Gun Control / Other News / WTF

The Real Facts about Gun-Related Homicide No One’s Talking About

Thanks to highly publicized shootings like Sandy Hook, the Aurora Theater shooting, the recent Las Vegas shooting, and a number of school shootings, more than half of Americans believe that gun violence and gun homicides are on the rise.

But perception is not reality.

Although you’d never guess it by watching the nightly news, gun-related deaths are actually dramatically lower than they were two decades ago.

KLTV.com-Tyler, Longview, Jacksonville, Texas | ETX News

A PEW research study was able to show that the peak of U.S. gun homicide was more than 21 years ago. Since that time, homicide rates have declined steadily, even as the overall population continues to rise.

Screen Shot 2014-06-06 at 12.10.51 PM2010 saw overall gun-related homicide rate fall 49% from its high point in 1993.

Another surprising statistic is that assaults, robberies, and sex crimes also went down by about 75 percent.

It can be deduced that much of the decline is owing to the fact that more and more Americans continue to arm both themselves and their families in an effort to stop violent crimes before they happen.

Of course, if you were only paying attention to the mainstream media, and letting them form opinions for you, then you might think that gun violence is at an all-time high.

That’s because for the past five years there have been two mass shootings every month, and the mainstream media has always been quick to latch onto these stories and use them as justification for calling for more gun control.

Rather than accurately reporting the real rates of gun violence, the media simply uses these stories as anecdotal evidence for their own ulterior motives.

If more people were exposed to the truth about gun deaths, then perhaps the frenzied push for gun control would lose much of its momentum.

[ssba]
  • RIC54

    All these latest false flags are from the gun grabbers that brought you Fast and Furious and will do what ever it takes ti dis arm Americans after they collapse the economy when they have to fill there FEMA camps.

    • Steve

      Washington District of Columbia Terrorist Group, (WDCTG).

      WDCTG is a group of the most terrorist traitors on the face of our nation;
      -They have ignored the peoples United States Constitution, and committed
      perjury to their Oath of Office.
      -They steal our monies, then use it against us, as they threaten to destroy our
      lively hood, our loved ones, and our family’s just to steal more.
      -They have taken ownership of our lands for their own convenience.
      -They walk among us like a roaring lion, seeking whom they may devour.
      -They promote racism, man lying with man, women lying with women, and the death
      of the unborn child.
      -They support the destruction of the Human Race.
      -They live with, and believe in, the power of darkness, wanting and waiting for
      Satan to conquer all, to open the Pearly Gates, and follow Lucifer into Heaven.
      -Our members of the Republican and Democrat party, have no shame, they have no
      Rule of Law, and they are the WDCTG.

      The people’s House of Congress, is no longer the people’s house.

      • n3ulw1951

        Amen Steve, AMEN!!

      • Tom Wittlief

        The top priority of at Least 85 % of the people elected to public office in DC, is telling whatever lie it takes, performing whatever emotional manipulation it takes, to get elected again back into office, by the poor fools who believed their lies, or felt sympathy for their emotional manipulations. Whether those “Representatives” of the American citizens did so out of desire for money or an addictive Need for having an authoritative position, or both, the effect is the same. The People of the United States need to accept that this has happened, and those addicts in DC need to recognize and realize that they must end their habits, destructive to the Freedoms which made their positions possible. They are literally committing economic suicide, and taking everyone else with them.

        • Steve

          Well stated Tom, except I believe the number is more like 98%. But in either case, the American People need to wake up and purge this system.

          • Tom Wittlief

            Well………I did say “at LEAST 85 %”. But thank you Brother. Good Luck to you and yours.

          • Steve

            Thank you Tom. The same to you and yours.

      • punisher

        did you preach that in church this morning?

        • Steve

          I did go to church, but nope, I sat and listen. However, a few weeks ago, our preacher did do a sermon on Isaiah 14, and our politicians that believe in the power of the darkness. This sermon explained, to me, why the people in power are so dark. Wish I could explain more, but DARK is the only word I can come up with.

          • gordon

            You are so RIGHT and it appears the ( punisher ) could stand to attend church also with his little SNIDE REMARKS. Have a great day and GOD BLESS.

          • Steve

            Well if the punisher is being snide, at least he is reading and hopefully he/she will learn. If punisher is being honest, maybe this would make a good sermon. But either way, thank you for your post. May god bless you and yours also.

          • gordon

            Steve, It certainly appears to be a snide remark to me. I could be mistaken, but either way I hope not and hope he does attend a good BIBLE believing church. A footnote my Pastor has given a sermon on this very thing with all of the corruption in government, homosexuality, abortions among other topics and It definitely was against everything GOD stands for. A great sermon. God Bless

          • Steve

            Last May I had the opportunity to have lunch with Joel Skousen, what a great American, http://www.joelskousen.com/. I had questions about these people in power, and don’t they understand that death will come, no matter what power they have. Joel replied, read Isaiah 14. So that night I tried to read Isaiah 14. Wow, pretty deep and way over my head. The next day I asked my preacher if he could give a sermon and try to combine Isaiah 14 with the people in power. A few weeks later he did just that, and there was not one person falling a sleep either. He hit it right on the head. (I wonder if we go to the same church.) My comment above comes from his sermon, “They live with, and believe in, the power of darkness, wanting and waiting for Satan to conquer all, to open the Pearly Gates, and follow Lucifer into Heaven.”

  • Saltporkdoc

    Pro gunners, let’s take a page out of thr regressive’s [sic] playbook. Instead of calling them “mass murders” and thus sounding so sinister, let’s call them what most really are, multiple shootings.
    I’d love to see everyone doing that because the label mass murder was set by the regressives [sic] and they use it in a emotion evoking way going so far as to lump the wounded into their statistics (despite the limiting which should revolve around the use of the specific word “murder.)
    I say fight fire with fire. (I’d love to see the regressive [sic] heads explode when they lose the war of words!

    • CitizenVetUSA

      A mass murder happened in ‘Waco’ burning babies, mothers, and fathers based upon created rumor by the friendly media and the radical extremists AG Janet Reno, and Team Clinton. Don’t forget about ‘Ruby Ridge’ demonstrating more government coming to help

      • Deborah Tucker

        I was shocked that my nieces and nephews had never heard of either. Took me a few hours, but I told them what I remembered and showed them the real story. I also let them know that at the time I was guilty of buying into MSM about Waco. I told them I thought the government at the time should blow the place up.I let them know how important it was to learn on your own instead of believing the news reports. I was a teen at the time as some of my nieces and nephews are now. I told them even at a young age, always check facts before believing or supporting something, especially government.

        • ags4ever

          anyone who was over the age of 15 at the time should remember Waco, and the trial that occurred afterward when the six survivors were tried for the murder of the ATF agents who died in the initial February 1993 pre-dawn raid on the Branch Davidian compound. Fortunately, the defense was able to convince the jurors in that case that the Branch Davidians were merely defending their home against an unwarranted home invasion in which the ATF agents never identified themselves as police, nor presented any kind of search warrant. Videotaped evidence presented in that trial showed that the ATF agents came rapellling down from their helicopters with guns blazing, and fired multiple shots before the occupants of the buildings returned fire.

          When the federal charges for illegal possession of a machine gun were tried in the federal courthouse in San Antonio, the federal prosecutor stood on the steps of that courthouse waving a “black rifle” around that looked almost pristine, with no signs of it having been in any fire. Those of us who remember seeing the fire that consumed the compound on the morning of April 19, 1993 saw a fire that blazed nearly white hot in spots. A plastic rifle such as the AR-15 or M-16, with its plastic stock and forearm, would have been a twisted mass of melted plastic when recovered from such a fire.

          The federal prosecutor refused to allow the defense attorneys their right to examine the rifles allegedly recovered from the Branch Davidian Compound, or to have a third party, an honorable engineering firm that the federal government had hired to investigate the Challenger disaster in 1986, examine the rifles that were allegedly recovered from the compound using X-ray analysis to see if the weapons had actually been converted from semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons (or if they were fully-automatic weapons at all). Then the prosecutor and the federal judge erred in telling the jurors that they HAD to convict if they believed the evidence showed the Davidians were guilty. IIRC, the prosecutors never proved that the weapons he claimed were “evidence” had ever been in the compound (and they appeared not to have been), that the rifles he waved around as evidence during the trial had ever belonged to anyone who lived in that compound, and that any of the weapons were, in fact fully-automatic weapons. Jurors in every state have the right (and responsibility) to nullify any law if they believe that a law is unjust, or if it is being enforced unjustly. The jurors should have been informed that they had that power.

