Shootings and funerals occur by the thousands in our country. The president is coached about them and guns and receives millions from the NRA. The NRA sells numerous guns so the president supports guns by default. The NRA even comes to the U.S. Capitol to advise the president regarding firearms.

All the shootings in cities, schools, churches and elsewhere seem to not be much of a concern for the president. He is more interested in a national bankruptcy and war.

When you shot and killed someone or more, the firearms are checked out as the murder weapon, but the thousands of murder weapons from the NRA are not checked.

The president says that people kill and not guns, so he claims that guns are not killing thousands. He feels that the NRA and the president seem to see no gun problem.

The situation worsens for U.S. residents of all ages but is better for the NRA and the president with their funds. Congresspersons and governors, etc. accept NRA bribes. Many NRA members want fewer big guns, magazines, etc.

Funerals abound.

(22) comments

DLJohnson

Mr. Allen you would attract more support if your writings were based on fact instead of emotionally charged hate and hysteria. The NRA does support gun owner rights and the Second Amendment but you portray it as a retail outlet for purchasing guns. Your puppet master has you dancing to the insane tunes of the far left. You actually attach human traits to an object trying to sell the story that the gun is at the root of the killing.







You are not brave enough to put the responsibility where it belongs.......on the disturbed person who picked up that gun, loaded it, pointed at people and then pulled the trigger. You point the finger at the President as being at fault because of your hate for him based on your political stance.







You refuse to point the finger at people who refuse to report threats seen or heard or threatening behavior witnessed because it is not politically convenient for you. May be that is because you are too much like them and you relate that to pointing the finger at yourself. And that makes you uncomfortable.







I think background checks are good and will work on the people trying to purchase a gun legally. I also know that it is not cure all.







I agree that there are far too many funerals from gun violence. I also know that there are far too many funerals due to abuse of opioids, Drunk Driving, and suicides. And what about the abortions?







You criticize the President for having a different belief on an issue than yours and then chastise him for also being concerned about the economic issues of the country. It is not the issues you have a problem with. You have an issue with the man who has the job.







Why don't you take a stand and advocate that current gun laws be fully enforced. Why don't you take a stand and advocate for advancement in the treatment of the mentally ill. Why don't you take a stand and advocate for crime reform that takes away the revolving door that puts more and more criminals back on the street.







Or, you can just continue to hate the President.


dmilroy

DLJohnson does not have a rational reply to Mr. Eugene Allen so he insults him. The NRA represents gun manufactures more than hunters and sportsmen. http://vpc.org/investigating-the-gun-lobby/blood-money/ Gun violence is not a far left issue or a far right issue but an American issue. Mr. Johnson refuses to acknowledge the President of the United States plays a role in reducing gun violence. Mr. Trump made promised to stand-up to the NRA after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting and then caved. Trump has flip-flopped on background checks. Trump's lack of leadership has the Senate twiddling its thumbs while more people are gunned down. Mr. Johnson's only solution is enforcement of the lack gun laws already on the books.


DLJohnson

dmilroy- explain how a factual reply is not rational and how it is an insult? The NRA does not sell guns but it does support gun dealers and supporters of the Second Amendment. The President has as much involvement in gun violence as you do. You cannot stand that he does not see things the same way that you do. You cannot stand that his insight of the issue has a different assessment of what needs to be done and it's not what you want. Why don't you work on reducing your reckless pushing of hate and hysterical rhetoric?







You seem to push the idea that anyone who supports gun ownership has blood on their hands. So does that mean anyone who supports abortion has blood on their hands? Does the Democrat's unequivocal support of Roe. V. Wade mean all democrats have blood on their hands? In 2015 there were 638,169 abortions reported to CDC and there were 36,000 deaths attributed to gun violence in the United States for that same year. If we use your standard of determining accountability we can determine, based on those figures, that Democrats are a far more dangerous organization than the NRA.







It might be wise for you to start wearing a warning sign that you are far more dangerous than the NRA.


chromedome42

Tell me Eugene, how do you feel about the 1,100 people that died today due to a direct link to tobacco. Shouldn't we completely outlaw tobacco? How about the 300 people that died today because they took their prescription medicine as prescribed? Because gun deaths are more violent, and because our lame-stream liberal media keeps hammering about guns and not about the other issues, we desensitize ourselves to the other issues. If the liberals want to regulate causes of death how about starting with big pharma and big tobacco as neither one of those are guaranteed in the Constitution.


dmilroy

Chromedome42 comment is a red-herring because he cannot ore will not address the actual arguments about gun violence. Chromedome42 concern about tobacco and prescription medicine is a seemingly plausible, though ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic. Chromedome42's logical fallacy and his attempt to blame the media for gun violence are not strong arguments. Claiming deaths due to gun violence is "guaranteed in the Constitution" is pure nonsense.


chromedome42

dmilroy, you are delusional, it's not a diversionary tactic. I never said deaths due to gun violence is guaranteed in the Constitution and you did. You love putting words in people's mouths don't you? The deaths by tobacco and meds is only the tip of the iceberg. You equate passing a law with actual gun control. Are you going to go take these guns away from criminals or do you just want to take them from the law abiding citizens? Trust me if the millions of legal gun owners in this country were the problem, we would know it already. Pass all the laws you care to. Unfortunately criminals by definition don't follow the law.







