Governor Markell’s Press Conference Announcing Gun Safety Legislation Live Streaming Now

Filed in National by on January 14, 2013

Governor Markell, Lt. Governor Matt Denn and Attorney General Beau Biden are holding a joint news conference to unveil proposed gun safety legislation for the state. The event should start TODAY at 10AM, and should be streaming live at the state’s website. I also believe that WDEL plans to carry this live as well.

Feel free to use this thread to discuss the event and the initiatives.

About the Author ()

"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make progress by implementing ideas." -Shirley Chisholm

Comments (164)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    Today is the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook massacre. The Governor is surrounded by Police Chiefs too.

  2. cassandra_m says:

    Proposing background checks for ALL gun sales — including private sales.

  3. cassandra_m says:

    Proposing mandatory reporting of stolen guns.

  4. cassandra_m says:

    We will not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that gun violence has nothing to do with guns. — Matt Denn.

  5. cassandra_m says:

    Proposing the banning of the manufacture and sale of large capacity magazines.

  6. cassandra_m says:

    Proposing the banning of assault weapons.

  7. cassandra_m says:

    Proposing a gun free zone surrounding schools, although it sounds if you have a concealed carry permit you might be exempt.

  8. pandora says:

    Thanks for blogging this. Good work!

  9. kavips says:

    Thanks from here too…

  10. cassandra_m says:

    I had to stop watching when a conf call came in, but there were legislators in the room who were having their say, so there may have been more proposed.

  11. anonymous says:

    Politicians wouldn’t decide who should be protected from weapons, who shouldn’t or… who should live and who shouldn’t, based on special interests over best interests of the American people, would they?

    What’s the difference between:

    A) An angry ‘terrorist’ with a weapon, and

    B) An angry American with a weapon

    Let’s say, A) and B) both are angry, male, and age 25, of the same social/economic circles, same years education. And both intend to kill with gun weaponry.

    What is not the same? a) Their intended victims and b) our government’s efforts to stop them.

    Our government will check the background, physically check – looking for A) an angry ‘terrorist’ with a weapon,

    Our government does not check the background of at least 40% of typical gun buyers, many of whom (100,000 per yr.) are capable of becoming B) – the angry American with a weapon.

    B) Angry American with a weapon, may shoot the ex wife or fellow employees, the guy at the traffic stop, the kids playing near his corner, the person being robbed on the street or in their home, people at a large gatherings of any sort, or those at his own staged suicide among innocents.

    Besides the fact that ‘potential victims’ plays a part in amount and quality of ‘security,’ what is to stop A) angry ‘terrorists’ from purchasing weapons – as do B) angry Americans? Nothing. Since at least 40% of arms purchasers are not check, potential terrorists, A) and B) can purchase guns – unchecked.

    How is the government to know, that some of the tens of millions of weapons spread across America, are not/or will not be in the hands of potential ‘terrorists (A) or B) purchased and passed along through ‘good ole boy’ means?

    What will the government decide, the killing power limit (weapons/ammo) should be in the hands of both A) and B)? Will that limit be equally enforced upon A) and B)? Will A) and B) be treated equally,(risk control) in the government’s efforts to stop the killings? If not, is that not a major form of discrimination, as in – 1) whom the government protects from becoming a victim and 2) those the government chooses – not to protect? Both A) and B) just need to go to the places where they can buy, obtaining guns – no questions asked. Lawmakers need to consider, that also includes every type of gun ‘possession’ including unregistered guns, street corner deals and theft.

    America’s yearly gun death list, looks something like this: 31,347 per year.

    Suicide: 18,735 deaths
    Homicide: 11,493 deaths
    Unintentional: 554 deaths
    Legal interventions: 333 deaths

    The ultimate responsibility rests with the lawmakers – The politicians have chosen to try to stop A) angry ‘terrorist’ with a weapon, but have thus far chosen not to try to stop B) angry American with a weapon.

    Shooting at people = hate and anger. Angry American with a gun (B), shoots nearly 100,000 Americans every year. That’s 270 people a day and 87 dead because of gun violence every day. They just happen to not be shot by the same person or at one location, (although there are areas, where one is more likely to be shot.) Also often not included in the Newtown shootings – a domestic violence death and a suicide death, although these are also part of the larger numbers of yearly gun deaths.

    When the government now considers shootings and death by gun weaponry, it must equally consider A) and B), because A) An angry ‘terrorist’ with a weapon can obtain weapons, just as B) obtains weapons.

    Also..B) an angry American with a weapon who kills innocent Americans is actually – the American terrorist who walks among the public, as did Holmes, Lanza and a 100,000 not so famous armed (human)shooters each year. The 87 gun deaths per day, is a larger figure – that must also be considered. These are Americans shot by American terrorist individually and are collectively – the larger terrorist figure when comparing A) and B).

  12. This is a monumental package, and kudos to the Governor, Lt. Governor and the AG.

    This weekend, the Washington Post had an instructive article on the rise of the NRA from primarily a marksmanship and safety organization to a political behemoth. The NRA’s mantra during its rise?: “No compromise”:

    Memo to weak-kneed legislators: You can’t and shouldn’t even try to compromise with zealots who are unwilling to compromise. Either you support reasonable gun control, or you don’t.

    It’s time for us to get behind our elected leaders who have taken a bold and necessary stand.

  13. Independent says:

    While there are some reasonable legislative efforts that could be made – this is NOT it…

    For example – how many new that this Governor, AG, and our representatives stopped background checks in Delaware over 6 months ago? They werent worthwhile then, but now they are essential?

    Did you know that in 2010 and 2011 – there were 0 deaths due to rifles – yet we want to ban them. However there were 37 & 41 DUI deaths – but no one is discussing banning alchohol?

    How about large capacity bottles of alchohol – arent they equiv. to large magazines?

    There is already a federal no gun zone for all schools in the nation – why do we need another in Delaware? Does anyone think a nut case cares about the law? they are going to these places to kill, i dont think a no gun zone helps anyone but the bad guy. They will likely be like the drug free zones we now have?

    Not a lick of evidence that a stolen gun that was reported had a different outcome to a stolen gun that was reported. By the way – who doesnt report a stolen gun anyway – what does this legislation provide in terms of saftey?

    The only spark of reason that exists is to implement background checks for person to person sales – seems reasonable and straight-forward… But if background checksa are so effective – then why did we stop the state checks over 6 months ago (see first item above)?

  14. cassandra_m says:

    Did you know that in 2010 and 2011 – there were 0 deaths due to rifles

    There is no proposal here to ban rifles.

    There is already a federal no gun zone for all schools in the nation

    And other states also have their own version. And they have their own versions to add to penalties OR to have their own law in place since the GOP has been trying to repeal the Federal law for years.

    Not a lick of evidence that a stolen gun that was reported had a different outcome to a stolen gun that was reported.

    And not have you provided any evidence that this doesn’t happen. The thing that this is really targeted at are certain straw purchases. Those where one person bought the gun then sold it to someone else without background checks OR permits. When said gun is found as part of a crime, the police often hear from the original purchaser that the gun was stolen. Since there are no requirements to report stolen guns, they have no way to verify this. It closes a pretty big loophole.

    As far as stopping background checks — you’ll need to provide more than your sayso on this.

  15. Dave says:

    “How about large capacity bottles of alchohol – arent they equiv. to large magazines?”

    No they are not equivalent. I won’t bore you with a treatise on false equivalency (false analogy). Suffice to say that just because two things seem to share a common property (deaths) does not make them analogous. Guns with large magazines are intended to create damage (targets, squirrels, people, children). Alcohol has a multitude of purposes and death is an accidental, not an intended, outcome. Things that share a common property means that the property is an express or direct purpose. Electricity causes deaths as well, but it does not have the property of intended purpose to do so, which is why we don’t call for a ban on electricity (or large capacity batteries).

  16. Independent says:

    odd – seems we want discuss legal definitions rather than the structure and purpose.

    Large magazines are intended to carry large amounts of ammo.

    Large alchohol conatiners are intended to carry large ammounts of alchohol.

    The intention to create damage is the person behind it – not the inanimate object/container…

    A DUI is no different than gun possessor – utilizing the alchohol for an illegal act. Just as a persons(s) who utilize a gun for an illegal act.

    Lastly – I leave you with the stats above – DUI’s kill factors more than rifles…

  17. puck says:

    Nobody wants to outlaw selling large boxes of ammo, just the dangerous automatic dispenser for it.

    The proper analogy is more like outlawing beer funnels; a not completely unreasonable idea.

  18. pandora says:

    Alcohol is subject to regulations.

  19. Independent says:

    As are guns – perhaps even more so…

    The No gun zone law already exists – why another?

    You must be federally checked to own a gun – but none is required to buy alchohol…

    Age? No difference when it comes to hand guns – rifles can be purchased by those over 18.

  20. V says:

    Mandatory reporting of stolen guns is essential to helping cut down straw purchases (like cassandra said, and is a great idea). Why WOULDN’T you want to report your gun stolen (if you’re innocent) in the hopes you’d get it back? You’d do that if someone stol your tv right?

    Also making it harder to use the most common way for a criminal to get an illegal helps shut down the “well criminals will always have guns so i need one too” arguemnt

  21. mediawatch says:

    Let’s try this:
    Two people are standing side by side.
    One is carrying a gun with a high-capacity magazine.
    The other is carrying a half-gallon of bourbon.
    Which person has the greater capacity for causing one or more deaths?

  22. Independent says:

    One more thought:

    Adma Lanza broke the law. Broke the law when he stole guns he didint own. Broke the law when he murdered his mother. Broke the law when entered a gun free zones with guns. And sadly broke the law when he murdered innocent babies.

    What makes us think that these laws will now protect from the same thing in the future?

    If these laws are so effective why did our state branches stop background checks in in July of 2012? Why has gun violence gone down (if we can trust FBI stats where responsible ownership exists?

  23. V says:

    yeah i mean these laws wont stop every shooting from ever happening again.

    so fuck it. let’s not do anything.

    Indy I clicked on that link and it doesn’t exist. I dunno what it said but crime in Wilington (our largest city) has gone up.

  24. cassandra m says:

    What makes us think that these laws will now protect from the same thing in the future?

    Do you have locks on your doors? Do you use those locks? Locks on your doors (or even an alarm system) are a *deterrent* — not a preventative. And you will need to deal with the fact that you are in the middle of a discussion where most of us get that distinction.

