Recently, I have read a number of columns asking for gun control, especially after the horrific shooting in Las Vegas. Yes, I called it horrific, but with all the calls, not one of the writers has put forth one single way that making a law restricting guns would have stopped any of the shootings in the recent past. Even the greatest advocate for gun control, Sen. Dianne Feinstein admits that no law could have stopped the Las Vegas shooter. Stricter background check? Passed all.

When they call for stricter checks they want to have me get a check on my son should I want to give him my handgun.

Let us get down to the real reason. When you take all moral reasons away, there is no barrier to murder. We have said that life comes from the goo just like all other animals. Then there is no reason to see any life greater than the roach we step on.

We murder the innocent daily and say it is OK. So why is it wrong to shoot a few? Taking a life of a human being is wrong no matter how it is taken. Man not guns.

Elwood Wilhelm

Galveston

Locations

(44) comments

Steve Fouga

"Stricter laws wouldn't have stopped Vegas shooter"

Maybe they'd stop the next one.

Don Schlessinger

Inforce the current laws properly.

Steve Fouga

I fully agree. That wouldn't have stopped the Las Vegas shooting either, at least as I understand it. The shooter didn't break a law until he broke the windows in the hotel and started shooting.

Mark Aaron

Elwood: [ not one of the writers has put forth one single way that making a law restricting guns would have stopped any of the shootings in the recent past. ]

I don't see where you have thought this through Elwood. You could start with the very sensible law banning all assault style rapid-fire high-capacity firearms like the AR-15, Uzi, or AK -47. These are weapons of war and have no place in civilized society. Take the bump stocks out too. Limit the capacity of firearm magazines to less than 10. No more than one gun purchase a month without a dealer license.

That would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, or he would have to commit enough crimes trying that he might be noticed beforehand.

Craig Lindberg

Mark should think things through before telling others to do so.

Let say we ban “assault-style rifles” (which has been tried already in a 10-year test that yielded zero demonstrable impact on violent crime). Then what? How are you planning to collect them? If we can’t round up and deport 11M illegal aliens, how do you plan to round up 30M+ “assault rifles” and 100’s of millions of high-cap magazines that can be buried, hidden in walls, etc.? And do you really think the people who would use them in a violent crime will give them up or not seek them out because they are illegal? Of course not. Your simplistic thinking doesn’t stand up to even the most basic common sense.

Mark writes: “That would have stopped the Las Vegas shooter, or he would have to commit enough crimes trying that he might be noticed beforehand.”

This is perhaps Mark’s most naive statement ever. You continue with this ludicrous argument that the Las Vegas shooter NEEDED the many rifles he brought with him. The simple fact is that he likely could have cause even greater carnage with just one. Certainly someone with that sort of intent would not have been dissuaded simply because he could only get his hands on one or two rifles which no law could stop and would never have been noticed by the authorities no matter what laws are passed.

Mark, what you are is an assault weapon on civil rights. You say “these are weapons of war and have no place in civilized society.” Ignoring for now the abject ignorance of your comment in the context of the history of the 2A, what you are really saying is that rights should be limited by the fear of some group. So who is to say that some other group can’t decide that protests that suggest violence against police have no place in civilized society? Who is to say that another group can’t decide that certain religions they fear don’t have any place in civilized society? What about movies and video games that glorify gun violence (or objectify women for that matter) or other similar free speech? Do they have a place in civil society?

Mark wants to limit gun purchases to one per month. Maybe his comments here should be limited to one per month? The language of the 2A is as clear as the 1A however he constantly seeks to read words into the 1A at the same time he reads words out of the 2A. This is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty. If Mark read the 2A the same way he read the 1A, he would have to conclude that everyone is REQUIRED to own not just an “assault rifle” – but a real, full-auto weapon of war, assault rifle.

Mark is also a racist and oppressor by his own definition. How many times in the past few weeks has he acknowledged the claims of oppression of minorities at the hands of the police/government as not only valid but also of such critical importance that they must be aired in the most visible public forums available – such as during the singing of the national anthem at a NFL game? Now he wants to limit the rights of these oppressed people to defend themselves and to give even greater power to the people that he has repeatedly recognized can’t be trusted with the power they already have??? He should be very ashamed.

