Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) must be the kind of man Edmund Burke, Irish political philosopher had in mind when he wrote: “all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” After another mass shooting, Thune’s advice is that people under assault: “… are going to have to take steps in their own lives to take precautions… As somebody said — get small.” (New York Times, Oct. 4)

For a man who took at least $852,000 in donations from the National Rifle Association, this is not surprising counsel to the families of the victims of massacres.

I grew up on a farm in Yankton County where a .22 single-shot rifle and a 12-gauge single-shot shotgun were the tools of farming and hunting. No rational person in this country is proposing that citizens be denied such guns in their households. But no citizen is entitled to have an arsenal of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons whose only purpose is to massacre large assemblies of people.

The pious platitudes of prayer for victims of mass shootings are a shallow substitute for congressional action to pass effective gun control.

When I think of the dereliction of duty by Sen. Thune and most of his colleagues, I am reminded of The Hollow Men of T.S. Elliot’s provocative poem:

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men

Leaning together

Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!

Our dried voices, when

We whisper together

Are quiet and meaningless

As wind in dry grass

Or rats’ feet over broken glass

In our dry cellar.

Today’s breed of politicians, including Sen. Thune, are the small hollow men of our times, getting smaller with each massacre.

(57) comments

DLJohnson

Mr. Lyons,

Your position seems to be very naive. It seems that as a society we have gotten away from teaching our young people that we all have the right and the duty to ourselves to protect ourselves. The very basic lesson is seek cover, make yourself as small a target as possible, escape the danger zone and assist our loved ones and others to escape the danger zone.

The next step in protecting ourselves is pass on information to help stop the threat. The most difficult step for some people is to take steps to act to stop the threat. I think that Senator Thune was pointing out those basic steps we all must take instead of blaming the government and the NRA.

New gun laws are not the answer. Criminals by definition will not follow the law and will obtain their tools of destruction outside of the law. All new gun laws will do is to further hobble law abiding citizens and restrict their access to tools adequate to defend against the tools the criminals will acquire.

I will agree with you Mr. Lyons if you can guarantee to me that criminals will never acquire those tools of destruction. I don't think your view through rose colored glasses can provide that guarantee.

Sometimes good men have to say things that you don't want to hear or don't agree with to awaken you to the real dangers we face. I refuse to play the role of a victim. If I am faced with a threat I will take appropriate action to protect myself. If my family, loved ones or neighbors are faced with a threat I will take appropriate action to protect them from that threat.

D.L. Johnson

nokoolaidforme

I agree with DLJohnson with one exception. It's not just criminals citizens need to be concerned with. The second amendment also addresses the government. Throughout history, people who have been disarmed have become subjects instead of citizens. Mr Lyons seems rather uneducated regarding our rights and country's history

dmilroy

nokoolaid calling someone else uneducated is hilarious!
[smile]
We are not living in Syria were it is important to teach your children to avoid open spaces and seek cover from gunmen in high towers.
[sad]
No good guy with a gun was able to protect anyone at the concert in Las Vegas from the bad guy with a gun. No actions by the people at the concert or the police stopped the killing. The threat only ended because the murderer killed himself.
[sad]
If Mr. Johnson was at that concert in Vegas, then there was no action he could have taken to protect himself from the gunman. He could not have fought back. Some of the people made themselves a small targets and tried to escape are dead.
[ohmy]
We are not helpless. We can take steps to reduce gun violence.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,,

We are not living in Syria were it is important to teach your children to avoid open spaces and seek cover from gunmen in high towers. YET WHERE WAS THE GUNMAN IN LAS VEGAS....IN A TOWER.

No good guy with a gun was able to protect anyone at the concert in Las Vegas from the bad guy with a gun. No actions by the people at the concert or the police stopped the killing. YOU ARE NEGATING THE ACTIONS OF PEOPLE WHO SHIELDED OTHERS AND SOUGHT COVER REDUCING THE NUMBER OF DEATHS. The threat only ended because the murderer killed himself. YET IT WAS GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CLOSING IN ON THE SHOOTER CAUSING HIM TO TAKE THE COWARDS WAY OUT.

If Mr. Johnson was at that concert in Vegas, then there was no action he could have taken to protect himself from the gunman. WRONG TO ASSUME THAT I COULD NOT SEEK COVER OR ASSIST OTHERS TO SEEK COVER TO PROTECT MY SELF AND HELP PROTECT OTHERS. He could not have fought back. AGAIN, WRONG TO ASSUME...I AM A SHEEPDOG AND I CAN FIGHT BACK. Some of the people made themselves a small targets and tried to escape are dead. DO NOT MINIMIZE THEIR ATTEMPTS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES.

No good guy with a gun was able to protect anyone at the concert in Las Vegas from the bad guy with a gun. No actions by the people at the concert or the police stopped the killing. YET IT WAS GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS CLOSING IN ON THE SHOOTER CAUSING HIM TO TAKE THE COWARDS WAY OUT. The threat only ended because the murderer killed himself. BECAUSE THE GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS WERE CLOSING IN ON HIM.

We are not helpless. BUT AT TIMES APPEAR CLUELESS. We can take steps to reduce gun violence. WHAT ARE THOSE STEPS AND HOW WILL THEY BE EFFECTIVE? DO YOU HAVE A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN OR ARE YOU JUST THROWING OUT WORDS?

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, your argument is irrational. Teaching children to avoid open spaces and seek cover from gunmen is not a well thought-out plan.
[sad]
We know seeking cover and assisting others to seek cover from a gunman resulted in 58 dead and over 500 injured. Senator Thune's plan did not work.
[sad]
You claim you are a sheep dog and you could have fought back against the gunman. How? What would you done to stop the threat?
[huh]
Vibrato is not a rational response to the mass shooting in Las Vegas.
[thumbdown]
We can take steps to reduce gun violence if we want to.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

How is it irrational to teach situational awareness to enhance survival rate when the human "fight or flight" response kicks in? You can live life unaware and sacred or live life without fear but with caution and prepared. The Boy Scout motto...To Be Prepared.

So, now you blame the dead and injured for their death and injuries? How do you square that with the number of people who were not killed or injured because they did seek cover and/or help others to seek cover?

How does a sheep dog fight back? Review how the police responded in Las Vegas...Review how average citizens came to aid their fellow citizens...A sheep dog does whatever he/she can with whatever tools, time or space he or she has available resist or defeat evil.

Vibrato has nothing to do with it. Love for my family, friends and fellow citizens has everything to do with how I would respond and is the same reason why many of those others did respond.

You keep repeating the same empty words....."We can take steps to reduce gun violence if we want to"........What are the steps? And, where is your proof they will work?

No law is a guaranteed to stop a person from doing something if they have in their mind to do whatever they want". For the law to work effectively requires people to submit and to follow the law.

