substances, with severe penalties for breaking the law.

Stupid Hick

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.

hail2thevictor: "I could use the same argument and say that outside of Detroit, Michigan is a safe area." Never heard of Flint, I guess.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:28 p.m.

~12k murders with guns per year, 75% or so are by criminals. over 60k/year instances where a firearm is used for SELF DEFENSE...


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 11:49 a.m.

Beardown, when was the last gun murder in Ann Arbor? Like 4-5 years ago...maybe? I could use the same argument and say that outside of Detroit, Michigan is a safe area. And outside of a few select suburbs of a few select cities in the US - there is actually quite little gun violence in the US. The fact is that most places in the US are safe and rarely have gun incidents. It's the consecrated areas of people in cities where gangs and drugs are prevalent that cause the majority of US gun murders. I get that your kids in your class probably see their share of gun crime - but for the exact reason I stated above. And since I know for a fact that Chicago bans handguns, I'm going to guess that almost all of the crime they're seeing is from illegal gun owners; which would not change under any law being proposed. I don't want to force anyone to own a firearm, I just don't want anyone to tell me - who's never had more than a ticket while driving - that I can't own a certain type of firearm. If there was evidence that banning these types of firearms would solve anything - they'd prevent mass shootings, lower gun crime or prevent people from doing these things, I'd be all for it. But as we saw with the last AWB, it does nothing. And, unlike the media would like you to think, the gun crime in the US has steadily been decreasing for the past 25 years. You know what has been increasing this entire time? The amount of states that allow conceal carry. I'm not saying 1 causes the other but it more than proves that these "gun nuts" everyone is talking about do not cause a wild west situation. More guns are being sold now than ever before and gun crime is still dropping.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 3:03 a.m.

I teach in Chicago, mostly to older inner city residents who are returning back to school, and I have never heard a single student ever utter "we need more guns" when talking about the violence in Chatham or Englewood or other violent communities. They want more cops and community involvement. And look at Chicago. Outside of 5 or 6 neighborhoods, the city is actually incredibly safe. And if you were to bring jobs into the communities with all of the violence, I would imagine the city's death toll would drop drastically. It's not a popular opinion and I should get 40 or 50 thumbs down, but the only people who want more guns in the wake of inner city violence are the white people who live outside of the violent areas (I'm white by the way). Those involved in the violence want more police and protection and see the stupidity of bringing more guns into the situation. Before you cite an example tommyj, how about you actually go there and see what's going on. If you did, you wouldn't spout off such bs NRA nonsense.

Atlas Shrugged

Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:56 a.m.

TommyJ is spot on. To the guy who posted "many gun crimes" are committed by legal gun owners.... It's a myth [that] legal gun owners cause no problems.". MANY gun crimes? How do you define "many?" The number is far, far less than the number of gun "crimes" committed by people who don't possess a firearm legally. Check the data from any reliable source (reliable EXCLUDES the Brady Bunch). Consult the FBI data, and the abundant data from other law enforcement agencies. Google Dr. John R. Lott, read his book, "More guns, less crime." Related to this I can't recall hearing or reading that anyone with a fully functional brain has ever made the claim that legal gun owners commit no crimes,mwhether with guns or otherwise. We aren't saints. But we are far more responsible than you give us credit for. The overwhelming majority of us legal gun owners follow the law. We are not the ones who should have our rights not only restricted, but abrogated. Then there's the now in vogue phrase, uttered by no less than the prez, "if we could save just one child's life" [by further restricting legal gun ownership] or other nanny-state laws: Ban bathtubs. More kids die in them than are killed by guns. Ban cars... and alcohol too... because far more innocent kids are killed by cars, with or without a drunk driver at the wheel. Hmmm. Far fewer innocent kids are killed by guns than by cars that a drunk PARENT was driving!! So why not ban or place major legal restrictions on parenthood? Oh, I forgot that's what abortion is for! A method of killing tens of thousands of "innocent children" every year, wholly acceptable to many of the very same lefties who seem so outraged by the comparatively minuscule number of people who are, unfortunately, killed by guns of any kind. Ah, the information-deficient sheeple.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 1:02 a.m.