    • Candice White

      One death is too many you imbecile.

      • Cynic

        You should troll somewhere else. And take your ad hominem attacks with you.

      • Phil Dirt

        Not if it was yours, idiot.

        • Nick Liberto

          Candice….Phil….Please, contribute to the discussion…do not smirch it by calling anyone names. That only gives cause to lash out with inanities.
          Facts are facts and while some people react emotionally, it’s best to be objective and accept reality.
          In an ideal world, no one would take another life in any manner, using any weapon. This is not the world we live in.
          Comments such as BHO made pointing to western civilization and how the U.S. is so violent needs to be qualified. The U.S. is not considering wiping out other countries…kidnapping school children en masse…stoning adulterers, etc.
          All the murders in this country over the past 20 years do not equal a week end in various parts of the world where radicals practice their heinous quest for world domination.

      • Debauche

        Candice – Fact: Everybody dies! Nobody gets out alive. The life you SAVE today is going to DIE tomorrow. I can only hope that gem of information will help speed you along toward your ultimate end. Play nice! Don’t be a TROLL! Don’t be childishly calling names. Kiss, kiss……

      • Timothy-Allen Albertson

        Yes, one death is too much. OTH, there is no moral equivalence to a home invader, a rapist, someone trying to kill an innocent person being taken out, with a firearm or however else, by a innocent person TO such a thug murdering an innocent person.
        A major moral flaw of gun control cultists, which is also a complete misunderstanding of centuries of the English Common Law regarding murder and homicide, is the claim that an innocent person who shoots and kills a rapist, a home invader, etc., has “murdered” that thug.

      • oaking

        One may be too many, however, balance one against many, the many armed can stop the one armed, the many dis-armed can still stop the armed but at a greater cost in lives. Sad that you appear to support the mass shooter.

        • ags4ever

          that’s what liberals do. They support the criminals by passing laws disarming only the honest law-abiding citizens, making the criminals’ efforts easier and their victims’ lives harder; those laws ENCOURAGE murders rather than prohibiting, them, for a criminal knows it is much easier to assault a disarmed victim than to assault an armed on.

      • OSAMA OBAMA

        STFU!! LibTURD!

      • James Andrews

        Agreed, but passing even more laws, when they don’t properly enforce the laws already on the books, won’t do a damn thing. In fact, when gun laws get too strict, like they are in New York and Washington, D.C., they actually help the criminals, and help push more, not fewer guns into the underground/black market. And there is no such thing as a “gun free” zone! They only attract the psychos.

      • Kelly Guthridge

        Then why don’t you start fighting ABORTIONS… Help put and end to all those Innocent Murders… they can’t even defend themselves!!! Where is the outcry for those countless ongoing unreported MURDERS…

        • Hugh McCullough

          Because, Kelly, the alternative right now, is to bring an unwanted child into a cruel, heartless, unkind world . . . to grow up unwanted and, for the most part, uncared for. Abortion occurs, most times, due to irresponsibility; how do you legislate irresponsibility away? So, it is a ‘Lesser of two evils’ . . . better to ‘terminate’ an unconscious, unfeeling, unknowing fetus than to burden an emotional child with knowing he/she was NOT wanted! By the way, Kelly, what is your feeling about “Murdering” conscious, knowing, feeling, fully aware dogs & cats just because they are in the way?

          • Kelly Guthridge

            Actually a truly better solution is for these RETARDS to stop breading like RABBITS and using ABORTIONS as their personal form of Birth Control… Instead they should try one of the following methods instead if they truly don’t want to have children: 1) keep their legs closed. 2) go on the pill. 3) use a rubber. 3) use a diaframe. 4) get their tubes tied. 5) or perhaps a combination of several of the above just to be sure!!!

            But stop trying to find all sorts of outlandish excuses as to what it is that makes it Morally justifiably for one Human to say they have a legitimate excuse to kill another helpless, yet unborn Human child… if they don’t want them then let them give em’ up for adoption to someone who truly wants them and will care for them, period!!!

            I’m sorry to say but that one statement of yours did disturb me greatly… even unborn… A Child Created is not Unconscious, Unfeeling and Unknowing… it is those who would do that child harm that are truly Unconscious, Unfeeling and Unknowing as they have no respect for the sanctity of Life…

          • Kelly Guthridge

            Interesting that you edited (if not then I missed it earlier) your statement and added in the little tidbit about dogs and cats… I don’t believe they deserve to be put down either! To go a lot further though; before anyone is ever allowed to adopt one as a pet they should have to take parenting classes… simple because (most people are irresponsible and ignorant and they need to be taught) when you take on the responsibility of an animal’s care it is for life… and yes it is a “LIFE” (they are not like a toy, they are not disposable) and like any other life it bears responsibility. RESPONSIBILITY is something everyone should have had taught to them by their parents… and not regulated and dictated too them by the Government.

            Every pet I have ever own is one that has always picked me out… as I never pick out an animal I let them pick me… and once it becomes age appropriate I have them fixed. Something that every pet owner should always do… and all of my pets are kept in doors or contained within a secured fenced area, with plenty of running area… Everyone that knows me and see’s they way I treat my animals, they way I feed them the highest grade natural food, give them nothing but bottled spring water and home made human grade organic treats… So, my feelings about dogs and cats… anyone that is so irresponsible as to use an animal as an accessory in their life that they can just dump and get rid of when it is no long convenient should be band from ever having them again let alone having children!!!

            As I don’t really see the difference… if you can’t be bothered taking care of one then how can you be bothered by taking care of the other!

          • Mike Lawson

            For every terminated pregnancy there’s roughly 1.5 people or couples wanting to adopt. The baby was only unwanted by his/her so-called mother.

          • n3ulw1951

            MAYBE one should NEED a License BEFORE being allowed to procreate??

          • ags4ever

            Guest, you are totally wrong in claiming that the unborn baby that is murdered by any abortion procedure has no feelings and is unconscious. It is a living human being that photographic evidence shows has a knowledge of pain for unborn children as young as three-four weeks try to avoid the surgeon’s knife and/or the corrosive liquids that end their lives. BTW, the methods most commonly used in abortions (dilation and curettage) and injection of a strong corrosive liquid into the mother’s uterus to boil the baby alive were declared to be cruel and unusual punishment when inflicted on persons convicted for the crime of murder as far back as the late 1700s.

            That baby is a human being from the time it is conceived, and is never not human during the pregnancy, or the infant that is born after the pregnancy is never a human being at all.

            Your question to kelly is a non-sequitur, for dogs and cats are not human beings. They are animals, and cannot be “murdered”.

        • ags4ever

          amen, kelly. Those who support abortion do so, most often, because they think that the unborn baby is the “property of the mother” and hence her slave, and not a human being at all, thereby supporting slavery; or they think that the unborn baby is “part of the mother’s body” , ignoring the fact that the mother’s body forms a “placental wall” between herself and the developing baby inside her, to keep her immune system from destroying that foreign body. Both their contentions are completely wrong–and slavery was made illegal by ratification of the 13th amendment in the USA in December 1865.

          People who support abortion which is and always has been baby murder, or first degree, premeditated murder of a human being, no matter what the supreme court says, are totally unjustified in supporting such crimes.

      • Steve

        Tell that to the person that is trying to kill my family.

      • ags4ever

        calling others names only proves that you know that you don’t have a single solitary fact to support your own fear-induced hate-filled opinions.

    • Lary Breeding

      These were multiple shootings by persons who were described, I believe in every case, as mentally ill. It is time the left looked at the real issues in these multiple shootings and that is the mentally ill. Anyone who is far enough along in their mental illness that they want to kill themselves or someone else must be removed from society and treated until they can be trusted to rejoin the rest of us. The real problem is that psychiatry is not a science it is often a guessing game and psychiatrists frequently guess wrong.

      • Eric Knight

        not necessarily all shootings are done by mentally ill because as humans we all have a breaking point a line is sometimes crossed when someone has had enough they snap and see red as the old saying and they do bad things before they realize what they have done and also where is the line between mentally ill and just plain evil sometimes it’s hard to say

        • Saltporkdoc

          Precisely the point I sought people to understand.
          My position is clear (I think) that disarmament of all is NOT the solution!

