Obama Says America Needs 'Soul-Searching' On Gun Violence

[Jingthing]

For non-Americans, people should be aware it is very outrageous indeed to post a video from the John Birch Society here. This society is associated with opposing civil rights movements calling them communist inspired and is basically an extremely far right wing extremist group.

[Gary A]

The Batman shooter was fully armored, head to toe including groin. A patron with a gun would NOT have stopped him.

Don't bring Hitler into this. You automatically lose any debate when you try that on a topic that has NOTHING to do with Hitler.

The first point is that it is obvious that you know nothing about body armor.

The second point is that The Hitler mention has everything to do with gun control.

[Gary A]

For non-Americans, people should be aware it is very outrageous indeed to post a video from the John Birch Society here. This society is associated with opposing civil rights movements calling them communist inspired and is basically an extremely far right wing extremist group.

Outrageous?? So besides banning guns, you want to eliminate free speech?

[Jingthing]

For non-Americans, people should be aware it is very outrageous indeed to post a video from the John Birch Society here. This society is associated with opposing civil rights movements calling them communist inspired and is basically an extremely far right wing extremist group.

Outrageous?? So besides banning guns, you want to eliminate free speech?

Not at all. Just informing people the John Birch society is a far right wing extremist group with a long history of opposing civil rights and red baiting in the tradition of the McCarthy era. In other words, totally disgusting.

[Gary A]

For non-Americans, people should be aware it is very outrageous indeed to post a video from the John Birch Society here. This society is associated with opposing civil rights movements calling them communist inspired and is basically an extremely far right wing extremist group.

Outrageous?? So besides banning guns, you want to eliminate free speech?

Not at all. Just informing people the John Birch society is a far right wing extremist group with a long history of opposing civil rights and red baiting in the tradition of the McCarthy era. In other words, totally disgusting.

Did you watch the video? I thought not. You think it's OK that Bill Ayers ex weather underground and past associate of guess who should be teaching our young people? Perhaps you should have a look at the JBS core principles.

[Gary A]

While you are at it, have a look at the origin of the US gun control laws;

http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/GCA_68.htm

[koheesti]

The Batman shooter was fully armored, head to toe including groin. A patron with a gun would NOT have stopped him.

Don't bring Hitler into this. You automatically lose any debate when you try that on a topic that has NOTHING to do with Hitler.

Even fully armored I think he could have been slowed down or distracted long enough for the death toll to be lower.

And, it is true that dictators (even those who must never be mentioned by name) have all been supporters of strict gun ownership laws.

[koheesti]

You mean Obama can't count on the anti-gun lobby for votes?? I didn't think he discriminated in his pandering? In addition, it was a top official in his admin who said something about not letting a good tragedy go to waste.

The NRA has neutralized this issue. It's called corruption, big money, American style.

More myth. On the list of Top All-Time donors, from 1989-2012 the NRA ranks 46th at $19 million in political donations. Various unions have given many times that amount, some over a much shorter period.

http://www.opensecre...ist.php?order=A

It would be foolish of any national politician to push this issue if he wants to survive.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with corruption or politicians being bought. Americans - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians - support the right to own a gun by a wide margin.

Edited August 8, 2012 by koheesti

[Ulysses G.]

The Batman shooter was fully armored, head to toe including groin. A patron with a gun would NOT have stopped him.

He had a gas mask on his head. As far as I know, gas masks do not stop bullets.

[Steely Dan]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

[Jingthing]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

Why was a known Nazi able to legally buy a semi-automatic gun? That kind of soul searching.

[Steely Dan]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

Why was a known Nazi able to legally buy a semi-automatic gun? That kind of soul searching.

So it is an election issue then.

In which case I think the current administration should do some soul searching about the fast and furious gun running scandal resulting in hundreds of dead Mexicans instead of stonewalling as Eric Holder has with the full support of the POTUS.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Steely Dan

[ttelise]

For soul searching you need a soul. On the gun control issue, America had a soul, but the NRA bought it. Nothing will be done. Everyone knows nothing will be done. The nation that used to be can do is now morphing into mai bpen rai.

Quit trying to demonize the NRA. The NRA is and have been for tough laws against CRIMINALS using guns while committing a crime.The anti-gun lobby doesn't even want the overwhelmingly vast majority (tens of millions) of LAW-ABIDING gun owners to have a gun.

It's the Liberals who are for letting the criminals off with a slap on the wrist. Perhaps if they were as tough on crime as the NRA, there would be less gun crime.

I laugh to think anyone believes certain messages conveyed by the NRA.