  25. cassandra_m says:

    And Adam Lanza broke many laws all right. And he stole his mother’s guns — guns his mother bought to protect herself. That didn’t work out all that well in the face of someone pretty motivated to take her guns.

  26. cassandra_m says:

    Governor Martin O’Malley from my homestate looks to get into the gun safety fray later this week.

    On Sunday, the governor’s aides provided some specifics to the Washington Post, and it reported today that Mr. O’Malley will call for those who wish to purchase handguns — though not shotguns and rifles — to submit to digital fingerprinting by the state police, to complete a gun safety course and to undergo a background check in addition to the existing check required under state and federal law. The safety course is a welcome addition to the state’s regulatory scheme, in that it could help prevent accidental injury and death. But the fingerprinting requirement is likely to dissuade straw purchasers — those who buy guns on behalf of criminals and others who could not pass a background check.

  27. Independent says:

    So it sounds as if all here propose that because some people can/may break the law with a constitutional privelage – then we should remove that right? Ban guns.

    You say no rifles are being banned – yet that is exactly what is being proposed. I understand some want to modify this to say assualt weapons – but this has already been explained and I know that most here are intelligent enough to understand the difference.

    In addition, I ask – if the magazines are being banned – then why the need to ban rifles capable of using the magazines? If the magazines are gone – what is the difference between an AR style rifle and any other semi-automatic rifle.

    Some maintain that guns kill people – when i argue that people are kiling people.

    Finally what emerges is the “GUN” and the ideoloy behind owning guns. To me it rings true of the conservatives who want to ban abortion – because they dont believe in it or they define it as murder.

    Maybe I am becoming a libertarian. I simply dont understand removing rights – in particular constitutional rights – from lawful and abiding citizens because something may happen.

    I go on to say it still is no different than alchohol and remind you of the stats – free for anyone to see at the FBI site I noted.

    if that link doesnt work directly – perhaps copy paste – not sure why it didnt work before. if that doesnt work – simple navigate to the FBI site – the see the stats area – under that is the uniform crime reporting stats.

    More people die from DUI that all guns combined in the US… yet it must be guns that are a problem?

    BTW – if it is a deterrent then banning the alchohol items i suggested deters DUI…

  28. Independent says:

    Lastly – “V” and I am not sure why I am responding to the language and lack of understanding… but here goes…

    Who in any conversation has proposed doing nothing?

    I already explained that it is a shame that we stopped doing state background checks over 6 months ago.

    Backagroud checks for person to person sales should be initiated.

    How about legislation funding greater access to mental health and other stats that keep guns out of the hands of those that should never have them.

    None of these impedes the rights of those that desire to own guns responsibly.

    Remeber folks – my points are specific to the legislation that is being proposed. not that guns should willy-nilly be put in the hands of anyone that wants one.

  29. Dave says:

    “The intention to create damage is the person behind it ”

    No. The intended function (purpose) of a particular type of weapon is to kill someone. Alcohol has no such purpose/function. Using a hammer to kill someone does not negate its intended function which is to hammer nails.

    Tools have express purposes. Tools are made to be used by people. What is analogous, is the efficiency with which a tool can be employed in the performance of its intended function. That is why nail guns are used on things like roofs as opposed to a hammer. AR-15s were developed to be efficient in their intended function. Their intended function is to kill people. The AR-15 is very efficient in performing its intended function. Alcohol, DUIs, ad nauseuam do that have that intended function. It remains a false equivalency.

  30. Independent says:

    Dave – you suggest that no gun owners that have an AR style weapon want that for anything more than killing people? Absurd. That is to suggest that alchohol doesnt serve different people differently.

    False as it is to you – it remains for me. perhaps because I dont drink and perhaps you do?

    I will agree that in addition to sporting purposes – guns in major portion are used for killing. Animals and sadly in some cases people. But just as you wont throw out alchohol because it can be used badly – then why guns which some use for sporting?

    Is it more efficient way to kill people than what? a bat? a bomb? poison gas? I certainly will agree that under the specifics of efficiency – having more rounds in a magazine makes a “gun” more efficient at firing those rounds. The intention is still the person behind the gun.

  31. V says:

    Well since you shot down all the proposals without suggesting others thats how i interpreted your comment. Since that’s not the case, I was mistaken. But it’s not an uncommon argument.

    also your link works now, in case you were wondering.

  32. cassandra_m says:

    There is no proposal to ban guns on the table. Just one subcategory of them. Full stop. And nor have you provided any proof that the state has stopped doing background checks. So you will need to engage the people in this conversation in what is real and what they are talking about rather than whatever BS you are making up just so that your hair can be on fire. This is pretty tedious.

  33. Independent says:

    BTW – if you dont believe me on the stopping of state background checks – call the AGs office and ask. Or perhaps call your local gun shop and ask if there is a state background check? It was defunded/stopped in July of this year under the guise of using the money elsewhere… I know, i was surprised as well.

    Im not here to “prove” anything – rather have a dialouge – dont believe me? OK – then I suspect I may need to not beleive your posts?

    I am simply asking if we are going to have a discussion and make attempts – why false ones that add nothing to the outcome?

  34. V says:

    To backpack on cass – they acknowledge that people already have those guns and there will be exceptions so they can keep them.

    also I’m not completely ignorant. I’ll out myself at this point and tell everybody that Mr. V has an AK-47, several bolt-action rifles and also a musket (hilariously). I’ve fired the AK (with blanks). This law will affect him/me. I’m totally ok with that. I’m almost positive last time he bought something he did a background check but that was admittedly before July.

  35. Independent says:

    Cassandra_m – you pick the store, time and place. I will gladly walk in with you and you can ask… Tell me where to be and I will be there and you can ask the question independent of my words.

  36. V says:

    re: backgrounds checks – i couldnt find any articles or laws to back up with Indy says. If it’s true they aren’t enforcing the law.

  37. Geezer says:

    “I simply dont understand removing rights – in particular constitutional rights – from lawful and abiding citizens because something may happen.”

    Please point out where any of these proposals “removes” any “rights.” SCOTUS recognizes the legitimate interest of the state in regulating gun ownership.

    Also, the notion that none of the other proposals would help is not backed up by anything beyond your opinion.

  38. cassandra_m says:

    Im not here to “prove” anything – rather have a dialouge – dont believe me? OK – then I suspect I may need to not beleive your posts?

    There is no dialogue when you refuse to address the facts as they are. And no one here will be bullied into addressing the falsehoods that you prefer to talk about. It isn’t important if you believe my posts especially since you don’t address what is being said in them in the first place.

  39. Independent says:

    Look folks – lets have some meaningful movement here – not a ban that simply flies in the face of the those that oppose it for legitimate reasons…

    Sounds liek you dont believe what i say – ok understandable I presume. Why not attempt to prove me wrong?

    While I commend anyone that takes a stand and says I too shall participate in this action (banning guns) and will ban my own guns… I have done the same with alchohol.

    Yes – I understand the distinction that many of you are attempting to make… I just dont understand the numbers. I resign myself to the knee jerk that comes with such a senseless tragedy. But I have also come to grips with the stats that bear out that these are “crazy” people that do these evil deeds.

    In that light – heaven help us if one of the crazy people waits for the crowds of kids waiting to board a bus and drives over them with their SUV. Will you want to ban cars then?

  40. Independent says:

    Cassandra – please share with me what i have not addressed. I am open to the conversation.

    I invite you to check my facts – simple as that – no bullying here.

    Perhaps “V” who is a gun owner can check – maybe he is Ok with that and you will believe him?

  41. V says:

    V is a lady and is also and work and not going to do your homework for you (though i thought about it). Why does everyone always think im a boy?

    i found laws that refute what you say, and i found a lack of background check language on local gun store websites in the area. that’s all im going to look up.

  42. Independent says:

    Geezer – yse – it is my opinion on some things but…

    Since there exists a federal No Gun zone law within 1000 feet of a school – why does it help to add another?

    I believe that person-to-person sales should be background checked.

    I have already stated that is magazines are banned – why would the rifle need to be banned?

    Perhaps I picked the wrong words – you are correct I velieve that a state can modify (to a degree) the restrictions on certain guns… but again, revert to the banning of magazines vs. the banning of the rifles.

    If you care to expand your knowledge – or perhaps you alread know – look at gun crime stats via the FBI site I mentioned and compare that to their ban on magazines and ammo, etc. what do the deaths per 100,000 say to you? To me it says that these bans dont reduce the numbers…

    So I revert to theq uestion – if they dont change the numbers – then why submitted lawful people to them?

  43. Independent says:

    “V” = apologies I thought I saw a “mr” in front of a post.

    Wow. I cant call for you and i have no way to prove to you other than my word. I assure, I asked 2 times in the last 2 weeks and 2 different guns stores as I attempted to buy some hunting supplies. I can only tell you what each told me. Millers on 13 and X-ring down around Newark.

    But a more pertinent question – why would i attempt to mislead you on such a simple to verify fact? if I am correct – doesnt this say that something is wrong with the current system and we need more meaningful change?

  44. socialistic ben says:

    Mass killings don’t really have a place in this discussion. I don’t happen to think we CAN ever stop this sort of thing form happening altogether. They crazy person WILL get a gun, or they WILL make a bomb. That’s one for our national state of mental health, which is really not good. We, as a people really need help on that front.
    What gun control has to focus on are the almost 100 people killed every single day by guns. Let’s see if we can’t cut that number in half just my being a bit more careful about how guns are sold…. NO one who is a serious part of this discussion has suggested banning guns. I’d like that, but I’m smart enough to know it can’t EVER happen.
    Independent, a “meaningful movement” does not mean the louder tougher side gets everything they want. You didnt “say” that, I know, but understand that we have been doing things “the NRA way” for far too long now with only bad results. Their “ideas” have been proven horrible, they have no more place in the discussion. None. the fact they still get so much air time shows how much they control the game. It’s disgusting.
    What it always, eventually, boils down to, if you’re talking to Wayne Lapeirre, or to Alex Jones, or Billy Bob 6-pack, is “well, what about if i have to use my gun against the gumment?!” (that statement is usually shouted by a middle-aged single white male.)
    My answer to that is “screw you” If your baseline is “when will I get to kill Americans who think we should keep the current government?”, I don’t want you anywhere near policy discussions. You are a paranoid murderous freak who actually should be the model of someone who SHOULDN’T own a gun.
    That school shooting in California last week….. That was not a “bad man with a gun being stopped by a good man with a bigger gun” as the cave-men at the NRA would have loved….. but a very disturbed and sick CHILD with a gun stopped by an unarmed hero who knew how to TALK to them. Another mass shooting was stopped by hand on the shoulder, not a finger on a trigger.

