More guns more violence, no coincidence

It is usually the National Rifle Association trotting out the slippery slope argument. For instance, they say, if we ban 30-round clips for assault weapons now they will eventually ban your bird-hunting shotgun.

But here's the real slippery-slope danger in this gun-crazy nation.

A Maine state legislator has now proposed a bill allowing teachers and other school employees to carry concealed firearms in Maine schools.

The Associated Press reports that State Sen. David Burns, R-Whiting, wants to allow certain school employees to carry guns.

To people who grew up in the 1950's, '60s or '70s this must seem surreal. Sure, the Russians might drop a bomb on your school back then, but the thought of a community member showing up to kill the kids was simply unthinkable.

Most dads had served in the military during World War II, they knew all about guns and many had seen the result of gun violence close up.

They were more interested in buying homes than investing their life savings in personal arsenals.

We feared Communists, but the thought of collecting guns to possibly fight our own military and government only occurred to the lunatic fringe. That idea, by the way, has gone rather mainstream these days.

Times change, of course, and the biggest documented change is that we now have tens of millions more guns in circulation. Meanwhile, teenagers are regularly killing each other in inner cities, mass shootings occur with some regularity and we are all more frightened of gun violence than we have been in our nation's history.

But the arm-the-teacher bills sweeping the country seem to show that we have reached a dangerous tipping point or, as the NRA likes to say, a slippery slope.

There are now so many guns, and so much gun violence, that ordinary Americans (like teachers) feel they may need to be armed to protect themselves from all the nuts with guns.

So, we arm the teachers.

What next? College professors? Gun idiots are often attracted to college campuses.

How about arming certain employees in their workplaces in case a disgruntled worker goes off his rocker? That happens, too.

Perhaps some postal workers should be armed because, you know, somebody might just go "postal."

And theater ushers. Perhaps they should be armed to return fire when some heavily armed nut job wearing body armor opens fire on the audience.

How about clerks and store managers at malls? A number of angry lunatics have chosen malls and shopping centers to carry out their mayhem.

Perhaps, as the NRA hopes, each of us will one day carry a gun in case some demented driver with road rage starts waving a handgun in our face.

You see, this is where we are headed, into a world as NRA President Wayne LaPierre famously described, of many more "good guys with guns" ever vigilant for more and more "bad guys with guns."

The U.S. has the most heavily armed civilian population in the world and we have, by several magnitudes, the highest gun-death rate outside of countries at war or facing drug wars.

More guns, more violence. More guns, more violence.

Does anyone really think that's a coincidence?

The opinions expressed in this column reflect the views of the ownership and the editorial board.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.



RONALD RIML's picture

CT State Police Update List of Weapons Used - 18 January

January 18, 2013

** UPDATE **


In previous press conferences, the Connecticut State Police clearly identified all of the weapons seized from the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

To eliminate any confusion or misinformation, we will again describe and identify the weapons seized at the school crime scene.

Seized inside the school:

#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine

#2. Glock 10 mm handgun

#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:

#4. Izhmash Canta-12 12 gauge Shotgun (seized from car in parking lot)

This case remains under investigation.

Lt. J. Paul Vance


Gun control will work as well

Gun control will work as well as illegal drug control and illegal immigration control as the same people who enforce the latter two will enforce the former. Cities with the toughest gun control laws in this country such as Chicago also have the highest gun related deaths. Guns do not kill people any more than cars, drugs or alcohol kill people. It is the human force behind these various weapons that make them dangerous. Criminals will continue to find sources for these weapons both within and outside of this country. Unfortunately the whole thing has been turned into a political football and reason has vanished in the wind. I do not own any guns and have no inclination to buy one at this time, but as long as my neighbor is of sound mind I have no problems with gun ownership. What the government has a right and responsibility to me is to make certain the neighbor is mentally qualified to own said weapon(s). Stopping the sale of so called assault weapon will not stop the tragedies we have witnessed; at best it may make them less horrible. This is of little comfort to the people who will still lose loved ones. What we have to look to the government to do is to enforce reasonable laws to keep guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons. Being realistic, even this will be difficult to expect government to do. I would only hope that the people who reaad this post think before going viral and post some of the hatred that is being posted on these blogs.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

More cars, more deaths; More cars, more deaths.

“mass shootings occur with some regularity and we are all more frightened of gun violence than we have been in our nation's history.”

Fear is an emotion and can be irrational. You odds of being shot in a mass shooting is negligible. You are far more likely to die from a plurality of other means, such as in a car accident, prescription drug use, ...

“More guns, more violence. More guns, more violence.”

More cars, more deaths; More cars, more deaths – based on facts, not emotion.

 's picture

I'm a gun nut!

I am sick and tired of all this name calling! I like guns, I believe in the US. Constitution, I served ten years to defend this nation, and I am now labeled a gun nut because of the few out there who went on a killing spree.
Well If we are going to take the tools of death out there than we must take allof them, makes sense doesn't it? Well I weork in a major trauma hospital, amd the other night we had a young man come in Dead On Arrival. He was driving a truck too fast and went off the road inmto a tree. So I guess we all now must turn in our tru cks with the V8 engine. I mean a young man is dead, his life gone, no more generations for that family. What about all the deaths from drunk drivers? Should we ban alcohol, or again here is a reason to outlaw cars!
No lets stop making emotional fixes, and use our brains to find the facts! Take a look at the city of Chicago. A city that has banned not only magazines, but guns. Last yearon almost any day you could hear gun fire! In fact there was 2698 shootings! This in a city that has banned guns! This just points out the fact that only the criminal will have a gun. This won't stop these killings, now the law aboding citizen will be at the mercy of the criminal. We will only hope and pray that the police, who have had to cut officers due to budget cutbacks, will arrive in time.
So I ask you, why do I have to pay for the crimes of others? The shooter in Newtown got his weapons from his mother. She paid the price for not securing her firearms Not only that but all we hear is how the AR with a 30 round magazine, if banned would have changed things! The truith is the shooter used handguns and the rifle (not an assualt rifle but a copy because it is not fully automatic) was found in the trunk of his car.
In closing lets look at the facts and leave emotions out of things. If an armed guard or teacher, both who have been trained in the proper use of both tactics and firearms, is what is needed then lets do it. But taking the attitude that if law abiding citizens don't have some thing will fix things is like sticking ones head in the ground.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Dick ? 13.02.11 4:20 ?

Dick ? 13.02.11 4:20 ? HST
Guns are the problem •

We support the right to arm bears . Private armies and militias ? No . i have lived in Sanford, FL , Central and South America where they have them •
The British aren't coming any more . This is the 21st century .
Use a tazer , pepper spray or Mace ® , ladies /s, Steve h t h ?
Q: What's your solution again ?
A: ________________________________________________

RONALD RIML's picture

Richard - so you came clean???

There are 'Gun Owners' and then there are 'Gun Nuts.'

There is a difference; it become evident once one begins discussing the subject of firearms with that person.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The government plays on

The government plays on people’s fears to pursue gun control. Unfortunate, emotion rules.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Outright falsehood!

He did NOT use handguns. This is an outright falsehood! What was found in the trunk of the car was a SHOTGUN.

He murdered the children and their teachers with a Bushmaster. He used a handgun to commit suicide.

When you post falsehoods (lies) it does nothing but call into question your motivation and does nothing to advance your side of the dialogue.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Google it-----

I think you should do some research. The corner report stated that all children died from handgun wounds.

Moreover, CBS, NBC, ABC Admit no assault rifle was used at Sandy Hook.

You information is out of date.

Mark Elliott's picture

maybe you should be calling

maybe you should be calling out your liberal news source then??