It is not liberals doing anything to let criminals off with a slap on the wrist. You are just spewing ignorance based rhetoric utilized to deflect blame and attention and unfortunately certain other impressionable people may hear, believe and respew the same ignorance to others. Eventually, if enough people hear they ridiculous information will fall on ears guidable enough to believe.

Judges in the US have to follow very strict sentencing guidelines regardless as to whether they are liberal or conservative. Very little room for discretion or subjectivity, especially if a higher grade crime.

I could go into full detail how sentencing guidelines work, what policies are at issue, what presumptions appy due to our jails being over capacity, what grades of offenses are entitled to certain presumptions and how little discretion a judge has in sentencing. This would take pages though.

Upon graduating law school, I clerked for an appellate court judge and a Supreme

Court Justice and reviewed many sentences metted out by judges so I know the guidelines.

Statements like yours are intellectually dishonest tactics to try and deflect from the root of the problems. Sad to say, many ignorant, guilable and impressionable people buy into such hype and believe what they are ready to believe.

[ttelise]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

Actually, I doubt 70 percent of Americans know who Treyvon is, cares or knows what us going on. Except when I on here, I never hear anything about that case. I bet 90 percent if American could nit even name the shooter or what the issue us in the case.

[ttelise]

You mean Obama can't count on the anti-gun lobby for votes?? I didn't think he discriminated in his pandering? In addition, it was a top official in his admin who said something about not letting a good tragedy go to waste.

The NRA has neutralized this issue. It's called corruption, big money, American style. It would be foolish of any national politician to push this issue if he wants to survive.

This is true. Some very strong Republican incumbents just got shot down in primaries in my State when NRA backed other candidates and spent 10 times the incumbant's advertising budget.

The NRA retaliated against the former "guys" because these guys did not support permitting concealed weapons in the parking lot of work places. NRA is bug money just like oil and Big pharma.

[KeyserSoze01]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

Why was a known Nazi able to legally buy a semi-automatic gun? That kind of soul searching.

Same reason a Jew, Christian, Communist, Muslim, Skin Head, Zionist or anyone else in the US can by weapons, because it is a right which is provided for by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to citizens. That's why.

Banning all privately owned weapons in the US by abolishing the 2nd Amendment is the target. No matter how hard the left tries to make this an issue, it will never pass the House. Ever.

Blaming all gun owners for every violent crime is much like blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few extremists.

[ttelise]

With regard to the 'soul searching', which incidentally was the same phrase Barak Obama used in the case of the Trayvon Martin death, I wonder just what this soul searching should entail for the overwhelming majority of Americans who are no doubt appalled by the murder.

Why was a known Nazi able to legally buy a semi-automatic gun? That kind of soul searching.

Same reason a Jew, Christian, Communist, Muslim, Skin Head, Zionist or anyone else in the US can by weapons, because it is a right which is provided for by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to citizens. That's why.

Banning all privately owned weapons in the US by abolishing the 2nd Amendment is the target. No matter how hard the left tries to make this an issue, it will never pass the House. Ever.

Blaming all gun owners for every violent crime is much like blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few extremists.

Just more selfish US entitlement bs. I want my guns and I don't care what harm guns cause because I want and need my guns real bad.

Funny how my hunting guns are at my brother's home and I have not found a need for them. No one needs them. No one needs drugs. No one needs alcohol. These things cause a high and so people don't want to lose them even if giving them up may make the country a much safer place.

Edited August 9, 2012 by ttelise

[Ulysses G.]

Funny how my hunting guns are at my brother's home and I have not found a need for them. No one needs them.

Hunters, target shooters and people who need protection from criminals need them. Everyone does not have the same needs that you do.

[ttelise]

Funny how my hunting guns are at my brother's home and I have not found a need for them. No one needs them.

Hunters, target shooters and people who need protection from criminals need them. Everyone does not have the same needs that you do.

No one need to hunt or target practice. They want to. Would it be worth giving up these two activities if 10,000 lives could be saved each year? Criminals just bust into people's houses and steal their guns so now you say we need to protect against those criminals. If criminals did not gave access to guns, then would not be an issue.

I have never seen a statistic, but out of the gajillion gun owners out there, how many have ever had to use them for personal protection. The only one I can think of is Zimmerman when he shot and killed Martin dude who was apparently beating his arse.

Haha, Zimmerman pretty much sums up the kind of cool dudes in the NRA who need them for personal protection. I think some people need a joint or a Valium worse than anyone needs a gun. Yep, it is just more selfish I want what want no matter what harm it causes US entitlement bs.