PD Hyatt

Your post was awesome! What Mark does not realize or really any of the progressive liberals realize is that if they get their way and get guns out of our hands, then only the government and the criminals will have guns and I for one would not trust either one if I have been did-armed, especially if the government is controlled by the progressive liberal demon-crats....

Mark Aaron

Paul: [What Mark does not realize or really any of the progressive liberals realize is that if they get their way and get guns out of our hands, then only the government and the criminals will have guns and I for one would not trust either one if I have been did-armed, especially if the government is controlled by the progressive liberal demon-crats....]

You must be a really lousy shot if you need high-speed high-capacity firearms. I hunted for years and all I ever needed was a four round clip. I usually filled my tags for whatever I was hunting for.

Beyond that, I believe in my government and the people who man our military. I can't ever imagine needing to bear arms against them. I don't need the weapons of war either. I can shoot.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "You must be a really lousy shot if you need high-speed high-capacity firearms. I hunted for years and all I ever needed was a four round clip. I usually filled my tags for whatever I was hunting for."

This is a major fundamental flaw/lie in liberal thought on the 2A. NEED has nothing to do with it. It's a RIGHT. Like any other right, what matters is that I want to exercise it. I don't have to demonstrate a need to exercise my 2A rights any more than you have to demonstrate a need to exercise your 1A rights.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Let say we ban “assault-style rifles” (which has been tried already in a 10-year test that yielded zero demonstrable impact on violent crime)]

Let's be accurate. From Wikipedia: "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision."

According to the FBI mass shootings have more than doubled over the recent decade.: _"In the first half of the years studied, the average annual number of incidents was 6.4, but that average rose in the second half of the study to 16.4,"_ and they are increasingly deadly. From CNN: _"In fact, of the 30 deadliest shootings in the United States dating back to 1949, 17 have occurred in the last 10 years. "_

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and-graphs-trnd/index.html

Carlos Ponce

"Why the FBI Report That Mass Shootings Are Up Can Be Misleading"
http://time.com/3432950/fbi-mass-shooting-report-misleading/
Time is on the approved reading list for Liberals.
"And in fact, only 64 incidents involving 'active shooters' met the federal government's definition of a 'mass killing,' in which three or more people were murdered in a single incident. In 31 incidents identified by the FBI report, no one was killed."

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “According to the FBI mass shootings have more than doubled over the recent decade.: _"In the first half of the years studied, the average annual number of incidents was 6.4, but that average rose in the second half of the study to 16.4,"_ and they are increasingly deadly. From CNN: _"In fact, of the 30 deadliest shootings in the United States dating back to 1949, 17 have occurred in the last 10 years. "

What’s your point? Are you trying to imply some sort causality linked to the sunset of the AWB or increases in gun ownership or availability? Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Stats 101: correlation does imply causality. It’s a pretty basic mistake you’re making. Funny how you like to demand proof of claims from others yet fail to offer any on your claims. For all you know increases in mass shootings are the result of violent video games and movies glorifying gun violence. Prove me wrong.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Let's be accurate. From Wikipedia: "The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment, and it expired on September 13, 2004, in accordance with its sunset provision."

So we are all clear, you are advocating some form of confiscation, correct? Which also means, for it to work as you claim, you believe criminals will surrender their “assault rifles” and high-cap mags. Am I missing anything?

Craig Lindberg

As for the accuracy of my claim regarding the previous “assault weapon” ban (AWB) having "zero demonstrable impact on violent crime" which also highlights the problems with everything Mark has claimed:

“The Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".[27] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes". The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[28]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[29] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear. Furthermore, the authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." [29]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

Mark Aaron

Carlos: ["Why the FBI Report That Mass Shootings Are Up Can Be Misleading"]

Says two known contrarians arguing with the FBI finding. You left that part out, didn't you Carlos?

" are both known for being mass shooting contrarians"

Mark Aaron

Craig: [What’s your point? Are you trying to imply some sort causality linked to the sunset of the AWB or increases in gun ownership or availability?]

