[Janice D. Soderling]

I'm not saying that shooting crimes can be stopped completely, but they can certainly be reduced if guns are not considered a god-given and constitution-given right.

Of course there will always be some who get food poisoning in restaurants, but should we do away with sanitary controls because of that?

It is a violent society, but (or so the Swedish radio informed me some days ago) there was recently in New York a day with NO murder. And who is running New York? A mayor who has an agenda for gun control. He seems to be on the right track.

[Tim Murphy]

Oh come off your Swedish horse, Janice. Right-to-carry states are way below gun control states in homicide. An inconvenient fact. The most inconvenient fact is that anyone can get a gun, anywhere. And who needs a gun? OJ Simpson managed mayhem with a butcher knife.

I read one reaction this morning urging that all teachers take firearms training and lock a gun in the desk. I prefer stationing a police officer at the door of my school. I do not carry my pistol to class.

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Tim Murphy

Right-to-carry states are way below gun control states in homicide.

Really?

I'll show you my proof if you'll show me yours.

A panel of criminology and statistics experts with the National Research Council the National Academies published a study in 2004 that found no reduced crime in states with right-to-carry (RTC) laws.

A 2010 study from Stanford Law School found that “the most consistent, albeit not uniform, finding to emerge from the array of models is that aggravated assault rises when RTC laws are adopted.”

“More guns do not equal less crime.” Maddow concluded flatly. “The statistical evidence on this, in aggregate, does not support the fantasy.”

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1de0i)

[ChrisGeorge]

Originally Posted by Tim Murphy

Oh come off your Swedish horse, Janice. Right-to-carry states are way below gun control states in homicide. An inconvenient fact. The most inconvenient fact is that anyone can get a gun, anywhere. And who needs a gun? OJ Simpson managed mayhem with a butcher knife.

I read one reaction this morning urging that all teachers take firearms training and lock a gun in the desk. I prefer stationing a police officer at the door of my school. I do not carry my pistol to class.

Hi Tim

You are not going to like this but here it is. Are you still going to say that the United States doesn't have a problem?

I am not a died-in-the-wool liberal who wants strict gun laws that will take away the guns of hunters or others who legitimately wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights safely. I just wish there might be some middle way whereby those who want to bear their firearms in a legitimate way will find a way to allow the rest of the law abiding citizenry of the United States to live safely.

Or could it just be too late?

Best regards

Chris

[Shaun J. Russell]

I don't necessarily disagree, Janice, but I think the gun control issue is truly a red herring. As you surely heard, yesterday's Newtown massacre wasn't the only one in the world. A slasher, armed with a mere box-cutter, injured dozens in China. While it's easy to point out the distinction between injured and killed, the intent is still the key issue.

[Tim Murphy]

It all comes down to good and evil. We must recognize the distinction. Brievik was unspeakably evil. I live in an extremely Norwegian community. I'm Norwegian myself, and we were appalled, just shaken by what happened.

[Marcia Karp]

Shaun:

A slasher, armed with a mere box-cutter, injured dozens in China. While it's easy to point out the distinction between injured and killed, the intent is still the key issue.

Had you said two dozen you would have been just about at the number reported, but dozens implies some larger number. The reality is bad enough without unnecessary inflation.

What use is it to pretend the weapons don't matter? Or that desire to kill or harm doesn't matter? All of it matters.

So, the intent isn't THE key. Not to those attacked, at least. Or to those attached to them. Life really is lived inside bodies that can survive some intentions, but not some weapons.

A man with hands or a rope or a knife can kill and maim and that is terrible. A man with a gun can massacre and that is terrible multiplied.

Marcia

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Marcia Karp

Shaun:Are you sure about the number? Dozens must mean at least 24. The reality is bad enough.

Alright, the actual number was 22. So not dozens, but tens.

A man with hands or a rope or a knife can kill and maim and that is terrible. A man with a gun can massacre and that is terrible multiplied.

A man with a bomb belt can massacre scores. A man with a rocket launcher can massacre hundreds. A man with a warhead can massacre thousands. A man with a nuke can massacre millions.

These are orders of magnitude, but the lowest common denominator of all of them is the intent to kill people. Do you truly think that all, or even many of the massacres, slaughters, genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history would not have happened in the absence of guns? Again, I agree that the easy accessibility of a firearm in the U.S. more easily enables such atrocities, but it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it.

[Janice D. Soderling]

A man with a bomb belt can massacre scores. A man with a rocket launcher can massacre hundreds. A man with a warhead can massacre thousands. A man with a nuke can massacre millions.

None of these things are legal, my friend. That is what the discussion is about.

[Marcia Karp]

Originally Posted by E. Shaun Russell

A man with a bomb belt can massacre scores. A man with a rocket launcher can massacre hundreds. A man with a warhead can massacre thousands. A man with a nuke can massacre millions.

These are orders of magnitude, but the lowest common denominator of all of them is the intent to kill people. Do you truly think that all, or even many of the massacres, slaughters, genocides that have been perpetrated throughout history would not have happened in the absence of guns? Again, I agree that the easy accessibility of a firearm in the U.S. more easily enables such atrocities, but it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it.

I find it difficult to find a line of reason in what you say, but I'll try. In the absence of guns, bombs, rockets, nuclear weapons [I leave out warheads, since they are the explosive in various weapons, not weapons themselves] far fewer people die. I don't understand why you dismiss orders of magnitude, but since you conflate other things, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. A person with a rock can't kill nearly as many as one with a knife and so on. Why isn't it important to factor that into your thinking?

You'll see that I did not all at dismiss intention, but neither do I think think your simple-minded insistence on it takes into account what it means to have a weapon ready instead of time to think and feel -- not everyone in a rage or long simmering resentment or delusion stays stuck with the intention -- , or a weapon that does less harm. And, all the weapons you so easily think have no part in harming others have done so by accident, too.

it still comes down to the basic premise that if someone wants to harm countless people, he will find a way to do it

Just like you can be anything you want to be, just cross your fingers and make a wish.

Marcia