You mistake me pointing out your disingenuous arguments for gun control that ignore reality as me saying that there is nothing we can do about gun violence. I know that there is a lot we can do about it. It's just not as easy as passing more unenforceable meaningless legislation. If passing laws were all that it took cities like Chicago, Washington DC, and Baltimore would be the safest cities in America. But guess what? They are far from it.


dmilroy

Chromedome42 wrote "If the liberals want to regulate causes of death how about starting with big pharma and big tobacco as neither one of those are guaranteed in the Constitution." The clear implication of his words is deaths caused by big phrama and big tobacco and not guaranteed by the Constitution but deaths caused due to gun violence somehow are. Chromedome42's phony talking point that gun laws don't work because criminals don't follow the laws is refuted by our regulation on machine guns. Since the 1930's we've drastically reduce gun violence due to machine guns. Chromedome42 claims to know that there is a lot we can do to reduce gun violence but in the next sentence writes taking action is useless. The failure of tough gun laws in Chicago, Washingtion D.C. and Baltimore is due to the weak gun laws in other cities and state. You can drive to Chicago with a truck load of AR-15's purchased in South Dakota in nine hours.


Iman

Might want to take writing class there Eugene.


dmilroy

Iman, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


Iman

speaking of stones . . . didn't I see you in a box of rocks?


dmilroy

Iman mistakes insults for rational debate.


dmilroy

DLJohnson, Asserting Eugene Allen's letter was "emotionally charged hate and hysteria" is insulting. Claiming the President of the United States can do nothing about gun violence makes no sense especially when the Senate is waiting on Mr. Trump to act. https://www.newsweek.com/senate-gop-waiting-trump-approval-gun-control-1458606 Mr. Trump needles Republicans for not standing-up to the NRA and then caves to the gun lobby when push comes to shove. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/trump-nra-background-checks Mr. Johnson replies to an argument I did not make. The only person to write "anyone who supports gun ownership has blood on their hands" is DLJohson. Mr. Johnson imitates Chromedome42 and attempts to change the subject to abortion. DLJohnson claims he wants to protect others from gun violence but can't even discuss the topic without straw-man arguments, red-herrings, and insults. Mr. Johnson has nothing constructive to offer on the subject of gun violence.


DLJohnson

dmilroy- If a person’s writings come across as emotionally charged hatred and hysteria, that is how they will be perceived. It is not insulting to point out what is perceived.







You cited the article, http://vpc.org/investigating-the-gun-lobby/blood-money/ Gun violence. Aren’t you relating blood-money to having blood on their hands? You implicated that by innuendo. If you do not believe in that relationship, then why did you cite the article? And now you want to cower from making that relationship. Please do not trip while back peddling.







I never claimed that President Trump can do nothing about gun violence, you are claiming that. You claim that Senate is waiting on President Trump to act….awaiting his approval on gun control. Are you claiming that the Senate and Congress want the President to do their job, legislate? I find it troubling that you are not in lock step with the President on these issues if you believe that he has such enormous influence over everyone and that congress can do nothing without the President doing it for them.







Showing the huge difference in deaths from abortion and deaths from gun violence is to point out the flaws in your thought process on the subject. It is an act that stops life. The object (tool) cannot stop life by itself; it has to have human interaction to stop life. Therefore, it is a correct statement that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.







The Democrats want to penalize all persons who own AR-15s because of the few who miss-use them. You might as well say that we have to get rid of all cars and pickups because some people miss-use them killing people due to drinking driving and reckless driving. When do you want to start turning in your car(s)?





dmilroy

DLJohnson, Eugene Allen's letter is direct, calm and factual. You percieve it as "emotionally charged hate and hysteria" because you wish to lessen the impact of Mr. Allen's arguments without actual addressing what he wrote. The article I link to is about how the gun industry dollar fund the NRA. The phase "blood money" is an idiom which means: The money paid to the family of someone who has been murdered. Only DLJohnson writing "anyone who supports gun ownership has blood on their hands." DLJohnson wrote, "The President has as much involvement in gun violence as you do" then complains "I never claimed that President Trump can do nothing about gun violence..." Mr. Johnson is a man of contradictions. If DLJohnson bother to follow the link I provided, then he would see "Senate Republicans remain in a state of limbo on gun control as they await President Donald Trump to take a definitive stance on which — if any — gun control measures he supports so the party can move forward in considering legislation aimed to curb future gun violence." Mr. Johnson goes back to his abortion red-herring attempting again to change the subject. No driver ever killed 58 people and wounded another 422 because he was drunk driving through a country music festival. One obvious step we could take the reduce gun violence is regulate weapons of war like AR-15s and AK-47's like we regulate machine guns. The owners could keep their weapons but we would be able to keep them out of the hands of criminals.