  45. Independent says:

    Found a news article that references the bills – you will notice it repeals the state background check.

    Further – you may or may not be aware that depending on the weapon – Federal background checks have always been in place IN ADDITION to the state background checks.

    The arguement presented to me was that State checks have greater accuracy (Mental health and restraining orders, etc.) and denied 3-1 over the federal checks:

    On July 13, Governor Jack Markell signed into law two bills of note to Delaware’s gun owners, NRA-supported House Bill 48 and NRA-opposed Senate Bill 25. HB 48 will go into effect no later than December 31, while SB 25 took immediate effect.

    Sponsored by state Representative Valarie Longhurst (D-15), House Bill 48 will update Delaware state law to meet the requirements set forth in the federal NICS Improvement Amendments Act (NIAA). HB 48 provides a relief-from-disabilities process allowing an individual to get their firearm rights restored. HB 48 also requires the state to provide mental health records to the NICS database if the individual, as a result of a mental health adjudication, is prohibited from possessing a firearm. In addition to conforming Delaware law to the NIAA, this legislation also repeals Delaware’s Instant Check for firearm purchases and moves all background checks to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

    Senate Bill 25, sponsored by state Senator Robert Marshall (D-3), creates the Community Firearm Recovery Program, a pilot program that will use state appropriated funds for local municipal police, the New Castle County Police and the Delaware State Police, to purchase surrendered firearms. Senate Bill 25 establishes a system that lacks fiscal accountability and opens the door to potential misappropriation of funds, while in no way deterring crime.

  46. Independent says:

    S. Ben – agree on much… La Pierre came across as unbalanced to me in the news reel that I saw. Some items i agree with and some i dont of their proposal.

    Yes – there is a time and place for Good vs. bad. I dont oppose protecting our most precious future leaders but dont think it should be under the NRA’s direction. I like the reitred police officer approach I bleiev some districts have implemented – I will search for the news article if needed.

    At any rate – the ban is the issue for me. Create a higher hurdle, create stronger mental health checks, implement person to person sales without a transfer – all great ideas.

    Adding an identical 1000 ft law to schools, banning a rifle that looks scary but performs like many non-ar style guns is pandering and doesnt help us keep people safe.

  47. kavips says:

    Ok.. back up a bit. I’m missing why a ban is not a good idea. It seems to make extremely good sense.

    If a drug causes birth defects, it gets banned. So what? Open pits of chicken manure causes algae blooms 100’s of miles away. Banned. So what? What on earth would make military hardware different? It hurts people. Ban it. So what?

    I just don’t get it. What’s the big deal against banning military weapons from being handled by insane people? And why would the quixotic NRA make this their Masada?

  48. Independent says:

    I cant speak for the NRA – cant answer that portion or understand their approach.

    Guns are already precluded from insane, mentaly unbalanced, etc. if authorities are aware. HOWEVER – there appears to be a process whereby one can get themselves healthy and regain the right – so says the HB48 you linked to. BTW – thank you.

    My arguement to the banning is that there are many items out there that cause problems – drugs today that cause birth defects as you mention that are not taken off the market. Why? I would assume that similar to any other items – with the knowledge of the potential problem and handling in safe ways – they dont cause a problem.

    Just as “V” has a rifle that would be banned – her rifle has not been used in a way that injures others – so why should it be banned or she be banned from it?

    Frankly – this is the same argument with any item – including alchohol… DUI’s cause more deaths than guns in total – not just rifles – why not ban that? of course, this doesnt represent the millions that use alchohol responsibly. Why should they be banned?

  49. cassandra_m says:

    I just spoke to the AG’s office and background checks for gun purchases at federally licensed dealers were NOT suspended. How could they be — they are a Federal requirement. What DID happen was that the DE State Police stopped doing the checks for in-state dealers and checks were migrated to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which is maintained by the FBI. It is also an instant check, vs the State Police conducted one. One other thing about this — as part of a number of gun safety measures passed last year, Delaware now reports fairly rigorously into that database known Delawareans with mental health issues that would preclude them from legally owning a gun.

    So there you have it. Independent was quite wrong on this thing, and take the rest of what he has to say with a grain of salt.

  50. socialistic ben says:

    The more i think about Chris Rock’s suggestion to make every bullet cost $5,000, the more it makes sence.

  51. Independent says:

    I respectfully disagree – millions enjoy sporting reasons for owning guns. One stat suggests 270 Mil. guns – a rate of 88.9 per 100…

    I cant say how many are handguns vs. rifles but the FBI stats suggest 323 deaths were the result of rifles of all types. This is down from 453 in 2007 – this is as of the end of 2011 – 2012 numbers are preliminary.

    While 323 deaths is terrible – should we ban rifles because bad people use them to do bad things? Or create costs for ammo that prevent law abidding people from lawful use of their guns/rifles?

    If so – then lets do the same for all the other things that cause these deaths – knives and cutting instruments accounted for 1694 deaths in the same period as the rifle stats above…

  52. socialistic ben says:

    What they are doing with their guns is not vital to their lives. If they can prove then need to hunt to eat, they can have their bullets subsidized…. or better yet, learn to use a crossbow.. when you miss, it doesnt scare all the other food away. They also sholdnt be hunting with a handgun.
    Aside from that, their enjoyment at poppin off a few rounds at the range is not as important to me as all the gun violence in cities.

  53. Independent says:

    Cassandra – I posted the news article. You need to read the bill. You question my veracity but your is beyond reproach… please.

    Federal background checks were already in place IN ADDITION to the state checks – always have been – nothing new here.

    Delaware does not report all mental health items yet – ask the AG. The databse is being compiled and subject to the court reporting. This will hopefully be resolved with the new system that is being built by the state – but not yet complete.

    In addition, the 3-1 rejection rate that was shared with me is what delaware was rejecting as opposed to the national check. Even assuming Delaware was not rejecting that many vs. the state – these included protection orders, spousal/familial abuse, etc. You may not like the facts – but facts they are. Ask yourself why it (HB 48) was supported by the NRA…

    I am qotuing the source for every stat – and thanks to some even a link to the bill… I told you the state wasnt doing it since july… Now you want to argue your definition… Good Night.

  54. V says:

    I’m down to turn that sucker in. Just saying.

  55. cassandra_m says:

    You told me to call the AG’s office to ask and so I did. You were wrong that Delaware stopped doing background checks. Those checks are being done, except now via the Federal database.

    Nor did I say that all mental health items have been reported — this is where we get that you aren’t interested in dialogue, otherwise why are you arguing something I never said? — just that last year’s set of bills made it easier to more vigorously report that data.

    You aren’t quoting sources — where do you get that someone wants to ban all rifles from? But don’t answer that. If you’re gone, stay gone. Really.

  56. SussexAnon says:

    Re: Alchohol V Guns.

    Alchohol is actually a pretty good example.

    Through tougher DUI laws, education, DUI checkpoints, efforts to curtail underage drinking, etc. Alchohol related accidents/deaths have been greatly reduced over the last 4 decades with MADD first started on their journey.

    So yeah, lets do to the same thing with guns.

    Not that I should really take Independent seriously when he posts language like “why make any more laws, a criminal is just gonna break ’em anyway.”

  57. geezer says:

    “Since there exists a federal No Gun zone law within 1000 feet of a school – why does it help to add another?”

    Because federal charges and state charges are two different things.

    “So I revert to the question – if they dont change the numbers – then why submitted lawful people to them?”

    Because gun deaths per 100,000 are not the target of such bans. They exist to lower the number of casualties in cases of mass murder. Such cases comprise a tiny percentage of gun deaths per year, but they get lots of attention when they occur, and while the ban was in effect it did cut the number of high-capacity magazines in criminal circulation, judged by the kinds of weapons seized by police.

    Despite the liberal headline, this story from a few weeks ago provides a good summary and several useful links:

    I have to wonder how serious you are about your supposed curiosity, since I answered those questions with about 15 seconds of googling.

  58. Roland D. Lebay says:


    I own a virtually useless .22 semi-auto rifle (useful only for target shooting) that some might consider an assault weapon. It wouldn’t hurt my feelings if the gubmint told me I had to turn it in tomorrow. I paid a whopping $60 for it & I haven’t fired it in 19+ years.

    That said, let’s have an honest debate & not cherry pick data to support your point of view.

    It’s not realistic or honest to extrapolate data from ONE state (Virginia) and apply it to the entire nation. The article you linked admits there is a lack of data due to NRA influence on our lawmakers. Lack of data means just that. Not enough data to reach an honest, accurate conclusion.

    Your comment did nothing to answer Independent’s question. A federal law already exists. Let the feds prosecute and incarcerate those who violate the gun free school zones. The only reason the state wants to get involved is so it looks like our politicians are doing something.

  59. Roland D. Lebay says:


    Your comment might carry some weight if we had a Constitutional right to drink alcohol.

    As Dave said, “I won’t bore you with a treatise on false equivalency (false analogy). Suffice to say that just because two things seem to share a common property (deaths) does not make them analogous.”

  60. bamboozer says:

    Went down to Dover today, there was a swarm of terrified gunners at the gun shop across from the Walmart in Cheswold (how appropriate! ) including one old fool who almost caused an accident by driving his pricey pickup onto rt.13 without concern for oncoming traffic. All in all a fine collection of idiots, I would have loved to stick around and see if any of them caused any further mayhem, other than the guns and ammo they were no doubt stocking up on.

  61. cassandra m says:

    Facebook tells me that Beau Biden will be on Rachel Maddow’s show tonite to talk about today’s proposals.

  62. geezer says:

    “It’s not realistic or honest to extrapolate data from ONE state (Virginia) and apply it to the entire nation.”

    It’s not data from one state. And it’s more data than you have for your side of the argument.

    “A federal law already exists. Let the feds prosecute and incarcerate those who violate the gun free school zones. The only reason the state wants to get involved is so it looks like our politicians are doing something.”

    The feds spend most of their time these days investigating terrorism, so you’re wrong again.

    Here’s an idea: Give me some data that suggests doing nothing — isn’t that what you’re calling for? — will change anything.

  63. meatball says:

    Background checks for gun purchases in Delaware used to consist of two seperate checks. The dealer called two different numbers, supplied them each with the vitals the purchaser reported on his application and waited for a return call from each of the background check agencies before processing the purchase. The federal check takes about 10 minutes. Previously, I have waited up to 40 minutes for the state to call back. The state check is no longer required and hasn’t been required since July.