      • Saltporkdoc

        First, thank you for using my suggested phraseology.
        As a former Chemical Dependancy Counselor and Domestic Violence OFFENDERS Counselor, I agree with your assessment of the nature of the pathology involved in mass shooters, but would argue (NOT very strenuously however) that the real problem is not that psychiatry is imprecise and unquantifiable, rather I would contend that the resources for the safe and humane treatment of sufferers of SEVERE mental illness against their wishes does not exist. Since the Carter Administration, when financing of and legal challenges to State funded mental facilities were curtailed (as well as a natural and necessary aversion for the “snake pits” of the 18th, 19th and even early 20th centuries) resulted in closure of many hospitals and clinics for the mentally ill, society has not had a place to safely treat psychiatric patients out of the general society. In addition, it is next to impossible to revert to the prior existing system due to the legal and constitutional restraints which assure personal resposibility and liberty!

        Sorry for my long winded dissertation when what I want to point out is the futility of the liberal mentality that the omniscient and omnipotent government can magically keep us all safe from EVERYTHING. The reality is that the issue of personal safety is exactly that, PERSONAL. Hazards in society are a reality and we as members of that society need to accept that and take the measures we deem appropriate to either be safe, protecting ourselves and loved ones (yes that extends to those who have chosen to depend on others for their safety if they are in my personal “safety zone”) or to be victims.

        • Lary Breeding

          First I want to make clear that i do not consider anyone “flying off the handle” to be mentally ill, at least not in every case. Needing anger management does not make someone mentally ill. Second, I do not believe that everyone with a mental illness deserves to be locked up. But….in every state that I am aware of the mentally ill are not allowed to purchase guns. Somewhere along the way SOMEONE has to make a determination that they need to be added to what ever list those making background checks use to determine legal gun ownership. It appears that these mental health professionals are not doing that so whatever criteria being used now is not strong enough. If state or federal law enforcement doesn’t have someone on their list the background check will come back clean and the gun store owner will sell a gun without ever knowing he shouldn’t have.

          Liberals need to concentrate on finding ways to protect us from the mentally ill who plan and plot multiple murder. Stopping gun ownership of honest citizens won’t do that. It is obvious from the past shootings that mental illness starts young and several of the killers had sought professional help but they were still able to purchase guns because those professionals did not do their job. Your right in saying that government can not protect us from “everything” nor should anyone expect it to. Which is why I have a concealed carry permit from Texas. If someone is bent on killing others and can’t get their hands on a gun they will just find another weapon so for liberals to continually complain about guns is really does not solve the real problems we face.

          • Saltporkdoc

            Lary As both a mental health care provider (see my above) AND a former Federal Firearms License holder,I couldn’t agree more with your assessment in the first paragraph except for two points. First, none of these mass shooters have just “flown of the handle”. They have had diagnosable mental health issues. The other point (I hope I was clear on this in my original posting.) is taht I do NOT believe nor condone “locking up” everyone with a mental illness either. Many conditions of mental illness pose NO threat to public safety.
            As to your second paragraph, the only change I would make is to clarify that I would NOT wish to leave protecting anyone solely in the hands of Liberals. Their agenda is NOT beneficent as they wish all to believe, nor are the interested in protecting us. They are solely interested in protecting themselves and their power. They are NOT the “Progressives” they claim to be. Their agenda is one of REGRESSION to where they, the new elite oversee the rest of us as serfs just as it was at the time of the pre Revolution British occupation. Hence, my referring to them as regressives.
            I take mild exception to your statement that professionals did not do their jobs in treating early onset mental illnesses since many of their patients “legally” obtained firearms. As you so correctly state, it is a question on the ATF form 4473 filed out when purchasing from an FFL holder, there is a question (or two- it has been a while since I processed these forms and I’m sure there have been changes.) regarding the mental health status of the purchaser which MUST be answered correctly by the purchaser OR the purchase is automatically stopped (without even a call to NICS!) and MAY NOT procede!
            Essentially this makes mental health status a self reported matter (under penalty of perjury) until NICS is called. Their perjury is no fault of the professionals treating them. Neither is the lack of effective/efficient reporting the fault of the professional, rather it is the lack of bureaucratic follow through to get appropriate data reported to NICS by the multiple states whose reponsibility it is to develop the system for making timely reports to NICS.
            As to the “SOMEONE” [emphasis iin your original] making the determination who and what conditions need to be entered as disqualifiers…that is what scares me! Just refer to the current list of DHS declared potential “domestic terrorists”!

          • Lary Breeding

            Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear enough. I did not want to compare “flying off the handle” with mental illness and certainly no one who plans and commits multiple murder is anything but mentally ill.

            As far as the ATF form is concerned can anyone really expect the mentally ill to fill out the form with complete honesty? They are, after all, mentally ill and while they may be mentally ill that does not mean they are stupid enough to tell the truth on the form. So what does that leave us with? If mental health professionals do not report the information to those running the data base who will? Family members who may want only to protect their family? FFL license holders getting the blame for selling guns to those who should not have them but the reality is that the FFL holder is doing exactly what they are supposed to do. But if the information isn’t in the system the form will always be approved. Unfortunately, all lawful gun owners are also bearing the brunt of the complaints from the left and liberal media.

            My original thought was that SOMEONE must make the determination as to whether or not someone should be placed on “THE LIST.” If mental health professionals are not the ones to make that determination then, of necessity, someone else must. I am with you, I would not like to see government bureaucrats making those choices. There is no limit to the harm they could do. BUT…I ask again, if the mental health profession doesn’t bite the bullet and does not take lead on this, who will?

          • pappadave

            What Liberals need is a serious dose of REALITY. So far, I’ve seen little evidence that any of them understand what’s right in front of their own faces.

          • Saltporkdoc

            They understand. The problem is, as my sainted father told me in the 1960’s, Conservatives think with their brains, Liberals think with their hearts.

          • Saltporkdoc

            My personal experience was that it was less the mental health professional’s unwillingness (most States now have mandatory reporting laws for guidance in this matter as well as absolution from liability) to report and more a systemic/bureaucratic issue. For example, many State databases could not communicate directly with NICS database! Their computer languages were incompatable so the data required a doubling of manpower/manhours to enter the data into NICS.

          • ags4ever

            entering such data into any database is prohibited by the firearms owners protection act. So the background check is unconstitutional and illegal.

          • Saltporkdoc

            Look below for my complete reponse to you.

          • ags4ever

            Several supreme court cases have held that convicted felons, for example, cannot be prosecuted for lying on the form 4473 questionnaire that customers who wish to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer in answer to the question “Are you a convicted felon?” , for that is a violation of their fifth amendment right not to be forced to testify/convict themselves in a criminal matter. It is a felony offense for a convicted felon even to attempt to buy a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer (5 year penalty). It is also a felony offense for anyone to lie on the Form 4473 questionnaire. So if a convicted felon is forced to answer the “Are you a convicted felon?” question truthfully, he is convicting himself of a felony crime, a violation of the fifth amendment.

            IIRC, federal law also makes it a felony crime for persons disqualified for any of the other reasons that the Brady Law disqualifies persons from owning firearm, to attempt to purchase a firearm from a licensed firearm dealer. so if they lie on the form 4473, they cannot be prosecuted for lying on the form.

            Since the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the subsequent Brady Law are both flatly unconstitutional, and always have been, the whole issue should be moot. But the government has now made the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms into a privilege which they routinely deny to many people for little or no reason.

          • Fred Campbell

            Your exposition on the subject of insanity v. multiple killings is on point.
            May I suggest that part of the problem is the “confidentially” issue. Most psychiatrists and psychologists live in fear of being accused of violating their client’s “rights” in this area.
            Could you address this issue for us?

          • Saltporkdoc

            I cannot generalize but only speak to the issue from a personal experience and local (Ohio) basis. When a client came to me the very first session, I made clear that, due to my concern for them, if we had an issue wherein they expressed a desire to harm themselves or others I would honor their confidentiality (so I could explore such matters as means, access to the means and the victim, etc) but as soon as I felt there was a reality to either the desire or plan, I would either pink slip (involuntary referral for evaluation while hospitalized) or report to law enforcement as well as the potential victim. Many factors such as immediacy and potential for harm factored into the latter. I never had a situation where the client refused further treatment and/or to discuss fully their situation.
            (I need to point out that the issue of harming someone can hinge upon the “plan”, its completeness, practicality, immediacy, specificity and potential for success. Just saying, “I really want to punch someone” usually would be a low level threat. Adding a name, weapon and/or time frame, e.g., would trigger a report from me.)
            In the State of Ohio, there is a law that a mental healthcare provider, MUST report threats of substance to law enforcement, the potential victim and consider the need for a pink slip. Thus, with a specific threat, confidentiality is moot.