JOANNE MOORE's picture

editor's note at the bottom....

CLEARLY states that a Bushmaster was used in the school. Can you read??????

AL PELLETIER's picture

Joanne, your absolutely right!

And as far as Gravel's source of information is concerned, absolutely laughable! Click on to his link then click on "about us" and you'll see what kind of garbage he reads to establishes his facts with.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Coroner Confirms: No Assault Weapon Used in Sandy Hook Shooting

I hear mud on the face is good for the complexion.

JOANNE MOORE's picture


But you already know this.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Time to put up or shut up -

Time to put up or shut up - cite your source.

Jason Theriault's picture

You...Are.... WRONG

This story was published on the 24th of this month.

Here are the first three paragraphs:

Lt. J. Paul Vance, the face of an ongoing Connecticut State Police investigation into worst grade-school shooting in U.S. history, Thursday debunked media and Internet reports that Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza killed his victims with handguns and not the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S rifle that is now the focus of a proposed federal assault-weapons ban.
All 26 of Lanza's victims were shot with the .223-caliber semi-automatic rifle, said Vance, who bristled at claims to the contrary during an interview with Hearst Connecticut Newspapers.
"It's all these conspiracy theorists that are trying to mucky up the waters," said Vance, the longtime state police spokesman.

AL PELLETIER's picture


Click on to the link Gravel provided that he basis his facts on if you want a good belly laugh.

Mark Elliott's picture

And the SJ editors wrote this

And the SJ editors wrote this lovely op ed piece. Inititial reports from local and federal investigators were handguns were found. But, I guess federal investigators COULD mistake handguns for a bushmaster. Have you ever seen them side by side........eeerily similar! (Yes, thats sarcasm)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes, they both go "bang bang,

Yes, they both go "bang bang, so they are the same.

RONALD RIML's picture

They both go "Bang Bang" in Olongapo and Australia.....

But oh, what a difference!!!!!!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes, they both go "bang bang,

Yes, they both go "bang bang, so they are the same.

 's picture

By the response, this is an

By the response, this is an interesting and provocative article. Like everyone else I was deveastated by Newtown. nauseating. I only have one question. In all these horrible massacres by obviously sick, deranged, detached? people, not one was ever so sick, confused, deranged, ill, enough to consider an attack on a police station. Somehow they migrate to places where they know people are defenseless. I wonder why? Does this show intent? I have no problem with arming the teachers who want to be armed. And providing them with the training et al, already described here. Our teaachers, as evidenced at Newtown, are heroic.....daily. Let s give them the choice to defend themselves and the kids.

Amedeo Lauria's picture

Dear Editor...

To paraphrase...those who do not study and learn from history are condemned to repeat it.

To unarm Americans who own firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! That is all that need be said on this issue.

This position does not make us the lunatic fringe. The ones we should concern ourselves with are those who would take away our rights by "executive order" or by increasing the taxes and fees on legal ownership or pass laws that are unconstitutional (that might go unchallenged due to the high legal costs of mounting a Supreme Court challenge).

There are people we should be concerning ourselves with and they are the ones who would infringe upon our rights protected by our Constitution.

After it all it is "We the People" not "We the Liberals who know better than you!"

RONALD RIML's picture

I've disarmed people; Colonel

And with very, very few exceptions was it ever found unconstitutional.

Then the court gave them their gun back; and charges were dropped.

Steve  Dosh's picture

Amadeo , ƒlyday noon hst

Amadeo , ƒlyday noon hst ?
" To unarm Americans who own firearms is UNCONSTITUTIONAL! " No it isn't . Police disarm people on a daily basis . Show them your concealed gun and ask them how it works . . . .....
Ya' know . .during the next Presidential march down Penn. Ave. DC we think we'll offer the incoming President a gift We're making him ( or her ) a special .38 chocolate handgun . Then 'we'll run out in the road ( like Al Roker did the other day , HAhahah ! ) quickly and hand it to him or her
" You can't argue w/ stupid ." - - Blue Comedy Tour
/s , Steve , Keep 'em coming , payasos :)

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Your right, This post is

Your right, This post is stu**d and non-sensible in many ways.

GARY SAVARD's picture

Amedio, I pay my dues to the

Amedio, I pay my dues to the NRA every year because they are the force behind the Second Amendment, and ultimately, our freedom. Do I agree with all of their talking points? No. But without the NRA, which is a collection of a few million Americans, the Second Amendment would be disected and cut up like a worm in 9th grade biology class by liberals that, God forgive them, do not know any better.

JOANNE MOORE's picture


And which militia do you belong to?


Protecting rights

Right now the Republican party and their backers the NRA are far more interested in protecting the" Gangbangers Bill of Rights" than they are in protecting Second Amendment rights for sportsmen or collectors or in protecting public safety.. Laws that bar states from reporting criminal gun activity, lobbying against laws against trafficking and lobbying for those laws that bar the ATF from enforcing laws already on the book are aimed at helping criminals not law abiding citizens. No one is interested in taking away guns fom people who abide by the law and handle guns responsibly. .

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Say What?

Claire said "No one is interested in taking away guns fom people who abide by the law and handle guns responsibly. "

"Recently, the state of New York passed one of the toughest gun control laws in the country, but according to GOP Assemblyman Steve McLaughlin, Democrats wanted to confiscate guns and magazines. Worse yet, one Democrat pleaded with McLaughlin to keep the proposals from the public, the Commentator reported on Sunday."

MARK GRAVEL's picture

New York Gun Legislation Proposals

McLaughlin posted a list of Democratic proposals that were rejected:

Everyone should know that yes Claire, people are interested in taking guns away from people!

Confiscation of "assault weapons."
Confiscation of ten round clips.
Statewide database for all guns.
Continue to allow pistol permit holder's information to be replaced to the public.
Label semiautomatic shotguns with more than five rounds or pistol grips as "assault weapons.”
Limit the number of rounds in a magazine to five and confiscation and forfeiture of banned magazines.
Limit possession to no more than two magazines.
Limit purchase of guns to one gun per person per month.
Require re-licensing of all pistol permit owners.
Require renewal of all pistol permits every five years.
State issued pistol permits.
Micro-stamping of all guns in New York State.
Require licensing of all gun ammo dealers.
Mandatory locking of guns at home.
Fee for licensing, registering weapons.

RONALD RIML's picture

Common sense measures Mark abhors.....

Who's he coming after next????

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Aren't you beating an old

Aren't you beating an old horse - quick on your feet.



The problems we are encountering with guns is that they are sort of like big mean guard dogs. While they are very useful, maybe even necessary, if you live in a rural area, they are a nuisance and often dangerous in a densely populated area which by the way would be New York. Cities need to be able to control who has access to guns unless you like urban warfare, gang bangers and kids getting shot in school and in their beds. All of the rules that have been passed by cities are ineffective because people from areas with no rules bring their weapons to the cities illegally. Fairness would seem to call for people to be able to compromise in such a way that both rural and city folks can be safe. Regulating the sale of guns so that they can be tracked and large penalties,that are enforced federally, for trafficking would help to accomplish this. It is callous for rural people to ignore what is going on in the cities and to turn their backs on the carnage going on in our country. If they help solve the problem they are less likely to wind up with national rules that look like the ones you mentioned. If the people of New York feel they need the above rules then they should be able to have them and to enforce them. If they are not needed in Maine then we should be able to decide that but without undoing the rules in New York.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Hmm. I would feel more of a

Hmm. I would feel more of a need to own a gun in New York for protection than in a rural area of Maine.

Moreover, while cities like Chicago have strict gun laws, they still have gang-bangers. Any criminal who is willing to take a life probably does not care about gun trafficking laws, you think.

