If you have a gun hobby, that is one of the arguments for keeping guns readily available -- despite the lives being taken by bullets in this country. You'd put your 'fun' ahead of keeping guns out of society? How many gun deaths would be too many for you to find something else to amuse you?

Would you agree to laws restricting guns to being locked up where they are used for your hobby? If this is actually about being able to practice your skill or compete -- and not about something else -- you wouldn't object to keeping your guns where you USE them.

I don't know how anyone can expect the law to do its job where everybody thinks he's some untrained, un-deputized cowboy in the Wild West -- because he bought a gun.

janey_alabama

Why do I have to find a new hobby? Really?

You can enjoy your hobby or hunting, just not with assault rifles. When I was a little girl I went rabbit hunting with my dad. He didn't use an assault rifle. No one needs to unless they're fighting in a war.

That’s what I was thinking Cindy. I grew up on a farm and we had shot guns everywhere. I wouldn’t want to take handguns or shotguns/rifles away from anyone.

But what kind of sport needs an assault rifle doesn’t sound like a sport to me. Unless your military or SWAT.

Exactly. I don't agree with hunting for sport, but who needs a machine gun? Even the Gestapo in Nazi Germany did not carry around machine guns. I am not comparing gun owners to the Nazis at all; I am just calling for some sense of proportion. By the way, I knew someone who hunted for food. They ate what they hunted, which makes sense to me, but I still keep thinking of Bambi's mother. This person and her husband lived on venison during the winter.

One thing I realized last week while talking to my friends. I said that I’ve been mad at people throughout my life but I’ve never been so mad I wanted them dead.

My friends said yah, you don’t have a mental illness. Which is why most of us can’t fathom doing that to anyone.

I'm not sure which is the bigger problem - these nearly monthly massacres or comments afterwards by people saying something needs to be done while adding that "I love my guns and it's our right to have them".

How would you go about taking them away, Elmer? House to house searches? We could pass a law banning any further gun sales and there would still be millions out there.

I fully support banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons or anything that could convert a standard rifle into one. That's a no-brainer. Resale of such should also be banned.

But I don't know how we could get back those already out there. Sort of like trying to get toothpaste back in the tube...

In 1996 Australia banned automatic and semi-automatic weapons. They also instituted a buy-back program. Banned guns weren't confiscated they were bought back.

"An extra 0.2 percent levy on national health insurance was used to finance the National Firearms Buyback Program to compensate the gun owners for the banned weapons that were surrendered. 660,959 firearms were handed in. They were then destroyed."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/global-opinions/wp/2017/10/03/how-australia-beat-the-gun-lobby-and-passed-gun-control/?utm_term=.9e94cf2787e9

anglo - Have a limited buyback period, after which possession would be illegal with strict penalties including mandatory jail time.

This is one of so many issues about which the rest of the world laughs at us and shakes their heads. We're idiots for continuing to suffer from issues and problems that most developed countries have long since eliminated. We continue to listen to and give airtime to those with vested interests who suggest these easily solved problems are complicated to deal with. Only so for us. We deserve what we get when cause and effect are so obvious but yet we're frozen in inaction.

Sean Hannity said: Over the weekend in Chicago 39 people were killed. He said it doesn't even make the news, it's so common place. Almost 40 killed link

Elmer, those countries with buy-back programs aren't having to buy back the enormous number of guns in the US.

I don't see us ever banning gun ownership in the US. It is simply too much of the culture of a vast portion of the US. No, not in N California where you live, but in all of flyover country and really pretty much anywhere other than large urban areas. There actually are those who still love to hunt for game, and yes, they DO eat it! I grew up on dove, quail and venison (father only got to go pheasant hunting a couple of times). He didn't like duck hunting - didn't mind being cold (a deer stand) but didn't want to be cold AND wet!

I DO see stricter laws for buying guns, and MAYBE a ban on semi-automatic rifles. My understanding is that defining one is today is far more difficult than in the days of my father's hunting rifles - totally different thing. We used to talk about gun control for hand guns, but when we're talking about mass murder, it's always a semi that is used.