  64. meatball says:

    None of the proposed new laws address the real problem. The common thread in ALL mass shootings is mental instability. This is a fact, and as a member of the fact based community, I’m appalled that none of my fellow liberals have pointed this out. I do know why the Governor hasn’t though. It will be very expensive to enact the real (healthcare) reforms that actually might have had a chance at preventing any mass shooting.

  65. cassandra_m says:

    The mental illness problem is not the same as the gun problem. And *that* is a fact. Because with or without guns, mental illness will be with us. The easy availability of guns makes it alot easier for the mentally ill who have a break to slaughter people. But on the flip side, there are quite a few mentally ill people who will never be a violent problem. The easy availability of the tools for mass violence is the problem.

  66. meatball says:

    That said, I have no problem with proposals 1, 2, or 5. Number 3 seems a bit ridiculous. 5 round magazines? How does one gain proficiency at the range with a 5 round magazine?

    And this, making possession of high capacity magazines illegal”in a public place (which would include highways, schools, parks, restaurants, bars, and similar locations).” Has anyone seen anyone carrying high capacity magazine at the mall?

    And number 4 is merely a cosmetic “fix” for the unguneducated crowd.

    All these bills do is add charges after a crime has already been committed that in all likelihood would already be a capital crime to begin with. Nothing about the real cause of the crimes- mental illness.

  67. meatball says:

    And these proposals do nothing to ensure that guns won’t be with us either.

    How about a two pronged approach reduce accessibility to guns and increase accessibility to mental healthcare.

  68. cassandra_m says:

    These proposals aren’t meant to ensure that the guns won’t be with us. They are meant to help reduce (not eliminate) some of the dangers/loopholes that allow some of these mass shootings to happen.

  69. Johno says:

    The problem is law abiding people will get caught up in this have a legal mag and a legal gun but they can’t be within twenty feet of each other or in car on highway how do you go to range?

  70. Johno says:

    They don’t make a five round clip for most rifles now what good are the guns they are letting us keep I guess us shooters in Delaware will have to start voting republican and that is coming from a life long dem

  71. meatball says:

    Can we agree that ALL, every single mass shooter is mentally ill?

  72. anonymous says:

    Shooters are a type of murderer. All murderers aren’t deemed by courts to be mentally ill.

    All those with mental illness, can’t be considered those who would murder.

    Those whom people consider stable, may not be.

    Lots of slippery slopes.

  73. anonymous says:

    Could it be that selling guns without background or mental checks, selling military purpose guns, clips – means more gun/ammo profits? Of course it does. (Similar to Bangladesh fire trap factories, making clothing on $1’s worth of labor.) So why spend good money on fire escapes? When US interests run foreign labor factories on cheap coal, assemble gadgets, materials, on next to nothing wages, making American capitalists and foreign elites billions.Why control anthropogenic CO2? So what if they can’t breathe in China?) So what if China is now the largest CO2 producer helping to turn the planet deadly? So what if armed gunmen need to stand watch over all kids in all classrooms and everyone else, everywhere else. What’s important – selling a lot of clothes, gadgets, fossil fuels, guns, ammo. It’s always the same story. Sales, profits, to hell with the damages caused, be they social, environmental, ethical, financial, etc.

    And what about people’s obvious God given right to breathe clean air, inherit a livable planet or not have people shot with military style weaponry and force?

    Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the America’s largest gun lobby, told a press conference in Washington: “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to have a good guy with a gun.” First of all, no it isn’t. The best time to stop him, is before he picks up his or anyone else’s gun. He also didn’t mention that there are hundreds of thousands of ‘bad’ guys and millions of places that bad guys can show up. Even imagining that a LaPierre crazy world with armed gunmen on every corner could exist, who would pay – republicans? Do denying republicans want to pay for climate damages? Sure they don’t.

    In other words, in order to be safe, LaPierre says, guns, guns and more guns. $$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$. Way to sell guns, LaPierre.

    LaPierre added, armed guards in schools are “the only line of defense that’s tested and proven to work”. He sounded so sincere, but no he isn’t. Even a generation ago, no one ever saw, heard of, wanted or needed to have guns, or use guns at schools.

    What politicians should consider is that the merchants of death will not only say infiltrate the kiddies classrooms, but also every home and every private and public place with guns. Perhaps, the American government itself – might be the battleground that some may feel ‘must’ be overtaken.

    If politicians can’t/won’t solve the problems of five year old’s being shot with military weaponry in their own classrooms, in Newtown, USA, what can they solve?

    Take the guns from the illegal and ‘questionable’ guys, before the guns are used to kill anyone. Add appropriate insurance for appropriate gun ownership. For example, vehicles are inspected, registered, tagged as legal for certain time periods, insured – others are not. Add a clause to accept legal, financial responsibility for any illegal use of one’s gun. People will lock them up. Not approved,not registered, not insured – then that person is an illegal gun owner. Fines, prison time. Politicians need to stand up and stop taking orders and selling guns for the death merchants.

    There are 100,000 (human) shootings per year in America. When a gun salesman appears on TV and tells politicians, (their main target) the problem is, you need guns in classrooms – politicians need to realize what a sad state the country has sunken to and they should also know they as politicians have again been exposed as the special interest enablers, riding shotgun to the next crime scene. If politicians permit ‘unregulated’ chaos, chaos will ensue and politicians will be the responsible parties who allowed the guns to remain in the wrong hands. Newtown was every town that has caused everyone to ask. how could this happen, (even though it’s happening everywhere, every day.) The oversights, mistakes, careless assumptions, negligence or just plain criminal activity involved in all types of shootings should be reviewed, with as much risk as possible, eliminated. After all politicians, you’re dealing with weaponry, not men’s toys.

    Another NRA saying, Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. That’s also purposefully misleading and wrong.. Guns do kill people. Does the victim have a bullet in him or was he smacked around by a person? Politicians should note, NRA calls for good guys ‘WITH GUNS’ and ‘ARMED’ guards in schools instead of just – good guys and guards, Precisely because the truth is -people WITH GUNS kill people. The government needs to do their job determining who’s bad with a gun, who’s good and what many steps are necessary to protect innocent life – from the wrong people with guns. If a person is a criminal, no guns; that’s a given. It’s a tough job, considering some people might not reveal how messy their lives are; that they share lives with questionable gun users; their lives change with time; they’re careless; maybe they drink too much; are at times unpredictable; have various undocumented challenges and even expiration dates, when guns should be removed. Some weaponry and ammo are ‘overkill.’ as ‘protection’, bordering more on combat ready. Reality is, there needs to be limits as to who is acceptable as a gun owner/user and what shiny, sexy weaponry and military ammo dealers may present as acceptable under the right to bear arms. Certainly at Newtown, this hadn’t been done.

  74. SussexWatcher says:

    Anyone have more info on the new Delaware Coalition Against Gun Violence? Website, contact info?

  75. meatball says:

    It doesn’t cost anymore to manufacture a 10 round magazine than it does a 30 round. And, anonymous, you are definitely the type of person that should never own a firearm.

  76. occam says:

    Where is the discussion on mental health? Whatever on guns, the shootings in Webster, NY proved that AWBs are meaningless to deranged gunmen. What are we going to do about mental health?

  77. pandora says:

    I’m all for better mental health care in this country, so sign me up for that.

    But to say that only mentally ill people get guns and kill people does lead us down the trail of, not only mandatory background checks, but ongoing monitoring of who owns guns.

    So, if we agree that all mass shooters are mentally ill, then we’d need to not only improve our tracking of them but our tracking of guns – and I’m thinking that the NRA would have a problem with that. But… how can everyone who claims we need to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill not support a thorough background check, constant monitoring of gun owners (in case they become mentally ill) and a complete list of who owns what guns and where they are?

    I just don’t see one (mentally ill register) existing without the other (background check, constant monitoring, gun registry). I’m not necessarily calling for this, but if we’re going to focus on mental illness then the way to track them is through the health system and through their gun purchases.

    And… if we’re going to make mental illness the common denominator – even though most mentally ill people are victims of crime – may I toss in another? White males – who are responsible for almost all mass shootings. Should we start monitoring them, as well? Is there something in white, male culture that makes them more susceptible to this behavior?

    And before you dismiss this… I remember a LOT of talk about the culture the Virginia Tech shooter was raised in. Not so much about the Tucson shooter, Aurora or Newtown. And that puzzles me. If Asian women were responsible for most of the mass shootings you know we’d be discussing their race and gender. Just sayin’

  78. If I read the Governor’s press statement accurately, there WILL be a mental health component forthcoming.

  79. pandora says:

    The mental health component is good (like I said, I’m all for improving mental health care) but it won’t work without an in-depth gun background check and constant monitoring/updating of gun owners’ mental health.

    If we collect info (names, addresses, etc.) on mentally ill people then how would we use that info to keep guns out of their hands without tracking them… and, possibly their family members? Seem like these two things would go hand in hand.

    I’m playing devil’s advocate a bit, but if we’re going down the path of saying the mentally ill are the cause of a lot of gun violence and we should figure out who they are and make sure they don’t get their hands on guns then it won’t be enough to simply have a list of mentally ill people. We would need to close all the gun loopholes and cross check gun purchases with the mentally ill list. Seriously, how else would this work?

  80. anonymous says:

    Meatball, I find your attachment to military style weapons and clips questionable. You’re one short of a pair and your gun ownership can’t make up for that.

    Meatball states, “Previously, I have waited up to 40 minutes for the state to call back. The state check is no longer required and hasn’t been required since July.” One sees problems with both those sentences. Why Meatball’s background check would take 40 minutes and that the state dropped the very requirement that could weed out a questionable person.

    The gun problem isn’t just about ‘mass’ shootings. It’s about gun owners using guns to shoot people, 100,000 times per year. It’s about convicted felons, minors and other prohibited purchasers, purchasing without background checks (or adequate checks) and remaining in possession of said guns. It about irresponsible gun ownership, not leaving guns laying around for disturbed people to use. It’s about saying, after the fact, oh, my gun was stolen or someone else used it. – not my responsibility. It about limits on war zone weaponry and ammo. It’s about criminals with guns. It’s about people using large clips for quicker killing, not your lack of proficiency and your desire to have 30 round clips readily available, Meatball.