How about mandatory sentences for people who use a gun to commit a crime? Instead of taking guns off the street, how about taking these criminals off the street.

Betty Davies's picture

Excellent ideas

Many, many Americans agree with the sorts of regulations listed above. It's time to focus on "well-regulated" for a change.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

First, we both know you

First, we both know you cannot quantitatively measure your assertion of “many, many”. You feel that it is many as an emotional measure of your associations and what you see on the news; sorry, that does not make a quantitative measure.

Secondly, a number of items in that list may very likely unconstitutional, such as confiscation of the preverbal assault weapon.

RONALD RIML's picture

And then again - it may NOT be Unconstitutional

Pass the law and see if it the court nullifies it.

Betty Davies's picture

Some statistics

"Many," quantified:

There are many people who favor gun control, and also many people who favor the rights of weapons manufacturers to make their profits, and paranoids to collect arsenals, no matter how many innocent people die.

I just wanted you to know that, despite the skew in SJ comments regarding the glories of owning one's personal arsenal, US opinion is far from unanimous on this issue.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Funny how the survey was

Funny how the survey was conveniently taken just after the Newtown shooting., perhaps to ride on people’s emotions?
Still, there is no consensus

Key points:
1. “support for gun control remains lower than before Obama took office”
2. “More Say Gun Ownership Protects People from Crime”
3. “a broad majority opposes banning handguns for non-uniformed civilians.”
4. “Fewer Americans (36%) say the National Rifle Association (NRA) has too much influence over gun control laws than did so in 2000 (42%) and 1993 (45%).”

The Emotion Factor:
“about two-thirds (65%) think that allowing citizens to own assault weapons makes the country more dangerous. Just 21% say that permitting these types of weapons makes the country safer.”

According to the CDC about 80% of gun deaths involve the use of a handgun. The above statement simply reveals peoples ignorance and exaggerated fear of the subject.

Betty Davies's picture

Quick reply

Busy day. I'll address just one of your notions.

It's fascinating that you ascribe "emotions" only to people who favor gun control, yet not to those who favor guns everywhere. Surely notions (however false) to the effect that guns protect people from crime has to do with fearing crime, and wanting to make the country "safer" also has to do with an emotion (fear).

And it's sad (eek! an emotion!) that you clearly feel no emotion at the thought of those kids killed in Newtown. Well, you fear that Americans' reaction to their slaughter might reduce your ability to collect an unregulated arsenal. And you're willing to exploit people's sorrow about Newtown to encourage people to buy more weapons and (I bet) even to arm teachers.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. Fair enough, guns

1. Fair enough, guns everywhere are another extreme but that is not what we are discussing.

2. We all have emotions; they are part of the human condition. That still does not mean emotional responses are logical responses. In fact, the opposite is true.

3. I don’t own, nor do I want to own an arsenal.

Here is an example of an emotional response:

“And you're willing to exploit people's sorrow about Newtown to encourage people to buy more weapons and (I bet) even to arm teachers.”

Show me where I encouraged people to buy more weapons?

Emotion leads you to make claims that are not grounded in facts, such as in the hoopla about assault weapons when not one person was shot with an “assault weapon” in Newtown. Why? Pure emotion.

Would you want your airline pilot running down the aisle screaming, “we are going to crash” or suppress his emotions, remain calm, and attempt to recover from a mishap? Which provides the best outcome?

Similarly, focusing on assault weapons and ignoring the facts and mental health issues will not provide the best outcome. That is, it will do little to fix the problem.

Betty Davies's picture

"preverbal assault weapon"

I couldn't have said it better myself. Shoot first, think or talk later--or never.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

CDC statistics still show

CDC statistics still show that you are more likely to get shot with a handgun than assault rifle, case in point Newtown – no assault rifle was used to kill according to the corner, just handguns. Yet the focus still remains on the assault weapon for one reason only - an irrational fear; they look scarey.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Your statistics

Your statistics are out of date, as is your rationalization. A Bushmaster killed those children and their teachers. Why do you continue spewing this obvious lie?

Mark Elliott's picture

Maybe you should wait and see

Maybe you should wait and see how democrats vote on it before you tie this all to republicans! I know many democrats that have NO intention of giving up their arms either!

AL PELLETIER's picture

I was wrong.

You and Elliot should not share the award. It should be all yours.
" I pay my dues to the NRA every year because they are the force behind the Second Amendment" HUH?
The United States Bill of Rights is the force behind the 2nd Amendment, the NRA simply exploits it. RANT, RANT, RANT.

GARY SAVARD's picture

No, Al, they help to keep it

No, Al, they help to keep it from being diluted by liberal idiots like you.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Name calling.

Not nice. But expected, nonetheless.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Please tell us what color is

Please tell us what color is your kettle? Same color as the pot perhaps.

AL PELLETIER's picture


A name calling RANT, no less! Just keep paying your NRA dues and polishing your AR-15 or whatever. RANT!

GARY SAVARD's picture

My AR-15 is a pre-1964

My AR-15 is a pre-1964 Winchester 100 carbine in .308 Winchester caliber. Great hunting firearm, collectable, and harmless in the hands of most people. A heck of a lot more deadly than your AR-15 in .223 caliber, and not on the Obama endangered species list. Dumb and dumber.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Dumb and Dummer?

I won't go into details but suggest you look up Muzzle Velocities in FPS. .223-2700FPS to 3800FPS---.308-2600FPS. Now attach a 30 round clip to the .223? I'd much prefer to go child hunting with the .223 then a .308, if I were so inclined.

GARY SAVARD's picture

The .223 is pushing a 50 to

The .223 is pushing a 50 to 100 grain bullet, while the .308 at 2600 FPS is pushing a 180 grain bullet. Change that to a 150 grain and you up the velocity to around 3100 FPS. Much more shock from the larger bullet, which is why it is better for big game than the .223. The .223 is a great varmint caliber, though. As far as which would be better for child hunting, Al, I defer to you.

AL PELLETIER's picture

For child hunting massacres?

By far the .223 with an 80 grain hollow point and a 30 round clip, far more explosive power on contact and many more rounds expended in 10 seconds. For deer hunting I'll stick to my 30-30 lever action.
And as far as shock value IDIOT, (as you called me), when I go deer hunting I don't want to shock them to death. I want a clean shot and a clean kill without putting 11 bullet holes in them.
PS. ever see a deer GUT shot bullet exit from a .223? I was with my father in law a few years ago when he did just that with his .223. Entry wound was a pin hole, exit wound was a foot in diameter with guts scattered out for 10 feet.
Please don't respond to my post as you Gravel and Elliot are not to be reasoned with in any manor that approaches sanity and I'm done. Good night!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Gary, It is all about the


It is all about the look and the emotional reaction it triggers.

 's picture

When Mr. Rhoades you have brought out that lunatic fringe.

1. more guns = more violence is a simple but unproven equation. Which is why we need vastly improved data collection and analysis of these questions.
2. but the fact that guns are inherently dangerous is obvious to everyone who has ever used one.
3. The Miller decision in 1939 and the recent Heller decision have defined what gun rights are - everyone has the individual right to own firearms that are not "dangerous or unusual". Therefore the availability of dangerous and unsusal firearms can be legally controlled. Those that state that everyone has a right to any weapon of any lethality are part of that lunatic fringe and completely out of step with America, its Constitution, and its history.
4. The many cute NRA slogans and PR gambits to not change that fundamental fact.
5. But practically nothing will immediately reduce the availability of "dangerous and unusal" weapons. Properly cared for the limit of serviceability for these weapons is practically unlimited. A well cared for WWI military rifle is fully functional today. My family has WWI era drillings that we have used for years.
6. Many efforts in mental health, education, and society can reduce the number of people free to exercise their rage, but still there will be some. Reducing the chance they have access to a tool of mass destruction can only happen when the availability of those tools has been sharply controlled. That can't be accomplished by bans and confiscation. It can over the long run be accomplished by strict regulation of these "dangerous and unusual" weapons.
7. Until that is accomplished, more guns in high risk environments may be the only way to minimize the carnage. So I support strictly controlled programs that allow well trained police and civilian volunteers (teachers) to carry firearms.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. If you cannot prove it, it

1. If you cannot prove it, it does not make is so. Just look at the Swiss to know that more guns don't mean more violence. It is not the number of guns, but the culture of violence that has more influence.