            My take on the matter as it relates to today’s social environment (I have been retired now for some time) is that the real problem is less the discretion of the mental healthcare provider than the systemic problem of getting the information entered into a data base at the state level, then linking that data base into the NICS system.

          • Fred Campbell

            Thank you for the enlightening exposition on reporting. Reporting is, for the professional, a “minefield”. A marginal (but faulty) call can do great damage, both to the client and the counselor.
            I suspect that the APA leans toward non-disclosure relative to perceived tendencies toward violence. Certainly an area to be revisited when it comes to establishing future policies and guidelines.
            The hard fact is that, in several recent attacks, the counselor (apparently) had solid indications of potential violent behavior but chose to not forward the information to appropriate authorities (not that it would have changed the outcome).
            No answers, only questions……….

          • Saltporkdoc

            You are absolutely correct. I suspect it was less a “minefield” for me as I came to the mental healthcare field after a lengthy career as a police officer so had seen the “other side” of the matter.
            It is such a shame that the two sides in this matter (Pro 2A vs Anti 2A) cannot seem to have a calm and rational discussion (let alone a debate) of the issues involved. I suspect this goes back to a statement made by my sainted father in the 1960’s that the problem is that liberals “think” with their emotions while Conservatives think with their brain.

          • ags4ever

            A better description is that liberal anti-gunners don’t “think” at all, they just use emotion to sway others’ opinions.

          • ags4ever

            It is a long-standing tradition of the medical profession, further protected by multiple laws in every state, and federal laws in addition, that the relationship between any doctor and his patients for any reason, including mental and emotional problems that require a doctor’s help, are sacrosanct and cannot be accessed by any law enforcement agency without, as the fourth amendment specifies, a search warrant claiming “probable cause” and specifically describing the premises to be searched and a description of the persons and or evidence to be seized. And the Brady Law, unconstitutional though it is, does protect the fourth amendment rights of mental patients to some extent, in that no one can be denied their right to possess and carry arms for mental reasons unless they are adjudicated (held by a judge and jury, with due process of law, including legal counsel for the defendant, and compulsory means for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor) as being mentally deficient, or worthy of being confined in a mental institution for his own safety or for the safety of the public.

            Giving any government bureaucrat the power to proclaim that any person is mentally challenged and a danger to society without any means of appeal and without due process of law, is a clear violation of not only the 2nd amendment, but the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments, as well.

          • Tom Wittlief

            And, really, isn’t prohibiting the ownership of firearms for Everyone because a Loonie here and there misuses one, the same as accusing Everyone of being a potential homicidal maniac ? The Government, accusing literally EVERYBODY else of being a murdering psychopath. Seems to me akin to accusing anyone who wants to own a car that goes faster than 60 of being a speeder. Seems to me to be viable lawsuit in there, against restrictive government policy ?

          • Saltporkdoc

            I believe the common law term for this is “Guilt by Association”.

          • n3ulw1951

            Larry, I’m quoting from your post. “Liberals need to concentrate on finding ways to protect us from the mentally ill who plan and plot multiple murder.”
            That is the VERY REASON they can’t! Why because Liberals and mental illness is one and the same! ROFLMAO!! Look at how many people “mysteriously” died under Clinton’s rise to power, look at the current abomination, oops, Administration!! It “almost” appears that “Liberalism” and “mental illness” walk hand in hand to the alter!! As a side note there must be one or maybe two sane, rational Liberals out there BUT they are in the minority in their philosophy! The rest?? Mentally unstable!!

          • Proud Patriot

            I think we have to be careful with government lists. Can we allow some of the most self serving individuals in America to be in charge of such a list. With those coming home from war now with PTSD and the Obama regime wanted to declare veterans as mentally ill, I don’t believe we can. The last thing most combat veterans want to do is participate in more violence. I’m not sure what the percentage is that own and carry is but I think that those that do are doing so because they have seen the realities of violence and feel the duty to protect themselves, their families and other innocent people. They, we carry for the right reason.

          • Saltporkdoc

            Exactly on point. We tend to forget that behind every government list is a bean counting bureaucrat who gets a “bonus” for a larger list (Except for the VA where the lists have to be shorter! [Sarcasm])

          • Proud Patriot

            The VA list is getting shorter. We’re dying before we get put on the list then they make all those that made the list jump through enough hoops to get our earned benefits to question whether it’s worth it or not.

          • Saltporkdoc

            I’m in the system there too and know whereof you speak.
            Really makes the reality of Obamacare “Death Panels”more believeable doesn’t it?!

        • PAP

          Seems the only thing you can do is take them down when the act out.

        • helen sabin

          Was it Carter or reagan?? I need an answer ASAP please!!

          • Saltporkdoc

            I am using my recall of the time when I was in law enforcement in the 1970’s for this information rather than primary research, but I recall having a very difficult time making mandatory evaluation referrals to mental hospitals due to a SCOTUS decision. Things went down hill from there. This most definately was during Carter’s Administration.

        • Tom Wittlief

          “Personal safety is exactly that, Personal.” No need to apologize for long windedness when truth and common sense are the subject.

      • JimmyJ

        Some time back a friend of mine was a little depressed, and talked about suicide, although not very seriously. His Dr had been trying to get him to take Prozac “just to see how it worked…”. My friend finally gave in and started with the Prozac about the time his pickup truck (brand new, only NICE thing my friend had ever had) was stolen and driven of the top of a mountain Right in Front of him. Being a nice guy, he assured the thiefs wife he would not press charges nor sue for damages. The dude who ‘stole’ the truck was drinking at the time and when the paramedics first arrived they checked his breath and he was way over limit. The whole time the culprits kept asking for and getting conformation that my friend would not sue. Then, Several hours later they got the thief to a hospital, where he was given a Blood test which, by now of course showed him below the legal B/A limit.. Then, the Dr. at the hospital , who just happened to be one this thief had known for years, back to when he had broken his back 20 years earlier. The Dr. said the X- Ray showed he had broken his back. The Thief and his wife then procedded to file a claim against my friend. Back to the point… the Prozac now kept my friend from being straight up suicidal, But,, he began carrying a Snipers Rifle as well as two or three handguns at a time. He would sit on a hilltop overlooking the curve in the road that the thief would need to drive on to get home. He figured a well placed shot into the correct tire at just the right moment would make it look like an accedent… Luckly it never happened and he quit takeing the Prozak, then he told his Dr all about it and the Dr. said he was right to quit, and did not try to load him up on psycotropic Mind controll drugs again. They are all doing well now, at least my friend is… if the other people are up to their ears in B. S.. … They Better keep their mouths shut… I would hope someone tells them obama got another term so they would yell ‘YAY’ and drown in the B.S.

    • pogrizz

      we also have to stop calling a semi automatic weapon an assault weapon.(I totally despise that made up media term for all scary looking weapons, now the lame stream media is starting to call handguns assault weapons

      • Kelly Guthridge

        If you take a kitchen knife and attack someone with it… it becomes an ASSAULT WEAPON!!! By the same term and meaning if you take a baseball bat and hit someone with it that too becomes an ASSAULT WEAPON!!! Any physical object that you use to attack and strike another person; with the intent of doing harm is an “ASSAULT WEAPON” plain and simple… The only reason the Liberals try to coin that phrase onto a semi-automatic rifle is for the hype factor and to ramp up hysteria over nothing… Their desperate!

      • Hugh McCullough

        The ONLY “Assault” weapons are those described by the manufacturers as . . . [you got it] . . .”Assault Weapons”. Weapons used by the military are assault weapons. On the other hand, if I ‘assault’ you with a Peanut Butter sandwich, the Morons in Washington will want to outlaw Peanut Butter sandwiches.

        BETTER EAT FAST PEOPLE!

        • Saltporkdoc

          Don’t eat Pop tarts! They’ve already been catagorized as lethal weapons!
          Remember…Zero Tolerance means Zero intelligence and Zero effort for administrators!

        • ags4ever

          wrong, guest. The weapons that idiotic laws claim are “assault weapons” were specifically described by name in Feinstein’s original unconstitutional Clinton Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, and others were banned by specific physical descriptions which claimed that if the weapon had any two of the characteristics described by the law, it was an assault weapon.