    Meatball, your 8:21 p.m. comment, states, “And this, making possession of high capacity magazines illegal in a public place (which would include highways, schools, parks, restaurants, bars, and similar locations).” Meatball, you don’t seem capable of understanding, “This bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer or delivery of large-capacity magazines. It means, they want to do away with your high capacity magazines, even though Meatball thinks, “How does one gain proficiency at the range with a 5 round magazine?” Apparently Meatball thinks his personal lack of rapid gun fire skill, is more important. “3. Banning the Sale, Manufacture, Delivery and Unlawful Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines: ” Meatball calls that -“a bit ridiculous.”

    Going down the Meatball list, Meatball claims, “..And number 4 is merely a cosmetic “fix” for the unguneducated crowd.”
    “Unguneducated,” heehaw classic.
    Hardly your ‘cosmetic fix,’ Meatball. The following is a ban on military weapons.

    “4. Banning the Manufacture, Sale, Delivery and Unlawful Possession of Military Weapons:
    The sale of military-style assault weapons – firearms that are made for the battlefield and have no place in our communities – was outlawed in 1994, but the ban expired a decade later. This bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale and delivery of these military weapons.”

    Meatball, some posters here already had a problem with your mindless all encompassing blanket statement, quote Meatball, “Northing about the real cause of the crimes-mental illness.”

    How many times have you read, ‘he was the nicest guy, I can’t believe he would…..why he’s the most outstanding…..’ Another item to add to the governor’s list should be, upgrading psychological tests and their new results, for all present and future gun owners.

    Even though the state has come forward with proposed goals, ” keeping guns away from dangerous people, and protecting victims from the weapons most likely to be used illegally.” One Meatball says, “And these proposals do nothing to ensure that guns won’t be with us either,” obviously his primary concern – keeping his weapons and clips.

    One good question comes out of one Meatball’s obvious fears of holding onto his guns and ammo: How does the new state legislative agenda plan to deal with the ‘under the radar’ gun owners who have already stockpiled the proposed banned military-style assault weapons and large clips? Also, how often are gun owners re certified as competent to own/handle guns? And what about upgrading fines, prison time, for illegal possession?

    Missing, the legislative requirement for insurance on guns.

  81. puck says:

    I’m libertarian enough to be uncomfortable with the idea of tracking all mentally ill people. It is a very large number, compared with the number of mentally ill people who actually will ever hurt anybody. Once they are tracked for the purpose of denying guns, surely other unrelated purposes will be developed. Perhaps gun purchases could require a physical/mental exam just like a pilot’s license. Then you only track the people who actually want to buy guns.

  82. cassandra m says:

    But to say that only mentally ill people get guns and kill people does lead us down the trail of, not only mandatory background checks, but ongoing monitoring of who owns guns.

    So I’d be OK with the gun permitting process including the buyer having to submit to a mental health evaluation. Even better, they’d have to submit to it on a routine basis.

  83. pandora says:

    Look, Meatball is a long time commenter so I’m uncomfortable with labeling him as some sort of gun nut, when I know he isn’t. And I am “unguneducated” and want to learn the basics. I don’t want to support window dressing, useless laws.

  84. puck says:

    On second thought, if high-capacity weapons are unavailable, why track the mentally ill at all? Remember we are talking about preventing mass shooting incidents. But when it comes to ordinary weapons and ordinary murders, the risk of the mentally ill committing those crimes is probably not much higher than non-mentally ill people, and can be dealt with using current methods.

  85. geezer says:

    Reading comprehension, people: He said MASS murders are committed by mentally ill people. Anybody want to put down the straw and take on his actual argument?

  86. anon says:

    Wouldn’t it also be common sense to have people applying for gun permits submit to drug testing? I don’t think I want a crack head with no arrest record buying guns and ammo.

    Unfortunately, if you listen to people like the blathering fat head on WGMD there can be no mental health restrictions or any other type of restriction on gun ownership.

  87. Independent says:

    Good Morning all.

    Reads as though there is still lots to discuss.

    Cassandra – hopefully some who posted after me helps you understand my point on background checks. As a person who purchased a gun prior to the cessation of the state check, I can tell you that indded what is written is true that there were 2 checks and that usually the state checks took longer due to the process. I assumed you understood this since you entered the discussion about same. The reality is that we should never have stopped them in Delaware. The excluded more people than the fed checks do. Additionally, understand that the change now essentially puts some of the items checked at the State level into checkboxes on a questionaiire. While it is illegal to answer them dishonestly – lets be real. Those that are precluded and those that are making straw purchases dont care anyway. try as you might to label me a not telling the truth – I did. When you didnt like it you get a walk around from the AG on how to explain it away. Either way I said teh State stopped checks and they did.

    Geezer – I have begun reading the article you posted and will continue to do so. I am troubled by what I read there. But let me be clear – I am not posting here to defend the NRA of there approach.

    Geezer – As for the gun free zone – it seems as if you are suggesting that there are breaches of the gun free zone around schools that go unpunished/prosecuted because they are at a federal level vs. a state level. Seems to be a stretch to me but if you can show me some support, i am all ears. My point here is that gun free zones dont protect our children – if they do, then lets put a gun free zone around Obama, Biden, etc. and consider them safe. Crazy people do crazy things – but crazy people dont obey laws when it comes to these tragedies.

    “V”- I appluad your conviction and desire to ban these guns including your own. However – there have been numerous gun trade in programs before the last one was scraped by the good folks in Dover. In addition – you can turn your gun intoday at any state tropper post. They will take it and find the best place for it either destroyed or perhaps used in the training programs etc. Subjecting the public at large to a ban because you indiviudally believe this way is like me wanting to ban alchohol because of what it creates in DUI.

    Pandora – Yes – we need a better mental health approach – completely agree. the person-to-person transfer seems to work for part of this. Hopefully the system in development in delaware for mental health issues will help. As for tracking guns, etc. this is already being done. For those that are unaware – the serial number for each background check is recorded with the check. In effect a type of registration. Add to that person-to-person sales needing a check and you have thetracking in place.

    But lets recall Adam Lanza whose actions sparked this latest call – stole the guns, they didnt belong to him. Therefore – knowing where the guns are (and in cases of straw purchases) where the originate – doesnt stop crazy.

    I return to the question as to why it is acceptable to not take similar approaches to reduce DUIs and alchohol related crimes.

    Lastly – look at the FBI stats – for Delaware… Something is wrong with a rifle ban (assault or not) when it is not the cause of the shootings here.

  88. cassandra m says:

    Anybody want to put down the straw and take on his actual argument?

    He hasn’t made an argument — just asked if we can all agree that mass murders are mentally ill. Why agree to something that has no data to support it? On the flip side, we can agree that the majority of mass murderers are male. Now what?

  89. cassandra m says:

    hopefully some who posted after me helps you understand my point on background checks

    No — because this is your original point:

    For example – how many new that this Governor, AG, and our representatives stopped background checks in Delaware over 6 months ago? They werent worthwhile then, but now they are essential?

    This implies that there were no background checks and further implies that the state would be doing them again as a result of the Governor’s gun safety package. At no time did you note that the Federal checks were still in place. At no time did you ever note any superiority of doing checks at both the State and Fed level. And I still can’t figure out what the Governor’s proposed expansion of background checks to private sales has to do with relying on a single background check.

  90. cassandra m says:

    And before we cite Adam Lanza as the poster boy for mental health issues — I will remind everyone that as of now, the only thing he is accused of is autism which isn’t mental illness. As of now, authorities are waiting for the toxicology tests to see if he was being medicated for any mental illness, but no one can say this kid was mentally ill just yet with any certainty.

  91. Independent says:

    Cassandra – My apologies for assuming you were educated on the facts of a topic you seem so ready to discuss. Initially I presumed that all knew there were both state and federal checks.

    Additionally – follow my posts. When it occurred to me that there might be some confusion, I was quite clear that this was for state background checks.

    I have also posted my support for increasing background checks to include person-to-person sales. Great thing about these technolgy blog wonders – they keep that history too.

    My point was then and is now – that most of these proposals do nothing to make us safer. Something more needs to take place – something different. Part is mental health – although i dont understand your arguement that we dont know if Lanza was unbalanced – by definition his actions show he was. if our state leaders stopped a process that was more indepth and prevented more sales – why do they have such great ideas now – the answer is that they dont. these are feel good laws – not a path to prevention.

    But lets assume he wasnt – lets assume he was in delaware… Not a single one of the new proposals would have stopped him if he decided to do here what he did in new Town – god forbid. That doesnt help me feel we are making adequate change to protect our children.

  92. geezer says:

    Really? You think shooting up an elementary school with which he had no connection was a rational act? How about Jared Loughner? James Holmes? That nutcase in Norway? All acting rationally?

    The question was an implicit argument, and Cassandra reacts with her usual defensiveness. Yeah, that’ll get us far.

    The fact is that we have no consistent definition of “mentally ill,” so you’re essentially ruling out all discussion of the connection between guns and mental illness in white men. Just once, try being open to someone who disagrees with you. Thanks in advance.

  93. geezer says:

    Independent: You are starting with an assumption that the discussion should be about preventing that specific tragedy. Nobody else assumes that.

    Beyond that, the assault weapons ban DID effect gun casualties in mass shootings. So your whole position is a steaming pile of bullshit.

  94. Independent says:

    If this is not about what happaned in New Town and a knee jerk to that – then why ban something that hasnt killed in delaware at least back to 2009 if i recall the FBI stats. Why was it referenced in the speeches introdcing the proposals. Why arent handguns being banned?

    When you return to the effect of assault weapons on mass shooting you are right back to the original premise – that we shoudl ban them to prevent mass shootings.

    But we didnt ban airplanes after 9-11 – we increased security.

    BS? Your opinion i suppose.

  95. Independent says:

    Geezer – Did you know that the bushmaster used by Adam lanza was NOT on the ban list previously?

    Could a Ban Have Prevented the Connecticut Shootings?

    It’s impossible to say for sure, but it seems unlikely that if the law were still in place, as it was written, it could have done much to prevent Friday’s tragedy. Lanza’s primary weapon, the Bushmaster .223 rifle, is a type of AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, certain models of which were prohibited from being sold under the ban, but the Bushmaster model used by Lanza was not on that list.

    A bit more data that is interesting:

  96. geezer says:

    You just undermined your own point.

    “But we didnt ban airplanes after 9-11 – we increased security.”

    No we didn’t — we PRETENDED to increase security in order to placate the traveling public. Has forcing everyone to take off their shoes stopped a single incident? Of course not.