Given that gun statistics are limited because the NRA and the GOP have conspired to stop them you work with what you have. I see a high probability of causality due to both.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Which also means, for it to work as you claim, you believe criminals will surrender their “assault rifles” and high-cap mags.]

No. Some will have to be taken through normal police work. That would seem an obvious point.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ As for the accuracy of my claim regarding the previous “assault weapon” ban (AWB) having "zero demonstrable impact on violent crime" which also highlights the problems with everything Mark has claimed:]

That report, though from a credible source, is from 2004. A significant increase in the use of assault style weapons and their sales has happened since the ban expired and after this report was written. Why did the numbers explode after the ban expired Craig?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "Given that gun statistics are limited because the NRA and the GOP have conspired to stop them you work with what you have. I see a high probability of causality due to both."

This is the guy demanding links for even the most easily verified statement, but when he makes a statement claiming a conspiracy, he provides no link. When he gives his opinion, he thinks it should be accepted as fact. What a joke.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "No. Some [assault rifles and high cap mags] will have to be taken through normal police work. That would seem an obvious point."

Do tell us how that will work Captain Obvious. You going to suspend the 4A and go house to house?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "That report, though from a credible source, is from 2004. A significant increase in the use of assault style weapons and their sales has happened since the ban expired and after this report was written. Why did the numbers explode after the ban expired Craig?"

Earth to Captain Obvious - It's from 2004 because it’s about the AWB which ended in 2004, and it specifically concluded: “its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.”

Where is your link that “A significant increase in the use of assault style weapons and their sales has happened since the ban expired and after this report was written.” Significant in what respect? That it increased? Use of “assault-style” weapons certainly hasn’t increased linearly with their numbers. Prove me wrong.

Where is your link that that there is a causal link not simply correlation? For all you know it 100% societal factors and has nothing to do with the number of “assault rifles.”

Carlos Ponce

Just read the Time article and don't take things out of context, Little Marky. Time is on the approved list for Liberals.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Then what? How are you planning to collect them? . . . how do you plan to round up 30M+ “assault rifles” and 100’s of millions of high-cap magazines that can be buried, hidden in walls, etc.? ]

A national buyback like the Australians did so successfully.

You know how nobody messes with mailmen because they know the price if you do is just too high? That's how you handle people who won't comply with the law. A few won't, and they will pay the price. Would you ever store uranium in or around your house?

==> [ You continue with this ludicrous argument that the Las Vegas shooter NEEDED the many rifles he brought with him. The simple fact is that he likely could have cause even greater carnage with just one. ]

You claim to know about firearms, and then you make a statement like this. Have you ever tried firing a couple of thousand rounds through a firearm in 10 minutes? I don't recommend it. The forestock will catch on fire after about 3 or 4 hundred rounds, then other parts start to break down.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “A national buyback like the Australians did so successfully.”

Let’s be accurate Mark: 1) while it was a buyback, it definitely wasn’t optional, so it absolutely was confiscation, and 2) there is no right to keep and bear arms in Australia.

Mark writes: “You claim to know about firearms, and then you make a statement like this. Have you ever tried firing a couple of thousand rounds through a firearm in 10 minutes? I don't recommend it. The forestock will catch on fire after about 3 or 4 hundred rounds, then other parts start to break down.”

The point that matters is that he didn’t NEED to fire 1000’s of rounds to do the damage he did. He could likely have done more damage with controlled fire from a SINGLE rifle as opposed to spray and pray. Did you know that virtually all of the crowd was in a 15 degree angle from his firing position? Get out your protractor and look at how small that is then tell me how a bunch of rifles with bump stocks which are notoriously inaccurate at any distance beyond point blank was more effective than a single rifle and controlled, aimed fire.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [Let’s be accurate Mark: 1) while it was a buyback, it definitely wasn’t optional, so it absolutely was confiscation]

I would expect some diehards to label it like that. No surprise.

==> [there is no right to keep and bear arms in Australia.]

This could easily pass Scalia's 2nd Amendment test in Heller v. DC.

==> [The point that matters is that he didn’t NEED to fire 1000’s of rounds to do the damage he did. He could likely have done more damage with controlled fire from a SINGLE rifle as opposed to spray and pray]

Have you ever even fired a firearm Craig? You sure don't sound like it. If you did you would know how absurd your claim is.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "I would expect some diehards to label it like that. No surprise."