          FYI the descriptions of an assault weapon by the original 1994 Clinton ban, were any one of about 50 named models of semi-automatic rifles, or any other semiautomatic rifle that could accept a detachable magazine and any two or more of the following characteristics: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one; or a grenade launcher mount.

          The unconstitutional Clinton law also called any semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: a magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip; a threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor; barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator; an unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more, or was a semiautomatic version of a fully automatic firearm, an “assault weapon”. And further, that unconstitutional law described semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following characteristics (a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds; or a detachable magazine, as assault weapons.

      • Saltporkdoc

        Agreed!
        As pro gunners, pro 2nd Amendment people, we have done well at “preaching to the choir” and TERRIBLE at educating the “neutrals” (my word for those who hold no solid opinion, but are susceptable to the propaganda and obfuscations and outright lies of the antis). Changing this by choosing OUR words and no longer being afraid of PCness or offending the antis is imparitive!

      • Proud Patriot

        I don’t own any assault weapons, only defense weapons.

  • Maria castro

    You will near hear the facts from the media.

    • Timothy-Allen Albertson

      CNN first reported this recent gun contril cultist prevarication regarding school shootings as fact. And then turned around and said they were in error to do so saying that 80% of the incidents that claimed a school shootings were what Cliven Bundy’s cattle drop on the desert ground

  • Christine

    I would have shared this on Facebook if you didn’t put a pic of a half-nude looking woman with it. Please be more modest.

    • ssoldie

      Me too, get it off. Very offensive, Liberals think sex sells everything, let’s not bring ourselves to their level.

    • Duz2600

      Ok, now we know you hate the human form… Christine, your attitudes can cause an early demise. Seek professional help.

      • calmo

        It should go without saying that there’s no possible logic in claiming that modesty and good taste are rooted in hatred of the human body. The world and the nation need for people who are old enough to participate in public forums to exercise better judgement than you’ve revealed. Somehow during your upbringing you missed some effective discipline — like getting your mouth slapped for such outrageous impudence.

        • Hugh McCullough

          NO! You idiot! It should NOT go without saying. Modesty and good taste to some amount to Censorship [but always for OTHERS]! Religious fanatics have the idea, “My body is the Temple of the Lord . . . but I must cover it up because it’s evil”! LOGIC? Pu-lease.

          • The_1911_Solution

            I have heard it all, but the real reason why both men and women cover up and the reason it is incorporated into both religious and secular laws is not because we consider our bodies evil, it is to attempt to tone down the desire of some men who may covet and obsess to the point of actually acting on their urge and raping our women. Sadly with the liberals promoting the philosophy “if it feels good, do it “, many girls and even a few boys have found themselves in situations they did not want to be in and they were wearing clothes. The effect appears to multiply in the absence of attire. Besides, 99% of the population has no business in skimpy or no attire. To prove my point all one has to do is look at a photo shoot of the topless or nude beaches in France, then go their and see for yourself. You would find that some of the visuals you would LIKE to forget!

          • Duz2600

            New information indicates that some women covet, also!
            Most nudists are not about others bodies, but, about their own autonomy
            to be as they were created!

            In Eden, Adam & Eve ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil,
            and were ashamed, and made themselves clothes from available vegetation,
            to hide their shame… God had nothing to do with the entire scenario, other than

            that He forbade them to eat of the tree of knowledge, for they would regret it.

            To a scientist in human behavior, that is a good description, in a most primitive form, of the attainment of self-awareness. Most of the nudists whom I know, have corpulent bodies. I am not a practicing nudist, but, believe in genuine human Rights.

          • The_1911_Solution

            Thanks for the reply. I think a few people might have to look up the term “corpulent” although it is very accurately applied in this case. If people want to bear their bodies, that is up to them in settings where there are few or no restrictions on that. Back in the 90’s when I visited France a couple of times, my friends living over there discovered on one of the channels that they would run kids programs and then at five or six you would see naked women parading out. Their young daughter saw this and asked her mom why the girls on the TV were running around with no clothes. After figuring out the listings because they were still learning French at the time, they avoided certain channels at particualr times of the day.

          • ags4ever

            Adam and Eve also made clothing of animal skins, which meant that the animals had to be killed. The first example of the principle that their can be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood.

            “God had nothing to do with the entire scenario”? His commandment at that time was that Adam and Eve were not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Adam and Eve both violated that commandment, committing sin. And that sin had to be atoned for by the shedding of blood of innocent creatures.

          • calmo

            Religious people cover their bodies because that’s what God’s laws have always demanded. There’s nothing inherently evil about the physical things God created. What’s evil is the filth that comes out of the undisciplined human mind.

          • Fred Campbell

            Mixed messages here. Can you show (in the scripture) where “God’s Laws” demand that our bodies be covered? Remember the Garden of Eden? It appears that man’s sinful lusts are the issue, not the extent of one’s clothing.

          • calmo

            You should do your own reading, and not expect to send people on the internet to do your research for you. In the OT and NT God told people to be modest. There’s a case in the NT where a person possessed by an evil spirit, after that spirit was cast out, he was “clothed and in his right mind.” The priests in the OT who climbed steps to the altar to perform the animal sacrifices were instructed to wear trousers to the knees under their robes to be modest. Noah’s son Ham was cursed for looking at his unclothed father. In the NT, women are told to dress modestly, in clothing that doesn’t provoke lust in men; if they don’t, their sin as equal to the sin of the man’s lust. This is the first time in my very long life that I’ve encountered anyone attempting to paint God’s laws and examples regarding modest dress as being inspired by evil. Somewhere along the way, somebody has filled your mind with toxin.

          • ags4ever

            make that the “unredeemed” human mind–the mind that is carnal, and attuned to the desires of the flesh, and not to the will of God and spiritual/holy things.

    • Hugh McCullough

      Yeah! Absolutely right! Why do it Half-Way?

  • The_1911_Solution

    The total aim of the Socialists / Marxists / Progressives and liberals in general is an America that looks like Socialist Europe. Crime is actually epidimic in those countries, but it is not publicized in their press and individuals get in trouble defending themseleves even when it can clearly be show it is justifiable. Our founding fathers in their own writings wanted the citizens to both be armed and have access to arms primarily to preserve their freedoms in case this “experiment in democracy” failed. Obama, Hilary,Pelosi and the rest of them in and out of our government know the real reason for the second amendment and that is why they are desperate to do away with it. If the numbers show firearms are beneficial to public safety, they find or found an organization which does a study which skews the results in the other direction. The media is encouraged to run all negative stories about gun ownership and NEVER run a positive story even when positive cases of gun ownership are the vast majority of the cases. Our right to keep and bear arms is unique from every other nation on earth and anyone who preaches gun control really wishes to rule as tyrants! 2.5 million Defensive Gun uses in this country with the vast majority resulting in both stopping the criminal and without a shot being fired.All one has to do is go to the FBI uniform crime statistics, look up the latest and compare them with the early nineties to see what is going on . And during the period of time death by firearms has been falling, gun ownership has increased many fold with out an increase in crime. The only places in this country crime has gone up is where guns are banned.

    • pdc1959

      Dude! “Socialists / Marxists / Progressives and liberals”: rather redundant don’t you think?.

      • The_1911_Solution

        You area absolutely correct. The reason why I always list them is that many people do not realize that they are ALL the same thing, have the exact same end goals. I do it more for instructional purposes for those who have not connected the dots.

        • ags4ever

          add to that description Nazis and Fascists, for they are also socialist liberals who have the same end goals –slavery of the masses with a few “elite” at the top as Communists, liberals, marxists and socialists do.

          • The_1911_Solution

            That is absolutely correct. Historically, Socialism and Progressivism end up as Fascism and a dictatorship while the entire time they repeat the lies they are doing things for the “good of the people”. This is the NATURAL progression of these so called forward thinking liberals.
            Our founders did not know the modern terms, Socialism, Stalinist, Leninism or Progressive, but they would have identified them as what they really are; Tyranny!

  • me2u2

    Why do you focus on gun deaths? Why not all deaths? Whether I murdered with a gun, a knife, or with bare hands, I am still dead.

    • ags4ever

      Since guns were never alive, they cannot die. And they cannot be killed, despite your claims.