Ar223

There is no more a problem with guns in this country than there is with drinking and driving, texting and driving,bullieying, ABORTION, opioid use and drug use in general. We have created a country of people who have no accountability for there actions. Wake up people. A gun is no more dangerus than a speeding car, a tiny pill or a can of beer. MADD got rules in place and started to educate people years ago but it hasnt stopped death and injury from drunk drivers. Guns will be a part of this country and peoples lives hopfuly for many years to come. The media needs to stop sensationalizing every gun related incedent and giving sick people there 5 min. of fame and giving the special interest groupes more fuel for the fight. Just wait.....take the guns away and crazy people bent on hurting others will start making bombs and then lets see were we point fingers.


dmilroy

Ar223 argument is fallacious. Because America has many problems does not mean gun violence should be ignored. His fatalistic argument that nothing can be done to reduce gun violence is a gun lobby talking point. Because MADD did not prevent every drunk driving death does not mean stricter laws and education have not reduce deaths due to drunk driving. Ignoring the mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Parkland, Omaha, Odessa Walmart, Dayton, etc... is cowardice. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-03/united-states-mass-shootings We are not cowards we have the power to reduce gun violence if we no longer choose to be helpless.







After the terrorist explosion in Oklahoma City, no one said bombs don't kill people, people kill people. The NRA didn't advocate for more people to has access to bombs. We were appalled and took steps to keep explosives out of the hands of people want to commit mass murder. We need to be equally appalled by our epidemic of gun violence.


DLJohnson

dmilroy: You write, One obvious step we could take to reduce gun violence is regulate weapons of war like AR-15s and AK-47's like we regulate machine guns. (By the way---only an idiot would take an AR-15 to war instead of an M16 or an M4). The owners could keep their weapons but we would be able to keep them out of the hands of criminals. That is contrary to what your Democrat Presidential hopefuls declared at their last debate. Beto O'Rourke: 'H*ll yes' we'll take your AR-15 and your AK-47. You cannot even keep straight your party’s intent on the subject. Are you now going to claim the Democrat Presidential hopefuls are betraying you and are pushing an agenda that you don’t support?







Can you say with 100 % certainty that criminals do not possess machine guns in this country? Can you say with 100% certainty that regulating AR-15s and AK-47s will keep them out of the hands of criminals? I can say for a certainty that you would be regulating the law bidding citizens, the ones who don’t break the law and who are not out there killing innocent people, and not the criminals who are breaking the law and are out there killing innocent people. Your battle cry appears to be, “I did everything I could to reduce the ability of the law bidding citizen to defend themselves from criminals and defend themselves from an out of control government.”







You claim; "blood money" is an idiom which means: The money paid to the family of someone who has been murdered. It also means money paid to a hired killer. I believe that through innuendo, you intended the later based on the content of your writings.







You write: "Senate Republicans remain in a state of limbo on gun control as they await President Donald Trump to take a definitive stance on which — if any — gun control measures he supports so the party can move forward in considering legislation aimed to curb future gun violence." So you believe it is the Republicans who are responsible for considering gun control legislation aimed to curb future gun violence. So you would not be satisfied if the Republicans consider a crime control legislation approach aimed at curbing future gun violence? So it appears that you are really in lock step with Beto O’Rouke on taking away guns from the law bidding citizen.







You write: No driver ever killed 58 people and wounded another 422 because he was drunk driving through a country music festival. That is very true. However, in 2017 a person died every 48 minutes in the United States due to a drunk driver. That is 30 people dead every day of the year. There we 2,746,000 people injured in motor vehicle crashes in 2017 or 7,523 daily, a good portion of those daily injuries caused by drunk or reckless drivers. It’s all a matter of perspective. By the way, how many car manufacturers and alcohol producers have Democrats in their hip pocket?





dmilroy

There are many ways to reduce gun violence we are not betrayed by those who are looking for solutions but by those who block solutions. Cynicism and fatalism leads to cowardice. We cannot let cowardice win again. The M-16 and M4 are variants of the AR-15 capable of automatic fire. Both the AR-15 and the AK-47 were design for warfare. We know people own thousands of fully automatic machine guns but due to regulations hardly any machine guns are used in crime. Because criminal may get his hand on a machine gun does not mean the laws regulating have been any less effective in reduce deaths by machine guns. Extending the regulations to cover semi-automatic weapons designed for war will reduce gun violence. In our system of government both the House and the Senate need to past a bill and the President needs to sign it. The House has already past a universal back ground checks. The Senate is controlled by the Republicans. The Republican leaders in the Senate are waiting on leadership for Donald Trump before they will act. I am in favor of Mr. Trump and the Republicans in the Senate getting off their [censored] and acting. Auto accidents and drunk driving are significant issues that should be address but that does not mean the epidemic of gun violence should not be address. We as Americans can deal with more than one thing at a time. We can reduce gun violence.