 's picture


No way can you meaingfully compare the US to the Swiss. Too many variables that you can't control for. I'm not saying guns are the issue or that culture is the issue - as you write the culture of violence has MORE influence meaning that guns contribute to the problem. The problem is a hateful or mentally ill man armed with a weapon in the classroom. Anything that can reduce his lethality. Anything that can reduce his efficiency. Anything that can block him from getting in that school room is good. The President took 23 executive actions that did not deal with guns and they are submitting bills into congress for the rest of his program. I expect the AWB not to reach the floor in the house and to be defeated in the Senate. Good. But I'd rather see that man in that classroom with a pen knife than a semiautomatic .223 rifle with a 100 shot magazine or a 9mm automatic with 9 shots.

David Russell's picture

The most necessary weapon was taken away years ago.

These flaming liberals took our greatest weapon against mass shootings (et cetera) away many years ago whenthey started chastising parents for disciplining their children. There is no longer social responsibility, no real sense of right and wrong! The babysitting X-boxes, game stations and violent movies with "shoot 'em and blow em up" games took away any chance at sensitivity. It appears that everyone needs to see blood and guts spraying the walls or it's not "good" entertainment. While it could be argued that these things don't necessarily influence a normal adult's behavior, they surely influence the way a young person looks at life.

When our society stopped saying "No" to our children and became more concerned about hurting feelings than we were about truth, reality and respect for others and their property, we brought this onto ourselves. Any idiot should know that a gun doesn't kill on it's own. Any idiot should know that responsibility, of all types, begins at home. The guns would best be controlled by teaching our youngright from wrong along with the social responsibilities that we all have - or SHOULD all have.

No, R Rhoades. You are wrong in your assertions. You, and your liberal ilk, bear full responsibility for the chaotic destination we are approaching. It is you and your illogical friends that have ruined this country.

Jason Theriault's picture

When did this happen

I am a 35 year old parent of two, and I say "No" all the time.

Of course, from the rest of your letter I can tell your conclusions are junk, a mere excuse to blame the other side for coddling kids too much or not enough.


Spreading the blame

When I was young, people were dying in hordes from smoking cigarettes. People blamed the media for that too. It wasn't until the laws preventing children from buying cigarettes, and the taxes making them less available or desirable went into effect that people stopped smoking and the death rates went down. About the same time pressure was put on the movie makers to stop showing smoking as macho in the movies and smoke free zones were created. I'm sure some of that helped but what helped the most was regulating cigarettes so that kids couldn't buy them along with a lot of education about the hazards of smoking and making cigarette makers responsible. Blaming culture and media for gun deaths is the equivalent of blaming mini skirts for rapes. It is avoiding the real cause. Blaming mental health problems is also a non-solution. People can pass a psych test one day and snap the next day. And who is to decide who is crazy enough or when they are crazy and when they are not. Some people are fine on meds but pretty dangerous when they don't take them. Again it is avoiding any meaningful solutions.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes Claire, but we did not

Yes Claire, but we did not ban nor confiscate cigarettes from people of legal age. We simply educated them.

Betty Davies's picture

Part of the education for smokers...

...has been to make it VERY clear to them that they are NOT welcome to smoke in restaurants, theaters, markets, and other public places, and they are also NOT welcome to smoke in many people's homes.

Education by itself wasn't enough. Regulations have been very helpful.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

The main takeaway should be

The main takeaway should be that no one proposed making smokes illegal and confiscating them. Guns are already not welcome in many places today, and rightly so, but keep your hands off them.

 's picture

Mental health

Claire, do dismiss mental health issues related to mass killings it to ignore reality. It is time that everyone's mental health status is "checkable" when a background check is done. Perhaps even the household needs to be considered, is someone with sig mental health issues living in the home with firearms? I'm not advocating carte blanche rejection of the purchase, but simply require a medical clearance before the purchase.

Noel Foss's picture

speaking of slippery slopes...

How about editorials that aren't based in facts becoming commonplace, and making misleading statements part of opinion pieces just because including the wording of the bill would disagree with your premise? Sounds like a "slippery slope" leading from responsible journalism towards tabloid sensationalism to me.
The Maine state legislator is proposing that teachers be allowed to be armed. He's not asking that they be required to do it. Say a teacher's got a concealed weapons permit. That teacher would be able to bring their gun with them rather than having to leave it at home. But only if they passed a psychological exam AND took a training course, AND got approval from the school board, the Superintendent, and the principal. Parents would be notified that this teacher was certified and trained and had passed said psychological exam.
I fail to see the problem with somebody who's received in-depth hands-on training to use a gun and passed a psych eval (plus the in-depth background check necessary to obtain a CCW) being allowed to carry a gun to work. I'd put more faith that person than most of the rental cops I've met.
To quote our president, if we can "save even one child" we should, right?

Mark Elliott's picture

Funny how the grabbers have

Funny how the grabbers have full faith in officers entering schools with firearms.....AFTER the 10 minute response time but are so fearfull of having one in the school already. Its just as funny, they have full faith in a uniformed human to defend our children (after 10 minutes of course) but have NO faith in a plain clothed human with the same training being there in advance. Make no bones.....EVERY school ALREADY has faculty members with CCWs and training. Those faculty members just dont advertise it and leave their firearms home...because of "no gun zone" laws and "zero tolerance policies" of our schools.

"If we can save just one child, we SHOULD."........well Mr President, when will you be defunding Planned Parenthood?

 's picture

The two armed...

...and uniformed officers at Columbine had a big influence on the outcome, didn't they?

 's picture

they did

They did, didn't they? And, everybody knows the one teacher in the school with the ccw permit will always be right where you need him, and just like in the movies he'll be able to take out the bad guy with one shot. All those kids in the hall? If we lose a couple because our super hero ccw teacher maybe missed the bad guy with his warm up shots, who cares?

Noel Foss's picture

Not really a good one, though.

The responding officers fired several times at one of the shooters, which convinced him to return to inside the school and keep shooting unarmed people rather than face armed officers. However, one of the officers wasn't wearing his glasses, so wasn't able to hit anything. The biggest impact the police had was to push the shooters back inside where they kept killing students and teachers.
To be fair to the the police, they were following their training when they didn't pursue, set up a perimeter around the school, then waited for SWAT to show up.
The result was that it was nearly 2 hours before officers entered the building, and by then the killers had gotten bored of shooting students and trying to set off bombs, so they shot each other instead.
So now police departments have new tactics, where they'll actively engage a shooter rather than sitting around on their thumbs.
I think the biggest impact of giving teachers the right to carry would be as a means of dissuasion. Shooters typically go for soft targets (gun-free zones in particular) where they don't have to worry about anybody shooting back at them. Nothing's absolute, but it'd certainly help knock "schools" down off of the top of the list.

 's picture

So your answer to gun violence... more guns - hundreds of thousands of more accidents waiting to happen - which, of course, will make that teacher with the gun, probably with his own kids, feel real great - especially if the kid he accidentally shot was his/hers.