I liked Nicolas Kristof's opinion piece in the NYTimes today <https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/06/opinion/how-to-reduce-shootings.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-right-region&region=opinion-c-col-right-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region>; One of the most sensible, well thought-out approaches I've seen. And I think it might actually be possible to get consensus for such a program.

Massacres are indeed part of our culture, it's what I said above. It's a question of what kind of society and country do we want to have. People who want to hunt can do so with bows and arrows and make it a more sporting proposition. Or, find other ways to express their out of control testosterone and macho feelings, I'm no longer interested in a compromise with this segment of society that has ruined our country. The gun owning minority has insisted on having it entirely their way with specious arguments. I'm a fan of all or nothing, it's time we tried nothing. I don't care how many guns are owned because compensation for turn-ins is itself a compromise. I'm okay with token payments or none at all in a program to confiscate every last one.

Here's another story for gun owners to rationalize away, a father shot his 14 year old son in Nevada.

Son killed by father with gun

Is the answer that there is no answer?

I sincerely hope not.

While probably not a popular belief, most of our problem has little to do with the guns and more to do with our choices in upbringing and education. We have now raised whole generations that were not taught that "no" means just that. There are no exceptions. Generations that believe rules are for others. Generations that do not believe that all life is sacred. Generations that have not received a high school education that prepared them for a job, home ownership etc. When we as a nation (both parents and educators) choose to teach meaningful lessons and restore pride in excellence, not mere participation, we may stand a chance of restoring some modicum of peaceful existence in our country.

In congressional testimony last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated assault-style weapons domestically in the range of 5 million to 8.2 million.

Millions of assault rifles in the hands of Americans. How are we going to control that?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/03/military-style-ar-rifles-market-saturated/19836755/

Sorry ldstarr but I don't believe for second that spoiled children or lack of educational and other opportunities causes mass murder. I work with kids and many are spoiled but none are psychopaths. Some other cultures spoil and pamper children even more but they don't have this issue. Many kids in the world don't have educational opportunities, and they don't have these problems.

It's clearly a mental health issue, but the frustrating thing is that the US is not the only place in the world to have mental health issues. Yet you don't really hear about mass murder in other countries at nearly the rate, outside of terrorism, which is a different issue. The difference is our gun culture, as well as how we treat mental illness.

ldstarr, I think you're right, your view isn't popular because you're missing the root cause of the problem. If we ban guns, what's left is knives and throwing rocks. Far less lethal, no mass murder events.

>> I don't know how anyone can expect the law to do its job where everybody thinks he's some untrained, un-deputized cowboy in the Wild West -- because he bought a gun.

Excuuuuse me? "Everybody"? Look - the number of rational, trained, responsible gun owners in the US far outweighs the lunatics. Not everyone is untrained nor thinks themselves an undeputized cowboy because they bought a gun.

Assault rifles? I agree - in my opinion nobody needs them for anything except .... assault.

Today they posted pictures of those who were killed and it was distressing. The only strangely comforting thought is the possibility that they’re together in afterlife. My east TX community is population 302 like this town and we’d have been super freaked out if something like this happened in our community. Being so small, a victim would have inescapably been a relative or a neighbor or both.

It's the gun culture in this country which gets worse every single year. Other countries don't worship guns as we do and not even close murders by gun rate. The saddest thing was this monster redneck sadistic killer shot babies crying for their mothers which breaks my heart.

The latest information I've heard/seen is that this nutjob was violent to his (now ex) wife, his child, and to animals. He had serious family and anger issues. His actions weren't politically, racially, or religiously motivated (according to the reports). But - he was a wack-job who never, ever should've been sold guns. But it appears that the "system" broke down, including Air Force regulations. Just reporting what I'm reading.

Coming soon: Congress stands for a moment of silence for the latest batch of victims of gun violence. Followed by: Congress sits back down and continues to do nothing about it.

My heart and prayers go out to all the victims. You can talk all you want about gun control but that wont keep bad things like this from happening. Mental health plays a big roll. Laws wont erase the evil in people's hearts. What happened in that small church, Las Vegas and all the rest was evil. God bless and comfort all those affected.