What is no surprise is Predictable Mark's predictable dishonesty. With a straight face, the guy denies that a MANDATORY gun buy back is de facto confiscation.

Craig Lindberg

Predictable Mark writes: "Have you ever even fired a firearm Craig? You sure don't sound like it. If you did you would know how absurd your claim is."

The only thing absurd is you continuing to pretend you're not talking out of your rear. Which part of what I wrote do you find absurd? That the crowd was in a 15 degree angle? http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-las-vegas-shooting-live-updates-the-trigonometry-of-terror-why-the-las-1507085772-htmlstory.html

Or that 60 aimed rounds per minute into that tiny 15 degree angle would have done more damage than 300 or 400 rounds per minute with most going above and below the 15 degrees? Or maybe you think that 15 degrees it is easy to shoot an AR with a bump fire stock and hold it within a 15 degree angle? When was the last time you tried?

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Certainly someone with that sort of intent would not have been dissuaded simply because he could only get his hands on one or two rifles which no law could stop and would never have been noticed by the authorities no matter what laws are passed.]

Despite your misinformed claims the Vegas shooter needed numerous weapons to execute the kind of firepower he laid down. A single gun would become far too hot to handle. If he bought too many or bought them illegally those are all opportunities for the authorities to be looking at him or arresting him.

==> [really saying is that rights should be limited by the fear of some group.]

Yes, the general welfare that the preamble to the US Constitution cites as paramount to our existence. Why are you so dismissive of the general welfare? Is 'welfare' a trigger word for you Craig?

==> {How many times in the past few weeks has he acknowledged the claims of oppression of minorities at the hands of the police/government as not only valid but also of such critical importance that they must be aired in the most visible public forums available – such as during the singing of the national anthem at a NFL game?]

Many, many times, I am proud to say. Why isn't it also an issue for you Craig? Do you think all the Black people in America are just making it up?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Yes, the general welfare that the preamble to the US Constitution cites as paramount to our existence. Why are you so dismissive of the general welfare? Is 'welfare' a trigger word for you Craig?

Quite the contrary Mark. Why are you so ignorant of the Constitution? Are rights other than those in the 1A a trigger for you? “The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments."[3][4]” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_welfare_clause

Your fear doesn’t trump my rights.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Many, many times, I am proud to say. Why isn't it also an issue for you Craig? Do you think all the Black people in America are just making it up?”

Hello – earth to Mark – I’m not the one trying to take away their right to self-defense and further swing the balance of power to the oppressors. That’s YOU Mark. That’s you and the rest of the racist, oppressive Democrats that see minorities as little more than a means to and end - just like you when you do every time you use the baseless charge of racism as intellectually bankrupt tool to make a point that you could never make through legitimate means. It’s very telling that you are openly proud to use minorities as a tool and to marginalize racism.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: “Why are you so dismissive of the general welfare? Is 'welfare' a trigger word for you Craig?

Sooner or later you will learn that the stupid little comments you make when you’re trying to be cute are far more effective when I turn them back on you and they actually fit. When coming from, they make no sense because your positions are so absurd.

Mark Aaron

Craig: [ Your fear doesn’t trump my rights.]

Your inconvenience doesn't trump the peoples' right to domestic tranquility.

Mark Aaron

"Do you think all the Black people in America are just making it up?”

Craig: [Hello – earth to Mark – I’m not the one trying to take away their right to self-defense and further swing the balance of power to the oppressors. That’s YOU Mark. That’s you and the rest of the racist, oppressive Democrats that see minorities as little more than a means to and end - just like you when you do every time you use the baseless charge of racism as intellectually bankrupt tool to make a point that you could never make through legitimate means. It’s very telling that you are openly proud to use minorities as a tool and to marginalize racism. ]

Do you think all the Black people in America are just making it up Craig? Is that why you continually discount and disparage their protest?

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "Do you think all the Black people in America are just making it up Craig? Is that why you continually discount and disparage their protest?"

You truly are the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever come across.

Craig Lindberg

Mark writes: "Your inconvenience doesn't trump the peoples' right to domestic tranquility."