  • Herman L. McCloud

    Just what does it take to get some of the boneheaded idiots out there to think for themselves, Gun’s do
    not kill, never has and never will, Only those behind the gun are the real killers and if there were no more
    guns then only the criminals would have guns to further terrorize their victims, what is happening here is
    that “We” the people are being manipulated and controlled by a power freak socialist dictator, “obama”
    whom is trying to take away our constitutional rights a little at a time as the second amendment the right
    to self defense which is just a whitewash cover up disguised to put the blame on a gun when in reality
    the gun issue is not the factor, It’s total control over the people, which is almost impossible when people
    are equipped to protect themselves, Which makes sense, because “obama” is nothing more than a
    Dictator and his goal is to penetrate, destroy and rebuild, as any other dictator has, is or will do, “obama”
    has already penetrated, and is progressively destroying for a inevitable collapse of our government so
    he can rebuild a socialist country of America run by a dictator as any other communist country where
    the people are under total control of government and everyone works for government with absolutely
    no political say about anything, This is “obama’s” agenda which he will succeed if we allow him to
    continue his trek through his fantasies world. Which is the main reason to get this political whoremonger
    out of our government before We the people end up losing our country and freedom. !

  • Lorraine E

    The corporate lying media (mouth piece for this administration) is hell bent on the destruction of our second amendment rights. Why anyone would give them any credibility is beyond me. Since they are FREE television they capture the attention of the uniformed and totally brain wash them with their never ending lies. Once the law abiding citizens are disarmed (criminals will always have guns) our country will become a Marxist police state and most Americans will be eliminated.

  • J. Harp

    So what else is new about the mainstream media and the Communist front they are supporting. The mainstream media has become nothing but a propaganda tool of the Democrap (Communist) party. The only way the mainstream media will give proper news coverage to ANYTHING is if it supports the subversive agenda of the Communists / Socialists in this country.

  • Combatvet52

    If it went down it’s because we have much more good guys and gals with guns. THINK ABOUT IT.

  • Tan K Solot

    I like my guns. They make me feel safe. It’s my dog that I worry about. He’s a real scary animal. Makes me think I’ll never get an opportunity to use my gun on some stupid attacker.

    • Hugh McCullough

      Just make sure you protect your dog . . . he is your ONLY friend!

      • Tan K Solot

        What’s that supposed to mean? I have lots of friends. You sound lonely, though. Go get yourself a poodle or a kitten.

  • Timothy-Allen Albertson

    Hell, even the leftists at CNN are abandoning the prevaricating gun control cultists.

  • Jerry Hughes

    The dem liberal bloodsucking liars, have to lie, if they told the truth, they have no case.
    They want control, that is what this is all about.
    They are aware that they can never take the couintry socialist as long as the citizenry are armed, they will never quit trying.I doubt that, athere ar5e few poedple left that think reason and votes are the way to deal with the liberal liars.
    The liberal scum, don’t even see it coming, they still think this is about politics.

  • WILLIAM PEARCE

    Remove self inflicted, justifiable shootings..the do numbers..

  • Duz2600

    Last night, at 11 PM, the Sheriff’s Helicopter circled my neighborhood for about 45 minutes, with search lights on. That criminal the Sheriff’s team then caught, and arrested, is very, very lucky. You see, my wife, and I, got out our bolt action Russian military rifles, and loaded them to see who could shoot the perp.

    It was a bad night for us, for the Sheriff got to him first. We really do want to KILL something
    EVIL!

    But, the party, after, was great! Neighbors mentioned that they are going to upgrade from their tiny pistols to some major fire power, like the .30 caliber milsurps whose bullets travel over a mile… are accurate at 1200 meters, and more!

    Yes, the libtards publicity, along with a Progressive Socialist Obama agenda, has ‘sold’ more than double all the weapons and ammo, in just these past five (5) years of ‘President’ Barack Hussein (Davis) (Obama) Soetoro, than ALL firearms and Ammo sold in the ENTIRE history of the USA,
    1776-2008!

    For you Progressives, take the quantity of weapons and ammo sold from 1776 through 2008.
    Double it. That is what has sold in the USA in the five (5) years of ‘President’ Barack Hussein (Davis) (Obama) Soetoro! The guns/ ammo “shortages”? Everyone is buying protection!

    • Hugh McCullough

      A .22 LR bullet will travel over a mile . . . the question is, Which victim will it hit a mile away? And why accurate out to 3/4 of a mile? Would you recognize a criminal 3/4 of a mile away? If he’s over 100 feet away, he won’t be a threat so killing anyone at that distance will get you charged with “Murder 1″. Try thinking!

      • ags4ever

        If he is armed with a rifle or handgun and is over 100 feet away, he is still dangerous. More so if he is a really good shot. So claiming that he isn’t a threat bespeaks only a vast ignorance of reality.

    • Cobranut

      You are one of those who give the media the term “gun nut”!

      Us law-abiding citizens don’t WANT to kill anyone, but will do so if necessary to protect ourselves or our families.
      Even if justified, I’m certain I’d have a few sleepless nights after having to take someones, even a criminals, life.

  • George E. Lefebvre

    Notice, Gun related crimes have started to climb since we were unfortunate to Elect the King in the White House. Wonder if its related?

    • phred01

      it has soared with police committing murders.

  • matt mccleary

    This is all due to the loonie left and the crappy lieing main stream media. Its all part of the obummer lieing muslim machine trying to get our guns….Good luck…COME AN GET THEM. Only way is one bullet at a time …

  • James Andrews

    Most of us have known this for many years. It is the press that wants to portray it as otherwise.

  • Brabado

    Gun Control is a “self-serving concept” fabricated by the Zealots Liberal Democrats (ZLD) and their Leftist Cronies, to have gun owners register – and later have confiscated – any weapons they may have…
    It has nothing to do to protect you, your family or friends… it is meant to protect them, and their Agenda to take over our Nation, with the least possible opposition from citizens….

    Don’t forget that Tyrannies, Dictatorships, Liberal Democrats, Progressives, Thugs, Goons, and Criminals want their victims, DISARMED! Yet, they will never surrender theirs, will they?
    Now you know why the ZLD and their Leftist Cronies want the 2nd. Amendment of our U.S. Constitution REPEALED! Say no to stealth Tyranny!

    GOD PROTECT OUR COUNTRY AND ITS CITIZENS!

    Semper Fidelis

    • Hugh McCullough

      Really? Where will god get a gun?

      • Brabado

        We The People are HIS best and most Loyal Army! GOD doesn’t ‘ need any guns!
        HE only needs people with faith, and love for the Word of the Lord!
        GOD IS MAKING THE TRUTH S REACH EVERY HOME IN AMERICA! HOME!
        BE PATIENT…
        Semper Fidelis

      • ags4ever

        If necessary, He can create one with a word, and make all weapons that are arrayed against Him useless. Jesus is coming back to earth and will claim His kingdom, and the devil and his minions will not be able to stand against Him.

    • The_1911_Solution

      I like the term Zealots Liberal Democrats (ZLD). They truly live up to that acronym. I usually list out Liberal / Marxist / Progressive / Stalinist / Leninist not because I enjoy writing, but to connect them together for they are inseparable and they are more commonly recognized by the masses as to what they stand for. Unless one has been through the public education system and been to a so called institution of higher learning!

  • Proud US vet/American

    Obama’s push for gun confiscation is purely political. The statistics don’t add up to his rhetoric-but we true American Patriots already new that. He’s a liar and an American hating “MARXIST” liberal lunatic.

  • pogrizz

    have both the House, Senate, POTUS, VPOTUS, Moms, Everytown and Bloomberg spend the late evening and early morning hours, say,Dark til dawn on the ghetto streets in Detroit, Chiraq(Chicago) and NYC. without their bodyguards in groups of no more than three and no bodyguards. then see what they have to say about gun control after probabley beaten and robbed or worse

    • Hugh McCullough

      If you’re selling tickets to that event, I’ll buy a Season Pass!

  • Steve’s Cages

    i will never surrender my guns!!! but the liberals are unarmed . are they that stupid they think words are what makes us free .and it is actually the guns that keep us free we are the only nation that its people are the well armed militia that keeps us free not there stupid no common sense ideas .if you don’t like my guns please leave my country , i will die for freedom will you?

  • Kelly Guthridge

    Think that bad… Then go and WATCH THIS –

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=469973969800167

  • helen sabin

    Liberal anti-gunners who know NOTHING about guns or the owners of them will NEVER listen to facts, common sense, etc as they don’t want anything to interrupt their foolish and uneducated thinking!

