Skip to comments.The gun control debate Sen. Feinstein does not want to have
Posted on 09/17/2013 11:41:42 AM PDT by jazusamo
WASHINGTON, September 17, 2013 Americans are becoming more accustomed to hearing, breaking news, there has been a shooting as we listen to the radio or watch television. Monday morning, we began our week hearing the same. This time, civilians at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. were terrorized by a gunman.
If politicians and policy-makers would simply study the data, it would be clear that gun ownership should be encouraged in order to reduce the number of murders. There most certainly should be a gun control debate, and about that Sen. Feinstein is correct, but not in the way that the anti-gun lobby would want.
We should be discussing how to encourage more gun ownership, and whether taxpayer dollars should be allocated to help citizens learn how to better control the firearms we own. This is the gun control debate we should be having. By expanding the option for citizens in the United States to own a firearm and carry it, whether concealed or openly and in any location they choose, there would not be gun free zones that cry out to become the targets of a gunman on a rampage.
Senator Feinstein and others who are anti-gun should set the politics aside, and examine the reality of the statistics if safety is truly their end goal. Should they disregard the facts, then their true intentions must be questioned and exposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at communities.washingtontimes.com ...
If the uniform of the day included a holstered .45 then this kind of mass killling would never occur on a military base.
You’re absolutely right.
” if safety is truly their end goal”
the big IF
nothing to see here folks just contaminated hot air from the mouth of the senior senatress from Scam Francrisco
That says it all.
mass murders by a nut with a gun can number in the 10s,20s, or even more people
But when someone ELSE has a gun, they are usually less than 4
We need to ARM MORE PEOPLE? instead of disarm... because if only one life is saved...
There was absolutely NO evidence an AR-15 was used. Yet every media outlet reported that the shooter had one.
I wonder if Feinstein is going to call for security guards and cops only have single shot revolvers. If that had been the case the shooter couldn’t have killed but one person with the guard’s gun.
Two thugs attempted to rob the wrong family in NW Houston the other day. The guy killed one and injured the other. And it didn’t take a bunch of rounds either.
They won't be happy until it's slingshots and spitballs ... and then they'll try to outlaw rubber bands.
Well, yeah. You could put someone’s eye out.
“There was absolutely NO evidence an AR-15 was used.”
Yep. The FBI has confirmed that there was NO AR-15 involved.
Why on a military reservation do we not have armed military?
DiFi does not care for the Constitution, or the Amendments. She is endeavoring to limit 1st Amendment by defining journalists and then arresting the rest I suppose. How dare you be critical of me you pismire! She wishes to control by eliminating the 2nd Amendment rights.
The reason there is a 1st Amendment is because the 2nd Amendment protects it from the polutedticians!
I would love for Ted Cruz to take the opportunity and gives DiFi another public lesson about the Constitution.
As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized. Abuse of responsibility by armed citizens is rare, while successful defensive interventions against assaults on their lives and property are relatively commonplace.
National violent crime rates that soared for 30 years from the early 1960s began to decrease markedly since 1993. Last December the FBI reported that murder and other violent crime rates fell again by 6.4% during the first half of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010. A Gallup poll indicates that Americans preference regarding gun laws is generally that the government enforce existing laws more strictly and not pass new laws.
I concur, gun-grabbers are after an outright ban.
Thank God we have the second amendment to protect us from fascist types like her. /s
The “report” your boss referred to is no doubt bull squat. The percentage of times gun owners are shot by invaders with their own guns is surely in the low single digits, based on my attention to news stories, and common sense.
More likely your boss heard an MSM “expert” warn that you could be shot with your own gun and believed that had the weigh of a “report.”
I would love to get accustomed to hearing, breaking news, a homeowner shot and killed a drug crazed home invader weilding a shotgun.”
I also read this morning it was confirmed no AR-15 used.
Gun control is not about guns at all. It is about control.
That said...gun control, to the enlightened mind, means using two hands.
That "you're more likely to be shot by your own gun" story is one of those 100% unadulterated pure BS lines that left-wingers will throw at you if you make a strong, reasoned argument for any reality-based position that they find troublesome.
By doing so, they expect to throw you off your stride. By making you think for a second as you try to come up with a counter-argument for such an obviously nonsensical position, they get the upper hand in the exchange.
I would observe that one response to such a statement is something like "got any proof for that assertion?" But that's usually too stiff and confrontational for any sort of workplace watercooler conversation.
I really think the best thing to do is just withdraw from the discussion at that point. The reason is that any person who would make that kind of argument is either dishonest or stupid, and you're not going to convince them of anything. They don't want to be convinced, and they can't be convinced. You're simply wasting your time trying to do so.