You seem to assume that all people will follow the law. You are kidding yourself. The proof is in every newspaper and every news cast.

DJJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, you criticize me for an argument I did not make. I never blamed the dead and injured for their death and injuries. I pointed out vibrato is not a rational plan.
[ohmy]
You claimed you would have fought back against the gunman and taken steps to stop the threat. In fact, you would be in the same spot as the ten of thousands other people terrorized, >540 injured and 58 people murdered.
[sad]
We are only helpless against gun violence if we choose to be.
[smile]

concerned

I have a few questions: what would be the harm to have stronger backround checks before buying a gun? why would any law abiding citizen need a semi automatic gun? and if automatic guns are illegal then why do we not make it impossible to buy a kit to make a gun automatic? I do not oppose guns and I also know that guns to kill people but where is the common sense when a person like the Vegas shooter can legally purchase that kind of an arsenal?

Visitor

Concerned: I'd like to try to answer a couple of your very legitimate questions, as best I can.

Regarding background checks I assume you really mean expand checks to those currently not being checked. The current check itself looks at, to the best of my knowledge, all the records the government has on you that might reflect on your suitability to purchase a firearm. Yes, there is a loophole at gun shows. Its not as big as you might be lead to believe, but it does exist. The next loophole is antique sales which do not require either the seller to have a FFL or to check your background. Antique sales probably represent the largest number of gun sales at gun shows for which there is no background check made. The next loophole is estate sales, which is probably larger than gun shows loopholes and antique sales combined and nobody talks about it.

But then you get to the private sales. To work, a law has to have some sort of enforceability. If your cousin wants to buy your gun, are you really going to go together to an FFL and get a background check on him? And if you don't, who is going to find out about it? New York and Connecticut requires registration of all AR style weapons. It appears they are getting about a 15% compliance rate and no real effort in those states to locate the other 85%. If you pass a law, you should enforce it. But that's not happening with a lot of gun laws.

Then we come to the criminals. They smuggle drugs, what makes you think then cannot or won't smuggle guns? Tightening background checks will mostly apply to honest people anyway.

We don't “need” semi auto firearms. We just like them and they do represent the great majority of sales today in both rifles and shotguns. Its consumer demand. Data is really hard to come by because the feds don't actually keep such records, but there are between 7 million and 12 million AR style rifles in the country. Add in the AK styles and other semi autos and we may have up to 15 million. Given the number of mass shootings we have with these weapons, we still have to conclude that almost all owners of these weapons act responsibly. According to the DOJ, in a typical year slightly more people are murdered by shotguns than by all rifles, of which the AR and the AK are subsets. Handguns kill about 22 people for each person killed with a rifle. In my opinion, handguns are the bigger problem and we are doing nothing in this area.

Full auto guns are not illegal, just very expensive and hard to get. They are also the only firearms that are required to be registered and licensed by the ATF (plus a few accessories and unique firearms etc). I agree with you, people shouldn't be able to buy kits to convert semi auto to full auto. The law needs to be updated. Just like bump stocks, the AFT has looked at these kits and determined that the National Firearms Act does not prohibit them. However, even though legal to buy, they are already illegal to install on a firearm. Not so bump stocks and cranks, but in my opinion they should be.

There may be more people that you think who own large numbers of firearms. Again, most are very honest and represent no threat. The shooter in Las Vegas only used a small number of the firearms he owned. Had he owned no more than 3 or 4, the results in Vegas would not have changed. You can still only fire one gun at a time, except in the western movies.

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I've enjoyed reading your point of view. It would be nice if we could "legislate" total safety for everyone,but it is impossible to legislate for every possible scenario. If you legislate for every possible scenario you remove freedom from the table. How about we enforce current laws and do a better job of dealing with mental illness. You have to admit that shooting at crowd of people is either insane or a criminally depraved mind.

My whole adult life I've have run to the sound of danger and did whatever I could do with whatever I had available to fight evil and to protect people. I've dealt with murders, I've dealt with people trying to harm me and I've dealt with people who are trying to harm others. I've dealt with people who do not want to submit to the law and do not want to follow the law. I think that I have a little more insight as to how I would respond. I respond out of necessity not vibrato.

I am still interested to hear your steps to reduce gun violence that are reasonable, effective and constitutional.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, You write that had you been in Las Vegas, you would have fought back against the gunman and taken steps to stop the threat.You overestimate your abilities.
[scared]
Had you been in Las Vegas that night, you would have been in the same boat the 58 people murdered, the over 540 people injured and the tens of thousands terrorized.
[ohmy]
You say nothing can be done to stop gun violence because it is not possible to legislate for every possible scenario. Because we cannot prevent all gun violence is not a good reason to except all gun violence. There is no second amendment right to mass murder.
[sad]
We can choose to promote helplessness and train children to avoid open spaces and an tall buildings or we can reduce gun violence. The choice is ours.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I do not overestimate my abilities, rather I am confident in my abilities. You on the other hand appear to be the definition of helplessness. You've already surrendered to terror by believing that you are only going to die or be injured if you resist terror.

I am far from excepting all gun violence. You have a very disturbing view that the second amendment is the precursor to and automatically leads to mass murder. Fertilizer and diesel fuel, large trucks and airplanes have also been used to cause mass murder. The only thing in common to all is none of them on their own will cause death without the introduction of the human element.

Are you just going to keep saying "we can reduce gun violence"? Are you ever going to provide an effective solution?

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, There are many effective solutions to reducing gun violence. Teaching people to avoid open space and take cover is a canard not a solution.

Acknowledging the reality of faced by the tens of thousands of people targeted by a gun man in Las Vegas is not "believing that you are only going to die or be injured if you resist terror." Stating that there is no second amendment right to mass murder is not claiming "second amendment is the precursor to and automatically leads to mass murder." It is expressing the exact opposite view.

Mr. Johnson, by claiming we need to address every possibility where citizens are in danger, you avoid addressing the problem of gun violence.

A sheep dog would take action to prevent future gun deaths not make excuses for doing nothing.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

You say there are many effective solutions to reduce gun violence. Please enlighten the rest of us to what these effective solutions are. Failing to name any effective solutions is evidence that you do not have one.

I need to correct you on a point...avoiding open spaces was never mentioned from my side of this discussion. If heightened situational awareness and being mentally prepared to act saves lives, then, they are not a canard.

dmilroy....you only acknowledge one side of the whole story... that of fear and terror. You refuse to acknowledge a positive side of the story...that seeking cover, helping others to cover and that aiding the injured saved an unknown number of lives. I am thankful that people did that.

I don't have a crystal ball and I cannot see the future. I cannot predict with certainty how gun deaths will be affected by actions taken now. I'm sure the folks in Chicago had visions that more and more gun laws would cure their gun violence problems. They haven't. This sheepdog will just have to keep being aware and stay mentally prepared to respond.