Edited August 9, 2012 by ttelise

[Credo]

Not exactly true. I lived for many years in an area where we had, among other things, wolves, bears, coyotes, and fox. These creatures cause quite a bit of trouble when they get among the livestock, pets and people.

I am not a hunter and I didn't like guns around, but when a rabid skunk is attacking the guard dog and biting anything that moves, a gun is rather handy. I didn't have one, but an old neighbor lady came over and put it out of its misery.

There is quite a large section of the Western US where having a gun isn't such a bad idea.

[Ulysses G.]

Funny how my hunting guns are at my brother's home and I have not found a need for them. No one needs them.

Hunters, target shooters and people who need protection from criminals need them. Everyone does not have the same needs that you do.

No one need to hunt or target practice. They want to.

No one needs to do anything other than eat or drink. There is nothing wrong with hunting or target practice if someone needs food or just enjoys the sport of trying to hit a bullseye.

* A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

Edited August 9, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Gary A]

The beauty of concealed weapons is that they also protect people who are not armed. The fact that a person could be armed prevents criminals from taking a chance. When I lived out in the boonies on a farm in Ohio, I can assure you that 90 percent or more of those farm homes had weapons. Criminals who are at least reasonably intelligent would not take a chance trying to pick one of the 10 percent that are not armed.

Recently, on the Internet, I saw a picture of a sign on the lawn of a guy's home that said that he had guns. There was a big arrow pointing to the next house that said that guy believed in gun control. That expression of free speech is being challenged. The sign was only telling the truth. What is wrong with telling the truth? Could it be that the gun control advocates are actually afraid of the criminals?

[chuckd]

For soul searching you need a soul. On the gun control issue, America had a soul, but the NRA bought it. Nothing will be done. Everyone knows nothing will be done. The nation that used to be can do is now morphing into mai bpen rai.

Quit trying to demonize the NRA. The NRA is and have been for tough laws against CRIMINALS using guns while committing a crime.The anti-gun lobby doesn't even want the overwhelmingly vast majority (tens of millions) of LAW-ABIDING gun owners to have a gun.

It's the Liberals who are for letting the criminals off with a slap on the wrist. Perhaps if they were as tough on crime as the NRA, there would be less gun crime.

I laugh to think anyone believes certain messages conveyed by the NRA.

It is not liberals doing anything to let criminals off with a slap on the wrist. You are just spewing ignorance based rhetoric utilized to deflect blame and attention and unfortunately certain other impressionable people may hear, believe and respew the same ignorance to others. Eventually, if enough people hear they ridiculous information will fall on ears guidable enough to believe.

Judges in the US have to follow very strict sentencing guidelines regardless as to whether they are liberal or conservative. Very little room for discretion or subjectivity, especially if a higher grade crime.

I could go into full detail how sentencing guidelines work, what policies are at issue, what presumptions appy due to our jails being over capacity, what grades of offenses are entitled to certain presumptions and how little discretion a judge has in sentencing. This would take pages though.

Upon graduating law school, I clerked for an appellate court judge and a Supreme

Court Justice and reviewed many sentences metted out by judges so I know the guidelines.

Statements like yours are intellectually dishonest tactics to try and deflect from the root of the problems. Sad to say, many ignorant, guilable and impressionable people buy into such hype and believe what they are ready to believe.

Since you are a self admitted attorney and former Supreme Court clerk, I presume you know how to add or propose amendments to the US Constitution. If not, check out Article V.

The real problem for people like yourself that advocate gun control is not with the guns. It is with the Constitution's Second Amendment calling for the people's right to bear arms. If the second amendment is ever removed from the Constitution then you will have your effective gun control.

Until that happens, however, I can only ask why, with your legal background, you are wasting your valuable time by posting anonymously on a Thailand based forum. That time could better be spent making every effort to change the Constitution in the US rather than making vain attempts to change minds in Thailand.

That is the only way for you and others of your frame of mind to ever have gun control...and then you will only have gun control over law abiding citizens. The criminals will always have access to guns.

Edited August 9, 2012 by chuckd

[simple1]

The beauty of concealed weapons is that they also protect people who are not armed. The fact that a person could be armed prevents criminals from taking a chance. When I lived out in the boonies on a farm in Ohio, I can assure you that 90 percent or more of those farm homes had weapons. Criminals who are at least reasonably intelligent would not take a chance trying to pick one of the 10 percent that are not armed.

Recently, on the Internet, I saw a picture of a sign on the lawn of a guy's home that said that he had guns. There was a big arrow pointing to the next house that said that guy believed in gun control. That expression of free speech is being challenged. The sign was only telling the truth. What is wrong with telling the truth? Could it be that the gun control advocates are actually afraid of the criminals?