If the person is your boss, that goes double.
The Blaze was reporting it was a shotgun.
The same one Crazy Uncle Joe Biden told us to discharge out the back porch to scare away intruders.
When I hear such BS I ask for information, "please tell me where I can read that report - it sounds interesting. Did it really say..." I estimate that 95% of the time their claim will crumble before you, or more likely, they will not be willing or able to provide a source. The other 4.9% of the time the report itself will be a pack of lies.
I'll bet one of these is the case here: either your boss made that up, or the writer did.
Couple of threads on it here. My primary news source. FR.
A sign this morning, on the highway, reminded that there were 2300 or so deaths on Texas Highways this year so far. 200X more than what the NavSea atrocity incurred, yesterday, rest their souls.
There are 3 or so accidents at any given time in this town, per the traffic report and I pass two per day, on average.
When we were in Germany, for 4 years, I saw one accident per year. and they do not drive while intoxicated, they are not allowed to, so they don’t. It is not allowed (I repeat, I don’t think a lot of people here know what it means)
I believe 3000 deaths, and the wild driving antics I see every day around here can be prevented.
If it were safety, clearly, this is a direction they would take.
I also heard that the shooter was found to have in his possession a dreaded new weapon, the AR-15 slingshot!
Yes that, too.
Control + gun ban = more control.
More control + healthcare control = ultimate control.
ultimate control = death of freedom.
“nothing to see here folks just contaminated hot air from the mouth of the senior senatress from Scam Francrisco”
The following is a correction of a minor typo:
“nothing to see here folks just contaminated hot air from the mouth of the senior senatrix from Scam Francrisco”.
danger danger run away run away
difi will surely opine on this new threat to world peace before the day is over.
In 1993 Clinton banned them on bases. Only security personnel could carry.
My E-mail to Dianne:
So here you are again, chattering about the “need for gun control” before the investigation into the DC Navy Yard is through it’s first day. But we do know some things at this juncture. None of the usual political language applies here. Alexis, who killed twelve people, did not buy a weapon from a friend or over the Internet or in the parking lot of a gun show.” He did not have a high capacity magazine from which to spray bullets around. He did not buy a military style assault weapon, nor did he even use one. He did not use special ammunition. Instead, he bought a shotgun that almost nobody is openly suggesting should be banned or controlled. Policians like you who call for new laws in the wake of this shooting will thus need to be called to task with a simple and reliable question: What exactly do you propose doing, and how specifically would it have changed what happened at the Navy Yard? You need to use some intellectual honesty instead of prattling on about something about which you know or understand very little. I understand you don’t like guns for anyone except yourself and the rest of “the important people,” the group with which you self-identify so I expect that you will be up on your “soapbox” about this tragedy because like “our president,” you never let a bad situation go to waste.
Good one and all true.
Of course DiFi is not interested in the truth, doesn’t want to hear the truth and wouldn’t recognize the truth if it hit her in her big butt where her brain is located.
“Of course DiFi is not interested in the truth, doesnt want to hear the truth and wouldnt recognize the truth if it hit her in her big butt where her brain is located.”
Yeah, I understand that she had a recent colonoscopy and they found a brain tumor! At 80, you would think she and her husband would just retire and see if they could spend all the money they’ve made as a consequence of her involvement in politics, but their greed has no bounds, or so it would appear.
Ask Susann Gratia Hupp that question:
I read one report that said the man reported for work just one week ago. That doesn’t strike me as a psychotic break. It strikes me as planned.
A .45 on 1000 people would have made him think twice.
Yes, an AR-15 was used - to shoot the shooter.
What always PO’s me is including the murderer in the body count. I would says “12 people were killed before the murderer was killed” or something like that. I would never imply the murderer was a victim or even “people.”
Yep. He don’t count.
Agreed, and if it didn’t he would have never taken out that many people.
Your post #36 was very, very good. Strong counter-argument.
Please, though, check your spelling, especially in this type of situation. All words were spelled right except for this: “...through its first day.” The word “it’s” is a contraction of “it” and “is.” The possessive pronoun is “its.”
I cannot count the number of times I have seen this spelling error. I think it may be the most misspelled word in the English language.
“I cannot count the number of times I have seen this spelling error. I think it may be the most misspelled word in the English language.”
IT’S the keyboard’s fault coupled with bad computer glasses.
” I think it may be the most misspelled word in the English language.”
I think that honor goes to “separate”.
A fearless man cannot be controlled.
Yeah, that has to be a contender for the honor.