I have no way of knowing if your "many effective solutions" solve the problems or just creates new ones. Do you? Whatever we decide to do as a nation requires us to prepare for the cause and effect of that decision. Let's hope that common sense and reason prevail

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, You are not a sheep dog but a ostrich burying it head in the sand. You write, "I have no way of knowing if your "many effective solutions" solve the problems" because you choose to be helpless.
[sad]
Your reason for rejecting laws to reducing gun violence is based upon a misconception. Chicago is not an island or a foreign county. It cannot address gun violence by itself. You could drive a truck load of rifles from South Dakota to Chicago today. The gunman from Las Vegas could have shot up a concert in Chicago or LA or Sioux Falls just as easily.
[ohmy]
Your wish to see the positive side of 58 people being murdered and >540 people being injured by a single gunman in 11 minutes violates common sense. It prevents you from addressing the problem.
[sad]
Helplessness is a choice you and Senator Thune and others have chosen. It is easy to pretend the problem can be solved by seeking cover from a gunman in high tower but it is not rational.

Thankfully there is much we can do to reduce gun violence, if and when we decided to address the problem.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Thanks for proving my point that guns are not the problem. People with evil intent are the problem. And they are augmented by people who make false claims that there are "many effective Solutions" and then do not offer a solution for evaluation.

If I am threatened by a gunman in a tower and I seek cover and survive...I see that as very rational. If I seek cover and I am wounded and not dead...I see that as rational. In those cases I have stopped the killing..at least me being killed. If I help others seek cover and they survive..I have stopped the killing ...their killing. There was no pretending..it happened in Las Vegas.

You completely misidentified what the positive side to that horrible event was. How people rose and met the evil head on and took action that saved lives is what was positive. Your innuendo that I view 58 dead and 540+ injured as positive is disgusting and morally irresponsible.

Seeking out the negative and claiming that there are solutions but not being able to provide a solution makes your argument fail. Your mindset that there was nothing you could do to stop the killing is irrational. You surrender too easily to the negative.

You are blinded by your political view that more gun legislation is the only answer to the gun violence. The facts show that not to be true.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, You have missed the point entirely. The gunman in the tower in Las Vegas killing 58 people and injuring 540+ in less than eleven minutes is obvious proof the gun violence is the problem.
[ohmy]
Your helpless because you cannot recognize the obvious. Like Senator Thune your only solution is for people to seek cover as they did in Las Vegas. Five hundred plus causalities in 11 minutes is not an acceptable to any ration person.
[thumbdown]
You lost your common sense. There is no positive side to mass murder. [scared]
Many people say nothing can be done. They are not brave but cowards. Denial and ignorance is always an option but not a rational option
[sad]
We are not cowards. If we choose to, we can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

sdtwinsfan_63

Mr. Lyons,

Guns don't kill people do,But you want to
blame the right for every problem because you support the left.
Maybe Mr. Lyons Hippa should bare the responsibility for issuing drugs who should not be allowed to purchase a weapon of any sort.
So what if it takes longer to purchase a weapon but if people are prescribed certain medicines there doctor could say no and squash purchase of the weapon this process could and should be denied without a reason.

dmilroy

sdtwinsfan, If the murderer in Las Vegas had a knife rather the multiple guns, then he could not have killed and injured so many people.

sdtwinsfan_63

dmilroy, I believe were talking guns not knives or truck full of explosives.
My point is Hippa has to be involved in the debate towards obtaining guns.

dmilroy

sdtwinsfan, you wrote,"Guns don't kill people do." A killer in the 32 floor of a high-rise cannot kill and injury hundreds of people below him without a gun. Explosives are heavily regulated because they are dangerious. Gun are not.
[sad]

dmilroy

Guns are not heavily regulated.

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Your thought process makes me believe that you are either a member of the Antifa movement or a seriously misguided liberal democrat. Both very dangerous because neither are open minded. Every issue has at least two sides, each having positive and negative elements. Reasonable people discuss the positive elements from each side and compromise making a decision that possess the best from each side.

It took much less time to kill many more people by flying an airplane into a building or igniting a mixture of fertilizer and diesel fuel in a vehicle parked outside of the building. No one is suggesting that violence is acceptable and not a problem.

You say many say nothing can be done and they are cowards. Sen Thune did not say that nothing could be done. I did not say that nothing could be done. Liberal Democrats are famous taking comments out of context and put a negative spin on them.

I agree that denial and ignorance is not a rational option. I do not understand why you hold onto both so tightly. You get tunnel vision on one element in a chain of events and ignore the rest. Look at the big picture, not just a pixel.

If you are not a coward, and can reduce gun violence if you want.........Why haven't you? Is it because you do not have a plan? What you think must be done may not be the best option and may be why you won't offer a suggestion. Just because your point of view is different than mine does not mean you are right.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, How the statement: "There is no positive side to mass murder" make me Antifa or a liberal democrat?
[whistling]
Why do you insist the murders in Las Vegas have a "positive side?" There no good and bad side to mass murder.
[thumbdown]
When thousands were killed by hi-jacked airplanes, we did not just advise people to take cover.
[ohmy]
No one made the stupid claim like "Airplanes don't kill people. People do." No one wrote, "New laws are not the answer." Congress and the President acted and changed much to protect people for terrorists in planes.
[smile]
Following the mass murder in Las Vegas, Mr. Johnson, you wrote, "New gun laws are not the answer." You have chosen to not address the problem.
[yawn]
Both you and Senator Thune advocate teaching children to take cover but we can actually take action to protect children from gun violence if we think it is important.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

You keep writing things such as; "we can actually take action to protect children from gun violence if we think it is important; if we choose to, we can reduce gun violence; there is much we can do to reduce gun violence, if and when we decided to address the problem". You never indicate what those actions are and what can be done so they can face honest evaluation and debate. That is what makes me believe you are either Antifa or a misguided liberal Democrat. You are like a bad cook who can only stir the pot and not add or take away ingredients that improves the meal for all.

How long has man known that murder ( the unlawful,unjustified killing of a human being ) is wrong, long time? Over that period of time how many laws have been passed making it illegal to murder, lots? Using your logic, with all those passed laws against murders......there should be no more murders. How's that going?

There is no positive side to mass murder.......period! Get over the tunnel vision.

There is a positive side that more were not killed or injured because they sought cover. There is a positive side that many placed themselves at risk and faced the danger to help others survive. As long as you only see gloom and doom you will never rise above and move forward improving the future from lessons learned in our past.

Convince me that trampling on my constitutional rights is the only way to respond to this issue. Convince me that mental health issues are not part of the problem and don't need to be addressed. Convince me how restricting me is best for my protection or the protection of my family.