Noel Foss's picture

I can't imagine they'd feel great about shooting anybody

Just like all the rest of us with consciences wouldn't feel great about it.
But I bet they'd feel better about being able to TRY to stop a mass shooting than just laying down and letting it happen. You seem to think that arming a teacher means that they'll suddenly start behaving recklessly and think they're Clint Eastwood. That's probably about the poorest reasoning I can imagine, given the requirements that would be involved for permission to be granted.
Usually the more training you have with a gun, the more you respect it, not the opposite. The CCW people that I know are usually nice, considerate, responsible folks who have made a conscious decision to take responsibility for their own safety rather than leaving it in the hands of others. And their kids usually know how dangerous a gun can be, and they know not to touch one without an adult around.
It's the other folks that I worry about.
You've got a better, more feasible solution than allowing somebody who's legally certified, trained, psychoanalyzed, and background checked to carry a gun to work? Let's hear it.

 's picture

What's wrong...

...with limiting the purchase and ownership of what are being referred to as assault weapons and their magnum magazines. It's NOT a target rifle. It's NOT a hunting rifle. It IS a collectable. It was designed and manufactured as a killing machine and it does it very well. It's the weapon of choice for all these massacres. It's a military weapon, not a civilian weapon.

Mark Elliott's picture

Just because the media and

Just because the media and some liberals say it's the weapon of choice, doesn't make it so. NO ASSAULT RIFLE was used at Newtown........confirmed by nbc AND the coroner's report! He left it in the car! He used 4 handguns......

An AR15 in your hands may be a "killing machine" but in MY hands, it's a very effective defense weapon.

 's picture

Your sources...

...are inaccurate - or you got them from the NRA. Were those single shot handguns? He left the 12 gauge in the car and the two handguns in his pockets. It is a killing machine - designed and built as a killing machine in anyone's hands. What are you defending against? Paranoid? The assault rife has been the weapon of choice in all these mass murders. Read the dam papers.

Noel Foss's picture

Because the limits that are being considered aren't fact-based.

They're based on opinion, nothing more. Opinions are excellent, but they should be based in facts if they're going to influence legislation.
The only similarity between AR-style weapons and military-grade weapons is their appearance. Cosmetics.
The military version fires a more powerful cartridge and has the option of being fully automatic. The Civilian models are semi-automatic, making them no different than any other semi-automatic hunting rifle. They're not armor-piercing; those rounds are already illegal. They're not fully automatic machine guns (also already illegal).
The AR-style weapons are the most popular type of gun sold in America today, and despite that fact they've accounted for less than 0.5% of firearms-related deaths since the ban on so-called "assault weapons" lapsed in 2004. AR-style weapons are very accurate, making them well-suited for target shooting. Many of the modern rifle competitions use AR-style rifles exclusively because of this inherent accuracy.

AL PELLETIER's picture


If their so accurate why the hell do you need 10 to 30 quick fire rounds and quick change magazines to hit the target? I do very well with my 30-06 with a 5 round clip ( I only keep one round in the clip for the killing shot if the one in the magazine didn't do a clean job) to bag a deer.

Mark Elliott's picture

5 round removable clip huh??

5 round removable clip huh?? Are you prepared to forfeit that .30-06?

MARK GRAVEL's picture


A "clip", a shortened term for "stripper clip", is a small strip of metal used to hold a number of rounds of ammunition. The rounds are fed from the clip into the internal magazine of the firearm 5 to 10 rounds at once, to shorten reload time. The terms "clip" and "magazine" are NOT interchangeable. They are two distinctly different pieces of hardware.

 's picture


...because of nomenclature, they are a non-entity.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Instead of looking at my

Instead of looking at my comment as a teaching moment, you reply with an unsubstantiated claim of my intention. I think all but one reader got the intent of my comment. You respond with all the effervesce of a true liberal – change the topic.

 's picture

It was not...

...a teaching moment. It was an attempt to divert.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

You did notice the separate

You did notice the separate post with "FYI", which means For Your Information. Isn't that a clear enough transition?

Mark Elliott's picture

Why do you need to hunt?? You

Why do you need to hunt?? You can't go buy meat like most people?

MARK GRAVEL's picture


I don't hunt anymore, but I respect the rights and freedom of others to partake in their pursuits.

Why can't you be more tolerant of people who enjoy activities that you perhaps don't?

 's picture

I believe...

...if people used the so-called "assault weapon" in those pursuits, they would be arrested. If they need 30 rounds to bring down a deer, they need help in more ways than one. For those who use legal weapons, all those weapons not termed "assault weapons" and with which I have no quarrel, hope they get a 285-pound, 12-pointer, end up in a "flight" of woodcock, an amazing experience I cherish, go 100 straight on a skeet field, as it my privilege to accomplish once in my life, and get 10 in the black (don't think I ever did that, but I might have). Good luck to all.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

While we question what the

While we question what the second amendment means, it surely does not address hunting. The second amendment means much more than that.

What you are calling assault weapons are legal. Moreover, you focus on 30 round magazines, yet very few people are killed using 30-round magazines?

That said, we can ignore the facts because these things look scary – right? Not even considering the number of these items already out in the population.

It is all about emotion.

 's picture

...ignore the facts... these guns were designed and manufactured as killing many people are actually killed in these massacre instances that use extended magazines. I guess we should praise the rifle for it's accuracy - 11 holes in such a small target in such a short period of time and with the target moving after each round hits. Magnificent.

MARK GRAVEL's picture

1. All guns can kill. 2. CDC

1. All guns can kill.
2. CDC statistics don't support your assertion. I'll be happy to read any supporting data you can provide.
3. You do know only handguns were used at Sandy Hook, so the following statement is not true: "I guess we should praise the rifle for it's accuracy - 11 holes in such a small target in such a short period of time and with the target moving after each round hits." You don't have to believe me, but at least research the facts for yourself.

I speculate you added the aforementioned statement to trigger an emotional, knee jerk reaction; however, it is not true.

Please provide your facts.

 's picture

Just continue... ignore the facts. You'll be fine. All guns do kill. I'm only interested in the weapon of choice of all these massacres. You know, the one you keep ignoring and try to divert attention from. You're wrong about handguns at Sandy Hook. These (two) were in his pockets. He used the rifle. She shotgun with the extended magazine, was in the car. Not emotional - not knee jerk - just fact.

Mark Elliott's picture

The "weapon of choice" when

The "weapon of choice" when guns are not available:

 's picture

In the story...

"No children were killed as a result, though many of these children were rushed to the hospital for emergency treatment."

How many of the massacres in this country favored knives over assault weapons?

Mark Elliott's picture

Boy, youre like talking to a

Boy, youre like talking to a wall.....


 's picture

No kidding!

But we aren't talking about "other crimes" are we. We're talking about the many massacres using assault-type weapons. Don't change the subject!

Mark Elliott's picture

I take that back......i get

I take that back......i get more intelligent answers from my wall! Numbers show that when you remove all the guns, you will see less GUN deaths....duh! Makes sense as the guns are gone. But then other methods of murder increase to take the place of saidfirearms! Many times more than once over.....

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Posted Jan 17 on NBC

NBC footage.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink. That is, you can still keep your head in the sand.

 's picture

From the Huffington Post

"Authorities said Lanza used a military-style assault rifle and carried handguns during the rampage at the school. They still have no clear reason why Lanza would lash out at defenseless first-graders and their caretakers."