Good samaritans use ARs. It's accurate and a good self defense weapon.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/453470/texas-hero-reportedly-used-his-own-ar-confront-sutherland-springs-shooter

I am thankful for that Good Samaritan! Blessings and comfort to all of the families who lost loved ones from their lives.

Yeah, thank goodness for AR-15s. We should make sure every household has at least one, and even better a few extra to carry in their cars.

Good self defense weapon? The high velocity round has an entry hole the diameter of a pencil but then it tumbles so that the exit hole can be the size of a large softball. Or, if it hits the head, it will take out a very large chunk of the skull and a lot of the soft tissue inside. It's for killing and to cause maximum damage, one round not even well aimed can be enough. A similar effect as a dumdum round.

Accurate? Not really and very inaccurate when fired on auto or quickly on semi-auto.

I'm sorry but some of these ridiculously unthoughtful comments demonstrate why the US will forever suffer regular massacres and mass murders of innocent people. For this reason alone, we are anything but one of the better countries in the world, few follow our lead anymore and for good reason in this regard. There are plenty of other reasons too.

Elmer discharging a firearm for self defense means shooting to kill, not to maim. If people own a firearm for self or home defense and think they should be waving it around or shooting someone in the leg then they have no business having one. The AR-15s (and various clones) are shorter than a long gun, have accuracy in hitting the target ,taking out the threat, in self or home defense, are lighter and have a light recoil making them perfect for women, seniors, youths and others with less upper body strength. If there is a situation where you may be covering an intruder who isn't perceived to be a lethal threat the AR is going to keep him in place a heck of a lot better than a pistol. Pointing a pistol at someone who is used to criminal activity simply doesn't send the same message.

The beauty of the AR is you can use several different loads to adjust the rifle to your needs and environment leading to less accidents involving penetration of walls etc.

The good samaratin understood that the killer was wearing a kevlar vest and aimed accordingly to bypass the vest. Nicely played.

It's really rather a waste of time to be debating firearm options and their pros and cons with someone who doesn't know guns, fears them and doesn't believe in gun ownership for self protection of home and family. But there are some who may read and at least consider there are good reasons for American Rifles.

One question Elmer. If your dream that all the guns are confiscated does that include the guns of all the police and other LEOS you think will protect you? Does that Include the numerous rogue cops we have in our county? You mentioned in the past you know lawyers. Ask THEM about rogues. Who will protect you form them? Gun laws? Laws saying they will behave honorably? Laws that say you must be a good person to be a LE? Who will enforce those laws?

Watchmelol, what's your solution to these mass murders then? That everyone arms themselves with assault rifles to protect against the psychos who use them to kill people? Do you think everyone should be able to buy an assault rifle?

This guy was able to buy the assault rifle in a store, and because he didn't check the box disqualifying himself, the purchase was allowed. It just blows my mind that anyone can just walk into a sporting goods store and buy an assault rifle just by filling out a form.

Yes, an assault rifle was helpful for the good samaritan in this single example. But 154 people in 6 different incidents in the US have died in the last 2 years from assault rifles involved in mass shootings. How anyone can look at these statistics and think that guns aren't a big part of the problem is baffling to me.

"It's really rather a waste of time to be debating firearm options and their pros and cons with someone who doesn't know guns, fears them and doesn't believe in gun ownership for self protection of home and family."

Was this referring to me? I qualified in the military with 3 different guns (two at the sharpshooter level) and maintained qualification for a total of 6 years. It's not like it's hard to do. One of guns I qualified with as a sharpshooter was the M-16, the military version of the AR-15. I don't fear guns, I fear how many are in circulation, how many of my fellow citizens are unable to live normal lives without feeling the need to play Cowboys and Indians as adults, and how much tragedy they cause.

Yes, I don't believe in gun ownership and believe that with fewer guns around, "self protection" becomes an archaic notion. Consider how people in other countries, in Europe for example, don't fear for their lives nor shake in their boots in fear of house invasions without having so many guns around? It seems to be not a problem. We should try it, what we doing now doesn't work.