Yes Congress and the President came together to protect people from terrorists in airplanes. I'm all for keeping terrorists away from airplanes. I'm all for keeping weapons away from terrorists.

I 'm just trying to figure out if you cite that to suggest that anyone who wants to by buy a gun is a terrorist, or anyone who likes to shoot semi-auto weapons is a terrorist or if someone who likes to shoot automatic weapon is a terrorist. If so, does my shooting the automatic BB gun at the carnival, to shoot out the red star on piece of paper to win a prize, make me a terrorist?

You think that more gun laws will magically make the problem go away. That would only be true in a perfect world. Gun laws are only effective on people who are lawful and submit to the rule of law. The lawless will not be effected. We have to keep in mind that our actions must not cripple the law bidding citizen in his own defense. We have to act to address all the elements that led to the tragic event.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, Acknowledging the fact that we are not powerless but can reduce gun violence is not a partisan issue. Democrats are not powerless. Republicans are not powerless. As Americans we have the power to reduce gun violence.
[thumbup]
Mr. Johnson, You claim that viewing the positive side of mass murder enables you to "rise above and move forward improving the future from lessons learned in our past" but you have learned nothing. The only solution both you and Senator Thune offer is to seek cover. From Las Vegas, we know your "solution" results in hundreds and hundreds of causalities. You are like a cook who refuses to admit the pot is scorched as the kitchen burns to the ground around him.
[scared]
Your belief that laws are effective only if criminals follow the law is deeply flawed.
If criminals are just going to run red lights, does that mean we should not have traffic penalties? Your reasoning is a prescription for chaos — and it doesn’t withstand contact with empirical reality. Laws after 9/11 prevented hi-jackings. Laws after 1995 Oklahoma City bombing made it more difficult for people to obtain bomb-making ingredients and easier for law enforcement to monitor purchases.
[thumbup]
Mr. Johnson, you write "We have to act to address all the elements that led to the tragic event" but refuse to address guns. You claim the law is helpless against murderers. You are not a sheep dog protecting the flock but a frighten shepherd boy shutting his eyes hoping the wolf will just kill a few sheep and go away.
[sad]
The 2nd Amendment is not a murder/suicide pact. If we learn the lessons of the Las Vegas massacre, we can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

What steps need to be taken to reduce gun violence? What gun laws do you want to see passed? When those laws are passed...how will they reduce gun violence? What is the power we have to reduce gun violence? Please, no more rhetoric, an actual honest to goodness suggestion of what needs to be done and description of how it will effectively reduce gun violence would be nice.

Being aware and prepared equals no scorched pot and kitchen still standing.

You write, "The only solution both you and Senator Thune offer is to seek cover. From Las Vegas, we know your "solution" results in hundreds and hundreds of causalities". So, your position is ...If confronted with an active shooter...at that exact moment you must stand still and loudly proclaim...you can not kill me or injure me because there are laws...and seeking cover will only get you killed or injured. Do you even recognize seeking cover as an option to surviving a situation like that?

Enforcing laws currently on the books, more education and training on recognizing the signs of people experiencing mental illness crisis and reinforce that reporting anything that looks out of place or odd is more important than succumbing to the fear of being accused of not being politically correct are starting points. Don't rally around the belief that new gun laws are the only answer without trying these.

I don't worry about the law bidding citizens. I worry about the mentally unstable because as a society political correctness has conditioned us to ignore and excuse behaviors that are actual warnings signs that something bad is about to occur. I worry about the criminals because they are always seeking out new angles to victimize the rest of us. And now I also worry about people who are blinded by political rhetoric.

"We have to act to address all the elements that led to the tragic event" but refuse to address guns. How do you get refuse to address guns out of the statement to address all the elements? All the elements means all the elements.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, You ask, "How do you get refuse to address guns out of the statement to address all the elements?" because you wrote "New gun laws are not the answer."
[sad]
If we can see that guns are the issue and seeking cover is not a solution, then we can reduce gun violence.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Can't come up with an original proposal to reduce gun violence? Or, is it fear that what you might write may make you look like a fruit cake or just an empty person who can only repeat over and over a political soundbite. Unfortunately you are the type of person that negatively criticizes others' view because you do not have the ability to develop a proposal and offer evidence of how what is proposed will succeed.

How can "we" find solutions if you refuse to engage. Your refusal to engage shows that you are not part of the solution but just part of problem. I'll give you yet another chance to redeem yourself by answering this, what new gun law will reduce gun violence, and how will it reduce it?

I've been told that there is no such thing as a dumb question. The main reason most people say that a question is dumb is because they can't answer it. How you respond will tell us what kind of person you are....nut, idiot, political hack, misguided liberal, or someone that actually has an original idea with the potential of a drawing both side together to develop a plan that will be successful when implemented.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson you write, "How you respond will tell us what kind of person you are....nut, idiot, political hack, misguided liberal, or someone that actually has an original idea with the potential of a drawing both side together to develop a plan that will be successful when implemented."
[crying]
You misunderstand nearly everything: 1) Insults are not the sign of a well reasoned argument. 2) The need to reduce gun violence is not a liberal or conservative issue but an American issue. 3) I can never convince people like John Thune or you that guns are a problem. Mr. Thune's political career depends on ignoring the implications of the mass murder in Las Vegas. You refuse an new law regarding guns. Both you and Senator Thune are not part of a solution but obstacles to a solution.
[thumbdown]
We don't need an original idea to reduce gun violence. There are many clear and well thought out steps we can take. We just need take them.
[smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Response indicates nut/misguided liberal leaning toward political hack. It is not an insult if it is factual. The is no argument because you do not bring anything to the table.

A loaded gun will hang on a rack forever and not harm anyone. Evidence in and of itself that it is not a problem. How certain people use guns is the problem. You want the blame to be on the gun instead of the people who misuse them. In your world it is better to restrict an object than to deal with correcting bad human behavior.

You cannot convince people because you do not provide substance to your point of view. You write ,"There are many clear and well thought out steps we can take. We just need take them".......and either cannot or will not identify them.

Failure to identify steps to be taken and failure to identify how those steps will be successful at reducing gun violence does not provide a high degree of confidence in your point of view. You cannot con your way to a real solution.