 's picture

Look under "Investigation"

"The weapons were legally owned by Lanza's mother, who was a gun enthusiast.[66][67] Police said Lanza used the Bushmaster rifle against most of the victims. According to the state's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver, many of the victims were shot multiple times with the same "long weapon"—the Bushmaster rifle.[4][68][69] Under Connecticut law,[70] the 20-year-old Lanza was old enough to carry a long gun,[71] but too young to legally own or carry handguns.[72]"

Mark Elliott's picture

As usual...your liberal mind

As usual...your liberal mind making you see details in my posts that simply don't exist. I don't have a problem with hunting. What makes you think I do?

I really don't give two turds what others do as long as it doesn't affect me negatively....... <- that's tolerance!

MARK GRAVEL's picture

What!!!!! Calling me a


Calling me a liberal, that really hurts.

Make sure to pickup that turd from the clean end....

Mark Elliott's picture

Were you not responding to me

Were you not responding to me to begin with?

MARK GRAVEL's picture

Yes, I’m responding to you.

Yes, I’m responding to you. I’m far from being a liberal. I would rather be called an MF than a liberal.

Don't forget to seek the humor in my response.

AL PELLETIER's picture


I happen to like legally taken deer meat from a legally shot deer (and usually with one shot). I guess you get the award back. RANT, RANT.

Mark Elliott's picture

I happen to like legally

I happen to like legally available firearms with high capacity magazines........usually loaded with more than one shot. That's my preference........what if the FDA suddenly said "no more vension"? Would you be satisfied with squirel??

JOANNE MOORE's picture

You must be a lousy shot then.

I would hate to be in the woods when trigger happy, lousy shooters are there.

 's picture


A St. Paul father is accused of threatening his teenage daughter with an assault rifle because she failed to make straight A's and instead got two B's in school.

Mark Elliott's picture

Your point?? Would any sane

Your point?? Would any sane father threaten the life of their daughter over grades?? Would it make the news if he had a lever action? Theres a bigger issue going on there!

AL PELLETIER's picture

I've eaten grey squirel several times.

Taste like chicken (seriously). If new gun law legislation regulated those guns (you love), with high capacity magazines, would it make your love of gun ownership any less if your guns only fired 5 quick rounds instead of 30? Does this qualify as a RANT?

Mark Elliott's picture still love it, but still love it, but id prefer larger mags just as you would probably prefer deer. Your right to choose and my right to choose. How does a 10 round vs 30 round mag make a difference to you? What difference would it make in an "event"?

AL PELLETIER's picture

20 dead children

verses two or three, but to you, what's it matter?

Mark Elliott's picture

Thought you were done? It

Thought you were done?

It takes 2 seconds to swap out a mag......takes 10 minutes for police to show up. (Thats 600 seconds) you really believe we are better off spending billions in resources to shave 2 seconds of a 600 second event when we could spend soo much less reducing the response time by MUCH more than 2 seconds, without the possibility of losing rights? (That will save MANY more children!)

AL PELLETIER's picture


I just had to come back and punish myself one more time with your forgone conclusion, in seconds no less.
Now I'm really pulling the plug on stupidity and going to bed.

Mark Elliott's picture

You don't need to pull your

You don't need to pull your plug Al....just go to bed.

Mark Elliott's picture

So youre going to take 28,800

So youre going to take 28,800 seconds of sleep but wont give us a measly 2 seconds!? Without answering my question no less??

GARY SAVARD's picture

You would be very surprised

You would be very surprised if you were to know how many people you come into contact with just going about your business every day that are carrying a firearm, and...nothing happens.

Mark Elliott's picture

What if...what if....what

What if...what if....what if......the what ifs are only limited by our imagination. Lets not lose sight of the what if that brought us to this point: what if a lunatic comes into school with the intention of killing our children?

If we cant trust our teachers with firearms....then we surely cant trust them with our children!

AL PELLETIER's picture

Takes the award so far!

In my first post this morning on this thread I wrote that many people who have little to no common sense will be posting on this subject.
"If we can't trust our teachers with firearms....then we surely can't trust them with our children". INCREDIBLE!

Mark Elliott's picture

What's incredible is YOU

What's incredible is YOU think it is perfectly ok for US to leave OUR children with people YOU don't trust........

AL PELLETIER's picture

Are you serious?

I raised three daughters and would rather have seen them be educated by a college educated, school board certified teachers then RAMBO!
RANT, RANT, RANT! OMG, I have to step away----you got the award, good night!

Mark Elliott's picture

Do you not believe a gun

Do you not believe a gun owner could also be a college educated, school board certified teacher??? You sir, are either very naive or in serious denial. Dont underestimate the number of teachers that already have CCWs......

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Your mother is calling............

She says it's time to take your meds.

Mark Elliott's picture

anything intelligent to add

anything intelligent to add to this Joanne?? Anything at all??

JOANNE MOORE's picture


But I'm not going to get into an argument with someone who is not intelligent, but seems bent on posting false information.

GARY SAVARD's picture

Personally, if a life or

Personally, if a life or death situation were to come up at my grandchildrens' school, I would rather their teacher be qualified and willing to try to fight fire with fire than to try to protect them against an armed nut case by throwing chalk and erasers at them. I think teachers should have that choice, because their lives may depend on it as well. Go ahead and rant some more, Al.

AL PELLETIER's picture

I now stand corrected.

Gary, you and Mark can share the award. RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT, RANT! There, I'm done.

Mark Elliott's picture

As usual....nothing

As usual....nothing intelligent! We already knew you were done were at the "insult your oponent" stage........ (liberal rule #15 remember).....

AL PELLETIER's picture

I enjoyed all those seconds of sleep.

In all this dialog have I called anyone an idiot? You were at the "insult your opponent stage" many posts ago.

 's picture

Why doesn't it...

...make more sense to limit the availability of the weapon of choice?

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Not interested in more sense......

These guys are paranoid about their minority viewpoint, come hell or high water. I can't wait 'till the government sees the light and starts protecting the majority. IMHO the NRA and its followers are nothing more than domestic terrorists, using fear to sell more deadly weapons.

Mark Elliott's picture

You folks are the ones scared

You folks are the ones scared of scary looking firearms, calling us terrorists means you must feel terrorized (that's scared). We are merely protecting our rights along with the constitution........that's what happens in a republic. The rights of the individual are protected from any majority. The majority does not rule.,,,but on that note, do not underestimate the number of American that own firearms........or are at least willing to defend our right to have them. You make come out the fool.

 's picture

I don't understand this.

A Winslow man on Friday was indicted on a murder charge in connection with last month's shooting death outside a Waterville pub.

Why was he arrested? He had a concealed carry. Can't he shoot people?

Mark Elliott's picture

That wasnt self

That wasnt self defense......his intention was to kill and would have done it with or without a gun.

 's picture

Just curious...

How would he have done it, under the same circumstances, without a gun? And I thought everyone with concealed carry went through a vigorous screening and were all upstanding, dependable, salt-of-the-earth sane people.

Mark Elliott's picture

I never made that

I never made that claim....they go through a background check. So do teachers, scout leaders, and childcare workers but they sometimes make the news. There are 314 MILLION people in this country and no two are exactly alike. There are no "cookie cutter" guidelines to making man.........

GARY SAVARD's picture

People are exactly

People are exactly that...people. If not a gun, Partridge could have used his truck or whatever. The deceased apparently started the altercation, and Partridge went to his truck, got a gun, and shot the guy dead. Alcohol doesn't mix well with too many things, guns included.

 's picture

Yep, you're right.

He could have done a lot of things. But he didn't. At Columbine, they could have done a lot of things. But they didn't. At the movie theater, he could have done a lot of things. But he didn't. At Sandy Hook, he could have done a lot of things. But he didn't. They all used a gun. Does that lead you to any kind of a solution?