  • colsooonscoorner

    The media hypes every incident like it was on a daily basis. No guns allowed signs just invite some nut with a grudge (or perceived grudge) to open fire. Kinda like sayin’ come on in the water’s fine. Concealed carry, open carry, would slow alot of these cowards down, and if need be stop them!

    • ags4ever

      why should anyone need government permission to exercise what is a constitutionally guaranteed civil right?

      • colsooonscoorner

        Because too many people are scared by all the propaganda in the media. Every time you turn around in some states they create more anti 2nd Amendment laws. Get rid of the commie/libs. Then we might get our Constitution back.

  • Steven David Cessna

    There’s the TRUTH and i know all you LIBS do not want to believe it you are being brainwashed by the corporate Media but FACTS ARE FACTs and there ya have it the gods awful truth!

  • Proud Patriot

    Let’s face it, the mass media is responsible for publishing the false statistics and highly sensationalizing any gun crime. They do it for money. Write to the networks and make it clear that you will no longer watch their newscasts as long as we can not trust what they report. Next, they have to see a real drop in ratings and understand that the lies and deceptions are hurting them. Boycott the network news. Ratings count. Unfortunately it takes more that a few people to prove the point and it takes real action. It has been a rarity for me to watch the network national newscasts since I came home from Vietnam to see the lies they were spreading then.

  • 2ThinkN_Do2

    Who has the right to determine who is mentally ill? Look at all the immoral behavior (of all types) that goes on, from the top on down: politicians, educators, practitioners from all fields, spiritual guides, law enforcement, etc. . , who is trustworthy, moral to the point that we should believe in their evaluation? How do you create an unbiased system of evaluation?

  • Tim Irving

    The Network News like any other TV programs live on market share. When I was a kid many years ago the network news was considered a public service an they didn’t expect to make a profit. But expensive talking heads and the possibility of making a buck in that department was too much for them to resist.so we have all of them working on stories edited for the max shock and sensationalism possible. Politics is boring for most people so they only cover the things that have to be covered. and spend as much time as they can on fluff and the understanding of the world we live in by our citizens suffers.. Sensationalized shootings can’t come frequently enough for these people and they wring every tear and sob filled interview out for as long as they can. So it seems the problem is much bigger than it is. I’m not saying it isn’t a problem but when emotions are high it becomes even more difficult to implement solid solutions..Add to that politicians that have their own agenda and it’s a wonder anything happens that actually makes any difference…

  • Jerry Hughes

    The following are fellow travelers oif the liberal dem bloodsuckers
    Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Ceasar Chavez, Kim Il Sung, Fidel Castro, Hirohito, Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Josef Stalin and Adolph Hitler, they agreed competely with the liberal dem bloodsuckers, It should be harder to get weapons and they should be universally reistered, all of thse peopel upon acheiving universal registartion , with in 3 years had confiscated all weapons for the safety of all citizens.
    Do it your way, when they come to get my weapons, they will have work hard and pay the price..
    You know what these scum are all about, and you know that there is only one way to put a stop to it.

  • Lefthandedcigs1

    Everyone that owns a gun should visit the web site for WXII NEWS 12 @ http://www.wxii12.com/news/man-charged-in-apparent-claw-hammer-attack-in-burlington/26456158#!ZzFaV they hide facts and will not let facts be posted on their news site. I will probably visit them one day in the near future over this and the VA scandal they refused to report.

  • mobowhntr

    You can’t fix stupid and there are lots of stupid people out there unwilling to get to the truth themselves! They continue to allow the media and the corrupt govt. tell them what is and isn’t! It is all about control! If they can disarm law abiding citizens of their firearms and the way to protect themselves from the tyranny of govt., then they will have total control of the populace! I will not give up my right to protect myself or family, if they want it, I will give it to them, lead first! Molon labe!

  • WrinkledThought

    Consider this: Supreme Court Justices Ruled Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone.

    The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued
    protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory
    for a violation.

    7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES.

    On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

  • Sharpshooter

    The Democrats have a goal of confiscating all weapons from the American citizenry, and facts, that have been stated time and time again do not enter into the equation! Think about this; Do the Democrats seriously think that the American people are just going to sit back and allow this to happen? And what exactly do they expect the end result to be? They have already demonstrated that their thought processes are rather convoluted, so what, exactly is their final goal? Thanks!

  • Paladin

    They are awaited with baited breath!!!

  • JimmyJ

    The Day of the Sandy Hook Shooting… Maybe it doesn’t matter what else happened in another country does it? Well, It Does. When americans were all up set and ready to cry, “BAN THE GUN”. In China, some dude got angry and killed 47 people with a knife. Not one word about “BANNING KNIFES”. It is not ‘GUNS’ They want to grab, it is our FREEDOM. The gun grabbers may as well be carrying signs that say “Ban FREEDOM”. Or start calling them selves ‘Freedom Grabbers’.

  • JimmyJ

    so, who made a blank statement… not me, why r u showing this to me? Sorrry folks, there was a big Orange Banner across here before I said anything…

  • Oingo Boingo

    The Ruling Swine’s puppeteers also own Big Media. So don’t be surprised at the ginned up by Big Media hysteria over criminal/nutjob shootings.
    Firearms are entirely OK and appropriate for the likes of Feinstein, Schumer, other TribesRats, their armed guards and EVERY school in Israel…
    but, gawdfahbid that the un-chosen should have them.
    How can the cattle be Holodomored if they have guns ?
    Oy Vey, vhat a dilemma !

    • ags4ever

      Why do you hate Israel so much? What has any Israeli done to you that you should hate them so? Are you not aware that Jesus Christ was and is a Jew of the lineage of King David, as was foretold by every Jewish prophet?

      Hatred of the Jews renders you liable for the judgment. and the sentence is death.

      • Oingo Boingo

        Drool Much ?
        Jesus was from Galilee.
        The vile Pharisees have morphed into the nomadic predator Khazar/Ashkenazim false jews of today.
        The USA had ZERO enemies in The Middle East before the illegitimate terror state was installed by Brit and USA oil leeches in service to their Zionist financial managers.
        The Israeli criminals knowingly attacked The USS Liberty and strafed surviving crew in the water.
        The 9/11 dancing Israelis, Mossad operatives, went on an Israeli TV talk show and plainly stated that they were there with their cameras “…to document the event.”
        Are those enough reasons to hate Israel and the false jews that use it as Gang Headquarters, you simpering dummy ?

  • LaRae Bailey

    the truth nobody wants to hear except those who like reality..

  • Linda

    This has to be the stupidest articles on the internet. Way to go!

    • http://www.LeeBoylandBooks.com AuthorLee

      Stupidest articleS? There is only one article. No wonder you don’t understand that the Constitution is the law and can only be changed by amendment or constitutional convention. Obama appears to have the same learning defect.

      • Linda

        Pardon me, among the stupidest articles. But pretty typical of someone who can’t actually prove that they’re actually coming for your guns or explain why we have the highest gun violence rates among developed countries. If you’d really like to dissect grammar, I suggest you head on over to Fox News.

        • ags4ever

          No one is “coming to take your guns” is a common refrain from the really ignorant pro-slavery supporters who know that every major democratic party leader has been saying that they are out to confiscate all privately owned firearms since at least 1968. You just prefer to ignore reality and make up lies about what your democratic party leaders are up to.

          We don’t have the highest “gun violence” rates of any country, for our guns don’t commit violent crimes. They are inanimate objects that do nothing without a human picking them up and using them either to commit a violent crime or to defend oneself against someone who wants to rob, kill, assault or rape them. People who defend themselves against violent crime outnumber those who use guns and all other weapons to commit violent crime by a vast ratio.

          • Linda

            ROFLMAO. Thank you.

          • ags4ever

            Yeah, right. You don’t have any facts with which you can back up your idiotic claims do you? Such ignorance is deliberate.

          • Kelly Guthridge

            Remember its her “Right to Health Care” the last time she went in for an Abortion they slipped up and by mistake gave her a lobotomy instead, that’s her problem!

            Between all that Brainwashing and the splitting of her two Hemispheres; all she can do now is speak gibberish and roll on the floor… Typical Democratic Liberal Socialist Pig all bent out of shape…

            You know if she is so high and mighty… maybe she can play HOST to one of those illegals from south of the Border. You know the one’s with the diseases; that way we can take care of two birds with one stone, so to speak… They can both get sick and then apply to the VA Hospital for care… done deal… Problem Solved :-)

          • Linda

            Keep going! So amusing.