I do not misunderstand nearly everything. Rather, you have not, will not and cannot provide anything to be understood or misunderstood. I believe the term Empty Barrel best describes what you have displayed.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, doubling down on name-calling does not make your comments more convincing. Your insistence that the Las Vegas mass murder about liberal versus conservatives is an insult all the Americans.
[sad]
If we followed your logic, then after 9-11, we would made no changes because "Airplanes don't kill people, people kill people." You refuse to acknowledge the problem so you have blinded yourself to a solution. Like Senator Thune, you have chosen to be helpless.
[crying]
We are not helpless.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

You define yourself.......still no substance in your response. The only one helpless is you. Can't identify an steps to take.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, Your name-calling is a reflection of your character not mine.
[sad]
For you, there is no solution to gun violence because guns are not a problem. The 16 loaded guns in murderer's hotel room make it possible for him to kill 58 and injure over 540 in eleven minutes.
[thumbdown]
We can solve the problem but not by pretending it does not exist.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

How wrong you are. You offer nothing. I offer the option or striking at the root problem.......bad human behavior. All you want to do is restrict guns and do nothing about the behavior of people who misuse guns. You do not want to reduce gun violence. You just want to reduce guns and call it reducing gun violence. You have no proof that reducing guns is going to effect gun violence at all.

You cannot reduce gun violence if you want to because you refuse address that violence is a human behavior and not the behavior of inanimate object that cannot do anything on its own.

You write,"The 16 loaded guns in murderer's hotel room make it possible for him to kill 58 and injure over 540 in eleven minutes."..............Those same guns were present during the previous 11 minutes and caused no deaths or injuries.....the first 11 minutes no bad human behavior....the second eleven minutes....enter bad human behavior.

What is helpless about believing that changing or thwarting bad human behavior will have a far more profound effect on reducing gun violence?

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, the Las Vegas murders show America's problem with gun violence is not that too few people have access to guns. Your passion for guns has overwhelmed your common sense. You refuse to see that the misuse of guns is related to guns. The Las Vegas massacre was possible because of the murderer's arsenal of guns.
[scared]
You and Senator Thune propose we take cover from the next gun man. How does that change or thwart a gunman's bad human behavior? By refusing to admit the problem, you and Senator Thune choose to remain helpless.
[ohmy]
If we quit pretending gun violence is not a problem, then we can reduce gun violence.
[thumbup]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

You write that misuse of guns is related to guns. Your position is that every item that is misused is caused by the item. There are far more responsible people in this world than irresponsible people. You propose actions to penalize everyone in hopes of effecting the conduct of the irresponsible.

Yes I will seek cover if confronted by a gunman if I am not armed. Not because I'm helpless but because I'm not stupid. If I am armed I will engage the gunman and do everything in my power to stop him. Not because I'm full of bravado, but because I am not stupid.

With the news today....I suspect that you want to blame the renal truck instead of the "terrorist". Even though a good guy with a gun stopped the "terrorist" you'll find some way to show that as a negative.

Seeing as how you are not helpless and express that you have a handle on things......what about that truck caused the "truck violence"? What did the truck do to make the terrorist drive it into people?

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, your insistence that "seeking cover" is a solution to gun violence would be funny but since we are talking about mass murder not only is it not funny, it is cowardly.
[thumbdown]
A simple thought experiments shows you ideas are bankrupt: 1)If the terrorist who jumped out of the truck in New York City was carrying loaded guns rather than a paint ball and pellet gun, then would more people have been killed? 2)If the terrorist in Las Vegas had a truck, a pellet gun and a paint ball gun, then could he have killed 58 people and injured over 540?
[ohmy]
We can reduce gun violence by not waiting irrational people like Mr. Johnson and Senator Thune understand the problem.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I'll simplify it for you ............what would you do to reduce gun violence? If you are confronted by a gun man what would you do? What is your solution?

With the amount of posts you make you do a lot of professing. Please do not say that you would just lay down and die. Please don't say that your loved ones could not count on you to do something to save them. Please don't say that you are going to guarantee that evil people won't get guns if you have laws enacted to get rid of guns. If you believe that one you went back for extra helpings of stupid. Please tell us something more than "we can reduce gun violence if we want to".

At some point I hope you will reach down and pull your head out of a dark and stinky place. Also you might want to look in mirror if you want the true definition of cowardly.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, you must understand if you only start to worry about gun violence when you are confronted by a gunman, then you have waited too long!
[ohmy]
Mr. Johnson, you assume that guns laws are only effective if every evil person cannot get a gun but your assumption has troubling implications. After 9/11 if we demanded a guarantee no evil person would get on an Airplane before we instituted new laws and regulations regarding Airplane safety, then we would have remained helpless.
[sad]
Mr. Johnson, You did not answer my questions because you refuse to acknowledge the problem: 1)If the terrorist who jumped out of the truck in New York City was carrying loaded guns rather than a paint ball and pellet gun, then would more people have been killed? 2)If the terrorist in Las Vegas had a truck, a pellet gun and a paint ball gun rather that 23 loaded guns, then could he have killed 58 people and injured over 540?
[huh]
Americans are not helpless. We can bravely choose to reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I don't worry about gun violence. I have the Second Amendment and the right to defend myself. I worry about people like you destroying the Second Amendment and raising the risk ten fold of me or my family becoming a victim of gun violence . You would much rather make me a criminal because I own guns than go after the people who are causing the violence.

You and people who think like you are blinded by an ideology. You cannot get past "we can reduce gun violence if we want to, we are not helpless". Your ideology does not have a plan or systematic course of action that provides a solution. All your ideology does is strengthen those who want to do harm to the law bidding and the innocent.

How does it feel being the best friend to those who want to do us harm?

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, you and Senator Thune are not my best friends. By refusing to acknowledge gun violence is a problem, both you and especially Senator Thune are enabling more gun violence.
[sad]
Your claim that the 2nd Amendment prevents rational steps to reduce gun violence is false, just like your claim we have to guarantee that no evil person will ever have a gun before we do anything. You will make any argument, no matter how irrational, to prevent any new laws on guns.
[yawn]
You started this discussion saying you were a sheep dog willing to protect other. Now, you claim any new gun law would make you a criminal.
[ohmy]
Today Senator Thune voiced support for a grant program to help local governments install traffic barriers to prevent terrorist in trucks. Senator Thune said, "“We’re going to have to look at that. It’s becoming a more common way for terrorists to attack people, and it has been fairly successful,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), “They’re always coming up with new ways to be lethal. And we’ve got to do everything we can to stop them.” But when the Las Vegas gunman killed and injured over 540 people, Senate Thune could do nothing accept tell people to "get small."
[thumbdown]
Senator Thune and Mr. Johnson will never agree to reducing gun violence because to them gun violence is not a problem. Thune and Johnson are wrong.
[scared]
We can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I am honored to be in the company of Senator Thune and not considered one of your best friends. (I may be a better friend than you think). That means that I am part of a group of people who accurately identify that people with evil intent are the problem. Your closed and troubled mind only has room for one thought...reducing guns equals reduced gun violence.

I have acknowledged that there is gun violence, but you are too blind to see that. I just do not agree with your view how to best deal with it. Your view, "we can reduce gun violence, if we want to, because we are not helpless", does nothing to address how you will reduce gun violence. Your constant refusal to identify what you will do, how you will implement it and how you will enforce it proves that you are helpless because you have no idea what to do or how to do it.