DLJohnson

dmilroy: You write: " Because criminal may get his hand on a machine gun does not mean the laws regulating have been any less effective in reduce deaths by machine guns. Extending the regulations to cover semi-automatic weapons designed for war will reduce gun violence". You admit that the regulation would not keep the guns out of criminals hands. Your regulations would only be effective on law bidding citizens. Seeing as how the law bidding citizens are not out there killing innocent people and causing gun violence, explain how your regulation will reduce gun violence.







You write: " I am in favor of Mr. Trump and the Republicans in the Senate getting off their CENSORED and acting". That is not quite accurate based on your prior writings. You are in favor of the President and Republics doing what you and your party want done. Universal background checks has some good points but is lacking based on the Democrat version. Yet, that is what you hang your hat on. Taking weapons away from law bidding citizens is not the answer either. Yet that is what you and the Democrats are hanging your hat on.







You write: "Both the AR-15 and the AK-47 were design for warfare". If we use your logic, the shotgun has been a weapon of warfare since World War I due it's prowess at close quarter combat and trench warfare. It's power-fullness in jungle warfare was even more evident in Vietnam. Again if we use your logic, extending the regulations to cover these weapons suited for war will reduce gun violence. Does this means the Democrats will be coming after those too?







You write: " We as Americans can deal with more than one thing at a time". It is obvious that you are paying attention to what is going on with the Congress. I care that they are wasting my tax dollars on bullsh*t and not taking care of business for we the people. They are more interested in their political infighting instead of doing the job they were elected to do.


dmilroy

If you demand laws and regulation be 100% effective before they are issued, then you will have no laws or regulations. We know the regulations of machine guns have succeeded. Very few crimes are committed with machine guns while keeping them in the hands of responsible law abiding gun owners. The same can be done for AR-15s and AK-47s. You are mistaken. The bill passed by the Democratic controlled house establishes new background check requirements for firearm transfers between private parties (i.e., unlicensed individuals). Specifically, it prohibits a firearm transfer between private parties unless a licensed gun dealer, manufacturer, or importer first takes possession of the firearm to conduct a background check. The prohibition does not apply to certain firearm transfers, such as a gift between spouses in good faith. The Republican controlled Senate and Donald Trump continue to stall passage of the bill. Shot guns were not designed for war. Their design predates WWl by 180 years. The shotgun remains a standard firearm for hunting throughout the world for all sorts of game from birds and small game to large game such as deer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#History Your point about action being stalled in Congress and the Senate is valid. As long as we have Senators and Congressmen and a President who are in the pocket of the gun lobby, they will continue to ignore mass shootings just as the ignored Sandy Hook, Orlando, Omaha, Charleston, San Bernardino, Las Vegas, etc... Cynicism and fatalism are the gun lobby's biggest allies. We have the power to change that and reduce gun violence.


Ar223

Any gun can be converted to a gun of war. Maybe we need to take all sharp objects away and ban cell phones and alchahal. Heck while we are at it lets just wrap ourselves in bubble wrap so nothing hurts us. Jezzzzzzzzzzzz people need to grow a set and man up.


dmilroy

Like machine guns, weapons designed for kill and wound people in warfare like the AR-15 and the AK-47 are not like weapons designed for hunting or for sport shooting. For example: These weapons are designed to fire off bullets very, very quickly. Some manufacturers boast that an experienced shooter could fire as many as 45 rounds in one minute. Magazines containing fresh ammunition can be swapped out in a matter of seconds. The specifications of assault-style rifles vary depending on ammunition, but many tests put the muzzle velocity of a standard round from an AR-15 at 3,200 feet per second, making it accurate up to 500 yards ― more than a quarter-mile. This makes rounds from an AR-15 or other assault-style weapons far more devastating than those designed for hunting like shot guns or those designed for shooting sports.



Ar223 writes we need to "grow a set and man up" an accept the mass shootings and the growing epidemic of gun violence as a fact of life. Ar223 sounds hard-bitten and macho but his fatalism and cynicism has rendered him helpless. It takes courage to reduce gun violence. We are not powerless unless we choose to be.


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.