You really are a piece of work. Anything you imagine as a right is a right while enumerated rights you don't like are an "inconvenience." If you knew anything about the history of the Constitution, you would know that the 2A was added in part to defend the virtues laid out in the preamble. You would also know that the founders didn't see armed citizens as a threat to domestic tranquility but rather necessary to preserve it. Your ignorance is mind numbing.

Even the smallest bit of common sense makes it clear that an armed law-abiding citizen is not a threat to anything in the preamble. It's the criminals you want to protect that are a threat to the general welfare and domestic tranquility.

PD Hyatt

ROFLOL@ your statement.... Your silly laws might have slowed him down but that is about all.... It seems as if you people who hate our Constitution and have no clue about why it was written the way that it was are h*ll bent on getting rid of the 2nd Amendment.... What most of you progressive liberals do not understand is that ALL of our Constitutional rights depend upon the 2nd Amendment.... For without it the rest will fall quickly.... BTW, police are only going to get to you AFTER the crime has been committed not during it.... People who are willing to give up their rights are not worthy of the rights that we now enjoy.... That is from one of our Founding Fathers.... They knew that in the future We The People would become weak and that the rest of us would need to be able to protect ourselves from both foreign and domestic governments.... After all without guns our revolution against England would not have been successful.... Then you would have had NO rights like we do now!

Craig Mason

He bought 33 guns in a year. That is what I would call a leading indicator of something about to happen. Go to your pharmacy and try to buy 33 boxes of Sudafed from behind the counter. I bet you won't be able to do it. It is harder to get sinus medication than a firearm.

Carlos Ponce

Craig must be naive. If anyone wanted 33 of anything there are means, not all legit, of obtaining them. Ever hear of the "Black Market". or under the table sales?
A store had a sale on 2L bottles of Coke, limit TWO per customer. A woman wanted a lot more than that for Cub scouts. So she gave each Cub the exact change, drove them to the store and she circumvented the store sale rules.
What if the killer bought 17 and his girlfriend bought 16. Would that be okay?

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [Craig must be naive. If anyone wanted 33 of anything there are means, not all legit, of obtaining them. Ever hear of the "Black Market". or under the table sales?]

Committing crimes and possibly alerting law enforcement. That is part of the point of the law.

==> [A store had a sale on 2L bottles of Coke, limit TWO per customer. A woman wanted a lot more than that for Cub scouts. So she gave each Cub the exact change, drove them to the store and she circumvented the store sale rules.]

Are you well Carlos? She was buying for a group, so she dutifully brought the group and they made the purchase.

==> [ What if the killer bought 17 and his girlfriend bought 16. Would that be okay? ]

No. She can't legally buy guns for him. If he makes her she should go to the authorities, otherwise she is chargeable and may come to the attention of the law, as designed.

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "No. She can't legally buy guns for him."
It happens all the time and she is under no duress to make the purchase.

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [It happens all the time and she is under no duress to make the purchase.]

How would you possibly know that Carlos? If someone asks you to commit a felony are you just going to do it without question?

Carlos Ponce

Little Marky posts: "How would you possibly know that Carlos?"
It happens ALL the time. I've know of many who do so to avoid suspicion but they have no ulterior motive other than to collect arms. Also if you follow the court dockets who would see it happens. And sometimes guns are taken from a parent like at Sandy Hook without permission.
A man bought weapons for a relative who turned out to be a San Bernardino killer.
http://nypost.com/2015/12/09/neighbor-who-bought-guns-for-terrorists-is-related-to-them-by-marriage/

Mark Aaron

Carlos: [It happens ALL the time. I've know of many who do so to avoid suspicion]

And you knew about this possible felony for certain Carlos?

==> [ A man bought weapons for a relative who turned out to be a San Bernardino killer.]

So you are saying you may have helped conceal a potential killer.

Carlos Ponce

Another insidious Little Marky post. You're losing it buddy.

Craig Lindberg

How much free speech on say protests against police should someone be allowed to use before you consider it a "leading indicator of something about to happen?"

Also, show me where in the Constitution you have a right to buy or possess sinus medication?

Welcome to the discussion.

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