Again, you are too blinded by your political brainwashing to see the truth in the message. If you are successful at getting more gun laws the law bidding and the innocent will follow those laws. They will submit to your restrictions. You will succeed at making them more vulnerable because of what you will take away because they do not want to be criminals.

Your way does not provide a deterrent for those with evil intent. Rather, your way will empower them by reducing their chances of encountering good guys with the ability to stop them.

I advocate education and training for proper and responsible firearm use, training for personal security, and the importance of recognizing behaviors that are warning signs of danger. I advocate keeping our enemies out of our country. I advocate prosecuting the lawless to the full extent of the law and to protecting the mentally ill from causing harm to others due to their mental illness. We must get better at treating the mentally ill and helping them to not harm themselves or others.

Enforce the current laws to the fullest. Protect the public from violent people. Increase education and treatment. Harden weak targets to increase safety.

A new law is not always the best answer.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, your argument that limiting access to guns won't prevent people with evil intent from getting guns is proven false by recent events. The murderer in New York City certainly wanted real guns to kill more innocent people. People are alive today because he could not get access to those guns.
[smile]
Stating you acknowledged that there is gun violence but not a gun violence problem and refusing do anything to address the mass murder in Las Vegas, in Orlando, in Sandy Hook, etc...means you refuse to see the problem.
[crying]
You claim to want to protect the public from violent people, you claim to be a better friend to me than I know but you still refuse to acknowledge gun violence is a problem.
[sad]
Many scientific studies show that the vast number of guns we have in America does no makes us safer. Your plan to do nothing additional about gun violence is self-imposed helplessness.
[ohmy]
Senator Thune wants to address murders with pick-up trucks but refuses to address murders with guns. You and Senator Thune leaving South Dakotans unprotected.
[thumbdown]
Thankfully, brave Americans can reduce gun violence.
[smile][smile]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Where is your proof that the New York killer attempted to get real guns? Let's deal with facts instead supposition your warped mind comes up with.

Violence is a problem.Why are you so headstrong on only tagging gun violence as a problem?

Do you consider yourself one of those "Brave Americans" that can reduce gun violence? How could you be when you are too cowardly to provide details on what you would do, how you would implement it and how you would enforce it.

What are your many scientific studies? Where is your data?

How about loosening the HIPPA Regulations to allow a searchable database concerning mental illness for the purposes of verifying answers to question 11f on ATF Form 4473? That is unless you don't feel that it is important to verify mental illness concerns for people buying guns.

How about strengthening domestic violence law and domestic violence searchable databases for restrictions on gun possession? That is unless you do not feel it is important to keep people with the propensity for violence from possessing guns.

How about strengthening the current laws concerning felons in possession of firearms?

Oops, look what can be done if you don't limit yourself to one thought...we need new gun laws. Please grab your ears and remove your head from the dank stinky place.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, You are falling back on personal insults which is not the sign of the well-reasoned comment.
[ohmy]
After the mass murder yesterday in Texas, you still refuse to admit gun violence is a problem! If the gunman in Texas had a pick-up truck, a pellet & paint ball gun, then could he have killed 26 people in the church and wounded 20 more?
[scared]
Here are some of the many scientific reports showing guns do not make us safer:
1) Anglemyer A, Horvath T, Rutherford G, The accessibility of firearms and risk for suicide and homicide victimization among household members. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med2014160101-10.
2) Brent DA, Bridge J, Firearm availability and suicide. Am Behav Sci2003461192-210.
3) Hepburn L. Hemenway D. Firearm availability and homicide: a review of the literature. Aggress Violent Behav20049417-40.
4) National Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. Washington, DC National Academies Pr 2005
5) Hemenway D, Private Guns, Public Health.Ann Arbor Univ Michigan Pr 2006
6) Hemenway D, Risks and benefits of a gun in the home.Am J Lifestyle Med20115502-11.
[ohmy]
Limiting access to guns to people would whose history indicates that they may be a danger to themselves or others makes all the sense in the world but you wrote that you were against new gun laws?
[whistling]
After massacres in Sutherland Springs, TX, Las Vegas, NV, Orlando, FL, San Bernardino, CA, Colorado Springs, CO, Roseburg, OR, Chattanooga, TN, Charleston, S.C., Isla Vista, CA, Washington, D.C., Newtown, CT,...etc... we can no longer pretended there is not problem. If Mr. DL Johnson can propose a revision to the HIPPA law to make people safer, then we all can act to reduce gun violence!
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

The medical articles you cite have one critical flaw, assumptions made through the use of proxy information instead of hard data. Your percentages are skewed when you compare only the households with a gun owner where a murder occurred. A more accurate comparison would be the total number of households where a gun is owned to the number of households where a murder occurs where a gun is owned. Then compare it to the household where a gun is owned and there is a murder or suicide by other means .

You also fail to emphasize the psychological components that are a precursor to suicide or the victimization of family members. In this country we tolerate too much bad behavior and just scratch the surface at treating or correcting that bad behavior.

Addressing the limitations HIPPA laws put on verifying information required with existing gun laws is not a new gun law. It is a way to help that existing law work the way it is suppose to.

As far as personal insults, you started throwing the tag cowardly.

If you would be so kind answer the following question. If you could remove every gun from this country, what would that do to violence in this country? Would it prevent your neighbor from coming over and bashing your head with a bat? Would it prevent suicides? Would it prevent murders in the home? Would it prevent murders on the streets? I'm guessing gun violence would be reduced, no replaced with just a different form of violence.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, The scientific reports are not "medical articles." Your claim the scientific reports are not based upon hard data is false. Rejecting science is a option but not a rational option.
[thumbdown]
In early 2016, President Obama modified the HIPAA Privacy Rule designed to help identify those who are prohibited, for specific mental health reasons, from having a firearm. We both agree this was a good idea.
[thumbup]
Unfortunately, the first law signed by President Trump reversed the HIPPA modification - https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/40/actions
[thumbdown]
Because of actions taken by congress and President Trump changing the HIPAA Privacy Rule designed to help identify those who are prohibited, for specific mental health reasons, from having a firearm requires a new law. We both agree it would be a good idea.
[smile]
I have described actions that are brave and cowardly. Reducing gun violence is brave. Denying gun violence is a problem is cowardly. Neither description is a personal insult. In contrast, writing someone has "warped mind" and should "remove your head from the dank stinky place" are childish insults.
[huh]
Reducing gun violence does not end all violence, but obviously guns are far more lethal than baseball bats. The lethality of guns makes your neighbor's intent to hurt you more deadly. It makes surviving a suicide attempt less likely. It make murders in home more likely (see scientific studies).
[sad]
We both agree steps need to be taken to keep guns out of the hands of potential dangerous people. Admitting this requires new laws is not sign of weakness but strength. We can reduce gun violence!
[beam]

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson, Kelly Hertz wrote a newer article regarding the same topic. Do you want to shift the conversation to that comment section? http://www.yankton.net/opinion/editorials/article_f111a45c-c372-11e7-8c02-77e7dfe60241.html

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

We can shift the conversation to the comment section of Mr. Hertz article. But first..