I'm happy for police to have guns and whatever other kind of offensive weapons they need to do their jobs, though some have become needlessly over-militarized since 9/11 using federal dollars.

I'm not paranoid about my own safety or that of my family. Maybe if I lived in a high crime area I'd feel differently but if I did, I'd invest in more and larger dogs, good locks, and an alarm system (don't have one currently).

I know lots of lawyers, only a couple of whom do criminal defense work. What's the point?

(PS, better to not use acronyms or abbreviations not in common use. I figured out what you were saying but why not type a few more letters and make it easy for others?)

Edit to add - my ditto to chi's comments. Yes, let's do something different. What do you suggest, watchme?

Well I’m a senior. I don’t know how heavy this AR is, but does it fit in my purse? Or mount to my car? Accurate or not, they can slice a person in 1/2 if you go right to left. I just don’t think I need this in America.....yet.

If I lived in the South Sudan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan or Pakistan I would probably want one.

But we don’t need them here. We do not have that kind of ground to ground combat fighting. And if we do, I’m leaving.

I am not entering into the pro/anti gun debate. What I find upsetting is that this man was not entered into any database that would stop him from purchasing firearms or ammo and that there was no mental health care. Catastrophic failure.

ElizabethA, if you want to talk about public safety, prechecks and databases don't work. How about a different approach?

JeC, they're light, under 10 pounds. One wouldn't fit into your purse, they're about 3 feet long. A spray of horizontal fire won't cut someone in half but with just a few hits it could be lethal.

For those that say this is not a gun issue, but instead a mental health issue. Fine. Lets make detecting, and treating mental health issues a priority. And in the meantime declare a temporary, immediate, total moratorium on selling guns of any sort. But only until we have completely solved the mental health crisis leading to all of these shootings.

Call your representatives and tell them to get off their butts and FIX our mental health system. Stop gutting the budgets for key programs and get the mentally ill the help they deserve and need.

Laws were in place to prevent that animal from carrying out his evil plan. But they weren't followed. You can legislate until the cows come home, but if the steps aren't followed, it does no good.

In this case, the Air Force dropped the ball. Had his record been flagged, he wouldn't have been able to buy that or any other gun legally.

On a similar note, bob, Steve Kerr (the coach of the Golden State Warriors) said a few days ago that he viewed the out of control gun crisis as a public health/public safety issue that needs to be addressed outside of politics and away from the money interests (like the NRA).

That has already been thought of about 20 years ago, and was preemptively forestalled by the NRA, who had one of their lackey-Congressmen insert a clause into a spending bill prohibiting the CDC from using any of the funding they receive to study gun violence.

Efforts at removing that clause after one of the (many) mass shootings in 2016 were blocked by the GOP. Which I have just decided is an acronym for the party meaning: Guns Over People

Good one Bob, and how true.

When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns....

Chicago has extremely tough gun control laws, and the shootings happen every day. Laws only work with law-abiding people. There are laws against MURDER in every state of this country...that certainly didn't stop the church shooter.

There are a whole lot of options between where we are now, and outlawing guns entirely, many of which would likely help the situation. We could start with the general public not being able to walk into a store and come out with an assault rifle.

I'm so tired of hearing this trite phrase:

• When you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns....

Yes its true, but its almost meaningless. Its akin to saying:

• No matter where you go ... there you are.

The arguments that everyone must be able to buy weapons of war in order to feel protected from a list of largely imaginary dangers seems paranoid and a little unbalanced. Including "rogue cops" in that list of scary dangers you must arm yourself against for your protection is just stupid. I'm not saying rogue cops don't exist, or that in the unlikely event that you actually encounter one you wouldn't be in some measure of danger. Simply that if you do encounter a law enforcement officer and somehow decide "Oh nooos! He's a rogue cop." and pull out your weapon, or reach for your weapon, then rogue cop or not you will be shot repeatedly and enthusiastically. And if the cop you encounter actually is a "rogue cop" merely sitting quietly and informing the cop that you have a legal, registered weapon with you can be enough to get you shot.