Free speech? BS - sounds like the neighbour who put up the sign is in a dispute & being a complete moron. Doesn't the US have the right to privacy laws? Lucky the neighbour hasn't changed his mind and got a weapon - it's an overt threat

Edited August 9, 2012 by simple1

[Scott]

The guy pointing out something about his neighbor probably violates a number of laws. Lots of people believe in gun control, but still posses a gun. Gun control is not always about outlawing guns, it is about controlling them--who can have them, what type of weapon they can own etc..

I wonder how the guy would feel if the neighbor put up a sign: "Thieves, please note, he has a gun, but he is gone from 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. He also keeps gold in the house. Key is under the flower pot."

[geriatrickid]

I disagree with the need to change the U.S. constitution. Effective gun control can be implemented while still respecting the right to bear arms. It has been the various Supreme Court justices in the past decade that chose to interpret the constitution as broadly as possible. The most recent decision in 2010 by judges appointed during the Bush era put an end to any hope individual states had in controlling gun violence. I found it rather interesting that the bloc of right wing representatives and senators and others beholding to the NRA and firearms industry didn't say a word when the SCOTUS stepped on states' rights to pass laws, which is something they push when it comes to abortion laws.

Mr. Obama is right. U.S. citizens need to do some soul searching. Canada is awash with guns and has a high degree of gun ownership as do some European countries such as Switzerland. These foreign nationals can have their guns, but are subject to various sensible controls. There has to be a reason why the Swiss and Canadians do not have the same degree of gun violence as in the USA. I doubt it is because they are more civilised. I suggest it is the requirement to be responsible and to be properly screened before purchase. It is unbelievable that felons and the mentally ill have no barriers to purchasing firearms in the USA, even though there are laws that say they are not allowed. Gun merchants have no problem selling them the firearms under the respective laws' provisions/loopholes.

[Gary A]

So you want to pass more laws when they can't enforce what they already have? It is illegal for convicted felons to have guns but many if not most armed criminals are convicted felons. Career criminals pay no attention to laws and more laws only hurt honest people.

I stand behind my opinion that armed citizens protect not only themselves but also those who choose not to arm themselves. I have no other answers or solutions.

[geriatrickid]

So you want to pass more laws when they can't enforce what they already have? It is illegal for convicted felons to have guns but many if not most armed criminals are convicted felons. Career criminals pay no attention to laws and more laws only hurt honest people.

I stand behind my opinion that armed citizens protect not only themselves but also those who choose not to arm themselves. I have no other answers or solutions.

I don't want to be in the middle of a shoot out. Bullets have a nasty habit of hitting non implicated bystanders, particularly when the gun is in the hands of a poorly trained shooter that is panicing. If trained police officers have a problem hitting their targets, will Petunia from Topeka be more successful when she thinks some kid in a hoodie pulls a candy bar from his pocket that she mistakes for a gun?

[Steely Dan]

The beauty of concealed weapons is that they also protect people who are not armed. The fact that a person could be armed prevents criminals from taking a chance. When I lived out in the boonies on a farm in Ohio, I can assure you that 90 percent or more of those farm homes had weapons. Criminals who are at least reasonably intelligent would not take a chance trying to pick one of the 10 percent that are not armed.

Recently, on the Internet, I saw a picture of a sign on the lawn of a guy's home that said that he had guns. There was a big arrow pointing to the next house that said that guy believed in gun control. That expression of free speech is being challenged. The sign was only telling the truth. What is wrong with telling the truth? Could it be that the gun control advocates are actually afraid of the criminals?

Doing away with one amendment of the constitution may be happenstance, two is coincidence to say the least.

[chuckd]

So you want to pass more laws when they can't enforce what they already have? It is illegal for convicted felons to have guns but many if not most armed criminals are convicted felons. Career criminals pay no attention to laws and more laws only hurt honest people.

I stand behind my opinion that armed citizens protect not only themselves but also those who choose not to arm themselves. I have no other answers or solutions.

I don't want to be in the middle of a shoot out. Bullets have a nasty habit of hitting non implicated bystanders, particularly when the gun is in the hands of a poorly trained shooter that is panicing. If trained police officers have a problem hitting their targets, will Petunia from Topeka be more successful when she thinks some kid in a hoodie pulls a candy bar from his pocket that she mistakes for a gun?

Can you cite one case where "Petunia from Topeka" shot some kid in a hoodie while he was reaching for his candy bar?

I don't like being in the middle of a shoot out either but I dislike it a lot less when I am armed as well.