    Your point, I take it, is that this is just window dressing. No shit, Sherlock. The fact that you think a law won’t have any positive effect is — without data to support it — is no reason to oppose it. If you want to point to a NEGATIVE effect, go ahead. Good luck.

  97. cassandra m says:

    And while you want to erase any difference between “rational acts” and “mental illness” there are differences for those interested in an honest argument and in language actually meaning something. Which would, as usual, exclude Geezer. So thanks for playing.

    Mental health professionals do have a working definition of mental illness, which *is* broad and the one that I use. Mental health professionals will also tell you that mental illness is not a reliable indicator of violence, either. A thing that the NRA will tell you once someone institutes a requirement that all gun owners need to submit to a mental health evaluation. An argument that asks that you agree to some enumeration needs to be accompanied by proof of that enumeration.

  98. geezer says:

    “Did you know that the bushmaster used by Adam lanza was NOT on the ban list previously?”

    So what? Again, you want to limit discussion to a single act. Lanza was the straw that broke the camel’s back, not the sole target of new gun laws.

  99. Independent says:

    Geezer – We are ideological loggerheads.

    Honeslty, i dont want this to be about Adam Lanza alone. But as you pointed out to casandra this is part of the implicit arguement. It was also part of the introduction from our lawmakers to these proposals. Does one go hand in hand – I suppose that is up to the reader. if it isnt about Adma lanza – then it is a gun grab as the crazy NRA says it is.

    You say remove a freedom/right/privelege because it makes people safer – when the stats dont show it does because I dont show you a negative effect. Is not a reduction of freedoms a negative effect to you? remeber – our stats supplied to the FBI show no rifle deaths since 2009. Seems like we got a good trend going here in delaware – hopefully it stays for 30 years that way.

    I say – dont remove a currently legal gun from law abiding citizens when they arent the ones committing the crimes. Lets create the environment that prohibits those that commit terrible acts of gun violence.

  100. liberalgeek says:

    100+ comments on a gun thread? Who’d a thunk it?

  101. pandora says:

    It’s like predicting the sun will rise in the east.

  102. socialistic ben says:

    If mental illness is not an indicator of violence, why bother having mental health checks for guns? Most shootings don’t happen with assault weapons. Mass shootings, sure… but does anyone really think we can prevent those? I’ll be a right wing teabagger here for a second (since that is what “some” people here will jump right to calling me for saying this) The manufacture, sale, and possession of a lot of drugs are illegal. If people want to get drugs to use them, they will. No matter what. Drugs and guns are, of course different…. I’ll say that again for folks who are going to call me an idiot for not knowing that guns and drugs are different….. gun and drugs, i know, are different. What is similar is people and their ability to get what they want.
    More guns is not the answer…. ok? more guns… is not the answer, but neither is a pointless law.
    We have reached a point where there are already so many guns
    that banning anymore wont go a whole lot. It will make those existing guns so valuable on a black market that gun owners in financial trouble will see them as an answer.
    Our problem is culture. We have been able to reduce smoking, under age drinking, racism, homophobia….. many many bad things through smart laws, but more through public education and a willful cultural shift. That, I think is the REAL way to reduce gun violence. People will do what they want to do.

  103. socialistic ben says:

    Ind…. first off, i applaud you for staying civil while going up against the two biggest…. i’ll say heavyweights…. on this blog. You’ve made some good points that have either been ignored or taken (what seems to me) the opposite of what you said.
    On your point of “creating an environment”, id like to know what you think that would look like. The California school shooting 2 weeks ago had an armed guard at the school and the shooter was stopped by an unarmed teacher who talked to them. Perhaps harsh penalties for bullies before they push a kid over the edge?

  104. puck says:

    yeah, the problem with blogs is all those damn comments.

  105. pandora says:

    Hmm… Staying civil against two of this blogs heavyweights? Who
    are the two heavyweights you refer to? Can I assume you mean me
    and Cassandra?

    You know, Ben, I wouldn’t (and have never) called you a right wing
    “Teabagger”. I would, however, describe you as overly sensitive. And
    all this stems from the fact that I asked for some thought on using sexist
    terms and how they bother me. Yeah, I’ve been reading your comment somersaults for a while.
    I get your use of endless disclaimers. I get the point you’re trying to make.
    I don’t respect your tactics, but I get exactly where you’re coming from.
    Enjoy your game.

  106. Independent says:

    S. Ben – Good question and i don’t pretend to know the answers of course.

    I like some of the elements of the EO stuff being discussed that Obama could do without congress:

    – Punish those that Lie on the background checks – apparently only a small fraction are.

    – NOT federal but – Complete the automated system that i understand Delaware is working on to more quickly report not only mental health but Domestic violence and other violent crimes that prevent gun ownership – especially restraining orders. This helps in the more common familial murders but might also help in mass murders.

    – Both at State and Federal level – lets make it so person-to-person sales must be transferred with background check. This happens today if one buys from a dealer out of state and the cost is only $30-$50 each.

    – Grants to schools explicitly intended on training for teachers, securing entrances and perhaps (i waffle here) hire retired police officers to patrol the entrances. My feeling here is that we hire crossing guards to protect our kids from traffic – lets add trusted men and women to protect entrances.

    – Mental health – I don’t know what to do. I am a bit old so my experience is different but my uncle was mentally retarded (that’s what we called it back then so please spare me the R word references from some of you) we were vigilant as a family and he spent some of his life in a group home. Im not sure how you handle the violent ones as my uncle was not. But we should be able to at least ensure that the dont own guns directly.

    – There is something to said for the magazine restrictions and I need to work through how this impacts our desire for safety vs. collides with gun ownership freedom.

    – Lastly, lets have some PSA, marketing, etc. for those dealing with someone they know, love, work or live around. Like suicide hotlines or domestic abuse hotlines, lets provide tools to identify when someone is on the edge.

    Just some thoughts – i am open to others.

  107. socialistic ben says:

    I wasn’t talking about you, Pan. Sorry for the confusion. You actually have never been anything but respectful and thoughtful to guests and fellow contributors and don’t really get any credit for it.
    I also don’t get how “heavyweights” is sexist.

    It is interesting you used the word “game”. I use all the disclaimers because I feel comments get cherry-picked (or as Jon Stewart would call it “turd-mined”) for things to get upset about, even if it totally and obviously changes the context of the comment. That is a game I dont respect, so I act like a child in response. That is why i use all the disclaimers. Not because im trying to imply that women are easily offended (i DONT think that) or anything like that. I just don’t like trolls. Again, wasn’t talking about you.

  108. Independent says:

    S. Ben – i also think a 3 day waiting period might be a good idea as well. Not sure that it directly affects the mass shootings but certainly allows a cooling off period.

  109. socialistic ben says:

    Im not sure that would work. Sueng-hui Cho, and James Holms spent weeks building their arsenals. Maybe spur-of the moment crimes of passion would be cut down a bit…. but focusing on mass shootings, I think, is as misguided forcing people to take off thier shoes. Whatever our initial response to a tragedy is, we should ignore it. After all the security in the world after 9/11 every following terror attempt made it past security adn was thwarted by civilian passengers. So much for body scans. If American killers are the same as “terrorist” killers, wouldnt a similar logic apply? Similarly, more guns can only mean more shootings.
    I like ammo restrictions the best. I dont care about sport. I’m sorry, but I really dont. It’s wasteful and not as important as the bigger problem (dont even get me STARTED on NASCAR) At some point we are going to have to reconcile our sense of entitlement when it comes to personal entertainment VS the public good. I think ammo is the best place to start. Make it harder to get, smaller quantities, and more expensive. You STILL wont stop a mass killer (slow him down, maybe) but i think the daily gun-slaughter rate would go down.

  110. socialistic ben says:

    I am also genuinely concerned about the crazy-fringe reaction to new gun laws. There are people who follow Alex Jones and CANT WAIT to take up arms against America. They are just waiting for an excuse. If COURSE they shouldn’t be part of the discussion, but we need to be prepared for them to get violent in response to actions taken, even if it only means staying away from Idaho for a while.

  111. Geezer says:

    “You say remove a freedom/right/privelege because it makes people safer – when the stats dont show it does because I dont show you a negative effect.”

    I’m telling you why the laws are being proposed, not whether or not I think they’ll do any good. I believe they will do little — but then, that’s more good than all the bullshit we put up with at the airport because 9/11.

    “Is not a reduction of freedoms a negative effect to you?”

    No, because we’re not talking about a victimless freedom. There are many less-dangerous freedoms we have curtailed — prostitution, recreational drug use — because of supposed secondary ill-effects. Why should guns be any different?

    And sorry, “because the Constitution” is no answer. One impetus behind the 2nd Amendment was the Founders’ antipathy to a standing professional army, referenced in IIRC five of the Federalist Papers. If we can ignore that part of the reason for the amendment, why can’t we go ahead and ignore other parts that have outlived their usefulness?

  112. Geezer says:

    “And while you want to erase any difference between “rational acts” and “mental illness” there are differences for those interested in an honest argument”

    Pretty odd comment from someone who claims words mean something. You have just stated the exact opposite of my actual position.

    Why don’t you ask your mental health professionals if they think the acts of these young men would fall under the umbrella of “mental illness”? Meanwhile, the rest of the rational folks here should feel free to ignore the rantings of a “progressive” who wants the cops to stop and frisk everyone who enters her neighborhood.

  113. mike says:

    “There is no proposal here to ban rifles.”

    Reading is fundamental. They specifically include a statewide “Assault Weapons Ban” so yes, there’s a proposal to ban rifles.

    Funny. Those supporting these laws don’t seem to care that there have been virtually NO murders involving ANY type of rifle (much less an “assault weapon”) in Delaware in the past decade. We are talking about an average of between 1-2 deaths per year by rifle fire over a decade.

    This has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with banning guns.

    Lost & Stolen only treats the victims of crime like criminals. It’s already illegal under both Federal law and Delaware law for a criminal to carry a gun within 1000 feet of a school.

    Let’s say I go shooting with friends out of state and I have “high capacity mags” in the trunk. It’s now illegal for me to stop for food or visit my parents on the way back simply because I have a bunch of mags in the car.

  114. Geezer says:

    “yes, there’s a proposal to ban rifles.”

    That makes it sound like you mean “all rifles” when in fact it means only certain rifles.

    “Let’s say I go shooting with friends out of state and I have “high capacity mags” in the trunk. It’s now illegal for me to stop for food or visit my parents on the way back simply because I have a bunch of mags in the car.”

    Boo fucking hoo. Now you can leave your high-capacity mags with your friends out of state — or were you too stupid to figure that out?