Mark Elliott's picture

Yes it means you

Yes it means you can count to four! Now, try counting to 314 million.


More statistics

The statistics I'm reading say that if you own a gun you are 30 times more likely to get shot and 10 times more likely to commit suicide by than if you don't and there are no statistics about houses that catch fire with an arsenal in them. Already over a thousand people have died from being shot since Newtown. As for reducing the number of guns resulting in a reduction in shootings, well, you can look at the statistics in every civilized country in the world. They all have massively lower rates than we do. So you can feel safe that no one is proposing to take your arsenal away from you. There are no laws being even suggested to make gun ownership illegal but, statistically, your arsenal will not keep you or your family safe nor will it help you to overthrow the tyrant in Washington. There has never been a tyrant in control of an army overthrown by a home arsenal anywhere in the world. As for tyrants taking away guns that is false also. They usually INCREASE gun ownership among their followers while keeping them away from those who don't agree with them. Sort of like the NRA is doing now.

 's picture

Sorry Claire

Truth is, we haven't had reliable data collection or analysis of any of this for more than 20 years. What goes for analysis begins with the conclusion (guns are great, guns are absolutely evil) and then cherry picks from unreliable data to find support for their conclusion. Cross cultural studies are generally useless and invalid because they don't control all the variables and they compare to US statistics which are hopelessly meaningless.
Guns aren't the problem. Irresponsibile, criminal, or mentally ill people with guns are the problem. To fix the problem we have to have social controls on the people and the guns. Not separately but simutaneously. President Obama's proposals minus the assault weapons ban which is a delusion and unconstitutional are a good start.

Nathan Schultz's picture

"There has never been a

"There has never been a tyrant in control of an army overthrown by a home arsenal anywhere in the world." You may be overlooking a little thing called the revolutionary war.
"As for tyrants taking away guns that is false also." Just plain wrong see Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mousolini etc.
"The statistics I'm reading say that if you own a gun you are 30 times more likely to get shot and 10 times more likely to commit suicide by than if you don't" Sounds like there might be some risks to the gun owner associated with the decision of owning a gun. Government is not the peoples parents and should not endeavor to protect them from their own decisions.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Not the people's parents, BUT............

government's duty is to protect the citizens from terrorists, foreign or DOMESTIC.

RONALD RIML's picture

Nathan - You seem to forget the Military Aid we received

We had much more than a 'Home Arsenal'

France was key in the success of our Revolution - providing supplies, troops, and their Navy. We had no Navy to speak of, and without French assistance, the British could have easily blockaded the colonies against all assistance.

I refer you to France in the American Revolutionary War

Paramount was:

"Arguably the key French contribution came during the Yorktown campaign. French forces under Rochambeau landed at Rhode Island in 1780, which they fortified before linking up with Washington in 1871. Later that year the Franco-American army marched 700 miles south to besiege Cornwallis’ British army at Yorktown while the French navy cut the British off from desperately needed naval supplies, reinforcements, and complete evacuation to New York. Cornwallis was forced to surrender to Washington and Rochambeau, and this proved the last major engagement of the war, as Britain opened peace discussions soon after rather than continue a global war."

 's picture

Government has the duty to protect us from those decisions.

"Government is not the peoples parents and should not endeavor to protect them from their own decisions"

Nathan Schultz's picture

I do agree with you that the

I do agree with you that the government has a duty, a duty to protect both your rights from me infringing them and my rights from you infringing them it does not have a duty to defend me from me or you from you. The stats I was adressing showed how a gun owner themselves are at a higher risk and the government has no role in protecting an individual from risk imposed on themselves by choice.



One of the reasons we got the Second Amendment was that the founding fathers found it difficult to raise an army when all they had were a bunch of farmers. Since they could not afford nor did they want a professional army they chose to go with a citizen militia. They were also painfully aware that until the French army came and trained their men and fought with them, that they were losing the war. Most of the reviews I've read agree that the Revolution would have failed had the French not interceded. As for Hitler, he was elected and he relaxed the gun laws for everyone except Jews. Stalin came to power when the defeated Russian army abdicated after WWI. Mao and Mussolini came into power legitimately through politics and both had access to an army after that. All of them became dictators after they gained power, they armed their followers, the Red Guard and the Black Shirts, and they were not overthrown by citizen armies.

Mark Elliott's picture

And Obama was elected

And Obama was elected too.....

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Your point........

...........being what? Go ahead, explain, I dare you.

Mark Elliott's picture

He's a marxist just like the

He's a marxist just like the you not pay attention? Do you have any plan at all to add anything of value to this discussion?

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Do you?

Other than to RANT RANT RANT and spread falsehoods.You are a liar and I'm calling you out. If you don't like it, tough cheese. I thought you big men with all the guns could take it. Guess you are nothing more than bullies.

 's picture

2nd Amendment

Sorta true regarding the French but has nothing to do with the reasons for the 2nd Amendment. Ever colony had a militia long before the Revolution. I could quibble with Stalin; but doesn't matter.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Our basic rights?

There will be those who will say screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theater does not violate our freedom of speech. These are the same ones who will say weapons of mass destruction in the general population does not violate our right to bear arms.

David Marsters's picture

More Guns

I am greatful that someone has presented a bill before the Legislature for school employees can be armed if they want to. The bill should include , every citizen of Maine be armed. This would take of all the scenarios that are listed above. Othe cities in other states have done this, Kennesaw, Georgia. The crime rate there went down to almost zero.

 's picture


Could anyone imagine the chaos arming everyone in this state or country would do. The mentally ill, drug adicts, active felons. This kind of absolutism shows that no thinking is involved.

Eric Yoder's picture


Dear Editorial Board,
Lies, lies, and more lies! Using your resources as a media source to lie should be a violation of the amendment you people hold so dear, the amendment you people believe is "absolute".
You say more guns equals more violence, more crime but the evidence shows otherwise. What evidence? Go to and read the governments own reports on crime.
Those reports fly in the face of everything you said in this editorial. You call yourselves journalists. That's a laugh.

Do me a favor. Please wear something that identifies you as a gun hating, gun banning citizen, and wear it at all times. This way if I ever see you being robbed, raped, beaten, etc, ill know not to waste my time to help you. I'll know to NOT put myself in harms way for you. I'll know that I can walk away with a clear conscience. You made your bed, now lie in it.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

"Please wear something that identifies you......"

Do you mean like the star the Jews were made to wear in Germany?

That is a very hate filled statement you made. Sad.

 's picture


Do you wear a cape and mask when you perform your superhero duties?

Eric Yoder's picture


I will also point out that According to this "editorial"- "we didn't have to worry about maniacs shooting up schools in the 50s and 60s"

Well, may I draw your attention to this:
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former Marine, who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others in a mass shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three people were shot and killed inside the university's tower and 11 others were murdered after Whitman fired at random from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building.

Further proof that the writer of the editorial and the people who agree with it are at the least ridiculously ignorant and at worst, unabashed liars.

Tim McClure's picture

Hypocrisy at its finest

Which is the correct moral argument? Punish millions of innocent people or punish the wrong doers.

Why is alcohol consumption still permitted. It kills and harms far more people than guns. Even cars kill more people than guns. How do you morally justify not banning these items if the intent is to save lives?

The correct moral argument is that we hold people accountable for their decisions and actions.We do not punish innocent people because we are afraid of what they might do. That is why we have the rule of law.

 's picture

Being inconvenienced is not punishment

Punishing someone after they have murdered 27 people does society no good, harms everyone, and is no answer particularly when they have murdered themselves before punishment could be delivered..