          • ags4ever

            Another proof that you know you don’t have any facts, logic or reasoning ability to back up your idiotic opinions. But then you and your like continually prove that you pay no attention to reality, facts or evidence at any time.

            Googling “democratic party politicians’ statements favoring gun confiscation” gets 9,510,000 hits; “US politicians’ statements favoring gun confiscation” gets 79,600,000 hits; “organizations supporting gun confiscation” gets 792,000 hits. “U.S. Editorials supporting gun confiscation” gets 4,130,000 hits. Googling “support of taking firearms away from people gets 9,510,000 hits. So your claim that no one is coming to take firearms away from people is proven to be a blatant lie.

          • Linda

            BAHAHAHA. If your idea of facts is listing how many Google hits something gets, I’m so sorry.

          • ags4ever

            They are facts disproving your contention that no one is coming to take your guns away. The vast majority of those hits are of statements by politicians, editorial writers, and organizations that support the confiscation of firearms in this country, which clearly disproves your contention that no one is coming to take any guns away.

          • Linda

            ROFL. In that case. The moon landing WAS a hoax.

          • ags4ever

            Wrong again. Nothing you state has any validity, as usual. You refuse to admit that the democratic party leadership, and many others, have been calling for confiscation of firearms since at least 1968, and have actually confiscated firearms in this country as recently as the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, in violation of the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. but then you and your like pretend that statements by politicians don’t mean what they say.

          • Linda

            Even better. When Google hits become a tool to measure the validity of someone’s facts, you’d better let the Ivy League researchers know they’ve been doing their research incorrectly.

          • Linda

            The author of this article is SOMEHOW able to track the decline in crime to gun ownership? I’d love to see your “facts” on that one. Not even the experts point to one single factor.

          • ags4ever

            All that the author stated was that as gun ownership and legal carrying has gone up, violent crime numbers, violent crime rates, homicide numbers and homicide rates have gone down, which is factual. I didn’t read anywhere in the article that he stated that gun ownership numbers caused the decline in homicides or homicide rates, though common sense (which you liberals lack) tells most people that when the law abiding citizens are armed and can shoot back, the criminals prefer not to try to rob, assault rape or kill them.

            Your claim that no one is coming to take guns away from people is a lie.

          • Linda

            Let me help you: “It can be deduced that much of the decline is owing to the fact that more and more Americans continue to arm both themselves and their families in an effort to stop violent crimes before they happen.”
            Thanks for the laugh!

          • ags4ever

            Did he say that the arming of America CAUSED the drop in crimes? NO. He did say that the drop in crime can be correlated with the increased number of Americans who are armed.

            Most people who have any common sense, which you and most other liberals clearly lack, though, know that the drop in crime and homicides is largely caused by the fact that more and more Americans are arming themselves and legally carrying those arms. For it has been widely known since at least 1809 that, as Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria wrote in his “An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” of that year, that ” the laws that disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes only make things easier for the assailant, and harder on their victims; they serve to encourage homicides rather than prohibit them, for it is much easier for an assailant to attack an unarmed man than to attack an armed man.”

            A shorter version of Beccaria’s statement has also always been true–When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

            The fact that, as a liberal, you both hate and fear weapons in general, you cannot stand the truth supported with factual evidence when it is presented to you is quite obvious.

          • Linda

            Do you understand the the meaning of the word deduced?

            arrive at (a fact or a conclusion) by reasoning; draw as a logical conclusion

            I don’t hate or fear weapons. My fiancé has two Glocks, and I plan to get a permit after we get married. Both of my brothers hunt, and one collects. Nice try.

    • ags4ever

      What is “stupid” about stating the truth, to which you and your like are allergic, evidently? . According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, the Centers For Disease Control’s WISQARS data, and the Department of Justice reports, the number of homicides committed with all weapons including firearms has been declining steadily since they reached their peak in 1980, and no leftist lunacy can refute that. And the number of homicides committed with firearms of all kinds has also been declining steadily sine 1991-1993 when they reached their peak At the same time, the numbers of people who legally own guns, the numbers of legally owned guns, and the numbers of people who legally carry a firearm for their self-protection have all increased drastically. The fact that the number of violent crimes, including homicides has declined as more people are buying guns and more people are carrying them legally appears to be directly related to the increased legal ownership of firearms.

  • Kelly Guthridge

    ELIMINATE HARRY REID & HIS “DIRTY DOZEN” DEMOCRATS

    1. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
    Big Obamacare fan. Sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee and must take some responsibility for failing to act when he heard of veterans dying as they waited for VA care. Supports full funding for the anti-American United Nations. Supports the DREAM ACT and Birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. Votes with Harry Reid 85% of the time.

    2. Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas)
    Voted for T.A.R.P., the ‘stimulus” bailout, Obamacare, pro-union Paycheck Protection. He’s a Big Government liberal in locked step with Democrat machine and Barack Obama. Votes 80% of the time with Harry Reid.

    3. Mark Udall (D-Colorado)
    Radical environmentalist who opposed the job-creating Keystone pipeline. Voted to cooperate with the International Criminal Court which prosecutes US soldiers outside of America. Voted against penalizing countries that sell arms to China. Voted against cleaning up the United Nations. Votes with Reid 87% of the time

    4. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa)
    Nancy Pelosi’s poodle, Rep. Braley has voted 98% of the time with her far-left agenda. He supported the ‘stimulus,’ and was a Champion of Obamacare until he found out what was in it. He also voted to cut $500 billion in Medicare. He should never have gotten in the House let alone the Senate.

    5. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana)
    Political dynasty incumbent Landrieu backed Obamacare in Louisiana where it’s unpopular because of its terrible impact on small businesses. She accepted $300 million of crony money for her vote and then bragged about it. Votes with Harry 83% of the time.

    6. Gary Peters (D-Michigan)
    Peters is currently a one-term House member who got his seat through political shenanigans. Based on his cozy relationship with Wall Street, Detroit insiders and labor unions he shouldn’t get a promotion from the House to the Senate. Currently flip-flopping on Obamacare.

    7. Al Franken (D-Minnesota)
    He thinks he’s funny. We are not amused. He’s the most liberal Progressive in Washington. He’s almost alone in supporting the government’s NSA spy program, he’s pro-abortion, pro-amnesty and let’s not forget the likely voter fraud that got him elected last time. Votes with Reid 91% of the time.

    8. John Walsh (D-Montana)
    Interim appointee by the Democrat Governor, Walsh has the full backing of Harry Reid. Walsh is ethically bankrupt and has been formally reprimanded by the U.S. Army for improper use of government resources for personal gain. Walsh is Harry’s personal choice for the ticket because he votes with Reid an amazing 94% of the time.

    9. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire)
    Big Obamacare supporter. Shaheen hates the job-creating Keystone pipeline but loves the campaign funds from environmental groups. She pressured the IRS to investigate political non-profits — which actually meant conservative political groups. She thinks Boko Haram, the Nigerian terrorist group, isn’t Islamic. Votes with Reid 89% of the time.

    10. Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina)
    She bleats she will balance the Budget but voted for the $192 billion stimulus loan. Fanatical supporter of Obamacare. Her dramatic loss of support in the Tar Heel state has led Harry Reid to send funds from his PAC to prop her up. She votes with him 87% of the time.

    11. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon)
    Nanny statist Merkely believes in Obamacare, lowering the Medicare age, getting the government involved in childrearing and electric cars. He’s the ultimate limousine liberal and the 27th richest Senator. Votes with Harry 89% of the time.

    12. Mark Warner (D-Virginia)
    Terrible Governor, he ran Virginia into deficit, which is illegal in the state and only turned it around by raising taxes. Calls himself bipartisan but is an archetypal inside-the-Beltway Washington liberal. Made $100 million using what would now be illegal inside knowledge to get pals to apply for government radio licenses, and took a slice of the profits selling them to cellphone companies. Votes with Reid 87% of the time.

    PS. This information is being presented as I found it necessary to pass it on; originally it was presented by Adam Bitely, Executive Director of ALPAC. If you love and cherish this once great Republic of ours and still believe in her and in your heart of heart know she is worth fighting for then it is time to stand up and do what you can to make sure that these folks never see another term in office again… no matter how many illegal votes they and Obama import from south of the border!

    PSS. Share this information; the more informed a general population is the more intelligent they can be at the time of voting…