I'm sorry that it took so much prodding to get you to bring forth a response with substance and real talking points. The 2016 Modification to the HIPPA Privacy Rules by the Obama Administration was in the right direction but went too far by incorrectly including certain conditions. Those incorrect inclusions were identified and brought forward by the Social Security Administration. Congress brought forward by joint resolution and the President signed the reversal of the law in fairness to those improperly included individuals.

We still need a searchable database of persons with dangerous mental illness issues to verify responses to question 11f on ATF Form 4473.

A National Institute of Justice study concerning Firearm Murders Per Capita versus Total Civilian Firearms in America produced the following data: In 1994 there were 6.3 firearm murders per capita and 192 million firearms civilian owned (NIJ). In 1996 the firearm murders per capita dropped to 5.0 and civilian owned firearms rose to 242 million firearms (ATF). In 2009 the firearm murders per capita dropped to 3.4 and civilian owned firearms rose to 310 million (ATF). A lot more firearms in America but the firearm murders per capita were less.

Virginia Commonwealth University professor Thomas Baker conducted a study specific to the State of Virginia. Over a five year period the number of firearms per 100,000 people rose by 65 percent and over that same period gun related crimes dropped by 27 percent. Mr. Baker concluded that numbers pointed away from the premise that more guns lead to more crime, at least in Virginia.

Gallup has been polling Americans since 1959 on the question : Should the Government Ban Guns. In 1959 of the Americans polled, 60 percent said yes they should be banned. The percentages has continued to decline over the years; 1965 - 49%, 1988 - 37%, 1999 - 34%, 2009 - 28%, and 2012 - 24%.

Gallup has also polled Americans on the question, Should the Government Ban Assault Rifles?. In 1996 of those polled 52% side they should be banned. In 2004 the percentage dropped to 50% and in 2012 the percentage dropped again to 44%.

We both want the same thing...fewer dead and fewer wounded due to guns. Based on our experiences we see different paths to a solution. Neither of us can let our passion for our certain point of view blind us to the good in the other's point of view and to over look the flaws in our own point of view. You see reducing guns as a path to reducing gun violence. I see dealing with behavior and conduct to reduce violence as a path to reduce gun violence.

In the mean time supporting personal safety measures when faced with a dangerous or deadly event is a step to help keep people alive is more positive than being critical because a politician suggested those personal safety measures.

Whatever we do it must be reasonable and in the spirit of the constitution.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson,

Your apology projects on to me your reliance on talking points and your unwillingness to address the substance of gun violence.
[sneaky]
Congress did not just reverse HIPPA regulations in fairness to those people improperly excluded from buying guns. They stopped the Social Security Administration from reporting anyone who has been deemed disabled as a result of mental illness to the Justice Department database.
[sad]
You claim it is important to verify mental illness concerns for people buying guns but are against any steps to make that possible.
[ohmy]
First, the statistics from the National Institute of Justice are not a scientific study. Second, Virginia Commonwealth University professor, Thomas Baker, did not conducted a scientific study. At the request of The Times-Dispatch, Baker examined six years of data compiled by Virginia State Police for a newspaper article. In the article Dr. Baker admits there is no proof the decline in violent crime is caused by the increase in the number of firearms. It is wrong to mistake correlation with causation.

According to the FBI's data, the national rate of violent crime has decreased 49 percent since its apex in 1991. It is a mistake to claim the number of firearms is the cause of the decline in violent crime. For example, the economist Steven Levitt estimates that larger police forces reduced crime by 5 percent to 6 percent. Gun violence, presumably, declined along with crime in general. http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf

As you know there are many, many scientific studies showing guns do not make us safer. I could show you endless polls showing Americans in favor of steps to reduce gun violence but since you are not convinced by scientific studies, public opinion won't change your mind.
[scared]
You write that we have the same goal, namely: fewer dead and fewer wounded due to guns but you have backed away from doing anything. All you have to offer is Senator Thune instruction to "get small" when faced with a gunman.
[scared]
Doing nothing is not a rational response. The Constitution is not an impediment to reducing gun violence. The spirit of the Constitution requires brave Americans take action to reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

I'm sorry that you only rely on scientific studies and do not view data from the National Institute of Justice or data from the Virginia State Police reviewed by a Professor as having any value. I am trying to find the logic in putting more faith in the opinions of an economist than that of agencies that deal with crimes, criminal behavior, and criminal investigation on a daily basis.

From your view I can only conclude that you find it appropriate to include people with conditions that make it difficult for them to manage money into the same category as people with severe anger issues, propensity for violence and dangerous personality disorders.

How do you justify that actions other than the actions you want to do are doing nothing? Why weren't your desired actions put into practice log ago if they are so supreme to any other course of action? Is it because people with your view are in minority of this country's population?

Let's put things in perspective. There are approximately 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, and this number is not disputed. U.S. population 324,059,091 as of Wednesday, June 22, 2016. Do the math: 0.00925% of the population dies from gun related actions each year. What is never told, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths, to put them in perspective as compared to other causes of death:

• 65% of those deaths are by suicide which would never be prevented by gun laws
• 15% are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified
• 17% are through criminal activity, gang and drug related or mentally ill persons –
gun violence
• 3% are accidental discharge deaths

So technically, "gun violence" is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still, too many? Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

• 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
• 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
• 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
• 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example, California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, so it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So if all cities and states are not created equally, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths.

Are 5,100 deaths per year horrific? Yes, but how about in comparison to other deaths? All death is sad and especially so when it is in the commission of a crime but that is the nature of crime. Robbery, death, rape, assault all is done by criminals and thinking that criminals will obey laws is ludicrous. That's why they are criminals.

But what about other deaths each year?

• 40,000+ die from a drug overdose–did drug laws stop overdoses?
• 36,000 people die per year from the flu, far exceeding the criminal gun deaths
• 34,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (exceeding or equal to gun deaths even if you include suicide) (large percentage from the crime of drunk driving). Do we need to make laws against automobiles?

Now it gets good:

• 200,000+ people die each year (and growing) from preventable medical errors. You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!

• 710,000 people die per year from heart disease. If the anti-gun movement focused their attention on heart disease, even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).