  115. Geezer says:

    “There are people who follow Alex Jones and CANT WAIT to take up arms against America.”

    There are people who think the Connecticut shootings were a fraud, just like 9/11. I expect Alex Jones to join their crusade.

    People like Alex Jones are essentially committing slow-acting suicide by cop.

  116. Independent says:

    Geezer – by your assertion that gun ownership is not a victimless freedom – neither is consuming alchohol. DUIs account for more deaths annualy than guns yet I hear no effort to ban alchohol.

    Is it the same – not exactly – but most comparisons are not.

    How about talking about handguns? shotguns? more deaths than rifles… seems to me that this is a fabricated arguement in reaction (in part) to Adam Lanza. There are other better approaches that dont impinge freedoms as Ive suggested above.

    I recall a bus driver that crashed and killed passengers and himself – he was drunk – but no demand that any of the factors be banned. I believe it was PA or NY where this took place – but the comparison remains.

    Lastly – there have been no rifle related deaths in Delaware since 2009… yet we want to ban them… We have had 36 deaths due to DUI in 2010 alone.

  117. Independent says:

    S. Ben –

    If we can get to speedy reporting of mental ilness and violent crimes to the national database – this can combine with a waiting period to ensure new guns dont get in the wrong hands.

    The person-to-person checks act in the same way ensuring those guns dont move.

    Add guards to schools (retired police, etc.) and we create a last line of defense.

    the other items try to address the mental health side. those that stockpile, etc – maybe we can get them help with the hotlines and getting the word out that people need to speak up.

    I agree that individually none of these solve the issues, but together they server a better purpose that stripping guns. It allows for a compromise that both side (hopefully?) can see forward progress.


  118. Geezer says:

    “by your assertion that gun ownership is not a victimless freedom”

    Because nobody is proposing the elimination of gun ownership. They are proposing restrictions on gun ownership.

    “There are other better approaches that dont impinge freedoms as Ive suggested above.”

    The government is under no obligation to avoid “impinging” your “freedoms.”

    Again, I have no interest in joining your phony attempt to “solve” the problem of gun violence. I’m especially not interested in helping you play with your flawed analogies. I’m just interested in showing that you are a 2nd Amendment extremist by getting you to illustrate that yourself. You are doing a splendid job.

    I’ll try one more time: Show me how any of these proposals “impinge” your freedom in any meaningful way. I don’t make up my mind on principles but on pragmatism. You are basing your position on your notional “freedom.” I’m under no obligation, nor is the government, to play along with your fantasies.

  119. socialistic ben says:

    Guards in schools would require more training than the typical American would want to pay. We practically have to BEG people to pay teachers a livable wage, with all the training and background checks that would go into putting another (and now armed) adult around children…… Im going to call it cost prohibitive. unless you don’t pay or train them enough, then you have another set of problems. I also wonder what you would arm them with. Should they be able to match up against anything a shoot brings in? are they also there to stop other crime, or is their only purpose to wait for a school shooting? suppose they are sick that day?

    What are we talking about here? reducing the over horrific gun violence that happens every day in this country, or just stopping school shootings? because they are 2 different conversations with 2 different sets (while, yes, some will overlap) of solutions.

  120. Independent says:

    Geezer – I am no constituitonal expert nor do i claim to be. The second ammendment can be argued by those much more knowledgable than I. As it stands, the Courts decisions seem to provide adequate balance.

    As for freedoms – I believe it to be a specific freedom. whether you do or dont – thats your belief. I enjoy shooting when i can and love spoting clays. Hunting is also enjoyable to me.

    I believe there are serious attempts that can be made to provide a safer environment for our kids – rather than a majority set of rules that effect little.

    As for DUI – lets ban hard alchohol – it will slow people down and maybe prevent them for driving while drunk… If it works for assualt weapons – why not Assault (sic) Alchohol?

    You have no interest in “joining my phony attempt” yet you will “try one more time? Which of the ideas that Ive put forth do you think so unworthy of discussion?

  121. Independent says:

    S. Ben – Yes two different ideas – but there is some common ground. I am suggesting that the overlap combats both (to a degree).

    Training is actually not that bad – but I suggest the retired police approach as they are already trained. Maybe those coming out of the military and serving their reserve requirement?

    As far as weapons – Hopefully a concealed weapon but not tit-for-tat – i agree that we dont want schools looking like a miltary base. Perhaps the knowledge that the schools are protected deters enough?

    I dont know – maybe it simply pushes them to a different venue and the whole arguement starts again…

    As for the public at large – the rules of keeping guns out of those prohibited goes a long way? The Brady center says 40% of guns are sold person to person…

  122. Jason330 says:

    “Guards in schools would require more training than the typical American would want to pay.”

    Not shitty guards culled from the ranks of the barely employable as per the NRA’s genius plan.

  123. Jason330 says:

    “The Brady center says 40% of guns are sold person to person…”

    Those are the ones that need to be criminalized first.

  124. Steve Newton says:

    Actually, until a couple years ago, Delaware paid for State Troopers in every secondary school in the state (they were called SROs–School Resource Officers). In a budget cutting move the Markell administration reduced this position from being a full State Trooper to some sort of non-police public education specialist (I do not recall the exact new title), so that the salaries could be reduced. Several districts, including Red Clay, ponied up the difference out of their own local budgets to keep their SROs. I do not know how many districts did so.

    This raises a pretty interesting point that dovetails with what Ben says–we already had trained, active police officers in our schools and we removed them as a budgetary item. So from this I conclude that (a) prima facie it is not a “wingnut” idea to have police officers in schools, since multiple (and predominantly Democratic) gubernatorial administrations supported and funded the idea, and several districts believe it in so strongly that they have continued to fund it from local resources; and (b) however, Soc Ben is right–apparently the safety of our kids could be and was reduced because paying for it was not–relatively speaking–a priority.

    So I guess I am actually amazed (unless I missed it) that Governor Markell has not called for, in his program, the return of fully funded SROs to at least all Delaware secondary schools. That we have not had such a shooting incident in Delaware may have been–thus far–to the deterrence from having that officer and that car parked outside the school every day.

  125. socialistic ben says:

    I dont want to paint our retired servicemen/women with a broad brush, but people who are trained to police the public, or fight enemies in combat are definitely NOT trained to police kids. It’s a whole different set of training. What about a fight in the cafeteria? is that also handled by this guard? when do they use force? Weeding through people looking to “bust heads” or have all the authority that comes with holding a gun + access to teenagers…. Im pretty uncomfortable with that. Especially given not all our cops and soldiers are honorable heroes.

    you are on to something with p2p sales. If there is a way to moniter THAT transaction, im all for it.

  126. Geezer says:

    “As for freedoms – I believe it to be a specific freedom. whether you do or dont – thats your belief. I enjoy shooting when i can and love spoting clays. Hunting is also enjoyable to me.”

    And in what way does any of the proposals impinge on this freedom? You still haven’t said.

  127. Steve Newton says:

    In case anybody wants the links on removal of the SROs by the Markell administration, here’s the coverage from kilroy

  128. Geezer says:

    “prima facie it is not a “wingnut” idea to have police officers in schools, since multiple (and predominantly Democratic) gubernatorial administrations supported and funded the idea”

    This ignores the pushing of this idea by the Delaware State Police which, like any union, was interested in increasing its employment. Last time I checked, Democrats still liked unions.

    That said, guards at schools still represents a government-funded jobs program. I for one am glad to see so many Republicans changing their minds on whether that’s a good idea.

  129. Tom McKenney says:

    Having guards is just a feel good measure, If you kill the guard you have free reign.

  130. cassandra m says:

    I was specifically talking about mental illness. You, Geezer, decided to include “rational acts” in with that.
    Why don’t you ask your mental health professionals if they think the acts of these young men would fall under the umbrella of “mental illness”?

    My mother is a PhD psychologist doing a good bit of work in forensic psychology. She would tell you that she would need far more information than you have to make that claim or diagnosis. But you can tell the professionals by how well they make clear the limitations of their expertise. Not that you could get past either your stunt contrarianism or even the basics of keeping track of other people’s positions. Because it won’t surprise you that you are quite wrong in your claim about the stop and frisk business.

  131. Geezer says:

    “Which of the ideas that Ive put forth do you think so unworthy of discussion?”

    Discuss away, just not with me. I’m not interested in solving insoluble problems that nobody is paying me to solve and nobody will pay attention to anyway because THIS IS A FUCKING BLOG, NOT A BLUE-RIBBON COMMISSION. You’re just a conservative looking to sucker liberals into pointless arguments, and my pleasure comes not in “discussing” anything with someone who has no intention of moderating any of his ideas but in exposing such people for the phonies they are. Thanks for playing.

  132. pandora says:

    I would sincerely request you drop your alcohol comparison, mainly because it isn’t comparable.

    A bartender can be held accountable for continuing to serve a drunk patron, and I’ll bet that the bus company of that drunk bus driver wasn’t protected from lawsuits. But a 2005 law protects gun manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits.

    Also… if the right to bear arms is a right then why do we have to pay for guns, thereby limiting every Americans’ 2nd amendment rights to… well, exercise their 2nd amendment rights? If we want one why can’t we just have one? /snark sorta

  133. Independent says:

    Geezer – Anyone that has one of these to be “banned” guns is losing their freedom. Purchasing a newer version, replacement, etc will be banned.

    For those that dont already own one – this says – “you cant be trusted with this freedom that others who already have the gun and grandfathered are trusted with.”

    Come on – Which of the ideas that Ive put forth do you think so unworthy of discussion?

  134. Steve Newton says:

    Geezer–I will grant you there was self-interest (why State Troopers and not County Police, for example). That doesn’t mean it was a bad idea. Talk to the administrators, teachers, parents, and students in those schools–most will tell you it worked. Nor do I believe that Red Clay, for example, continues to fund SROs because of union pressure (the burden of proof there would be on you).

    If State Troopers in schools is a government-funded jobs program, then so is putting more police into high crime areas of Wilmington. And any program like that needs to be evaluated on its effectiveness in achieving its aim. I would argue that SROs in schools have worked.

  135. TeleMan says:

    Yesterday I was listening to the live broadcast on C-Span Radio of the forum on gun violence held at Johns Hopkins Univ. in Baltimore, organized by Mayor Bloomberg, who is an alum. It was a series of various topics conducted by academic types, I was looking for a link for a podcast to no avail, possibly it will become available.

