Godwin and Milton?? Never heard of 'em. Some new metal band? They arent doing a thing for my wallet either way so... Two fleas on a horse's ass as far as Im concerned.

JD for President!

David, we can agree on the absurdity of the situation, that is for sure. I wont argue that at all.

But, no matter how much I travel or "see" that absurdity ... it doesn't solve anything. My "seeing" will not stop a single instance of gun violence, in the USA or anywhere in the world.

I too wish none of those things would happen, but I'm not out to change the world, or to stop gun violence, or to even stop one of these shootings. I will leave that to guys like you and Kevin... have at it.

I only wish to protect me and my own and to have the rights to do so. Here in Colorado (and much of America) I have those rights, and nothing *you* say or do will change that... thankfully.

Well, here we go (again) from an internal issue (US gun "control" policies) to an external issue (world perceptions of the US).

Even though it is entirely irrelevant to the issue, why hasnt any other country which has "solved" it problems displaced the US? I ask the question rhetorically because this is inevitably the fall back position of the "US and its flaws" segment even though it has zero to do with US gun policies. Here we are 8 pages into this and not one solution has been offered. The logical conclusion of the anti-gun segment is simple: disarm the populace of the US. Just simply say it. Those on either side of the coin can agree to disagree and move onto something else. Tim's not going to surrender his weapon and David isnt going to get one. And since neither is likely to become president of the US with the clout in Congress to delete the 2nd Amendment, the debate has devolved into the usual "US is myopic and the rest of the World is evolved" sling fest...references to Godwin and Milton notwithstanding.

I have to leave out certain words when rewriting this post...."Of course the people don't want war.
But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Herman Goering
Nuremberg Trials

Fear and insecurity drives this whole issue. It drives much of human behavior. The latest and best example has been the reaction by americans to 9/11, and the support for the invasion of Iraq, while the vast majority of the world was against it. Travel. Spend time in other cvountries where problems we struggle with have already been solved. You'll see america through the eyes of others, you'll understand why they call us what they do, and the absurdity of the situation will finally become clear to you.

I wonder, the issue here is whether this guy is from Colorado or not?

I don't need a gun in the place I leave, yet, but if whenever I left home I had to deal with these situations, maybe I'd need one, but is this the point really? Next step what? Don't leave the house at all?

Of course the governments want scared people of any kind. Scared American citizens by Muslims, scared Muslims who think America is the problem, all of us are scared with each other.
I could easily rule the world if I had to deal with scared people.
"People united are strong, separated are weak" - Divide et impera.

You've certainly heard about the Greek crisis, the Europe crisis, the world crisis, I am starting to get familiarized with the picture of someone looking for food in the garbage and that concerns me. These guys will steal for food, kill for food, or they gonna lose their minds and take a gun shooting everything around them.

The problem for me isn't if guns may be allowed or not. But why we reached this point where we need guns to protect our families. And what am I doing about this?

The word "Colorado" does not even appear in the text of that article... nice try.

It also clearly states that the shooter had a criminal record prior. It does NOT say whether or not is gun was legally purchased by him.

All I see is more of your intentional twisting of the facts in an attempt to prove that people die by guns at America. We have already seen and agreed on the statistical facts on that (avg of 25 per day die by gun). Your scare tactics are not helping that argument and your continued insults of all Americans are making you sound like the stupid, cowardly, and scared one.

Wisconsin has stiffer handgun controls than Colorado.

EDIT - found another article that says he was a Native of Colorado but moved in 2000. His family is still here.

EDIT - He owned 5 handguns, all legally purchased prior in North Carolina, not Colorado.

EDIT - His criminal records were a couple alcohol related charges and criminal mischief (bar fight). He was also punished while in the military for alcohol relate issues. Alcohol abuse will cause you to fail the background check to purchase a gun (in Colorado at least and I assume any other state)

Edit - "Staring down the gunman Sunday morning, Kaleka (Temple of Wisconsin president) managed to find the butter knife and tried to stab Page (shooter) before being shot twice near the hip or upper leg".
Even a highly religious man chose to pickup 'weapon' and fight back. If he had a choice, would he have chosen to pickup a gun instead of the butter-knife? You can bet your life...