David Marsters's picture

Hypocristy at its best

They would never ban alcohol as it would put most legislatures into alcoholic seizures!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Eric Yoder's picture

Their lies

You are correct. Only in a socialist/communist, or dictatorial country are people freed from the burden of making "right" or "wrong" decisions. The government makes all the decisions for them. What these un-American people don't seem to realize is that once we start taking away rights in the name of safety, other rights will follow, like the one these people hold so dear, free speech.

Denis Ledoux's picture

Gun control

This is right on. The Second Amendment rights have been overblown. The right to carry a semi-automatic. Get real! We need more strict gun control.

This editorial is well done and deserves much attention.

Tim McClure's picture

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves against tyranny. If we are not permitted to own "semi-automatic" weapons then we are at the mercy of well armed tyrants. If you want a gun ban then you need to disarm government as well.

JOANNE MOORE's picture

Statements like the above

prove to me that those who must arm themselves to the teeth do so because they believe their govenment is a tyrant. To me, that is an admission of domestic terrorism.

Tim McClure's picture

As Mr. Yoder points out:

The 2nd Amendment is there as insurance. You only have to look at history to see that the potential for government to get too out of hand occurs. Look at 1930's Germany. Who would think the German citizens would agree to let their government round up, enslave and kill Jews? Look at our own history. When Pearl harbor was attacked, Japanese Americans were rounded up and imprisoned. During the 1920's the US government forced US citizens to be sterilized. Look at how the American Indian was treated?

We retain our freedom party because we are armed. I'm not suggesting it is happening, or it will happen. Nor do I suggest armed rebellion should be the first response. I just want some further insurance.

Eric Yoder's picture

Re:Statement like the above

Ms. Moore,
No one said the government "is" a tyrant. What was said was that the 2nd Amendment is there "in case" the government becomes tyrannical. It is a "Protection" written into the Constitution's bill of rights.
Think of it this way. The police don't carry guns so they "CAN" shoot people. They carry guns "IN CASE" they need to defend themselves or others. You don't have car insurance so you can "PURPOSELY" crash your car, you have it "in case" you crash.
Does that make it simple enough for you to understand?

Andrew Jones's picture

Thank for your opinion,

Thank for your opinion, Joseph McCarthy.

Eric Yoder's picture

Gun control

Mr. Ledoux,
Rather than just accepting what people claim, you should should at least try to educate yourself about the issue. Go to and read the crime statistics reports. They will show you that this editorial is a blatant lie. If after reading those reports you still have the same misguided opinion, feel free to post a sign in front of your home and on your body stating you are against guns and gun free.

Jim Cyr's picture


Mr Rhoades, you are not helping get to the bottom of the REAL problem, which is that most of these " gun idiots " in our campuses are a product of our " mental health system ". Good job in driving that wedge of SPIN.

Mark Elliott's picture

This editorial is totally

This editorial is totally opinion based and states NO facts! The real numbers tell a different story entirely all over the world. While this writer rambles off a list of people we may arm next, they fail to tell you many of those ARE ALREADY allowed to carry if they so CHOOSE. They try to paint the picuture that we didn't have to worry about maniacs shooting up schools in the 50s and 60s but fail to remind us that there were no "gun free zone" laws back then and that MANY high schools actually had GUN CLUBS where CHILDREN brought their very own firearms to school on the bus with them........and nobody got shot. They also fail to tell you that the legislation in question will merely ALLOW schools to hire armed guards and not force them to. By lifting "gun free zones" in school, it takes the decision away from the federal government and places it BACK into the hands of the local community.....where parents SHOULD already be involved.

This writer is basing their opinion soley on emotion and not logic........even hardcore 2nd amendment citizens were upset with Newtown. We owe it to our children and our communities to slow down and think! Use logic in these decisions and stop letting our emotions make decisions for us.

Eric Yoder's picture


You are correct Mr. Elliot.
I will also point out that According to this "editorial"- "we didn't have to worry about maniacs shooting up schools in the 50s and 60s"

Well, may I draw your attention to this:
Charles Joseph Whitman (June 24, 1941 – August 1, 1966) was an engineering student and former Marine, who killed 14 people and wounded 32 others in a mass shooting rampage located in and around the Tower of the University of Texas in Austin on the afternoon of August 1, 1966. Three people were shot and killed inside the university's tower and 11 others were murdered after Whitman fired at random from the 28th-floor observation deck of the Main Building.

Further proof that the writer of the editorial and the people who agree with it are at the least ridiculously ignorant and at worst, unabashed liars.

AL PELLETIER's picture

Great Editorial Mr. Rhoades.

I might add, a common sense approach, unlike many responses your going to see in this forum.

Steve  Dosh's picture

More guns more violence, no coincidence

Rex , ? January 24 , 2013

i would not want to be held responsible for the shooting a minor , would you ? " Ms. Principal ? Could i have my gun please ? ," queried Jack , the custodian

Fewer guns in school not more ! Try pepper spray . Try mace . How about stun guns ? Tazers ? How about the metal detectors is not using anymore ? Think - o u t s i d e - the cell box •

We see it as a causal relationship , violence & guns

During 2 0 1 0 , 56 people were victims of gun violence in Britain . Fifty six !

Q: How can that be ?

A; No guns • Facts are facts /s Steve

David Marsters's picture

More guns

Check the facts on Britain, how many people live there compared to USA over 300 million people live here.

Mark Elliott's picture

Fact: After Britain's guin

Fact: After Britain's guin ban...other deadly crimes increased. Criminals just used other weapons.

RONALD RIML's picture

Saying 'Fact' doesn't make it 'Fact"

Where's your proof, Mark?? Let's see what the Brits themselves say:

This from:

Crime in England and Wales falls 6%

Surprise fall includes 14% drop in murder rate and means recorded crime is now less than half that of mid-1990s peak

Crime in England and Wales has fallen by a further 6% in the past year and the chances of becoming a crime victim are at their lowest since the early 1980s, according to the latest set of official figures.

The surprise overall fall in crime was more than matched by a 14% drop in the murder rate, down to 545 homicides in the 12 months to June 2012. This is a significant fall from a peak of 800 a year, excluding the 172 attributed to Harold Shipman, seen in the early years of this century.

The 6% fall in crime reported in the latest quarterly figures by both the Crime Survey for England and Wales and the separate police recorded crime figures means that crime has now dropped by more than 50% since it peaked in the mid-1990s.

Government statisticians say it is too early to conclude that the latest fall to 9.1m offences estimated by the crime survey – following a fairly flat trend since the coalition came to power – is evidence that the longest downward trend in crime since the second world war has now resumed.

The less authoritative police recorded crime figures suggest it might have by continuing a clear downward trend. Police recorded crime is now a third lower than in 2002-2003 at 3.9m offences.

The fall in crime flies in the face of widely held expectations that the continuing recession and rising long-term unemployment would lead to upward pressures on crime, as has happened in some previous recessions.

The latest Office for National Statistics quarterly crime figures show falls across nearly all categories of crime, including substantial falls in violent crime, robberies – down to their lowest level for 10 years – vandalism, car crime and burglary with entry. The only category to show an increase was theft from the person, including pickpocketing, which showed a 6% rise."

Mark Elliott's picture

Your "source" speaks of ALL

Your "source" speaks of ALL crimes.....not just deadly crime as i stated. Credit card fraud is hardly deadly......

Britain gun ban went into affect in 1997, nice try!

RONALD RIML's picture

'Gun Crime' has gone up because those Guns are now illegal.

That should be no surprise to you. Before the ban was in effect, it was not illegal to have them

Just think how many gun crimes there will be in the U.S. once certain types of guns are banned. You are really not very bright, Mark.

"The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold. In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled. The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place. "


Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...