A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides. So you have to ask yourself, in the grand scheme of things, why the focus on guns? Are we more accepting of medical errors? Or, is it because we are a complete failure at addressing and dealing with human behavior?

DLJohnson


dmilroy

Mr. Johnson,

The problem with your apology is that statistics from National Institute of Justice and a newspaper article are not scientific studies. Logic dictates that you give more credibility to peer-reviewed science than to a newspaper article. Rejecting science because you don't like what it tells us is not rational.
[innocent]
You wrote, "We must get better at treating the mentally ill and helping them to not harm themselves or others." I thought we both agree people who has been deemed disabled as a result of mental illness should not have access to guns?
[huh]
Telling people to seek cover or "get small" is not a rational solution for obvious reasons. Refusing to make any policy changes to address gun violence is doing nothing. Many states have put in place laws and regulations reducing gun violence so have many other countries. The public opinion polls show again and again the popularity of rational gun laws.
[smile]
You write, "So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause."
First, you assumption is that guns cannot cross the borders of cities which is wrong. I have already pointed out you can drive a truck load of guns from South Dakota today and have them on the streets of Chicago in the morning. Second, your statistics are wrong. "Alabama had 1 (murder with a firearm)" - false. "25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities" - false.
[sad]
You other issue besides gun violence are important. I agree but that is not a reason to ignore gun violence. There is no rational reason we cannot address both heart disease, medical errors, traffic fatalities along with gun violence. You keep seeking ways to avoid addressing the problem. That is not the actions of a sheep dog.
[ohmy]
The spirit of the Constitution is not accepting as normal the violent deaths of 30,000 Americans a year by guns. Brave American confront reality rather than live in denial. We can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

Your statement; " Refusing to make any policy changes to address gun violence is doing nothing", is an incorrect statement. Pretty sneaking trying to get that lie to play. Your real statement should be; "refusing to make the policy changes you want done to address gun violence is doing nothing". Remember if you limit your options toward achieving a goal, you widen your road toward failure.

We can achieve a reduction in gun violence by closing loop holes in domestic violence laws, and correcting the inadequacies in laws concerning assault and dangerous behavior. All of which would be policy changes and You would still consider as doing nothing to address gun violence.

You have only one thought in your mind and it has consumed you. What you want done is not superior to other paths to address gun violence. We would not be having this discussion if your one thought was such a superior course of action with an undisputed level of high success. It would have been done long ago if it was.

You incorrectly attach the label of oppressor to Sheep Dog. A Sheep Dog does not protect by imposing limitations on the flock. The Sheep Dog protects by intervening between the flock and the encroaching wolf.

DLJohnson

dmilroy

Mr. Johnson,

You criticize me for a statements I did not make but for statements that you created out of whole cloth. I never wrote, "refusing to make the policy changes you want done to address gun violence is doing nothing" or attached the label of oppressor to a Sheep Dog.
[sad]
Closing loop holes in domestic violence laws which will result in reduction of gun violence is wonderful Policy changes addressing loopholes in our current laws make all the sense in the world. Like limiting access to gun for people who are a danger to themselves or other, We agree!
[beam]
Unfortunately, you limited the new policies to everything but firearms. As a wise man once said, "Remember if you limit your options toward achieving a goal, you widen your road toward failure." Sadly your and Senator Thune are on a road to failure.
[scared]
Your analogy between sheep and gun violence has broken down. Sheep dogs herd the flock. Claiming sheep dogs do not impose limitations on the flock makes no sense.
[whistling]
America has limited the public's access to arms for decades. Laws regarding automatic weapons or sawed-off shotguns are not oppressive. If we quit choosing to be helpless, America can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

DLJohnson

dmilroy,

You only see a sheep dog as a herding dog, oppressing the flock as a group and deciding for the group where they will go and how they will get there. The ultimate picture of restricting freedom. You completely disregard the sheep dog as a livestock guardian. Watching over the members of the flock as the individual members go about their lives ever prepared to intervene if danger approaches. Look up the definition of a pastoral dog. Wait, you will probably disregard that definition because it is not what you want it to project.

You wrote, "Telling people to seek cover or "get small" is not a rational solution for obvious reasons. Refusing to make any policy changes to address gun violence is doing nothing". Why do you perceive seek cover or get small as a solution instead of response? You are pretty dense to profess that seeking cover or getting small are not rational in the face of sudden danger. You regard policy changes that reduce violence as doing nothing, even though it may reduce gun violence, because it is not reducing guns. You do not care one bit about the success rate of those policy changes because it is not what you want done.

At what point are you in danger from someone in possession of a firearm? When you see a police officer, are you in danger? When you see a hunter are you in danger? When you see a man carrying a backpack are you in danger? If you see a house, are you I danger because there might be a gun in that house? How you see your level of danger is a barometer for your level of paranoia.

You wrote, "America has limited the public's access to arms for decades. Laws regarding automatic weapons or sawed-off shotguns are not oppressive". Those are reasonable laws that left Americans a way for the lawful to protect themselves. But you even want to take that away from them.

I want to limit bad people getting guns. You want to limit everyone getting guns. I want good people to keep the ability to protect them selves. You want less guns which you believe negates the need for people to retain the ability to protect. themselves.

Your hatred for Senator Thune is not healthy. While I see multiple options to to reduce violence you hang your hat on just reducing guns. Reducing violence will have an effect of reducing gun violence. But you get the bonus of reducing violence in general. My road is not wide with failure, rather, my road is wide open with opportunity.

DLJohnson


dmilroy

Mr. Johnson,

There is another gun violence letter in the paper today. I used your quote regarding "if you limit your options toward achieving a goal..." Do you want to move our conversation to a new thread?
[smile]
Your analogy between sheep dogs and gun violence broke down many replies ago. A pastoral dog is any individual dog of any breed or type used for mustering, guarding or otherwise managing livestock. Mustering and managing livestock means herding. Sheep dogs are herding dogs.
[wink]
A response to a problem is not necessarily a solution to a problem. "Getting small" was Sen. Thune's response to gun violence. It is not a solution. See Texas and Las Vegas shootings.
[sad]
You criticize me for statements I did not make. I did not write I want to take away from "Americans a way for the lawful to protect themselves." You view all gun laws as confiscating all guns. That is clearly false.
[ohmy]
You write that you want "I want to limit bad people getting guns" but you have even backed-way from your idea to keep firearms from people who are mentally ill.
[sad]
Accurately stating Sen. Thune's inability to address gun violence is not hate. I have agreed with you proposals to limit gun violence, but I don't refuse to consider new policies regarding guns as you do because as you say, " if you limit your options toward achieving a goal, you widen your road toward failure."
[smile]
Refusing to admit America has a problem with gun violence has prevents a solution. As Americans, we do not cower from difficult or complex problems, We can reduce gun violence.
[beam]

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.