And at the end of the day, what stopped this guy from killing more people? A gun. It takes equal force (or greater) to stop these people, not hopes, prayers, and kisses.

Sad to see more deaths like this, but another perfect example of why many of us "stupid and cowardly" Americans choose to carry our 'equal force'.

Another responsible gun owner (from Colorado) blows away a bunch of innocent people. Apparently he's another [Removed for Conduct] who's *afraid* of all Muslims, or anyone who looks a little like Muslims but isn't (Sikhs).

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/05/13130110-gunman-opens-fire-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin-7-dead?lite

Ok Joe, let's punch the reset button on that mis-understanding then. I'm actually not familiar with Milton so I will read up.

I didn't so much default to US foreign policy as point out the irony in the notion that the US government can maintain a vigorous foreign policy while at the same time choose to ignore the views of outside nations on it's own internal policies. A notion I believe to be incorrect on both counts as it happens. Particularly since the election of Obama.

come awfully close to using very broad brushes on the fellas who have challenged your view or disagreed with

All in the name of sarcasm of course. I believe the "high minded euro snobbishness" comment came first.

Kevin, dont be coy. Your proposition set out a numerical assertion. I asked your basis for it or are we just discussing headline events? If the latter, fine.

I already conceded the generally violent nature and history of the United States. The Milton reference was just a lighthearted tease based on how you wrote your question. If it came across as a personal critique, I meant to give no offense was intended, and I mistakenly believed you would "get" a facetious reference to John Milton. By the way, cool reference to Godwin.

You've already defaulted to American foreign policy, come awfully close to using very broad brushes on the fellas who have challenged your view or disagreed with it, and have sung the praises of the Euro media. Injecting particular collateral issues, such as these, makes the debate impossible. Let's get on with the topics at hand in your post 110 or post 107.

Please David, intentionally twisting the facts will not help you.

I'vee got to get the hell out of this country.
Myabe by your standards they're responsible Michael. Not by mine.

While we are at it can we also take into account death by knife, death by rock, various blunt objects, smothering with pillows, electrocution from sticking fingers in light sockets, ec etc etc.

I know plenty of responsible gun owners, just as I know plenty of responsible knife owners, pillow owners, electricians, etc.

The intrument of death is immaterial. If a person wants to kill someone they will. Banning guns does not stop murderers or criminals.

Wow, all the accidental deaths by so called "responsible gun owners" are being intentionally ignored in this debate. Suicides by gun is being intentionally ignored. Gun deaths of girlfriends by boyfriends, wives by husbands, siblings by siblings, friends by friends, and coworkers by co-workers....all being ignored. Typical NRA style of debate. Steer the discussion to the scary criminals that are hiding behind every corner just waiting to kill you. Old and tired technique. Responsible gun owners??? Where the fuck are all these responsible people, because I'm not seeing them.

Ah, I got ya.

Yes, there are a lot of flaws in the way things are done in the states, but one thing we try not to do is punish the innocent because of a few bad apples.

If the statistics are right, there are about than 100 million gun owners (350 million guns) in America, yet only 10,000 gun murders each year. Is it right to punish 99,990,000 others for those few bad apple's actions?

Not every gun ends up used in a crime, only a very (very!) small percentage.

Im happy things are so perfect and safe for you in England. It is not so 'Marry Poppins' here so some of us armed and ready to defend ourselves. In post #1 I made it clear that if I was in that theater 12 people would not have died. Isn't that your goal? To save lives? I could have made that happen and taken out a criminal in the process. I would have used my gun to make that happen.

I'm tired of having to defend myself on the matter. Lets move on, please.

Seriously?

No.

You are not really going to compare my LAWFUL ownership of a gun to Hitler are you?

No. I'm querying the statement that one should not question another's execution of their rights or lawful actions. I think we can both agree that Islamic stoning to death of adulterous women is somewhat over the top isn't it? However it's their lawful right. The allies sure as hell queried it; but Hitler still thought the ultimate solution to the Jewish question was his ayran right. Just because it's a right (no matter how fundamental) does not mean that it should not be called to question and held to account.

That's way over the top Kev

Yes. That was the point. Hence the godwins reference.

Keep up.