    What became evident from a number of the discussions is the insideous nature of contradictory legislation that has been enacted over the years to thwart any foothold by any of the regulatory federal agencies in combatting gun crimes, legislation brought about by the relentless force of the NRA. It becomes clear – the NRA wants crime to flourish so that the “law abiding” have something to fear so they can purchase guns to defend themselves. They cited an example from the late 90’s of a gun dealer in Milwaukee who was identified through the recovery of guns related to gun crimes of supplying something close to 40% of these guns, most of the Saturday Night Special variety. When this became known and under the threat of prosecution, the dealer ceased the sale of these weapons, and in the ensuing years, gun violence was reduced. So what happened? Did these measures repeat in other cities as SNS’s became prohibited? No, the NRA sponsored legislation which was enacted to have gun dealers held harmless against such prosecution, so now they are effectively back to business as usual. It is insanity pure and simple.

    If I find a link to this broadcast I will pass it on, good listening.

  136. Independent says:

    Pandora – Alchohol breweries and distilleries are on the same plain as manufacturers. Howver bartenders and fierarms dealers are along the same line – yes?

    If a dealer sells a gun to one prohibited -it is a crime.

    The Alchohol/DUI comparison is one that addresses death and its cause as a comparison to guns. To you this may no be comparable – I can respect that. But to me – isnt any death worth doing something about? Why must it be a villanizing guns and gun owners (to a degree)? If Alchohol can be put in responsible hands – why not guns – even these so called “scary” guns?

  137. Geezer says:

    “My mother is a PhD psychologist doing a good bit of work in forensic psychology. She would tell you that she would need far more information than you have to make that claim or diagnosis.”

    Thanks, Sherlock. I couldn’t have figured that out. In addition, we’ll never know in any of the cases except Loughner’s, because the other shooters are dead. So that means we can’t extrapolate that, by the standards of society, these irrational acts probably involve mental illness? This standard precludes any discussion of mental illness in connection with mass murders. Then again, most of your responses in comments are meant to stop rather than further discussion, so that’s no surprise.

    “But you can tell the professionals by how well they make clear the limitations of their expertise.”

    And when you start running a blog for psychology professionals, maybe that will matter. As it is, you run a general discussion forum.

    “Not that you could get past either your stunt contrarianism or even the basics of keeping track of other people’s positions.”

    Right back atcha, kid. You flubbed your reading of my comment but, as always, you never can admit an error of any sort.

    “it won’t surprise you that you are quite wrong in your claim about the stop and frisk business.”

    Really? You weren’t the one who advocated stopping every car that entered certain sections of the city so they could be searched by the police? I’m sorry, if that’s not the case then I have misremembered your position on the issue. My sincere apologies.

  138. socialistic ben says:

    you want real freedom, move to Somalia. you’re swimming alone at sea there, man.
    A person with a gun that fires bullets that blow up inside me takes away MY rights. People use their guns to make a point, and all of a sudden, exercising my freedom of speech could cost my life.
    What about the words “well regulated” is so….. Invisible… to conservatives?
    Ind…. the school guards. Shootings only, or do they stop fights, bust drug users, make sure teachers aren’t alone to long one on one with students? Seriously, what is their job?

    As a side note, i have very fond memories of my DARE officer who was a constant presence in elementary school. He had a gun. He was also specially trained to be a cop around kids.

  139. Geezer says:

    Keep peddling that flawed analogy, “Independent.” You’re the only one who thinks it remotely useful.

    You know the difference between drunks and gun nuts like you? Drunks don’t torture logic to buttress their flawed philosophies.

  140. socialistic ben says:

    i hate it when mommy and daddy fight. I wanna read a post that is called… “The best smack-downs of Cass and Geez”

  141. Independent says:

    Geezer – if you arent interested in the discussion – then why post here? Seems you betray yourself. Calling me conservative is nothing but a red herring… I am what I am an Independent.

    As to the SRO – why dont we have such a proposal from Dover? look at themoney that was supposed to be saved from stopping STATE background checks.

  142. socialistic ben says:

    “Drunks don’t torture logic to buttress their flawed philosophies.”

    i wanna meet the drunks YOU know.

  143. pandora says:

    I can respect that. But to me – isnt any death worth doing something about?

    If you really believe that then… What about all those “accidental” hunting and in home deaths that get labeled simply as a tragedy? Just last week I was reading about a father who shot and killed his son while hunting. No charges filed. Or the guy who left his gun on the table and his 3 year old nephew killed himself. Labeled a tragedy, again, with no charges filed. I could go on all day citing stories like those above. Death labeled a simple gun tragedy with no consequences for the shooter or owner. A drunk driver killing someone faces charges. Start charging all these tragedies.

  144. Independent says:

    S. Ben – I suggest the SRO address external threats – existing staff address conduct and internal issues.

  145. Independent says:

    Pandora – Why not? dont protect or keep your gun safe – then there should be charges.

    Accidents – i dont know – like true vehicular accidents that kill – perhaps they are the same.

  146. Independent says:

    S. Ben – well regulated – that seems to be the key. Does not the background check, additions of removing P2P sales without same and enahnced reporting of violents/mental health achieve that?

  147. socialistic ben says:

    So you want to pay a highly trained (they would have to be) person for a job that they may never have to do? How very Socialist of you (to be taken as a compliment)

    pandora….. yes. If your gun kills someone, unless you reported it stolen, you are on the hook for AT LEAST negligent homicide. If it’s your right to have the gun, you should shoulder ALL of the responsibility. If you didn’t know your gun was stolen…. too bad. Check on it every day.

  148. Independent says:

    S. Ben – I think it makes sense. We hire crossing guards as I mentioned… be it DARE, SRO, something along those lines.

    If they did somethig more than I suggest – maybe they still that too? dare i read to mean the investigate drugs, etc?

  149. cassandra m says:

    So that means we can’t extrapolate that, by the standards of society, these irrational acts probably involve mental illness?

    Standards of society can define normal behavior but they don’t diagnose mental illness. People on a blog who have never met you who are screaming at you that you have cancer is no substitute for going to a doctor and getting a real diagnosis. There are ways to get to figuring out whether someone who is dead was mentally ill, but it is imprecise. But a diagnosis of any mental illness is not dependent upon what society thinks of your behavior.

    Thanks, Sherlock. I couldn’t have figured that out.

    Of course you couldn’t.

  150. pandora says:

    Ben, I was referring to the far more common gun deaths by family member. These tend to get labeled as mere tragedies with no charges filed. AS IF they were simply unavoidable – just part of gun ownership.

    And, Independent, these “tragic” gun deaths aren’t remotely like car accidents – which if your actions behind the wheel are the cause of the accident then you’ll be charged, whether you had motive or not. Tragic deaths by gun get a pass that no other thing does.

  151. Independent says:

    Cassandra – isnt the act of killing all those innocents a direct diganosis of mental illness or do you suggest he was simply evil?

    it seems to me you dont get to that act without one or the other?

    I dont know if Gather is right, left or center – but seems to lean right from my reading… but this was an interesting blurb:

    David Kupelian from WND points out that despite the endless speculation (and inconsistent reporting) about the weapons used during the tragic event on December 22nd, there has been little discussion about medications Lanza may have been taking. He stresses that the information is important because it is “simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications…”

  152. Independent says:

    Pandora – I agree that irresponsible acts should be punished.

    A hunting accident or the like is just that – an accident. of course the devil is in the details.

    But a father teaching a son to hunt and the later trips, falls and shoots dad… I dont think this is criminal – but indeed a tragedy.

  153. pandora says:

    Not sure if something posted on WND is left, right or center? You’re kidding, right?

  154. Independent says:

    Pandora – nope. I searched on Adam Lanza Toxicology report and it was the first thing that came up ( Was hoping to get some understanding if it is not mental illness.

    Found a later article from abc that suggests it will be a week before something is back.

  155. cassandra m says:

    isnt the act of killing all those innocents a direct diganosis of mental illness or do you suggest he was simply evil?

    No it isn’t. You won’t find the killing of innocents in the DSM IV as a way to diagnose mental illness. Innocents are killed in war all of the time and that doesn’t make the killer mentally ill. Innocents are killed as a byproduct of other crime all of the time and that doesn’t make the guy doing the drive by mentally ill.

    And not will I suggest that he is evil. Because what you want is a way to shift the problem to an *illness* rather than to the gun and the violence it was meant to do. And in the process you get to stigmatize the millions of people who have real mental illnesses who aren’t violent.

  156. anon says:

    As a parent, I do not want soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan fully armed and patrolling our schools. Sorry, but I feel very strongly about that. If we have to go with armed guards in schools, I would prefer/demand State Troopers because they are better educated and for the most part well tempered.

    I would also want any armed guard in a school to undergo drug testing at least monthly, and an annual mental health evaluation, as well as background checks that include financial checks.

  157. cassandra m says:

    “simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications…”

    And I’d bet money that this guy doesn’t deliver any proof of this statement.

  158. Independent says:

    Cassandra – seems you try to twist my words. i dont want to stigmatize anyone – but do want to know if we can identify those that would do these acts.

    By innocents – you know evry well I am referring to school children in a school setting and in particular New Town. nice try though.

  159. cassandra m says:

    I’m not twisting anything. If you can’t muster up better precision you can’t expect me to do it for you. Your comment about innocents says it all — if you wanted the diagnosis based on the killing of school children in a school setting (which also happens in war), then you should have said that. But can find “the killing of innocents” in the DSM?

  160. Independent says:

    Cassandra – once again this was in response to your objection to folks identifying Adam Lanza as mentally Ill.

  161. socialistic ben says:

    Anon, agreed.

    Pandora, I still think whatever happens with the gun is the gun owner’s responsibility… I used the example of a stolen gun, but I’m also talking about “accidents”… If someone slips on ice in front of your house, they can sue you. If ANYONE gets hurt or killed with a gun, the gun owner should be treated as if they pulled the trigger on purpose until they can prove they took all prudent steps to make it safe.
    Remember, what makes a gun different from a car, or a bottle of booze, or a hammer (dude, seriously, i hear people saying that more people are killed by hammers than by guns…. does anyone know what RWNJ blog that one come from?)…. the big difference is you CAN kill someone with those things, but they are meant for something else. a gun is ONLY meant to kill/injur…. or to frighten with death/injury.

  162. meatball says:

    Has anyone seen this?

    check out the mass shooters’ weapons. Keep in mind that they listed all rifles as assault rifles. For example, in the Amish school case, the shooter used a bolt action (non- semiautomatic) with a 5 round magazine.