Oh don’t get me started on the police.

These days are OVER!

Agree with Fudd.

Pence went and spoke at the memorial for the Texas victims yesterday. Everyone stood and applauded when he mentioned the guy who grabbed a gun, chased after and shot the perpetrator during the attack on the church.

https://www.npr.org/2017/11/07/562619774/does-increased-gun-ownership-help-decrease-crime

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

How did he say it?

I can stand in the middle of the street and shoot someone and

still get elected.

also, this is not about guns.

if this man did not have a gun then fewer people would be dead today.

If you think that Trump is the most unqualified and ignorant moron ever elected to a high federal office, look no further than Pence to see it's a two horse race.

watchmelol -- I don't live in your world. To me, you sound like a military training lecture, talking about 'taking out the threat' and praising the ability to adjust a weapon -- to avoid penetration through walls!

In my life, nobody talks about 'taking out' anyone. I'm nonplussed by your 'Nice shot' comment. We are discussing guns in civilian life, not a role-playing game. Do you have a rating for Kelley's performance with his weapon?

nicole -- Where's Hannity's outrage about the seventeen cities ahead of Chicago in the list of gun deaths per capita? Chicago's a big city, but it's #18 in gun deaths per 100,000 population. He could start with #1 New Orleans; #2 Detroit; #3 St. Louis; #4 Baltimore; #5 Oakland.

Chicago's rate is 27.9 per 100,000. That's half of the rate in St. Louis (59.3). Ah, but *Chicago* is home to the FOX-reviled President Obama. Must be a coincidence in Hannity's choice of target.

He's also wrong about Chicago's 'toughest gun laws'; they were removed by litigation citing "Second Amendment" rights. They really didn't help much anyway, given that most of the guns in the hands of Chicago's warring drug lords were straw purchases in Indiana and other lax-gun-law states -- as proven when police trace weapons found at homicide scenes.

"Gun Culture" states with lax laws have the highest proportion of gun deaths -- no surprise. #1 Alaska; #2 Lousianna; #3 Arkansas; #4 Wyoming/Montana (tie); #5 Oklahoma; #6 New Mexico; #7 South Carolina/Tennessee (tie); #8 Mississippi; #9 West Virginia; #10 Arizona/Idaho (tie); #11 Nevada; #12 Kentucky; #13 Indiana; #14 Georgia.

Getting rid of those [semi-automatic weapons] would be a start. No reason for semi-automatics in a civilian population.
...unless you miss the hog you are trying to shoot on the first shot and it charges you.

I don’t understand why the civilian population needs a machine gun in the USA.
It wasn't a machine gun. Civilians are not allowed to own machine guns. Semi-automatic, by definition, is not a machine gun.

Some senator from somewhere was on TV the other night claiming that arming the citizens did not help. He dismissed the fact that this shooter stopped shooting as soon as someone shot back at him. The senator cannot know how many more people would have been shot had this shooter not been stopped by a good Samaritan? The good senator assumes he would have not killed anyone else, but the evidence shows the guy was in the act of killing people right then and there...until he got shot and dropped his rifle. Also note that the guy who shot the bad guy had ready access to a loaded rifle. This is rural Texas. Undoubtedly there were loaded guns in the church. If not in the church then in the parking lot. There are literally guns everywhere here. Shooters have to be pretty well hidden or at a great range away to get away with something in this state.

Assault rifles are very similar to hunting rifles. You load them, look through the scope, and pull the trigger. Usually either one reloads and cocks itself after being shot. For the most part both work identically. The scariest difference is assault rifles are black and have a place where you can put a flashlight. The other difference, which is actually scarier, is that the owner of the assault rifle can buy clips that hold more ammo than fit into most hunting rifles.

There are already plenty of gun laws in place. This guy violated those laws. So technically, had he lived, he could have been given a ticket for each of the gun laws he violated. Adding more gun laws and more tickets would not have deterred him. The guy was sick.

There are millions of gun owners with millions of guns who are not out killing people randomly. Similarly there are millions of people out there driving cars and not plowing into sidewalks full of people randomly. Only the sick ones do that.