Furthermore Paul, those cases where a guy snaps and is going to murder his family are going to happen either way. They're going to do it like OJ or they're going to do it with a gun. Suicides are going to happen, especially ones where the family member takes out his whole family. As terrible as those are, those are not arguments for gun control. It certainly is a case that mental health is lacking in this country.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:58 a.m.

I don't think that legal gun owners are all saints, but many/most legal gun owners use them responsibly to protect their family, friends and sometimes even the public. Just because there are a few irresponsible people out there doesn't mean we should all relinquish our rights. I do not believe that these gun laws being proposed are for the "greater good". I don't think they will have an impact on gun crime at all or even the frequency and size of the mass shootings that are happening.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:54 a.m.

I believe that pro football player who kill his GF and later on himself was also one of those legal gun owners with no criminal record. Get your facts together , all it takes is one heated argument and those law abiding legal gun owners turn in to criminals, many times they end up killing themselves and the press forgets about them a few days later.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 12:49 a.m.

Many gun crimes are done by LEGAL gun owners. Every week its like another legal gun owner murders somebody and then takes their own life. Last one was just a few days back in Las Vegas by some cop Out in Lansing Mich some ex police chief killed his wife and then himself last summer. The Batman shooting was done by a legal gun owner....the list goes on and on Its a myth legal gun owners cause no problems


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:34 p.m.

Stupid Hick, Fully automatic weapons are harder to find because there weren't many in civilians hands prior to the ban. Unlike "assault weapons", or what the law would classify them as, are some of the most common firearms out there. There are over 90,000,000 that are in circulation that would be part of this classified group, under the proposed laws. They would be mildly harder to get that they were pre-law but not by much. Unlike the cost of a fully automatic weapon that a civilian can own, which would cost around $30,000 to buy, a standard AR would raise in price $500-$1000. Still well within reach of your average gun owner. Not to mention the firearm manufacturers would find ways around the bill because the bill is stupid anyway, it bans cosmetic features of the guns. What you'd find is that you could still buy a semi-auto rifle for $600 or so, it wouldn't look like an AR, but it would accept AR mags. Meaning someone would just have to buy a $100 magazine, throw it into their newly purchased gun and they'd have the same firepower as before. With the amount of firearms and components on the market now a ban is useless because the market is flooded. There were probably more "assault weapons" sold in the last month than there are total fully automatic weapons available to the public.

Stupid Hick

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.

Murder laws don't work, criminals still murder. All murder laws do is take killing out of the hands of people who bother to follow the laws... yawn. Possession of fully-automatic weapons and hand grenades is much more strictly enforced. They are very hard to obtain: could that be why we don't see as many crimes committed with fully-automatic weapons? Chemical precursors to illegal drugs, such as ephedrine, are controlled by laws designed to make Meth production more difficult. Is that a waste of effort?


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:51 p.m.

Maybe Obama can call his buddies in Hollywood and ask them to only produce cartoons and comedies.


Thu, Jan 24, 2013 : 7:18 p.m.

wait a minute. republicans are the one the deified an actor who only became president because he was an actor. admit your man-crush, goober.

An Arborigine

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:11 p.m.

But, only non-violent cartoons, like care bears and my little pony. That should do it!


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:43 p.m.

You know what they say about opinions... Everybody's got one!

Macabre Sunset

Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 9:43 p.m.

If only fixing cultural problems were that simple.


Sun, Jan 27, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.

Another cultural problem that needs to be fixed is people blaming victims of domestic violence, stevek.


Wed, Jan 23, 2013 : 10:55 p.m.

I agree. This is just one of MANY curtural problems that need to be fixed, but unfortunately never will.